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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
anciēt times Priests could not liue with wiues And now I aske whether in good earnest you belieue that one may be made a Bishop who will not belieue the Resurrection nor wil be baptized or whether he may be baptized against his will The Answere therfore may be seen in Baronius who (m) Anno 410. n. 6. Spond demonstrates out of the Epistles of Synesius himselfe that he did these things not to be made a Bishop wishing as he affirmeth rather to dye then to endure so great a burthen wherin saith Baronius he seemes only to haue done in words that which S. Ambrose pretended in deeds which was to be esteemed incontinent and vnmercifull so to hinder his being made Bishop But these extraordinary proceedings may be admired but ought not to be imitated To say that the ten Tribes notwithstanding their Idolatries remained still a true Church cannot but make any Christian soule tremble to consider to what damnable absurdities and impieties they fall who leaue the Roman Church You falfify Magallanus (n) In Tit. 3.11 as if he with M. Hooker affirmed that If an Infidell (o) Pag. 117. should pursue to death an Heretique only for Christian professions sake the honour of Martyrdome could not be denied to him which is contrary to the words and meaning of Magallanus For he expresly teacheth that they do not participate of the grace of the Church but are dead parts and consequently not capable of saluation Only he sayth that they may be called mēbers of the Church because the Church can iudge and punish them It is impossible that any Catholique Author should teach that an Heretique remayning an Heretique that is actually and voluntarily denying a reuealed Truth sufficiently propounded for such can be a Martyr But such as you are may affirme what you please The words of Saluianus (p) De Gnbern lib. ◠which you cite and say that they are very remarkable do only signify by way of doubt whether some of the Heretiques of whom he spoke and who in simplicity followed their Teachers as he expresly sayth may not be excused by ignorance And since you affirme that he speakes of Arians I would know whether you do not thinke Arianisme to be a damnable Heresy vnles accidentally ignorance excuse some particular persons 7. You say that (q) Pag. 131. the Errors of the Donatists concerning the inualidity of the Baptisme giuen by Heretiques and of the Nouatians that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners were not in themselues hereticall c. Neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration If these errours neither in themselues nor by the declaration of the Church be hereticall I pray you how are they hereticall May a mā in these tymes hold them without note of Heresy So you must say vnles you grant the definitions of Gods Church to be infallible For S. Augustine professeth that this point concerning rebaptization cannot be determined out of Scripture alone as hath been sayd before Or if you say this Errour may be confuted out of Scripture then you must grant that it is in it selfe hereticall which you deny But no wonder if by denying the infallibility of the Church you be brought to such straytes I goe on now to the next CHAP. V. IN this Section you handle three points First that the Church is infallible onely in fundamentall points Secondly that the Generall Councels and Thirdly that the Pope may erre in points fundamētall Concerning the first I haue spoken in the first Part the second and third are particular disputes from which you ought to haue abstained if you had meant to haue touched indeed the point of our Controuersy But since you will needs fill you Booke with such particulars I must also goe out of the way to answere your obiections 2. If I tooke pleasure as you doe to fill my Margent with quotations of Authours I could easily shew how you mistake and wrong our Schoole-men as if they held that something which in it self is not infinit but really distinct from the diuine Authority were the chiefe Motiue of fayth the first and furthest principle into which it resolues wheras their difference is only in explicating vnder what precise and formall consideration God is the formall obiect of fayth some assigning the Diuinity it selfe others the authority of God commanding others which is the common opinion teaching that it is resolued into the diuine or Prime Verity and lastly euen those whome it seemes you call vnwise and vnwarry Writers agaynst Luther doe not teach that the Authority of the Church is the chiefest first and furthest principle into which fayth resolues but at the most that her Proposition is necessary to an Act of diuine fayth eyther because they conceyue that matter of faith ought to concerne the common good of Religion and so require a publique Authority or Propounder or els because they hold that her Proposition in some sort enters into the formall obiect of fayth in respect of vs Neither are the Authors of this opinion only Writers against Luther as you say but diuers other Schoole-Deuines 3. Wheras you say that there is no question but that Fayth is supernaturall in regard of the Efsicient Cause and of the Obiect both which ought to be supernaturall it seemes you are willing to dissemble the doctrine of your great Reformer Zwinglius who (a) Tom. 2. exposit fidei Christianae fol. 159. out of his excessiue Charity placed in heauen Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides c. who had no supernaturall Fayth nor beliefe of God as also the Children of the Heathens dying without (b) Tom. 2. fol. 540. Baptisme Were not such Charitable men very fit to reforme the Church 4. You fall againe vpon the sufficiency of Scripture which point I haue already answered shewed in what sense all points of fayth may be contained in Scripture to wit in as much as the Scripture doth recommend to vs the Church and diuine vnwritten Traditions Neither can you alleage any one Catholique Author ancient or moderne who speaking of the sufficiency of Scripture excludes Tradition by which euen Scripture it selfe is deliuered to vs. And as for S. Augustine and S. Basill whom you alleage for the sufficiency of Scripture they be so cleerly for Tradition that they haue been taxed by some Protestants for that cause as likewise for the same reason some chiefe Protestants haue blamed Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierome Maximus Theophilus Damascene Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Leo Eusebius and others as may be seene in (c) Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 22. Brereley But though Scripture alone did particularly containe all points necessary to saluarion doth it follow thinke you from thence that the Church is not infallible May not both Scripture and Church be infallible in what they deliuer Doth not your selfe grant that the Church is infallible for points fundamentall and for
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
coÌ„futation can there be then by your own words the Belieuer sees For if he see how doth he belieue Or if he belieues how doth he see Especially since you say he belieues and sees vpon the same formall obiect or motiue Yet that Scripture is knowne by it selfe you proue out of Bellarmine who saych That the Scriptures (i) De verb. Deilib 1. çap. 2. which are contayned in the Propheticall and Apostolicall Writings be most certayne and diuine Scripture it selfe witnesseth But these words will proue to be against your selfe For Bellarmine in that place disputing agaynst the Swenckfeldian Heretiques who denyed all Scriptures sayth That he doth not alledge (k) Ibid. Testimonies of Scripture as if he thought that his Aduersaries made any great account of them but lest the Scriptures the Authority whereof his Aduersaries did sometymes abuse agaynst vs who reuerence them may be thought to fauour their doctrine Is this to affirme that Scripture is certainely and euidently knowne by Scripture Or rather contrarily to say that it must first be belieued before it be powerfull to persuade And therefore immediatly after the wordes by you cited which are The Scripture selfe witnesseth he adds these which you as you are wont leaue out whose predictions of things to come if they were true as the euent afterward did manifest why should not the Testimonies of things present be true Where you see that he proues not the Scripture by that beame of light which euidenly shines in Scripture but by predictions which we grant to be a good inducement or as Diuines speake an Argument of credibility and yet no infallible ground of fayth to belieue that Scriptures are diuine and much lesse a beame of light cleerly conuincing vs that Scripture is Scripture For one may be inspired to prophesy or speake truth in some point and for others be left to humane discourse or error as it hapned in Balam and the friends of Iob. And therfore Bellarmine in that very place brings other extrinsecall Argumentes as Miracles exemplar and visible strange punishments of such as presumed to abuse holy Scripture c. Which euidently shewes that he intended to bring Arguments of Credibility and not infallible grounds of fayth wherby we belieue that Scripture is Scripture which we must take from the infallible Testimony of the Church by meanes of Tradition wherof Bellarmine sayth This so necessary a point to wit that (m) Deverb Dei nonseripro lib. 4. c. 4. there is some diuine Scripture cannot be had from Scripture it selfe Wherby it is manifest that you plainely corrupt Bellarmines meaning when you go about to proue out of him that Scripture can be proued by Scripture alone the contrary wherof he affirmes and proues at large against the Heretiques of these times The place which you cite of Origen only proues that those who already belieue the Canonicall Bookes of Scripture may proue out of them that Scripture is diuinely inspired as S. Peter (n) Epist. 2. vers 21. sayth Neither doth the Authority of Saluianus proue any thing els 10. Your saying that we yield to the Church an absolute (o) Pag. 144.145 vnlimited Authority to propound what she pleaseth and an vnlimited power to supply the defects of Scripture I let passe as meere slaunders As also that the Authority of the Church is absolute not (p) Pag. 144. depending on Scripture but on which the Scripture it selfe depends And you cannot be ignorant of that which hath been so often inculcated by Catholique Writers that the Scriptures in themselues do not depend on the Church but only in respect of vs who learno from her what Bookes be Canonical Scripture which is to say not the Scriptures but our weake vnderstanding and knowledge of Scripture relies on the Church which our Sauiour Christ commandes vs to heare And your selfe grant that the Church (q) Pag. 142.143 is the ordinary outward meanes to present and propound diuine verities to our Fayth You will not deny that your knowledge of the Trinity Incarnation c. depends on Scripture will you thence in fer that the Blessed Trinity Incarnation c. in themselues depend on Scripture as if God had not been God vnlesse Scripture had beene written Besides to such as belieue Scripture we may proue the Church herselfe by Scripture and she in all her definitions doth consult examine and submit herselfe to Scripture against which she neuer did nor euer can define any thing in this sense also she depends on Scripture But to make good your slaunder you (r) Pag. 144. cite Bellarmine after your wonted fashion If we take away (s) De effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 25. § Tertium testimonium the Authority of the present Church of Rome this of Rome is your addition and of the Trent-Councell the decrees of all other Ancient Councels and the whole Christian fayth may be questioned as doubtfull for the strength of all doctrines and of all Councels depends vpon the Authority of the present Church Would not one thinke by these words that the strength of all doctrines depeÌ„ds on the Church wheras Bellarmine only sayth that we could not infallibly know that there were such Generall Councels and that they were law full Councels and that they defined this or that but because the present Church which cannot erre doth so belieue and teach vs. Which words demonstrate that Bellarmine doth not speake of fayth or doctrines in themselues but in respect of vs. And do not you your selfe teach that it is the Church which directs vs to Scripture and that she likewise is the ordinary outward meanes to present and propound diuine Verities without which Propesition no obiect can be conueyed to our (t) Pag. 142.143 fayth And what is this but to acknowledge that in the ordinary way without the guidance direction and Proposition of the Church we haue no fayth at all 11. You â—ikewise cite these words out of (u) De Eccles mil. lib. 3. cap. 10 §. Ad haec necesse est Bellarmine The Scriptures Traditions and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend on the Testimony of the Church he meanes say you that of Rome without which all are wholy vncertayne But Bellarmines words are these Since the Scriptures Traditions and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend vpon the Testimony of the Church all things will be vncertaync vnles we be most assured which is the true Church You see Bellarmine speakes not of the particular Church of Rome as you in your PareÌ„thesis would make him seeme to speake And as for the Vniuersall true Church what principle of Atheis me is it as you very exorbitantly (w) pag. 145 affirme to say that if we did not know which were the true Church we could haue no certainty of Scriptures Traditions or any thing els Do you thinke that it were safe to take the Scriptures vpon the credit of a false Church As wel might you take them vpon the
credit of Turkes or Infidels And therefore not the Assertion of Bellarmine but the contrary to it is a plaine principle of Atheisme Doe not you proue the necessity of a perpetuall visible true Church because other wise men should want that ordinary meanes which God hath appointed for our instruction Direction Saluation Now if we might haue Scriptures and true Fayth from a false Church your more zealous Brethren who deny a perpetuall visible true Church might easily answere all your Arguments and tell you that a true Church is not necessery for fayth and Saluation And besides is it not in effect all one to say for as much as concernes our instruction Christ hath no visible Church to say that we cānot know which is the true visible Church of Christ All the infallibility which we ascribe to the Church is acknowledged to proceed from the assistance of God how can he be said not to belieue a God who belieues the Church because she is assisted by God Remēber that euen now I told you that according to your owne affirmation the Church is the ordinary meanes wherby Diuine Truth is conueyed to the vnderstāding and yet you thinke your selfe free from Atheisme The Apostles of themselues were but mortal frayle subiect to errour and yet I hope you will not thinke it a Principle of Atheisme to say that all our fayth depends on them 12. You taxe vs for teaching that much of the Matter or Obiect of fayth is not contayned in Scripture any way But I haue already more then once sayd that we belieue nothing but what is contained in Scripture in some sort eyther in it selfe or from some Principle from which it may be certaynely deduced or in those places of Scripture which recōmend the Church vnwritten Traditions to vs as if one should in his last Testament expresse diuers particulars and should in the same Testament referre the rest to some third person whome be had fully instructed concerning his further will meaning whatsoeuer things were performed according to the direction of that third person might truly be sayd to be contayned in the Testament although they might also be saye not to be cōtained therin because they are not mētioned in particular And according to this explication Canus and Stapleton whome you cite and other Catholikes are to be vnderstood when they teach that we belieue diuers things not comprehended in Scripture 13. But you aske with what ingenuity (y) Pag. 146. or conscience doe they pretend Scripture in ech Controuersy agaynst vs since by their owne Confession many of their Assertions are meere vnwritten Traditions leaning only on the Authority of their Church I answere that some points of faith are expresly contained in Scripture yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded if we tooke away the declaration of the Church Some others are not contained in Scripture any other way then in the generall principles of the Churches authority and diuine Traditions as for example that such Bookes in particular are Canonicall writings Some others ar◠comprehended in Scripture only probably Others are contained so cleerly that they may seeme sufficiently euident to a man not peruerse and according to these diuersities we do more or lesse alledge Scripture If one were disposed to vse such Arguments as you bring I might aske on the other side to what purpose do you alledge Councels Fathers Reasons if out of Scripture alone you can conuince all errors against your doctrine May not diuerse arguments be rightly alledged to proue the selfe same Conclusion 14. Once againe you returne to the sufficiency of only Scripture that is you returne to speake nothing which concernes the Question in hand which you proue out of Bellarmine though heerin say you as not seldome (z) 〈◊〉 14. contradicting both himseife and his fellowes How consonant the writings of Bellarmine are both to themselues and to the common doctrine of other Catholique Authors this may serue for a sufficient proofe that all his Aduersaries could neuer shew yet in all his works any one contradiction but such as themselues had first forged and then obiected And although in this generall cause I do not willingly meddle with personall things yet that you may learne heerafter to speake with more circumspection but chiefly for the merit of a person so eminent in learning and dignity and yet more eminent in sanctity I will not forbeare to assure the world and you that when some yeares since a perion of high authority in the world had made himselfe beneue that he had discouered many contradictions in Bellarmine D. Dunne in a conference that he had with a person of Honour Worth from whom I receiued it though I hold it not fit heer to giue his name declared that there was no ground for this but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another as if he had been able to write them all in one houres space And if you D. Potter be of another opinion you shall do well to produce some instāce to the contrary which may shew a reall contradiction betweene some passage and some other of his works wherin it is odds that you will be answered and he be defended Let vs see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseueration The Cardinall say you grants (a) Bellarm. deverb Dei interpret cap. 10. ad arg 1◠that a Proposition is not de fide vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God (b) pag. 145. reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture ergo it is true If matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture as this reason supposes then the Proposall of the Church cannot make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth yet to salue the soueraigne power of his Church he makes all the strength and truth in this Syllogisme to depend on the Testimony of the Church and by consequence the truth of the Conclusion which euer resembles the weaker premisse So as if this be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church But now how many corruptions sleights and vntruths are couched in these lines Let vs examine them a little Bellarmine hauing taught and proued at large that the interpretation of holy Scripture belongs not to priuate persons but to the Church of God which in respect of vs is to iudge of Scripture and of all other Controuersies in Religion and hauing made this Obiection against himselfe If our fayth depend (c) Vbi supra vpon the Iudgment of the Church then it depends vpon the word of men and therfore doth rely vpon a most weake foundation he giues this answere The word of the Church that is of the Councell or Pope when he teacheth as out of his Chaire is not meerly the word of man that is a word subiect to error
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
learned man doth dissent from them Are not I pray you these and the like Traditions vpon which your Hierarchy depends of some consequence and worth your labour to put them in a Catalogue Or doe you not hold the Traditions of the Apostles to be infallible true 23. It is but a Calumny to affirme that (l) pag. 163. we receiue the definitions of the Church with no lesse deuotion then the holy Scriptures For you cite (m) pag. 169. that very place of Bellarmine where he (n) De Cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth downe at large fiue singular Prerogatiues of the holy Scriptures aboue the definitions of the Church in which respect your fault is lesse excusable It is your owne doctrine that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you will not euen in respect of such points equall her Authority with that of holy Scripture 24. At length you come to teach that Generall Councels may erre euen damnably and yet you also teach that their authority is immediately (o) Pag. 162 deriued from Christ and that their decrees (p) Ibid. binde all persons to externall Obedience But will you haue men in matters of fayth externally belieue themselues dissemble against their conscience And thinke that they do so by authority from Christ The truth is that you might as well say the Church is inuisible as to say that her infallibility consists not in Generall Councels but in this that euery member of the Church cannot erre damnably For towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning fayth all comes to one effect And with what colour of truth doe you say pag. 164.165 that you giue Generall Councells much more respect then do most of our Aduersaries since Catholiques belieue thē to be infallible which you deny 25. But you would gladly proue that Councels are fallible because they are discoursiue in their deliberations and (r) Pag. 167. vse the weights moments of reason for the drawing out of Conclusions from their Principles wherin it is confessed they may mistake 26. It is true we grant that the Church coynes no new Reuelations but only declares such to vs as haue been already deliuered in the written or vnwritten word of God to finde which out she vseth meanes by searching out true Records of Antiquity by discussing the writings of Fathers by consulting the holy Scriptures Traditions c. because it is the will of God that she vse such meanes But the thing vpon which she finally relyes in her Definitions ex parte Obiecti is the Reuelation or attestation of God which is the Formall and last Motine of fayth and exparte Subiecti in behalfe of herselfe she relies vpon the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost directing her not to propound any falshood insteed of a reuealed truth Thus we read in the first Councell Act. 15. Cùm magna disquisitio sieret After great search examination of the Case by citing Scriptures relating Miracles and the blessing of God declared by the good successe and conuersion of so many Gentiles the final determination did not rely vpon these industries but Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost and vs Which words expresse both the formall Motiue and chiefe efficient Cause of fayth as also the free and voluntary concurring of the Apostles assisted by the Holy Ghost And yet I hope you will not out of these diligences discourses of the Apostles inferre that this Councell was fallible Or that there was no more certainty in the Conclusion then in the Arguments themselues of which some abstracting from the assistance of the holy Ghost and the Authority of the Apostles were but as the Deuines speake Arguments of Credibility and dispositions to fayth as Miracles c. Or will you perhaps with your first Patriarch Luther reprehend euen this Councell of the Apostles and say with him That Iames whose (s) In Assert art 29. opinion the whole Councell followed changed the verdict of peter whose iudgment that the Gentiles should not be constrained to obserue the Iewish Ceremonics was most true cōsequently the opinion of Iames and the Councell could not be true You grant as I must often put you in mind that the Church is infallible in fundamentall points must she therfore vse no industry to attaine to the knowledge of such points And Protestants who hold Scripture to be the only Rule of fayth vse meanes of conferring Text consulting the Originals Prayer c. for attayning the true meaning of Scripture and yet you will not grant that your fayth is fallible because you will say it doth not rely vpon those said fallible meanes but finally as you apprehend it rests in the word of God And if any Catholique Author equall the definitions of the Church with the holy Scripture his meaning is that both the one and the other are so infallible that they cannot deliuer any vntruth For in other respects we grāt many singular Prerogatiues to the holy Scripture more then to the definitions of Councels as may partly beseen in (t) De Conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine 27. Your obiection that the great Councell (u) Pag. 170. of Chalcedon corrected the Second of Ephesus and that S. Augustine sayth Prouinciall Councels (w) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by Plenary and Plenary Councels the former by the latter hath beene answered a hundred times and I doubt not but that you haue read Bellarmine who (x) De Couc lib. 1. cap. 6. shewes that the second Councell of Ephesus proceeded vnlawfully wherin S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople was murthered by the faction of Dioscorus and the Popes Legates were driuen away and finally the Eutichian Heresy was confirmed for which causes that Councell was annulled by Pope Leo. You haue pickt out a pretty example to proue that lawfull Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre To the words of S. Augustine Bellarmine answers that (y) De Consul lib. 2. c. 7. §. Respondeo Primò either they are vnderstood of vnlawfull Councels such as was the second of Ephesus or els they are to be vnderstood of Questions concerning matter of fact as whether Caecilianus had deliuered vp the Bible or finally that latter Councels may be said to correct the former because some decrees which concerne manners may by change of circumstāces proue inconuenient although in the beginning they were very holy and fit Which interpretation is gathered out of S. Augustine himselfe who sayth That Councels may be corrected when Experience doth manifest something which before did not appeare Now experience hath no place in vniuersall doctrines but in particular facts or lawes which respect particular circumstāces of time and place c. Your second Citation in your Margent out of S. Augustine (a) Lib. 3. cōt Maxim whose words you did not recite Bellarmine answeres in the place which I haue cited
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
of Charity and be resolued to take scandall where none is giuen we must comfort our selues with that graue and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall (l) S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezes be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of intention in vttering what we thinke yield vs confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre be it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to haue truth declared to him Let vs therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controuerted betwixt Protestats vs for as much as concernes the present Question is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter CHAP. II. VVhat is that meanes vvherby the reuealed Truthes of God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding and vvhich must determine Controuersies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reuerence to holy Scripture euen Protestants themselues do in fact giue testimony while they possesse it from vs take it vpon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could auert our wil froÌ„ giuing the functioÌ„ of supreme sole Iudge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe if both reason experieÌ„ce did not conuince our vnderstanding that by this assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either diuine Tradition though it be vnwritten or an externall Iudge to keep to propose to interpret it in a true Orthodoxe and Catholique sense Euery single Booke euery Chapter yea euery period of holy Scripture is infallibly true wants no due perfection But must we therfore infer that all other Bookes of Scripture are to be excluded least by addition of them we may seeme to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Bookes of the old New Testament were written they did not exclude vnwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controuersies who hath then so altered their nature filled them with such iealousies as that now they cannot agree for feare of mutuall â—isparagemeÌ„t What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the vnwritten then for the vnwritten which was once alone to be afterward ioyned with the written Who euer heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to auouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of law were to deny perfection in the law Are there not in Common wealths besides the lawes written vnwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as seuerall occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controuersies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particuler which must be belieued as true and infallible From the Editions Translations of it From the difficulty to vnderstand it without hazard of Errour From the inconueniences that must follow vpon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it finally from the Confessions of our Aduersaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that â—he it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and religion all Christians ought to haue recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind neuer so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must euer be as all writings are deafe dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men vnderstand a Person endâ—ed with life and reason able to heare to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that ech one may know whether the sentence be in fauour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to do all this as the diuersity of Controuersies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great plaine distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a kingdome the Iudge hath his Rule to follow which are the receiued Lawes and customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselues but that office must belong to a liuing Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwayes the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or vpon any one occasion more particularly then vpon any other and let it be read ouer an hundred times it wil be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controuersies in faith then the Law would be to end suites if it were giuen ouer to the phansy glosse of euery single man 4. This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceiued when more then once hauing stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he adds or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge FroÌ„ hence also it was that though Protestants in their beginning affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controuersies yet vpon a more aduised reflection they changed the phrase and sayd that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controuersies A difference without a disparity The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to vs then the Scripture in which he speakes as a maÌ„ speaking only Latin can be no better vnderstood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controuersies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernicious if one should seeke to take away all Iudges in the kingdome vpon this nicity that albeit Lawes caÌ„not be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity vnderstood then the Law wherby he speaketh 5. But though some writing were granted to haue a priuiledge to declare it selfe vpon supposition that it were maintayned in being and preserued entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserue it selfe nor can complayne or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may vndoubtedly receiue it sincere and pure 6. And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure vs that it selfe were Canonicall
not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the tyme of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomous And further he sayth that (u) Ibid. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. he doth not be lieue all to haue been donne as 〈◊〉 is â—â—t downe And he teacheth the (w) Tit de lib. Vet. â—out Test. booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before vs an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. deliuers this generall censure of the Prophets Bookes The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one booke and by this meanes the Bible was conserued If this were so the Bookes of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church vpon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church diuers Bookes of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which diuers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the obseruation how the before mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Bookes of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New without naming any one they shuffle ouer with this generality All the Bookes of the New Testameâ—â—â— as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be vnfolded If they had descended to particulers they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly receiued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue diuers Bookes of the Old Testament which they reiect By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Bookes of the New Testament If it be the greater or lesse number of voyces that must cry vp or downe the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will preuaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Fayth must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controuersy of Fact whether the number of those who reiect or of those others who receiue such and such Scriptures be greater Their faith must alter according to yeares and dayes When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly receiued stood for them till Zvinglius Caluin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly receaued will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe of the New Testament they giue a far different rule saying All the Bookes of the New Testament as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Bookes might be said to be Commonly receiued although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly receiued passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know vpon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with vs against Luther and diuers principall Lutherans and in others iump with Luther against vs But seeing they disagree among themselues it is euident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning wherof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreouer the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connexion with diuine Reuelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or vnderstanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by diuine authority as because Creatures inuolue a necessary relation connexion and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be deliuered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the Blessed Trinity c. the only setting them downe in Writing is not inough to be assured that such a Writing is the vndoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sybills Ouid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall vpon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed moued the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their vnderstanding and will and hath no such particuler sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discouer or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is diuine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11. And heere we appeale to any man of Iudgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell vs that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter word's it by (y) Pag. 14â— that glorious beame of diuine light which shines therein euen as our eye distinguisheth light from darknes without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voyce by the voyce it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we sayd euen now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with diuine inspiration or reuelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seing that glorious beame of diuine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being euident proportionate connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is diuine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of maÌ„s vnderstanding to vs obscure and to be belieued by diuine fayth which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1 non apparentium an argument
be some vniuersall Iudge which the ignorant may vnderstand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20. Now the inconueniences which follow by referring all Controuersies to Scripture alone are very cleare For by this principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall priuate Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publique externall and a priuate internall voyce whosoeuer refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21. This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church comes to conferre it vpon euery particuler maÌ„ who being driuen from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself as others maliciously may do Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from diuers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity Heare Luther The Gouernours (a) Tom. 2. Wittemberg fol. 375. of Churches and Pastours of Christs sheep haue indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to giue Iudgment whether they propound the voyce of Christ or of Aliens Lubbertus sayth As we haue (b) In lib. de principiâ—s Christian. dogm lib. 6. cap. 13. demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceiued in interpreting so we affirme that they may erre in iudging All faythfull men are prinate Iudges and they also haue power to Iudge of doctrines and interpretations Whitaker euen of the vnlearned sayth They (c) De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to haue recourse vnto the more learned but in the meane tyme we must be carefull not to attribute to them ouer-much but so that still we retaine our owne freedome Bilson also affirmeth that The people (d) In his true difference part 2. must be discerners and Iudges of that which is taught This same pernicious doctrine is deliuered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by (e) Tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. Brereley nothing is more common in euery Protestants mouth then that he admits of Fathers Councells Church c. as far as they agree with Scripture which vpon the matter is himselfe Thus Heresy euer fals vpon extremes It pretends to haue Scripture alone for Iudge of Controuersies and in the meane time sets vp as many Iudges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should idëate or fancy such a Common wealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church They verify what S. Augustine obiecteth against certaine Heretiques You sce (f) lib 32. cont Faust that you goe about to ouerthrow all authority of Scripture and that euery mans mind may be to himselfe a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in euery Scripture 22. Moreouer what coÌ„fusion to the Church what danger to the Common wealth this deniall of the authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any Iudicious indifferent man I will only set downe some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of reuealed Truths sufficient to proue him that gaine saith them to be an Heretique sayth thus This Proposition (g) pag. 247 of reuealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope and Church being excluded let vs heare what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoeuer meanes a man may be conuinced in conscience of diuine reuelation If a Preacher do cleare any point of fayth to his Hearers if a priuate Christian do make it appeare to his Neighbour that any conclusion or point of faith is deliuered by diuine reuelation of Gods word if a man himselfe without any Teacher by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be conuinced of the truth of any such coclusion this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain saith any such proofe to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of fayth arise in place of Gods vniuersall visible Church which must yield to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Verily I do not see but that euery well gouerned Ciuill Common-wealth ought to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred vpon euery man who whatsoeuer is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditions creature 23. Moreouer 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 Gentils endewed in those dayes with diuine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the decider of Controuersies and Instructor of the faithfull Neither did the Word written by Moses depriue that Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Iudge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a liuing Iudge in the Iewish Church endewed with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to diuine 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 vpon seuerall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles 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 Sauiour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little receiued holy Scripture she was by the like degrees deuested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controuersies in Religion That some Churches had one Iudge of Controuersies 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 Controuersies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discouery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by diuine vn written Traditions and affistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controuersies as Tertullian saith The soule is (h) De test antm cap. 5. before the letter and speach before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would haue brought to the world diuision 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 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
consequeÌ„ce because if once we doubt of one Booke receiued for Canonicall the whole Canon is made doubtfull and vncertayne and therefore the Infallibility of Scripture must be vniuersall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15. I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receaued for such I may doubt of all And thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches Infallibility in some points we could not belieue her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof belieue that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intended to proue Yet I add that Protestants cannot make vse of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend For if D. Potter can tell what points in particuler be fundamentall as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoeuer he meets with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Saluation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary Truths are eyther manifestly contayned therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which doctrines being put togeather to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particuler be such I meane fundamentall it is manifest that it is sussicieÌ„t for Saluation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to saluation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to auoyde this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particuler till they belieue that Christs promises to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16. Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant learned or vnlearned doth or can with assurance belieue the vniuersall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser momeÌ„t which they call not fundamentall because they belieue that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they go to learne of her least other wise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certaine and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselues to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learne not of her but will be be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Sauiour himselfe counselled and commaunded to seeke to heare to obey the Church S. Augustine was of a very different mind from Protestants If sayth he the (s) Epist. 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnes And in another place he sayth That which (t) lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds and is not ordained by CouÌ„cels but hath alwaies beene kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proued by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be belieued as deriued from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the (u) lib. 10. de Genesi ad liter cap. 23. Church saith he in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be belieued vnles it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ (w) Serm. 54. de verbis Apost c. 18. is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not belieuing But God forbid that I should say Infants doe not belieue I haue already sayd he belieues in another who sinned in another It is sayd he belieues it is of force and he is reckoned among the faythfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this stâ—eÌ„gth against this inuincible wal whosoeuer rusheth shal be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the CoÌ„ference at Ratisbon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino (x) See Protocoll Monac edit 2. pag. 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus In this we plainely disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but deliuered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner We follow (y) lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 33. indeed in this matter euen the most certaine authority of Canonicall Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet euen in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to vs. AmoÌ„g many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we proue some points not particulerly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church euen in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therfore relying on her we rely on Scripture without danger of being deceiued by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And else where he sayth Seing this is (z) De vnit Eccles c. 19. written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speake the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresy wherin he coÌ„tradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now
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
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
the vniuersall Church where you breake off But Innocentius his words are these The Vniuersall Church is said to be that which consists of all Churches which of the Greeke word is called Catholique and according to this acception of the Word the Roman Church is not the Vniuersall Church but part of the Vniuersall Church Yet the first and chiefe part as the head in the body because in her fulnes of power doth exist but only a part of fulnes is deriued to others And that One Church which containes vnder it selfe all Churches is said to be the Vniuersall Church And according to this signification of the Word only the Roman Church is called the Vniuersall Church because she alone is preferred before the rest by priuiledge of singuler dignity As God is called the vniuersall Lord not because he is diuided into species c. but because all things are contained vnder his Dominion For there is One generall Church of which Truth it selfe said to Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke c. And the many particular Churches of which the Apostle sayth Instantia mea c. One doth consist of all as the generall of particulars One hath the preeminence before all because seing there is one Body of the Church of which the Apostle sayth We are all one Body in Christ she excels the rest as the Head excels the other members of the body Thus far Innocentius who as you see teacheth that the Roman Church is the Head of all others That although the Roman Church in one sense be a particular Church yet in another sense it both is and ought to be called the Vniuersall Church and finally that your Obiectiō about the repugnance betwixt the terme Vniuersall and particular is friuolous as he explicates very well by the example of Almighty God who is said to be an Vniuersall Cause and yet had neyther genus nor species and besids whom there are other particular Causes Is this to affirme as you say that the Roman Church is a topycall or particular Church in and vnder the Vniuersall Or that she is onely Topicall or particular as you would make the Reader belieue 9. Your preaching rather then prouing the Charity of your Church Administration of Sacraments c. must rely vpon a voluntary begging of the Question that your Religion is true otherwise the good deeds you mention are not expressions of Charity but professions of Heresy The learned Cardinall Hosius saying Whosoeuer belieues (f) Hosiu in Confess Petricon çap. 14. the Article of the Catholique Church belieues all things necessary to Saluation sayes no more then you will say that whosoeuer belieues the whole Canon of Scripture belieues all things necessary to Saluation And you cannot but speake against your owne conscience when you say of the Roman Church pag. 16. She tells them it is Creed inough for them to belieue onely in the Catholike Church For your selfe pag. 198. affirme that the best aduised of Catholique Deuines yield there are some points necessary to be knowne of all sorts necessitate medi◠in which points implicite fayth doth not suffice you cite some of our Authors to this purpose Chap. 71. 241. and referre vs to a great many more What conscionable dealing is this I will not stand to note that Hosius euen as he is cited by you in Latin doth not say that we belieue in the Church as you make him speake in your text but that we belieue the Church But inough of this 10. In your First Edition I find these wordes Neuer did (g) Pag. 13. any Church affoard more plentifully the meanes of grace nor more abound with all helps and aduantages of Piety then this of ours But in your second Edition you say No Church of this Age doth affoard c. Whereby you acknowledge that at first you did ouerlash so do you now But it comes to you by kind Beza makes bold to say When I compare euen the tymes which were next to the Apostles (h) In epist. Theol. epist. 1. pag. 5. with ours I am wont to say and in my opinion not without cause that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge and contrarily we haue more knowledge and lesse conscience And M. Whitgift your once Archbishop of Canterbury sayth The doctrine taught and professed (i) In his defēce of the answer c. pag. 472. 473. by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder then commonly was in any Age after the Apostles c. How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greeke Church and Latins also for the most part spotted with doctrines of Free will of Merits of Inuocation of Saints and such like Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles times any Company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this day And will not the Puritanes say that they are more pure then Protestants and Anabaptists accompt themselues more vnspotted then Puritanes c In the meane time your own Archbishop grants that Almost all the Bishops learned Writers of the Greeke Church and Latins also were for the most part spotted with doctrines which now you call Popish Superstitions 11. The rest of this Section contaynes nothing but rayling and vntruths continually vttered by euery Minister and often answered by our Writers In Catholique Countreys there may be good reason for not mentioning the needles praises of condemned Heretiques lest the estimation of their morall parts which they abuse against Gods Church breed a liking and add authority to their pestiferous errors If D. Stapleton or any other speaking of Heretiques in generall compare them to Magicians c. as Tertullian also doth what is that to you vnles you be resolued to proclaime your selfe an Heretique Such sayings are not directed to their Persons which we loue but fall vpon their sinne which considered in it selfe cannot I hope be ouerwronged by ill language S. Policarpe called an Heretique the first begotten of the Diuell S. Paul giues them the name of (k) Philip. 3.2 Dogs S. Iohn * Ep. 2.7 termes them Antichrists as your Ministers are wont to call the Pope Charity Mistaken compares you not with Iewes or Turkes for impossibility to be saued Euery deadly sinne excludes saluation yet some are more grieuous and further from pardon then others 12. I hope the Mistaker (l) Pag. 19. would not wish vs conuerted from our Creed No But we wish you conuerted from Erroneous Interpretations therof to the Catholique Church which we professe in our Creed In the meane time these are learned arguments which may serue both sides Protestants belieue the Creed Ergo they need not be couuerted Catholiques belieue the Creed Ergo they need not be conuerted You tell vs of a Censure of the Creed written by some Catholique And in your first Edition you put Censura
Spirits be remoued And Let vs (x) cap. 3. not heare These things I say These things thou saist but let vs heare These things our Lord sayth And What are our words (y) cap. 2. wherin we must not seeke her c. All that we obiect one against another of the giuing vp of the holy Bookes of the Sacrificing to Idols and of the persecution are our words these words you fraudulently conceale although you cite other in the selfe same Chapter because they plainly shew what S. Augustin vnderstands by Humane Testimonies they answere all your Obiections And The Question betweene vs (z) cap. 2. is where the Body of Christ that is the Church is What then are we to do Shall we seeke her in our words or in the words of our Lord Iesus-Chris̄t her head Surely we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is Truth and best knowes his owne Body And Let this Head (a) cap. 4. of which we agree shew vs his Body of which we disagree that our dissentions may by his words be ended Which words plainely declare the reason why he appealed to Scriptures because both parts agreed about them but disagreed concerning the Church And That we are in the (b) cap. 19. True Church of Christ and that this Church is vniuersally spread ouer the earth we proue not by OVR Doctours or Councels or Miracles but by the diuine Scriptures The Scriptures are the only this word only put by you in a different letter as if it were S. Augustines is your owne addition Document and foundation of our cause These are the places by you alleaged so vnfaithfully And will you in good earnest infer from them that we must reiect all Councels neuer so lawfull all Doctors neuer so Orthodox all Miracles neuer so authenticall euen those which were wrought in the Primitiue Church particularly in S. Augustines time which he himselfe published (c) De ciuit Det lib. 22. çap. 8. approued and admired And aboue all will you infer that after we haue found out the true Church by Markes set downe in Scripture her voyce for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard but to be esteemed a meere humane testimony of Notaries c. as S. Augustine vnderstood humane Testimony when he writ against the Donatists Or will you infer that we must learne from Scripture all that which we are obliged to belieue This you pretend but with such successe as you are wont that is to plead for your Aduersary against your selfe Which is manifestly proued by the other Question of Rebaptization controuerted with the Donatists for which they were properly and formally Heretiques and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of beliefe he could not produce Scripture as appeares by his words which I cited in the first (d) Chap. ◠num 16. Part and desire the Reader to saue me the labour of repeating them heere and then he will easily see that there is great difference betwixt the generall question of the Church and Questions concerning particular Doctrines deliuered by the Church in which this holy Father sayth not we must haue recourse to Scripture alone but that we ought to belieue the Church which is recommended to vs by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very booke De vnitate Ecclesiae out of which you brought the aforesaid places to proue that all Controuersies must be decided by Scripture With what modesty then do you say The Mistaker was ill aduised to send vs to this (e) pag. 33. Treatise which both in the generall ayme and in the quality of the Arguments and proofes is so contrary to his pretensions 7. You leaue (f) pag. 33. a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate vpon Whosoeuer (g) S. Aug. de vnit Eççles çap. 4. will belieue aright in Christ the Head but yet doth so dissent from his Body the Church that their Communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerall in some part it is manifest that such are not in the Catholique Church Well suppose all were done as you desire what other thing could be concluded then this But when Luther appeared Protestantisme was not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with himselfe alone What will follow from hence you haue so much Logicke that you cannot Mistake Wherefore at this day and for euer we must say of the Catholique Church as Saint Augustine sayd Euery one of those he speakes of Heretiques is not (g) De Vnit Eççles ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found but she who is ouer All is to be found in the selfe same places where the others are 8. You made an ill choyce of S. Epiphanius to proue by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Euidence of Scripture For he not only approues Traditions as necessary but also proues them out of Scripture We ought sayth he to vse also (h) Haeres 61. Tradition for all things cannot be taken from the holy Scripture the holy Apostles therfore deliuered some things in writing and some things by Tradition as the holy Apostle sayth As I deliuered to you And in another place So I teach and so I deliuered in the Churches And the same Father as we shall see anon doth most cleerly approue Traditiōs yea and confutes Aērius by Tradition alone without any Scripture It is then no wonder if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men belieue that he speakes of Heresies in generall whereas his words concerne some few in particular as the Samosatenians Arians c. His wordes as you translate them are these The Diuine (k) Haeres 65. Goodnes hath forewarned vs agaynst Heresies by his Truth for God foreseeing the Madnes Impiety Fraude of the Samosatenians Arians Manichees and other Heretiques hath secured vs by his diuine Word against all their subtilities But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this Therfore the holy Scripture doth make vs secure of euery word That is hath secured vs how we are to speake or what words to vse against the deceipts of the Samosatenians Arians and of other Heresies concerning the blessed Trinity as it is cleere by these words immediatly following which you thought fittest to conceale For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten For how can he be the Only begotten who is not Begotten But he calls the Sonne the only begotten that the Sonne may not be thought to be the Father c. Where you see he speakes of Words or manner of speaking and concerning particular Heresies which yet is made more cleere by the words immediatly precedent to the sentence by you cited which words you also thought good to leaue out For he first proues out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father but that the Father is not Begotten and therfore the Only-Begotten is the Sonne And then
to our Sauiour Christ highest adoration is exhibited as to God Or as Bellarmine (t) De Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9. sayth we distinguish Saints from Christ because we offer Sacrifice of Thankes-giuing for Saints but we do not offer Sacrifice for Christ but to him together with the Father and the holy Ghost You likewise falsify S. Epiphanius while you say out of him That the liuing haue hope for the deceased as for those which be from home in another Countrey and that at length they shall attaine the state which is more perfect Which last words are not in S. Epiphanius who neuer taught that we offer Prayers for Saints that they may attaine a state which is more perfect And when S. Epiphanius sayth that those who pray for their Brethren haue hope of them as of those who are in another Countrey you leaue out Praying and only put in Hope And that you may be assured how contrary S. Epiphanius is to you not only in the doctrine of Prayer for the dead but also in the ground and reason for which he belâ—â—ues it namely Tradition marke his wordes The Church sayth he in the same place doth necessarily practise this by Tradition receiued from our Ancestors And who can breake the Ordination of his Mother and the Law of his Father as Salomoâ— sayth Heare O Sonne the words of thy Father and retect not the Ordination of thy Mother Shewing by this that God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost haue taught both by writing and without writing behold diuine Traditions and our Mother the Church hath also in herselfe Ordinances inuiolable which cannot be broken behold Ecclesiasticall Traditions Since therfore there be Ordinances set downe in the Church and that all be right and admirable this Seducer Aërius remaines confuted And together with him all those that follow his heresy And let vs yet heare S. Epiphanius speaking a little before of another point thus But who knowes most of these thinges Whether this deluded fellow Aërius who is yet aliuâ—â— c. or those who before vs haue yielded Testimony and haue had the Tradition of the Church which also was deliuered from their Fore-Fathers as they likewise learned of those who were before them in which manner the Church doth still conserue the true Fayth receiued from their Fore-Fathers and also Traditions Consider now with what reason you alleaged S. Epiphanius as one who sayth that all Heresy is to be confuted by euidence of Scripture wheras he doth cleerly auouch Tradition in generall and doth in particular consute the Heresy of Aerius without alleaging so much as one Text of Scripture 13. And though S. Epiphanius alone might suffice both to assure vs what was the Heresy of Aërius in whose time he liued and also to witnes for all the rest of the Greeke Fathers yea for the whole Church because he auouched Prayer for the dead to come from the TraditioÌ„ of Gods Church yet I will add some more of the Greeke Church as S. Dionysius Areopagita who saith Then the Venerable (u) Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. Bishop doth pray ouer the dead party that the diuine Goodnes would pardon all his sinnes committed by humane frailty and transferre him to light and the Countrey of the liuing I wonder then how in your Text your could tel vs that (w) Pag. 37. conformably to your Opinion The ancient Church in her Liturgy remembred all those that slept in hope of the ResurrectioÌ„ of euerlasting lyfe and particularly the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs c. beseeching God to giue theÌ„ rest and to bring them you put in a parenthesis at the ResurrectioÌ„ to the place where the light of his countenance should shine vpon them for euermore And in your Margent you cite S. Dionysius as fauouring you who neuertheles in the very Chapter which you cite for your Opinion is directly agaynst you in the words euen now alledged The like fincerity you shew in the very same Margent in citing S. Cyril who doth cleerly affirme that in the Sacrifice we remeÌ„ber some that they would pray for vs and others that they may be relieued by our Prayers and Sacrifices in these words When we offer this Sacrifice (x) Catech. 5. we make meÌ„tion of those who are deceased of Patriarchs c. that God would receyue our prayers by their intercession And we pray for al who are deceased belieuing that it is a most great help to those for whom the obsecratioÌ„ of that holy and dreadfull Sacrifice is offered S. Gregory Nyssen saith He cannot after his departure (y) In Orat. pro mortuis from the body be made partaker of the Diuinity vnles the purging fire shall cleanse the staynes of his soule 14. Among the Latin Fathers Protestants pretend to esteeme none more then S. Augustine and yet none can speake more plainely against them in this point then he doth who besids that he rankes AeÌ„rius among the Heretiques in another place he sayth Purge me (z) In Psal 37. in this lyfe in such sort as that I may not need the correcting or amending fire And afterward It is sayd he shall be saued as if it were by fire and because it is sayd he shall be saued that fire growes to be contemned But so it is though he shall be saued yet the paine of that fire is more grieuous then whatsoeuer a man can suffer in this life And elsw where Some suffer (a) De ciuit lib. 21. c. 13. temporall punishments only in this life others after death others both now and then Of which place Fulke is enforced to say Augustine concludes very cleerly (b) Consut of Purg. pag. 110. that some suffer Temporall paines after this life this may not be denied And in another place S. Augustine sayth We ought not (c) De verbis Apost serm 34. to doubt but that the dead are holpen by the Prayers of the holy Church and by the holesome Sacrifice and by Ailrnes giuen for their soules that our Lord would avale with them more mercifully then their sinnes haue deserued For the whole Church obserues this as deliuered from our Fathers Neither can you auoide these Authorities by flying to the Requests of Gods mercy that they may haue their (d) Pag. 39. serfect Consummation in body and soule in the kingdome of God at the last Iudgment as you speake For besides that all they who depart this life in Gods fauour are most assured of a perfect Consummation independantly of our Almes-deeds Prayers c. S. Augustine as you haue heard speakes of a Purging fire of Temporall Punlishments after this life c. And doth elsewhere write as if he had purposely intended to preuent this your Euasion saying At the Altar (e) Tract 84. in Joan. we do not remember Martyrs as we do other deceased who rest in peace by praying for them but rather that they would pray for vs. Which difference between Martyrs and other
we grant that it is not alwayes easy to determine in particuler occasions whether this or that doctrine be such Because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or diuine Tradition or Definition of the Church and much more whether the person be an Heretique which requireth certaine conditions as Capacity Pertinacy sufficient Proposition c. which are not alwayes so easily explicated and discerned and for these respects S. Augustine in the place cited (b) Pag. 102. by you had good reason to say That it is hard to know what makes an Heretique But it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter to giue a generall definition of Heresy or Heretique since in this very Section you dispatch it quickly saying He is iustly (c) Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretique who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded Or as you say else where It is fundamentall (d) Pag. 250. to a Christians Fayth and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God wherof he may be conuinced that they are from God Nay if you will speake with coherence to your owne grounds it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable Heresy for you I say who measure all Heresy by opposition to Scripture and further affirme that Scripture is cleere in all fundamentall points For by this meanes it will be easy for you to discerne what error opposeth those fundamental Truths which are cleerly contained in Scripture 4. In your discourse concerning the Controuersy between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian you shew a great deale of passion against the Roman Church which you impugne out of an Epistle of Firmilianus who at that time was a party against the Pope and who in particuler did afterward recant togeather with the other Bishops who once ioyned with S. Cyprian as we haue already shewed out of S. Hierome may be also seen in an Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusch hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherin Firmilianus in particular is named therfore you are inexcusable who say they persisted in their opinion wheras the proceeding of S. Stephen was necessary to preuent a pernicious error of rebaptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretiques which afterward was condemned by the whole Church And as for S. Cyprians mild proceeding which you so much commend out of your ill will to S. Stephen because he was Pope S. Augustine saith The things which (e) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. Cyprian in anger hath spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. Wherfore you could not haue picked out an example more in fauour of Popes then this And you must giue vs leaue not to credit what you say That both Stephen and Cyprian erred in some sense For Stephen only affirmed that Baptisme was not inualide precisely because it is giuen by Heretiques as S. Cyprian affirmed it to be but yet if the Heretiques erred either in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme Stephen neuer affirmed such Baptisme to be valid which had been more then he granted euen to the Baptisme of Catholiques 5. Your Argument to proue that (f) Pag. 112. concerning our greater safety we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholiques I haue answered (g) Cap. 7. num 7. in the First Part. You would make men belieue that we are like the Donatists who washed Church wall and vestments of Catholiques broke their Chalices scraped their Altars c. But I pray you consider whether Chalices Vestments Palls or Corporals and Altars do expresse the Protestant Church of England Scotland Geneua Holland c. or the Church of Rome 6. You spend diuers pages in propounding Arguments for the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton That whersoeuer a company of men (h) Pag. 113. doe iointly professe the substance of Christian Religion which is fayth in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mynd and will there is a Church wherein Saluation may be had notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practise yea although it be of that nature that it seeme to fight with the very foundation and so haynous as that in respect thereof the people stayned with this corruption are worthy to be abhorred of all men and vnworthy to be called the Church of God But because these and such monstruous Assertions proceed from other errours which I haue already both cleerly and at large confuted to wit the Fallibility of the Church the Distinction of points fundamental and not fundamentall c. I referre you to those places and heere onely obserue into what precipices they fall who deny the vniuersall Infallibility of the Church And it is strange that you your selfe did not see the manifest contradictions inuolued in this wicked doctrine For how can it be a Church wherein Saluation may be had and yet be vnworthy to be called the Church of God How can that man haue fayth in Iesus Christ with submission to his doctrine in mind and will who is supposed to ioyne with his beliefe in Iesus Christ other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against Gods word or Reuelation Can submission in mind or will or obseruation of his Commandments stand with actuall voluntary error against his word Is it not a prime Commandment to belieue Gods word Do not your selfe affirme that it is Infidelity to deny whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture How then can a Church be said to haue meanes for saluation and life wherin is wanting Fayth the first ground of saluation The Fathers sometimes called the Donatists Brethren by reason of their true Baptisme not for their possibility to be saued according as S. Augustine said to them The Sacraments of Christ (i) Epist 48. do not make thee an Heretique but thy wicked disagreement And Optatus sayth You cannot (k) Lib. 4◠but be our brethren whom the same Mother the Church hath begotten in the same bowels of Sacraments whom God our Father hath in the same manner receiued as adopted Children namely on his behalfe and for as much as concernes the vertue of Baptisme The Conclusion of your discourse may well beseeme the doctrine for which you bring it A learned man (l) Pag. 122. anciently was made a Bishop of the Catholique Church although he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies You might haue added that he would not belieue that the world should euer haue an end and further absolutely refused to be baptized And that he would not as the History recoūteth liue a single life as other Priests but that he would liue with a wife For Synesius who is the man you meane publiquely protested all these things and you are wise inough to take only what might seeme to serue your turne as this concerning the single liues of Priests did not because it sheweth that in those
the one is by you cited deliuer his opinion in the person of his Disciple to be directly for the infallible authority of Councels So as heer is a double corruption the one the citing words for his opinion which are not so the other the concealing those which are his and directly to the contrary Clemangis his workes are forbidden That worke of Cusanus which you (c) Concord Cathol cite he afterward retracted Panormitanus in the place (d) In cap. Significasti extra de Electione cited by you may seeme to speake of Councells disagreeing from the Pope and though he say that if the Councell erred it did not follow that the whole Church should erre because the faith might remaine in others yet that doth not conuince that he held a Generall Councell together with the Pope might erre For Canus hath the very same Obiection and Answere and yet as we shall see anon he holds it to be a matter of faith that General Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre Neuertheles if Panormitanus did hold that Generall Councells with the Pope might erre he can only be excused because he did not affirme it with pertinacity Petrus de Aliaco hath indeed (e) Quaest in Vesper art 3. the words which you cite but they are not spoken by him as his opinion but as the opinion of some others so he hath also the cleane contrary proposition viz. that a generall Councell cannot erre nor euen the Remane Church which you might as well haue alledged for his opinion as the other but the truth is that neither are alledged by him as his owne doctrine but as the opinion of others as I said which he expreslly sayth that he doth forbeare to discusse for the present contenting himselfe onely with these three Conclusions which expresse his owne opinion First that alwayes there is some Church which is ruled by the law of Christ which according to his former explication is as much as to say that there is alwayes some Church which cannot erre The second that it is not conuinced out of Scripture that any particular Church is in such manner conformed to the rule of Christs law The third is that it is conuinced out of Scripture that alwayes there is some vniuersall Church which neuer swarues from the rule of Christ Neither will it aduantage you that he teacheth that any particular Church may erre For as I haue often told you the Roman Church in the sense which I haue heertofore declared is all one with the Vniuersall Church and so his doctrine that the Vniuersall Church cannot erre directly proues that the Romane cannot erre And when he teacheth that the Vniuersall Church cannot erre he doth not distinguish betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall as you do You cite out of Canus these words I confesse (f) Canus loc lib. 5. c. 5. §. At contrà that euery Cenerall Councell doth represent the whole Church But when you vrge that the Church cannot erre it is true in that sense in which faithfull people vnderstand it which is that the whole Church together that is all faythfull people do not erre But this doth not hinder but that the greater part of the Church may erre I should scarcely haue belieued it to be possible for any man aliue who pretends to haue credit common fame to peruert the sense of this Author as you do vnles I did see with mine owne eyes both what you write and indeed what Canus affirmes For in the Chapter next precedent (g) Cap. 4. §. Tertia CoÌ„â—lusio to that which you cite he hauing affirmed that a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope makes a thing certayne and belonging to fayth in respect of vs áddeth that this Conclusion is so certayne that the coÌ„trary is hereticall which he proues by diuers good conuincing reasons and among the rest that if such a Councell could erre there were no way certaine to decide Controuersies of fayth And in the place which you cite afterward he impugnes their opinion who affirme that a Generall CouÌ„cell is infallible before it be confirmed by the Pope which they endeauoured to proue because the CouÌ„cel represents the whole Church and therfore can erre no more then the vniuersall Church it selfe To which Argument he answeres in the words which I set downe and which you alledge to proue that Canus held a Generall Councell might erre namely But when you vrge that the Church caÌ„not erre it is true in that sense in which faythfull people vnderstand it which is that the whole Church together that is all faythfull people do not erre and therefore it is euident that you bring them directly agaynst his words and meaning bring the Obiection for his answere And besides what we haue already related out of him within fiue lines after the words cited by you he sayth The Councell would be infallible if it were confirmed by the Pope I leaue it to your owne consideration what iudgement euen you would frame of any other beside your selfe if he should cite Authours in this manner 22. You haue no reason to be so much offended that we equall diuine vnwritten Traditions with the written word of God For we haue so reuerend an opinion of Gods word as that whersoeuer we find it our fayth belieues it to be most infallible nor can we belieue that pen inke and paper can add any certainty to the Truth thereof Without cause also you accuse the Romane Church of supine negligence because she hath not as yet giuen a Catalogue of vnwritten Traditions as well as of all the Bookes of Scripture For you might also condemne the Ancient Church which did not for diuers ages deliuer any Catalogue of Canonicall Bookes which yet afterward she did as occasion required And as the Councell of Trent by reason of your heresies whereby you denyed diuers Canonicall Bookes of Scripture set downe a perfect Canon of Scripture so as iust necessary occasioÌ„ may require the holy Ghost by which she is directed will not fayle to assist her in making a Catalogue of vnwritten Traditions I cannot find but that your moderne Brethren will gladly admit of some Apostolicall Traditions agaynst the Puritans and why then doe you not make a Catalogue of them as you haue done of the Bookes of Scripture Your famous Archbishop of Canterbury sayth For so much as the Originall (i) M. Witgift in his his defence c. pag. 351 beginning of these names Metropolitan Archbishop c. such is their Antiquity cannot be found so farre as I haue read it is to he supposed they haue their Originall from the Apostles themselues for as I remember S. Augustine hath this Rule in his 118. Epistle And in proofe of this Rule of S. Augustine he adds It is of credit (k) Vbi sugra pag. 352. with the Writers of our tyme namely with M. Zwinglius M. Caluin M. Gualter and surely I thinke no
Peter died Bishop of Rome is so weake that himselfe sayth only suadere videtur it seemes to perswade This Bellarmine sayth only of one reason besides which he bringeth diuers other demonstrations neither is it necessary for the certainty of any truth that euery reason for it be euident And it is the doctrine of Philosophers that the best methode is to begin with probable Arguments and then to ascend to demonstrations Moreouer in this very subiect Vdalricus Velenus a Lutheran wrote a Booke to proue that S. Peter was neuer at Rome and to that purpose he brings eighteen reasons which he calls Persuasions yet he holds them for euident Demonstrations If then Bellarmine out of his great modesty say that his first reason seemes to persuade must you thence inferre that it doth not demonstrate And indeed it is a very good and solid argument After this you go forward and cite Bellarmine saying There God cōmanded him to fixe his Chaire to leaue his full Power to his heyres and Successours the Popes And then you adde But what certainty of this Indeed saith Bellarmine it is no where (r) De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Ob seruandum est tertiò expressed in Scripture that the Pope you should add of Rome as Bellarmine hath it succeeds Peter therefore happily it is not of diuine right that he succeeds him Yet it is not improbable that (s) Ibid. § Et quontam God commanded him to fasten his Seate at Rome and it may be deuoutly so belieued And it may be truly belieued that you corrupt Bellarmine First when you speake of Popes you leaue out of Rome in which word consisteth the maine point For Bellarmine teaches that it is most certaine and de iure diuino that S. Peter should haue Popes to succeed him but he holdeth it not so certaine whether it be of diuine institution that his Successour should be Pope of Rome that is haue his Seate fixed at Rome although de facto it be there Bellarmines wordes are It is not all one that a thing be a point of fayth and that it be of diuine institution For it was not a diuine Law that S. Paul should haue a cloake yet it is a point of fayth that S. Paul had a Cloake Though then it be not exprsly contained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter thus far you goe and leaue out the words immediately following which explicate the whole matter Yet it is euidently deduced out of Scripture that some must succeed S. Peter but that he who succeeds him is the Bishop of Rome we know by the Apostolicall Tradition of S. Peter which Tradition Generall Councels Decrees of Popes and Consent of Fathers haue declared as heerafter shall be demonstrated And according to this cleere explication he said a little before Because S. Marcellus Pope in his Epistle ad Antiochenos writes that S. Peter came to Rome by the Commandment of our Lord and S. Ambrose (t) In Orat. cont Auxētium and S. Athanasius (u) In Apolog pro fuga sua affirme that S. Peter suffered Martyrdome at Rome by the commandment of Christ it is not improbable that our Lord did also expresly command that S. Peter should so settle his Seate at Rome that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him But howsoeuer this be at lest this manner of Succession proceeds not from the first institution of the Popedome which is deliuered in Scripture Do you not see what Bellarmine deliuers for certaine what for lesse certaine It is certaine that S. Peter must haue Successours it is certaine that in fact his Successour is the Bishop of Rome but it is not so certaine that by diuine institution his Successour is the Bishop of Rome but that might proceed from the act of S. Peter who actually liued and died Bishop of Rome though he might haue chosen some other particular Diocesse These things Bellarmine deliuers very cleerly but you do so inuolue his words as one would belieue that he held it for vncertaine whether actually the Pope of Rome be S. Peters Successour or whether it be certaine and of diuine institution that S. Peter left any Successour at all both which are plainely against his meaning and expresse words 31. Your other obiections are so old and triuiall that they deserue no Answere I sayd already that in time of Schisme the Church hath power to declare or elect a true and vndoubted Pope and in the meane tyme God in his Prouidence can gouerne his Church without new definitions of Popes of which there is not alwayes so precise necessity as that the Church may not subsist without thē for a time as for three hundred yeares from the Apostles tymes she was without any one Generall Councell and as the Iewes for two thousand yeares were without Scripture If any should enter symonically be accepted by the Churh as Pope God will eyther not permit him to define any matter of fayth or els will assist him not to erre perniciously not for his owne sake but in respect of the Church which cannot be ledde into errour as she might if that reputed Pope could define a falshood because the members are obliged to conforme themselues to one whome they esteeme their Head And you your selfe must say the same For since all the spirituall Power and Iurisdiction of your first Prelates was deriued from Rome you must affirme that a Pope accepted for such by the Church is sufficiently enabled for all necessary acts and functions notwithstanding that secret impediment For otherwise you might endanger the Authority of your owne Prelates And the same you must in proportion say of all publique Magistrates The same answere serues to your other Obiectiō that we are not sure whether he that is elected Pope be baptized For it belongs to Gods prouidence not to permit any whome the Church hath elected for her head to erre perniciously though indeed your suppositions are neuer to be admitted but we are to belieue that whosoeuer in a tyme free from Schisme is accepted by the Church for true Pope is such indeed And I wonder you doe not reflect that these obiections are also against your owne Bishops Or if you say that your spirituall Iurisdiction comes from the Temporall Prince the same difficulty wil remaine cōcerning him For I suppose you will not say that one who is not baptized and consequently not a Christian can meerly by vertue of his Temporall Power giue spirituall Iurisdiction And though you say that it is not want of intention in the Minister which can make voyde the Sacrament of Baptisme yet you will not deny but that there may be other essentiall defects hindring the validity therof as for example if by error the water be so mingled that it be not elementall water or if the forme of the words in Baptisme be not pronounced entierely c. For in your forme of Publique Baptisme
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