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
pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamētall to be belieued by Christians as matters of faith wherin she can haue no certainty yea which alwayes imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also reuealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose herselfe to danger of falshood error and in fact doth alwayes erre in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwayes vncertaine if she in such things may be deceiued 12. Besides if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall which is not such or els erre in keeping and conseruing from corruptions such Scriptures as are already belieued to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphall Scripture as she deliuers there is no fundamentall error against faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of diuine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply diuine reuelation to any point not reuealed or els must yield that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she haue not been deceiued already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall haue no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be obserued that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwayes knowne to be Canonicall haue been afterward receiued for such but neuer any one Booke or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or reiected for Apocryphall A signe that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost neuer to propose as diuine truth any thing not reuealed by God that Omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not reuealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Sauiour Christ neuer hath nor neuer will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the generall promises of our Sauiour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamētall namely that the gates (m) Matt. 16.18 of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Ioan. 16.13 shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to points fundamentall and whatsoeuer general Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their Infallibility they may by D. Potters example be explicated restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be further affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe points fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is diuinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answere to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherin it deliuereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby sayth The Apostle (o) In his Sermōsserm 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speakes very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeauoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamētall because as Nature so God is neither defectiue in (p) pag. 150. necessaries nor lauish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to saluation that so God be not accused as defectiue in necessaries or lauish in superfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall leade you into all truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for euer he sayth Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151.152 directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniuersall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and belieue them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Diuinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye vnrouealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth vs to vnderstand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reueale but all pertayning to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to saluation Marke what he sayth That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles is verified in the vniuersall Church but by all truth is not vnderstood simply all but all appertayning to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to saluation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be vnderstood only of all truth absolutly necessary to saluation consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as diuine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the sayd promise to be verifyed in the Churh And as he limits the aforesayd wordes to points fundamentall so may he restrayne what other text soeuer that can be brought for the vniuersall infallibility of the Apostles or Seriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receiue this answere of his owne from himseife How many truths lye vnreuealed in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be vnderstood of truths absolutely necessary to Saluation Are not these fearefull cōsequences And yet D. Potter will neuer be able to auoyd them till he come to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in al points by her proposed as diuine truths thus it is vniuersally true that she is lead into al truth in regard that our Sauiour neuer permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Booke or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it containe no fundamentall errour yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the
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
coÌ„futation can there be then by your own words the Belieuer sees For if he see how doth he belieue Or if he belieues how doth he see Especially since you say he belieues and sees vpon the same formall obiect or motiue Yet that Scripture is knowne by it selfe you proue out of Bellarmine who saych That the Scriptures (i) De verb. Deilib 1. çap. 2. which are contayned in the Propheticall and Apostolicall Writings be most certayne and diuine Scripture it selfe witnesseth But these words will proue to be against your selfe For Bellarmine in that place disputing agaynst the Swenckfeldian Heretiques who denyed all Scriptures sayth That he doth not alledge (k) Ibid. Testimonies of Scripture as if he thought that his Aduersaries made any great account of them but lest the Scriptures the Authority whereof his Aduersaries did sometymes abuse agaynst vs who reuerence them may be thought to fauour their doctrine Is this to affirme that Scripture is certainely and euidently knowne by Scripture Or rather contrarily to say that it must first be belieued before it be powerfull to persuade And therefore immediatly after the wordes by you cited which are The Scripture selfe witnesseth he adds these which you as you are wont leaue out whose predictions of things to come if they were true as the euent afterward did manifest why should not the Testimonies of things present be true Where you see that he proues not the Scripture by that beame of light which euidenly shines in Scripture but by predictions which we grant to be a good inducement or as Diuines speake an Argument of credibility and yet no infallible ground of fayth to belieue that Scriptures are diuine and much lesse a beame of light cleerly conuincing vs that Scripture is Scripture For one may be inspired to prophesy or speake truth in some point and for others be left to humane discourse or error as it hapned in Balam and the friends of Iob. And therfore Bellarmine in that very place brings other extrinsecall Argumentes as Miracles exemplar and visible strange punishments of such as presumed to abuse holy Scripture c. Which euidently shewes that he intended to bring Arguments of Credibility and not infallible grounds of fayth wherby we belieue that Scripture is Scripture which we must take from the infallible Testimony of the Church by meanes of Tradition wherof Bellarmine sayth This so necessary a point to wit that (m) Deverb Dei nonseripro lib. 4. c. 4. there is some diuine Scripture cannot be had from Scripture it selfe Wherby it is manifest that you plainely corrupt Bellarmines meaning when you go about to proue out of him that Scripture can be proued by Scripture alone the contrary wherof he affirmes and proues at large against the Heretiques of these times The place which you cite of Origen only proues that those who already belieue the Canonicall Bookes of Scripture may proue out of them that Scripture is diuinely inspired as S. Peter (n) Epist. 2. vers 21. sayth Neither doth the Authority of Saluianus proue any thing els 10. Your saying that we yield to the Church an absolute (o) Pag. 144.145 vnlimited Authority to propound what she pleaseth and an vnlimited power to supply the defects of Scripture I let passe as meere slaunders As also that the Authority of the Church is absolute not (p) Pag. 144. depending on Scripture but on which the Scripture it selfe depends And you cannot be ignorant of that which hath been so often inculcated by Catholique Writers that the Scriptures in themselues do not depend on the Church but only in respect of vs who learno from her what Bookes be Canonical Scripture which is to say not the Scriptures but our weake vnderstanding and knowledge of Scripture relies on the Church which our Sauiour Christ commandes vs to heare And your selfe grant that the Church (q) Pag. 142.143 is the ordinary outward meanes to present and propound diuine verities to our Fayth You will not deny that your knowledge of the Trinity Incarnation c. depends on Scripture will you thence in fer that the Blessed Trinity Incarnation c. in themselues depend on Scripture as if God had not been God vnlesse Scripture had beene written Besides to such as belieue Scripture we may proue the Church herselfe by Scripture and she in all her definitions doth consult examine and submit herselfe to Scripture against which she neuer did nor euer can define any thing in this sense also she depends on Scripture But to make good your slaunder you (r) Pag. 144. cite Bellarmine after your wonted fashion If we take away (s) De effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 25. § Tertium testimonium the Authority of the present Church of Rome this of Rome is your addition and of the Trent-Councell the decrees of all other Ancient Councels and the whole Christian fayth may be questioned as doubtfull for the strength of all doctrines and of all Councels depends vpon the Authority of the present Church Would not one thinke by these words that the strength of all doctrines depeÌ„ds on the Church wheras Bellarmine only sayth that we could not infallibly know that there were such Generall Councels and that they were law full Councels and that they defined this or that but because the present Church which cannot erre doth so belieue and teach vs. Which words demonstrate that Bellarmine doth not speake of fayth or doctrines in themselues but in respect of vs. And do not you your selfe teach that it is the Church which directs vs to Scripture and that she likewise is the ordinary outward meanes to present and propound diuine Verities without which Propesition no obiect can be conueyed to our (t) Pag. 142.143 fayth And what is this but to acknowledge that in the ordinary way without the guidance direction and Proposition of the Church we haue no fayth at all 11. You â—ikewise cite these words out of (u) De Eccles mil. lib. 3. cap. 10 §. Ad haec necesse est Bellarmine The Scriptures Traditions and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend on the Testimony of the Church he meanes say you that of Rome without which all are wholy vncertayne But Bellarmines words are these Since the Scriptures Traditions and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend vpon the Testimony of the Church all things will be vncertaync vnles we be most assured which is the true Church You see Bellarmine speakes not of the particular Church of Rome as you in your PareÌ„thesis would make him seeme to speake And as for the Vniuersall true Church what principle of Atheis me is it as you very exorbitantly (w) pag. 145 affirme to say that if we did not know which were the true Church we could haue no certainty of Scriptures Traditions or any thing els Do you thinke that it were safe to take the Scriptures vpon the credit of a false Church As wel might you take them vpon the
credit of Turkes or Infidels And therefore not the Assertion of Bellarmine but the contrary to it is a plaine principle of Atheisme Doe not you proue the necessity of a perpetuall visible true Church because other wise men should want that ordinary meanes which God hath appointed for our instruction Direction Saluation Now if we might haue Scriptures and true Fayth from a false Church your more zealous Brethren who deny a perpetuall visible true Church might easily answere all your Arguments and tell you that a true Church is not necessery for fayth and Saluation And besides is it not in effect all one to say for as much as concernes our instruction Christ hath no visible Church to say that we cānot know which is the true visible Church of Christ All the infallibility which we ascribe to the Church is acknowledged to proceed from the assistance of God how can he be said not to belieue a God who belieues the Church because she is assisted by God Remēber that euen now I told you that according to your owne affirmation the Church is the ordinary meanes wherby Diuine Truth is conueyed to the vnderstāding and yet you thinke your selfe free from Atheisme The Apostles of themselues were but mortal frayle subiect to errour and yet I hope you will not thinke it a Principle of Atheisme to say that all our fayth depends on them 12. You taxe vs for teaching that much of the Matter or Obiect of fayth is not contayned in Scripture any way But I haue already more then once sayd that we belieue nothing but what is contained in Scripture in some sort eyther in it selfe or from some Principle from which it may be certaynely deduced or in those places of Scripture which recōmend the Church vnwritten Traditions to vs as if one should in his last Testament expresse diuers particulars and should in the same Testament referre the rest to some third person whome be had fully instructed concerning his further will meaning whatsoeuer things were performed according to the direction of that third person might truly be sayd to be contayned in the Testament although they might also be saye not to be cōtained therin because they are not mētioned in particular And according to this explication Canus and Stapleton whome you cite and other Catholikes are to be vnderstood when they teach that we belieue diuers things not comprehended in Scripture 13. But you aske with what ingenuity (y) Pag. 146. or conscience doe they pretend Scripture in ech Controuersy agaynst vs since by their owne Confession many of their Assertions are meere vnwritten Traditions leaning only on the Authority of their Church I answere that some points of faith are expresly contained in Scripture yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded if we tooke away the declaration of the Church Some others are not contained in Scripture any other way then in the generall principles of the Churches authority and diuine Traditions as for example that such Bookes in particular are Canonicall writings Some others ar◠comprehended in Scripture only probably Others are contained so cleerly that they may seeme sufficiently euident to a man not peruerse and according to these diuersities we do more or lesse alledge Scripture If one were disposed to vse such Arguments as you bring I might aske on the other side to what purpose do you alledge Councels Fathers Reasons if out of Scripture alone you can conuince all errors against your doctrine May not diuerse arguments be rightly alledged to proue the selfe same Conclusion 14. Once againe you returne to the sufficiency of only Scripture that is you returne to speake nothing which concernes the Question in hand which you proue out of Bellarmine though heerin say you as not seldome (z) 〈◊〉 14. contradicting both himseife and his fellowes How consonant the writings of Bellarmine are both to themselues and to the common doctrine of other Catholique Authors this may serue for a sufficient proofe that all his Aduersaries could neuer shew yet in all his works any one contradiction but such as themselues had first forged and then obiected And although in this generall cause I do not willingly meddle with personall things yet that you may learne heerafter to speake with more circumspection but chiefly for the merit of a person so eminent in learning and dignity and yet more eminent in sanctity I will not forbeare to assure the world and you that when some yeares since a perion of high authority in the world had made himselfe beneue that he had discouered many contradictions in Bellarmine D. Dunne in a conference that he had with a person of Honour Worth from whom I receiued it though I hold it not fit heer to giue his name declared that there was no ground for this but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another as if he had been able to write them all in one houres space And if you D. Potter be of another opinion you shall do well to produce some instāce to the contrary which may shew a reall contradiction betweene some passage and some other of his works wherin it is odds that you will be answered and he be defended Let vs see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseueration The Cardinall say you grants (a) Bellarm. deverb Dei interpret cap. 10. ad arg 1◠that a Proposition is not de fide vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God (b) pag. 145. reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture ergo it is true If matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture as this reason supposes then the Proposall of the Church cannot make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth yet to salue the soueraigne power of his Church he makes all the strength and truth in this Syllogisme to depend on the Testimony of the Church and by consequence the truth of the Conclusion which euer resembles the weaker premisse So as if this be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church But now how many corruptions sleights and vntruths are couched in these lines Let vs examine them a little Bellarmine hauing taught and proued at large that the interpretation of holy Scripture belongs not to priuate persons but to the Church of God which in respect of vs is to iudge of Scripture and of all other Controuersies in Religion and hauing made this Obiection against himselfe If our fayth depend (c) Vbi supra vpon the Iudgment of the Church then it depends vpon the word of men and therfore doth rely vpon a most weake foundation he giues this answere The word of the Church that is of the Councell or Pope when he teacheth as out of his Chaire is not meerly the word of man that is a word subiect to error
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
or conuiction of things not euident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our vnderstanding Neuer theles their owne similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had neuer read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should be brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause Efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such an one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produduced by the Sunne or Moone c Or if one heare a voyce and had neuer known the speaker could he know from whome in particuler that voyce proceeded They who looke vpon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by diuine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it vnles they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cānot know whose voice it is which I heare vnles I first both know the person who speakes with what voice he vseth to speake and yet euen all this supposed I may perhaps be deceyued For there may be voyces so like and Hand so counterfaited that men may be deceyued by them as birds were by the grapes of that skillfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voyce or writing because they cannot know from whome a writing or voyce proceeds vnle first they know the person who speaketh or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speake any thing at all because one may write without intent to signify or affirme any thing but only to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writinge which himselfe vnderstands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleere that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing therefore by it we cannot heare or vnderstand his voyce With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it self they can see that the writers did intēd to signify any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonical Authours that they wrote their owne sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12. But let vs be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine moue our vnderstanding to assent yet the similitude proues against thēselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleere only to those who are endewed with the eye of fayth or as D. Potter aboue cited sayth to all that haue (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the belieuer as immediatly after he speaketh Fayth then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Fayth which can be no other then the Church 13. Others affirme that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Bookes But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answere our argument is strengthned because diuers Apocryphall writings haue appeared vnder the Titles and Names of sacred Authours as the Ghospell of Thomas mentioned by S (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. Augustine the Ghospell of Peter which the Nazaraei did vse as (c) l. 2. haeretic fab Theodoret witnesseth with which Scraphion a Catholique Bishop was for sometyme deceiued as may be read in (d) lib. 6. cap. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) lib. 6. cap. 11. Peter The like may be sayd of the Ghospells of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specifyed by Pope (f) Dist. Can. Sancta Romana Gelasius Protestants reiect likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which beare the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes as also both wee and they hould for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which go vnder the name of Esdras and yet both of vs receiue his first and second booke Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall which (h) In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. D. Couell acknowledgeth in these words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth vs to receiue Marks Ghospell who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Ghospell of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retaine Lukes Ghospell who saw not Christ and to reiect the Ghospell of Nicodemus who saw him 14. Another Answere or rather Obiection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proofe among Christians So D. (i) Pag 234 Potter But this neither a plaine begging of the question or manifestly vntrue and is directly against their owne octrine and practise If they meane that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most knowne in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most knowne in Christianity then Scripture may be proued For principles that are not the first nor knowne of themselues may ought to be proued before we can yield assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their owne doctrine and practise in as much as they are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another And since euery scripture is a principle sufficient vpon which to ground diuine faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proued by another Yea this their Answere vpon due ponderation falls out to proue what we affirme For since all Principles cannot be proued we must that our labour may not be endles come at length to rest in some principle which may not require any other proofe Such is Tradition which inuolues an euidence of fact and
This is my Body This is my bloud translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloud And heere let Protestants consider duely of these points Saluation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be deliuered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater euidence of Truth then that it is euident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith saluation all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of diuine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can neuer so far preuaile as that she shall be permitted to deceiue the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by vnfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the (s) lib cont Zwingl de verit corp Christi in Euchar. world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councels to haue recourse to them by reason of diuers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approued by the Roman Church is commended euen by our Aduersaries and D. Couell in particuler sayth that it was vsed in the Church one thousand (t) In his answere vnto M. John Burges pag. 94. three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer (u) Ibid. that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselues disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approued translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we vse must be the rule to iudge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintaine our Translation if it were but for their owne sake 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold vncertainties stop heer No! The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attayning whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they do Hence M. Hooker saith We are (w) In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect. 6. 26. right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may vnder any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controuersies (x) In his Treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop of Religion in our times are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnder standing to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that houâ—â—â—ould of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgment 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be receiued from the Church it is also proued by what we haue already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not belieue her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therfore eyther bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in deliuering the true sense thereof Or els giue vs leaue to apply against them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not (y) Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. belieue the Gospel vnles the authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me Do not belieue Manichaeus Luther Caluin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Belieue the Catholiques They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therefore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Do not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilts not belieue what thou wilts not And do not ProtestaÌ„ts perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Augustine spake when they will haue men to belieue the Roman Church deliuering Scripture but not to belieue her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselues to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seeme to haue spoken no lesse prophetically then doctrinally when he said Why should I not most (z) lib. de vtil cre cap. 14. diligenily inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me This therefore I belieued by fame strengthned with celebrity consent Antiquity But euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority What madnes is this Belieue them Catholiques that wrought to belieue Christ but learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him If therefore we receiue the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19. But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controuersies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the vnlearned and Nouices may haue recourse for these being capable of saluation and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must
is persuaded that his owne opinions be true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of diuers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceiued And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certaine ground whereon to relye for vnderstanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Fayth euen concerning fundamentall points vpon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometymes fayle it is cleere that the ground of their fayth is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometyme it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to leade them to errour As all Arch-heretiques belieuing some truths and withall diuers errours vpon the same ground and motiue haue indeed no true diuine infallible fayth but only a fallible humane opinion and persuasion For if the ground vpon which they rely were certaine it could neuer produce any errour 28. Another cause of Vncertainty in the fayth of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that euery errour in fundamentall points destroieth the substance of fayth and yet cannot determine what points be fundamentall it followeth that they must remaine vncertayne whether or no they be not in some fundamentall errrour so want the substance of fayth without which there can be no hope of Saluation 24. And that he who erreth against any one reuealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Diuine fayth is a very true doctrine deliuered by Catholique Deuines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 2.2 q. 3. ar 3. in â—orp he who denyeth one Article of fayth may retayne fayth of other Articles and resolueth that he caÌ„not which he proueth Argumenta sed contra because As deadly sinne is opposite to Charity so to deny one Article of fayth is opposite to fayth But Charity doth not remaine with any one deadly sinne therefore faith doth not remaine after the denyall of any one Article of fayth Whereof he giues this further reason Because sayth he the nature of euery habit doth depend vpon the formall Motiue Obiect therof which Motiue being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remayne But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds froÌ„ the same supreme verity Whosoeuer therefore doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scriptures as vpon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of fayth but belieues those things which belong to fayth by some other meanes then by fayth as if one â—hould remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleere that he hath not certaine knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule but only vpon his owne will And so it is cleere that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of fayth is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therfore it is manifest that whosoeuer is an Heretique in any one Article of fayth concerning other Articles hath not fayth but a kind of Opinion or his owne will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue (q) Ad 2. all the Articles of fayth for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoeuer fals from this reason or motiue is totally depriued of fayth From this true doctrine we are to infer that to retaine or want the substance of fayth doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods diuine Testimony which is inuolued in euery least error against Fayth And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certaine Rule to know why rather one then another it manifestly followes that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreouer D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of fayth it followes that she doth not erre in any one point against fayth because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas euery such error destroyes the substance of fayth Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of fayth it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherin they are contrary to her And this may suffice to proue that the fayth of Protestants wants Infallibility 30. And now for the second Condition of fayth I say If Protestants haue Certainty They want the second Condition of Fayth Obscurity they want Obscurity and so haue not that fayth which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the fayth of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Bookes are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleere and euident at least in all points necessary to Saluation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to Saluation is euidently knowne by them to be true by this argument It is certayne and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in the word of God is true But it is certaine and euident that these Bookes in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in these Bookes is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certaine and euident that whatsouer is contayned in these Bookes is true but it is certayne and euident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sinne c. are coÌ„tained in these Bookes Therfore it is certaine and euident that these particular Obiects are true Neyther will it auaile you to say that the sayd Principles are not euident by naturall discourse but only to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speake For supernaturall euidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall euidence doth neyther can the party so enlightned be sayd voluntarily to captiuate his vnderstanding to that
Spirits be remoued And Let vs (x) cap. 3. not heare These things I say These things thou saist but let vs heare These things our Lord sayth And What are our words (y) cap. 2. wherin we must not seeke her c. All that we obiect one against another of the giuing vp of the holy Bookes of the Sacrificing to Idols and of the persecution are our words these words you fraudulently conceale although you cite other in the selfe same Chapter because they plainly shew what S. Augustin vnderstands by Humane Testimonies they answere all your Obiections And The Question betweene vs (z) cap. 2. is where the Body of Christ that is the Church is What then are we to do Shall we seeke her in our words or in the words of our Lord Iesus-Chris̄t her head Surely we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is Truth and best knowes his owne Body And Let this Head (a) cap. 4. of which we agree shew vs his Body of which we disagree that our dissentions may by his words be ended Which words plainely declare the reason why he appealed to Scriptures because both parts agreed about them but disagreed concerning the Church And That we are in the (b) cap. 19. True Church of Christ and that this Church is vniuersally spread ouer the earth we proue not by OVR Doctours or Councels or Miracles but by the diuine Scriptures The Scriptures are the only this word only put by you in a different letter as if it were S. Augustines is your owne addition Document and foundation of our cause These are the places by you alleaged so vnfaithfully And will you in good earnest infer from them that we must reiect all Councels neuer so lawfull all Doctors neuer so Orthodox all Miracles neuer so authenticall euen those which were wrought in the Primitiue Church particularly in S. Augustines time which he himselfe published (c) De ciuit Det lib. 22. çap. 8. approued and admired And aboue all will you infer that after we haue found out the true Church by Markes set downe in Scripture her voyce for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard but to be esteemed a meere humane testimony of Notaries c. as S. Augustine vnderstood humane Testimony when he writ against the Donatists Or will you infer that we must learne from Scripture all that which we are obliged to belieue This you pretend but with such successe as you are wont that is to plead for your Aduersary against your selfe Which is manifestly proued by the other Question of Rebaptization controuerted with the Donatists for which they were properly and formally Heretiques and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of beliefe he could not produce Scripture as appeares by his words which I cited in the first (d) Chap. ◠num 16. Part and desire the Reader to saue me the labour of repeating them heere and then he will easily see that there is great difference betwixt the generall question of the Church and Questions concerning particular Doctrines deliuered by the Church in which this holy Father sayth not we must haue recourse to Scripture alone but that we ought to belieue the Church which is recommended to vs by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very booke De vnitate Ecclesiae out of which you brought the aforesaid places to proue that all Controuersies must be decided by Scripture With what modesty then do you say The Mistaker was ill aduised to send vs to this (e) pag. 33. Treatise which both in the generall ayme and in the quality of the Arguments and proofes is so contrary to his pretensions 7. You leaue (f) pag. 33. a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate vpon Whosoeuer (g) S. Aug. de vnit Eççles çap. 4. will belieue aright in Christ the Head but yet doth so dissent from his Body the Church that their Communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerall in some part it is manifest that such are not in the Catholique Church Well suppose all were done as you desire what other thing could be concluded then this But when Luther appeared Protestantisme was not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with himselfe alone What will follow from hence you haue so much Logicke that you cannot Mistake Wherefore at this day and for euer we must say of the Catholique Church as Saint Augustine sayd Euery one of those he speakes of Heretiques is not (g) De Vnit Eççles ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found but she who is ouer All is to be found in the selfe same places where the others are 8. You made an ill choyce of S. Epiphanius to proue by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Euidence of Scripture For he not only approues Traditions as necessary but also proues them out of Scripture We ought sayth he to vse also (h) Haeres 61. Tradition for all things cannot be taken from the holy Scripture the holy Apostles therfore deliuered some things in writing and some things by Tradition as the holy Apostle sayth As I deliuered to you And in another place So I teach and so I deliuered in the Churches And the same Father as we shall see anon doth most cleerly approue Traditiōs yea and confutes Aērius by Tradition alone without any Scripture It is then no wonder if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men belieue that he speakes of Heresies in generall whereas his words concerne some few in particular as the Samosatenians Arians c. His wordes as you translate them are these The Diuine (k) Haeres 65. Goodnes hath forewarned vs agaynst Heresies by his Truth for God foreseeing the Madnes Impiety Fraude of the Samosatenians Arians Manichees and other Heretiques hath secured vs by his diuine Word against all their subtilities But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this Therfore the holy Scripture doth make vs secure of euery word That is hath secured vs how we are to speake or what words to vse against the deceipts of the Samosatenians Arians and of other Heresies concerning the blessed Trinity as it is cleere by these words immediatly following which you thought fittest to conceale For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten For how can he be the Only begotten who is not Begotten But he calls the Sonne the only begotten that the Sonne may not be thought to be the Father c. Where you see he speakes of Words or manner of speaking and concerning particular Heresies which yet is made more cleere by the words immediatly precedent to the sentence by you cited which words you also thought good to leaue out For he first proues out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father but that the Father is not Begotten and therfore the Only-Begotten is the Sonne And then
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
matters of faith great or small few or many the one cannot be saued without repentance vnles Ignorance accidentally may in some particuler person plead excuse For in that case of coÌ„trary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods word or Reuelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstaÌ„ding by an infallible Propounder which oppositioÌ„ to the Testimony of God is vndoutedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small And thus we haue already made good what was promised in the argument of this Chapter that amongst men of different Religions one is only capable of being saued 9. Neuertheles to the end that men may know in particular what is the sayd infallible meanes vpon which we are to rely in all things concerning Fayth and accordingly may be able to iudge in what safety or danger more or lesse they liue and because D. Potter descendeth to diuers particulers about Scriptures and the Church c. we will go forward proue that although Scripture be in it selfe most sacred infallible diuine yet it alone cannot be to vs a Rule or Iudge fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion but that there must be some externall visible publique liuing Iudge to whome all sorts of persons both lâ—aâ—ned vnlearned may without danger of â—â—â—our haue recourse and in whose Iudgment they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Reuclation And this liuing Iudge we will most euidently proue to be no other but that Holy Catholique Apostolique and Visible Church which our Sauiour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud 10. If once therefore it be granted that the Church is that means which God hath left for deciding all CoÌ„trouersies in faith it manifestly will follow that she must be infallible in all her determinations whether the matters of theÌ„selues be great or small because as we sayd aboue it must be agreed on all sides that if that meanes which God hath left to determine Controuersies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths reuealed by Almighty God it could not settle in our minds a firme and infallible beliefe of any one 11. From this Vniuersall Infallibility of God's Church it followeth that whosoeuer wittingly denieth any one point proposed by her as reuealed by God is iniurious to his diuine Maiesty as if he could either deceiue or be deceiued in what he testifieth The auerring whereof were not only a fundamentall error but would ouerthrow the very foundation of all fundamentall points and therefore without repentance could not possibly stand with saluation 12 Out of these grounds we will shew that although the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall be good and vsefull as it is deliuered and applied by Catholique Deuines to teach what principall Articles of faith Christians are obliged explicitely to belieue yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grieuous sinne who knowingly disbelieues that is belieues the contrary of that which Gods Church proposeth as diuine Truth For it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testifyed by God another positiuely to oppose what we know he hath testified The former may often be excused from sinne but neuer the latter which only is the case in Question 13. In the same manner shall be demonstrated that to alleadge the Creed as contayning all Articles of faith necessary to be explicitely belieued is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to ouerthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will proue that there are diuers importaÌ„t matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14. From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwayes had and alwaies will haue on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Saluation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to belieue we will proue that Luther Caluin and all other who continue the diuision in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luthers appearance was spread ouer the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in onâ— only point wheras it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15. To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will add one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth vs not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put our selues in a way much more secure as we will proue that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16. We are then to proue these points First that the infallible meanes to determine controuersies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther all they who after him persist in diuision from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fifthly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine diuided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be seuerall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17. Only I will heere obserue that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge vs so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saued seeing themselues must affirme the like of whosoeuer opposeth any least point deliuered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grieuous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed contayning all fundamentall points of faith as if belieuing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue euen fundameÌ„tall points must be damnable What is this but to say with vs Of persons contrary in whatsoeuer point of beliefe one party only can be saued And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques belieue they may be saued in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging vs with Want
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
the Affirmatiue precept of Charity bindeth onely in some particuler cases But I am alwayes bound by a Negatiue precept neuer to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwayes bound to vtter what I know to be true yet I am obliged neuer to speake any one least vntruth agaynst my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmatiue precept commanding vs to be at al times actually belieuing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged neuer to exercise any act against any one truth knowne to be reuealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but euery one is obliged not to belieue the contrary of any one point knowne to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceiued or would deceiue which were to ouer throw the whole certainty of our faith wherin the thing most principall is not the point which we belieue which Deuines cal the Materiall Obiect but the chiefest is the Motiue for which we belieue to wit Almighty God's infallible reuelation or authority which they terme the Formall obiect of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of fayth may be called fundamentall and necessary to saluation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmatiue Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and belieue them explicitely and seuerally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D Potter (a) Pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to proue against his Aduersary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate (b) Charity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter not say one pertinent word in defense of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to saluation with reference to the Negatiue precept of faith is such that we cannot not without grieuous sinne and forfeiture of saluation disbelieue any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by Almighty God And in this sense we auouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reiect some must be damnable and to reiect others equally proposed as God's word might stand with saluation Yea the obligation of the Negatiue precept is far more strict then is that of the Affirmatiue which God freely imposed may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or giue leaue to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth and in this sense sinne damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an Example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for diuers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes diuers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Sauiour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and narure in themselues not fundamentall as vnder what Iudge our Sauiour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neuerthelesse whosoeuer once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error this is the precise point of the present question 3. And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he do but vnderstand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslaue themselues to their Predecessors in Protestantisme as stil to harp on this distinction neuer regard how impertinently and vntruly it was applyed by them at first to make all Protestants seeme to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some belieue some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherein there is no difference betweene points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as reuealed by God it is not agaynst faith to reiect them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither wil it auayle them to their other end that for preseruation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she do not erre in poins fundamentall For if in the meane time she maintaine any one Errour against Gods reuelation be the thing in it selfe neuer so small her Errour is damnable and destructiue of saluation 4. But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth finally ouer throw it yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saued he sayth It is inough to belieue some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue faith whereby they are not denied or contradicted Now our question is in case that diuine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted and therefore euen according to him all such deniall excludes saluation After he speakes more plainely It is true saith he whatsoeuer (d) pag. 212. is reuealed in Scripture or prepounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the diuine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denied or contradicted without Infidelity such as euery Christian is bound with himility and reuerence to belieue whensoeuer the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where (e) pag. 250. the reuealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Gal. 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God whereof he may be conuinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more crearely or directly for vs that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though neuer so small if once it be sufficiently
in the wiekednes of men in craftines to the circumuention (i) Ephes 4. of Errour All which wordes seeme cleerely inough to proue that the Church is vniuersally infallible without which Vnity of faith could not be conserued agaynst euery wind of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter (k) pag. 151.153 limits these promises priuiledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I vrge the wordes of Scripture which are vniuersall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaued Rule that Scripture is to be vnderstood literally as it soundeth vnlesse some manifest absurdity force vs to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the meane tyme diuers of Doctor Potters Brethren steppe in and reiect his limitation as ouer large and som what tasting of Papistry And therfore they restraine the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the inuisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We confer diuers places and Text We consult the Originals We examine Translations We endeauour to pray hartily We professe to speake sincerely To seeke nothing but truth and saluation of our owne soules that of our Neighbours and finally we vse all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neuertheles we neither do or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remaine whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Louer of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or vpon any other occasion Our remedy therfore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoeuer she proposeth as a reuealed truth according to that diuine aduice of S. Augustine in these words If at length (l) De vtil pred oap 8. thou seeme to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to thy paines follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come downe euen to vs and from vs shall descend to all posterity And though I conceiue that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall hath now beene sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remaine I will particulerly refell a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient for saluation to belieue the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Fayth CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be belieued is neyther pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true ISAY neyther pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely belieued but what points may be lawfully disbelieued or reiected after sufficient Propositiō that they are diuine Truths You say the Creed cōtaynes all points necessary to be belieued Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieued Certainly it doth nor For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contayned in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particulerly to know belieue but are bound vnder paine of damnation not to reiect as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we hauing already shewed that whatsoeuer is proposed by Gods Church as a point of fayth is infallibly a truth reuealed by God it followeth that whosoeuer denyeth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contayned in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imploied to proue that al points of fayth necessary to be explicitely belieued are contained in the Creed Neyther was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once giue vs a list of all fundamentals the denyall whereof destroyes Saluation whereas the denyall of other points not fundamentall may stand with saluation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as reuealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diuersity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentull or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in fayth and vpon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will neuer aduenture to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the denyall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a diuine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresy be reiected if once it be sufficiently represented as reuealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly agaynst you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed (a) Chap. 3. n. 3. before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contayned in the Creed So that it is cleere that to make an errour damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fundamentall 3. Moreouer you cannot ground any certainty vpon the Creed it selfe vnlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is vniuersally infallible and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations whether they concerne matters great or small cōtayned or not contained in the Creed This is cleere Because we must receaue the Creed it selfe vpon the credit of the Church without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed and yet the arguments whereby you endeauour to proue that the Creed contaynes all fundamentall points are grounded vpon supposition that the Creed was made eyther by the Apostles themselues or by the (b) pag. 216 Church of their tymes from them which thing we could not certainly know if the succeeding and still continued Church may erre in her Traditions neyther can we be assured whether all fundamentall Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures summed and contracted into the Apostles Creed were faythfully summed and cōtracted and not one pretermitted altered or mistaken vnlesse we vndoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it or at least that
backe nothing with your glosse needfull for our saluatiō is no proofe vnlesse you still beg the question and doe suppose that whatsoeuer the Apostles reuealed to the Church is contayned in the Creed And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Gouernours of the Church as is cleere by the other wordes He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selues and to the whole flocke wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your selfe say that more knowledge is (e) pag. 244 necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the gouernment of the Church and the care of soules then in vulgar Laickes Do you thinke that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Cōmandments Duties of Hope Charity c 25. Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other obiection To say the whole fayth of those times (f) pag. 222.223 is not contained in the Apoles Creed is all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the fayth of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commōly call their Creed Did not I pray you S. Mathew and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture and yet their writinges are not mentioned in the Creed It is therfore more then cleere that the Fayth of the Apostles is of a larger extent then the Apostles Creed 26. To your demaund why amongst many things of equall necessity to be belieued the Apostles should (g) pag. 225. so distinctly set downe some and be altogether silent of others I answere That you must answere your owne demaund For in the Creed there be diuers points in their nature not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly belieued as aboue we shewed why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed rather then other of the same quality Why our Sauiours descent to Hell Buriall expressed and not his Circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all fundamentall points of Fayth tending to practise as well as those which rest in beliefe Their intention was particularly to deliuer such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I haue declared leauing many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all professe to belieue Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might haue giuen no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when (h) pag. 223. we haue not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed containe all points necessary to saluation what need we any Church to teach vs and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Catechisms wherin beside the Articles of the Creed you add diuers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteeme it We grant your inference thus far That our Sauiour Christ referred vs to his Church by her to be taught by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scriptures And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs hath deliuered vs the Creed but not it alone as if nothing els were to be belieued We haue besides it holy Scripture we haue vnwritten diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions It were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be belieued Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach vs by some conuenient meanes Ergo she must teach vs without all meanes without Creeds without Councels without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught vs the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes as in fact we haue euen the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church If you will belieue you haue all in the Creed when you haue not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so belieue but it is your owne error wherby you will needs belieue that the Creed must containe all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one meanes of instruction must inuolue whatsoeuer is contained in all the rest We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion that it must containe what we imagine it ought for better maintayning some opinions of our owne but we ought to say and belieue that it containes what we find in it of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particuler we may learne of her what points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceiued by belieuing we haue all in the Creed when we haue not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might haue giuen vs no Articles at all as haue left out Articles tending to practise For in setting down one sort of articles not the other they make vs belieue we haue all whē we haue not all 27 To our argument that Baptisme is not contayned in the Creed D. Potter besides his answere that Sacraments belong rather to practise then fayth which I haue already confuted and which indeed maketh agaynst himselfe and serueth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue adds that the Creed of (i) pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptisme by name confesse one Baptisme for the remissiō of Sinne Which answere is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of fayth and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neyther explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of fayth be sufficient that it is contayned in in the Nicene Councell he will find that Protestants maintayne many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particuler that the very Councell of Nice which sayth M. Whitgift (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reuerenced esteemed imbraced next vnto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry vnmarryed it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And
proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian belieued his owne Opinion to be true but belieued not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherin Luther differs from vs not to be fundamentall or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from vs concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue belieued that they might haue been deceaued as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainely true and certainely not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serue vs to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) pag. 103. hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement to the publique as Luther and his fellowes did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with euidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still contayning himselfe within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously aduāce his own conceyts his owne conceyts and yet grounded vpō euidence of Scripture despise the Church so farre as to cut of her Communion he may be iustly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man euen for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemne your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motiues to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leaue her Communion then euidence of Scripture And yet according to your owne words they should haue answered and rectifyed their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded vpon euidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and externall obedience and if they cast of the communion of the Church for maintayning their owne Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree and in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteeme of them and why then are we accounted vncharitable for iudging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselues in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thanke you for your ingenuous confession in recompence wherof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of fayth and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his iudgment or leaue her Communion though he haue euidence of Scripture against her Will you haue such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth knowne to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who belieue the vniuersall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no euidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any iust cause to forsake her Cōmunion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yields as much as we haue alledged out of you The will of God is sayth he to haue (n) In his Preface to his bookes of Ecclesiastical policy Sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoeuer the sentence of iudiciall and finall docision shall determine yea though it seeme in their priuate opinion to swarue vtterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the vniuersall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of distembling against their conscience wherof now I spake Not vnlike to this is your doctrine deliuered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many (o) pag. 131. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Nouatians that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners These errors therfore if they had gone no further were not in themselues Hereticall especially in the proper and most heauy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and Vnity in her gouernment to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoeuer their opinion was And those factious people for their vnreasonable and vncharitable opposition were very iustly branded for Schismatiques For vs the Mistaker will neuer proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therfore he doth vniustly charge vs either with Schisme or Heresy These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commaunds imposed vpon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the gouernment and therfore they still remayning obstinately disobedient are iustly charged with Schisme and Heresy And it is to be obserued that you grant the Donatists to haue been very iustly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Fayth and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proued out of Scripture alone and therfore either doth euidently conuince that the Church is vniuersally infallible euen in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherin she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were vntruly supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre euen fundamentally And do you now say with vs that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresy which is a point so often impugned by you 43. It is therfore most euident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and
God not only by submitting our Will to his Will and Commaunds but by subiecting also our Vnderstanding to his Wisdome Words captiuating as the Apostle speakes the same Vnderstanding (b) 2. Cor. 10 â— to the Obedience of Fayth Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made cleere to vs the truths which now are certainely but not euidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it selfe not obedience but necessity coÌ„maunds our assent For this reason Deuines teach that the Obiects of Fayth being not euident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from belieuing by sufpending our Iudgement or exercising no act one way or other but also to disbelieue that is to belieue the contrary of that which Fayth proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnes This obscurity of fayth we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Fayth is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse (d) 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a darke manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter sayth Which you do well attending vnto as to (e) 2 Pet. 1. v. 19. a Candle shining in a darke place 3. Fayth being then obscure wherby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certaine and infallible wherin it surpasseth humane Opinion it must rely vpon some motiue and ground which may be able to giue it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motiue ground or formall Obiect of Fayth were any thing euidently presented to our vnderstanding and if also we did euidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we belieue our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but euident which as we said is against the nature of our Fayth If likewise the motiue or ground of our fayth were obscurely propounded to vs but were not in it selfe infallible it would leaue our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therfore for the ground of our Fayth find out a motiue obscure to vs but most certaine in it selfe that the act of fayth may remaine both obscure and certaine Such a motiue as this can be no other but the diuine Authority of almighty God reuealing or speaking those truths which our fayth belieues For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our fayth and yet not draw it out of Obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can euince that God reuealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had been no lesse perfect then he is although he had neuer reuealed any of those obiects which we now belieue 4. Neuertheles because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnes doth concur with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endured with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle sayth rationabile (f) Kom 12. 1. Obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoued to belieue with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certaine And therfore Almighty God obliging vs vnder paine of eternal damnation to belieue with greatest certainty diuers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot faile to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motiues and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the obiects which we belieue proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceiued and so Good that it cannot deceiue according to the words of Dauid Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Deuines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make vs euidently see what we belieue yet they cuidently conuince that in true wisdome and prudence the obiects of fayth deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed by God For without such reasons inducements our iudgment of fayth could not be conceiued prudent holy Scripture telling vs that he who soone (h) Eccles 19 belieues is light of hart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with euidence of credibility and the obiects of fayth retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to be euidently credible and euidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Sauiour his Apostles did not euidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not beene Fayth but Science and all had been necessitated to belieue which we see fell out otherwise but they were euidently conuinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths reuealed by God 5. These euident Arguments of Credibility are in great aboundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetualy existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we haue from our next Predecessors and these from theirs vpward till we come to the Apostles our Blessed Sauiour which gradiation is known by euidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man deliuers to another And it is euident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in priuate ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction inuented by themselues as ancient Tertullian well sayth How is it likely that so many (i) Prescript â—ap 28. so great Churches should erre in one fayth Among many euents there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs haue varied But that which amongmany is found to be One is not mistaken but delieuered Dare then any body say that they erred who deliuered it With this neuer interrupted existence of the Church are ioyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories ouer so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought vp to the Apostles themselues she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the diuine Certainty which they receiued from our Blessed Sauiour himselfe reuealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receiue it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praesc c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by
very Sea of Peter the Apostle to whom our Sauiour after his Resurrection committed his Sheep to be fed euen to the present Bishop Origen to this purpose giueth vs a good and wholesome Rule happy if himselfe had followed the same in these excellent words Since there be many who thinke (f) Praef. ad lib. Periâ—â—â—chon they belieue the things which are of Christ and some are of different opinion from those who went before them let the preaching of the Church be kept which is deliuered by the Apostles by order of Succession and remaines in the Church to this very day that only is to be belieued for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church In vaine then do these men brag of the doctrine of the Apostles vnles first they can demonstrate that they enioy a continued Succession of Bishops from the Apostles and can shew vs a Church which according to S. Augustin is deduced by vndoubted SVCCESSION from the Sea (g) Cont. Faust cap. 2 of the Apostles euen to the present Bishops 23. But yet neuerthelesse suppose it were granted that they agreed with the doctrine of the Apostles this were not sufficient to proue a Succession in Doctrine For Succession besides agreement or similitude doth also require a neuer-interrupted conueying of such doctrine from the time of the Apostles till the dayes of those persons who challenge such a Succession And so S. Augustine sayth We are to belieue that Gospell which from the time of the Apostles the (h) Lib. 28. cout Faust. â— 2. Church hath brought downe to our dayes by a neuer-interrupted course of times and by vndoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begun by Luther was interrupted for diuers Ages before him is manifest out of History and by his endeauouring a Reformation which must presuppose abuses He cannot therfore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrine which he sought to reuiue and reduce to the knowledge and practise of men And they ought not to proue that they haue Succession of doctrine because they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles but contrarily we must infer that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a neuer-interrupted Succession of doctrine from the times of the Apostles till Luther And heere it is not amisse to note that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not brag of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not beene free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24. And as Want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniuersality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout diuers Countreys and Nations cannot help towards that Vniacrsality of Place wherwith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more and more lay open their diuision and want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Obseruation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all moderne Heretiques wherein this holy Father hauing cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiel (i) Cap. 24. My flockes are dispersed vpon the whole face of the Earth he adds this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques (k) Lib. de Pastorib c. 8. are spred ouer the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spred ouer the whole face of the Earth some heere some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In diuers places they are diuers one Mother Pride hath begot them all as our one Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he sayth If thou know not thy selfe goe (m) Ep. 48. thou forth I do not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from vs but they were not of vs. Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flocke but of diuers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheep but feed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is One flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set downe the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselues which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head vnder Christ And so it being proued that Protestants hauing neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniuersality of Time or Place cannot auoid the iust note of Heresy 25. Hitherto we haue brought arguments to proue that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negatiue Precept of fayth which obligeth vs vnder paine of damnation not to imbrace any one error contrary to any truth sufficiently propounded as testified or reuealed by Almighty God Which were inough to make good that among Persons who disagree in any one point of fayth one part only can be saued Yet we will now proue that whosoeuer erreth in any one point doth also breake the Affirmatiue Precept of Fayth wherby we are obliged positiuely to belieue some reuealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Fayth which is necessary to saluation euen necessitate finis or medij as Deuines speake that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the vse of Reason was or can be saued without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Fayth (n) Hebr. 11.6 it is impossible to please God 26. In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique fayth are required Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to be wanting in the beliefe of Protestants euen in those points which are true in themselues and to which they yield assent as hapneth in all those particulars wherin they agree with vs from whence it will follow that they wanting true Diuine Fayth want meanes absolutely necessary to saluation 27. And first The fayth of Protestants wanteth Certainty that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because they denying the Vniuersall infallibility of the Church can haue no certaine ground to know what Obiects are reuealed or testifyed by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but-without the direction declaration of the Church we can neyther haue certaine meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faythfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Euery Protestant as I suppose
light but rather his vnderstanding is by a necessity made captiue and forced not to disbelieued what is presented by so cleere a light And therefore your imaginary fayth is not the true fayth defined by the Apostle but an inuention of your owne 31. That the fayth of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence Their faith wants Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath beene sayd What wisdome was it to forsake a Church cōfessedly very ancient and besids which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ vpon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Saluatiō endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniuersality of Tyme and Place A Church which if it be not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to haue any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their owne sake to maintaine her perpetuall Existence and Being To leaue I say such a Church frame a Community without eyther Vnity or meanes to procure it a Church which at Luthers first reuolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniuersality of place or Tyme A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrine What wisdome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun vpon meere passion What wisdome is it to receiue from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verify the name of Heresy which signifieth Election or Choyce Wherby they cannot auoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine cals it Foolishnes set downe by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not sayth he belieue (r) Cont. ep Fund ç. 5. the Gospell vnles the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therfore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospell why should I not obey the same men saying to me Do not belieue Manichaeus Luther Caluin c. Chuse what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherfore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Do not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the fayth of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou thinke me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnes but meere Madnes in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire (s) Lib. de vtil Cred. ç. 14. what Christ commaunded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commaunded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe therof had been recommended by thee to me This therfore I belieued by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquity But euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNES is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then those by whom I belieued him Lastly I aske what wisdome it could be to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to saluation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow priuate men who may erre euen in points necessary to saluation Especially if we add that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in fayth Nay euen Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to giue the Lye both to his owne words and deeds in saying We freely confesse (t) In epist cont Anab. ad duos Paerochos to 2 Germ. Witt. fol. 229. 230. that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which haue come from them to vs. Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Aultar the true keyes for remission of sinnes the true Office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of fayth c. And afterward I auouch that vnder the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernel and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And againe he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Fayth Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoeuer Christianity ought to haue And a litle before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme onely to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receiue nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore belieue only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they thinke that by this meanes they shall ouercome the Papacy Verily these men rely vpon a weake ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we haue all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Augustine sayes to wring out (x) Contra Donat. post collat cap. 24. Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies giue (y) Deut. c. 32. 31. sentence for vs. 32. Lastly since your fayth wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality Their faith wants Supernaturality For being but an Humane persuasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from diuine Motion and Grace and therefore it is neyther supernaturall in it selfe or in the Cause from which it procedeth 33. Since therefore we haue proued that whosoeuer erres agaynst any one point of faith looseth all diuine fayth euen concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retayne true fayth for some points yet any one errour in whatsoeuer other matter
when our Sauiour bid the Apostles preach to all Nations and yet neuer performed by Protestants by euidence of fact and by the confession of our Aduersaries doth shine most bright in the Church of Rome 4. But I cannot say that you omitted to raile against the Iesuites whom I will not dishonour so much as to defend them against that which you offer so impertinently vulgarly and meanely against them and particularly because in defence of a common cause I will not be diuerted by the consideration of particular persons though by reason of the Eminency of the person of Cardinall Dâ—ossat I cannot for beare to tell you that you falsify him when you make him say in his eight Epistle that he collected from their wicked doctrine and practises that they belieue neither in Iesus Christ nor the Pope For the Cardinall speakes not those words of any doctrine or practises of the Iesuites And in the funerall Oration which was pronounced at the Exequyes of the said Cardinall and is prefixed before the Booke which you alleadge it is affirmed that he of his owne accord and without being dealt with to that purpose did negociate the read mission of the Iesuites into France So far was he from collecting from their doctrine practises that they belieue neither in Iesus Christ nor in the Pope And as for our doctrine which concernes the incompatibility of Protestancy with saluation as proper to the Iesuites it is an idle speach void of all colour of truth For it is so far from being proper to them that it is common to all Roman Catholiques in the world and you shall neuer be able to shew me any one of an entire fame who holds the contrary 5. And wheras you aske Why may not a Protestant be saued since he belieues entirely the Scriptures the Catholique Creeds and whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in all ages hath belieued as necessary to saluation You may take the answere out of my First Part where I haue shewed that he neither keepes the Commaundments nor belieues all things necessary to saluation yea and belieues not any one point with diuine and supernaturall fayth who disobeyes and disagrees from the visible Church of Christ in any one thing propounded by her as a Diuine truth 6. You tell vs that you are no further departed from the present Roman Church then she is departed from herselfe But no wise man will belieue this till you can informe him what visible Church at or before Luthers appearance remained pure out of which the Roman Church had formerly departed or els you must confesse that the whole Church of Christ was corrupted Which because you will neuer be able to doe with truth you must be forced to confesse that she still kept her integrity without any spot of erroneous doctrine and therfore that your departure out of her cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy 7. You say truly That it is meerly impossible (b) Pag. 10. the Catholique Church should want Charity because the good spirit of Truth and Loue euer assists and animates that great Body But you speake not consequently to your owne Assertion that the Catholique Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall For if the good spirit of Truth may faile to assist her fayth why may not the good Spirit of Loue faile to direct her Charity Nay if we obserue it well the Want of Charity which you impute to vs is resolued into this doctrinall point Protestancy vnrepented destroies saluation Which Doctrine and Assertion if you hold to be a fundamentall errour you depriue vs of saluation and become as vncharitable to vs as you say we are to you If it be not a fundamentall point then according to your principles the Church may erre therin and so want Charity by iudging that Protestants cannot be saued 8. What we vnderstand by the Roman Catholique Church I haue explained heertofore to wit all Christians vnited with the Church of Rome as it is the sea of Peter In which sense it is not a part but comprehendeth all the Catholique Church which heertofore I proued out of the Fathers as in some proportion we do not vnderstand the Tribe of Iuoa alone by the Iewish Church though the other Tribes were called by the name of the Iewish People and Church from that principall Tribe of Iuda So that your marginall quotations to proue that the Church of Rome is a particular Church are emplored to proue that which no man denies if we speake of the particular Diocesse of Rome and not as it is the Sea of Peter to which all Christian Catholiques dispersed throughout the whole world are vnited Which Sea of Peter setled in Rome being the Roote the Center the Fountaine the Idaea of all Ecclesiasticall Vnion in all Christian Churches giueth them the denomination of Roman Catholiques which doth no more limit the whole Catholique Church then the name of Iewish Church did limit the whole Sinagogue to the Tribe of Iuda alone And therfore your thred-bare Obiection that Catholique Roman (c) Pag. 11. are termes repugnant signifying vniuersall particular vanisheth vtterly away by this different acception of the Roman Church and serues only to conuince by your owne obiection that D. Potter or the Church of England cannot stile themselues Catholique because Catholique signifieth Vniuersall and D. Potter and the Church of England are things particular And I would gladly know what your Brethren meane when they affirme the Roman Church for diuers Ages to haue possessed the whole world Do they thinke that the particular Diocesse of Rome was lifted ouer the Alpes Or when your Prelates demaund whether we be Roman Catholiques do they demaund whether we dwell in the Citty or Diocesse of Rome And heer I note in a word what now cometh to my mind that I wonder D. Andrewes a man so highly esteemed among Protestants would tell vs that the Roman Church is indiuiduum (d) In Rest. ad Apolog. Card. Bollar ad ca. 5. as the Logicians call it and that Catholique is Genus or a generall kind For to omit that the thing it selfe is ridiculous it maketh directly for vs because euery indiuiduum containes in it selfe the Genus as Peter for example is a substance a sensible creature c. and so if the Roman Church be indiuiduum it must containe Catholique in it selfe and so the Roman Church must of necessity be affirmed to be a Catholique Church Before I leaue this point I must tell you that you corrupt Innocentius Tertius to proue (e) Pag. 12. that the Roman Church was anciently esteemed a Topical or particular Church distinct from others and in vnder the vniuersal in these words It is called the Vniuersall Church which consists of all Churches where you put an c. and then add Ecclesia Romana sic non est voâ—uersalis Ecclesia sed pars vniuersalis Ecclesiae The Roman Church is not thus the vniuersall Church but part of
the vniuersall Church where you breake off But Innocentius his words are these The Vniuersall Church is said to be that which consists of all Churches which of the Greeke word is called Catholique and according to this acception of the Word the Roman Church is not the Vniuersall Church but part of the Vniuersall Church Yet the first and chiefe part as the head in the body because in her fulnes of power doth exist but only a part of fulnes is deriued to others And that One Church which containes vnder it selfe all Churches is said to be the Vniuersall Church And according to this signification of the Word only the Roman Church is called the Vniuersall Church because she alone is preferred before the rest by priuiledge of singuler dignity As God is called the vniuersall Lord not because he is diuided into species c. but because all things are contained vnder his Dominion For there is One generall Church of which Truth it selfe said to Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke c. And the many particular Churches of which the Apostle sayth Instantia mea c. One doth consist of all as the generall of particulars One hath the preeminence before all because seing there is one Body of the Church of which the Apostle sayth We are all one Body in Christ she excels the rest as the Head excels the other members of the body Thus far Innocentius who as you see teacheth that the Roman Church is the Head of all others That although the Roman Church in one sense be a particular Church yet in another sense it both is and ought to be called the Vniuersall Church and finally that your Obiectiō about the repugnance betwixt the terme Vniuersall and particular is friuolous as he explicates very well by the example of Almighty God who is said to be an Vniuersall Cause and yet had neyther genus nor species and besids whom there are other particular Causes Is this to affirme as you say that the Roman Church is a topycall or particular Church in and vnder the Vniuersall Or that she is onely Topicall or particular as you would make the Reader belieue 9. Your preaching rather then prouing the Charity of your Church Administration of Sacraments c. must rely vpon a voluntary begging of the Question that your Religion is true otherwise the good deeds you mention are not expressions of Charity but professions of Heresy The learned Cardinall Hosius saying Whosoeuer belieues (f) Hosiu in Confess Petricon çap. 14. the Article of the Catholique Church belieues all things necessary to Saluation sayes no more then you will say that whosoeuer belieues the whole Canon of Scripture belieues all things necessary to Saluation And you cannot but speake against your owne conscience when you say of the Roman Church pag. 16. She tells them it is Creed inough for them to belieue onely in the Catholike Church For your selfe pag. 198. affirme that the best aduised of Catholique Deuines yield there are some points necessary to be knowne of all sorts necessitate medi◠in which points implicite fayth doth not suffice you cite some of our Authors to this purpose Chap. 71. 241. and referre vs to a great many more What conscionable dealing is this I will not stand to note that Hosius euen as he is cited by you in Latin doth not say that we belieue in the Church as you make him speake in your text but that we belieue the Church But inough of this 10. In your First Edition I find these wordes Neuer did (g) Pag. 13. any Church affoard more plentifully the meanes of grace nor more abound with all helps and aduantages of Piety then this of ours But in your second Edition you say No Church of this Age doth affoard c. Whereby you acknowledge that at first you did ouerlash so do you now But it comes to you by kind Beza makes bold to say When I compare euen the tymes which were next to the Apostles (h) In epist. Theol. epist. 1. pag. 5. with ours I am wont to say and in my opinion not without cause that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge and contrarily we haue more knowledge and lesse conscience And M. Whitgift your once Archbishop of Canterbury sayth The doctrine taught and professed (i) In his defēce of the answer c. pag. 472. 473. by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder then commonly was in any Age after the Apostles c. How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greeke Church and Latins also for the most part spotted with doctrines of Free will of Merits of Inuocation of Saints and such like Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles times any Company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this day And will not the Puritanes say that they are more pure then Protestants and Anabaptists accompt themselues more vnspotted then Puritanes c In the meane time your own Archbishop grants that Almost all the Bishops learned Writers of the Greeke Church and Latins also were for the most part spotted with doctrines which now you call Popish Superstitions 11. The rest of this Section contaynes nothing but rayling and vntruths continually vttered by euery Minister and often answered by our Writers In Catholique Countreys there may be good reason for not mentioning the needles praises of condemned Heretiques lest the estimation of their morall parts which they abuse against Gods Church breed a liking and add authority to their pestiferous errors If D. Stapleton or any other speaking of Heretiques in generall compare them to Magicians c. as Tertullian also doth what is that to you vnles you be resolued to proclaime your selfe an Heretique Such sayings are not directed to their Persons which we loue but fall vpon their sinne which considered in it selfe cannot I hope be ouerwronged by ill language S. Policarpe called an Heretique the first begotten of the Diuell S. Paul giues them the name of (k) Philip. 3.2 Dogs S. Iohn * Ep. 2.7 termes them Antichrists as your Ministers are wont to call the Pope Charity Mistaken compares you not with Iewes or Turkes for impossibility to be saued Euery deadly sinne excludes saluation yet some are more grieuous and further from pardon then others 12. I hope the Mistaker (l) Pag. 19. would not wish vs conuerted from our Creed No But we wish you conuerted from Erroneous Interpretations therof to the Catholique Church which we professe in our Creed In the meane time these are learned arguments which may serue both sides Protestants belieue the Creed Ergo they need not be couuerted Catholiques belieue the Creed Ergo they need not be conuerted You tell vs of a Censure of the Creed written by some Catholique And in your first Edition you put Censura
happines in body soule when they shall once haue attained it after the generall Resurrection which were a Request sauouring of Infidelity as if the Saints could be depriued of Beatitude once enioyed Now as for Azor he proues in the place cited by you that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire but only seeme to deny a certaine determinate punishment of corporall fire Because sayth he they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead surely not for the Blessed nor for those which be damned in Hell which were plainely absurd and impious it must therfore be for them who are deceased with fayth and Piety but haue not fully satisfied for the temporall punishment due to their sinnes Is this to condemne the doctrine of Antiquity as absurd and impious Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice and Prayers for the damned Ghosts or for the Saints to satisfy for the paine due to their sinnes as Azor meanes speakes and therfore doth truly say it were absurd and impious Is not this to corrupt Authors 24. Wherfore vpon the whole matter we must conclude that Aërius was condemned by the Church and was reckoned among Heretiques and particularly by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine for the selfe same Error which you maintaine To which Maior Proposition if we adde this Minor which Charity Mistaken expressely notes (m) Pag. 27. and you conceale But S. Augustine sayth Whosoeuer should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted wherof this of Aërius is one were not a Christian Catholique The Conclusion will follow of it selfe 25. Would to God your selfe and all Protestants did seriously consider what accompt will be exacted at the last day of those who by their erroneous doctrine and opposition to the visible Church of Christ depriue the soules of faythfull people deceased of the many Prayers Sacrifices and other good deeds which in all rigour of Iustice are due to them by Title of founding Colledges Chanonryes Chantries Hospitals c. Lesse cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporall goods or to bereaue them of their corporall liues then to haue abandoned them to the Torment of a fier which although as S. Augustine sayth (n) In Psal 37. is sleighted by worldly men yet indeed is more grieuous then whatsoeuer can be endured in this world Consider I say whether this manifest Iniustice though it did not proceed as it doth from hereticall perswasion were not alone sufficient to exclude saluation And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead 26. The words of S. Thomas whom you cite pag. 40. to strengthen your distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall do directly ouerthrow that sense and purpose for which you make vse of them For as much sayth he as belongs to the prime (o) 2.2 q. 2. art 5. in corpor Obiects of Beliefe which are the Articles of Fayth a man bound explicitely to belieue them as he is bound to haue Fayth But as for other Obiects of fayth a man is not bound to belieue them explicitely but only implicitely or in readines of mind for as much as he is ready to belieue whatsoeuer the holy Scripture containes But he is bound to belieue them explicitely only when it appeares to him that it is contained in the doctrine of fayth Now our Question is not about nescience or ignorance of some points of fayth but of disagreeing concerning them one denying what another affirmes in which case according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas there is neither explicite nor implicite Beliefe of such points but positiue direct error in them and therfore such disagreement cannot stand with Vnity of fayth It is strange Diuinity to confound as you do points secundary or not fundamentall with probable points For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scripture which are not of their owne nature prime Articles Will you therfore infer that they are but probable Primary and secundary respect the matter which we belieue Probable and certaine are deriued from the formall reason or motiue for which we belieue Let two disagree in some points euen fundamentall yet not sufficiently propounded as reuealed Truths they still retaine the same fayth and contrarily put case that two agree in all fundamentall points if they disagree in any secundary point sufficiently applied to their vnderstanding as a reuealed truth then the one must be an Heretique and differ from the other in the very nature and substance of fayth For as in a Musicall Consort say you a discord (p) pag. 40. now and then so it be in the Descant and depart not from the ground sweetens the Harmony so say I retorting your own sweet similitude because euery least error opposing a reuealed Truth is not in the Descant but departs from the ground of fayth which is the attestation of God it doth not sweeten the Harmony but destroyes the substance of Fayth And heerafter it shal be shewed that you wrong Stapleton no lesse (q) Infra chap. 5. num 17. then you do S. Thomas 27. That Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then preiudice the Vnity of the whole you pretend to proue out of (s) Epist. 75. apud Cypr. Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian which doctrine though it be true in some sense yet according to your application it is pernicious as if it were sufficient to Vnity of Fayth that men agree in certaine fundamentall points though they vary in other matters concerning fayth And you should haue obserued that Firmilianus who wrote that Epistle in fauour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptization speakes in that place of the Custome of keeping Easter which point after it was once defined remained no more indifferent but grew to be a necessary Obiect of Beliefe in so much that the Heretiques called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned and anathematized by the Vniuersall Church in the Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus Wherby it is euident that though some point be not in it selfe fundamentall yet if it be once defined by the Church the Errour degenerates into Heresy Your Charity is alwayes Mistaken aduantaging your Aduersary by your owne Arguments 28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy or Schisme destroies Saluation because persons lyable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re nor in voto neither in fact nor in effectuall desire as Cathecumens are and as Excommunicate persons may be if repenting their former Obstinacy they cannot by reason of some extrinsecall impediment obtaine Absolution from the Censure 29. You extend your Charity so far to Infidels as to forget fidelity in relating what Catholique Deuines teach concerning them not telling whether they require some supernaturall fayth at lest for some Obiect and quoting Authors with so great affected confusion that a man would thinke them to maintaine the opinion which they
to the people other things then the Articles of the Apostles Creed the Ten Commaundments and some of the Sacraments because these are simply necessary and profitable for all men the rest besides such as a man may be saued without them Heere you stop leauing out the words immediately following which are directly against you So that sayth Bellarmine he haue (h) Ibid. a will ready to imbrace and belieue them whensoeuer they shall be sufficiently propounded to him by the Church Besides you falsifie Bellarmine when you make him say that the Apostles neuer vsed to preach to the people other things then the Articles of the Apostles Creed the commandments and some of the Sacraments because these are simply necessary and profitable for all men But he sayth directly the contrary namely that the Apostles preached to all some things which were not necessary but only profitable to all and therfore not superfluous as you say whereas yet he expressely affirmes the knowledge of the Creed commandments and some sacraments to be necessary to all I wonder what pleasure you can take in corrupting Authors to your owne discredit Now since we must haue as Bellarmine rightly teacheth a will ready to imbrace whatsoeuer is propounded by the Church it followeth that notwithstanding your Confidence to the contrary we cannot but except against your publique Seruice or Liturgy I haue neither will nor leisure to examine particulars but Exceptions inough offer themselues to any mans first Consideration The very occasion and end for which it was framed proceeded out of an Hereticall spirit to oppose the true Visible Church It was turned into English vpon an hereticall perswasion and a popular insinuation and a crafty affectation to inueigle the humor of the people that publique Prayers were vnlawfull in an vnknowne tongue It leaueth out Prayers both for deceased sinners and to glorious Saints blotting diuers of them out of their Calendar and hath abrogated their festiuall dayes and the like they haue done concerning fasts except those few which they vouchsafe to like It abolisheth all memory of S. Peters Successour It treateth only of two Sacraments excluding the rest and in the one it omitteth most of our Ceremonies as superstitious in the other it professeth not to giue any thing but the substance of Bread and wine It administreth to Lay people both kinds as necessary by the institution of Christ our Lord Masse or Sacrifice it hath none It reades and belieues Scripture heretically translated It mentioneth no Reliques of Saints And in a word it is both in the whole Body and designe and in euery point a profession of a Church and fayth contrary to Catholiques and implies a condemnation of our Liturgy as superstitious your selfe boldly say We cannot we (i) Pag. 68. dare not communicate with Rome in her publique Liturgy which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstitions and therefore wee Catholiques also can no more approue your practise and Liturgy then we can imbrace your Doctrine and fayth I said that I had no desire to examine the particulars of your Liturgy neither is it needfull For we may iudge of the rest by the very first words or Introite of your Seruice beginning with a Text for which you cite Ezech. 18. At what time soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinnes from the bottome of his heart I will put all his wickednes out of my remembrance sayth the Lord. But there is no such sentence in Ezechiel whose words are these euen in the Bible of the Protestants But if the wicked will turne from all his sinnes which he hath committed and keep all my statutes and do that which is lawfull and right he shall surely liue he shall not die All his Transgressions which he hath committed they shall not be mentioned vnto him in the righteousnes which he hath done he shall liue Your first Reformers the soule of whose Church was solifidian Iustification were loth to heare of possibility to keep all the Commandments of working Righteousnes or liuing in the Righteousnes which he hath wrought as also they were vnwilling to particularize with the Prophet what is required to true Repentance knowing full well the different opinions of their first Progenitors about this point of Repentance and therfore they thought best to corrupt this Text. And which is more strange in your seruice-Booke translated into Latin and printed in London Per assignationem Francisci Florae the sentence is cited at large as it is in the Prophet and therfore the corruption still remayning in the English to deceiue the Vnlearned is more inexcusable Neither in the same Introite is the allegation of Ioel. 2. much more truly made Rent your hearts not your garments and turne to the Lord your God c. Out of which place you know men are wont to declaime against our corporall Penance of Fasting Watching Hayre-cloth Disciplines c. but euen according to your owne Translation the words are Turne you euen to me with all your heart and with fasting and with weeping and with mourning And rent your hearts and not your garments c. where I belieue you will confesse that your omission was not vsed to no purpose 8. You speake among other things of Images we grant that God may be worshipped without an Image But we say that he cannot be truly worshipped by any one who denieth worship of Images because true worship of God cannot stand with any one Heresy It is highly good lawfull and a most holy thing to pray to God but yet if one should belieue that we may not also pray to liuing men your selfe would I thinke condemne him for an Heretique because all Christians intreate their Brethren to pray for them By which example all your instances pag. 72. may be answered Your saying out of Bellarminine that the worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church rather by custom then any Precept is answered heerafter n. 12. And I would gladly know by what authority your Church can inioyne secret Cōfession in some case as heere pag. 72. you say she doth if Christ haue left it free Can a humane law oblige men to reueale their secret sinnes in Confession especially since they know not whether your Ministers will not thinke themselues obliged to acquaint some Officer therewith in case the Penitent disclose any crime punishable by the Lawes of the Realme To which propose I could tell you strange and true stories as contrarily because Catholikes belieue the Sacrament of Confession to haue been instituted by our Sauiour Christ as necessary to Saluation they consequently teach that the Seale and Secret thereof is so sacred and inuiolable that the Pope himselfe cannot dispense therein though it were to saue his owne life And now to follow your wandrings you may know that we doe not hinder but giue free leaue to vnlearned persons to say their prayers in a known language but the Church doth celebrate publique Seruice
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
But we can tell you when and who first began to oppose Indulgences namely the Waldenses who appeared about the yeare 1170. And therfore the marke of Nouelty Heresy must fall not vpon the defenders but the impugners of IndulgeÌ„ces 12. You say out of Bellarmine that Leo the Third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint as before pag. 72. you alleaged out of him that the worship of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then by any Precept and in your Margent you cite him in Latin saying Saints began to be (z) De Saitctorum beat lib. 1. cap. 8. § vâ—â— worshipped in the vniuersall Church rather by Custome then by Precept But Bellarmine doth not there treate in generall of worship of Saints but only handling the Question Cuius sit c. To whom doth it belong to Canonize Saints and prouing that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church and not for some particular Diocesse alone in answere to an Obiection that there are many worshipped for Saints who were not Canonized by the Pope he hath these words I answere that the Ancient Saints began to be worshipped in the Vniuersall Church not so much by any Law as by Custome Where you breake off But Bellarmine goeth forward and sayth But as other Customes haue the force of a Law by the tacite Consent of the Prince without which they are of no force c. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custome of the Churches hath force from the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope First then you conceale the Question of which Bellarmine treated Secondly you leaue out Veteres Ancient Saints and say only Saints and yet Ancient sheweth he spoke not of all Saints but of some who were not expresly Canonized or Commaunded to be held for Saintes wheras diuers others haue been Canonized by direct commaund to belieue that they are happy Thirdly in your Translation you leaue out Vniuersall only put Church wheras Bellarmine § Primo modo expresly teacheth That in ancient time euery Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocesse and de facto they did command some Feasts to be kept as Bellarmine proues which shewes that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawfull and was to some particular persons coÌ„manded Fourthly you leaue out Bellarmines words That the Worship of some Saint generally introduced by the custome of the Churches growes to haue the force of a Law or Precept by the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope which is contrary to that which you cited out of Bellarmine The worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then any Precpt And now to come to your former Obiection out of Bellarmine what is it to your purpose if he affirme that Leo the third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint Doth he affirme that Leo was the first that taught Worship and Inuocation of Saints Or that such worship was not practised by Custome yea by Precept before his Time as we haue seeme out of his words it was Bellarmine speakes only of such forme and solemnity of Canonization as afterwards was vsed Which makes nothing for your purpose to proue that our doctrine of Worship or Inuocation of Saints is a Nouelty If one should affirme that the soleÌ„nity of Crowning Kings was not vsed in all places or tymes alike should he therfore deny the Antiquity of Kings or that Obedience is due to them You may see not onely the errour but the danger also of such discourse 13. When one reades in your Booke these words in a different letter Not any one ancient Writer (b) Pag. 78. reckons precisely seauen Sacraments the first Authour that mentions that number is Peter Lombard and the first Councell that of Florence and in your Margent the names of Valentia and Bellarmine Who would not thinke that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard belieued that there were seauen Sacraments neither more nor fewer Which is most vntrue and against their formall words expresse intentioÌ„s For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which you (c) Tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur cite The same Assertion that there are seauen Sacraments is proued by the Authority of Fathers For although the more ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all together in one place yet it may be easily shewed especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge euery one of these Ceremonies to be a Sacrament Thus Valentia in generall and then he proues euery one of the seauen Sacraments out of particular places of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ambrose Innocentius the first Chrysostome Bode and Dionysius Areopagita Now tell me whether Valentia say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments Doth he not proue out of S. Augustine euery one of the seauen Sacraments in particular as you could not but see in the very place cited by you Is it all one to say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments as you corrupt these Authors and to say The Ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all togeather in one place Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine lesse remarkable who hauing said that the number of seauen Sacraments is proued out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers premiseth this Obseruation That Our Aduersaries ought not to require of vs that (d) Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we shew in Scriptures and Fathers the NAME of seauen Sacraments For neither can they shew the Name of two or three or fower for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechisme as now we do by reason of the multitude of Heresies but only deliuered the things themselues in diuers places Neither is this proper to Sacraments but common to many other things For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Sauiour but neuer reckons how many there be It deliuers the Articles of Fayth but neuer sayth how many they be The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelue Articles for some particular causes In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture how many Canonicall Brokes there be But Councels afterward set downe the Canon and the particular number which they had learned by Tradition And afterward he notes That it is sufficient if we can shew out of Fathers and Scriptures that the Definition of a Sacrament doth agree neither to more nor fewer Rites then seauen By which words it is cleere that when Bellarmine sayth Lombard was the first that named the number of seauen SacrameÌ„ts he only meaneth as he explicates himselfe of the name of Seauen as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two SacrameÌ„ts So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine as they are indeed nothing can be gathered except your very vnconscionable Dealing 14. What you cite out of Bellarmine
we grant that it is not alwayes easy to determine in particuler occasions whether this or that doctrine be such Because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or diuine Tradition or Definition of the Church and much more whether the person be an Heretique which requireth certaine conditions as Capacity Pertinacy sufficient Proposition c. which are not alwayes so easily explicated and discerned and for these respects S. Augustine in the place cited (b) Pag. 102. by you had good reason to say That it is hard to know what makes an Heretique But it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter to giue a generall definition of Heresy or Heretique since in this very Section you dispatch it quickly saying He is iustly (c) Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretique who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded Or as you say else where It is fundamentall (d) Pag. 250. to a Christians Fayth and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God wherof he may be conuinced that they are from God Nay if you will speake with coherence to your owne grounds it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable Heresy for you I say who measure all Heresy by opposition to Scripture and further affirme that Scripture is cleere in all fundamentall points For by this meanes it will be easy for you to discerne what error opposeth those fundamental Truths which are cleerly contained in Scripture 4. In your discourse concerning the Controuersy between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian you shew a great deale of passion against the Roman Church which you impugne out of an Epistle of Firmilianus who at that time was a party against the Pope and who in particuler did afterward recant togeather with the other Bishops who once ioyned with S. Cyprian as we haue already shewed out of S. Hierome may be also seen in an Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusch hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherin Firmilianus in particular is named therfore you are inexcusable who say they persisted in their opinion wheras the proceeding of S. Stephen was necessary to preuent a pernicious error of rebaptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretiques which afterward was condemned by the whole Church And as for S. Cyprians mild proceeding which you so much commend out of your ill will to S. Stephen because he was Pope S. Augustine saith The things which (e) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. Cyprian in anger hath spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. Wherfore you could not haue picked out an example more in fauour of Popes then this And you must giue vs leaue not to credit what you say That both Stephen and Cyprian erred in some sense For Stephen only affirmed that Baptisme was not inualide precisely because it is giuen by Heretiques as S. Cyprian affirmed it to be but yet if the Heretiques erred either in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme Stephen neuer affirmed such Baptisme to be valid which had been more then he granted euen to the Baptisme of Catholiques 5. Your Argument to proue that (f) Pag. 112. concerning our greater safety we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholiques I haue answered (g) Cap. 7. num 7. in the First Part. You would make men belieue that we are like the Donatists who washed Church wall and vestments of Catholiques broke their Chalices scraped their Altars c. But I pray you consider whether Chalices Vestments Palls or Corporals and Altars do expresse the Protestant Church of England Scotland Geneua Holland c. or the Church of Rome 6. You spend diuers pages in propounding Arguments for the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton That whersoeuer a company of men (h) Pag. 113. doe iointly professe the substance of Christian Religion which is fayth in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mynd and will there is a Church wherein Saluation may be had notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practise yea although it be of that nature that it seeme to fight with the very foundation and so haynous as that in respect thereof the people stayned with this corruption are worthy to be abhorred of all men and vnworthy to be called the Church of God But because these and such monstruous Assertions proceed from other errours which I haue already both cleerly and at large confuted to wit the Fallibility of the Church the Distinction of points fundamental and not fundamentall c. I referre you to those places and heere onely obserue into what precipices they fall who deny the vniuersall Infallibility of the Church And it is strange that you your selfe did not see the manifest contradictions inuolued in this wicked doctrine For how can it be a Church wherein Saluation may be had and yet be vnworthy to be called the Church of God How can that man haue fayth in Iesus Christ with submission to his doctrine in mind and will who is supposed to ioyne with his beliefe in Iesus Christ other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against Gods word or Reuelation Can submission in mind or will or obseruation of his Commandments stand with actuall voluntary error against his word Is it not a prime Commandment to belieue Gods word Do not your selfe affirme that it is Infidelity to deny whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture How then can a Church be said to haue meanes for saluation and life wherin is wanting Fayth the first ground of saluation The Fathers sometimes called the Donatists Brethren by reason of their true Baptisme not for their possibility to be saued according as S. Augustine said to them The Sacraments of Christ (i) Epist 48. do not make thee an Heretique but thy wicked disagreement And Optatus sayth You cannot (k) Lib. 4◠but be our brethren whom the same Mother the Church hath begotten in the same bowels of Sacraments whom God our Father hath in the same manner receiued as adopted Children namely on his behalfe and for as much as concernes the vertue of Baptisme The Conclusion of your discourse may well beseeme the doctrine for which you bring it A learned man (l) Pag. 122. anciently was made a Bishop of the Catholique Church although he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies You might haue added that he would not belieue that the world should euer haue an end and further absolutely refused to be baptized And that he would not as the History recoūteth liue a single life as other Priests but that he would liue with a wife For Synesius who is the man you meane publiquely protested all these things and you are wise inough to take only what might seeme to serue your turne as this concerning the single liues of Priests did not because it sheweth that in those
the 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
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
question or practised by the Church is the Obiect of her infallibility which is the thing we intend to proue against Protestants that to oppose or question any one doctrine or practise of the Church is to resist an infallible Authority and consequently to be an Heretique And that Stapleton neuer dreamed of your imaginary restraining the infallibility of the Church to points fundamentall is cleere by another place which you (m) Pag. 40 cite as out of S. Thomas and him in this manner Some are primitiue Articles of the substance of Religion essentiall in the obiect of fayth Others are secundary probable accidentall or obscure points For Stapleton in that place sayth that certaine doctrines (n) Staplet Rel. controu 1. q. 3. art 6. are either primary Principles of fayth or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those principles but yet not defined Of the first kind are the Articles of fayth and whatsoeuer is defined in Councels against Heretiques c. Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden works of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the fayth and of which we may be ignorant without losse of fayth yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoeuer the Church doth vniuersally hold either in doctrine or manners belongs to the foundation of fayth and proues it out of S. Augustine (o) Serm. 14. de verbis Domini ep 28.89.96 who cals the Custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimuÌ„ sidem fundatissimam consuâ—â—udinem Ecclesiae fundatissimaÌ„ authoritatem sta bilissimaÌ„ fundatissimae ecclesiae Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those points which you call fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Fayth that we belieue whatsoeuer the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinatioÌ„s of the Church Which doth ouerthrow your distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall thogh you alledge the authority of S. Thomas and Stapleton in fauour thereof For S. Thomas (o) 2.2 q. 2. are 5. in the very place by you cited after he had sayd that there are some obiects of fayth which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other points when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to fayth You might gayne more reputation to your selfe and allow your aduersary more ease if you would once resolue to cite your Authours with more sincerity 18. To proue that the infallibility of the Church extends only to fundamentall points you also alledge Maldonatus who sayth That he will not repugne (p) In Joan. 24.26 if one will affirme that those words 10.14 vers 16. He shall teach you all things be referred to those other words Whatsoeuer I haue spoken to you as if our Sauiour did say that the holy Ghost was to teach theÌ„ nothing but that which he himselfe had taught them But do you in good earnest belieue that our Sauiour taught the Aposlles fundamentall points alone which all Christians are bound explicitely to belieue Or will you say the Apostles were infallibly assisted only when they deliuered fundamentall points of fayth So you must say if Christ did teach them only points fundamentall and the holy Ghost taught them onely those thinges which Christ had taught them vnles you will say they were infallible without the assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost You see he had good reason to say that (q) First Part. cap. 2. num 13. by denying the vniuersal infallibility of the Church limiting the promises of Christ made to her you opened a gap for men to say that the A postles in their Preaching and Writing were not vniuersally infallible And heer I aske whether it be not a fundamentall errour against fayth and Saluation to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God and since without question it is so you must eyther grant that the Church can erre fundamentally and damnably agaynst fayth which yet your self deny or els you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths whether they be in themselues fundamentall or not fundamentall which is as much as we desire 19. Agaynst the infallibility of the Church you bring a long argument pag. 157.158 the force whereof is this Nothing according to vs can be belieued by diuine fayth which hath not beene defined by the Church But the Church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees Therfore we cannot belieue by diuine fayth that she is infallible in all her decrees 20. Before I answere your Argument I must reflect that you do not sincerely alledge these words out of Bellarmine Vntil (r) Lïb. 4. de Roman Pont. cap. 14 §. Respondeo inprimis a doctrine be declared or defined by the Church so loÌ„g it might be eyther doubted of or denyed without danger For Bellarmine makes no such generall Rule but only speaking of the opinioÌ„ of Pope Iohn the two and twentith That the Saints doe not see God before the Resurrection which is your owne errour he excuseth him from Heresy because at that tyme the Church had not defined the matter Where you see Bellarmine speakes only of a particular point which that Pope not conceauing to be contayned in Scripture and the thing hauing not been expressely defined by the Church nor euidently knowne to haue beene the vniuersall sense thereof it was not at that tyme a matter of fayth And he himselfe before his death retracted his errour But to come to your Argument I wish you would be carfull not to obiect against vs what your selfe must answer For doe not you teach that the Church workes vpon all (s) Pag. 139. within her to prepare induce and persuade the mind to imbrace the fayth to reade and belieue the Scriptures And that the ordinary meanes (t) Pag. 142.143 appointed by God to present and propound diuine Verities is the Church And therefore we cannot in the ordinary course belieue Scriptures or any other diuine Verity but by the Proposall of the Church But this doctrine that the Church is the first Inducer to imbrace the faith and the ordinary Meanes without which we cannot belieue is not proposed by the Church and therefore it is not a thing which we can belieue You likewise grant that the Church is infallible in all fundamentall points And I aske in what decree definition or declaration hath the Church proposed to vs that her selfe cannot erre in fundamentall points especially with your addition that she may erre in points not fundamentall Now to your Argument I an were First That it is not necessary that the Church should by any particular decree testify her owne
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
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
if you answere me at all I beseech you forget not this demand and whether the obseruation of them be not holy and forasmuch as belongs to that particular obiect a perfect Cbristian fast and meritorious in that sense and degree according to which you grant that other works are meritorious or deseruing a reward For the other part of your obiection that he that eates flesh in Lent is punished with a more grieuous pennance then he that blasphemes c. you shew how modest a man you are and with all that you are little seene either in the Canon or Ciuill Law For the Ciuill Law commaunds that (t) In Authentiea vs non luxurientur homines Nouell 77. Blasphemers should be punished with death because sayth the Law Hunger and earthquakes and plagues come by reason of such crimes In the (u) Cap. Statuimus de matediçiâ—â— Canon Law Blasphemers beside other punishments are to stand as Penitents at the Church doore for the space of some Sundayes and for some fridayes to fast in bread water c. and by other decrees of Popes the same sinne is grieuously punished as in particular the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the 10. commands That none be absolued from Blasphemy without a grieuous penance and to the same purpose Iulius III. and Pius V. haue made very seuere decrees Neuertheles it is also true that greater punishment may in foro externo be appointed for some sinnes which are lesse then other as S. Thomas doth (w) 1.2 q. 105. ar 2. ad 9. and 2.2 q. 39. art 2. ad 1. truly affirme Do not your selues more vsually punish such as without licence eate flesh in Lent then them who take the Name of God in vaine or abuse themselues by drunkennes or wrong their Neighbours by detraction And besides to eate flesh in Lent may be an act of Heresy which how grieuous a sinne it is hath been explicated heertofore 10. By occasion of mentioning the Manichees you charge your Margent as your fashion is with a deep peece of erudition that the name forsooth of their founder Manes is conforme to the Greeke word which signifies Madnes But if we delighted is take hold of such goodly occasions of Vanity we could say that he was a Persian and his name was first Cubricus which he changed into Mames which in the Babylonian Tongue signifies (x) Epiph. haeres 66. a Vessell But let vs leaue these toyes to Grammar Schollers 11. It seemes you are willing of set purpose to mistake the point in question which was whether the Creed containe all fundamentall points of fayth or no about which Charity Mistaken hauing instanced in some points of fayth not contained in the Creed as the Scriptures and Sacraments he adds these words Besides that there are (y) Pag. 86.87 some great differences betweene them meaning Protestants and vs about the vnderstanding of the Article of the descent of Christ our Lord into hell and that other of the Holy Catholique Church and that also of the Communion of Saints which we belieue and they deny to inuolue both Prayers for the dead and Prayers to Saints as that we should not be much better either for our knowing or confessing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of Fayth vnles withall there were some certaine way how to vnderstand them aright and especially vnles vnder the Article which concernes the holy Catholique Church they would vnderstand it to be endued with so perfect infallibility and great Authority as that it might teach vs all the rest This solid discourse you mangle as you please still forgetting the promise you made in your Preface to the Reader not to omit any one thing of moment For you answere not a word to his particular instances of Prayer for the dead or to Saints nor to his generall exception that we should not be much better for knowing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth vnles withall there were some way of vnderstanding them aright If you answere that Prayers for the dead or to Saints are not Fundamentall points whether they be denied or affirmed then you must grant that you forsooke the Church of Rome for things indifferent and not fundamentall one way or other For these two points and such as these were the pretended errours wherewith you seeke to cloake your Schisme To the other you answere The Church of England (z) Pag. 240. questioneth not the sense of those Articles She takes them in the old Catholique sense and the words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Why do you answere to these two points of the Catholique Church and our Sauiours descent into Hell rather then to the other which Charity-Mistaken doth mention And in these two of which you take notice why doe you vse so much tergiuersation Why doe you not plainely and honestly acquaint vs with the meaning of them If you say that by the Catholique Church is vnderstood a Church alwaies visible not capable of errour in fundamentall points many of your chiefe Brethren will contradict that which you iudge to be plaine and your Church of England speakes so generally Art 19. of the Church that as it is affirmed in the Preface men of all sorts may take that Article to be for them And as for the other Article of our Sauiours descent if it beso plaine as it beares the sense before it how comes Caluin to vnderstand it one way Brentius another Beza another and other Protestants in another differently from Catholiques with whome neuertheles some other Protestants agree who teach a Lymbus Patrum as Lascitius Oecolampadius Zwinglius Peter Martyr Bullinger and (a) Vide Brereley tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder M. num 26. Bilson and we may adde D. Pottâ—er as one different from all the rest who sayth the sense is plaine and yet he keeps it to himselfe 12. But the Roman Doctours (b) Pag. 2â—â— cannot agree among themselues about this Article Is there any Catholique that denies Lymbus Patrum or that Christ descended to Hell as it signifies Lymbus Yes because say you (c) Contr. 3 q. 5. art 1. Stapleton affirmes the Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell that there is a Catholique an Apostolique Church Bellarmine (d) 4. Dâ— Christo. cap. 6. 12. on the coÌ„trary is resolute that the Article of the descent is euery where in Scripture and Thomas grants (e) 2.2 q. 2. art 9. ad 1. as much for the whole Creed What is all this to the purpose It is one thing to disagree in the doctrine of Chists descent another whether that doctrine which they belieue be proued out of Scripture or deliuered by the Church out of Vnwritten Traditions Among ProtestaÌ„ts who hold Scripture only to be the Rule of faith it is all one not to be contained in Scripture not to be a point of faith but not so with Catholiques who besides Scripture
belieue infallible vnwritten Traditions And wheras you say Bellarmine is resolute that the Article of the descēt is euery where in Scripture and in Latin Scripturae passim hoc docent Bellarmines wordes are All men agree that Christ descended into Hell aliquo modo in some māner or sense because Scripture euery where teaches so much Why did you leaue out aliquo modo which words might well haue shewed that there was no contrariety betweene Bellarmine Stapleton S. Thomas doth not purposely dispute whether all Articles of the Creed be contayned in Scripture but onely vpon an other occasion teaches that the Creed is not an Addition to Scripture out of which it is taken that the truths belieued by fayth are contained in Scripture diuers wayes and in some obscurely which doth in no wise exclude the Authority of the Church to declare the meaning of the Creed For if some be contayned in Scripture but obscurely who shall declare them to vs but the Church 13. As for the sense of that (f) pag. 240. Article some hold that Christ descended really into Hell Others virtually and by effect This virtuall descent is taught by one only namely Durand and therfore your Others is but an exaggeration and euen he doth not deny Lymbus Patrum or that the Fathers were there nor that Christ descended thither in some sort but only differeth frō others whether he descended secundum substantiam which doctrine or rather doubt of his for he leaueth the thing doubtfull is reiected by all other Deuines as erroneous 14. By Hell some (g) pag. 240. vnderstand the lowest pit or the place of the damned as Bellarmine at first others the Lymbus Patrum as Bellarmine at last Would not one conceiue by your words that in the opinion of Bellarmine Christ descended only into the place of the dāmned And yet your conscience cannot but tell you that Bellarmine neuer doubted but that Christ descended into Lymbus Patrum and only proposed it as doubtfull whether or no he descended into the Hell of the damned and resolued probabile est It is probable that the soule of Christ descended to all the infernall places or Hells But afterward in his Recognitions he retracted his opinions for as much as concerned the place of the damned whereby it is cleere that he neuer doubted of our Sauiours descent to Lymbus and that you affirming the contrary doe without doubt desire to deceiue your Reader 15. You say that it is the most important (h) pag. 242. and most fundamentall of all Articles in the Church to belieue that Iesus Christ the Sonne of God the Son of Mary is the only Sauiour of the world wherin you giue a deadly blow to D. Morton who teaches that the Arians denying our Sauiour to be God do notwithstanding make a true Church and if the opinion of M. Hooker for which you bring diuers Arguments be true you cannot exclude the Arians or Trinitarians from being members of a true Church 16. To cleere the cōfusednes of your Church in her 39. Articles you lay the fault vpon vs. But by your leaue if you read either Catholique Deuines or the Councell of Trent you will find that they speake most cleerly and distinctly But Charity Mistaken doth truly say that you are very carefull not to be too cleerly vnderstood and therefore in many Controuersies whereof that Booke of the 39. Articles speakes it comes not at all to the maine question between them and vs c. Which affirmation of his is most true both in the points by him specified in diuers others as for example The third of our Sauiours descent into Hell The 26. of the Nature and effect of Sacraments The 27. will haue the Baptisme of Children to be retained but doth not specify whether or no it be necessary The 28. about the Lords Supper is so generall and of so large a size that it may reach to Zuinglians Caluinists Lutherans who yet in this Article are known to be as farre asunder from ech other as East from West I omit other Articles and only vrge that which Charity Mistaken presseth and you wholy dissemble that Those Articles do not so much as say that the Articles of doctrine which they deliuer are fundamentall either all or halfe or any one therof or that they are necessarily to be belieued by them or the contrary damnable if it be belieued by vs. Is this to keep your promise not to omit without answere any thing of moment in all his discourse Certainly this which Charity Mistaken doth vrge heere is according to your principles the very quintessence of all other points I will not stand to examine how truly you affirme that our Wil is essentially free from all necessity Such motions of our Will as preuent the deliberation of reason are they not necessary The Will in good Philosophy cannot suffer coaction but it may be necessitated without changing the essence therof 17. To the demaund of Charity Mistaken Why do they not particularly enumerate all the Bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as they had done them of the Old but only because they must so haue named those Bookes of S. Iames and others for Canonicall which the Lutherans haue cast out of their Canon You answere that the Lutherans do now admit the Epistle of S. Iames and the rest as Canonicall which you proue by D. Gerhard a Lutherā But if this be so you do not answere his Question what the reason is why your Church doth not particularly enumerate all the Bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as she had done them of the old Besides what Authority had D. Gerhard to speak for all the Lutherans of which there be diuers sorts condemning one another If once you deny the infallibility of the Church what infallible ground hath D. Gerhard this day to admit of those Bookes which yesterday other Lutherans reiected In the Bibles of Luther to this day the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of S. Iames and S. Iude and the Apocalyps of S. Iohn are excluded from the Canon 18. Now that none of those Bookes which we hold for Canonicall be Apochryphall as you teach Bellarmine (m) De verbo Dei l. 1. per multa çapita proues at large and answers all your obiections And if any heertofore doubted of some of them the Authority of the Visible Catholique Church of Christ ought to preponderate all doubts of particular persons And it is strange that you cite S. Augustine against the Machabees who in that very place which you cite sayth The Scripture (n) Cont. ep Gaudent lib. 2. ç. 23. of the Machabees is receiued by the Church not vnprofitably if it be read and heard soberly which latter words are vnderstood only against desperate inferences of the Donatists who vpon the example of Razias in the History of the Machabees did kill and precipitate themselues as
of the Pope Sufficiency of one kind for the Layty c. and then they agree with vs Or els they deny all these points and so agree with you against vs. And this is that pernicious fallacy wherby you deceiue your selfe and others as if there were a visible Catholique Church or company of men holding all fundamentall points and being neither Romane Catholiques nor Lutherans nor Caluinists c. nor any other Church in particular which is a meere impossible fiction For Fayth is not Fayth vnles it extend to all points sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths the least wherof if any one deny he giues his Fayth a deadly wound and his seeming Beliefe of other Articles auailes him nothing To which purpose this saying of S. Augustine is remarkable If a man grieuously wounded (c) De Baptism cont Donatist l. 1. c. 8. in some necessary part of his body be brought to a Phisitian and the Phisitian say if he be not dressed he will dye I thinke they who brought him will not be so sensles as to answere the Phisitian after they haue considered and viewed his other parts which are sound What shall not so many sound parts haue power to preserue him aliue And shall one wounded part haue power to bring him to his death In vaine then do you flatter your selues with a seeming sound beliefe of the Articles of the Creed if in the meane time you receiue a deadly wound by opposing any one truth reuealed by God and propounded by the true Catholique Church For as all the liuing members of a mans body are so vnited in one life that a deadly blow receiued immediately but in one doth necessarily redound to the destruction of all so all the obiects of fayth being vnited in the same Formall Motiue of Gods testimony sufficiently propounded to vs the deniall or wounding of any one truth which is vested with that formall Motiue and life of fayth doth ineuitably redound to the death and destruction of all the rest When by this occasion you cite our late soueraigne Lord king Iames affirming that (d) Epïst Casauboni ad Card. Per. ad Obseruat 3. the things which are simply necessary to be belieued are but few in number and yet that all things are simply necessary which the word of God commands vs to belieue it had beene your duty to explaine the contrariety which appeares betwixt those two sayings For since the word of God commands vs to belieue euery Proposition contained in holy Scripture which are many thousands how are the things necessary to be belieued but few in number 21. But now I must put you in mind of not performing your promise not to omit any one thing of moment For besides other you omit to set downe what Charity Mistaken writes (e) Pag. 73. about the true sense of the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall which if you had set downe as he deliuers it it had cleerly appeared how through your whole Booke you had still auoyded the true State and point of the Question To which purpose you conceale in particular what he alleageth out of D. Dunne late Deane of S. Paules who hauing put great strength in the distinction of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall points he wipes out with a wet finger the whole substance of his discourse by saying That (f) Pag. 96. difference in points which are not important is not to preiudice a mans saluation vnles by not belieuing them he commits a disobedience withall as certainely euery one doth who denies any least point sufficiently propoūded to him as reuealed by God whosoeuer that Propounder be For sayth he Obedience indeed (g) Pag. 97. is of the Essence of Religion The Conclusion AND thus hauing in this Second Part answered the particulars in D. Potters Booke and hauing proued in the First Part that this truth Amongst men of different Religions one onely side can be saued is so euidently true as no Christian that vnderstands the termes can call it in question in so much as if any will goe about to persuade the contrary we must say with S. Augustine He doth erre (a) De Cinit Dei l. 21. cap. 17. so much the more absurdly and against the true word of God more peruersly by how much he seemeth to himselfe to iudge more charitably It cannot but appeare how much it importeth euery soule to seeke out that one sauing Truth which can be found only in the true Visible Catholique Church of Christ Wherfore our greatest care must be to find out that one true Church which we shall be sure not to misse if our endeauour be not wanting to his grace who desires that (b) 1. Tim. 2.4 all men should be saued and come to the knowledge of the TRVTH For the words of the sacred Councell of Trent are most true God commands not (c) Sest 6. cap. 11. impossible things but by commanding warnes thee both to do what thou art able to aske what thou art not able and helpes thee that thou maist be able Let not men therfore flatter and deceiue themselues that Ignorance will excuse them For if they want any one thing absolutely necessary to saluation Ignorance cannot excuse And there are so many and so easy and yet withall so powerfull meanes to finde the true Church that it is a most dangerous and pernicious error to rely vpon the excuse of inuincible Ignorance And I wish them to consider that he can least hope for reliefe by Ignorance who once confides therin because his very alledging of Ignorance sheweth that God hath put some thoughts into his mind of seeking the safest way which if he relying on Gods grace do carefully and constantly endeauour to examine discusse and perfect he shall not faile to find what he seekes and to obtaine what he askes Neither will the search proue so hard and intricate as men imagine For as God hath confined saluation within the Communion of his Visible Church so hath he endued her with so conspicuous Markes of Vnity and agreement in doctrine Vniuersality for Time and Place a neuer interrupted Succession of Pastors a perpetuall Visibility from the Apostles to vs c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other Congregations that whosoeuer doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these Notes may easily discerne to what Church they belong But all this diligence must be vsed with perfect indifferency and constant resolution to proceed in this affaire which is the most important of all other as at the hower of their death and the day of their finall accompt they would wish to haue done For nothing can counterpoyse an Eternity of Felicity or Misery Their Prayer will be much holpen with Almes-deeds offered to this intention of obtaining Light of Almighty God according to that saying of the Prophet Esay Breake thy bread (d) Cap. 58. V. 7. ◠to the hungry and needy and harbourles when thou shalt see