the Popes proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent not as a matter of faith or necessity as it is evident out of Athanasius consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himselfe the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the High Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay men in one kinde to use the Latine service we may very fitly say to him it is better to obey God then men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning methinkes there should be some difference and Polycrates saies no more but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is cleerely inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither the one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend nor can produce any proofe any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though peradventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austine and to the first place out of him where he seemes to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austine himselfe was not but retracts it as uncertain leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he saies it else where of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches nay more from these then from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetuall Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seeme great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrowes and undoes it all againe and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain marke of Heresy or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman then for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might doe that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there in it any thing but this That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account then those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilians enemies this had been litle but something but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospell came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinall Perrons rule is much more to be regarded then his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession touching the great question of Appeales wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell as to decree any African Excommunicate that should appeale to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of faith that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once
Reason then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit meanes to decide this Controversie and therefore may be as fit to decide others Therefore to avoid this you runne into a most ridiculous absurdity and tell us that this difference also whether the Church be infallible as well as others must be agreed by a submissiue acknowledgment of the Churches infallibility As if you should haue said My Brethren I perceiue this is a great contention amongst you whether the Roman Church be infallible If you will follow my advice I will shew you a ready meanes to end it you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will quickly be at an end Verily a most excellent advice and most compendious way of ending all Controversies even without troubling the Church to determine them For why may not you say in all other differences as you haue done in this Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church That the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body bloud of Christ That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind That Pictures may be worshipped That Saints are to bee invocated and so in the rest and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation and all the rest will speedily be ended If you say the advice is good in this but not in other cases I must request you not to expect alwaies to be believed upon your word but to shew us some reason why any one thing namely the Churches infallibility is fit to prove it selfe and any other thing by name the Popes Supremacy or Transubstantiation is not as fit Or if for shame you will at length confesse that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference whether the Church be infallible then you must confesse it is not fit to decide all Vnlesse you will say it may be fit to decide all and yet not fit to decide this or pretend that this is not comprehended under all Besides if you grant that your Churches infallibilitie cannot possibly be well grounded upon or decided by it selfe then having professed before that there is no possible meanes besides this for us to agree hereupon I hope you will giue mee leaue to conclude that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible For certainly light it selfe is not more cleere then the evidence of this syllogisme If there be no other meanes to make men agree upon your Churches infallibility but only this and this be no meanes then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible But there is as you haue granted no other possible meanes to make men agree hereupon but only a submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility And this is apparently no meanes Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible 90 Lastly to the place of S. Austine wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity I answer That the way which S. Austine spake of the way which you commend being divers waies in many things cleane contrary we cannot possibly follow them both and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vaine equivocation Shew us any way doe not say but proue it to haue come from Christ his Apostles down to us and we are ready to follow it Neither doe wee expect demonstration hereof but such reasons as may make this more probable then the contrary But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline which Chistians in S. Austins time held abominable as the picturing of God which you must confesse to haue come into the Church seven hundred yeares after Christ if you will bring in things as you haue done the halfe Communion with a non obstante notwithstanding Christs Institution and the practise of the Primitive Church were to the contrary If you will doe such things as these and yet would haue us believe that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make or for wise men to grant CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true I SAY neither pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely believed but what points may be lawfully disbelieved or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths You say the Creed containes all points necessary to be believed Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieved Certainly it doth not For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particularly to know and believe but are bound under paine of damnation not to reject as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we having already shewed that whatsoever is proposed by Gods Church as a point of faith is infallibly a truth revealed by God it followeth that whosoever denieth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contained in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imployed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitely believed are contained in the Creed Neither was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals the deniall whereof destroyes Salvation whereas the deniall of other points not fundamentall may stand with salvation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diversity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentall or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in faith and upon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will never adventure to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the deniall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresie be rejected if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly against you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in
those who goe out to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessouâ— before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. â—yprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church doe think by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that wâ—ll not serve to free him from Schisme as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church and Country where he lived 36 But it is not the Heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies have sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words doe plainely condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the said Optatus Milevitanus saying Thou caust not deny but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vn was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleaged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37 Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38 Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the 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 diversity of beliefe that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in errour at least not fundamentall and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible daÌ„nable what greater division or Schisme can there be then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible daÌ„nable 39 Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther his followers were Schismatiques from the universall visible Church from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocesse in which they received Baptisme from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived 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 convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore 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 under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confesse the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnableâ— yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41 I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Vncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch 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 brain in a kingdome may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schisme or Sedition No man wishes them to doe any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to doe even according to your own affirmation that wee Catholiques want no meanes necessary to salvation Easie to doe Nay not to doe so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all meanes necessary to
there was no Scripture or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentiles endued in those daies with divine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the Decider of Controversies and Instructer of the faithfull Neither did the word written by Moyses depriue the Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Judge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a living Iudge in the Iewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successiuely upon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide CoÌ„troversies in Religion That some time Churches had one Iudge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or yeares as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of faith or Iudge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibilitie either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibilitie to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistants of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soule is before the letter and speech before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibilitie of the Church would haue brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost then gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies infallibilitie setled in a living Iudge is incomparably more usefull and fit then if it were conceived 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 giving to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived 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 Infallibilitie went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued 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 Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and 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 unworthily and unjustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibilitie by reason of the New Testament Eâ—pecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments Iudgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter 1 against this argument drawne from the power and infallibilitie of the Synagogue objects that we might as well inferre that Christians must haue one soveraigne Prince over all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparitie is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ 〈◊〉 so their civill government 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 house or family to an Army to a body to a kingdome c. all which require one Master onâ— Generall one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fiet Vnm ovile joyned Vnus Pastor One sheepfold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to salvation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their severall Lawes different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon 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 Controversies in Religion 24 This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yeeld ossent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God without letters or Iuke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receiue the truth from Gods Church seeing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought wee 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 have 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 ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies If they hâ—ue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to
That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceiue in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied Demands till we rest in somthing evident of it selfe which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controversies in faith depend 26 To they 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. § The summe and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appeares by the Confessions of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to bee determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27 To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirm'd to be the rule by which all controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe For as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tels us That when it is said he hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we doe and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his own may say all my substance is in this ship and yet never intend to deny that his ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we inferre from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himselfe Your negative conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any reason to prove it it is evident of it selfe and I grant it without more adoe But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary reader that therefore they are to be decided by your or any visible Church is a meere inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus and himselfe For so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to doe with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a book be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly Canonicall yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient Churches any book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonicall or to be doubted of as uncertain or rejected as Apocryphall according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the learned have the same meanes to satisfy themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the language of the Originall and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know what certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no reall difference as in the translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have and it is not required that we use any better then the best we have 28 You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answere it would be so if we could be infallibly certaine that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it selfe and seen by its own light or could be reduc'd unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves doe not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofes infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and principall motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turne and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confesse that this very Rock stands it selfe at the best but upō a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the reall prescription of this priviledge but only pleaseth her selfe with a false imagination and vaine presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments 29 Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse
not Iudge that is the Rule to judge by But as no Scripture affirmes that by the entring of it Infallibility went out of the Church so neither doe we neither have we any need to doe so But we say that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures so long as Christ his Apostles were living and then departed God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule to supply the defect of liuing and infallible Guides Certainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintain it We can shew no Scripture affirming Infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therefore it is Infallible Somewhat like his discourse that said It could not bee prov'd out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therefore hee is still living Me thinks in all reason you that challenge privileges and exemption from the condition of Men which is to be subject to errour You that by vertue of this privilege usurp authority over mens consciences should produce your Letters-patents from the King of Heaven shew some expresse warrant for this Authority you take upon you otherwise you know the rule is Vbicontrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate 139 But D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in points Fundamentall and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the Truth the Sanctitie yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to salvation Still your discourse is so far from hitting the white that it roves quite besides the But. You conclude that the infallibility of the Church may well agree with the Truth the Sanctity the Sufficiency of Scripture But what is this but to abuse your Reader with the proofe of that which no man denies The Question is not whether an infallible Church might agree with Scripture but whether there be an Infallible Church Iam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Besides you must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals D. Potter saies that the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifies no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever But wee utterly deny the Church to be the latter for to say so were to oblige our selves to finde some certain Society of men of whom we might be certain that they neither doe nor can erre in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamentall what is not Fundamentall and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed This therefore we deny both to your and all other Churches of any one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certain denominatiō For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Hereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say The Church is Infallible in Fundamentalls you must not conceiue them as if they meant as you doe that some Society of Christians which may be known by adhering to some one Head for example the Pope or the Bishop of Constantinople is infallible in these things but only thus That true Religion shall never be so farre driven out of the world but that it shall alwaies haue some where or other some that believe and professe it in all things necessary to salvation 140 But you would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagines that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others And I also would gladly know why you doe thus frame to your self vaine imaginations thē father them upon others We yeeld unto you That there shall be a Church which never erreth in some points because as wee conceive God hath promised so much but not there shall be such a Church which doth or can erre in no points because we finde not that God hath promised such a Church and therefore wee may not promise such a one to our selves But for the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of Infallibility in some points and not in others that is a wild notion of your own which we haue nothing to doe with 141 But he affirmeth that the Iewish Church retained Infallibility in her selfe and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to depriue the Church of Christ of it That the Iewes had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment hee doth affirme and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely Infallible he no where affirmes and therefore it is unjustly unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived but only by setling it in the High Priest and the company adhering and subordinate unto him And whether the high Priest was Infallible when he believed not Christ to be the Messias but condemn'd and excommunicated thē that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leaue it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to doe as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an infallible guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such a one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdome he could not doe otherwise Vaine man that will be thus alwaies tying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will doe this sometime by living Guides sometime by written rules what is that to you may not he doe what he will with his own 142 And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argugument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible then the Synagogue because to the Synagogue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered then in the new Testament is done our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church But I pray walk not thus in generality but tell us what particulars If you mean particular rites ceremonies and orders for goverment we grant it and you
know we doe so Our Saviour our only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul Let All things bee done decently and in Order But what Order is fittest i. e. what Time what Place what Manner c. is fittest that he hath left to the discretion of the Governers of the Church But if you mean that hee hath only concerning maters of faith the subject in Question prescribed in generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue The Church being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all Believers to determine what Particulars they are to believe Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content your selfe or think we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 143 As for D. Potters objection against this Argument That as well you might inferre that Christians must haue all one King because the Iewes had so For ought I can perceive notwithstanding any thing answered by you it may stand still in force though the truth is it is urg'd by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church For whereas you say the disparity is very cleare Hee that should urge this argument for one Monarch over the whole world would say that this is to deny the Conclusion and reply unto you that there is disparity as matters are now order'd but that there should not be so For that there was no more reason to believe that the Ecclesiasticall government of the Iews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiasticall government of Christians then the Civill of the Iewes for the Civill of the Christians He would tell you that the Church of Christ and all Christian Commonwealths and Kingdomes are one and the same thing and therefore he sees no reason why the Synagogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church and not of the Commonwealth He would tell you that as the Church succeeded the Iewish Synagogue so Christian Princes should succeed to Iewish Magistrates that is the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians He would tell you that as the Church is compar'd to a house a Kingdome an Army a Body so all distinct Kingdomes might and should be one Armie one Familie c. and that it is not so is the thing he complaines of And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say it is not so but you should shew why it should not be so and why this argument will not follow The Iewes had one King therefore all Christians ought to haue as well as this The Iewes had one High Priest over them all therefore all Christians also ought to haue Hee might tell you moreover that the Church may haue one Master one Generall one Head one King and yet he not be the Pope but Christ. He might tell you that you beg the Question in saying without proof that it is necessary to salvation that all whether Christians or Churches have recourse to one Church if you mean by one Church one particular Church which is to govern and direct all others and that unlesse you mean so you say nothing to the purpose And besides he might tell you and that very truly that it may seeme altogether as available for the Temporall good of Christians to be under one Temporall Prince or Comonwealth as for their salvatiō to be subordinate to one Visible Head I say as necessary both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians for the defence of Christendome from the hostile invasions of Turks Pagans And frō al this he might infer that though now by the fault of men there were in severall Kingdomes severall Lawes Governments and Powers yet that it were much more expedient that there were but one Nay not only expedient but necessary if once your ground be setled for a generall rule that what kinde of government the Iewes had that the Christians must haue And if you limit the generality of this Proposition and frame the Argument thus What kinde of Ecclesiasticall government the Iews had that the Christians must haue But They were governed by one High Priest therefore These must be so He will say that the first proposition of this syllogisme is altogether as doubtfull as the conclusion and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it untill it selfe be proved And then besides that there is as great reason to believe this That what kinde of Civill government the Iews had that the Christians must haue And so D. Potters objection remaines still unanswered That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdomes from the Iews having one King as one Bishop over all Churches from their being under our High Priest 144 Ad § 24. Neither is this Discourse confirm'd by Irenaeus at all Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly forgoing of the analogy between the Church and the Synagogue to which this speech of Irenaeus alleadged here by you is utterly and plainly impertinent Or whether by this discourse you mean as I think you doe not your discourse but your conclusion which you discourse on that is that Your Church is the infallible Iudge in Controversies For neither has Irenaeus one syllable to this purpose neither can it be deduced out of what he saies with any colour of consequence For first in saying What if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition And in saying That to this order many Nations yeild assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without Letters or Inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition Doth he not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing else but the very same that is written nothing but to believe in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that believe it be not a sufficient guide I leave it to you to judge And are not his wordes just as if a man should say If God had not given us the light of the Sunne we must have made use of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must have felt out our way If we had no leggs we must have used crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we have the Sunne we need no candles While we have our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying If we had had no Scripture we must have followed Tradition and they that have none doe well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that have Scripture and believe it Tradition is unnecessary which could not be if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradition Which whether Irenaeus believed or no these words
their communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men then God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would haue made thē members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they haue not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques believe nothing at all as not believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendour and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamentall Errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith is to say she lost all faith For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines that one Errour in faith destroyes faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith is not to say she lost all faith For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may haue true faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter sayes not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he saies even the Catholique may erre and every man may lawfully depart from Errour He only sayes you may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Iust as if you should argue thus You may not leaue your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he saies of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same hee extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why doe you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any Errour and call this a Demonstration too For as he saies p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe So p. 76. He tells you that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body for sakes the whole So that what he saies of the one hee saies of the other and tells you that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church so long as they continue so may bee forsaken hee meanes Absolutely no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the Body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himselfe 67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholique Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confesse his doctrine to be that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more then Christ himselfe but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more then Christ himselfe And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail and the production may be a mouse 68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himselfe or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intricate nothing And to make it appeare so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69 In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say cleerly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever
Church or her Communion should be corrupted And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the externall Communion of the Visible Church because she cannot be corrupted And that hereafter you will prove that corruptions in the Churches communion though the belief and profession of them be made the condition of her communion cannot justify a separation from it And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the Churches communion though corrupted I Answer that I have examined your proofes of the former found that a veine of Sophistry runs cleane through them And for the latter it is so plain and palpable a falsehood that I cannot but be confident whatsoever you bring in proofe of it will like the Apples of Sodom fall to Ashes upon the first touch And this is my first and main exception against your former discourse that accusing Protestants of a very great and horrible crime you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy 26 Another is that although it were granted Schisme to leave the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case so ever it be and that Luther his followers were Schismatiques for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches yet you faile exceedingly of cleering the other necessary point undertaken by you That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church For neither doe Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church but only of a visible Church now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholique or the whole Church the Latter a Particular Church or a part of the Catholique And therefore suppose out of curtesy we should grant what by argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no meanes follow that your Church were the Visible Church but only a Visible Church not the whole Catholique but only a part of it But then besides where doth D. Potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true Preaching of the word or due Administration of the Sacraments Or where does he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to Salvation He saies indeed that though your Errors were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their soules saved And this is all he saies and this you confesse to be all he saies in diverse places of your book which is no more then you your selfe doe and must affirme of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferre from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should doe you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have meanes to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these meanes may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27 Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrine or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Pauls similitude the head should say to the foot either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confesse that there is no body To which the foot might answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gratious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confesse that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your selfe in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greekes Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the Visible Church For all this dicourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition and beggs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greeke c. must be alwaies exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be alwaies some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrine might be wrought upon and prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to goe to yours rather then the Greeke Church or any other which pretends to perpetuall succession as well as yours that I doe not understand Vnlesse it be for the reason which Aeneas Syluius gave why more held the Pope above a Councell then a Councell above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councells gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meere favour that there must be alwaies some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errors in doctrine and that Protestants had not alwaies such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leave England you must of necessity goe to Rome And yet with this wretched fallacy have I been sometimes abused my selfe and known many other poore soules seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not alwaies be held captive under such miserable delusions 28 We see then how unsuccessefull you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kinde which you build upon D. Potters own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schisme 29 But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or foure short remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only
out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now having perused Brerely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall He shall finde secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet hee speaks not of him but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge you seem somewhat diffident hereof and thereupon say that these words plainly condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church But whether they condemne Luther is another Question The question here is whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire understand in that Citty for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chaire erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and saies that from thence he was called Cephas Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinkes is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange me thinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to doe and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe as that first mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himselfe in particular and perhaps comparing himselfe with S. Peter in particular rather then any other he should say in plain termes I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much lesse by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship Authority For what incōgruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Vniversall Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the
Ordination or Succession in the Protestants Church because the Fathers alleaged in the last reason assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I must not omit to say that according to the grounds of Protestants themselves they can neither pretend personall Succession of Bishops nor Succession of doctrine For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of Persons endued with an indelible Quality which Divines call a Character which cannot be taken away by deposition degradation or other meanes whatsoever and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach to preach to govern the Church by lawes precepts censures c. Protestants cannot pretend Succession in either of these For besides that there was never Protestant Bishop before Luther and that there can be no continuance of Succession where there was no beginning to succeed they commonly acknowledge no Character and consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of Iurisdiction or degraded they remain meer lay Persons as before their Ordination fulfilling what Tertullian objects as a mark of Heresie To â—ay a Priest to morrow a Lay-man For if here be no immoveable Character their power of Order must consist only in Iurisdiction and authoritie or in a kinde of morall deputation to some function which therefore may be taken away by the same power by which it was given Neither can they pretend Succession in Authority or Iurisdiction For all the Authority or Iurisdiction which they had was conferred by the Church of Rome that is by the Pope Because the whole Church collectively doth not meet to ordain Bishops or Priests or to giue them Authority But according to their own doctrine they believe that the Pope neither hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiassicall or Spirituall within this Realme which they sweare even when they are ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neither hath nor OVGHT to haue any Or if yet he had how could they without Schisme withdraw themselves from his obedience Besides the Roman Church never gaue them Authority to oppose Her by whom it was given But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours The Primate of England But from whom had he such Authority And after his decease who shall confer Authority upon his Successours The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a Child Queen Elizabeth a Woman An Infant of one houres Age is true King in case of his Predecessours decease But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King and green Head of the Church come to yeares of discretion Doe your Bishops your Hierarchy your Succession your Sacraments your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession depend on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shameful ends impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes Wotton c. not held for any necessary point of faith And from whoÌ„ I pray you had Bishops their Authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greeke Patriarchs receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the Baptisme of Princes loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the temporall Magistrate authority to preach to assoile from sinnes to inflict excommunications and other Censures Why hath he not Power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in Irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King Iames either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gaue commission to some Bishops to doe it and since they were subject to their Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no Power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as Superiour to them all and head of the Protestants Church in England If he haue no such authority how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not Your Ordination or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character can only consist in giving a Power Authority Iurisdiction or as I said before some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall or Priestly functions If then the temporall Magistrate conferres this Power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but Ordain and consecrate Bishops Priests as often as he confers Authority or Iurisdiction and your Bishops as soone as they are designed confirmed by the King must ip so facto be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or Matter and Form of Ordination Which absurdities you will bee more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you will be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledge to receiue any Spiriâ—uall Iurisdiction from any Temporall Prince and therefore if Iurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledge that hee hath true spirituall Iurisdiction or that yourselves can receiue none from him 21 Moreover this new Reformation or Reformed Church of Protestants will by them be pretended to be Catholique or Vniversall and not confined to England alone as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa and therefore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany Holland Scotland France c. In which number they of Germany Holland and France are not governed by Bishops nor regard any personall succession unlesse of such fat-benefiâ—ed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius who was consecrated by Luther though Luther himselfe was never Bishop as witnesseth Dresserus And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary or of divine Institution and so their enforced admitting of them doth not so much furnish that kingdome with personall Succession of Bishops as it doth convince them to want Succession of Doctrine since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England and the true Catholique Church And by this want of a continued personall Succession of Bishops they retaine the note of Schisme and Heresy So that the Church of Protestants must either not be Vniversall as being confined to England Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want succession you must confesse that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismaticall and Hereticall Churches but is also compounded of such Churches and your selves cannot avoid the note of Schismatiques or Heretiques if it were but for participating with such hereticall Churches For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholique Church and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schisme or Heresy because that were to affirme that for the
that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not bragge of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniversality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sectâ— which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Vniversality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more more lay open their division want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiell My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he addes this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he saith If thou know not thy selfe goe thou forth I doe not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheepe but seed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being Proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniversality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresy 25 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negative Precept of faith which obligeth us under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree many one point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that Whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate finis or meâ—ii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Faith it is impossible to please God 26 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurtty Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to bee wanting in the beliefe of Protestants even in those points which are true in themseluâ—s and to which they yeeld assent as hapeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine Faith want meanes absolutely necessary to salvation 27 And first that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because denying the Vniversall infallibility of the Church can haue no certain grouÌ„nd to know what Objects are â—evealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction declaration of the Church we can neither haue certain means to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew thaâ— some of them are deceaved And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamentall points upon 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 doe sometimes faile it is cleer that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to errour As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths withall divers errours upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith bâ—t only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 28 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that every errour in fundamentall points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points bee fundamentall it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation 29 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Divine faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether he who denieth one Article of faith may retain faith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumentâ— sed contra because As deadly sin is opposits to Charity so to deny one Article of faith is opposite to faith But Charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin therefore faith doth not remain after the deniall of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formall Motiue and Obiect thereof which Motiue being taken away the
such Authorities as these and think you selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose 23 S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters Consider againe that he saies only that he was then in Communion with the Chaire of Peter Nott hat he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elswhere which shall be produced hereafter He saies that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appeare is expresse to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we meane to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must bee conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrine which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiu'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgments in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop Church of Rome how came it to passe that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall upō the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman How comes it to passe that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I feare you will loose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoyding this runne into a greater danger of being forc'd to confesse the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever beleeue that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could haue been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather then the dis-interessed time-fellowes or immediate Successors of Liberius himselfe yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angell I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own beleif and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streyned too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24 The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetuall and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must agree with the Roman Church this he saies not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops The second I am uncertain what the sense of it is and what truth is in it but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose For it neither affirmes nor imports that separation from the Roman Church is a certain marke of Heresy For the Rights of Communion whatsoever it signifies might be said to flow from it if that Church were by Ecclesiasticall Law the head of all other Churches But unlesse it were made so by divine Authority and that absolutely Separation from it could not be a marke of Heresy 25 For S. Cyprian all the world knowes that he resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re. baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excōmunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinall Perron magisterially and without all colour of proofe affirme the contrary and Cyprian in particular so farre cast off as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were cōmanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. Iohn forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holdes still his former opinion though out of respect to the Churches peace he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise then he held yet he conceived Stephen his adherents to hold a pernitious error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversatiō in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so farre was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that