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
matters of faith great or small few or many the one cannot be saued without repentance vnles Ignorance accidentally may in some particuler person plead excuse For in that case of coÌ„trary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods word or Reuelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstaÌ„ding by an infallible Propounder which oppositioÌ„ to the Testimony of God is vndoutedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small And thus we haue already made good what was promised in the argument of this Chapter that amongst men of different Religions one is only capable of being saued 9. Neuertheles to the end that men may know in particular what is the sayd infallible meanes vpon which we are to rely in all things concerning Fayth and accordingly may be able to iudge in what safety or danger more or lesse they liue and because D. Potter descendeth to diuers particulers about Scriptures and the Church c. we will go forward proue that although Scripture be in it selfe most sacred infallible diuine yet it alone cannot be to vs a Rule or Iudge fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion but that there must be some externall visible publique liuing Iudge to whome all sorts of persons both lâ—aâ—ned vnlearned may without danger of â—â—â—our haue recourse and in whose Iudgment they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Reuclation And this liuing Iudge we will most euidently proue to be no other but that Holy Catholique Apostolique and Visible Church which our Sauiour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud 10. If once therefore it be granted that the Church is that means which God hath left for deciding all CoÌ„trouersies in faith it manifestly will follow that she must be infallible in all her determinations whether the matters of theÌ„selues be great or small because as we sayd aboue it must be agreed on all sides that if that meanes which God hath left to determine Controuersies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths reuealed by Almighty God it could not settle in our minds a firme and infallible beliefe of any one 11. From this Vniuersall Infallibility of God's Church it followeth that whosoeuer wittingly denieth any one point proposed by her as reuealed by God is iniurious to his diuine Maiesty as if he could either deceiue or be deceiued in what he testifieth The auerring whereof were not only a fundamentall error but would ouerthrow the very foundation of all fundamentall points and therefore without repentance could not possibly stand with saluation 12 Out of these grounds we will shew that although the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall be good and vsefull as it is deliuered and applied by Catholique Deuines to teach what principall Articles of faith Christians are obliged explicitely to belieue yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grieuous sinne who knowingly disbelieues that is belieues the contrary of that which Gods Church proposeth as diuine Truth For it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testifyed by God another positiuely to oppose what we know he hath testified The former may often be excused from sinne but neuer the latter which only is the case in Question 13. In the same manner shall be demonstrated that to alleadge the Creed as contayning all Articles of faith necessary to be explicitely belieued is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to ouerthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will proue that there are diuers importaÌ„t matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14. From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwayes had and alwaies will haue on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Saluation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to belieue we will proue that Luther Caluin and all other who continue the diuision in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luthers appearance was spread ouer the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in onâ— only point wheras it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15. To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will add one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth vs not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put our selues in a way much more secure as we will proue that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16. We are then to proue these points First that the infallible meanes to determine controuersies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther all they who after him persist in diuision from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fifthly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine diuided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be seuerall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17. Only I will heere obserue that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge vs so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saued seeing themselues must affirme the like of whosoeuer opposeth any least point deliuered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grieuous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed contayning all fundamentall points of faith as if belieuing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue euen fundameÌ„tall points must be damnable What is this but to say with vs Of persons contrary in whatsoeuer point of beliefe one party only can be saued And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques belieue they may be saued in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging vs with Want
points and in particuler in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controuersies And so the very principle vpon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular Controuersies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determent Controuersies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is Affirmatiue 27. Since then the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainely affirmeth when speaking of the Controuersy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This (r) Devnit Eccles c. 22. is neither openly nor euidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church And a little after Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therfore with this argument Whosoeuer resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to vs God's Word or Reuelation commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation But whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth God's word or reuelation to vs Therfore whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread ouer the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth euery one most seriously to ponder as a thing wheron eternall saluation dependeth And because our Aduersaries do heere most insist vpon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this euasion which shall be done in the next Chapter 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 either kind of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therfore if it be either vntrue or impertinent as they vnderstand apply it the whole edifice built theron must be ruinous and false For if you obiect their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity Mistaken plainely shewes that they differ only in points not fundamentall If you conuince them euen by their owne Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught diuers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neuertheles be saued because those errors were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwayes haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Pastors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and Doctrine Luther then forsooke and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Heresy they haue an Answere such as it is that the Catholique Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therfore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors vnder paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saued in their seuerall professions they salue this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is inough for saluation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could neuer be induced to giue a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring vs to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of diuers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from vs and amōg themselues And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibite any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serue them to any purpose but still they must remaine vncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they haue no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saued But of this more heerafter 2. And to the end that what shall be sayd concerning this distinction may be better vnderstood we are to obserue that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of fayth or our obligation to belieue diuine truths The one is by Deuines called Affirmatiue wherby we are obliged to haue a positiue explicite beliefe of some chiefe Articles of Christian faith The other is termed Negatiue which strictly binds vs not to disbelieue that is not to belieue the cōtrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our vnderstācing as reuealed or spoken by Almighty God The sayd Affirmatiue Precept according to the nature of such commands inioynes some act to be performed but not at all tymes nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all Obiects to be belieued For obiects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and seuerall belieued then other eyther because they are in themselues more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct vs in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selues or our Neyghbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For tymes we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of fayth but according as seuerall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negatiue doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige vniuersally all persons in respect of all obiects at all tymes semper pro semper as Deuines speake This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwayes helping my Neighbour because
propounded as a diuine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to belieue points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this (f) Pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of reuealed truth is required before a man can be conuinced and for want of sufficient conuiction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they belieued not our Sauiours Resurrection (g) pag. 246. which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters owne confesson No error is damnable vnles the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Euery error is damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Therfore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5. I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Diuinity the Vnity and distinction of euery thing followeth the Nature Essence thereof and therfore if the Nature and being of fayth be not taken from the matter which a man belieues but from the motiue for which he belieues which is God's word or Reuelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diuersity of faith must be measured by God's reuelation which is alike for all obiects and not by the smalnes or greatnes of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnes or smallnes of the things belieued is manifest because otherwise one who belieues only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also belieue points not fundamentall should haue faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men belieue according to differēt capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd therfore we must say that Vnity in Fayth doth not depend vpō points fundamentall or not fundamentall but vpon God's reuelation equally or vnequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different obiects which are belieued by them since they disagree in things Equally reuealed by Almighty God it is euident that they forsake the very Formall motiue of faith which is Gods reuelation and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therin 6. The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and vntrue being demonstrated let vs now come to the second That the Church is infallible in all her definitions whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall And this I proue by these reasons 7. It hath beene shewed in the prcedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies in Religion which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once persuaded that she is Iudge Because if she could erre in some points we could not rely vpon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8. This same is proued by the reason we alledged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written vnles we will take away all certainty of fayth for that tyme we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that she hath been depriued thereof by the adioined comfort help of sacred Writ 9. Moreouer to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and errour yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Deuines call Assertorium wherin God is called to witnes euery falshood is a deadly sinne in any priuate person whatsoeuer although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor preiudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnes of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner authority whereby it is auouched and by the iniury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the vnanimous consent of all Deuines that in such kind of Oaths no leuitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a mortall sacriledge agaynst the morall vertue of Religiō which respects worship due to God If I say euery least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresayd kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound vntrue Articles of fayth thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besids according to the doctrine of all Deuines it is not only iniurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieue things by him reuealed but also to propose as reuealed truths thinges not reuealed as in commonwealths it is a haynous offence to coyne eyther by counterfeyting the mettall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeyt although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernicious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of faygned reuelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particuler appeareth in the Councell of (h) Sub Leon 10. Sess 11. Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false reuelations she herselfe should haue beene the first and chiefest deseruer to haue been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as they holy Ghost sayth in (i) Cap. 13. v. 7. Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speake deceypts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verifyed in fictitious reuelations If any (k) Cap. vlt. v. 18. shal s add to these things God will add vnto him the plagues which are written in this Booke D. Potter sayth To add (l) pag. 222. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract frō it And therfore to say the Church may add false Reuelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernicious errour excluding saluation 10. Perhaps some will heere reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason she doth not erre vpon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cānot serue For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall at least she cannot be certaine that she cānot erre therfore cannot be excused from headlong
in the wiekednes of men in craftines to the circumuention (i) Ephes 4. of Errour All which wordes seeme cleerely inough to proue that the Church is vniuersally infallible without which Vnity of faith could not be conserued agaynst euery wind of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter (k) pag. 151.153 limits these promises priuiledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I vrge the wordes of Scripture which are vniuersall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaued Rule that Scripture is to be vnderstood literally as it soundeth vnlesse some manifest absurdity force vs to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the meane tyme diuers of Doctor Potters Brethren steppe in and reiect his limitation as ouer large and som what tasting of Papistry And therfore they restraine the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the inuisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We confer diuers places and Text We consult the Originals We examine Translations We endeauour to pray hartily We professe to speake sincerely To seeke nothing but truth and saluation of our owne soules that of our Neighbours and finally we vse all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neuertheles we neither do or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remaine whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Louer of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or vpon any other occasion Our remedy therfore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoeuer she proposeth as a reuealed truth according to that diuine aduice of S. Augustine in these words If at length (l) De vtil pred oap 8. thou seeme to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to thy paines follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come downe euen to vs and from vs shall descend to all posterity And though I conceiue that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall hath now beene sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remaine I will particulerly refell a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient for saluation to belieue the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Fayth 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 ISAY neyther pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely belieued but what points may be lawfully disbelieued or reiected after sufficient Propositiō that they are diuine Truths You say the Creed cōtaynes all points necessary to be belieued Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieued Certainly it doth nor For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contayned in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particulerly to know belieue but are bound vnder paine of damnation not to reiect as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we hauing already shewed that whatsoeuer is proposed by Gods Church as a point of fayth is infallibly a truth reuealed by God it followeth that whosoeuer denyeth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contayned in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imploied to proue that al points of fayth necessary to be explicitely belieued are contained in the Creed Neyther was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once giue vs a list of all fundamentals the denyall whereof destroyes Saluation whereas the denyall of other points not fundamentall may stand with saluation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as reuealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diuersity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentull or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in fayth and vpon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will neuer aduenture to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the denyall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a diuine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresy be reiected if once it be sufficiently represented as reuealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly agaynst you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed (a) Chap. 3. n. 3. before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contayned in the Creed So that it is cleere that to make an errour damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fundamentall 3. Moreouer you cannot ground any certainty vpon the Creed it selfe vnlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is vniuersally infallible and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations whether they concerne matters great or small cōtayned or not contained in the Creed This is cleere Because we must receaue the Creed it selfe vpon the credit of the Church without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed and yet the arguments whereby you endeauour to proue that the Creed contaynes all fundamentall points are grounded vpon supposition that the Creed was made eyther by the Apostles themselues or by the (b) pag. 216 Church of their tymes from them which thing we could not certainly know if the succeeding and still continued Church may erre in her Traditions neyther can we be assured whether all fundamentall Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures summed and contracted into the Apostles Creed were faythfully summed and cōtracted and not one pretermitted altered or mistaken vnlesse we vndoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it or at least that
the Church of their tymes for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles themselues did vnderstand the Apostles aright that the Church of their tymes did intend that the Creed should containe all fundamentall points For if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall may she not also erre in the particulers which I haue specifyed Can you shew it to be a fundamentall point of fayth that the Apostles intended to cōprize all points of fayth necessary to Saluation in the Creed Your selfe say no more then that it is very (d) pag. 241. probable which is farre from reaching to a fundamentall point of fayth Your probability is grounded vpon the Iudgment of Antiquity and euen of the Roman Doctours as you say in the same place But if the Catholique Church may erre what certainty can you expect from Antiquity or Doctours Scripture is your totall Rule of fayth Cite therefore some Text of Scripture to proue that the Apostles or the Church of their tymes composed the Creed and composed it with a purpose that it shonld contayne all fundamentall points of fayth Which being impossible to be done you must for the Creed it selfe rely vpon the infallibility of the Church 4. Moreouer the Creed consisteth not so much in the words as in their sense and meaning All such as pretend to the name of Christians recite the Creed yet many haue erred fundamentally as well against the Articles of the Creed as other points of faith It is then very friuolous to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points without specifying both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true and also in what true sense they be fundamental For both these taskes you are to performe who teach that all truth is not fundamentall you do but delude the ignorant when you say that the Creed taken in a Catholique (e) pag. 216. sense comprehendeth all points fundamentall because with you all Catholique sense is not fundamentall for so it were necessary to saluation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture wherin euery least point hath a Catholique sense Or if by Catholique sense you vnderstand that sense which is so vniuersally to be knowne and belieued by all that whosoeuer failes therein cannot be saued you trifle and say no more then this All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to saluation are necessary to saluation Or All points fundamentall are fundamentall After this manner it were an easy thing to make many true Prognostications by saying it will certainely raine when it raineth You say the Creed (f) pag. 216. was opened and explaned in some parts in the Creeds of Nice c. but how shall we vnderstand the other parts not explaned in those Creeds 5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamentall or may seeme more cleere then that wherin we belieue IESVS-CHRIST to be the Mediatour Redeemer and Sauiour of mankind and the founder and foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed And yet about this Article how many different doctrines are there not only of old Heretiques as Arius Nestorius Eutiches c. but also of Protestants partly against Catholiques and partly against one another For the said maine Article of Christ's being the only Sauiour of the world c. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects doth inuolue these and many other such questions That Faith in IESVS-CHRIST doth iustify alone That Sacraments haue no efficiency in Iustification That Baptisme doth not auaile Infants for saluation vnlesse they haue an Act of faith That there is no Sacerdotall Absolution from sinnes That good works proceeding from God's grace are not meritorious That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne after the guilt or offence is pardoned No Purgatory No Prayers for the dead No Sacrifice of the Masse No Inuocation No Mediation or intercession of Saints No inherent Iustice No supreme Pastor yea no Bishop by diuine Ordinance No Reall presence no Transubstantiation with diuers others And why Because forsooth these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Mediator Redeemer Aduocate Foundation c. Yea and are against the truth of our Sauiours humane nature if we belieue diuers Protestants writing against Transubstantiation Let then any iudicious man consider whether Doctour Potter or others doe really satisfy when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue to distinguish points fundamentall from those which they say are not fundamentall If he will speake indeed to some purpose let him say This Article is vnderstood in this sense and in this sense it is fundamentall That other is to be vnder stood in such a meaning yet according to that meaning it is not so fundamentall but that men may disagree and deny it without damnation But it were no policy for any Protestant to deale so plainely 6. But to what end should we vse many arguments Euen your selfe are forced to limit your owne Doctrine and come to say that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall points taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Horisies in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople (g) pag. 216. Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius But this explication or restriction ouerthroweth your Assertion For as the Apostles Creed was not to vs a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councell nor then till it was declared by another c. so now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors and so it is not yet nor euer will be of it selfe alone a particular Catalogue sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamentall and not fundamentall points 7. I come to the second part That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall points of faith And to the end we may not striue about things either granted by vs both or nothing concerning the point in question I must premise these obseruations 8. First That it cannot be denied but that the Creed is most full and complete to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspir'd by God meant that it should serue and in that māner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of faith but such generall heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to Iewes and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set downe and easily learned and remembred And therfore in respect of Gentiles the Creed doth mētion God as Creator of all things and for both Iewes and Gentiles the Trinity the Messias and Sauiour his birth life death resurrection and glory from whom they were to hope remission of sinnes life euerlasting and by whose sacred Name they were to be distinguished from all other professions by being called Christians According to which purpose S. Thomas of Aquine (h) 2.2 g. 1. art 8. doth distinguish all the
Articles of the Creed into these generall heads That some belong to the Maiesty of the Godhead others to the Mistery of our Sauiour Christs Humane nature Which two generall obiects of faith the holy Ghost doth expresse and conioyne Ioan. 17. Haec est vita aterna c. This is life euerlasting that they know thee true GOD and whom thou hast sent IESVS CHRIST But it was not their meaning to giue vs as it were a course of Diuinity or a Catechisme or a particular Expression of all points of Faith leauing those things to be performed as occasion should require by their owne word or writing for their time and afterwards by their Successours in the Catholique Church Our question then is not whether the Creed be perfect as far as the end for which it was composed did require For we belieue are ready to giue our liues for this but only we deny that the Apostles did intend to comprize therin all particular points of beliefe necessary to saluation as euen by D. Potters owne (i) pag. 235.215 confession it doth not comprehend agenda or things belonging to practise as Sacraments Commandements the Acts of Hope and dutyes of Charity which we are obliged not only to practise but also to beliene by diuine infallible fayth Will he therefore inferre that the Creed is not perfect because it contaynes not all those necessary and fundamentall Obiects of fayth He will answere No because the Apostles intended only to expresse credenda thinges to be belieued not practised Let him therefore giue vs leaue to say that the Creed is perfect because it wanteth none of those Obiects of beliefe which were intended to be set downe as we explicated before 9. The second obseruation is that to satisfy our question what points in particuler beÌ„ fundamentall it will not be sufficient to alledg the Creed vnlesse it containe all such points eyther expressely immediatly or els in such manner that by euident and necessary consequence they may be deduced from Articles both cleerely and particulerly contayned therin For if the deduction be doubtfull we shal not be sure that such Conclusions be fundamental or if the Articles themselues which are sayd to be fundamentall be not distinctly and particulerly expressed they will not serue vs to know and distinguish all points fundamental from those which they call not fundamentall We doe not deny but that all points of fayth both fundamentall and not fundamentall may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense as for example implicitely generally or in some such inuolued manner For when we explicitely belieue the Catholique Church we do implicitely belieue whatsoeuer she proposeth as belonging to faith Or else by way of reduction that is when we are once instructed in the beliefe of particular points of faith not expressed nor by necessary consequeÌ„ce deducible froÌ„ the Creed we may afterward by some analogy or proportion and resemblance reduce it to one or moe of those Articles which are explicitely contayned in the Symbole Thus S. Thomas the Cherubim among Deuines teacheth (l) 2. 23 q. â—â— art 8. ad 6. that the miraculous existence of our Blessed Sauiours body in the Eucharist as likewise all his other miracles are reduced to Gods Omnipotency expressed in the Creed And Doctor Potter sayth The Eucharist (m) pag. 2â—â— being a seale of that holy Vnion which we haue with Christ our head by his Spirit and Fayth and with the Saints his members by Charity is euidently included in the Communion of Saints But this reductiue way is farre from being sufficient to inferre out of the Articles of Gods Omnipotency or of the Communion of Saints that our Sauiours body is in the Eucharist and much lesse whether it be only in figure or els in reality by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation c. and least of all whether or no these points be fundamentall And you hyperbolize in saying the Eucharist is euidently included in the Communion of Saints as if there could not haue been or was not a Communion of Saints before the Blessed Sacrament was instituted Yet it is true that after we know and belieue there is such a Sacrament we may referre it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed and yet so as S. Thomas referrs it to one Article and D. Potter to another and in respect of different analogies or effects it may be referred to seuerall Articles The like I say of other points of faith which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed but nothing to D. Potters purpose But contrarily it sheweth that your affirming such and such points to be fundamentall or not fundamentall is meerely arbitrary to serue your turne as necessity and your occasions may require Which was an old custome amongst Heretiques as we read in (n) De peccat Orig. cont Pelag. l. 2. cap. 22. S. Augustine Pelagius and Celestius desiring fraudulently to auoyde the hatefull name of Heresies affirmed that the question of Originall Sinne may be disputed without danger of fayth But this holy Father affirmes that it belongs to the foundation of fayth We may saith he endure a disputant who erres in other questions not yet diligently examined not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the Church their errour may be borne with but it must not passe so far as to attempt to shake the foundation of the Church We see S. Augustine places the being of a point fundamentall or not fundamentall in that it hath beene examined and established by the Church although the point of which he speaketh namely Originall Sinne be not contayned in the Creed 10. Out of that which hath beene sayd I inferre that Doctour Potters paines in alledging Catholique Doctours the ancient Fathers and the Councell of Trent to proue that the Creed containes all points of faith was needlesse since we grant it in manner aforesayd But Doctour Potter can not in his conscience belieue that Catholique Deuines or the Councell of Trent and the holy Fathers did intend that all points in particuler which we are obliged to belieue are contayned explicitely in the Creed he knowing well inough that all Catholiques hold themselues obliged to belieue all those points which the sayd Councell defines to be belieued vnder an Anathema and that all Christians belieue the commandments Sacraments c. which are not expressed in the Creed 11. Neither must this seeme strange For who is ignorant that Summaries Epitom'es the like briefe Abstracts are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science or Subiect to which they belong For as the Creed is said to containe all points of Fayth so the Decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may terme them which concerne Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so vnderstood as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice vnlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandments For to omit the precepts of receauing
of Commemoration for the dead Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Inuisibility Fallibility or Infallibility nor of other points controuerted betwixt Protestants themselues and betweene Ptotestants and Catholiques which to D. Potter seeme so haynous corruptions that they cannot without damnation ioyne with vs in profession therof There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law which yet is a very maine point of faith And many other might be also added 15. But what need we labour to specify particulars There are as many importaÌ„t points of faith not expressed in the Creed as since the worlds beginning now for all future times there haue been are and may be innumerable grosse damnable Heresies whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed For euery fundamental Error must haue a contrary fundamentall truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true As for example if it be a damnable error to deny the Bl. Trinity or the God-head of our Sauiour the beliefe of them must be a truth necessary to saluation or rather if we will speake properly the Error is damnable because the opposite Truth is necessary as death is frightfull because life is sweet and according to Philosophy the Priuation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant If therfore the Creed containe in particuler all fundamentall points of fayth it must explicitely or by cleere consequence coÌ„prehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all Ages past present and to come which no man in his wits will affirme it to doe 16. And heer I cannot omit to signify how you (s) pag. 255. applaude the saying of D. Vsher That in those Propositions which without all controuersy are vniuersally receiued in the whole Christian world so much Truth is contained as being ioyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to euerlasting saluation Neither haue we cause to doubt but that as many as walke according to this Rule neither ouerthrowing that which they haue builded by superinducing any damnable heresies therupon nor otherwise viâ—iating their holy fayth with a lewd and wicked conâ—ersation peace shall be vpon them and vpon the Israel of God Now D. Potter knowes that the Mistery of the B. Trinity is not vniuersally receiued in the whole Christian world as appeares in very many Heretiques in Polony Hungary and Transiluania and therfore according to this Rule of D. Vsher approued by D. Potter the deniall of the B. Trinity shall not exclude saluation 17. Let me note by the way that you might easily haue espied a foule contradiction in the said words of D. Vsher by you recited and so much applauded For he supposeth that a man agrees with other Churches in beliefe which ioyned with holy Obedience may bring him to euerlasting saluation and yet that he may superinduce damnable heresies For how can he superinduce damnable heresies who is supposed to belieue all Truths necessary to saluation Can there be any damnable heresy vnlesse it contradict some necessary truth which cannot happen in one who is supposed to belieue all necessary Truths Besides if one belieuing all fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followeth that the fundameÌ„tall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed 18. According to this Modell of D. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarcely one point of fayth what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one of few Articles of beliefe who yet for the rest should be holding conceyts plainly contradictory so patching vp a Religion of meÌ„ who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Sauiour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimaera hauing the head of a man the necke of a horse the shoulders of an Oxe the foote of a Lion c. I wrong them not heerein For in good Philosophy there is greater repugnancy betweene assent and dissent affirmation and negation est est non non especially when all these contrradictories pretend to relye vpon one and the selfe same Motiue the ininfallible Truth of Almighty God then betweene the integrall parts as head necke c. of a maÌ„ horse lion c. And thus ProtestaÌ„ts are farre more bold to disagree euen in matters of fayth then Catholique Deuines in questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church And while thus they stand only vpon fundamentall Articles they do by their owne confession destroy the Church which is the house of God For the foundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Saluation then the foundation alone of a house is fit to affoard a man habitation 19. Moreouer it is most euident that Protestants by this Chaos rather then Church doe giue vnauoydable occasion of desperation to poore soules Let some one who is desirous to saue his soule repaire to D. Potter who maintaynes these grounds to know vpon whome he may rely in a matter of so great consequence I suppose the Doctours answere will be Vpon the truly Catholique Church She cannot erre danably What vnderstand you by the Catholike Church Cannot generall Councells which are the Church representatiue erre Yes they may weakely or (t) pag. 167. willfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre damnably To whome then shall I goe for my particuler instructioÌ„ I cannot confer with the vnited body of the whole Church about my particuler difficulties as your selfe affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told (u) pag. 27. of priuate iniuries Must I then consult with euery particular person of the Catholique Church So it seemes by what you write in these wordes The whole (w) pag. 150.151 militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre eyther in the whole fayth or any necessary Article of it You say M. Doctour I cannot for my instruction acquaint the vniuersall Church with my particuler scruples You say the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably It remaynes then that for my necessary instruction I must repaire to euery particuler member of the vniuersall Church spread ouer the face of the earth yet you teach that the promises (x) pag. 151. which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particuler persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholike with which as I sayd it is impossible for me to confer Alas O most vncomfortable Ghostly Father you driue me to desperation How shall I confer with euery Christian soule man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet vpon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Fayth before I haue the fayth of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whome I may securely relye Procure will you
say to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of fayth For if he doe his fayth for point of beliefe is sufficient for saluation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether he hold all fundamentall points or no For til you tel me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretikes But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth Are you sure of that not sure I hould it very probable (y) pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or euen wagers This yields a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contayne all points necessary to be belieued whether they rest in the vnderstanding or else do further extend to practise No. It was cōposed to deliuer Credenda not Agenda to vs Fayth not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to saluation Still you chalke out new pathes for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particuler be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answere to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertaine (z) pag. 211.213.214 to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly belieued by euery Christian that will be saued They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make vp our Fayth in Christ that is that common fayth which is alike precious in all being one the same in the highest Apostle the meanest belieuer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God and the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I vnderstand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell vs what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet vnlesse you do this your Doctrine serues onely either to make men despaire or els to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and who giue one certaine Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Fayth in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with saluation And seing your selfe acknowledges that these men do not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to loyne with them for the securing of my soule and the auoyding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who vnderstand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which heer I haue made are either your owne direct Assertions or euident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let vs answere some few Obiections of D. Potters against that which we haue said before to auoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he sayth The Creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21. This answere makes for vs. For by giuing a reason why it was needles that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles iudged it needles to expresse all necessary points of fayth in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Bookes in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had neuer been written and which is more the Creed euen in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles conteined in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tels vs that the Creed (b) pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are deliuered in Scripture therfore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliuer the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other vnlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctours cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told vs it was needles that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth therby sufficiently auow the diuine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would aske him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines deliuered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needles to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of diuine authority but we are also bound vnder paine of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Bookes not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answere grants as much as we desire which is that all points of fayth are not contained in the Apostles Creed euen as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no wayes contained in the Apostles Creed and therfore containe an Addition not an Explanation therof 23. But how can it be necessary sayth D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the (c) pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their tymes I answere You trifle not distinguish betweene the Apostles beliefe and that abridgement of some Articles of fayth which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you begg the question by supposing that the Apostles belieued no more then is contained in their Creed which euery vnlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons 24. Your pretended proofe out of the Acts that the Apostles reuealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God keeping (d) Act. 20.27
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
not cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of saluation whereas those other Zealots deny her to be a member of Christs Body or capable of saluation wherin alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they do it vpon a different motiue or reason Were it not a strang excuse if a man would thinke to cloake his rebellion by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soueraygne And D. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme because he forsooke the Church of Rome but yet so as that stil he held her to be the true Church and to haue all necessary meanes to Saluation But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an vnspeakeable comfort it is that out Aduersaries are forced to confesse that they cannot cleere themselues from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off from the Hope of saluation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say They must be damned vnlesse we may be saued Moreouer this euasion doth indeed condemne your zealous Brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme which consists in being diuided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of fayth as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles For other wise you should cut her off from the hope of saluation and so condemne your selfe of Schisme And lastly euen according to the your owne definition of Schisme you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime vnlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your owne Assertions For if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of saluation how come you to say in another place that you iudge a reconciliation with vs to be (k) pag. 20. damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be iust and necessary (l) pag. 75. cause That they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their error and neglect to vse them (m) pag. 79. we dare not flatter them say you with so easy a censure of hope of saluation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the hope of saluation the Church from which it separates how wil you cleere your selfe from Schisme who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure and who affirme that a reconciliation with vs is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficulties which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme cleerly that we may be saued least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conuersion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirme that our Church erred in points fundamentall or necessary to saluation you know not how nor where nor amōg what Company of men to find a perpetuall visible Church of Christ before Luther And the fore your best shift is to say and vnsay as your occasions command I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of saluation the Church from which it separates wherin you are mightily mistaken as appeares by your owne example of the Donatists who were most formall and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists Luciferians whom you also alledg had byn meere Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to infer a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme 28. A third deuise I find in D. Potier to cleere his Brethren from Schisme There is sayth he great difference betweene (n) Pag. 75. a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selues 29. This I confesse is a quaint subtility by which all Schisme and Sinne may be as well excused For what diuell incarnate could meerly pretend a separation and not rather some other motiue of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now since their pretended Reformation consisted as they gaue out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of thēselues and their diuision from vs falls out to be one and the selfe same thing Nay we see that although they infinitly disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the generall point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An euident signe that the thinge vpon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particuler Modell or Idaea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysicall speculation that they intended only to reforme themselues cannot possibly excuse them from Schisme vnlesse first they be able to proue that they were obliged to depart from vs. Yet for as much as concernes the fact it selfe it is cleere that Luthers reuolt did not proceed from any zeale of Reformation The motiues which put him vpon so wretched and vnfortunate a worke were Couetousnes Ambition Lust Pride Enuy and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences was not committed to himselfe or such as he desired He himselfe taketh God to witnesse that he fell into these troubles casually and (o) Casu nō voluntate in has turbas incidi Deum ipsum testor against his will not vpon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) Act. Ex mon. p. 404. happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what (q) Steidan lib. 16. fol. 232. the matter meant For sayth he I scarcely vnderstood (r) Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meāt In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislike of his owne vndertaken course oftentymes sayth he wishing (s) Luth. in colloq mensal that I had neuer begunne that busines And Fox sayth It is apparent that (t) Act. mon. pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinall Caietan to keepe silence prouided also his aduersaries would do the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted (u) Cowp in his Cronicle himselfe to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant With much more which may be seene in (w) Tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 11. subd 2. Brereley But this is sufficient to shew that Luther was far inough from intending any Reformation And if he iudged a Reformation to be necessary what a huge wickednes was it in him to promise silence if his aduersaries would do the like Or to submit himselfe to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant Or if the Reformation were not indeed intended by him nor iudged to be necessary how can he be excused
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
Symboli Apostolici ad instar Censurae Parisiensis But in your second Edition being as it seemes sory for your former sincerity you say absolutely Censura Symboli Apostolici with an c. which helpes you in diuers occasions both to deceiue the Reader and yet to saue your selfe when you shall be told of corrupting the sentence by leauing out words as in this particular the Reader will conceiue that it was an absolute Censure of the Apostles Creed wheras contrarily it supposeth that the Creed as a thing most sacred cannot be censured and out of that supposition taxeth a certaine Censure framed as he thinkes in such manner that the Creed it selfe could not be free from mens Censure if such a forme of Censure might passe for currant This I say is the drift of that Censure and not to censure the Creed which thing I touch but to answere you who infer that some Catholiques seeme very meanely to esteeme the Creed But my intention is not to medle any way with that Censure of the Creed whose Authour in very deed is vnknowne to me or with any Bookes or Censures in that kind wholy leauing those affaires to the Vicar of Christ the Successour of S. Peter which is a great happines proper to Catholiques who though they may disagree as men yet as Catholiques they haue meanes to end all Controuersies by recourse and submission to one supreme Authority CHAP. II. YOVR Second Section treates principally of two points The Vnity of the Church wherein it consists and The Communion of the Church how farre necessary Both these points haue been handled in the first Part where I proued that Difference in any one point of fayth destroyeth the Being and Vnity of Fayth and of the Church And That Communion with the true Visible Church is so far necessary that all voluntary error against her definitions as Heresy is and all diuision from her outward Society which is Schisme excludes saluation By these Rules we can certainly know what is damnable Schisme and Heresy whereas you placing the Vnity of Fayth and truth of a Church in the beliefe of points which you call fundamentall although it be ioyned with difference in a thousand other points and yet not knowing what Articles in particular be fundamentall must giue this finall resolution The Vnity of fayth and of the Church consists in We know not what Moreouer if you measure the Nature and Vnity of fayth not by the formall motiue for which we belieue to wit the Word or Reuelation of God but by the weight of the particular obiects which are belieued you will not be able to shew that he who erreth in some one or more fundamentall points doth loose diuine infallible fayth in respect of those other truths which he belieues and by this meanes Persons disagreeinge euen in Fundamentall points may retaine the same substance or essence of fayth and be of the selfe same true Church which is most absurd makes a faire way to affirme that Iewes and Turkes are of the same Church with Christians because they all agree in the beliefe of one God And thus we haue answered the substance of your Section Yet because you interpose many other vnnecessary points we must follow your wādrings lest els you may be thought to haue said somewhat to vs which is vnanswerable 2. After an vnprofitable ostentation of Erudition which yet required no deeper learning then to read some of our Catholique Interpreters about the place Deut. 17. you come in the end to grant that the High Priest in cases of moment had an absolutely infallible direction c. And will you giue greater priuiledge of infallibility to the Type then to the Thing signified to wit the true Church of Christ of which the Synagogue was but a figure You cite some Catholique Authours as affirming that by the Iudge is meant the Ciuill Magistrate and by the Priest not the High Priest alone Of which Catholique Authours I haue at the present only the Dowists as you are pleased to call them in their Marginall Note on the 2. Chro. 19. Vers 1. whom I find you to falsify For their words are only these A most plaien distinction of spirituall and temporall authority and offices not instituied by Iosaphat nor any other King but by God himselfe And vpon the words of Deut. 17. Vers 9. Thou shalt come to the Priest of the Leuiticall Stocke and to the Iudge that shall be at that time they say In the Councell of Priests one supreme Iudge which was the High Priest vers 12. And further they say There were not many Presidents at once but in Succession one after another Is this to affirme that by the Priest is meant not the high Priest alone Do they not say the quite contrary And as for your Obiectiōs against our Argument drawne from the Synagogue to proue the infallibility of the Church I haue answered them (m) 1. Part. Chap. 2. n. 23. heertofore 3. That Core Dathan and Abiron with all their Company descended aliue into the pit of Hell you say is rashly and (n) Pag. 29. vncharitably said by Charity Mistaken But you falsify his words which are The ground (o) Pag. 16. opened it selfe and swallowed them aliue with all their goods into the profound pit of Hell Are goods and company two words of one signification And yet in your second Edition you cite with all their company c. in a differēt letter as the words of your Aduersarie But suppose he had said as you alledge him with all their company c. what great crime had he committed The holy Scripture sayth of them and their Complices without limitation or distinction The Earth (p) Num. 16. ◠31.32.33 brake in sunder vnder their feete and opening her mouth deuoured them with their Tabernacles and all their substance and they went downe into Hell quicke couered with the ground and perished out of the midst of the multitude You see the Scripture speakes indefinitely and so doth Charity Mistaken without adding any Vniuersall particle as All Euery one or the like except when he sayth with all their Goods which are the very words of Scripture Nay since the Scripture sayth They went downe into Hell quicke and perished out of the midst of the multitude by what authority will you affirme that all perished out of the midst of the multitude but not all went downe into Hell quicke 4. Though it were granted that those wordes Math. 18.17 If thy Brother offend thee tell the Church are meant of priuate wrongs yet it is cleere that from thence is inferred à fortiori that all Christians are obliged to obey the Catholique Church in her decrees And no man is so ignorant as not to know that the holy Fathers do euery where apply those words against Schismatiques and Heretiques as appeareth by S. Augustine whome heertofore (p) 1. part cap. 5. num 7. I cited and S. Cyprian (q) Lib.
the same points the Scripture is also sufficient and cleere Which cuidently sheweth that you cannot deny but that the Infallibility of the Church may well stand with the sufficiency of Scripture consequently to oppose either the Scripture or Church is sufficient to make one an Heretique and this is sufficient for our purpose Yea since you cannot deny but that it is Heresy to oppose the Scripture and that you also grant that the Scripture affirmes the Church to be infallible in fundamentall points it followes that euen according to you euery one who opposeth the Church in such points is an Heretique euen because he opposeth the Church although the further reason heerof be because he opposeth the Scripture which recommends the Church So that all which you haue said about the sufficiency of Scripture alone is in diuers respects nothing to the purpose 5. You affirme that (d) Pag. 136 Eckius Pighius Hosius Turrianus Costerus do euery where in their writings speake wickedly and contumeliously of the holy Scriptures And because this is a common slander of Protestants against Catholique Writers I do heere challenge you to produce but one I say but one only place either out of any one of these whome you name or any other Catholique Doctor who speakes wickedly or contumeliously against holy Scriptures But be sure you do not confound speaking against Scripture it selfe with speaking against the abuse therof or against the letter of Scripture wrested to some hereticall sense against which our Authors speake and cannot speake too much And S. Hierome with other Father do the same 6. You proceed and say The Testimony (e) Pag. 139. of the present Church workes very powerfully probably first vpon Infidels to winne them to a Reuerend opinion of Fayth and Scriptures c. Secondly vpon Nouices weaklings and doubters in the fayth to instruct confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the. Scriptures which the Church deliuers as the word of God Thirdly vpon all within the Church to prepare induce and perswade the Mind as an outward meanes to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue the Scriptures But the fayth of a Christian findes not in all this any sure ground wheron finally to rest or settle it selfe Because diuine Fayth requires a Testimony absolutely diuine and yet our Aduersaries yield that the Testimony of the present Church is not absolutely diuine to which purpose you cite in your Margent some of our Authors and therfore it cannot rely vpon the Church 7. This your discourse is neither pertinent nor true For the Question is not as I haue often told you whether or no our fayth be resolued into the Authority of the Church but whether we may not truly infer that whosoeuer resisteth the Church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as reuealed by God which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamentall points be not an Heretique because at lest by resisting the Church he consequently comes to oppose the Testimony or Reuclation of God which is the formall obiect of Fayth Besides if the Testimony of the Church worke but probably vpon Infidels and Nouices who by you are taught to belieue that she may erre vnles you will circumuent them by dissembling her fallibility they will haue wit inough to tell themselues that since she may erre and speakes but probably she cannot worke so powerfully vpon them but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually erre and deceiue them And how can the Church worke vpon all within her to prepare induce and perswade the mind to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue Scriptures Are they within the Church before they haue imbraced the Fayth Or must they want fayth till they read and belieue the Scriptures Or rather since according to your Principles all fayth depends on Scripture must they not belieue the Scripture before they imbrace the fayth and consequently before they be in the Church How then doth the Church prepare induce and perswade them that are within her to imbrace the fayth and to read and belieue the Scriptures If our fayth must rest and settle only vpon the Written Word of God how doth S. Irenaeus (f) Lib. 3. cap. 4. affirme that many Nations haue been conuerted to Christ without Scriptures Were they conuerted only to an humane fayth 8. And wheras you say that the Authority of the Church is not absolutely diuine and therfore cannot be the last and formall Obiect of fayth it is but an Equiuocation and you infer that which we do not deny Coninck whom you cite in your Margent and translated by halues answeres your Obiection in the very wordes which you alleage Although sayth he the Church (g) Disp 9. dub 5. conel 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost and in that sense her Testimony do in some sort rely vpon the diuine Authority and receiue from it strength all which words you do not translate yet it is not truly or properly the Testimony or word and reuelation of God but properly it is a humane Testimony You see then that the Testimony of the Church in some sense is Diuine that is infallibly directed by the holy Ghost which is inough for our purpose although it be not Diuine in another sense that is her words are not the immediate voyce of God as Scriptures are because she doth not propose any new Reuelations made immediately to her but only infallibly declares what Reuelations haue beene made to Prophets Apostles c. Your selfe affirme that the Church is infallible in Fundamentall points and consequently her Testimony is not meerly humane and fallible and yet it is not absolutely diuine and so you must answere your owne Argument and you must grant that the Church being infallible in some points may be to vs a ground sufficient for our infallible assent or beliefe for such Articles And if you will tell vs that fayth must be resolued into some Authority which is absolutely Diuine as Diuine signifies that which is distinct from all things created you will find your selfe gone too far For Scripture it selfe being a thing created and not a God is not Deuine in that sense And the Apostles who receiued immediate Reuelations from God when afterwards they did preach and declare them to others those Declarations which supposed the Reuelations already made were not in the opinion of many Deuines the testimony or word of God but of men infallibly assisted by God And yet I hope you will not hence inferre that it had not been Heresy to oppose the Declarations of the Apostles although they did not preach new Reuelations but only declare and propound such as had been already made to them 9. Your wordes which are indeed but words That Scripture (h) Pag. 141. is of diuine Authority the Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light which shines in Scripture I confuted heeretofore And what greater
is truer when it is confirmed by the Church What say you now Doth Bellarmine teach that the Truth or certainety of Scripture or of the Minor in the foresaid Syllogisme depeÌ„ds on the Church But in the meane time how many corruptions haue you committed in this one Citation 15. You cite (g) pag. 149. Waldâ—â—si to proue that the (h) Walden lib. 2. Doct. fid art 2. cap. 19. §. 1. infallibility of the Church is planted only in the Church vniuersall or the Catholique Body of Christ on earth comprehending all his members But though we cannot allow of Waldensis his doctrine in some points wherin he contradicts the consent of other Catholiques yet he doth not teach what you affirme but only that the infallibility of the Church consists in the succession of Doctors in the Church which is against your assertion Pag. 150. that the whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre c. And therfore the doctrine of Waldensis is sufficient for our maine Question against you that whosoeuer erreth in any one point deliuered by Doctours and Pastours succeeding one another in the visible Church is an Heretique and without repentance cannot be saued whether the point be of it selfe fundamentall or not fundamentall For Waldensis maketh no such distinction as you do Nay which is directly against your present Assertion heere and your doctrine els where this Author doctrinal fidei tom 1. Art 2. cap. 47. hauing prefixed this Title before that Chapter That the Pope hath infringible power to determine verities of fayth and to ouercome and cancell all hereticall falsities doth in the whole Chapter it selfe prosecute and proue the said Title out of the Fathers And to the next Chapter 48. hauing also giuen this Title Of the Prerogatiue of the perpetuall immunity and purity of the Romane Church from all contagion of Heresy he proues it in like manner through the whole Chapter You must therfore be well aduised how you cite Authors out of one place without considering or enquiring what they say in another 16. Together with Waldensis you cite Syluester saying The Church which is (i) Summa verb. Ecclesia çap. 1. §. 4. affirmed not to be capable of error is not the Pope but the Congregation of the faythfull But this is a plaine falsification For in that very place he teacheth That the Pope vsing the Councell of Cardinals or his members cannot erre but may erre as he is a particular person And then adds In this manner is to be vnderstood the Glosse Caus 24. q. 1. can à recta which sayth the Church which cannot erre is not the Pope but the Congregation of the faythfull So as you see that these are not the words of Syluester as you affirme but of another which yet he interprets plainely against you And that you may be wholy inexcusable he doth heer referre himselfe to another place namely Verb. Concilium § 3. where he expresly proues that a Councell caÌ„not erre no more then the Church because if the Councell could erre the whole Church might erre For the Church doth not meet togeather but only the Councell or the Pope Adding further that the doctrine of the Church vpon which S. Thomas sayth we are to rely as vpon an infallible Rule is no other then that of the Councell And as for the Pope he sayth that we must not stand to the Popes declaration because he hath better reasons then can be alleaged to the contrary but because he is Head of the Church whose office is to determine doubts in fayth And a little after he expressy sayth That the Pope cannot erre when recourse is made to him in doubtfull matters as to the Head of the Church because sayth he this errour would redound to the errour of the whole Church And likewise in this very place of Syluester which you cite he also referres himselfe to Verb. fides § 2. where at large he proues the Popes infallibility saying That it belongeth to fayth that we rely vpon the Popes determination in things belonging to fayth or manners because the Church cannot erre in such things and consequently he as head of the Church that is as he is Pope cannot erre although he determined without aduice of the Cardinals With what conscience then do you cite this Author against his words meaning and designe and ascribe to him words which he citeth out of another and as I said explicates against you And with the like fidelity after Syluester you do strangely alledge the Glosse Caus 24 can à recta with an Et as if the words which you cited out of Syluester The Church which cannot erre is not the Pope c. had been different from that Glosse wheras they are nothing but that Glosse and not the words of Syluester 17. They you meane Catholique Doctours grant that the infallibility of the Church reacheth not (k) pag. 14â— to all questions and points in Religion that may arise but only to such Articles as may belong to the substance of fayth such as are matters essentiall and fundamentall simply necessary for the Church to know and belieue To omit others D. Stapleton is full (l) Princip Doctr. lib 8. contr 4. çap. 15. and punctuall to this purpose He distinguisheth Controuersies of ReligioÌ„ into two sorts Some sayth he are about those doctrines of fayth which necessarily pertayne to the publique fayth of the Church others about such matters as doe not necessarily belong to the fayth but may be variously held disputed without hurt or preiudice of fayth Heer is such a Caos of words and corruptions as I scarce know where to beginne to vnfold them Stapleton in the place by you alledged hath this Assertion The infallibility of teaching in matters of fayth granted to the Church hath place only in defining infallibly and proposing faithfully those doctrines of fayth which eyther are called in question or otherwise belong necessarily to the publique fayth of the Church And afterward he affirmeth that those things belong necessarily to fayth and publique doctrine of the Church which all men are bound explicitely to belieue or els are publikely practised by the Church or els which the Pastours are bound to belieue explicitely and the people implicitely in the fayth of their Pastours By which words it is cleere that Stapleton sayth not that the infallibility of the Church reacheth only to such Articles as are matters essentiall and fundamentall and simply necessary for the Church to know and belieue as you affirme but to all points which are called in question or which are publiquely practised by the Church whether they be fundamentall or not fundamentall and therfore you do misalledge him when you say that he distinguisheth Controuersies of Religion into two sorts Some are about those doctrines of fayth which necessarily pertaine to the publique fayth of the Church c. For Stapleton explicates himselfe as you haue heard that whatsoeuer is called in
question or practised by the Church is the Obiect of her infallibility which is the thing we intend to proue against Protestants that to oppose or question any one doctrine or practise of the Church is to resist an infallible Authority and consequently to be an Heretique And that Stapleton neuer dreamed of your imaginary restraining the infallibility of the Church to points fundamentall is cleere by another place which you (m) Pag. 40 cite as out of S. Thomas and him in this manner Some are primitiue Articles of the substance of Religion essentiall in the obiect of fayth Others are secundary probable accidentall or obscure points For Stapleton in that place sayth that certaine doctrines (n) Staplet Rel. controu 1. q. 3. art 6. are either primary Principles of fayth or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those principles but yet not defined Of the first kind are the Articles of fayth and whatsoeuer is defined in Councels against Heretiques c. Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden works of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the fayth and of which we may be ignorant without losse of fayth yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoeuer the Church doth vniuersally hold either in doctrine or manners belongs to the foundation of fayth and proues it out of S. Augustine (o) Serm. 14. de verbis Domini ep 28.89.96 who cals the Custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimuÌ„ sidem fundatissimam consuâ—â—udinem Ecclesiae fundatissimaÌ„ authoritatem sta bilissimaÌ„ fundatissimae ecclesiae Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those points which you call fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Fayth that we belieue whatsoeuer the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinatioÌ„s of the Church Which doth ouerthrow your distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall thogh you alledge the authority of S. Thomas and Stapleton in fauour thereof For S. Thomas (o) 2.2 q. 2. are 5. in the very place by you cited after he had sayd that there are some obiects of fayth which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other points when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to fayth You might gayne more reputation to your selfe and allow your aduersary more ease if you would once resolue to cite your Authours with more sincerity 18. To proue that the infallibility of the Church extends only to fundamentall points you also alledge Maldonatus who sayth That he will not repugne (p) In Joan. 24.26 if one will affirme that those words 10.14 vers 16. He shall teach you all things be referred to those other words Whatsoeuer I haue spoken to you as if our Sauiour did say that the holy Ghost was to teach theÌ„ nothing but that which he himselfe had taught them But do you in good earnest belieue that our Sauiour taught the Aposlles fundamentall points alone which all Christians are bound explicitely to belieue Or will you say the Apostles were infallibly assisted only when they deliuered fundamentall points of fayth So you must say if Christ did teach them only points fundamentall and the holy Ghost taught them onely those thinges which Christ had taught them vnles you will say they were infallible without the assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost You see he had good reason to say that (q) First Part. cap. 2. num 13. by denying the vniuersal infallibility of the Church limiting the promises of Christ made to her you opened a gap for men to say that the A postles in their Preaching and Writing were not vniuersally infallible And heer I aske whether it be not a fundamentall errour against fayth and Saluation to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God and since without question it is so you must eyther grant that the Church can erre fundamentally and damnably agaynst fayth which yet your self deny or els you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths whether they be in themselues fundamentall or not fundamentall which is as much as we desire 19. Agaynst the infallibility of the Church you bring a long argument pag. 157.158 the force whereof is this Nothing according to vs can be belieued by diuine fayth which hath not beene defined by the Church But the Church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees Therfore we cannot belieue by diuine fayth that she is infallible in all her decrees 20. Before I answere your Argument I must reflect that you do not sincerely alledge these words out of Bellarmine Vntil (r) Lïb. 4. de Roman Pont. cap. 14 §. Respondeo inprimis a doctrine be declared or defined by the Church so loÌ„g it might be eyther doubted of or denyed without danger For Bellarmine makes no such generall Rule but only speaking of the opinioÌ„ of Pope Iohn the two and twentith That the Saints doe not see God before the Resurrection which is your owne errour he excuseth him from Heresy because at that tyme the Church had not defined the matter Where you see Bellarmine speakes only of a particular point which that Pope not conceauing to be contayned in Scripture and the thing hauing not been expressely defined by the Church nor euidently knowne to haue beene the vniuersall sense thereof it was not at that tyme a matter of fayth And he himselfe before his death retracted his errour But to come to your Argument I wish you would be carfull not to obiect against vs what your selfe must answer For doe not you teach that the Church workes vpon all (s) Pag. 139. within her to prepare induce and persuade the mind to imbrace the fayth to reade and belieue the Scriptures And that the ordinary meanes (t) Pag. 142.143 appointed by God to present and propound diuine Verities is the Church And therefore we cannot in the ordinary course belieue Scriptures or any other diuine Verity but by the Proposall of the Church But this doctrine that the Church is the first Inducer to imbrace the faith and the ordinary Meanes without which we cannot belieue is not proposed by the Church and therefore it is not a thing which we can belieue You likewise grant that the Church is infallible in all fundamentall points And I aske in what decree definition or declaration hath the Church proposed to vs that her selfe cannot erre in fundamentall points especially with your addition that she may erre in points not fundamentall Now to your Argument I an were First That it is not necessary that the Church should by any particular decree testify her owne
Rule of fayth is cleerly contayned in Scripture Whereas he rather sayth the contrary in these words The Verities of fayth (b) 2.2 〈◊〉 art 9. ad 1. are contayned in Scripture diffusedly in some things obscurely c. so that to draw the Verity of fayth out of Scripture there is required long study and exercise Is this to say the Scripture is cleere euen for fundamentall points 3. I see not how you can proue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls out of those Letters called Formatae formed the manner whereof is set downe by (c) Ann. 325. num 44. 407. num 3. apud Spond Baronius Among other things one was to write the first letter in Greke of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost of S. Peter the one saith Baronius being to professe their fayth against the Arrian Heretiques of those times the other to shew their Communion with the Catholique Church because he was esteemed truly Catholique who was ioyned in Communion with the Successour of S. Peter And this Baronius proues out of Optatus Wherby it appeares that the intention of those formed Letters was not to expresse all fundamentall points of fayth but particularly aymed at the Arrians besides the Articles of our Creed they contained the Primacy of S. Peter teaching vs that it is necessary for euery true Catholique to be vnited with the Sea of Peter You cite the circular letters of Sophronius Tarasius Pelagius Patriarch of Rome and Photius of Constantinople for those of Pelagius you cite Baronius Ann. 556. n. 33. But the letters of Pelagius which Baronius sets downe at large do not so much as mention the Apostles Creed and besides the foure six Generall Councels he professes to receiue the Canons which the Sea Apostolique that is the Romane Sea hath receiued the Epistles of the Popes Celestine Sixtus Leo Hilarius Simplicius Felix Gelasius the first Anastasius Hormisda Iohn Felix Boniface Iohn Agapetus and then adds This is my Fayth I wonder by what Logick you will inferre out of these Letters that the Creed alone explaned by the first Councells containes all Articles of fayth since Pelagius professes to receiue diuers other things not contained in the Creed Sophronius also Sext. Synod Act. 11. in his letters recites and condemnes by name a very great number of particular Heresies and Hetetiques which are not mentioned in any of the Creeds and adds a full condemnation of all Heretiques Neither are you more fortunate or faythfull in Tarasius who in his Confession of fayth doth expresly teach Inuocation of our blessed Lady Angels Apostles Prophets Martyrs Confessors c. as also worship of Images of which he was a most zealous defender against the Iconomacht and was the chiefe in the seauenth Synod who condemned those Heretiques And since he was a mā famous both for sanctity and miracles we may note by the way what persons they were who in ancient times opposed Protestants in those Iconomachi Photius likewise is by you misalledged For he in his Letter to Pope Nicholas set downe by Baronius ad Ann. 859. wherein he maketh a profession of his fayth fayth I receiue the seauen holy Generall Councels And hauing mentioned the six Councels and what Heretiques were condemned by them he adds I also receyue that holy and great Councell which was the second held at Nice which cast out and ouercame as filth the Iconomachi that is the oppugners of Images who therfore were Christomachi that is oppugners of Christ as also the impugners of Saints Tell me now I pray you by what art can you extract out of Photius his Letter an argument to proue that the Apostles Creed as it was explaned in the Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius comprehends a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall truths and implyes a full reiection of fundamentall heresies as you affirme pag. 217 since he expresly professes to receiue also the seauen Generall Councels and that in particular which condemned the Impugners of Images that is such as your selfe and other Protestants are Will you grant that the Creed implies a reiection of the errour of the Iconomachi or opposers of Images as of a Fundamentall Heresie Who will not wonder at your ill fortune in mis-alledging Authors Yet I grant that fraude can neuer be imployed better then to the disaduantage of him who vseth it 4. You say (d) pag. 226. to litle purpose that the learned Cardinall Peron thinks (e) Replique çap. 1. it probable that the Article of the Catholique Church and the Communion of Saints is all one the latter being only an Explication of the other But what is this for your purpose which was to proue that Articles not expressed in the Creed cannot be reduced to the Catholique Church Because no learned Romanist will say that the new doctrines of the Romane Church are contained in the Communion of Saints For Cardinall Peron only means what he sayth in expresse words That the Catholique Church consists not in the simple nūber of the faithfull euery one considered a part but in the ioynt Communion also of the whole body of the faythfull From whence it doth not follow that the Church is not she who ought to deliuer and propound diuine Verities to vs as she is the Mother and Teacher of all Christians Doth not Charity and Communion in the spirit of Loue include Fayth and consequently some infallible Propounder of the Articles therof The Explication of Azor concerning the Article of the Catholique Church which you bring maketh nothing in the world to your purpose I haue told you already that while we belieue the Vnity Vniuersality Perpetuity Sanctity of the Church we ioyntly belieue her Infallibility and freedome from all error in fayth But it is a meere slaunder to talke as if we held that she had soueraigne and infallible power to prescribe or define what she pleases You say that the Creed is a sufficient Rule of fayth to which nothing essentiall can be added or may be detracted As if the addition of Materiall obiects added any thing to the Essence of faith which is taken not from the materiall Obiect or the things which we belieue but from the Formall Obiect and Motiue which is the Testimony of Almighty God 5. Though it were granted that the Creed being rightly vnderstood contaynes all fundamentals yet doth it not follow that Protestants agree in them both because they may disagree in the meaning of some of those Articles as also because disagrement in any one point of Fayth though not fundamentall cannot stand with the Vnity and substance of fayth euen in such points as both of them belieue As for the Authour of the Examen pacifique I haue told you already that he is no Catholique 6. You set down your owne opinion about the necessity of good workes which you know is contrary to many of your prime Brethren yet this I will not vrge for the present but only say that you
if you answere me at all I beseech you forget not this demand and whether the obseruation of them be not holy and forasmuch as belongs to that particular obiect a perfect Cbristian fast and meritorious in that sense and degree according to which you grant that other works are meritorious or deseruing a reward For the other part of your obiection that he that eates flesh in Lent is punished with a more grieuous pennance then he that blasphemes c. you shew how modest a man you are and with all that you are little seene either in the Canon or Ciuill Law For the Ciuill Law commaunds that (t) In Authentiea vs non luxurientur homines Nouell 77. Blasphemers should be punished with death because sayth the Law Hunger and earthquakes and plagues come by reason of such crimes In the (u) Cap. Statuimus de matediçiâ—â— Canon Law Blasphemers beside other punishments are to stand as Penitents at the Church doore for the space of some Sundayes and for some fridayes to fast in bread water c. and by other decrees of Popes the same sinne is grieuously punished as in particular the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the 10. commands That none be absolued from Blasphemy without a grieuous penance and to the same purpose Iulius III. and Pius V. haue made very seuere decrees Neuertheles it is also true that greater punishment may in foro externo be appointed for some sinnes which are lesse then other as S. Thomas doth (w) 1.2 q. 105. ar 2. ad 9. and 2.2 q. 39. art 2. ad 1. truly affirme Do not your selues more vsually punish such as without licence eate flesh in Lent then them who take the Name of God in vaine or abuse themselues by drunkennes or wrong their Neighbours by detraction And besides to eate flesh in Lent may be an act of Heresy which how grieuous a sinne it is hath been explicated heertofore 10. By occasion of mentioning the Manichees you charge your Margent as your fashion is with a deep peece of erudition that the name forsooth of their founder Manes is conforme to the Greeke word which signifies Madnes But if we delighted is take hold of such goodly occasions of Vanity we could say that he was a Persian and his name was first Cubricus which he changed into Mames which in the Babylonian Tongue signifies (x) Epiph. haeres 66. a Vessell But let vs leaue these toyes to Grammar Schollers 11. It seemes you are willing of set purpose to mistake the point in question which was whether the Creed containe all fundamentall points of fayth or no about which Charity Mistaken hauing instanced in some points of fayth not contained in the Creed as the Scriptures and Sacraments he adds these words Besides that there are (y) Pag. 86.87 some great differences betweene them meaning Protestants and vs about the vnderstanding of the Article of the descent of Christ our Lord into hell and that other of the Holy Catholique Church and that also of the Communion of Saints which we belieue and they deny to inuolue both Prayers for the dead and Prayers to Saints as that we should not be much better either for our knowing or confessing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of Fayth vnles withall there were some certaine way how to vnderstand them aright and especially vnles vnder the Article which concernes the holy Catholique Church they would vnderstand it to be endued with so perfect infallibility and great Authority as that it might teach vs all the rest This solid discourse you mangle as you please still forgetting the promise you made in your Preface to the Reader not to omit any one thing of moment For you answere not a word to his particular instances of Prayer for the dead or to Saints nor to his generall exception that we should not be much better for knowing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth vnles withall there were some way of vnderstanding them aright If you answere that Prayers for the dead or to Saints are not Fundamentall points whether they be denied or affirmed then you must grant that you forsooke the Church of Rome for things indifferent and not fundamentall one way or other For these two points and such as these were the pretended errours wherewith you seeke to cloake your Schisme To the other you answere The Church of England (z) Pag. 240. questioneth not the sense of those Articles She takes them in the old Catholique sense and the words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Why do you answere to these two points of the Catholique Church and our Sauiours descent into Hell rather then to the other which Charity-Mistaken doth mention And in these two of which you take notice why doe you vse so much tergiuersation Why doe you not plainely and honestly acquaint vs with the meaning of them If you say that by the Catholique Church is vnderstood a Church alwaies visible not capable of errour in fundamentall points many of your chiefe Brethren will contradict that which you iudge to be plaine and your Church of England speakes so generally Art 19. of the Church that as it is affirmed in the Preface men of all sorts may take that Article to be for them And as for the other Article of our Sauiours descent if it beso plaine as it beares the sense before it how comes Caluin to vnderstand it one way Brentius another Beza another and other Protestants in another differently from Catholiques with whome neuertheles some other Protestants agree who teach a Lymbus Patrum as Lascitius Oecolampadius Zwinglius Peter Martyr Bullinger and (a) Vide Brereley tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder M. num 26. Bilson and we may adde D. Pottâ—er as one different from all the rest who sayth the sense is plaine and yet he keeps it to himselfe 12. But the Roman Doctours (b) Pag. 2â—â— cannot agree among themselues about this Article Is there any Catholique that denies Lymbus Patrum or that Christ descended to Hell as it signifies Lymbus Yes because say you (c) Contr. 3 q. 5. art 1. Stapleton affirmes the Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell that there is a Catholique an Apostolique Church Bellarmine (d) 4. Dâ— Christo. cap. 6. 12. on the coÌ„trary is resolute that the Article of the descent is euery where in Scripture and Thomas grants (e) 2.2 q. 2. art 9. ad 1. as much for the whole Creed What is all this to the purpose It is one thing to disagree in the doctrine of Chists descent another whether that doctrine which they belieue be proued out of Scripture or deliuered by the Church out of Vnwritten Traditions Among ProtestaÌ„ts who hold Scripture only to be the Rule of faith it is all one not to be contained in Scripture not to be a point of faith but not so with Catholiques who besides Scripture
Potters Answere though yet so as that euen in this first Part I omit not to answere such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points wherof I treat in the second Part I answere D. Potters Treatise Section by Section as they lie in order I heer therefore intreate the Reader that if hartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question he do not content himselfe with that which I say to Doctour Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him eyther all or at least so much as may serue most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which presse him most For which purpose I haue caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chiefe reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also diuers other causes of the same effect For there are so seuerall kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man conuince but one kind of them the rest will conceiue themselues to be as truly vnsatisfyed and euen vnspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example some hold a necessity of a perpetuall visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to proue it distinct from ours others that their businesse is dispatched when they haue proued ours to haue beene alwayes visible for then they will conceiue that theirs hath been so and the like may be truly said of very many other particulers Besides it is D. Potters fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he proue the last of that humour to touch in a word many triuiall old obiectioÌ„s which if they be not all answered it will and must serue the turne to make the more ignorant sort of men belieue and brag as if some maine vnanswerable matter had been subtily purposely omitted and euery body knowes that some obiection may be very plausibly made in few words the cleere and solid answere whereof will require more leaues of paper then one And in particuler D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compasse of so few lines and with so great confuseones and fraude that it requires much time paines and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appeare to euery mans eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set downe the very words themselues that are omitted all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to belieue that whereas nothing is more necessary theÌ„ Bookes for answering of Bookes yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of diuers Authors cited by D. Potter meerely vpon necessity though I did very well perceaue by most apparant circumstances that I must probably haue been sure inough to find them plainely misalleadged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much aduantage therein But Truth is Truth and will euer be able to iustify it selfe in the midst of all difficulties which may occurre As for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well domesticall as forraine I willingly and thankefully acknowledge my selfe obliged for diuers of them to the Author of the Booke entituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church who calls himselfe Iohn Brereley whose care exactnes and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Bookes but the Editions also with the place and time of their printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to find what he cites yet suspend your iudgment till you haue read the corrections placed at the end of his booke though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulnes on his behalfe it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print in which prints we haue difficulty inough for many euident reasons which must needs occur to any prudent man 8. And for asmuch as concernes the manner of my Reply I haue procured to do it without all bitternes or gall of inuectiue words both for as much as may import either Protestants in generall or D. Potters person in particuler vnles for example he will call it bitternesse for me to terme a grosse impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I do not know how to expresse the things and yet wherein I can truly affirme that I haue studied how to deliuer them in the most moderate way to the end I might giue as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any vnfit phrase may peraduenture haue escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs professe that D. Potter giues so many and so iust occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will iudge me to haue been rather remisse then moderate But since in the very Title of my Reply I professe to maintaine Charity I conceiue that the excesse will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildnes then if it had appeared in too much zeale And if D. Potter haue a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my selfe as many more personall defects then he can heape vpon me Truth only and sincerity I so much valew and professe as that he shall neuer be able to proue the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me 9. Rules to be obserued if D. Potter intend a Reâ—oynders In the third last place I haue thought fit to expresse my selfe thus If D. Potter or any other resolue to answere my Reply I desire that he will obserue some things which may tend to his owne reputation the sauing of my vnnecessary paines and especially to the greater aduantage of truth I wish then that he would be carefull to consider wherein the point of euery difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoote at Rouers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as coÌ„cernes the question betweene D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to proue that fayth is not resolued into the Authority of the Church as into the formall Obiect and Motiue thereof Or that all points of Fayth are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of
and of infallible Verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remaine the same Question still how it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neyther can there euer be an end of the like multiplyed demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a booke is Scripture and yet vpon this point according to ProtestaÌ„ts all other Controuersies in fayth depend 7. That Scripture cannot assure vs that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whome D. Potter ranketh (a) Pag. 131. among men of great learning and iudgement sayth Of thinges (b) In his first booke of Eccles Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6â— necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proueth by the same argument which we lately vsed saying thas It is not (c) Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it his word For if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giueth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it Neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest vnles besids Scripture there were something which might assure vs c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the (d) l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. alibi Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and iudgment affirmeth and demonstratiuely proueth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article Wherein it is sayd of the Scripture Whatsoeuer is not read therein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be belieued as an Article of the fayth or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation and concerning their beliefe and profession of this Article they are particulerly examined when they be ordayned Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Couell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to vs not by testimony of the priuate spirit which sayth he being priuate and secret is (e) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 pag. 357. vnfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the (f) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument sayth he whereby may be argued and conuinced what bookes be Canonicall and what be not Luther sayth This (g) lib. de capt Babyl tom 2. Wittomb fol. 8â— indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he belieued the Ghospell being moued by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulke teacheth that the Church (h) In his answere to a countefaite Catholique pag. 5. hath iudgment to discerne true writings from counterfaite and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgment she hath not of herselfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you may not be ignorant from what Church you must receiue Scriptures heare your first Patriarch Luther speaking against theÌ„ who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these (i) Epist coÌ„t Anabap. ad dnos Parochos tom 2 Germ. Wittemb men build vpon a weake foundation For by this meanes they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we haue from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture 8. But now in deedes they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The (k) Praefat. in epist. lac inedit Ienensi Epistle of â—ames is contentions swelling dry strawy and vnworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitius teacheth that the second Epistle (l) In Enchirid pag. 63. of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not hauing sufficient Testimony (m) In exa min. Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. of their authority and therefore that nothing in controuersy can be proued out of these (n) Ibid. Bookes The same is taught by diuers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luthers time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleadge why they leaue their Maister and so many of his prime Schollers I know no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as he was bould to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receiued in Gods Church 9. What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easy to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubâ—â— in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Do they only vnderstand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of fayth By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Eusâ—b l. 4. hist. cap. 26. Melito Asianus (p) in Synop. Athanaâ—us and (q) In câ—rm de genuâ—â—â—s Scripturis Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes (r) lib de seruo arbitrâ—o contra Eras tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the booke of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserue to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (s) In latinis Sermonibus conuiuialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. booke is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides vpon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurtfabro editis Francofurti tit de libris veteris noui Test fol. 379. sayth further that the said booke was
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
the Affirmatiue precept of Charity bindeth onely in some particuler cases But I am alwayes bound by a Negatiue precept neuer to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwayes bound to vtter what I know to be true yet I am obliged neuer to speake any one least vntruth agaynst my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmatiue precept commanding vs to be at al times actually belieuing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged neuer to exercise any act against any one truth knowne to be reuealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but euery one is obliged not to belieue the contrary of any one point knowne to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceiued or would deceiue which were to ouer throw the whole certainty of our faith wherin the thing most principall is not the point which we belieue which Deuines cal the Materiall Obiect but the chiefest is the Motiue for which we belieue to wit Almighty God's infallible reuelation or authority which they terme the Formall obiect of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of fayth may be called fundamentall and necessary to saluation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmatiue Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and belieue them explicitely and seuerally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D Potter (a) Pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to proue against his Aduersary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate (b) Charity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter not say one pertinent word in defense of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to saluation with reference to the Negatiue precept of faith is such that we cannot not without grieuous sinne and forfeiture of saluation disbelieue any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by Almighty God And in this sense we auouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reiect some must be damnable and to reiect others equally proposed as God's word might stand with saluation Yea the obligation of the Negatiue precept is far more strict then is that of the Affirmatiue which God freely imposed may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or giue leaue to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth and in this sense sinne damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an Example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for diuers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes diuers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Sauiour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and narure in themselues not fundamentall as vnder what Iudge our Sauiour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neuerthelesse whosoeuer once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error this is the precise point of the present question 3. And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he do but vnderstand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslaue themselues to their Predecessors in Protestantisme as stil to harp on this distinction neuer regard how impertinently and vntruly it was applyed by them at first to make all Protestants seeme to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some belieue some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherein there is no difference betweene points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as reuealed by God it is not agaynst faith to reiect them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither wil it auayle them to their other end that for preseruation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she do not erre in poins fundamentall For if in the meane time she maintaine any one Errour against Gods reuelation be the thing in it selfe neuer so small her Errour is damnable and destructiue of saluation 4. But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth finally ouer throw it yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saued he sayth It is inough to belieue some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue faith whereby they are not denied or contradicted Now our question is in case that diuine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted and therefore euen according to him all such deniall excludes saluation After he speakes more plainely It is true saith he whatsoeuer (d) pag. 212. is reuealed in Scripture or prepounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the diuine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denied or contradicted without Infidelity such as euery Christian is bound with himility and reuerence to belieue whensoeuer the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where (e) pag. 250. the reuealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Gal. 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God whereof he may be conuinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more crearely or directly for vs that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though neuer so small if once it be sufficiently
pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamētall to be belieued by Christians as matters of faith wherin she can haue no certainty yea which alwayes imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also reuealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose herselfe to danger of falshood error and in fact doth alwayes erre in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwayes vncertaine if she in such things may be deceiued 12. Besides if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall which is not such or els erre in keeping and conseruing from corruptions such Scriptures as are already belieued to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphall Scripture as she deliuers there is no fundamentall error against faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of diuine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply diuine reuelation to any point not reuealed or els must yield that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she haue not been deceiued already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall haue no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be obserued that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwayes knowne to be Canonicall haue been afterward receiued for such but neuer any one Booke or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or reiected for Apocryphall A signe that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost neuer to propose as diuine truth any thing not reuealed by God that Omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not reuealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Sauiour Christ neuer hath nor neuer will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the generall promises of our Sauiour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamētall namely that the gates (m) Matt. 16.18 of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Ioan. 16.13 shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to points fundamentall and whatsoeuer general Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their Infallibility they may by D. Potters example be explicated restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be further affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe points fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is diuinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answere to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherin it deliuereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby sayth The Apostle (o) In his Sermōsserm 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speakes very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeauoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamētall because as Nature so God is neither defectiue in (p) pag. 150. necessaries nor lauish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to saluation that so God be not accused as defectiue in necessaries or lauish in superfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall leade you into all truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for euer he sayth Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151.152 directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniuersall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and belieue them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Diuinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye vnrouealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth vs to vnderstand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reueale but all pertayning to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to saluation Marke what he sayth That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles is verified in the vniuersall Church but by all truth is not vnderstood simply all but all appertayning to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to saluation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be vnderstood only of all truth absolutly necessary to saluation consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as diuine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the sayd promise to be verifyed in the Churh And as he limits the aforesayd wordes to points fundamentall so may he restrayne what other text soeuer that can be brought for the vniuersall infallibility of the Apostles or Seriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receiue this answere of his owne from himseife How many truths lye vnreuealed in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be vnderstood of truths absolutely necessary to Saluation Are not these fearefull cōsequences And yet D. Potter will neuer be able to auoyd them till he come to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in al points by her proposed as diuine truths thus it is vniuersally true that she is lead into al truth in regard that our Sauiour neuer permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Booke or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it containe no fundamentall errour yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the
of eternall damnation to be belieued and obeyed in some things wherin confessedly she is endewed with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be afraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are vndoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point lest perhaps that point or points wherin I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to saluation Fourthly that visible Church which can not erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be belieued vnder Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deseruedly cast out of her Communion and holding it as a point necessary to saluation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one point in particuler which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Wheras to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to saluation can not endanger saluation as likewise to remaine in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintaine any damnable error or practise but to be deuided frō her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainely damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grieuous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one vnles I euidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far God's Church can proceed then God's Church herselfe Or to what Doctor can the Children and Schoollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then in cleauing to any particuler Sect or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearefull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue failed euen in fundamentall points and suffered ship wracke of their Saluation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practise as to omit other both ancient and moderne heresies we see that diuers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniuersall Church within Afirica or some other small tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue al the Decrees of that Church which cānot erre fundamentally especially if we add That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Deuines one errour in fayth whether it be for the matter if selfe great or small destroyes fayth as is hewed in Charity Mistaken and cōsequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirme that the lost all fayth and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because at leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21. To all these arguments I add this demōstration D. Potter teacheth that there neyther was (c) pag. 75. nor can be any iust cause to depart frō the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of fayth men not only may but must forsake her in those vnles D. Potter will haue them to belieue one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Seruice administration of Sacraments the like they who perceiue such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Cōmunion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre it followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters owne wordes or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church vnder pretence of Errors which they grant not to be fundamentall And if D. Potter thinke good to answere this argument he must remember his owne doctrine to be that euen the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22. An other argument for the vniuersall infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters owne words If sayth he we (d) pag. 97. did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therfore either he must acknowledge a plaine contradiction in his owne words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23. If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yield your assent to Deeds Hither to I haue produced Arguments drawne as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnes of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controuersies which as we haue proued can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receiue holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concerne Faith and Religion Our Sauiour speaketh cleerely The gates of Hell (e) Matt. 16. shall not preuaile against her And I will aske my (f) Ioan. 14. Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for euer the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of (g) Ioan. 16. truth cometh he shall teach you all truth The Apostle sayth that the Church is the Pillar and ground (h) 1. Tim. cap. 3. of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Euangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministery vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntill we meete all into the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ that now we be not Children wauering and carried about with euery wind of dectrine
Sacraments which belong to practise or manners and yet are not contained in the Decalogue there are many sinnes euen against the Law of nature and light of reason which are not contained in the ten Commandments except only by similitude analogy reduction or some such way For example we find not expressed in the Decalogue either diuers sinnes as Gluttony Drunkennesse Pride Sloth Couetousnes in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greedines or diuers of our chiefe obligations as Obedience to Princes and all Superiours not only Ecclesiasticall but also Ciuill whose Lawes Luther Melancthon Caluin and some other Protestants do dangerously affirme not to oblige in conscience and yet these men thinke they know the ten Commandments as likewise diuers Protestants defend Vsury to be lawfull and the many Treatises of Ciuilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that diuers sinnes against the light of reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten Commandements although when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull they may be reduced to some of the Commandments and yet not so euidently and particularly but that diuers doe it in diuers manners 12. My third Obseruation is That our present question being whether or no the Creed containe so fully all fundamentall points of faith that whosoeuer do not agree in all and euery one of those fundamentall Articles cannot haue the same substance of faith nor hope of Saluation if I can produce one or more points not contained in the Creed in which if two do not agree both of them cannot expect to be saued I shall haue performed as much as I intend and D. Potter must seeke out some other Catalogue for points fundamentall then the Creed Neither is it materiall to the said purpose whether such fundamentall points rest only in knowledge and speculation or beliefe or else be further referred to work and practise For the Habit or Vertue of Fayth which inclineth and enableth vs to belieue both speculatiue and practicall verities is of one and the selfe same nature and essence For example by the same Fayth wherby I speculatiuely belieue there is a God I likewise belieue that he is to be adored serued and loued which belong to practise The reason is because the Formall Obiect or motiue for which I yield assent to those different sorts of materiall obiects is the same in both to wit the reuelation or word of God Where by the way I note that if the Vnity or Distinction and nature of Fayth were to be taken from the diuersity of things reuealed by one Fayth I should belieue speculatiue verities and by another such as tend to practise which I doubt whether D. Potter himselfe will admit 13. Hence it followeth that whosoeuer denieth any one maine practicall reuealed truth is no lesse an Heretique then if he should deny a point resting in beliefe alone So that when D. Potter to auoid our argument that all fundamentall points are not contained in the Creed because in it there is no mention of the Sacramēts which yet are points of so maine importāce that Protestants make the due administratiō of them to be necessary essentiall to constitute a Church answereth that the Sacraments are to be (p) pag. 235. reckoned rather among the Agenda of the Church then the Credenda they are rather diuine rites ceremonies then Doctrines he either grants what we affirme or in effect sayes Of two kinds of reuealed truths which are necessary to be belieued the Creed containes one sort only ergo it containes all kind of reuealed truths necessary to be belieued Our question is not de nomine but re not what be called points of Fayth or of practise but what points indeed be necessarily to be belieued whether they be termed Agenda or Credenda especially the chiefest part of Christian perfection consisting more in Action then in barren Speculation in good workes then bare beliefe in doing then knowing And there are no lesse contentions concerning practicall then speculatiue truths as Sacraments obtayning remission of sinne Inuocation of Saints Prayers for dead Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament many other all which do so much the more import as on them beside right beliefe doth also depend our practise and the ordering of our life Though D. Potter could therfore giue vs as he will neuer be able to do a minute and exact Catalogue of all truths to be belieued that would not make me able inough to know whether or no I haue faith sufficient for saluation till he also did bring in a particular List of all belieued truths which tend to practise declaring which of them be fundamentall which not that so euery man might know whether he be not in some Damnable Errour for some Article of fayth which further might giue influence into Damnable works 14. These Obseruations being premised I come to proue that the Creed doth not containe all points of Fayth necessary to be knowne belieued And to omit that in generall it doth not tell vs what points be fundamentall or not fundamentall which in the way of Protestants is most necessary to be knowne in particular there is no mention of the greatest Euils from which mans calamity proceeded I meane the sinne of the Angels of Auam and of Originall sinne in vs not of the greatest good from which we expect all good to wit the necessity of Grace for all works tending to piety Nay there is no mention of Angels good or bad The meaning of that most generall head Oportet accedentem c. It behooues (q) Heb. 11.6 him that comes to God to belieue that he is and is a remunerator is questioned by the deniall of Merit which makes God a Giuer but not a Rewarder It is not expressed whether the Article of Remission of sinnes be vnderstood by fayth alone or else may admit the efficiency of Sacraments There is no mention of Ecclesiasticall Apostolicall Diuine Traditions one way or other or of holy Scriptures in generall and much lesse of euery booke in particuler nor of the Name Nature Number Effects Matter Forme Minister Intention Necessity of Sacraments and yet the due administration of Sacraments is with Protestants an essentiall Note of the Church There is nothing for Baptisme of Children nor against Rebaptization There is no mention in fauour or against the Sacrifice of the Masse of Power in the Church to institute Rites Holy dayes c. and to inflict Excommunication or other Censures of Priesthood Bishops and the whole Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which are very fundamentall points of S. Peters Primacy which to Caluin seemeth a fundamentall error nor of the possibility or impossibility to keep Gods commandments of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead in any sense And yet D. Potter doth not deny but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretique for denying (r) pag. 35. all sort
the Donatists in whome you exeÌ„plify did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot be cleared from Schisme if you may be their Iudge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraine you haue at one blow strucke off from hope of Saluation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grieuous sinne of Schisme And withall it imports you to consider that you also inuolue your selfe and other moderate Protestants in the selfe same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your owne principles are properly and formally Schismatiques For if you held your selfe obliged vnder paine of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corruptions which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable for you to liue in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse (i) pag. 12â— to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Church And I desire the Reader heer to apply an authority of S. Cyprian ep 76. which he shall find alledged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answere as it might haue relation to the rigid Caluinists 17. For Confutation of those Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had alwayes a being and cannot erre in points fundamentall and yet teach that she may erre in matters of lesse moment wherin if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leaue the Church but only her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internall Fayth and externall Communion nor between Schisme and Heresy This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe who in expresse words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made (k) pa. 151. vnto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended not to euery parcel or particularity of truth but only to points of Faith or fundamentall And afterwards speaking of the Vniuersall Church he sayth It 's comfort (l) pag. 155. inough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemies but she may not hope to triumph ouer all sinne and errour till she be in heauâ—n Out of which words I obserue that according to D. Potter the selfe same Church which is the Vniuersall Church remayning the vniuersall true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it cleerely followeth that it is impossible to leaue the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retaine externall communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talkes in a dreame as if the errors and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her but were separate from her like to Accidents without any Subiect or rather indeed as if they were not Accidents but Hypostases or Persons subsisting by themselues For men cannot be said to liue in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with Persons endued with life and reason and much lesse can men be said to liue in the Communion of Accidents as errors and corruptions are and therfore it is an absurd thing to affirme that Protestants diuided theÌ„selues from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church herselfe seing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more cleere if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and diuided in externall Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph ouer all error and corruption in doctrine and practise but the other was stained with both For to faigne this diuersity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories which are silent of any such matter It is against D. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall which were not true if you will imagine a certaine visible Catholique Church free from error euen in points not fundamentall It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph ouer all error till she be in heauen It euacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique for leauing the CoÌ„munion of all visible Churches seeing vpon this supposition there was a visible Church of Christ free from al corruption which therefore could not be forsaken without iust imputation of Schisme We must therefore truly affirme that since there was but one visible Church of Christ which was truly Catholique and yet was according to Protestants stained with corruption when Luther left the external CoÌ„munion of that corrupted Church he could not remaine in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more then it is possible to keep company with Christopher Potter and not keepe company with the Prouost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Prouost be one and the selfe same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church S. Cyprian v rgeth to conuince that Nouatianus was cut off from the Church in these words The Church is (m) Epist. 16. ad Mag. One which being One cannot be both within and without If she be with Nouatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull ordination Nouatianus is not in the Church I purposely heere speak only of externall CoÌ„munion with the Catholique Church For in this point there is great difference between internall acts of our Vnderstanding and will and of externall deeds Our Vnderstanding and Will are faculties as Philosophers speake abstractiue and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselues they be really conioyned But reall externall deeds do take things in grosse as they find them not separating things which in reality are ioyned together Thus one may consider and loue a sinner as he is a man frieÌ„d benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor loue him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and Will which may respect their obiects vnder some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the selfe same obiects But if one should strike or kill a sinnefull man he will not be excused by alledging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the selfe same person being a man and the sinner the externall act of murder fell iointly vpon the man the sinner And
from damnable Schisme And this is the true manner of Luthers reuolt taken from his owne acknowledgmēts and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselues wherby D. Potters faltring mincing the matter is cleerly discouered and confuted Vpon what motiues our Countrey was diuided from the Roman Church by king Henry the Eight and how the Schisme was continued by Queene Elizabeth I haue no hart to rip vp The world knoweth it was not vpon any zeale of Reformation 30. But you will proue your former euasion by a couple of similitudes If a Monastery (x) pag. 81.80 should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practise ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it in reason be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order Or as in a society of men vniuersally infected with some disease they that should free themselues from the common disease could not be therfore said to separate from the society so neither can the reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme from the Church seing all they did was to reforme themselues 31. I was very glad to find you in a Monastery but sorry when I perceiued that you were inuenting wayes how to forsake your Vocation and to maintaine the lawfulnes of Schisme from the Church and Apostasy from a Religious Order Yet before you make your finall resolutiō heare a word of aduise Put case That a Monastery did confessedly obserue their substantiall vowes and all principall Statutes or Constitutions of the Order though with some neglect of lesser Monasticall Obseruances And that a Reformation were vndertaken not by authority of lawfull Superiours but by some One or very few in comparison of the rest And those few knowne to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention And that the Statutes of the howse were euen by those busy-fellowes confessed to haue been time out of mind vnderstood and practised as now they were And further that the pretended Reformers acknowledged that themselues as soone as they were gone out of their Monastery must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions for which they left their Brethren And which is more that they might fall into more enormous crimes then they did or could do in their Monastery which we suppose to be secured from all substantiall corruptions for the anoyding of which they haue an infallible assistance Put I say together all these my And 's and then come with your If 's if a Monastery should reforme it selfe c. and tell me if you could excuse such Reformers from Schisme Sedition Rebellion Apostasy c What would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge or tumultuous persons in a kingdome Remember now your owne Tenets and then reflect how fit a similitude you haue picked out to proue your selfe a Schismatique You teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall but that for all fundamentall points she is secured from error You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall You and the whole world can witnes that when Luther began he being but only One opposed himselfe to All as well subiects as superiours and that euen then when he himselfe confessed that he had no intention of Reformation You cannot be ignorant but that many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our doctrine and practise and do in seuerall and many Controuersies acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our side Consider I say these points and see whether your similitude do not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from God's visible Church yea and of Apostasy also from their Religious Orders if they were vowed Regulars as Luther and diuers of them were 32. From the Monastery you are fled into an Hospitall of persons vniuersally infected with some disease where you find to be true what I supposed that after your departure from your Brethren you might fall into greater inconueniences and more infectious diseases then those for which you left them But you are also vpon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons in whose behalfe for Charities sake let me set before you these considerations If the disease neyther were nor could be mortall because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life If going thence the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson vnder pretence of bettering his health If he could not hope therby to auoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men If by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue could such a man without sencelenesse be excused by saying that he sought to free himselfe from the common disease but not forsooth to separate from the society Now your selfe cōpare the Church to a man deformed with (y) pag. 155. superfluous fingers and toes but yet who hath not lost any vitall part you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable errour and the world can beare witnes what vnspeakeable mischiefes and calamities ensued Luthers reuolt from the Church Pronounce then concerning thē the same sentence which euen now I haue shewed them to deserue who in the manner aforesayd should separate from persons vniuersally infected with some disease 33. But alas to what passe hath Heresy brought men who terme thēselues Christians yet blush not to compare the beloued Spouse of our Lord the one Doue the purchase of our Sauiours most precious bloud the holy Catholique Church I meane that visible Church of Christ which Luther found spread ouer the whole world to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous singers and toes to a society of men vniuersally infected with some disease And yet all these comparisons much worse are neyther iniurious nor vndeserued if once it be graunted or can be proued that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one point of Fayth although not fundamentall 34. Before I part from these similitudes one thing I must obserue against the euasion of D. Potter that they left not the Church but her Corruptions For as those Reformers of the Monastery or those other who left the company of men vniuersally infected with some disease would deny themselues to be Schismatiques or any way blame-worthy but could not deny but that they left the sayd Communities So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend not to haue left the visible Church which according to them was infected with many diseases but can only pretend that they did not sinne in leauing her And you speake very strangely when you say In a Society of men vniuersally infected with some disease they that should free thēselues from the Common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the Society For if they
errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their difference from the Roman Church is not in fundamentall points Now since among Protestants there is such diuersity of beliefe that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be cōuicted in conscience that one part is in error at least not fundamētall and if D. Potter will speake consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible and what greater diuision or Schisme can there be then when one part must iudge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible and damnable 39. Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther his followers were Schismatiques from the vniuersall visible Church from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth and Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocesse in which they receiued Baptisme from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop vnder whom they liued many of them from the Religious Order in which they were Professed from one another And lastly from a mans selfe as much as is possible because the selfe same Protestant to day is conuicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knowes a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therfore a reconciliation according to D. Potters grounds is both impossible and damnable 40. It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation vnder damnation to forsake the errors maintayned by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confesse the (h) Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnable yet for vs who are conuinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lyes vpon vs euen vnder paine of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41. I answere It is very strang that you iudge vs extremely Vncharitable in saying Protestāts cannot be saued while your selfe auouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serue what Schismatique in the Church what popular seditious braine in a kingdome may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselues from Schisme or Sedition No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easy for them to do euen according to your owne affirmation that we Catholiques want no meanes necessary to saluation Easy to do Nay not to do so to any man in his right wits must seeme impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enioy all meanes necessary to saluation and yet I cannot hope to besaued in that Church or who can conioine in one braine not crack't these assertions After due examination I iudge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I iudge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in iudging that you cannot be saued in the Roman Church by reason of her errors there is no other remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other Iudgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily affoard to such other Protestants as you terme Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors vnles you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true yet you do not iudge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the doctrine of all Deuines there is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therfore although they had in speculation conceiued the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselues not damnable yet with that speculatiue iudgement they might ought to haue entertayned this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to fayth they neyther were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You say that hay stubble (i) Pag. 155. and such vnprofitable stuffe as are Corruptions in points not fundamental layd on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the maine pillars are standing on the foundation And you would thinke him a mad-man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an vnnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christian world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as for others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincētius Lyrinensis deliuered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great (k) Aduers hares c. 27. moment and both most profitable to be learned necessary to be remembred which we ought againe and againe to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctours with the Church and not forsake the fayth of the Church with the Doctours And much lesse should they forsake the fayth of the Church to follow Luther Caluin and such other Nouelists Moreouer though your first Reformers had conceiued their owne opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certaine because your selfe affirme that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of vncertainties we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their vncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne Brethren the Church Pope of Rome did for many ages enioy I wish you would examine the workes of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets downe to free S. Cyprian from Schisme euery syllable of which words conuinceth Luther and his Cōpartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease quietnes haue rectified their conscience about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He 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 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
meanes of holy Tradition we cannot conioyne the present Church doctrine with the Church and doctrine of the Apostles but must inuent some new meanes and arguments sufficient of themselues to find out and proue a true Church and fayth independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition as is truly obserued by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that (l) Praesc 5.21 there is no meanes to proue what the Apostles preached but by the same Churches which they founded 6. Thus then we are to proceed By euidēce of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath alwayes been a neuer interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles tyme belieuing professing and practising such and such doctrines By euident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sanctity Vnity c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles and our Blesseed Sauiour himselfe confirmed their doctrine we are assured that what the sayd neuer interrupted Church proposeth doth deserue to be accepted aknowledged as a diuine truth By euidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrines as diuine truths that is as reuealed and testifyed by Almighty God By this diuine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we belieue and so the last period ground motiue and formall obiect of our Fayth is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity which neyther can deceyue nor be deceiued 7. By this orderly deduction our Faith commeth to be endued with these qualities which we said were requisite thereto namely Certainly Obscurity and Pruderce Certaimy proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded conueied to our vnderstanding by such a meane as is infallible in it selfe and to vs is euidently knowne that it proposeth this point or that and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them which meanes we haue proued to be only the visible Church of Christ Obscurity from the māner in which God speakes to Mankind which ordinarily is such that it doth not manifestly shew the person who speakes nor the truth of the thing spoken Prudence is not wanting because our fayth is accompanied with so many arguments of Credibility that euery wel disposed Vnderstanding may ought to iudge that the doctrines so cōfirmed deserue to be belieued as proceeding from Authority 8. And thus from what hath been said we may easily gather the particular nature or definition of Fayth For it is a voluntary or free infallible obscure assent to some truth because it is testifyed by God is sufficiently propounded to vs for such which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible Church of Christ I say Sufficiently proposed by the Church not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposall of the Church enter into the formall Obiect or motiue of Fayth or whether an error be any heresy formally and precisely because it is against the proposition of the Church as if such proposall were the formall Obiect of fayth which D. Potter to no purpose at all labours so very hard to disproue But I only affirme that when the Church propoūds any Truth as reuealed by God we are assured that it is such indeed so it instantly growes to be a fit Obiect for Christian fayth which onclines and enables vs to belieue whatsoeuer is duely presented as a thing reuealed by Almighty God And in the same manner we are sure that whosoeuer opposeth any doctrine proposed by the Church doth thereby contradict a truth which is testified by God As when any lawfull Superiour notifies his will by the meanes and as it were proposall of some faithfull messenger the subiect of such a Superiour in performing or neglecting what is deliuered by the messenger is said to obey or disobey his owne lawfull Superiour And therfore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church we may and we do most truly say that not to belieue what the Church proposeth is to deny God's holy word or testimony signified to vs by the Church according to that saying of S. Irenaeus We need not goe (m) Lib. 3. cont heres cap. 4. to any other to seeke the truth which we may easily receiue from the Church 9. From this definition of fayth we may also know what Heresy is by taking the contrary termes as Heresy is contrary to Fayth and saying Heresy is a voluntary error against that which God hath reucaled and the Church hath proposed for such Neither doth it import whether the error concerne points in themselues great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall For more being required to an act of Vertue then of Vice if any truth though neuer so small may be belieued by Fayth assoone as we know it to be testified by diuine rouelation much more will it be a formall Heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propoūded as a thing witnessed by God 10. This diuine Fayth is diuided into Actuall and Habituall Actuall fayth or fayth actuated is when we are in act of consideration and beliefe of some mystery of Fayth for example that our Sauiour Christ is true God and Man c. Habituall fayth is that from which we are denominated Faithfull or Belieuers as by actuall fayth they are stiled Belieuing This Habit of fayth is a Quality enabling vs most firmely to belieue Obiects aboue human discourse and it remaineth permanently in our Soule euen when we are sleeping or not thinking of any Mystery of Fayth This is the first among the three Theologicall Vertues For Charity vnites vs to God as he is infinitely Good in himselfe Hope ties vs to him as he is vnspeakably Good to vs. Fayth ioynes vs to him as he is the Supreme immoueable Verity Charity relies on his Goodnes Hope on his Power Fayth on his diuine Wisedome From hence it followeth that Fayth being one of the Vertues which Deuines terme Infused that is which cannot be acquired by human wit or industry but are in their Nature Essence supernaturall it hath this property that it is not destroied by little and little contrarily to the Habits called acquisiti that is gotten by human endeuour which as they are successiuely produced so also are they lost successiuely or by little and little but it must either be conserued entire or wholy destroied And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary it must be totally ouerthrowne and as it were demolished and razed by euery such act Wherfore as Charity or the Loue of God is expelled from our soule by any one act of Hatred or any other mortall sinne against his diuine Maiesty and as Hope is destroied by any one act of voluntary Desperation so Fayth must perish by any one act of Heresy because euery such act is directly and formally opposite therunto I know that some sinnes which as Deuines speake are ex genere suo in in their kind grieuous and mortall may be much lessened and fall to be
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
cannot haue it in act And as Baptisme is necessary for remission of Originall and actuall sinne committed before it so the Sacrament of Confession or Penance is necessary in re or in vote in act or desire for the remission of mortall sinnes cōmitted after Baptisme The Minister of which Sacrament of Penance being necessarily a true Priest true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sinnes by this Sacrament as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose From hence it riseth that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those meanes which are absolutely necessary to saluation As if for example a sinner depart this world without repenting himselfe of all deadly sinnes although he dye suddenly or vnexpectedly fall out of his wits and so commit no new sinne by omission of repentance yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sinnes committed and neuer repented If an Infant dye without Baptisme he cannot be saued not by reason of any actuall sinne committed by him in omitting Baptisme but for Originall sinne not forgiuen by the meanes which God hath ordained to that purpose Which doctrine all or most Protestants will for ought I know grant to be true in the Children of Infidels yea not only Lutherans but also some other Protestants as M. Bilson late of Winchester (f) In his true difference c. part 4 pag. 368. 369. and others hold it to be true euen in the Children of the faithfull And if Protestants in generall disagree from Catholiques in this point it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamentall And the like I say of the Sacrament of Penance which they deny to be necessary to saluation either in act or in desire which error is likewise fundamentall because it concernes as I sayd a thing necessary to saluation And for the same reason if their Priesthood and Ordination be doubtfull as certainly it is they are in danger to want a meanes without which they cannot be saued Neither ought this rigour to seeme strang or vniust For Almighty God hauing of his owne Goodnes without our merit first ordained Man to a supernaturall end of eternall felicity and then after our fall in Adam vouchsafed to reduce vs to the attayning of that End if his blessed Will be pleased to limit the attayning of that End to some meanes which in his infinite Wisedome he thinkes most fit who can say why dost thou so Or who can hope for that End without such meanes Blessed be his diuine Maiesty for vouchsafing to ordaine vs base creatures to so sublime an End by any meanes at all 4 Out of the foresayd difference followeth another that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commaunded it is sufficient for auoydnng sinne that we proceed prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approued by men of vertue learning wisdom Neyther are we alwayes obliged to follow the most strict and seuere or secure part as long as the doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse euidence and certainty cannot be alwayes expected But when we treate not precisely of auoyding sin but moreouer of procuring some thing without which I can not be saued I am obliged by the Law Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow euery probable Opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probability proue false I shall not probably but certainly come short of Saluation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the Vertue of Charity towards my selfe which obligeth euery one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assistance of Gods grace to make the matter sure From this very ground it is that althogh some Deuines be of opiniō that it is not a sinne to vse some Matter or Forme of Sacraments onely probable if we respect precisely the reuerence or respect which is due to Sacraments as they belong to the Morall infused Vertue of Religion yet when they are such Sacraments as the inualidity therof may endanger the saluation of soules all doe with one consent agree that it is a grieuous offence to vse a doubtfull or onely probable Matter or Forme when it is in our power to procure certainty If therefore it may appeare that though it were not certaine that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes Saluation as we haue proued to be very certayne yet at least that is probable with all that there is a way more safe it will follow out of the grounds already layd that they are obliged by the law of Charity to imbrace that safe way 5. Now that Protestants haue reason at least to doubt in what case they stand is deduced frō what we haue sayd and proued about the vniuersall infallibility of the Church and of her being Iudge of Controuersies to whome all Christians ought to submit their Iudgment as euen some Protestants grant and whome to oppose in any one of her definitions is a grieuous sinne As also from what we haue sayd of the Vnity Vniuersality and Visibility of the Church and of Succession of Persons and Doctrine Of the Conditions of Diuine Fayth Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality which are wanting in the fayth of Protestants Of the friuolous distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall the cofutation wherof proueth that Heretiques disagreeing among themselues in any least point cannot haue the same fayth nor be of the same Church Of Schisme of Heresy of the Persons who first reuolted from Rome and of their Motiues of the Nature of Fayth which is destroyed by any least errour it is certaine that some of them must be in errour and want the substance of true fayth and since all pretend the like certainty it is cleere that none of them haue any certainty at all but that they want true fayth which is a meanes most absolutly necessary to Saluation Moreouer as I sayd heertofore since it is granted that euery Errour in fundamentall points is damnable that they cannot tell in particular what points be fundamentall it followes that none of them knowes whether he or his Brethren do not erre dānably it being certayne that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must erre Vpō the same groūd of not being able to assigne what points be fundamentall I say they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamentall or no and consequently whether they agree in the substance of fayth and hope of Saluation I omit to add that you want the Sacrament of Pennance instituted for remission of sinnes or at least you must confesse that you hold it not necessary and yet your owne Brethren
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
that (e) De Enchar lib. 3. çap. 23. Scotus teacheth Transubstantiation to haue been neyther named nor made an Article of fayth before the Councell of Lateran doth not proue it to be a Nouelty but only that Scotus did thinke it was not so expressely declared before that Councell which sayth Bellarmine he affirmed because he had not read the Councell of Rome vnder Gregory the Seauenth nor had obserued the consent of Fathers It is a fond thing to say that euery Truth is a Nouelty which the Church as occasion serueth doth declare more expressely then before And if all Truthes must be declared alike at all tymes vnder payne of being accounted Nouelties what will become of Luthers Reformation wherby he pretended to teach the world so many things which he falsly impiously blasphemed to haue been for solōg time buried in obliuion and ouer-whelmed with corruption 15. You cite Peter Lombard and S. Thomas as if they affirmed Sacrifice in the (f) Pag. 74. Eucharist to be no other but the image or Commemoration of our Sauiours Sacrifice vpon the Crosse But your conscience cannot but tell you that these Authors neuer doubted whether the Masse be a true Sacrifice or no and therefore the Question which they propounded is Whether Christ in the Masse be immolated or (g) S. Thom. 3. p. q. 83 a. 1. in corp killed and according to this sense they answere that he is immolated in figure because the vnbloudy Oblation of the Eucharist is a representation of our Sauiours bloudy Oblation or Immolation on the Crosse And that this is so you might haue seen in S. Thomas in that very place which you (h) Ad 3. cite where he teacheth that in this manner of being killed or immolated in figure Christ might haue been sayd to haue been immolated in the figures of the Old Testament which did prefigure his death and yet you will not acknowledge your selfe so perfectly Zwinglianized that you will from hence inferre that there is no more in the Eucharist then in the empty figures of the Old Law and though you did yet it would not serue your turne for euen diuers of those figures were truly properly Sacrifices and therefore though the Eucharist were but a Commemoration yet it might be a true Sacrifice withall 16. You alledge Lindanus that (i) Panopl lib. 4. part 2. çap. 56. § Hunc igitur in former Ages for 1200. yeares the holy Cup was administred to the Laity But you deceiue your Reader for Lindanus plainely sayth That both kinds were giuen to the Laity almost euery where but yet not euery where Which is sufficient agaynst you who say it is agaynst the institution of Christ not to giue both kinds to the Laity And I shewed before that in the raigne of King Edward the Sixth Communion in one kind was permitted and that Melancthon Luther held it as a thing indifferent 17. That diuine Sacrifice was celebrated for diuers Ages in a known vulgar Tongue you would proue out of (k) In 1. corp çap. 14. Lyra. But what is this to proue our doctrine to be a Nouelty Do we teach that there is any diuine Law eyther forbidding or commanding publique Seruice in a vulgar Tongue And Lyra in that place teacheth that in these tymes it is more conuenient that it be not celebrated in a known language 18. That the Fathers generally condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry and allowed yea exhorted the people with diligence to read the Scriptures You seeke (l) Pag. 74. to proue the former part out of Polydore Virgil and the latter out of Azor but still with your wonted sincerity For how often haue you been told that Polydore (m) De Innent lib. 6. çap. 13. speakes not of the Ancient Fathers of the New Testamēt but of those of the Old naming Moyses Dauid and Ezechias and he proueth at large that in the New Law Images are worthily placed in Churches and worshipped and concludes demanding what man is so dissolute and so brazen faced that wil or can doubt or dreame of the contrary Azor grants that in the (n) Moral Instit. lib. 8. çap. 26. part 1. §. Respōdeo times of S. Chrysostome Lay-men were conuersant in Scripture because then they vnderstood Greeke or Latin in which language the Scriptures were written wheras now the common people for the most part vnderstand not the Latin Tongue but such Lay people as vnderstand Greeke or Latin do with good reason read the Scripture Who would euer imagine that in so short a compasse you could haue corrupted so many Authors 19. What you say in this your Section to excuse your Brethren from Schisme we haue answered in the First Part and haue confuted all your euasions similitudes And whereas you say that (o) Pag. 77. although our errors be not damnable to him who in simplicity of heart belieueth and professeth them yet that he that against fayth and conscience shall goe along with the streame to professe and practise them because they are but little ones his case is dangerous and without repentance desperate I answere that if our errors be not fundamentall how can they be damnable and if they be but litle ones that is not fundamentall or damnable how is it dānable to imbrace them because they are litle ones that is because they are as indeed they are If they were indeed little ones yet by an erroneous cōsciēce were esteemed great ones to such a man they should indeed be damnable but to one that knowes them to be little ones and with such a knowledge or cōscience for some humane respect of it selfe not damnable doth yet imbrace them they are not damnable For still we suppose that he would not imbrace them if his Conscience told him that they were great ones And who can without smiling read these your words It is the (p) Pag. 77. Doctrine of the Romane Schoole that veniall sinnes to him that commits them not of subreption or of a sudden motion but of presumption that the matter is not of moment change their kind and become mortall I pray you what Schoole man teacheth that to commit a veniall sinne knowing it to be such makes it become mortall For in this sense you must alleage this doctrine if it be to your purpose and in this sense it being a false doctrine doth indeed ouerthrow that for which you alledge it and proues that to imbrace errors not fundamentall knowing them to be such cannot be damnable as it is not a mortall sinne to do that which one knowes to be but veniall In the meane time you do not reflect that if your doctrine might passe for true it would be impossible for both Catholiques and Protestants Lutherans and Caluinists to be saued For all these differ at lest in points not fundamentall and so you grant vnawares that which chiefly we intend that of two differing in Religion both cānot
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
but in some sort the word of God that is vttered by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost nay I say that the Heretiques are those who indeed leane on a rotten staffe And then he comes to the words which you cited For we must know that a Proposition of Fayth is concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in Scripture is true God hath reuealed this in Scripture ergo it is true Of the premisses in this Syllogisme the first is most certaine among all the second is most firme or certaine among Catholiques for it relies on the Testimony of the Church Councell or Pope heere you breake off but Bellarmine ads of which we haue in holy Scripture manifest promises that they cannot erre Act. 15. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost to vs And Luke 22. I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth may not faile But amongst Heretiques it doth rely only vpon coniectures or the Iudgement of ones own spirit which for the most part seemeth good and is ill and since the Conclusion followes the weaker part it necessarily followes that the whole fayth of Heretiques is but coniecturall and vncertayne Thus farre Bellarmine And now wherein I pray you consists his contradicting both himselfe and his fellowes Perhaps you meane because heere he teacheth that euery Proposition of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture and therefore contradicts his other doctrine that besids Scripture there are vnwritten Traditions But the vanity of this obiection will by and by appeare among your other corruptions which now I set down First you see Bellarmines speakes not of fayth in generall but only of matters of fayth contayned in Scripture his whole question being about the Interpretation thereof that is Whether we are to rely on the priuate spirit or humane industry of conferring places c. or els vpon the Church And therefore Secondly he sayth not as you cite him in a different letter by way of an vniuersal negation that a Proposition is not de fide or not belonging to fayth vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture c. from whence it would follow that nothing at all could be belieued which is not contained in Scripture but he onely sayth that a Proposition of fayth is cōcluded in this Syllogisme which includes no vniuersall negation but is meant onely of those Propositions of fayth which depend on the interpretation of Scripture which was the subiect of his discourse And therefore I wonder why you should say in generall this reason supposes that matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture For to teach that some matters of faith are in Scripture doth not suppose that all matters of fayth must be contayned in Scripture and yet all the contradiction that heere you find in Bellarmine must be this Such Propositions of fayth as are contayned in Scripture are concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture c. Ergo all Propositions of fayth must be concluded in this Syllogisme Ergo there are no vnwritten Traditions A goodly contradiction Thirdly where did Bellarmine euer teach that the Proposall of the Church can make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth as you speake The Church doth not make Verities to be matter of fayth but only declares them to be such Fourthly you leaue out the words which cleerly explicate in what sense the Testimony of the Church may be sayd to be humane or diuine by which your Argument to proue that the declaration of the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of fayth had been answered and your fallacy discouered Fifihly Bellarmine neuer affirmed as you say he did that the strength and truth of the Minor in the sayd Syllogisme depends on the Testimony of the Church but only that it is most certaine among Catholiques by the Testimony of the Church because as I haue often said the Church cannot make any one Article to be true but only by her declaration can make it certaine to all Catholiques as Bellarmine said Sixtly you leaue out Bellarmines words wherby he proues the infallibility of Church and Pope out of Scripture and accordingly in the Scauenth place that which he expresly sayth of the vncertaine coniecturall ground of Heretiques which can produce only a coniecturall and vncertaine Fayth because the Conclusion followes the weaker part you make him apply to the Testimony of the Church as if it were vncertaine which contrarily in the words by you omitted he proues to be most certaine infallible and therfore the Conclusion which relies vpon a Proposition deliuered by her is not subiect to error Eighthly you returne to the slaunder that if Bellarmines doctrine be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church as if Bellarmine had taught that the truth of Scripture and of all Christian Religion depends on the attestation of the Church which could not in you proceed from ignorance but from a purpose to deceiue your Reader For Bellarmine in that very place which you cite declares himselfe so fully and cleerly that you cannot be excused from wilfull slaunder I will put downe the place at large that heerafter you and your Brethren may either cease to make the same Obiection or els endeauour to confute the Cardinalls answere Bellarmine then makes this obiection against himselfe If the Pope iudge of Scriptures it followes that the Pope or Councell is aboue the Scripture and if the meaning of Scripture without the Pope or Councell be not authenticall it followes that the word of God takes his force and strength from the word of men And then he giues this Answere I answere that this Argument of which Heretiques make greatest account consists in a meere Equiuocation For it may be vnderstood two manner of wayes that the Church doth iudge of Scriptures the one That she should iudge whether that which the Scripture teaches be true or false The other That putting for a most certaine ground that the words of Scripture are most true she should iudge what is the true interpretation of them Now if the Church did iudge according to the former way she should indeed be aboue the Scripture but this we do not say though we be calumniated by the Heretiques as if we did who euery where cry out that we put the Scripture vnder the Popes Feet But that the Church or Pope doth iudge of Scriptures in the latter sense which we affirme is not to say that the Church is aboue Scripture but aboue the sudgment of priuate persons For the Church doth not iudge of the Truth of Scripture but of the vnderstanding of thee and mee and others Neither doth the word of God receiue strength therby but only my vnderstanding receiues it For the Scripture is not more true or certaine because it is so expounded by the Church but my Opinion
it is said That water and in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost are essentiall parts of Baptisme and this you haue gained by your obiections And finally if your doctrine be true that intention in the Minister is not necessary the Pope cannot according to your doctrine want Baptisme for want of due intention in the Minister You proceed 32. No Papist (x) pag. 180. in Europe excepting only those few that stand by and heare his Holynes when he giues out his Oracles can be infallibly sure what it is which he hath defined A goodly Obiection As if there were no meanes to know what one sayth vnles he heare him speake For ought I know you neither haue seene the Pope nor Rome will you therfore thinke you are not sure that there is a Pope and Rome Haue you all this while spoken against a thing in the aire while you impugned the Pope Can no body know what the Apostles spake or wrote except them who were present at their preaching or writing Or can no body be sure that the Bible is truly printed vnles he himselfe correct the Print I grant that you who deny the certainty of Traditions haue cause to belieue nothing beside what you see or heare But we acknowledge Traditions and so must you vnles you will question both the preaching and writing of the Apostles And beside hearing or seeing there are other meaning as History Letters true Relations of many and the like And thus we haue answered all your obiections against the fallibility of the Church Councels and Pope without descending to particular Controuersies which are disputed off among Catholiques without breach of fayth or Vnity But heere I must put you in mind that you haue left out many things in the sixt Chapter of Charity Mistaken against your promise notwithstanding that to answere it alone you haue imployed your third fourth and fifth Section You haue omitted pag. 44 what it is that maketh men to be of the same Religiō pag. 46. diuers differences betwixt you vs as about the Canon of Scripture fiue Sacraments necessity of Baptisme and reall presence vnwritten Traditions Primacy of S. Peter Iudge of Controuersies Prayer to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory and so that we are on both sides resolued to persist in these differēces c. Why did you not say one word to all these particulars Why did you not answere to his example of the Quartadecimani who were ranked for Heretiques although their error was not Fundamentall in your acception as also to his example of rebaptizing Heretiques for which the Donatists were accounted Heretiques although the errour be not of it selfe fundamentall The same I say of his Example drawne from the Nouatian Heretiques And of his reason that if disobedience to the Church were not the rule wherby heresies schismes must be knowne it were impossible to conclude what were an Heresy or Schisme As also to his Assertion proued out of S. Thomas that error against any one reuealed truth destroyeth all fayth c. But necessity hath no law you were forced to dissemble what you knew not how to answere CHAP. VI. THIS Section is chiefly emploied in relating some debates betweene Catholiques and is soone answered by distinguishing betweene a potentiall and actuall Vnity that is we deny not but that Controuersies may arise amongst Catholique Doctours as well for matters concerning practise as speculation But still we haue a Iudge to whose known determinations we hold our selues obliged to submit our vnderstanding and will whereas your debates must of necessity be endles because you acknowledge no subiectiō to any visible liuing Iudge whome you hold to be infallible in his determinations All the instances which you alledge agaynst vs proue this and no more For some of them concerne points not expresly defined by the Church Others touch vpon matters of fact and as it were suites of Law in the Catholique Clergy of England wherein you ought rather to be edifyed then to obiect thē as any way preiudicial to the Vnity of faith because Pope Clement the 8. in his tyme and our holy Father Vrban the VIII could and did by their decrees end those Controuersies forbid writing Bookes on all sides 2. I wonder you will like some of the country Ministers tell vs that we haue enlarged the Creed of Christians one moyty And to proue it you cite the Bull of Pius Quintus which is properly no Creed but a Profession of our faith And if this be to enlarge the Creed your Church in her 39. Articles hath enlarged the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed more then one moyty thrice told For the Church makes no new Articles of fayth as you must likewise say in defence of your Church-Articles Was the Creed of Nice or of S. Athanasius c. new Creeds because they explicate old truths by a new word of Homousion or Consubstantiall It is pretty that you bring Pappus and Flaccus flat Heretiques to proue our many Contradictions Your comparing the Decrees of the Sacred Councell of Trent which you say that both the Dominicans and Iesuites pretend to fauour their contrary opinions to the Deuill in the old oracles is by your leaue wicked which you might vpon the same pretense as blasphemously apply to the holy Scriptures which all Heretiques though neuer so contrary in themselues do alledge as fauouring them Which is a sufficient Argument to shew against Protestants that no writing though neuer so perfect can be a sufficient Iudge to decide Controuersies And you were ill aduised to make this obiection against the Councell of Trent since in his Maiesties Declaration before the 39. Articles printed 1631. it is said We take comfort in this that euen in those curious points in which the present differences lye men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them And it is worthy the obseruation that the difference betwixt the Dominicans and Iesuits who as you say do both pretend to haue the Councell of Trent on their sides is concerning a Question which you conceiue to be the same with that which is disputed among Protestants and in which Protestants of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them Your demand why the Pope determines not that Controuersy betwixt the Dominicans and Iesuits might as well be made against the whole Ancient Church which did not determine all Controuersies at once nor on a sudden but after long and mature deliberation sooner or latter as occasion did require In the meane time the Pope hath commanded that neither part censure the other and his Command is most religiously obserued by them with a readines to submit their Iudgment when the holy Ghost shall inspire him to decree it one way or other And who assured you that the point wherin these learned men differ is a reuealed truth or capable of definition or is
is cleere by his other ensuing words in the same place We ought not then to approue by our consent all things which we reade in the Scriptures to haue been done by men euen adorned with praises by the testimony of God himselfe but to mingle our consideration with discretion bringing discretion with vs not grounded vpon our owne Authority but vpon the Authority of the holy and diuine Scriptures which permit not vs to praise or imitate all the actions euen of those of whom the Scripture giues good and glorious Testimony if they haue done any thing that hath not been well done or that agreeth not with the consent of the present time In which words we see S. Augustine calls the Bookes of the Machabees Scriptures euen as afterward he cals Canonicall Bookes in generall Diuine and holy Scriptures and that the Sobriety of Circumspection which he aduiseth to be obserued in reading them is not how far they be true or false but whether the example of Razias recounted by them is to be imitated more or lesse What you alledge out of S. Gregory (o) Moral lib. 19. ç. 17. is easily answered For he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and diuine Scriptures but because they were not in the Canon of the Iewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his Commentaries vpon Iob For he was at that time the Popes Nuncius or Legate at Constantinople and the Greeke Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receiued in Africa as Canonicall by the decree of the African Councell And therfore you were ill aduised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M. or Magnus the Great wheras he was not Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those Commentaries vpon Iob. 19. You cite S. Hierome praefat in lib. Salom. The Church reades the Bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but she doth not receiue them among Canonicall writings But S. Hieromes words are these As the Church reades Tobias Iudith and the Machabees but receiues them not among the Canonicall Bookes so may she read Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people but not for the confirmation of Ecclesiasticall doctrines Thus S. Hierome And you had reason to cite his words by halues For he afterward retracted what he said of the Bookes of Iudith and Tobias with which the Machabees are yet ioyned in the words cited by you saying in his Preface vpon the History of Iudith The Booke of Iudith is read by the Hebrewes among the Hagiographs whose authority is esteemed lesse sufficient to decide Controuersies but for as much as the Councell of Nice hath reckoned it among the holy Scriptures I haue obeyed your request Where you see that S. Hierome affirmes that the most ancient and graue Councell of Nice receiued the Booke of Iudith in that sense in which the Iewes did not receiue it consequently as a Booke esteemed sufficient to decide Controuersies which the Iewes denied And in another place the same Father sayth Ruth Hester and Iudith haue beene (q) Ep. 140. so glorious as they haue giuen their names into the sacred Volumes Where you see that S. Hierome placeth Iudith with Ruth and Hester the former wherof you admit for Canonicall and part of the latter In his Preface vpon the Booke of Tobias he sayth The Hebrewes (r) Ep. 100. cut off the Booke of Tobias from the Catalogue of the diuine Scriptures And againe The iealousy of the Iewes doth accuse vs that against their Canon we translate the Booke of Tobias into Latin but I iudge it better to displease the iudgment of the Pharisees and to obey the Commandment of the Bishops And elsewhere he placeth (t) In Jsa c. 23. the Machabees among Canonicall Bookes saying The Scripture reports that Alexander king of the Macedonians came out of the land of Cethim And wonder not if S. Hierome spake not alwayes in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his Opinion as once he said of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that it (u) Ad Panlinum was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elsewhere he receiues it (w) Ep. ad Dardanum as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Hierome concerning his reiecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words Wheras I haue reported (x) Ad◠Russ Apolog 2. what the Hebrewes vsed to obiect against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bell which are in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Iewes were wont to say against vs. And he cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explayning himselfe in this manner is acknowledged by (y) Answer to Burges pag. 87. Couell and (z) Conference before his Maiesty Bankeroft How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article sayth in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apochryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as Hierome sayth the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome euen according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Iewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord so your whole Canon of the old Testament relies vpon the Authority of the Iewes And finally D. Potter while he grants that Catholiques and Protestants disagree about the very Canon of Scripture forgets to answere what Charity-Mistaken pag. 43. 46. doth thence inferre to wit that they cannot be accounted of one and the same Religion Fayth and Church 20. The Chymericall Church of your (b) Pag. 234. Maister D. Vsher consisting of men agreeing only in fundamentall points is indeed a Chymera or non Ens. For it is impossible that there can be a visible Church which professing fundamentall points doth not in other points eyther agree with vs or you or els disagrees from vs both For eyther they must hold for example the Reall Presence Transubstantiati Prayer for the dead and to Saints Worship of Images Supremacy
Booke in two or three sheetes of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirme plainely that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saued and yet seeing it to be most euident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for saluation if they deny it to vs he thought best to auoid this difficulty by confusion of language to fill vp his Booke with points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must graunt that those very particulers to which he digresseth are not fundamentall errors though it should be granted that they be errors which indeed are Catholique verities For since they be not fundamentall nor destructiue of saluation what imports it whether we hold them or no for as much as concernes our possibility to be saued 3. In one thing only he will perhaps seeme to haue touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall because some may thinke that a difference in points which are not fundamentall breakes not the Vnity of Faith and hinders not the hope of saluation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he neuer speakes to the purpose indeed but only sayes that there are some points so fundamentall as that all are obliged to know and belieue them explicitely but neuer tells vs whether there be any other points of faith which a man may deny or disbelieue though they be sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as truths reuealed or testified by almighty God which was the only thing in questioÌ„ For if it be daÌ„nable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieue any one truth witnessed by almighty God thogh the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment since of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it cleerly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one onely can be saued though their difference consist of diuers or but euen one point which is not in his owne nature fundamentall as I declare at large in diuers places of my first Part. So that it is cleere D. Potter euen in this his last refuge and distinction neuer comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himselfe doth quite ouerthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4. And as for D. Potters manner of handling those very points which are vtterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar meane obiections which haue been answered a thousand tymes yea and some of them are cleerely answered euen in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers and much lesse doth he apply himselfe to confute them He alledgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraude as I would not haue belieued if I had not found it by cleere and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two grosse corruptions amongst many others no lesse notorious hauing as it seemes been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but euen in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his Reader of the first Edition shall euer be deceiued by him thogh withall he reade the Second For preuenting of which inconuenience I haue thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discouer them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well haue spared his paines if he had ingenuously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words phrases of his booke may be found in farre briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Vshers preached before our late soueraigne Lord King Iames the 20. of Iune 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Vniuersality of the Church of Christ and the Vnity of Fayth professed therein which Sermon hauing been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholike Diuine vnder the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compasse of about 4. sheetes of Paper D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a generall Censure of his Answere to Charity Mistaken 6. For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulke thereof compared eyther with Charity Mistaken or D. Potters Answer Concerning my Reply I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say and then I hope you will see that I was cast vpon a meere necessity of not being so short as otherwise might peraduenture be desired Charity Mistaken is short I grant and yet very full and large for as much as concerned his designe which you see was not to treate of particuler Controuersies in Religion no not so much as to debate whether or no the Roman Church be the onely true Church of Christ which indeed would haue required a larger Volume as I haue vnderstood there was one then coming forth if it had not been preuented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken which seemed to make the other inteÌ„ded worke a little lesse seasonable at that tyme. But Charity Mistaken proues onely in Generall out of some Vniuersall Principles well backed and made good by choyce and solide authorities â—hat of two disagreeing in points of Fayth one â—nely without repentance can be saued which ayme exacted no great bulke And as for D. Potters Answere euen that also is not so short as it may seeme For if his marginall notes printed in a small letter were transfered into the Text the Booke would appeare to be of some bulke though indeed it might haue been very short if he had kept himself to the point treated by Charity Mistaken as shall be declared anon But contrarily because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken D. Potter is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined in regard that there is not a more pernicious Heresy or rather indeed ground of Atheisme then a persuasion that men of different Religions may be saued if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of ciuill and morall life I conceaued that my chiefe endeauour was not to be employed in answering D. Potter but that it was necessary to handle the Question it selfe somewhat at large and not only to proue in generall that both Protestants and Catholikes cannot be saued but to shew also that Saluation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church and yet withall not to omit to answere all the particules of D Potters Booke which may any way import To this end I thought it fit to deuide my Reply into two Parts in the former whereof the maine question is handled by a continued discourse without steâ—â—ping aside to confute the particulers of D.
the House of God in talking of an Idoll (c) Pag. 4. Edit 1. to be worshiped at Rome he comes at length to thunder out this fearefull sentence against her For that (d) Pag. 20 Masse of Errors saith he in iudgment and practise which is proper to her and wherein she differs from vs we iudge a reconciliation impossible and to vs who are conuicted in conscience of her corruptions damnable And in another place he saith For vs who (e) Pag. 81. are conuinced in conscience that she ers in many things a necessity lyes vpon vs euen vnder paine of damnation to forsake her in those Errors By the acerbity of which Censure he doth not only make himselfe guilty of that which he iudgeth to be a haynous offence in others but freeth vs also from all colour of crime by this his vnaduised recrimination For if Roman Catholikes be likewise conuicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants they may and must in conformity to the Doctours owne rule iudge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable And thus all the Want of Charity so deeply charged on vs dissolues it selfe into this poore wonder Roman Catholiques belieue in their conscience that the Religion which they professe is true and the contrary false 2. Neuerthelesse we earnestly desire and take care that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation Far be it from vs by way of insultation to apply it against Protestants otherwise then as they are comprehended vnder the generality of those who are diuided from the only one true Church of Christ our Lord within the Communion whereof he hath confined saluation Neither do we vnderstand why our most deere Country men should be offended if the Vniuersality be particularized vnder the Name of Protestants first giuen (g) Sleïdan l. 6. fol. 84. to certaine Lutherans who protesting that they would stand out against the Imperiall decrees in defence of the Confession exhibited at Ausburge were termed Protestants in reguard of such their protesting which Confessio Augustana disclayming from and being disclaymed by Caluinists and Zuinglians our naming or exemplifying a generall doctrine vnder the particuler name of Protestantisme ought not in any particuler manner to be odious in England 3. Moreouer our meaning is not as misinformed persons may conceiue that we giue Protestants ouer to reprobation that we offer no prayers in hope of their saluation that we hold their case desperate God forbid We hope we pray for their Conuersion and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires Neither is our Censure immediatly directed to particuler persons The Tribunall of particuler Iudgment is Gods alone When any man esteemed a Protestant leaueth to liue in this world we do not instantly with precipitation auouch that he is lodged in Hell For we are not alwayes acquainted with what sufficiency or meanes he was furnished for instruction we do not penetrate his capacity to vnderstand his Catechist we haue no reuelation what light might haue cleered his errours or Contrition retracted his sinnes in the last moment before his death In such particuler cases we wish more apparent signes of saluation but do not giue any dogmaticall sentence of perdition How grieuous sinnes Disobedience Schisme and Heresy are is well knowne But to discerne how far the naturall malignity of those great offences might be checked by Ignorāce or by some such lessening circumstance is the office rather of Prudence then of Faith 4. Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares vs for whom in the words aboue mentioned and else where he (h) See Pag. 39. makes Ignorāce the best hope of saluation Much lesse comfort can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chiefe Protestants who teach that for many ages before Luther Christ had no visible Church vpon earth Not these men alone or such as they but euen the 39. Articles to which the English Protestant Clergy subscribes censure our beliefe so deeply that Ignorance can scarce or rather not at all excuse vs from damnation Our doctrine of Transubstantiation is affirmed to be repugnant to the plaine words of (i) Art 28. Scripture our Masses to be blasphemous (k) Art 31. Fables with much more to be seen in the Articles themselues In a certaine Confession of the Christian faith at the end of their bookes of Psalmes collected into Meeter and printed Cum priuilegio Regis Regali they call vs Idolaters and limmes of Antichrist and hauing set downe a Catalogue of our doctrines they conclude that for thē we shall after the General Resurrection be damned to vnquenchable fire 5. But yet lest any man should flatter himselfe with our charitable Mitigations and therby waxe careles in search of the true Church we desire him to reade the Conclusion of the Second Part where this matter is more explayned 6. And because we cannot determine what Iudgmēt may be esteemed rash or prudent except by weighing the reasons vpon which it is grounded we will heere vnder one aspect present a Summary of those Principles from which we infer that Protestancy in it selfe vnrepented destroyes Saluation intending afterward to proue the truth of euery one of the grounds till by a concatenation of sequels we fall vpon the Conclusion for which we are charged with Want of Charity 7. Now this is our gradation of reasons Almighty God hauing ordained Mankind to a supernaturall End of eternall felicity hath in his holy Prouidence setled competent and conuenient Meanes whereby that end may be attained The vniuersall grand Origen of all such meanes is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Sauiour whereby he merited internall grace for vs and founded an externall visible Church prouided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for Saluation From hence it followeth that in this Church amongst other aduantages there must be some effectuall meanes to beget and conserue fayth to maintaine Vnity to discouer and condemne Heresies to appease and reduce Schismes and to determine all Controuersies in Religion For without such meanes the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to saluation not God affoard sufficient meanes to attayne that End to which himselfe ordained Mankind This meanes to decide Controuersies in fayth and Religion whether it should be the holy Scripture or whatsoeuer else must be indued with an Vniuersall Infallibility in whatsoeuer it propoundeth for a diuine truth that is as reuealed spoken or testifyed by Almighty God whether the matter of its nature be great or small For if it were subiect to errour in any one thing we could not in any other yield it infallible assent because we might with good reason doubt whether it chanced not to erre in that particuler 8. Thus farre all must agree to what we haue said vnlesse they haue a mind to reduce Faith to Opinion And euen out of these grounds alone without further proceeding it vndenyably followes that of two men dissenting in
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
his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique fayth grants Saluation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptisme ioyne CircuÌ„cision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113.114 cites the doctrine of some whome he termeth men of great learning and iudgement that all who professe to loue and honour IESVS-CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and iudgment is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose loue honour to Iesus-Christ you may perceyue by his saying that the Churches of Arians who denyed our Sauiour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell Morton in his Treatise of the King dome of Israel pag. 94. which is Fayth in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to belieue one only God For D. Potter (r) pag. 121. among the arguments to proue Hookers Mortons opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their grosse corruptions and Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be meÌ„bers of the true Church For a learned man sayth D. Potter (s) pag. 122. in behalfe of Hookers and Mortons opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last ResurrectioÌ„ of our bodies Deere Sautour What tymes doe we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of Persons the God head of our Sauiour the necessity of Baptisme if we may vse Circumcision and with the worship of God ioyne Idolatry wherin doe we differ from Turks and Iewes or rather are we not worse then eyther of them If they who deny our Sauiours diuinity might be accounted the Church of God how will they deny that fauour to those ancient Heretiques who denyed our Sauiours true humanity and so the totall deny all of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Huary (t) CommeÌ„t in Matt. c. 16. maketh it of equall necessity for Saluation that we belieue our Sauiour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Saluation And yet D. Potter sayth of the aforesayd doctrine of Hooker and Morton The (u) pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approue or reiect it as he shall find cause And in another place (w) pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proueth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his booke he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoeuer this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particuler the Authour whome D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholike but is indeed a plaine Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian-like resting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall errors But (x) A moderate examination c. ç. 1. paulo post initiuâ—â— contrarily an English Protestant Deuine masked vnder the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Booke in Latin entituled Dissertatio de pace concordiae Ecclesiae endeauoureth to proue that euen the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with saluation Diuers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error in the matter (y) pag. 126 and nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatus And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall error that themselues goe further and say that for diuers ages before Luther there was no true visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you haue any such meanes why do you not agree You tell vs the Creed containes all points fundamentall which although it were true yet you see it serues not to bring you to a particuler knowledge and agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the beginning of this Chapter am to deliuer more at large in the next after so much labour and paperspent to proue that the Creed coÌ„taynes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines (a) pag. 241. very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundament all truths wherof consists the Vnity of fayth and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remaine very probable and so all remaine as full of vncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the fol Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliuer diuine Truths but feldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to saluation You fall (b) pag. 215 heauy vpon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particuler Catalogue of fundamental points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue fayth sufficient to Saluation And therefore take it not in ill part if we agayne and agayne demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you do heer deliuer a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by vs taught to be necessary to Saluation in these wordes We are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue whatsoeuer the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as renealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But inough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20. For euen out of your owne doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to saluation any wise man will infer that it behooues all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proued not to be true in some point yet euen according to D. Potter the error cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of fayth and saluation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniuersall Church Secondly since she is vnder paine
backe nothing with your glosse needfull for our saluatiō is no proofe vnlesse you still beg the question and doe suppose that whatsoeuer the Apostles reuealed to the Church is contayned in the Creed And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Gouernours of the Church as is cleere by the other wordes He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selues and to the whole flocke wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your selfe say that more knowledge is (e) pag. 244 necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the gouernment of the Church and the care of soules then in vulgar Laickes Do you thinke that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Cōmandments Duties of Hope Charity c 25. Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other obiection To say the whole fayth of those times (f) pag. 222.223 is not contained in the Apoles Creed is all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the fayth of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commōly call their Creed Did not I pray you S. Mathew and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture and yet their writinges are not mentioned in the Creed It is therfore more then cleere that the Fayth of the Apostles is of a larger extent then the Apostles Creed 26. To your demaund why amongst many things of equall necessity to be belieued the Apostles should (g) pag. 225. so distinctly set downe some and be altogether silent of others I answere That you must answere your owne demaund For in the Creed there be diuers points in their nature not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly belieued as aboue we shewed why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed rather then other of the same quality Why our Sauiours descent to Hell Buriall expressed and not his Circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all fundamentall points of Fayth tending to practise as well as those which rest in beliefe Their intention was particularly to deliuer such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I haue declared leauing many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all professe to belieue Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might haue giuen no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when (h) pag. 223. we haue not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed containe all points necessary to saluation what need we any Church to teach vs and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Catechisms wherin beside the Articles of the Creed you add diuers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteeme it We grant your inference thus far That our Sauiour Christ referred vs to his Church by her to be taught by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scriptures And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs hath deliuered vs the Creed but not it alone as if nothing els were to be belieued We haue besides it holy Scripture we haue vnwritten diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions It were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be belieued Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach vs by some conuenient meanes Ergo she must teach vs without all meanes without Creeds without Councels without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught vs the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes as in fact we haue euen the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church If you will belieue you haue all in the Creed when you haue not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so belieue but it is your owne error wherby you will needs belieue that the Creed must containe all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one meanes of instruction must inuolue whatsoeuer is contained in all the rest We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion that it must containe what we imagine it ought for better maintayning some opinions of our owne but we ought to say and belieue that it containes what we find in it of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particuler we may learne of her what points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceiued by belieuing we haue all in the Creed when we haue not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might haue giuen vs no Articles at all as haue left out Articles tending to practise For in setting down one sort of articles not the other they make vs belieue we haue all whē we haue not all 27 To our argument that Baptisme is not contayned in the Creed D. Potter besides his answere that Sacraments belong rather to practise then fayth which I haue already confuted and which indeed maketh agaynst himselfe and serueth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue adds that the Creed of (i) pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptisme by name confesse one Baptisme for the remissiō of Sinne Which answere is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of fayth and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neyther explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of fayth be sufficient that it is contayned in in the Nicene Councell he will find that Protestants maintayne many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particuler that the very Councell of Nice which sayth M. Whitgift (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reuerenced esteemed imbraced next vnto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry vnmarryed it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And
beg and yet he himselfe brake into heresy because he had been depriued by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certaine Benefice as all Schismes heresies begin vpon passion which they seeke to couer with the cloake of Reformation Thirdly he condemned lawfull Oaths like the Anabaptists Fourthly he taught that all things came to passe by absolute necessity Fiftly he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did namely as proceeding from naturall forces without the necessary help of God's grace Sixtly that no man is a Ciuill Magistrate while he is in mortall sinne and that the people may at their pleasure correcÌ„t Princes when they offend by which doctrine he proues himselfe both an Heretique and a Traytour 53. As for Husse his chiefest Doctrines were That Lay people must receiue in both kinds and That Ciuill Lords Prelates and Bishops loose all right and authority while they are in mortall sinne For other things he wholy agreed with Catholiques against Protestants and the Bohemians his followers being demaunded in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome propounded only these The necessity of Communion vnder both kinds That all ciuill Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy That Preaching of the word was free for all men and in all places That open Crimes were in nowise to be permitted for auoyding of greater euill By these particulars it is apparant that Husse agreed with Protestants against vs in one only point of both Kinds which according to Luther is a thing indifferent because he teacheth that Christ in this matter (q) In epist ad Bohemos commaunded nothing as necessary And he sayth further If thou come to a place (r) De vtr aâ—â— que specie Sacram. where one only kind is administred vse one kind only as others do Melancthon likewise holds it a thing (s) In Cent. epist. Theol. pag. 225. indifferent and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants All which considered it is cleer that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses Wicclifse and Husse for members of their Church although they could yet that would aduaÌ„tage them litle towards the finding out a perpetuall visible Church of theirs for the reasons aboue (t) Num. 49. specifyed 54. If D. Potter would go so farre off as to fetch the Muscouites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines into his Church they would proue ouer deare bought For they eyther hold the damnable heresy of Eutiches or vse Circumcision or agree with the Greeke or Roman Church And it is most certayne that they haue nothing to do with the doctrine of Protestants 55. It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all ages and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome it followes that she is the true Cath. Church and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsooke her are indeed diuine truths deliuered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ And that Luther and his followers departed from her and consequently are guily of Schisme by diuiding themselues from the Communion of the Roman Church Which is cleerely conuinced out of D. Potter himselfe although the Roman Church were but a particular Church For he sayth Whoseuer professes (u) Pag. 70. himselfe to forsake the Communion of any one meÌ„ber of the body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole Since therefore in the same place he expressely acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and that it is cleere they haue forsaken her it euidently followes that they haue forsaken the whole and therefore are most properly Schismatiques 56. And lastly since the crime of Schisme is so grieuous that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue no multitude of good workes no morall honesty of life no cruell death endured euen for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sinne from damnation I leaue it to be considered whether it be not true Charity to speake as we belieue and to belieue as all Antiquity hath taught vs That whosoeuer eyther beginnes or continues a diuision for the Roman Church which we haue proued to be Christs true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a meÌ„ber of his Triumphant Church in heauen And so I conclude with these words of blessed Saint Augustine It is common (w) Cont. Parm. lib. 2 â—ap 3. to all Heretiques to be vnable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose Vnity whatsoener they worke though they seeme to doe it with great care and diligence can no more auaile them against the wrath of God then the Spiders web agaynst the extremity of cold But now it is high tyme that we treat of the other sort of Diuision from the Church which is by Heresy CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of Protestants haue added Heresy vnto Schisme BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue we cannot well determine what Heresy is nor who be Heretiques but by the opposite vertue of Fayth whose Nature being once vnderstood as farre as belongs to our present purpose we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresy and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques And this Iâ—ntend to do not by entring into such particular Questions as are controuerted betweene Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some generall grounds eyther already proued or els yielded to on all sides 2. Almighty God hauing ordayned Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and Meanes by a supernaturall knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to ouerbeare our Will encounter with human probabilities being backed with the streÌ„gth of flesh and bloud It was further necessary that this supernatural knowledge should be most certaine and infallible and that Fayth should belieue nothing more certainely then that it selfe is a most certaine Beliefe and so be able to beate downe all gay probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesayd Meanes and End of Beatificall Vision do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit the certainty of fayth could not alwayes be ioyned with such euidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh but that he who glories should glory (a) 2. Cor. 10 in our Lord. Moreouer it was expedient that our belife or assent to diuine truths should not only be vnknowne or ineuident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it selfe and ordinarily speaking be void euen of supernaturall euidence that so we might haue occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we owe to our
God not only by submitting our Will to his Will and Commaunds but by subiecting also our Vnderstanding to his Wisdome Words captiuating as the Apostle speakes the same Vnderstanding (b) 2. Cor. 10 â— to the Obedience of Fayth Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made cleere to vs the truths which now are certainely but not euidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it selfe not obedience but necessity coÌ„maunds our assent For this reason Deuines teach that the Obiects of Fayth being not euident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from belieuing by sufpending our Iudgement or exercising no act one way or other but also to disbelieue that is to belieue the contrary of that which Fayth proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnes This obscurity of fayth we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Fayth is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse (d) 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a darke manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter sayth Which you do well attending vnto as to (e) 2 Pet. 1. v. 19. a Candle shining in a darke place 3. Fayth being then obscure wherby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certaine and infallible wherin it surpasseth humane Opinion it must rely vpon some motiue and ground which may be able to giue it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motiue ground or formall Obiect of Fayth were any thing euidently presented to our vnderstanding and if also we did euidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we belieue our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but euident which as we said is against the nature of our Fayth If likewise the motiue or ground of our fayth were obscurely propounded to vs but were not in it selfe infallible it would leaue our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therfore for the ground of our Fayth find out a motiue obscure to vs but most certaine in it selfe that the act of fayth may remaine both obscure and certaine Such a motiue as this can be no other but the diuine Authority of almighty God reuealing or speaking those truths which our fayth belieues For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our fayth and yet not draw it out of Obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can euince that God reuealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had been no lesse perfect then he is although he had neuer reuealed any of those obiects which we now belieue 4. Neuertheles because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnes doth concur with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endured with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle sayth rationabile (f) Kom 12. 1. Obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoued to belieue with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certaine And therfore Almighty God obliging vs vnder paine of eternal damnation to belieue with greatest certainty diuers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot faile to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motiues and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the obiects which we belieue proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceiued and so Good that it cannot deceiue according to the words of Dauid Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Deuines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make vs euidently see what we belieue yet they cuidently conuince that in true wisdome and prudence the obiects of fayth deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed by God For without such reasons inducements our iudgment of fayth could not be conceiued prudent holy Scripture telling vs that he who soone (h) Eccles 19 belieues is light of hart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with euidence of credibility and the obiects of fayth retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to be euidently credible and euidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Sauiour his Apostles did not euidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not beene Fayth but Science and all had been necessitated to belieue which we see fell out otherwise but they were euidently conuinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths reuealed by God 5. These euident Arguments of Credibility are in great aboundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetualy existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we haue from our next Predecessors and these from theirs vpward till we come to the Apostles our Blessed Sauiour which gradiation is known by euidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man deliuers to another And it is euident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in priuate ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction inuented by themselues as ancient Tertullian well sayth How is it likely that so many (i) Prescript â—ap 28. so great Churches should erre in one fayth Among many euents there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs haue varied But that which amongmany is found to be One is not mistaken but delieuered Dare then any body say that they erred who deliuered it With this neuer interrupted existence of the Church are ioyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories ouer so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought vp to the Apostles themselues she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the diuine Certainty which they receiued from our Blessed Sauiour himselfe reuealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receiue it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praesc c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by
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
when our Sauiour bid the Apostles preach to all Nations and yet neuer performed by Protestants by euidence of fact and by the confession of our Aduersaries doth shine most bright in the Church of Rome 4. But I cannot say that you omitted to raile against the Iesuites whom I will not dishonour so much as to defend them against that which you offer so impertinently vulgarly and meanely against them and particularly because in defence of a common cause I will not be diuerted by the consideration of particular persons though by reason of the Eminency of the person of Cardinall Dâ—ossat I cannot for beare to tell you that you falsify him when you make him say in his eight Epistle that he collected from their wicked doctrine and practises that they belieue neither in Iesus Christ nor the Pope For the Cardinall speakes not those words of any doctrine or practises of the Iesuites And in the funerall Oration which was pronounced at the Exequyes of the said Cardinall and is prefixed before the Booke which you alleadge it is affirmed that he of his owne accord and without being dealt with to that purpose did negociate the read mission of the Iesuites into France So far was he from collecting from their doctrine practises that they belieue neither in Iesus Christ nor in the Pope And as for our doctrine which concernes the incompatibility of Protestancy with saluation as proper to the Iesuites it is an idle speach void of all colour of truth For it is so far from being proper to them that it is common to all Roman Catholiques in the world and you shall neuer be able to shew me any one of an entire fame who holds the contrary 5. And wheras you aske Why may not a Protestant be saued since he belieues entirely the Scriptures the Catholique Creeds and whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in all ages hath belieued as necessary to saluation You may take the answere out of my First Part where I haue shewed that he neither keepes the Commaundments nor belieues all things necessary to saluation yea and belieues not any one point with diuine and supernaturall fayth who disobeyes and disagrees from the visible Church of Christ in any one thing propounded by her as a Diuine truth 6. You tell vs that you are no further departed from the present Roman Church then she is departed from herselfe But no wise man will belieue this till you can informe him what visible Church at or before Luthers appearance remained pure out of which the Roman Church had formerly departed or els you must confesse that the whole Church of Christ was corrupted Which because you will neuer be able to doe with truth you must be forced to confesse that she still kept her integrity without any spot of erroneous doctrine and therfore that your departure out of her cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy 7. You say truly That it is meerly impossible (b) Pag. 10. the Catholique Church should want Charity because the good spirit of Truth and Loue euer assists and animates that great Body But you speake not consequently to your owne Assertion that the Catholique Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall For if the good spirit of Truth may faile to assist her fayth why may not the good Spirit of Loue faile to direct her Charity Nay if we obserue it well the Want of Charity which you impute to vs is resolued into this doctrinall point Protestancy vnrepented destroies saluation Which Doctrine and Assertion if you hold to be a fundamentall errour you depriue vs of saluation and become as vncharitable to vs as you say we are to you If it be not a fundamentall point then according to your principles the Church may erre therin and so want Charity by iudging that Protestants cannot be saued 8. What we vnderstand by the Roman Catholique Church I haue explained heertofore to wit all Christians vnited with the Church of Rome as it is the sea of Peter In which sense it is not a part but comprehendeth all the Catholique Church which heertofore I proued out of the Fathers as in some proportion we do not vnderstand the Tribe of Iuoa alone by the Iewish Church though the other Tribes were called by the name of the Iewish People and Church from that principall Tribe of Iuda So that your marginall quotations to proue that the Church of Rome is a particular Church are emplored to proue that which no man denies if we speake of the particular Diocesse of Rome and not as it is the Sea of Peter to which all Christian Catholiques dispersed throughout the whole world are vnited Which Sea of Peter setled in Rome being the Roote the Center the Fountaine the Idaea of all Ecclesiasticall Vnion in all Christian Churches giueth them the denomination of Roman Catholiques which doth no more limit the whole Catholique Church then the name of Iewish Church did limit the whole Sinagogue to the Tribe of Iuda alone And therfore your thred-bare Obiection that Catholique Roman (c) Pag. 11. are termes repugnant signifying vniuersall particular vanisheth vtterly away by this different acception of the Roman Church and serues only to conuince by your owne obiection that D. Potter or the Church of England cannot stile themselues Catholique because Catholique signifieth Vniuersall and D. Potter and the Church of England are things particular And I would gladly know what your Brethren meane when they affirme the Roman Church for diuers Ages to haue possessed the whole world Do they thinke that the particular Diocesse of Rome was lifted ouer the Alpes Or when your Prelates demaund whether we be Roman Catholiques do they demaund whether we dwell in the Citty or Diocesse of Rome And heer I note in a word what now cometh to my mind that I wonder D. Andrewes a man so highly esteemed among Protestants would tell vs that the Roman Church is indiuiduum (d) In Rest. ad Apolog. Card. Bollar ad ca. 5. as the Logicians call it and that Catholique is Genus or a generall kind For to omit that the thing it selfe is ridiculous it maketh directly for vs because euery indiuiduum containes in it selfe the Genus as Peter for example is a substance a sensible creature c. and so if the Roman Church be indiuiduum it must containe Catholique in it selfe and so the Roman Church must of necessity be affirmed to be a Catholique Church Before I leaue this point I must tell you that you corrupt Innocentius Tertius to proue (e) Pag. 12. that the Roman Church was anciently esteemed a Topical or particular Church distinct from others and in vnder the vniuersal in these words It is called the Vniuersall Church which consists of all Churches where you put an c. and then add Ecclesia Romana sic non est voâ—uersalis Ecclesia sed pars vniuersalis Ecclesiae The Roman Church is not thus the vniuersall Church but part of
But we can tell you when and who first began to oppose Indulgences namely the Waldenses who appeared about the yeare 1170. And therfore the marke of Nouelty Heresy must fall not vpon the defenders but the impugners of IndulgeÌ„ces 12. You say out of Bellarmine that Leo the Third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint as before pag. 72. you alleaged out of him that the worship of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then by any Precept and in your Margent you cite him in Latin saying Saints began to be (z) De Saitctorum beat lib. 1. cap. 8. § vâ—â— worshipped in the vniuersall Church rather by Custome then by Precept But Bellarmine doth not there treate in generall of worship of Saints but only handling the Question Cuius sit c. To whom doth it belong to Canonize Saints and prouing that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church and not for some particular Diocesse alone in answere to an Obiection that there are many worshipped for Saints who were not Canonized by the Pope he hath these words I answere that the Ancient Saints began to be worshipped in the Vniuersall Church not so much by any Law as by Custome Where you breake off But Bellarmine goeth forward and sayth But as other Customes haue the force of a Law by the tacite Consent of the Prince without which they are of no force c. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custome of the Churches hath force from the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope First then you conceale the Question of which Bellarmine treated Secondly you leaue out Veteres Ancient Saints and say only Saints and yet Ancient sheweth he spoke not of all Saints but of some who were not expresly Canonized or Commaunded to be held for Saintes wheras diuers others haue been Canonized by direct commaund to belieue that they are happy Thirdly in your Translation you leaue out Vniuersall only put Church wheras Bellarmine § Primo modo expresly teacheth That in ancient time euery Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocesse and de facto they did command some Feasts to be kept as Bellarmine proues which shewes that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawfull and was to some particular persons coÌ„manded Fourthly you leaue out Bellarmines words That the Worship of some Saint generally introduced by the custome of the Churches growes to haue the force of a Law or Precept by the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope which is contrary to that which you cited out of Bellarmine The worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then any Precpt And now to come to your former Obiection out of Bellarmine what is it to your purpose if he affirme that Leo the third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint Doth he affirme that Leo was the first that taught Worship and Inuocation of Saints Or that such worship was not practised by Custome yea by Precept before his Time as we haue seeme out of his words it was Bellarmine speakes only of such forme and solemnity of Canonization as afterwards was vsed Which makes nothing for your purpose to proue that our doctrine of Worship or Inuocation of Saints is a Nouelty If one should affirme that the soleÌ„nity of Crowning Kings was not vsed in all places or tymes alike should he therfore deny the Antiquity of Kings or that Obedience is due to them You may see not onely the errour but the danger also of such discourse 13. When one reades in your Booke these words in a different letter Not any one ancient Writer (b) Pag. 78. reckons precisely seauen Sacraments the first Authour that mentions that number is Peter Lombard and the first Councell that of Florence and in your Margent the names of Valentia and Bellarmine Who would not thinke that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard belieued that there were seauen Sacraments neither more nor fewer Which is most vntrue and against their formall words expresse intentioÌ„s For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which you (c) Tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur cite The same Assertion that there are seauen Sacraments is proued by the Authority of Fathers For although the more ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all together in one place yet it may be easily shewed especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge euery one of these Ceremonies to be a Sacrament Thus Valentia in generall and then he proues euery one of the seauen Sacraments out of particular places of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ambrose Innocentius the first Chrysostome Bode and Dionysius Areopagita Now tell me whether Valentia say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments Doth he not proue out of S. Augustine euery one of the seauen Sacraments in particular as you could not but see in the very place cited by you Is it all one to say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments as you corrupt these Authors and to say The Ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all togeather in one place Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine lesse remarkable who hauing said that the number of seauen Sacraments is proued out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers premiseth this Obseruation That Our Aduersaries ought not to require of vs that (d) Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we shew in Scriptures and Fathers the NAME of seauen Sacraments For neither can they shew the Name of two or three or fower for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechisme as now we do by reason of the multitude of Heresies but only deliuered the things themselues in diuers places Neither is this proper to Sacraments but common to many other things For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Sauiour but neuer reckons how many there be It deliuers the Articles of Fayth but neuer sayth how many they be The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelue Articles for some particular causes In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture how many Canonicall Brokes there be But Councels afterward set downe the Canon and the particular number which they had learned by Tradition And afterward he notes That it is sufficient if we can shew out of Fathers and Scriptures that the Definition of a Sacrament doth agree neither to more nor fewer Rites then seauen By which words it is cleere that when Bellarmine sayth Lombard was the first that named the number of seauen SacrameÌ„ts he only meaneth as he explicates himselfe of the name of Seauen as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two SacrameÌ„ts So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine as they are indeed nothing can be gathered except your very vnconscionable Dealing 14. What you cite out of Bellarmine
infallibility because it being euident that she is the selfe same Church which was founded by our Sauiour Christ and continued from the Apostles to this Age by a neuer interrupted succession of Pastours and faythfull people it followes that she is the Church of Christ which being once granted it is further inferred that all are obliged to haue recourse to her and to rest in her iudgement for all other particular points which cōcerne faith or Religion which we could not be obligd to doe if we were persuaded that she were subiect to errour Which yet is more euident if we add that there can be no Rule giuen in what points we should belieue her and in what not and therefore we are obliged to belieue her in all Moreouer since the true Church must be Iudge of Controuersies in fayth as we haue proued it cleerly followes that she must be infallible in all points Which vmuersall infallibility being supposed out of the generall ground of Gods prouidence which is not defectiue in things necessary we may afterward belieue the same infallibility euen by the Church herselfe when she testifies that particular point of her owne infallibility As the Scripture cannot giue Testimony to it selfe till first it be belieued to be Gods word yet this being once presupposed it may afterward giue Testimony to it selfe as S. Paul affirmeth that All Scripture is diuinely (u) 2. Tim. 3.16 inspired c. Secondly I answere that the Church hath many wayes declared her owne infallibility which she professeth euen in the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholique Church For she could not be holy if she were subiect to error in matters of fayth which is the first foundation of all sanctity she could not be Catholique or Vniuersal for all Ages if at any time she could erre and be Author that the whole world should erre in points reuealed by God she could not be One or Apostolicall as she professeth in another Creed if she were diuided in points of fayth or could swarue from the Doctrine of the Apostles she could not be alwayes existent and visible because euery error in fayth destroies all Fayth the Church So that while the Church and euery faythfull person belieues professes the Sanctity Vniuersality Vnity and Perpetuall Visibility of the Church she and they belieue proclaime her infallibility in all matters of fayth which she doth also auouch by accursing all such as belieue not her definitions and while in all occasions of emergent Controuersies she gathers Councels to determine them without examining whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall while in all such holy Assemblies she sayth with the first Councell It hath (w) Act. 15. seemed to the holy Ghost and vs while she proposeth diuers points to be belieued which are not contained in Scripture as that those who are baptized by Heretiques cannot without sacriledge be rebaptized that Baptisme of Infants is lawfull that Easter is to be kept at a certaine time against the Heretiques called Quartadecimani that the Blessed Virgin the most Immaculate Mother of God was eternally a most pure Virgin that such particular Matter and Forme is necessary for the validity of Sacraments that such particular Bookes Chapters and lines are the word of God with diuers such other points of all which we may say that which S. Augustine said about Rebaptization of Heretiques The obscurity of this Question (x) Lib. 1. cont Donat cap. 7. before the schisme of Donatus did so mooue mon of great note and Fathers and Bishops endued with great Charity to debate and doubt without breach of peace that for a long time in seuerall Regions there were diuers and doubtfull decrees till that which was truly belieued was vndoubtedly established by a full Councell of the whole world And yet the point declared in that Councell was neither fundamentall in your sense nor contained in Scripture And to the same effect are the words of S. Ambrose who speaking of the Heretiques condemned in the Councell of Nice sayth that They were not condemned by humane (y) Lib. 1. defid ad Gratian cap. 5. industry but by the authority of those Fathers as likewise the last Generall Councell of Trent defines That it belongs to the Church (z) 1. Sess 4. to iudge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture which must needs suppose her infallibility And lastly the thirst that euery one who desires to saue his soule feeles in his soule to find out the true Church and the quiet which euery one conceiues he shall enioy if once he find her shewes that the very sense and feeling of all Christians is that the Church is infallible For otherwise what great comfort could any wiseman conceiue to be incorporated in a Church which is conceiued to be subiect to error in matters of fayth 21. For want of better arguments you also alledge (a) pag. 161. some Authors within the Roman Church of great learning as you say who haue declared their opinion that any particular Churchs and by consequence the Roman any Councels though Generall may erre But though that which you affirme were true it would fall short of prouing that the Catholique Church is not infallible in all points For besides particular Churches or Generall Councels there is the common Consent of all Catholiques knowne by perpetuall sacred Tradition and there is likewise the continued Succession of Bishops and Pastors in which if one should place an vniuersall infallibility it were sufficient to ouerthrow your assertion of the fallibility of the Church And euen your selfe teach that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you affirme that any particular or Generall Councell may erre euen to Heresy or Fundamentall and Damnable errours And therfore you must grant that according to your Principles it is one thing to say Generall Councels may erre and another that the Catholique Church may erre But yet for the thing it selfe it is a matter of fayth that true Generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre And if any hold the contrary he cannot be excused except by ignorance or inaduertence And as for the Romane Authors which you cite Occham is no competent witnes both because that worke of his dialogues which you cite is condemned and because he himselfe was a knowne enemy and rebellious against the sea Apostolique Besides the words which you cite out of him against the Authority of Councels are not his opinion but alledged for arguments sake for so he professeth expresly in the very preface of that worke and often repeats it that he doth not intend to deliuer any opinion of his owne Thirdly wheras he alledgeth reasons for and against Councels he alledgeth but fine against them and seauen for them Lastly before he comes to dispute against Councels he doth in two seuerall (b) Dialog lib. 5.1 part cap. 25. c. 28. places in the very beginning of those Chapters of which
belieue infallible vnwritten Traditions And wheras you say Bellarmine is resolute that the Article of the descēt is euery where in Scripture and in Latin Scripturae passim hoc docent Bellarmines wordes are All men agree that Christ descended into Hell aliquo modo in some māner or sense because Scripture euery where teaches so much Why did you leaue out aliquo modo which words might well haue shewed that there was no contrariety betweene Bellarmine Stapleton S. Thomas doth not purposely dispute whether all Articles of the Creed be contayned in Scripture but onely vpon an other occasion teaches that the Creed is not an Addition to Scripture out of which it is taken that the truths belieued by fayth are contained in Scripture diuers wayes and in some obscurely which doth in no wise exclude the Authority of the Church to declare the meaning of the Creed For if some be contayned in Scripture but obscurely who shall declare them to vs but the Church 13. As for the sense of that (f) pag. 240. Article some hold that Christ descended really into Hell Others virtually and by effect This virtuall descent is taught by one only namely Durand and therfore your Others is but an exaggeration and euen he doth not deny Lymbus Patrum or that the Fathers were there nor that Christ descended thither in some sort but only differeth frō others whether he descended secundum substantiam which doctrine or rather doubt of his for he leaueth the thing doubtfull is reiected by all other Deuines as erroneous 14. By Hell some (g) pag. 240. vnderstand the lowest pit or the place of the damned as Bellarmine at first others the Lymbus Patrum as Bellarmine at last Would not one conceiue by your words that in the opinion of Bellarmine Christ descended only into the place of the dāmned And yet your conscience cannot but tell you that Bellarmine neuer doubted but that Christ descended into Lymbus Patrum and only proposed it as doubtfull whether or no he descended into the Hell of the damned and resolued probabile est It is probable that the soule of Christ descended to all the infernall places or Hells But afterward in his Recognitions he retracted his opinions for as much as concerned the place of the damned whereby it is cleere that he neuer doubted of our Sauiours descent to Lymbus and that you affirming the contrary doe without doubt desire to deceiue your Reader 15. You say that it is the most important (h) pag. 242. and most fundamentall of all Articles in the Church to belieue that Iesus Christ the Sonne of God the Son of Mary is the only Sauiour of the world wherin you giue a deadly blow to D. Morton who teaches that the Arians denying our Sauiour to be God do notwithstanding make a true Church and if the opinion of M. Hooker for which you bring diuers Arguments be true you cannot exclude the Arians or Trinitarians from being members of a true Church 16. To cleere the cōfusednes of your Church in her 39. Articles you lay the fault vpon vs. But by your leaue if you read either Catholique Deuines or the Councell of Trent you will find that they speake most cleerly and distinctly But Charity Mistaken doth truly say that you are very carefull not to be too cleerly vnderstood and therefore in many Controuersies whereof that Booke of the 39. Articles speakes it comes not at all to the maine question between them and vs c. Which affirmation of his is most true both in the points by him specified in diuers others as for example The third of our Sauiours descent into Hell The 26. of the Nature and effect of Sacraments The 27. will haue the Baptisme of Children to be retained but doth not specify whether or no it be necessary The 28. about the Lords Supper is so generall and of so large a size that it may reach to Zuinglians Caluinists Lutherans who yet in this Article are known to be as farre asunder from ech other as East from West I omit other Articles and only vrge that which Charity Mistaken presseth and you wholy dissemble that Those Articles do not so much as say that the Articles of doctrine which they deliuer are fundamentall either all or halfe or any one therof or that they are necessarily to be belieued by them or the contrary damnable if it be belieued by vs. Is this to keep your promise not to omit without answere any thing of moment in all his discourse Certainly this which Charity Mistaken doth vrge heere is according to your principles the very quintessence of all other points I will not stand to examine how truly you affirme that our Wil is essentially free from all necessity Such motions of our Will as preuent the deliberation of reason are they not necessary The Will in good Philosophy cannot suffer coaction but it may be necessitated without changing the essence therof 17. To the demaund of Charity Mistaken Why do they not particularly enumerate all the Bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as they had done them of the Old but only because they must so haue named those Bookes of S. Iames and others for Canonicall which the Lutherans haue cast out of their Canon You answere that the Lutherans do now admit the Epistle of S. Iames and the rest as Canonicall which you proue by D. Gerhard a Lutherā But if this be so you do not answere his Question what the reason is why your Church doth not particularly enumerate all the Bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as she had done them of the old Besides what Authority had D. Gerhard to speak for all the Lutherans of which there be diuers sorts condemning one another If once you deny the infallibility of the Church what infallible ground hath D. Gerhard this day to admit of those Bookes which yesterday other Lutherans reiected In the Bibles of Luther to this day the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of S. Iames and S. Iude and the Apocalyps of S. Iohn are excluded from the Canon 18. Now that none of those Bookes which we hold for Canonicall be Apochryphall as you teach Bellarmine (m) De verbo Dei l. 1. per multa çapita proues at large and answers all your obiections And if any heertofore doubted of some of them the Authority of the Visible Catholique Church of Christ ought to preponderate all doubts of particular persons And it is strange that you cite S. Augustine against the Machabees who in that very place which you cite sayth The Scripture (n) Cont. ep Gaudent lib. 2. ç. 23. of the Machabees is receiued by the Church not vnprofitably if it be read and heard soberly which latter words are vnderstood only against desperate inferences of the Donatists who vpon the example of Razias in the History of the Machabees did kill and precipitate themselues as
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