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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
if you answere me at all I beseech you forget not this demand and whether the obseruation of them be not holy and forasmuch as belongs to that particular obiect a perfect Cbristian fast and meritorious in that sense and degree according to which you grant that other works are meritorious or deseruing a reward For the other part of your obiection that he that eates flesh in Lent is punished with a more grieuous pennance then he that blasphemes c. you shew how modest a man you are and with all that you are little seene either in the Canon or Ciuill Law For the Ciuill Law commaunds that (t) In Authentiea vs non luxurientur homines Nouell 77. Blasphemers should be punished with death because sayth the Law Hunger and earthquakes and plagues come by reason of such crimes In the (u) Cap. Statuimus de matediçiâ—â— Canon Law Blasphemers beside other punishments are to stand as Penitents at the Church doore for the space of some Sundayes and for some fridayes to fast in bread water c. and by other decrees of Popes the same sinne is grieuously punished as in particular the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the 10. commands That none be absolued from Blasphemy without a grieuous penance and to the same purpose Iulius III. and Pius V. haue made very seuere decrees Neuertheles it is also true that greater punishment may in foro externo be appointed for some sinnes which are lesse then other as S. Thomas doth (w) 1.2 q. 105. ar 2. ad 9. and 2.2 q. 39. art 2. ad 1. truly affirme Do not your selues more vsually punish such as without licence eate flesh in Lent then them who take the Name of God in vaine or abuse themselues by drunkennes or wrong their Neighbours by detraction And besides to eate flesh in Lent may be an act of Heresy which how grieuous a sinne it is hath been explicated heertofore 10. By occasion of mentioning the Manichees you charge your Margent as your fashion is with a deep peece of erudition that the name forsooth of their founder Manes is conforme to the Greeke word which signifies Madnes But if we delighted is take hold of such goodly occasions of Vanity we could say that he was a Persian and his name was first Cubricus which he changed into Mames which in the Babylonian Tongue signifies (x) Epiph. haeres 66. a Vessell But let vs leaue these toyes to Grammar Schollers 11. It seemes you are willing of set purpose to mistake the point in question which was whether the Creed containe all fundamentall points of fayth or no about which Charity Mistaken hauing instanced in some points of fayth not contained in the Creed as the Scriptures and Sacraments he adds these words Besides that there are (y) Pag. 86.87 some great differences betweene them meaning Protestants and vs about the vnderstanding of the Article of the descent of Christ our Lord into hell and that other of the Holy Catholique Church and that also of the Communion of Saints which we belieue and they deny to inuolue both Prayers for the dead and Prayers to Saints as that we should not be much better either for our knowing or confessing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of Fayth vnles withall there were some certaine way how to vnderstand them aright and especially vnles vnder the Article which concernes the holy Catholique Church they would vnderstand it to be endued with so perfect infallibility and great Authority as that it might teach vs all the rest This solid discourse you mangle as you please still forgetting the promise you made in your Preface to the Reader not to omit any one thing of moment For you answere not a word to his particular instances of Prayer for the dead or to Saints nor to his generall exception that we should not be much better for knowing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth vnles withall there were some way of vnderstanding them aright If you answere that Prayers for the dead or to Saints are not Fundamentall points whether they be denied or affirmed then you must grant that you forsooke the Church of Rome for things indifferent and not fundamentall one way or other For these two points and such as these were the pretended errours wherewith you seeke to cloake your Schisme To the other you answere The Church of England (z) Pag. 240. questioneth not the sense of those Articles She takes them in the old Catholique sense and the words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Why do you answere to these two points of the Catholique Church and our Sauiours descent into Hell rather then to the other which Charity-Mistaken doth mention And in these two of which you take notice why doe you vse so much tergiuersation Why doe you not plainely and honestly acquaint vs with the meaning of them If you say that by the Catholique Church is vnderstood a Church alwaies visible not capable of errour in fundamentall points many of your chiefe Brethren will contradict that which you iudge to be plaine and your Church of England speakes so generally Art 19. of the Church that as it is affirmed in the Preface men of all sorts may take that Article to be for them And as for the other Article of our Sauiours descent if it beso plaine as it beares the sense before it how comes Caluin to vnderstand it one way Brentius another Beza another and other Protestants in another differently from Catholiques with whome neuertheles some other Protestants agree who teach a Lymbus Patrum as Lascitius Oecolampadius Zwinglius Peter Martyr Bullinger and (a) Vide Brereley tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder M. num 26. Bilson and we may adde D. Pottâ—er as one different from all the rest who sayth the sense is plaine and yet he keeps it to himselfe 12. But the Roman Doctours (b) Pag. 2â—â— cannot agree among themselues about this Article Is there any Catholique that denies Lymbus Patrum or that Christ descended to Hell as it signifies Lymbus Yes because say you (c) Contr. 3 q. 5. art 1. Stapleton affirmes the Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell that there is a Catholique an Apostolique Church Bellarmine (d) 4. Dâ— Christo. cap. 6. 12. on the coÌ„trary is resolute that the Article of the descent is euery where in Scripture and Thomas grants (e) 2.2 q. 2. art 9. ad 1. as much for the whole Creed What is all this to the purpose It is one thing to disagree in the doctrine of Chists descent another whether that doctrine which they belieue be proued out of Scripture or deliuered by the Church out of Vnwritten Traditions Among ProtestaÌ„ts who hold Scripture only to be the Rule of faith it is all one not to be contained in Scripture not to be a point of faith but not so with Catholiques who besides Scripture
Potters Answere though yet so as that euen in this first Part I omit not to answere such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points wherof I treat in the second Part I answere D. Potters Treatise Section by Section as they lie in order I heer therefore intreate the Reader that if hartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question he do not content himselfe with that which I say to Doctour Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him eyther all or at least so much as may serue most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which presse him most For which purpose I haue caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chiefe reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also diuers other causes of the same effect For there are so seuerall kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man conuince but one kind of them the rest will conceiue themselues to be as truly vnsatisfyed and euen vnspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example some hold a necessity of a perpetuall visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to proue it distinct from ours others that their businesse is dispatched when they haue proued ours to haue beene alwayes visible for then they will conceiue that theirs hath been so and the like may be truly said of very many other particulers Besides it is D. Potters fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he proue the last of that humour to touch in a word many triuiall old obiectioÌ„s which if they be not all answered it will and must serue the turne to make the more ignorant sort of men belieue and brag as if some maine vnanswerable matter had been subtily purposely omitted and euery body knowes that some obiection may be very plausibly made in few words the cleere and solid answere whereof will require more leaues of paper then one And in particuler D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compasse of so few lines and with so great confuseones and fraude that it requires much time paines and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appeare to euery mans eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set downe the very words themselues that are omitted all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to belieue that whereas nothing is more necessary theÌ„ Bookes for answering of Bookes yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of diuers Authors cited by D. Potter meerely vpon necessity though I did very well perceaue by most apparant circumstances that I must probably haue been sure inough to find them plainely misalleadged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much aduantage therein But Truth is Truth and will euer be able to iustify it selfe in the midst of all difficulties which may occurre As for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well domesticall as forraine I willingly and thankefully acknowledge my selfe obliged for diuers of them to the Author of the Booke entituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church who calls himselfe Iohn Brereley whose care exactnes and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Bookes but the Editions also with the place and time of their printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to find what he cites yet suspend your iudgment till you haue read the corrections placed at the end of his booke though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulnes on his behalfe it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print in which prints we haue difficulty inough for many euident reasons which must needs occur to any prudent man 8. And for asmuch as concernes the manner of my Reply I haue procured to do it without all bitternes or gall of inuectiue words both for as much as may import either Protestants in generall or D. Potters person in particuler vnles for example he will call it bitternesse for me to terme a grosse impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I do not know how to expresse the things and yet wherein I can truly affirme that I haue studied how to deliuer them in the most moderate way to the end I might giue as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any vnfit phrase may peraduenture haue escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs professe that D. Potter giues so many and so iust occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will iudge me to haue been rather remisse then moderate But since in the very Title of my Reply I professe to maintaine Charity I conceiue that the excesse will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildnes then if it had appeared in too much zeale And if D. Potter haue a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my selfe as many more personall defects then he can heape vpon me Truth only and sincerity I so much valew and professe as that he shall neuer be able to proue the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me 9. Rules to be obserued if D. Potter intend a Reâ—oynders In the third last place I haue thought fit to expresse my selfe thus If D. Potter or any other resolue to answere my Reply I desire that he will obserue some things which may tend to his owne reputation the sauing of my vnnecessary paines and especially to the greater aduantage of truth I wish then that he would be carefull to consider wherein the point of euery difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoote at Rouers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as coÌ„cernes the question betweene D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to proue that fayth is not resolued into the Authority of the Church as into the formall Obiect and Motiue thereof Or that all points of Fayth are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of
and of infallible Verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remaine the same Question still how it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neyther can there euer be an end of the like multiplyed demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a booke is Scripture and yet vpon this point according to ProtestaÌ„ts all other Controuersies in fayth depend 7. That Scripture cannot assure vs that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whome D. Potter ranketh (a) Pag. 131. among men of great learning and iudgement sayth Of thinges (b) In his first booke of Eccles Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6â— necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proueth by the same argument which we lately vsed saying thas It is not (c) Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it his word For if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giueth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it Neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest vnles besids Scripture there were something which might assure vs c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the (d) l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. alibi Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and iudgment affirmeth and demonstratiuely proueth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article Wherein it is sayd of the Scripture Whatsoeuer is not read therein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be belieued as an Article of the fayth or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation and concerning their beliefe and profession of this Article they are particulerly examined when they be ordayned Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Couell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to vs not by testimony of the priuate spirit which sayth he being priuate and secret is (e) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 pag. 357. vnfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the (f) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument sayth he whereby may be argued and conuinced what bookes be Canonicall and what be not Luther sayth This (g) lib. de capt Babyl tom 2. Wittomb fol. 8â— indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he belieued the Ghospell being moued by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulke teacheth that the Church (h) In his answere to a countefaite Catholique pag. 5. hath iudgment to discerne true writings from counterfaite and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgment she hath not of herselfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you may not be ignorant from what Church you must receiue Scriptures heare your first Patriarch Luther speaking against theÌ„ who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these (i) Epist coÌ„t Anabap. ad dnos Parochos tom 2 Germ. Wittemb men build vpon a weake foundation For by this meanes they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we haue from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture 8. But now in deedes they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The (k) Praefat. in epist. lac inedit Ienensi Epistle of â—ames is contentions swelling dry strawy and vnworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitius teacheth that the second Epistle (l) In Enchirid pag. 63. of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not hauing sufficient Testimony (m) In exa min. Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. of their authority and therefore that nothing in controuersy can be proued out of these (n) Ibid. Bookes The same is taught by diuers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luthers time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleadge why they leaue their Maister and so many of his prime Schollers I know no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as he was bould to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receiued in Gods Church 9. What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easy to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubâ—â— in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Do they only vnderstand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of fayth By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Eusâ—b l. 4. hist. cap. 26. Melito Asianus (p) in Synop. Athanaâ—us and (q) In câ—rm de genuâ—â—â—s Scripturis Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes (r) lib de seruo arbitrâ—o contra Eras tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the booke of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserue to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (s) In latinis Sermonibus conuiuialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. booke is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides vpon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurtfabro editis Francofurti tit de libris veteris noui Test fol. 379. sayth further that the said booke was
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
points and in particuler in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controuersies And so the very principle vpon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular Controuersies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determent Controuersies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is Affirmatiue 27. Since then the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainely affirmeth when speaking of the Controuersy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This (r) Devnit Eccles c. 22. is neither openly nor euidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church And a little after Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therfore with this argument Whosoeuer resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to vs God's Word or Reuelation commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation But whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth God's word or reuelation to vs Therfore whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread ouer the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth euery one most seriously to ponder as a thing wheron eternall saluation dependeth And because our Aduersaries do heere most insist vpon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this euasion which shall be done in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controuersy And that the Catholique Visible Church cannot erre in either kind of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therfore if it be either vntrue or impertinent as they vnderstand apply it the whole edifice built theron must be ruinous and false For if you obiect their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity Mistaken plainely shewes that they differ only in points not fundamentall If you conuince them euen by their owne Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught diuers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neuertheles be saued because those errors were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwayes haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Pastors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and Doctrine Luther then forsooke and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Heresy they haue an Answere such as it is that the Catholique Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therfore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors vnder paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saued in their seuerall professions they salue this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is inough for saluation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could neuer be induced to giue a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring vs to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of diuers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from vs and amōg themselues And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibite any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serue them to any purpose but still they must remaine vncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they haue no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saued But of this more heerafter 2. And to the end that what shall be sayd concerning this distinction may be better vnderstood we are to obserue that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of fayth or our obligation to belieue diuine truths The one is by Deuines called Affirmatiue wherby we are obliged to haue a positiue explicite beliefe of some chiefe Articles of Christian faith The other is termed Negatiue which strictly binds vs not to disbelieue that is not to belieue the cōtrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our vnderstācing as reuealed or spoken by Almighty God The sayd Affirmatiue Precept according to the nature of such commands inioynes some act to be performed but not at all tymes nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all Obiects to be belieued For obiects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and seuerall belieued then other eyther because they are in themselues more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct vs in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selues or our Neyghbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For tymes we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of fayth but according as seuerall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negatiue doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige vniuersally all persons in respect of all obiects at all tymes semper pro semper as Deuines speake This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwayes helping my Neighbour because
propounded as a diuine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to belieue points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this (f) Pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of reuealed truth is required before a man can be conuinced and for want of sufficient conuiction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they belieued not our Sauiours Resurrection (g) pag. 246. which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters owne confesson No error is damnable vnles the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Euery error is damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Therfore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5. I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Diuinity the Vnity and distinction of euery thing followeth the Nature Essence thereof and therfore if the Nature and being of fayth be not taken from the matter which a man belieues but from the motiue for which he belieues which is God's word or Reuelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diuersity of faith must be measured by God's reuelation which is alike for all obiects and not by the smalnes or greatnes of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnes or smallnes of the things belieued is manifest because otherwise one who belieues only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also belieue points not fundamentall should haue faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men belieue according to differēt capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd therfore we must say that Vnity in Fayth doth not depend vpō points fundamentall or not fundamentall but vpon God's reuelation equally or vnequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different obiects which are belieued by them since they disagree in things Equally reuealed by Almighty God it is euident that they forsake the very Formall motiue of faith which is Gods reuelation and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therin 6. The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and vntrue being demonstrated let vs now come to the second That the Church is infallible in all her definitions whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall And this I proue by these reasons 7. It hath beene shewed in the prcedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies in Religion which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once persuaded that she is Iudge Because if she could erre in some points we could not rely vpon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8. This same is proued by the reason we alledged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written vnles we will take away all certainty of fayth for that tyme we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that she hath been depriued thereof by the adioined comfort help of sacred Writ 9. Moreouer to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and errour yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Deuines call Assertorium wherin God is called to witnes euery falshood is a deadly sinne in any priuate person whatsoeuer although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor preiudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnes of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner authority whereby it is auouched and by the iniury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the vnanimous consent of all Deuines that in such kind of Oaths no leuitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a mortall sacriledge agaynst the morall vertue of Religiō which respects worship due to God If I say euery least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresayd kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound vntrue Articles of fayth thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besids according to the doctrine of all Deuines it is not only iniurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieue things by him reuealed but also to propose as reuealed truths thinges not reuealed as in commonwealths it is a haynous offence to coyne eyther by counterfeyting the mettall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeyt although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernicious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of faygned reuelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particuler appeareth in the Councell of (h) Sub Leon 10. Sess 11. Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false reuelations she herselfe should haue beene the first and chiefest deseruer to haue been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as they holy Ghost sayth in (i) Cap. 13. v. 7. Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speake deceypts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verifyed in fictitious reuelations If any (k) Cap. vlt. v. 18. shal s add to these things God will add vnto him the plagues which are written in this Booke D. Potter sayth To add (l) pag. 222. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract frō it And therfore to say the Church may add false Reuelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernicious errour excluding saluation 10. Perhaps some will heere reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason she doth not erre vpon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cānot serue For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall at least she cannot be certaine that she cānot erre therfore cannot be excused from headlong
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
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
1. epist 3. Ibid. ep 6. and others And I pray you if one vtter some Heresy in presence of his brother doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother and consequently is he not comprehended in those words of our Sauiour If thy Brother offend thee c. Now if the Church were fallible how could we be obliged vnder payne of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of fayth which is a Vertue that necessarily inuolues infallibility But when did you euer heare any Catholique say what you impose vpon Charity Mistaken that absolute obedience is due vnto the Church no appeale being allowed no not (r) pag. 28. to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholike sense and consonantly to the iudgment of the most ancient and famous members of the Church With what face can you vtter such stuffe You know we belieue that the Church cannot oppose Scripture 5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Booke de vnitate Ecclesiae which you charge Pamelius to haue committed in fauour of S. Peters Primacy it is but an old obiection borrowed of others and purposely answered by Pamelius in his notes vpon that Booke where for his iustification he cites diuers ancient Copies and one more then nine hundred yeares old And as for the phrase maine point it selfe that Christ built the Church vpon Peter it is expressely affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places which I quote in the (s) De exhort Mart. c. 11. ep 55.69.73 which last is cited by S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cites the like wordes out of epist 71. ad Quint. Margent whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian belieued about the Authority of Saint Peter and how much his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church neyther can you in all S. Cyprians workes or in this place in particular shew any thing to the contrary as you are pleased to (t) Pag. 30. affirme To proue that our vnworthy fashion is to alter raze many records and Monuments of Antiquity you cite a moderne English Writer Sixtus Senensis But both of them are alledged after your fashion for the first speakes onely of Bookes writen in fauour of the Popes Power in temporall things wherein neuertheles we can in no wise allow of his saying nor is he in this point a competent witnes and the second directly falsifyed For you say he highly commends (u) Epist dedie ad Pium 5. Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Bookes and to purge the writings of all Catholique Authours especially of the Ancient Fathers from the silth and poyson of Heresy there you end the sentence But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aetatis nostrae from the dregs of the Heretiques of our tymes vnderstanding nothing else but that the sayd holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses Marginall notes c. of Erasmus and moderne Heretiques to be blotted or taken out of the Bookes of the holy Fathers Is not this playne falsification And so much lesse excusable because it could not be done but wittingly and willingly for that in the Margent you cite the Latin when you come to those wordes especially of the ancient Fathers you breake off with an c. leauing out that which did directly ouerthrow the purpose for which you alledged those wordes For want of better matter you tell vs of an Edition of Isidorus Pelusiotes his Greeke Epistles approued because they contayned nothing contrary to the Catholique Roman Religion wherein what great harme is there If the Approbator had left out Roman would you haue made this obiection To vs Catholique and Roman are all one as heertofore I explicated But it seemes say you that they had not passed but vpon that Condition This is but a poore Consequence in Logicke For one effect may be produced by some cause yet in such manner as that the effect would follow though that cause were taken away accordingly you grant that the aforesayd clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition Neyther can you be ignorant that Catholiques do print and reprint the writings of ancient Authours although they contayne Heresies as the workes of Tertullian Origen c And therfore you are lesse excusable both for making this Obiection in generall and also for falsifying Sixtus Senensis in particular 6. The places alledged by you out of S. Augustin against the Donatists come far short of prouing that (u) pag. 32. Scripture alone is the Iudge or rather as you correct your selfe Rule of Cōtrouersies your bringing thē to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words meaning as will appeare by what now I am about to say Two Questions were debated between the Catholiques Donatists the one concerning the Church whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world where the faction of Donatus did reside The other whether such as were baptized by Heretiques ought to be rebaptized We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to proue the exeternall apparant Notes or Markes of the Church as Visibility Perpetuity Amplitude Vniuersality c. And no wonder that he appealed to Scripture For that very Questiō being whether the Catholiques or Donatists were the true Church to suppose the Catholiques to be the true Church and vpon that supposition to alledge their Authority against the Donatists had been but to beg the Question as if there were Controuersy whether some particular Booke were Canonical Scripture or no it were an idle thing to alledge that very writing in question to proue it selfe Canonicall and on the other side both the Catholikes and Donatists did acknowledge belieue the same Scriptures which as S. Augustine is wont to say speake more cleerely of the Church then of Christ himselfe and therfore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by cleer not doubtfull Testimonies of holy Writ wheras the Donatists had recourse eyther to obscure Texts as that of the Canticles Shew me where thou feedest where thou liest in the mid day to proue that the Church was cōfined to Africa or els to humane Testimonies as Acts of Notaries or Scriueners to proue that the Catholiques had been Traditores that is had giuē vp the holy Bible to be burned Or that they had sacrificed to Idols Or had been cause of persecution against Christians and that either for these crimes or for communicating with such as had committed them the Church had perished from among Catholiques Or els they produced their owne bare affirmation or mock-Miracles false Councels of THEIR OWNE All which proofes being very partiall insufficient and impertinent S. Augustin had reason to say Let these fictions (w) De vnïe Eccles cap. 19. of lying men or fantasticall wonders of deceiptfull
expressely condemne as erroneous or in the next degree to Heresy But because it were a vanity to muster a number of Writers in a question impertinent to our present designe which is only against Heresy or Schisme both which exclude inuincible ignorance I hold it best to passe them ouer in silence 30. Your saying that A man may be a true visible membër (t) Pag. 47. of the holy Catholique Church who is not actually otherwise then in vow a member of any true visible Church destroyes it selfe For in the same manner and degree neyther more nor lesse a man is a visible member in act or in desire of the visible Church as he is a mēber of the true Catholique Church which is visible And Bellarmine whome you cite for your selfe is directly agaynst you For he teacheth that a man may (u) de Eccles milit cap. 6. Respondeo be in the Church in desire which is sufficient for Saluation when he is inuoluntarily hindred from being actually of the Church and yet not in the Church by externall Comunion which properly maketh him to be of the visible Church which is directly to deny what you affirmed I might reflect what a pretty connection you make in saying who is not actually otherwise then in vow c. you might as well haue sayd who is not actually otherwise then not in act c. But such small matters as these I willingly dissemble The poore man in the Ghospell was cast out of the Synagogue by notorious iniustice and therefore still remayned a member of the Iewish Church not only in desire but also in act You say Athanasius stood single in defense of diuine Truth all his Brethren the other Patriarchs not he of Rome excepted hauing subscribed to Arianisme and cast him out of their Communion And you referre vs to Baronius cited in your Margent to what purpose I know not except to display your owne bad proceeding For Baronius in the place by you alledged (w) Anno 357. num 44. apud Spond doth not incidently or only by the way but industriously and of set purpose cleere Pope Libertu◠from hauing euer subscribed to Arianisme He subscribed indeed to the condemnation of S. Athanasius which was not for matter of faith but of fact to wit for certayne crimes obiected agaynst him as Bellarmine (x) De Rom. Port lib. 4. cap. 9. affirmeth which being false S. Athanasius did not therefore cease to be a member of the Catholike Church If the errours of Tertullian were in themselues so smal as you would make them it may serue for an example that not so much the matter as the manner and obstinacy is that which makes an Heretique which ouerthrowes your distinction of points fundamentall c. 31. The proofes which you bring from the Africans and others that Communion with the Roman Church was not alwayes held necessary to Saluation haue been a thousand tymes answered by Catholique Writers and they are such as you could not haue chosen any more disaduantagious to your cause Heertofore I shewed that Communion with the Roman Church was by Antiquity iudged to be the marke of a true Belieuer And indeed seing you speake of those times wherin Rome stood in her purity as you say how could any be diuided from her fayth and yet belieue aright Do not your selfe say Whosoeuer professeth himselfe to forsake (y) Pag. 76. the Communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole How then could any diuide themselues from the Romane Church while she was in her purity Euen S. Cyprian whose example you alleage fayth They (z) Ad Cornel ep 33. presume to saile to the Roman Church which is the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Chaire from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose fayth was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse Optatus Mileuitanus also an African saith At Rome hath been constituted to Peter (a) 〈◊〉 Parm. lib. 2. the Episcopall Chaire that in this only Chaire the Vnity of all might be preserued And S. Augustine like wise an African affirmeth that Cacilianus might despise (b) Epist 62 the conspiring multitude of his enemies that is of seauenty Bishops of Africa assembled in Numidia because he saw himselfe vnited by letters Communicatory with the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique had alwayes flourished And after Pelagius had been iudged in the East by the Bishops of Palestine and Celestius his Disciple had been excommunicated for the same cause in Asrica by the African Bishops the Mileuitan Councell referred them finally to the Pope saying We hope by the (c) Ep. Conc. Mileu ad Innocent inter epist. Aug. epist 92 mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ who vouchsafe to gouerne thee consulting with him and to heare thee praying to him that those who hold these Doctrines so peruerse and pernicious will more easily yield to the authority of thy Holynes drawne out of the holy Scriptures Behold the Popes prerogatiue drawne out of the holy Scriptures And it is very strang that you will alleage the Authority of S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa against Pope Stephen who opposed himselfe to them in the Question of Rebaptization wherin they agreed with the Heresy of the Donatists which was condemned not only by the Pope but by the whole Church yea by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as S. Hierome witnesseth saying Finally they who had been (d) Coutra Luçifer of the same opinion set forth a new decree saying What shall we do So hath it been deliuered to them by their Ancestors and ours And Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Stephen his opposing S. Cyprian sayth Then (e) In Com. part 1. the blessed Stephen resisted together with but yet before his Collegues iudging it as I conceiue to be a thing worthy of him to excell them as much in Fayth as he did in the authority of his place 32. Neither are you more fortunate in the example of Pope Victor then in the other of Stephen For although Eusebius whom S. Hierome (f) Contra Ruff. Apol. 1. stiles the Ensigne-bearer of the Arian Sect and who was a profest Enemy of the Roman Church doth relate that S. Irenaeus (g) Hist. Eccles lib. 5. c. 24. reprehended Victor for hauing excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question about keeping Easter yet euen he dare not say that Irenaeus blamed the Pope for want of Power but for misapplying it which supposeth a Power to do it if the cause had been sufficient And the successe shewed that euen in the vse of his Power Pope Victor was in the right For after his death the Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus which you receiue as lawfull Generall Councels excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Prouinces which
in one of the learned Tongues for weighty reasons which haue been learnedly set downe by our Catholique Writers And if nothing must be read but what the People yea learned men vnderstand you must giue ouer reading in publique euen in English diuers Psalmes of Dauid the Prophets the Apocalyps and other parts of Scriptures the sense and meaning wherof the people vnderstand no more then if they were read in Hebrew Nay to vnderstand the words and not the sense is not free from danger because they may by thē conceaue some errour as we daily see by the exāple of Sectaries in that vngracious creature who lately out of Scripture as he thought murthered his Mother and Brother for being cause of his Idolatry in kneeling at the Communion Happy had it beene both for him and a thousand more if the sacred Scriptures in English were not so common among them but were read with due circumspection and not without approbation of such as can iudge better of them then themselues And in very truth it seemes strange not only not safe but euen shamefull that for example the Bookes of Leuiticus and the Canticles besids many passages in other Bookes should he promiscuously made subiect to the vulgar eyes of sensual and vnmortifyed people who morally will be sure to make no other vse thereof then to hurt themselues together with the abusing prophaning so holy a thing as euery word of holy Scripture is in it selfe 9. Now to come to your other particulars we acknowledge and professe all Merits to be the gift of God and therfore they cannot withdraw vs from relying on him You cite Bellarmine saying It is safest not to trust (m) Pag. 73. to a mans owne Merits but wholy and solely to cast himselfe on the mercy of Iesus-Christ But doth Bellarmine say that it is safest to relye on Gods Mercy alone and to deny all Merits as Protestants do This indeed were to your purpose But let vs heare Bellarmine rightly cited It is sayth he most safe to place (n) De Justificat lib. 5. c. 7. § Sittertia propositio al our trust in the sole mercy Benignity of God Heere you stay But Bellarmine goes on and sayth I explicate my sayd Proposition for it is not to be so vnderstood as if a man with all his forces ought not to attend to good workes Or that we ought not to confide in them as if they were not true Iustice or could not vndergo the Iudgment of God for no wonder if Gods owne gifts as all our merits are may endure his examination but we only say that it is more safe as it were to forget our former Merits and to looke onely vpon the mercy of God Both because no man can without a reuelation certaynely know that he hath true merits or that he is to perseuere in them to the end And also because in this place of Temptation nothing is more easy then to conceyue Pride by the consideration of our good workes I leaue it therefore to any mans cōsideration what sincerity you haue vsed in alledging Bellarmine 10 In the last place you affirme that our doctrines are confessed (o) Pag. 13. Nouelties and you go about to proue it by a few instances all which being either nothing to the purpose or plainely mistaken or manifestly vntrue do excellently proue against your selfe how ancient our Religion is Your instance about the Popes infallibility is not to the purpose of prouing that the Roman Church teacheth any Nouelty For Bellarmine out of whom you cite a few Authours who teach that the Popes Decrees without a Councell are not infallible sayth That that Doctrine (p) De Rom. Pont. l. 4. ç. 1. is yet tolerated by the Church though he affirme it to be erroneous and the next degree to Heresy The same Answere serues for your other example concerning the Popes Authority aboue that of a Generall Councell of which Bellarmine sayth They are not properly Heretiques who hold the contrary but (q) De Concil l. 2. cap. 17. Denique Lateranense they cannot be excused from great temerity And you are not ignorāt but that euen those who defend these doctrines do vnanimously consent against you that the Pope is Head of the Church But I pray you what Consequence is it Some Authors deny or doubt of the Popes Infallibility or his Authority ouer a Generall Councell Ergo these doctrines are Nouelties May not priuate men be mikaken euen in doctrines which of themselues are most ancient as is knowne by experience in many Truths which both you and we maintaine For how many Bookes of Scripture were once doubted of by some which now your selues receiue as Canonicall Are you therfore Nouelists You ouerlash then when you say Aboue a thousand (r) Pag. 72. Edit 1. yeares after Christ the Popes iudgment was not esteemed infallible nor his authority aboue that of a generall Councell and especially when you cite Bellarmine to make good your sayings And your affirming out of Bellarmine de Indulg l. 2. c. 17. that Eugenius the 3. who began his Papacy 1145. was (s) Pag. 72. Edit 1. the first that granted Indulgences is a huge vntruth and falsification of Bellarmine who in that very place directly expresly purposely proues that other Popes before Eugenius granted Indulgences names them in particular Wheras you say that the Councels of Constance and Basil decreed the Councell to be aboue the Pope you might haue seene the Answere in Bellarmine in the same Booke which you (t) De Concil l 2. ç. 19. cite that these two Councels at that time were not lawfull Councels or sufficient to define any matters of Fayth 11. You say Many of them meaning Catholique Doctours yield also that Papall Indulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity And to proue this you alledge Bellarmine (u) De Indulg l. 2. ç. 27. who cites Durand S. Antoninus and Roffensis Neither do these three which you by I know not what figure call many say as you do that Indulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity but only for the first fiue hundred yeares as Bellarmine sayth in the place by you cited therfore you take to your selfe a strange priuiledge to multiply persons and enlarge tymes and yet these Authors do not deny Indulgences And as Bellarmine answeres We ought not to say that Indulgences are not indeed Ancient because two or three Catholiques haue not read of them in Ancient Authors And you may with greater shew deny diuers Bookes of Scripture which more then three Writers did not only say they were not receiued by Antiquity but did expresly reiect them As for the thing it selfe Bellarmine sheweth that Indulgences are no lesse ancient then the (y) Vbi supra ç. 3. beginning of the Church of Christ that your owne Protestants confesse that it is hard to know when they began which is a signe of Antiquity not of Nouelty
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
infallibility because it being euident that she is the selfe same Church which was founded by our Sauiour Christ and continued from the Apostles to this Age by a neuer interrupted succession of Pastours and faythfull people it followes that she is the Church of Christ which being once granted it is further inferred that all are obliged to haue recourse to her and to rest in her iudgement for all other particular points which cōcerne faith or Religion which we could not be obligd to doe if we were persuaded that she were subiect to errour Which yet is more euident if we add that there can be no Rule giuen in what points we should belieue her and in what not and therefore we are obliged to belieue her in all Moreouer since the true Church must be Iudge of Controuersies in fayth as we haue proued it cleerly followes that she must be infallible in all points Which vmuersall infallibility being supposed out of the generall ground of Gods prouidence which is not defectiue in things necessary we may afterward belieue the same infallibility euen by the Church herselfe when she testifies that particular point of her owne infallibility As the Scripture cannot giue Testimony to it selfe till first it be belieued to be Gods word yet this being once presupposed it may afterward giue Testimony to it selfe as S. Paul affirmeth that All Scripture is diuinely (u) 2. Tim. 3.16 inspired c. Secondly I answere that the Church hath many wayes declared her owne infallibility which she professeth euen in the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholique Church For she could not be holy if she were subiect to error in matters of fayth which is the first foundation of all sanctity she could not be Catholique or Vniuersal for all Ages if at any time she could erre and be Author that the whole world should erre in points reuealed by God she could not be One or Apostolicall as she professeth in another Creed if she were diuided in points of fayth or could swarue from the Doctrine of the Apostles she could not be alwayes existent and visible because euery error in fayth destroies all Fayth the Church So that while the Church and euery faythfull person belieues professes the Sanctity Vniuersality Vnity and Perpetuall Visibility of the Church she and they belieue proclaime her infallibility in all matters of fayth which she doth also auouch by accursing all such as belieue not her definitions and while in all occasions of emergent Controuersies she gathers Councels to determine them without examining whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall while in all such holy Assemblies she sayth with the first Councell It hath (w) Act. 15. seemed to the holy Ghost and vs while she proposeth diuers points to be belieued which are not contained in Scripture as that those who are baptized by Heretiques cannot without sacriledge be rebaptized that Baptisme of Infants is lawfull that Easter is to be kept at a certaine time against the Heretiques called Quartadecimani that the Blessed Virgin the most Immaculate Mother of God was eternally a most pure Virgin that such particular Matter and Forme is necessary for the validity of Sacraments that such particular Bookes Chapters and lines are the word of God with diuers such other points of all which we may say that which S. Augustine said about Rebaptization of Heretiques The obscurity of this Question (x) Lib. 1. cont Donat cap. 7. before the schisme of Donatus did so mooue mon of great note and Fathers and Bishops endued with great Charity to debate and doubt without breach of peace that for a long time in seuerall Regions there were diuers and doubtfull decrees till that which was truly belieued was vndoubtedly established by a full Councell of the whole world And yet the point declared in that Councell was neither fundamentall in your sense nor contained in Scripture And to the same effect are the words of S. Ambrose who speaking of the Heretiques condemned in the Councell of Nice sayth that They were not condemned by humane (y) Lib. 1. defid ad Gratian cap. 5. industry but by the authority of those Fathers as likewise the last Generall Councell of Trent defines That it belongs to the Church (z) 1. Sess 4. to iudge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture which must needs suppose her infallibility And lastly the thirst that euery one who desires to saue his soule feeles in his soule to find out the true Church and the quiet which euery one conceiues he shall enioy if once he find her shewes that the very sense and feeling of all Christians is that the Church is infallible For otherwise what great comfort could any wiseman conceiue to be incorporated in a Church which is conceiued to be subiect to error in matters of fayth 21. For want of better arguments you also alledge (a) pag. 161. some Authors within the Roman Church of great learning as you say who haue declared their opinion that any particular Churchs and by consequence the Roman any Councels though Generall may erre But though that which you affirme were true it would fall short of prouing that the Catholique Church is not infallible in all points For besides particular Churches or Generall Councels there is the common Consent of all Catholiques knowne by perpetuall sacred Tradition and there is likewise the continued Succession of Bishops and Pastors in which if one should place an vniuersall infallibility it were sufficient to ouerthrow your assertion of the fallibility of the Church And euen your selfe teach that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you affirme that any particular or Generall Councell may erre euen to Heresy or Fundamentall and Damnable errours And therfore you must grant that according to your Principles it is one thing to say Generall Councels may erre and another that the Catholique Church may erre But yet for the thing it selfe it is a matter of fayth that true Generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre And if any hold the contrary he cannot be excused except by ignorance or inaduertence And as for the Romane Authors which you cite Occham is no competent witnes both because that worke of his dialogues which you cite is condemned and because he himselfe was a knowne enemy and rebellious against the sea Apostolique Besides the words which you cite out of him against the Authority of Councels are not his opinion but alledged for arguments sake for so he professeth expresly in the very preface of that worke and often repeats it that he doth not intend to deliuer any opinion of his owne Thirdly wheras he alledgeth reasons for and against Councels he alledgeth but fine against them and seauen for them Lastly before he comes to dispute against Councels he doth in two seuerall (b) Dialog lib. 5.1 part cap. 25. c. 28. places in the very beginning of those Chapters of which
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
now And heertofore I haue declared at large in what sense and vpon what occasion and reason S. Augustine against the Donatists made recourse to Scripture alone 26. You begin to impugne the Popes infallibility by saying that Charity-Mistaken meanes by his infallible Church only the Pope Which saying of yours doth well declare how fallible your affirmations are And that if the Pope define that to be white which the eye iudges to be blacke it must be so admitted by vs you pretend to proue out of I know not what papers of the Iesuites found in Padua in witnes wherof you alleage Paulus Soarpius a seditious scandalous and condemned Author we must by no meanes belieue you without better proofe You cite also out of Bellarmine these words If he the Pope should (b) De Rom â— Pont. lib. 4. c. 5. §§ Quodantens erre and command the practise of vice or forbid the exercise of vertue the Church were bound in conscience to belieue vices to be good and vertues to be bad Who would not thinke by these words of Bellarmine as you corrupt him that indeed we might belieue Vice to be good and Vertueil The direct contrary wherof he affirmes and from thence infers that the Pope whom the Church is obliged to obey as her Head and Supreme Pastor cannot erre in decrees of manners prescribed by him to the whole Church These be his words If the Pope did erre in commanding vices or forbidding Vertue the Church were bound to belieue that Vice is good and Vertue ill vnles she would sinne against her conscience For in doubtfull things the Church is bound to subiect herselfe to the Iudgment of the Pope and to do what he commands and not to do what he forbids and lest she should sinne agaynst her conscience she is bound to belieue that what he commands is good that what he forbids is ill For the auoyding of which inconuenience he concludes that the Pope cannot erre in Decrees concerning manners by forbidding Vertue or commanding Vice If one should proue that Scripture cannot erre in things concerning manners because otherwise Christians who are bound to belieue whatsoeuer the Scripture sayth should be obliged to belieue Vertue to be ill and Vice to be good would you infer that indeed we are to belieue Vertue to be ill and Vice to be good Or rather that indeed Scripture could not propose or command any such thing This is that which Bellarmine sayth But your selfe is he according to whose principles we might be obliged to imbrace vice c. For since you affirme that the authority (d) Pag. 1â—â— of Generall Councels is immediately deriued from Christ and that their Decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and seing you hold that they may erre perniciously both in fayth and manners What remaines but that we must be obliged euen by authority immediately deriued from Christ himselfe to erre with the Councell and at lest externally imbrace Vice 29. You come afterward to discourse thus These men (e) Pag. 17â— deale not plainely with vs when they pretend often in their disputations against vs Scriptures Fathers Councells and the Church since in the issue their finall and infallible argument for their fayth is only the Popes Authority It were indeed a happy thing and a most effectuall way to end all Controuersies if people would submit themselues to some visible liuing Iudge by whom they might be instructed by whom it might be declared who alledge Scriptures and Fathers right or wrong Which since you and your Brethren refuse to do no wonder if we be constrained to alledge Scriptures and Fathers as you likewise do though you say that Scripture is infallible and that all Controuersies must be decided by it alone Besides though the Pope be infallible yet he is not so alone as if he did exclude all other infallible meanes for Scriptures Generall Councells and the Consent of the whole Catholique Church are also infallible And therfore as I was saying it is no wonder that we alledge other Arguments besides the decrees of Popes alone For since in our disputes with you we abound with all kind of arguments why should we not make vse therof And if you will know the reason why Councells be gathered to the great good of the Church notwithstanding the Popes infallibility you may read Bellarmine who giues (f) De Rom. Pontif lib. 4. cap. 7. §. Respondeo Id. the reason therof I hope you will grant that S. Peter was infallible and yet he thought good to gather a Councel Act. 15. for greater satisfaction of the faythfull and to take away all occasions of temptation in the weaker Christians What estimation Antiquity made of the Popes Authority I haue shewed heertofore And if some who haue written Pleas or Prescriptions against Heretiques do not without more adoe appeale (g) Pag. 173. all Heretiques to the Popes Tribunall you haue no cause to wonder since commonly the first error of all Heretiques is to oppose the Pope and the Church of Rome and therfore they must be conuinced by other Arguments Tertullian in his Prescriptions against Heretiques doth particularly aduise and direct that Heretiques are not to be admitted to dispute out of Scripture and that it is but in vaine to seeke to conuince them by that meanes and yet you hold that the Scripture is not only infallible but the sole Rule also of fayth How then do you infer against vs that if the Pope be infallible Tertullian should haue appealed all Heretiques to his Tribunall since he doth not appeale them to Scripture which yet he belieued to be infallible And neuertheles the two Authors whom you cite Tertullian and Vincentius Lyrinensis speake as much in aduantage of the Pope and Church of Rome as can be imagined If sayth Tertullian thou liue (h) Praescript cap. 36. neere Italy thou hast the Citty of Rome from thence Authority is neere at hand euen to vs Africans A happy Church into which the Apostles haue powred their whole doctrine together with their bloud And Vincentius Lyrinensis cals the (i) In sus Com. Pope and Church of Rome the Head and other Bishops as S. Cyprian from the South S. Ambrose from the North c. and others from other places the sides of the world And I cited these words out of him before who speaking of Rebaptization saith Then (k) In Com. part 1. the blessed Stephen resisted together with but before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceiue a thing worthy of him that he should surmount them as much in Fayth as he did in the authority of his place Of the opposition of some particular men to the Pope we haue spoken already and in your saying that his Authority hath beene opposed by Generall Councels we will not belieue you til you bring better proofe That the diuisions of the Easterne from the Latine Church proceeded from the ambition pretensions of the Bishop of Rome
forget that Charity Mistaken among other instances alledges this to proue that all points of fayth are not contained in the Creed to which you giue no answere at all but only tell vs what your owne opinion is And that it may appeare how you comply with your promise not to omit without Answere any one thing of moment heare what Charity Mistaken sayth to this purpose in these words S. Peter sayth that S. Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to be vnderstood and which the vnlearned and vnstable did peruert to their owne destructions S. Austen declares vpon this place that the places misvnderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceiued to be by fayth alone And of purpose to countermine that error he sayth that S. Iames wrote his Epistle and proued therin that good works were absolutely necessary to the act of Iustification Heereupon we may obserue two things the one that an error in this point alone is by the iudgment of S. Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it and the other that the Apostles Creed which speakes no one word therof is no good rule to let vs know all the fundamentall points of fayth Did not all this discourse deserue some answere from one who professes to omit nothing 7. But now you come to a new busines and say If the (f) Pag. 239. Romane Church be not guilty of Manicheisme why is single life called Chastity and commended as an eminent degree of sanctimony As if forsooth Marriage must be ill because a single lyfe is better Why doe you not lay the same aspersion vpon our Sauiour Christ who proposed Chastity as one of the Euangelicall Councells vpon S. Paul who sayth that (h) 1. Cor. 7. he who doth not marry melius facit doth better vpon the Ancient Fathers who so highly extoll a single life You cannot be ignorant but that among diuers degrees of Chastity Catholique Deuines do also place Coniugall Chastity which they hold to be good and meritorious though yet inferiour to the other 8. You goe on and aske why Marriage is sayd to be incompatible with (i) Innocent Papa dist 82. can Proposuisti holines or with (k) Idem Gods fauour nay counted a (l) Bell. de Clericis cap. 19. §. I am verò pollution worse then (m) Coster Enchirid c. de Caelib whoredome With better reason we may say why doe you peruert and corrupt Authours agaynst your owne conscience Innocentius whome you cite sayth only It is not lawfull that they should be admitted to sacred functions that is holy Orders who liue with their wiues because it is written Be holy because I am holy sayth our Lord. Is this to say absolutely that Marriage is incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that holines which by the Churches Ordination is required in Priests S. Paul sayth that an vnmaried woman (n) I. Cor. 7. and a Virgin thinkes of things belonging to God that she may be holy in body and soule Will you hence inferre that the Apostle affirmes Marriage to be incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that peculiar holines which Virginity is apt to breed Those words Be holy because I am holy are taken out of Leuit. chap. 11. vers 44. where the Iewes are forbidden to touch certaine beasts and yet I hope you will not accuse God of Manicheisme as if the eating of such beasts were incompatible with holines The other words alledged by Innocentius Those who are in flesh cannot please God are vnderstood as I said of that particular holines and pleasing of God which is required in those that take holy Orders To proue that Bellarmine accounts Marriage a pollution you alleage out of him these words (o) De Clericis cap. 19. §. Iamverò Not only the Marriage of Priests which is sacriledge not marriage but euē the Marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certaine pollution turpitude But why doe you take pleasure in alledging Authours against their owne meaning Bellarmine to proue how cōgruous conueniēt it is that Priests should lead a single lyfe after many Authorities of Scriptures Councels Fathers proues it also by reason it selfe in regard that Marriage is a great impediment to Ecclesiasticall functions and beginning with the action of sacrificing he sayth Matrimony as Saint Hierome saith lib. 1. in Iouinian hinders the office of sacrificing because there is required most great purity and sanctity therein as S. Chrysostome in his sixt Booke of Priesthood doth declare and it cannot be denyed but that in the act of Marriage there is mingled a certaine impurity and pollution not which is sinne but which arose from sinne For though Caluin exclayme against Pope Siricius who is so ancient that he sate an 385. because he called the Marriage of Priests Pollution yet that not only the Marriage of Priests which is not marriage but sacriledge but also the Martrimony of holy persons is not exercised without a certayne pollution and turpitude appeares by the rebellion of nature and the shamefastnes of men in that act who alwayes seeke to be hidden as S. Augustine hath obserued lib. 14. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 17. Thus Bellarmine and indeed S. Augustine in the next Chap. expresly speakes de pudore Concubitus non solum vulgari sed etiam coniugali And now what but malice can reprehend any one tittle in this doctrine of Bellarmine or rather in the doctrine of the Fathers by him cited which containes against you Sacrifice single life of Priests Moreouer you falsify both Innocētius and Bellarmine who speake not of Marriage in it selfe of which you make them speake in your Text but of the act thereof and therfore Innocentius sayth Qui exercent cum vxore carnale consortium And Bellarmine sayth Non exercetur sine pollutione quadam c. Which is not euen so much as to say the act it selfe is pollution but only Non exercetur sine pollutione c. and this also not absolutely but with a limitation non sine pollutione quadam c. For Matrimony of it selfe may stand with most perfect Chastity yea with Virginity as appeareth in the most Immaculate Mother of God And at this day a married man may be made Priest if his wife consent and other Conditions prescribed in the holy Canons be obserued And wheras you say It seemes by S. Augustine they the Manichees did not forbid meates or marriage as absolutely impure or to all only their choyce Elect ones must obstaine the other vulgar their Auditors were lefte at their liberty This obiection taken out of Peter Martyr is answered by Bellarmine in the Chapter next to that which you cited that S. Augustine lib. 30. contra Faustum cap. 6. writes that the Manichees did absolutly forbid Marriage because though they did permit it to their Auditors yet it was only for that they could not do otherwise
is cleere by his other ensuing words in the same place We ought not then to approue by our consent all things which we reade in the Scriptures to haue been done by men euen adorned with praises by the testimony of God himselfe but to mingle our consideration with discretion bringing discretion with vs not grounded vpon our owne Authority but vpon the Authority of the holy and diuine Scriptures which permit not vs to praise or imitate all the actions euen of those of whom the Scripture giues good and glorious Testimony if they haue done any thing that hath not been well done or that agreeth not with the consent of the present time In which words we see S. Augustine calls the Bookes of the Machabees Scriptures euen as afterward he cals Canonicall Bookes in generall Diuine and holy Scriptures and that the Sobriety of Circumspection which he aduiseth to be obserued in reading them is not how far they be true or false but whether the example of Razias recounted by them is to be imitated more or lesse What you alledge out of S. Gregory (o) Moral lib. 19. ç. 17. is easily answered For he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and diuine Scriptures but because they were not in the Canon of the Iewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his Commentaries vpon Iob For he was at that time the Popes Nuncius or Legate at Constantinople and the Greeke Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receiued in Africa as Canonicall by the decree of the African Councell And therfore you were ill aduised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M. or Magnus the Great wheras he was not Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those Commentaries vpon Iob. 19. You cite S. Hierome praefat in lib. Salom. The Church reades the Bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but she doth not receiue them among Canonicall writings But S. Hieromes words are these As the Church reades Tobias Iudith and the Machabees but receiues them not among the Canonicall Bookes so may she read Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people but not for the confirmation of Ecclesiasticall doctrines Thus S. Hierome And you had reason to cite his words by halues For he afterward retracted what he said of the Bookes of Iudith and Tobias with which the Machabees are yet ioyned in the words cited by you saying in his Preface vpon the History of Iudith The Booke of Iudith is read by the Hebrewes among the Hagiographs whose authority is esteemed lesse sufficient to decide Controuersies but for as much as the Councell of Nice hath reckoned it among the holy Scriptures I haue obeyed your request Where you see that S. Hierome affirmes that the most ancient and graue Councell of Nice receiued the Booke of Iudith in that sense in which the Iewes did not receiue it consequently as a Booke esteemed sufficient to decide Controuersies which the Iewes denied And in another place the same Father sayth Ruth Hester and Iudith haue beene (q) Ep. 140. so glorious as they haue giuen their names into the sacred Volumes Where you see that S. Hierome placeth Iudith with Ruth and Hester the former wherof you admit for Canonicall and part of the latter In his Preface vpon the Booke of Tobias he sayth The Hebrewes (r) Ep. 100. cut off the Booke of Tobias from the Catalogue of the diuine Scriptures And againe The iealousy of the Iewes doth accuse vs that against their Canon we translate the Booke of Tobias into Latin but I iudge it better to displease the iudgment of the Pharisees and to obey the Commandment of the Bishops And elsewhere he placeth (t) In Jsa c. 23. the Machabees among Canonicall Bookes saying The Scripture reports that Alexander king of the Macedonians came out of the land of Cethim And wonder not if S. Hierome spake not alwayes in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his Opinion as once he said of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that it (u) Ad Panlinum was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elsewhere he receiues it (w) Ep. ad Dardanum as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Hierome concerning his reiecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words Wheras I haue reported (x) Ad◠Russ Apolog 2. what the Hebrewes vsed to obiect against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bell which are in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Iewes were wont to say against vs. And he cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explayning himselfe in this manner is acknowledged by (y) Answer to Burges pag. 87. Couell and (z) Conference before his Maiesty Bankeroft How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article sayth in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apochryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as Hierome sayth the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome euen according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Iewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord so your whole Canon of the old Testament relies vpon the Authority of the Iewes And finally D. Potter while he grants that Catholiques and Protestants disagree about the very Canon of Scripture forgets to answere what Charity-Mistaken pag. 43. 46. doth thence inferre to wit that they cannot be accounted of one and the same Religion Fayth and Church 20. The Chymericall Church of your (b) Pag. 234. Maister D. Vsher consisting of men agreeing only in fundamentall points is indeed a Chymera or non Ens. For it is impossible that there can be a visible Church which professing fundamentall points doth not in other points eyther agree with vs or you or els disagrees from vs both For eyther they must hold for example the Reall Presence Transubstantiati Prayer for the dead and to Saints Worship of Images Supremacy