gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controuersies infallibility setled in a liuing Iudge is incomparably more vsefull and fit then if it were conceiued as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giuing to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is deriued from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is stil endewed with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Saluation I would therfore glaâ—ly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was depriued of infallibility in some points not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so vnworthily and vniustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially of we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments iudgments Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particulerly and minutely deliuered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Sauiour leauing the determination or declaration of particulers to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter (i) Pag. 24. against this argument drawne from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue obiects that we might as well infer that Christians must haue one soueraigne Prince ouer all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparity is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their ciuill gouernmeÌ„t of Christian Common-wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a howse or (k) Heb. 13. family to an (l) Cant. 2. Army to a (m) 1. Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a (n) Matt. 12 kingdome c. all which require one Maister one Generall one head one Magistrate one spirituall King as our blessed Sauiour with fiet Vnum ouile (o) Ioan. c. 10. ioyned Vnus Pastor One sheepefold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to saluation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend vpon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Samour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their seuerall Lawes disterent gouernments diuersity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this obiection returneth vpon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controuersies in Religion 24. This discourse is excellently proued by ancient S. Irenaeus (p) lib. 3. c. 4 in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they deliuered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ hauing saluation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or Inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from God's Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich Storehowse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient grouÌ„d for infallible faith nor a meete Iudge of Controuersies If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all controuersies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controuersies although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute an other Iudge of Controuersies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I aske D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controuersies in faith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well aduised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to know what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Couell expressely saith Doubtles (q) In his defence of M. Hokers bookes art 4. p. 31. it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues but so esteemed by vs for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controuersies cannot be ended without some externall liuing authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in vs a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controuersies seing notwithstanding this our beliefe we vse for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which euen by his Confession cannot erre damnably and may affoard vs more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any priuate person finally D Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintaine any fundamentall error against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controuersy is damnable If he answere that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controuersies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he teacheth that the vniuersall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particuler Churches and priuate men are much more obnoxious to error in such
points and in particuler in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controuersies And so the very principle vpon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular Controuersies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determent Controuersies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is Affirmatiue 27. Since then the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainely affirmeth when speaking of the Controuersy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This (r) Devnit Eccles c. 22. is neither openly nor euidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church And a little after Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therfore with this argument Whosoeuer resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to vs God's Word or Reuelation commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation But whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth God's word or reuelation to vs Therfore whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread ouer the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth euery one most seriously to ponder as a thing wheron eternall saluation dependeth And because our Aduersaries do heere most insist vpon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this euasion which shall be done in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controuersy And that the Catholique Visible Church cannot erre in either kind of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therfore if it be either vntrue or impertinent as they vnderstand apply it the whole edifice built theron must be ruinous and false For if you obiect their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity Mistaken plainely shewes that they differ only in points not fundamentall If you conuince them euen by their owne Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught diuers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neuertheles be saued because those errors were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwayes haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Pastors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and Doctrine Luther then forsooke and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Heresy they haue an Answere such as it is that the Catholique Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therfore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors vnder paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saued in their seuerall professions they salue this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is inough for saluation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could neuer be induced to giue a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring vs to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of diuers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from vs and amōg themselues And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibite any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serue them to any purpose but still they must remaine vncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they haue no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saued But of this more heerafter 2. And to the end that what shall be sayd concerning this distinction may be better vnderstood we are to obserue that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of fayth or our obligation to belieue diuine truths The one is by Deuines called Affirmatiue wherby we are obliged to haue a positiue explicite beliefe of some chiefe Articles of Christian faith The other is termed Negatiue which strictly binds vs not to disbelieue that is not to belieue the cōtrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our vnderstācing as reuealed or spoken by Almighty God The sayd Affirmatiue Precept according to the nature of such commands inioynes some act to be performed but not at all tymes nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all Obiects to be belieued For obiects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and seuerall belieued then other eyther because they are in themselues more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct vs in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selues or our Neyghbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For tymes we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of fayth but according as seuerall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negatiue doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige vniuersally all persons in respect of all obiects at all tymes semper pro semper as Deuines speake This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwayes helping my Neighbour because
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
And therefore eyther Christ had no visible Church vpon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those ProtestaÌ„ts who affirme the Roman Church to haue lost the Nature being of a true Church do by ineuitable Consequence grant that for diuers Ages Christ had no visible Church on Earth from which errour because D. Potter disclaymeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall and damnable errour and that she is not cut of from the Body of Christ and the Hope of Saluation And if saith he any Zelots amongst vs haue proceeded (h) Jhid to heauier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisedome cannot be iustifyed 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may obiect No man is ignorant that the Grecians euen the Schismaticall Grecians do in most points agree with Roman Catholiques disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 229. confesseth Inuocation of Saints and Angels veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enioyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrisme Extreme-vnction All the seauen Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Almes for the dead Monachisme That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Deusnes of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Icremiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana Confesaone c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles pag. 233. Crispinus by Syr Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestats (l) pag. 22â— Rome are only the partiall particular fancies of the Roman Church vnlesse happily the opinion of TransubstaÌ„tiation may be excepted wherin the latter Grecians seene to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudius a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title wherof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greeke Church in the seauen Sacraments As for the Heresy of the Grecians that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Sonne I suppose that Protestants disauow them in that errour as we doe 49. D. Potter will not I thinke so much wrong his reputation as to tell vs that the Waldenses Wicctiffe Husse or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knowes that the example of such men is subiect to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Ages nor in all Countries but confined to certaine places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastours They differed among themselues and from Protestants also They agreed in diuers things with vs against Protestants They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies 50. The Waldenses begun not before the yeare 1218. so far were they from Vniuersality of all Ages For their doctrine first they denied all Iudgments which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbaoth for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this meanes to make their Maister Waldo a meere lay man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy men ought to haue no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no diuision of Parishes nor Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a barne Fiftly that men ought not to take an oath in any case Sixtly that those persons sinned mortally who accompanied without hope of issue Seauenthly they held all things done aboue the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor ciuill Magistrate being guilty of mortall sinne did enioy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Iudges Tenthly they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleauenthly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion and so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their Fayth and made Offertories confessions and communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so vnlearned that sayth (m) Act. Mon. pag. 628. Fox he gaue rewards to certaine learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth confer the forme of religion in his time to the infallible word of God A godly example for such as must needs haue the Scripture in English to be read by euery simple body with such fruit of godly doctrine as we haue seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Maister so vnlearned that some of them sayth (n) Ibid. Fox expounded the words Ioan. 1. Suieum non receperunt Swyne did not receiue him And to conclude they agreed in diuers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seene in (o) Tract 2. cap. 2. sect subd 3. Brereley 51. Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For besides that the same things are testified by Protestant Writers as Illyrâ—cus Cowper others our Authours cannot be suspected of partiality in disfauour of Protestants vnles you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred yeares agoe did both foresee that there were to be Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants and disagreed from them in others And vpon what ground can they belieue our Authours for that part wherin the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagine they lyed in the rest 52. Neither could Wicliffe continue a Church neuer interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he liued more then one hundred and fifty yeares to wit the yeare 1371. He agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the euer Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seemes to me (p) In serm de Assump Marte impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seauen Saciaments Purgatory and other points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines as diuers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions nor propriety in any thing but should
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
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
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
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
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
and of infallible Verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remaine the same Question still how it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neyther can there euer be an end of the like multiplyed demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a booke is Scripture and yet vpon this point according to ProtestaÌ„ts all other Controuersies in fayth depend 7. That Scripture cannot assure vs that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whome D. Potter ranketh (a) Pag. 131. among men of great learning and iudgement sayth Of thinges (b) In his first booke of Eccles Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6â— necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proueth by the same argument which we lately vsed saying thas It is not (c) Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it his word For if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giueth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it Neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest vnles besids Scripture there were something which might assure vs c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the (d) l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. alibi Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and iudgment affirmeth and demonstratiuely proueth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article Wherein it is sayd of the Scripture Whatsoeuer is not read therein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be belieued as an Article of the fayth or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation and concerning their beliefe and profession of this Article they are particulerly examined when they be ordayned Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Couell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to vs not by testimony of the priuate spirit which sayth he being priuate and secret is (e) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 pag. 357. vnfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the (f) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument sayth he whereby may be argued and conuinced what bookes be Canonicall and what be not Luther sayth This (g) lib. de capt Babyl tom 2. Wittomb fol. 8â— indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he belieued the Ghospell being moued by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulke teacheth that the Church (h) In his answere to a countefaite Catholique pag. 5. hath iudgment to discerne true writings from counterfaite and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgment she hath not of herselfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you may not be ignorant from what Church you must receiue Scriptures heare your first Patriarch Luther speaking against theÌ„ who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these (i) Epist coÌ„t Anabap. ad dnos Parochos tom 2 Germ. Wittemb men build vpon a weake foundation For by this meanes they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we haue from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture 8. But now in deedes they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The (k) Praefat. in epist. lac inedit Ienensi Epistle of â—ames is contentions swelling dry strawy and vnworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitius teacheth that the second Epistle (l) In Enchirid pag. 63. of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not hauing sufficient Testimony (m) In exa min. Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. of their authority and therefore that nothing in controuersy can be proued out of these (n) Ibid. Bookes The same is taught by diuers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luthers time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleadge why they leaue their Maister and so many of his prime Schollers I know no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as he was bould to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receiued in Gods Church 9. What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easy to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubâ—â— in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Do they only vnderstand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of fayth By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Eusâ—b l. 4. hist. cap. 26. Melito Asianus (p) in Synop. Athanaâ—us and (q) In câ—rm de genuâ—â—â—s Scripturis Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes (r) lib de seruo arbitrâ—o contra Eras tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the booke of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserue to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (s) In latinis Sermonibus conuiuialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. booke is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides vpon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurtfabro editis Francofurti tit de libris veteris noui Test fol. 379. sayth further that the said booke was
not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the tyme of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomous And further he sayth that (u) Ibid. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. he doth not be lieue all to haue been donne as 〈◊〉 is â—â—t downe And he teacheth the (w) Tit de lib. Vet. â—out Test. booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before vs an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. deliuers this generall censure of the Prophets Bookes The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one booke and by this meanes the Bible was conserued If this were so the Bookes of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church vpon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church diuers Bookes of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which diuers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the obseruation how the before mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Bookes of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New without naming any one they shuffle ouer with this generality All the Bookes of the New Testameâ—â—â— as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be vnfolded If they had descended to particulers they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly receiued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue diuers Bookes of the Old Testament which they reiect By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Bookes of the New Testament If it be the greater or lesse number of voyces that must cry vp or downe the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will preuaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Fayth must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controuersy of Fact whether the number of those who reiect or of those others who receiue such and such Scriptures be greater Their faith must alter according to yeares and dayes When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly receiued stood for them till Zvinglius Caluin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly receaued will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe of the New Testament they giue a far different rule saying All the Bookes of the New Testament as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Bookes might be said to be Commonly receiued although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly receiued passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know vpon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with vs against Luther and diuers principall Lutherans and in others iump with Luther against vs But seeing they disagree among themselues it is euident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning wherof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreouer the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connexion with diuine Reuelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or vnderstanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by diuine authority as because Creatures inuolue a necessary relation connexion and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be deliuered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the Blessed Trinity c. the only setting them downe in Writing is not inough to be assured that such a Writing is the vndoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sybills Ouid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall vpon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed moued the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their vnderstanding and will and hath no such particuler sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discouer or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is diuine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11. And heere we appeale to any man of Iudgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell vs that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter word's it by (y) Pag. 14â— that glorious beame of diuine light which shines therein euen as our eye distinguisheth light from darknes without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voyce by the voyce it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we sayd euen now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with diuine inspiration or reuelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seing that glorious beame of diuine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being euident proportionate connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is diuine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of maÌ„s vnderstanding to vs obscure and to be belieued by diuine fayth which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1 non apparentium an argument
be some vniuersall Iudge which the ignorant may vnderstand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20. Now the inconueniences which follow by referring all Controuersies to Scripture alone are very cleare For by this principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall priuate Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publique externall and a priuate internall voyce whosoeuer refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21. This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church comes to conferre it vpon euery particuler maÌ„ who being driuen from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself as others maliciously may do Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from diuers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity Heare Luther The Gouernours (a) Tom. 2. Wittemberg fol. 375. of Churches and Pastours of Christs sheep haue indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to giue Iudgment whether they propound the voyce of Christ or of Aliens Lubbertus sayth As we haue (b) In lib. de principiâ—s Christian. dogm lib. 6. cap. 13. demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceiued in interpreting so we affirme that they may erre in iudging All faythfull men are prinate Iudges and they also haue power to Iudge of doctrines and interpretations Whitaker euen of the vnlearned sayth They (c) De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to haue recourse vnto the more learned but in the meane tyme we must be carefull not to attribute to them ouer-much but so that still we retaine our owne freedome Bilson also affirmeth that The people (d) In his true difference part 2. must be discerners and Iudges of that which is taught This same pernicious doctrine is deliuered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by (e) Tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. Brereley nothing is more common in euery Protestants mouth then that he admits of Fathers Councells Church c. as far as they agree with Scripture which vpon the matter is himselfe Thus Heresy euer fals vpon extremes It pretends to haue Scripture alone for Iudge of Controuersies and in the meane time sets vp as many Iudges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should idëate or fancy such a Common wealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church They verify what S. Augustine obiecteth against certaine Heretiques You sce (f) lib 32. cont Faust that you goe about to ouerthrow all authority of Scripture and that euery mans mind may be to himselfe a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in euery Scripture 22. Moreouer what coÌ„fusion to the Church what danger to the Common wealth this deniall of the authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any Iudicious indifferent man I will only set downe some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of reuealed Truths sufficient to proue him that gaine saith them to be an Heretique sayth thus This Proposition (g) pag. 247 of reuealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope and Church being excluded let vs heare what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoeuer meanes a man may be conuinced in conscience of diuine reuelation If a Preacher do cleare any point of fayth to his Hearers if a priuate Christian do make it appeare to his Neighbour that any conclusion or point of faith is deliuered by diuine reuelation of Gods word if a man himselfe without any Teacher by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be conuinced of the truth of any such coclusion this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain saith any such proofe to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of fayth arise in place of Gods vniuersall visible Church which must yield to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Verily I do not see but that euery well gouerned Ciuill Common-wealth ought to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred vpon euery man who whatsoeuer is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditions creature 23. Moreouer there was no Scripture or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentils endewed in those dayes with diuine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the decider of Controuersies and Instructor of the faithfull Neither did the Word written by Moses depriue that Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Iudge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a liuing Iudge in the Iewish Church endewed with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to diuine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successiuely vpon seuerall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Sauiour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little receiued holy Scripture she was by the like degrees deuested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controuersies in Religion That some Churches had one Iudge of Controuersies and others another That with moneths or yeares as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of faith or Iudge of Controuersies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discouery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by diuine vn written Traditions and affistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controuersies as Tertullian saith The soule is (h) De test antm cap. 5. before the letter and speach before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would haue brought to the world diuision in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost then
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
anciēt times Priests could not liue with wiues And now I aske whether in good earnest you belieue that one may be made a Bishop who will not belieue the Resurrection nor wil be baptized or whether he may be baptized against his will The Answere therfore may be seen in Baronius who (m) Anno 410. n. 6. Spond demonstrates out of the Epistles of Synesius himselfe that he did these things not to be made a Bishop wishing as he affirmeth rather to dye then to endure so great a burthen wherin saith Baronius he seemes only to haue done in words that which S. Ambrose pretended in deeds which was to be esteemed incontinent and vnmercifull so to hinder his being made Bishop But these extraordinary proceedings may be admired but ought not to be imitated To say that the ten Tribes notwithstanding their Idolatries remained still a true Church cannot but make any Christian soule tremble to consider to what damnable absurdities and impieties they fall who leaue the Roman Church You falfify Magallanus (n) In Tit. 3.11 as if he with M. Hooker affirmed that If an Infidell (o) Pag. 117. should pursue to death an Heretique only for Christian professions sake the honour of Martyrdome could not be denied to him which is contrary to the words and meaning of Magallanus For he expresly teacheth that they do not participate of the grace of the Church but are dead parts and consequently not capable of saluation Only he sayth that they may be called mēbers of the Church because the Church can iudge and punish them It is impossible that any Catholique Author should teach that an Heretique remayning an Heretique that is actually and voluntarily denying a reuealed Truth sufficiently propounded for such can be a Martyr But such as you are may affirme what you please The words of Saluianus (p) De Gnbern lib. ◠which you cite and say that they are very remarkable do only signify by way of doubt whether some of the Heretiques of whom he spoke and who in simplicity followed their Teachers as he expresly sayth may not be excused by ignorance And since you affirme that he speakes of Arians I would know whether you do not thinke Arianisme to be a damnable Heresy vnles accidentally ignorance excuse some particular persons 7. You say that (q) Pag. 131. the Errors of the Donatists concerning the inualidity of the Baptisme giuen by Heretiques and of the Nouatians that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners were not in themselues hereticall c. Neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration If these errours neither in themselues nor by the declaration of the Church be hereticall I pray you how are they hereticall May a mā in these tymes hold them without note of Heresy So you must say vnles you grant the definitions of Gods Church to be infallible For S. Augustine professeth that this point concerning rebaptization cannot be determined out of Scripture alone as hath been sayd before Or if you say this Errour may be confuted out of Scripture then you must grant that it is in it selfe hereticall which you deny But no wonder if by denying the infallibility of the Church you be brought to such straytes I goe on now to the next CHAP. V. IN this Section you handle three points First that the Church is infallible onely in fundamentall points Secondly that the Generall Councels and Thirdly that the Pope may erre in points fundamētall Concerning the first I haue spoken in the first Part the second and third are particular disputes from which you ought to haue abstained if you had meant to haue touched indeed the point of our Controuersy But since you will needs fill you Booke with such particulars I must also goe out of the way to answere your obiections 2. If I tooke pleasure as you doe to fill my Margent with quotations of Authours I could easily shew how you mistake and wrong our Schoole-men as if they held that something which in it self is not infinit but really distinct from the diuine Authority were the chiefe Motiue of fayth the first and furthest principle into which it resolues wheras their difference is only in explicating vnder what precise and formall consideration God is the formall obiect of fayth some assigning the Diuinity it selfe others the authority of God commanding others which is the common opinion teaching that it is resolued into the diuine or Prime Verity and lastly euen those whome it seemes you call vnwise and vnwarry Writers agaynst Luther doe not teach that the Authority of the Church is the chiefest first and furthest principle into which fayth resolues but at the most that her Proposition is necessary to an Act of diuine fayth eyther because they conceyue that matter of faith ought to concerne the common good of Religion and so require a publique Authority or Propounder or els because they hold that her Proposition in some sort enters into the formall obiect of fayth in respect of vs Neither are the Authors of this opinion only Writers against Luther as you say but diuers other Schoole-Deuines 3. Wheras you say that there is no question but that Fayth is supernaturall in regard of the Efsicient Cause and of the Obiect both which ought to be supernaturall it seemes you are willing to dissemble the doctrine of your great Reformer Zwinglius who (a) Tom. 2. exposit fidei Christianae fol. 159. out of his excessiue Charity placed in heauen Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides c. who had no supernaturall Fayth nor beliefe of God as also the Children of the Heathens dying without (b) Tom. 2. fol. 540. Baptisme Were not such Charitable men very fit to reforme the Church 4. You fall againe vpon the sufficiency of Scripture which point I haue already answered shewed in what sense all points of fayth may be contained in Scripture to wit in as much as the Scripture doth recommend to vs the Church and diuine vnwritten Traditions Neither can you alleage any one Catholique Author ancient or moderne who speaking of the sufficiency of Scripture excludes Tradition by which euen Scripture it selfe is deliuered to vs. And as for S. Augustine and S. Basill whom you alleage for the sufficiency of Scripture they be so cleerly for Tradition that they haue been taxed by some Protestants for that cause as likewise for the same reason some chiefe Protestants haue blamed Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierome Maximus Theophilus Damascene Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Leo Eusebius and others as may be seene in (c) Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 22. Brereley But though Scripture alone did particularly containe all points necessary to saluarion doth it follow thinke you from thence that the Church is not infallible May not both Scripture and Church be infallible in what they deliuer Doth not your selfe grant that the Church is infallible for points fundamentall and for
the same points the Scripture is also sufficient and cleere Which cuidently sheweth that you cannot deny but that the Infallibility of the Church may well stand with the sufficiency of Scripture consequently to oppose either the Scripture or Church is sufficient to make one an Heretique and this is sufficient for our purpose Yea since you cannot deny but that it is Heresy to oppose the Scripture and that you also grant that the Scripture affirmes the Church to be infallible in fundamentall points it followes that euen according to you euery one who opposeth the Church in such points is an Heretique euen because he opposeth the Church although the further reason heerof be because he opposeth the Scripture which recommends the Church So that all which you haue said about the sufficiency of Scripture alone is in diuers respects nothing to the purpose 5. You affirme that (d) Pag. 136 Eckius Pighius Hosius Turrianus Costerus do euery where in their writings speake wickedly and contumeliously of the holy Scriptures And because this is a common slander of Protestants against Catholique Writers I do heere challenge you to produce but one I say but one only place either out of any one of these whome you name or any other Catholique Doctor who speakes wickedly or contumeliously against holy Scriptures But be sure you do not confound speaking against Scripture it selfe with speaking against the abuse therof or against the letter of Scripture wrested to some hereticall sense against which our Authors speake and cannot speake too much And S. Hierome with other Father do the same 6. You proceed and say The Testimony (e) Pag. 139. of the present Church workes very powerfully probably first vpon Infidels to winne them to a Reuerend opinion of Fayth and Scriptures c. Secondly vpon Nouices weaklings and doubters in the fayth to instruct confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the. Scriptures which the Church deliuers as the word of God Thirdly vpon all within the Church to prepare induce and perswade the Mind as an outward meanes to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue the Scriptures But the fayth of a Christian findes not in all this any sure ground wheron finally to rest or settle it selfe Because diuine Fayth requires a Testimony absolutely diuine and yet our Aduersaries yield that the Testimony of the present Church is not absolutely diuine to which purpose you cite in your Margent some of our Authors and therfore it cannot rely vpon the Church 7. This your discourse is neither pertinent nor true For the Question is not as I haue often told you whether or no our fayth be resolued into the Authority of the Church but whether we may not truly infer that whosoeuer resisteth the Church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as reuealed by God which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamentall points be not an Heretique because at lest by resisting the Church he consequently comes to oppose the Testimony or Reuclation of God which is the formall obiect of Fayth Besides if the Testimony of the Church worke but probably vpon Infidels and Nouices who by you are taught to belieue that she may erre vnles you will circumuent them by dissembling her fallibility they will haue wit inough to tell themselues that since she may erre and speakes but probably she cannot worke so powerfully vpon them but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually erre and deceiue them And how can the Church worke vpon all within her to prepare induce and perswade the mind to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue Scriptures Are they within the Church before they haue imbraced the Fayth Or must they want fayth till they read and belieue the Scriptures Or rather since according to your Principles all fayth depends on Scripture must they not belieue the Scripture before they imbrace the fayth and consequently before they be in the Church How then doth the Church prepare induce and perswade them that are within her to imbrace the fayth and to read and belieue the Scriptures If our fayth must rest and settle only vpon the Written Word of God how doth S. Irenaeus (f) Lib. 3. cap. 4. affirme that many Nations haue been conuerted to Christ without Scriptures Were they conuerted only to an humane fayth 8. And wheras you say that the Authority of the Church is not absolutely diuine and therfore cannot be the last and formall Obiect of fayth it is but an Equiuocation and you infer that which we do not deny Coninck whom you cite in your Margent and translated by halues answeres your Obiection in the very wordes which you alleage Although sayth he the Church (g) Disp 9. dub 5. conel 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost and in that sense her Testimony do in some sort rely vpon the diuine Authority and receiue from it strength all which words you do not translate yet it is not truly or properly the Testimony or word and reuelation of God but properly it is a humane Testimony You see then that the Testimony of the Church in some sense is Diuine that is infallibly directed by the holy Ghost which is inough for our purpose although it be not Diuine in another sense that is her words are not the immediate voyce of God as Scriptures are because she doth not propose any new Reuelations made immediately to her but only infallibly declares what Reuelations haue beene made to Prophets Apostles c. Your selfe affirme that the Church is infallible in Fundamentall points and consequently her Testimony is not meerly humane and fallible and yet it is not absolutely diuine and so you must answere your owne Argument and you must grant that the Church being infallible in some points may be to vs a ground sufficient for our infallible assent or beliefe for such Articles And if you will tell vs that fayth must be resolued into some Authority which is absolutely Diuine as Diuine signifies that which is distinct from all things created you will find your selfe gone too far For Scripture it selfe being a thing created and not a God is not Deuine in that sense And the Apostles who receiued immediate Reuelations from God when afterwards they did preach and declare them to others those Declarations which supposed the Reuelations already made were not in the opinion of many Deuines the testimony or word of God but of men infallibly assisted by God And yet I hope you will not hence inferre that it had not been Heresy to oppose the Declarations of the Apostles although they did not preach new Reuelations but only declare and propound such as had been already made to them 9. Your wordes which are indeed but words That Scripture (h) Pag. 141. is of diuine Authority the Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light which shines in Scripture I confuted heeretofore And what greater
learned man doth dissent from them Are not I pray you these and the like Traditions vpon which your Hierarchy depends of some consequence and worth your labour to put them in a Catalogue Or doe you not hold the Traditions of the Apostles to be infallible true 23. It is but a Calumny to affirme that (l) pag. 163. we receiue the definitions of the Church with no lesse deuotion then the holy Scriptures For you cite (m) pag. 169. that very place of Bellarmine where he (n) De Cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth downe at large fiue singular Prerogatiues of the holy Scriptures aboue the definitions of the Church in which respect your fault is lesse excusable It is your owne doctrine that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you will not euen in respect of such points equall her Authority with that of holy Scripture 24. At length you come to teach that Generall Councels may erre euen damnably and yet you also teach that their authority is immediately (o) Pag. 162 deriued from Christ and that their decrees (p) Ibid. binde all persons to externall Obedience But will you haue men in matters of fayth externally belieue themselues dissemble against their conscience And thinke that they do so by authority from Christ The truth is that you might as well say the Church is inuisible as to say that her infallibility consists not in Generall Councels but in this that euery member of the Church cannot erre damnably For towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning fayth all comes to one effect And with what colour of truth doe you say pag. 164.165 that you giue Generall Councells much more respect then do most of our Aduersaries since Catholiques belieue thē to be infallible which you deny 25. But you would gladly proue that Councels are fallible because they are discoursiue in their deliberations and (r) Pag. 167. vse the weights moments of reason for the drawing out of Conclusions from their Principles wherin it is confessed they may mistake 26. It is true we grant that the Church coynes no new Reuelations but only declares such to vs as haue been already deliuered in the written or vnwritten word of God to finde which out she vseth meanes by searching out true Records of Antiquity by discussing the writings of Fathers by consulting the holy Scriptures Traditions c. because it is the will of God that she vse such meanes But the thing vpon which she finally relyes in her Definitions ex parte Obiecti is the Reuelation or attestation of God which is the Formall and last Motine of fayth and exparte Subiecti in behalfe of herselfe she relies vpon the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost directing her not to propound any falshood insteed of a reuealed truth Thus we read in the first Councell Act. 15. Cùm magna disquisitio sieret After great search examination of the Case by citing Scriptures relating Miracles and the blessing of God declared by the good successe and conuersion of so many Gentiles the final determination did not rely vpon these industries but Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost and vs Which words expresse both the formall Motiue and chiefe efficient Cause of fayth as also the free and voluntary concurring of the Apostles assisted by the Holy Ghost And yet I hope you will not out of these diligences discourses of the Apostles inferre that this Councell was fallible Or that there was no more certainty in the Conclusion then in the Arguments themselues of which some abstracting from the assistance of the holy Ghost and the Authority of the Apostles were but as the Deuines speake Arguments of Credibility and dispositions to fayth as Miracles c. Or will you perhaps with your first Patriarch Luther reprehend euen this Councell of the Apostles and say with him That Iames whose (s) In Assert art 29. opinion the whole Councell followed changed the verdict of peter whose iudgment that the Gentiles should not be constrained to obserue the Iewish Ceremonics was most true cōsequently the opinion of Iames and the Councell could not be true You grant as I must often put you in mind that the Church is infallible in fundamentall points must she therfore vse no industry to attaine to the knowledge of such points And Protestants who hold Scripture to be the only Rule of fayth vse meanes of conferring Text consulting the Originals Prayer c. for attayning the true meaning of Scripture and yet you will not grant that your fayth is fallible because you will say it doth not rely vpon those said fallible meanes but finally as you apprehend it rests in the word of God And if any Catholique Author equall the definitions of the Church with the holy Scripture his meaning is that both the one and the other are so infallible that they cannot deliuer any vntruth For in other respects we grāt many singular Prerogatiues to the holy Scripture more then to the definitions of Councels as may partly beseen in (t) De Conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine 27. Your obiection that the great Councell (u) Pag. 170. of Chalcedon corrected the Second of Ephesus and that S. Augustine sayth Prouinciall Councels (w) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by Plenary and Plenary Councels the former by the latter hath beene answered a hundred times and I doubt not but that you haue read Bellarmine who (x) De Couc lib. 1. cap. 6. shewes that the second Councell of Ephesus proceeded vnlawfully wherin S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople was murthered by the faction of Dioscorus and the Popes Legates were driuen away and finally the Eutichian Heresy was confirmed for which causes that Councell was annulled by Pope Leo. You haue pickt out a pretty example to proue that lawfull Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre To the words of S. Augustine Bellarmine answers that (y) De Consul lib. 2. c. 7. §. Respondeo Primò either they are vnderstood of vnlawfull Councels such as was the second of Ephesus or els they are to be vnderstood of Questions concerning matter of fact as whether Caecilianus had deliuered vp the Bible or finally that latter Councels may be said to correct the former because some decrees which concerne manners may by change of circumstāces proue inconuenient although in the beginning they were very holy and fit Which interpretation is gathered out of S. Augustine himselfe who sayth That Councels may be corrected when Experience doth manifest something which before did not appeare Now experience hath no place in vniuersall doctrines but in particular facts or lawes which respect particular circumstāces of time and place c. Your second Citation in your Margent out of S. Augustine (a) Lib. 3. cōt Maxim whose words you did not recite Bellarmine answeres in the place which I haue cited
now And heertofore I haue declared at large in what sense and vpon what occasion and reason S. Augustine against the Donatists made recourse to Scripture alone 26. You begin to impugne the Popes infallibility by saying that Charity-Mistaken meanes by his infallible Church only the Pope Which saying of yours doth well declare how fallible your affirmations are And that if the Pope define that to be white which the eye iudges to be blacke it must be so admitted by vs you pretend to proue out of I know not what papers of the Iesuites found in Padua in witnes wherof you alleage Paulus Soarpius a seditious scandalous and condemned Author we must by no meanes belieue you without better proofe You cite also out of Bellarmine these words If he the Pope should (b) De Rom â— Pont. lib. 4. c. 5. §§ Quodantens erre and command the practise of vice or forbid the exercise of vertue the Church were bound in conscience to belieue vices to be good and vertues to be bad Who would not thinke by these words of Bellarmine as you corrupt him that indeed we might belieue Vice to be good and Vertueil The direct contrary wherof he affirmes and from thence infers that the Pope whom the Church is obliged to obey as her Head and Supreme Pastor cannot erre in decrees of manners prescribed by him to the whole Church These be his words If the Pope did erre in commanding vices or forbidding Vertue the Church were bound to belieue that Vice is good and Vertue ill vnles she would sinne against her conscience For in doubtfull things the Church is bound to subiect herselfe to the Iudgment of the Pope and to do what he commands and not to do what he forbids and lest she should sinne agaynst her conscience she is bound to belieue that what he commands is good that what he forbids is ill For the auoyding of which inconuenience he concludes that the Pope cannot erre in Decrees concerning manners by forbidding Vertue or commanding Vice If one should proue that Scripture cannot erre in things concerning manners because otherwise Christians who are bound to belieue whatsoeuer the Scripture sayth should be obliged to belieue Vertue to be ill and Vice to be good would you infer that indeed we are to belieue Vertue to be ill and Vice to be good Or rather that indeed Scripture could not propose or command any such thing This is that which Bellarmine sayth But your selfe is he according to whose principles we might be obliged to imbrace vice c. For since you affirme that the authority (d) Pag. 1â—â— of Generall Councels is immediately deriued from Christ and that their Decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and seing you hold that they may erre perniciously both in fayth and manners What remaines but that we must be obliged euen by authority immediately deriued from Christ himselfe to erre with the Councell and at lest externally imbrace Vice 29. You come afterward to discourse thus These men (e) Pag. 17â— deale not plainely with vs when they pretend often in their disputations against vs Scriptures Fathers Councells and the Church since in the issue their finall and infallible argument for their fayth is only the Popes Authority It were indeed a happy thing and a most effectuall way to end all Controuersies if people would submit themselues to some visible liuing Iudge by whom they might be instructed by whom it might be declared who alledge Scriptures and Fathers right or wrong Which since you and your Brethren refuse to do no wonder if we be constrained to alledge Scriptures and Fathers as you likewise do though you say that Scripture is infallible and that all Controuersies must be decided by it alone Besides though the Pope be infallible yet he is not so alone as if he did exclude all other infallible meanes for Scriptures Generall Councells and the Consent of the whole Catholique Church are also infallible And therfore as I was saying it is no wonder that we alledge other Arguments besides the decrees of Popes alone For since in our disputes with you we abound with all kind of arguments why should we not make vse therof And if you will know the reason why Councells be gathered to the great good of the Church notwithstanding the Popes infallibility you may read Bellarmine who giues (f) De Rom. Pontif lib. 4. cap. 7. §. Respondeo Id. the reason therof I hope you will grant that S. Peter was infallible and yet he thought good to gather a Councel Act. 15. for greater satisfaction of the faythfull and to take away all occasions of temptation in the weaker Christians What estimation Antiquity made of the Popes Authority I haue shewed heertofore And if some who haue written Pleas or Prescriptions against Heretiques do not without more adoe appeale (g) Pag. 173. all Heretiques to the Popes Tribunall you haue no cause to wonder since commonly the first error of all Heretiques is to oppose the Pope and the Church of Rome and therfore they must be conuinced by other Arguments Tertullian in his Prescriptions against Heretiques doth particularly aduise and direct that Heretiques are not to be admitted to dispute out of Scripture and that it is but in vaine to seeke to conuince them by that meanes and yet you hold that the Scripture is not only infallible but the sole Rule also of fayth How then do you infer against vs that if the Pope be infallible Tertullian should haue appealed all Heretiques to his Tribunall since he doth not appeale them to Scripture which yet he belieued to be infallible And neuertheles the two Authors whom you cite Tertullian and Vincentius Lyrinensis speake as much in aduantage of the Pope and Church of Rome as can be imagined If sayth Tertullian thou liue (h) Praescript cap. 36. neere Italy thou hast the Citty of Rome from thence Authority is neere at hand euen to vs Africans A happy Church into which the Apostles haue powred their whole doctrine together with their bloud And Vincentius Lyrinensis cals the (i) In sus Com. Pope and Church of Rome the Head and other Bishops as S. Cyprian from the South S. Ambrose from the North c. and others from other places the sides of the world And I cited these words out of him before who speaking of Rebaptization saith Then (k) In Com. part 1. the blessed Stephen resisted together with but before his Colleagues iudging it as I conceiue a thing worthy of him that he should surmount them as much in Fayth as he did in the authority of his place Of the opposition of some particular men to the Pope we haue spoken already and in your saying that his Authority hath beene opposed by Generall Councels we will not belieue you til you bring better proofe That the diuisions of the Easterne from the Latine Church proceeded from the ambition pretensions of the Bishop of Rome
of Charity and be resolued to take scandall where none is giuen we must comfort our selues with that graue and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall (l) S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezes be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of intention in vttering what we thinke yield vs confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre be it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to haue truth declared to him Let vs therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controuerted betwixt Protestats vs for as much as concernes the present Question is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter CHAP. II. VVhat is that meanes vvherby the reuealed Truthes of God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding and vvhich must determine Controuersies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reuerence to holy Scripture euen Protestants themselues do in fact giue testimony while they possesse it from vs take it vpon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could auert our wil froÌ„ giuing the functioÌ„ of supreme sole Iudge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe if both reason experieÌ„ce did not conuince our vnderstanding that by this assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either diuine Tradition though it be vnwritten or an externall Iudge to keep to propose to interpret it in a true Orthodoxe and Catholique sense Euery single Booke euery Chapter yea euery period of holy Scripture is infallibly true wants no due perfection But must we therfore infer that all other Bookes of Scripture are to be excluded least by addition of them we may seeme to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Bookes of the old New Testament were written they did not exclude vnwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controuersies who hath then so altered their nature filled them with such iealousies as that now they cannot agree for feare of mutuall â—isparagemeÌ„t What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the vnwritten then for the vnwritten which was once alone to be afterward ioyned with the written Who euer heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to auouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of law were to deny perfection in the law Are there not in Common wealths besides the lawes written vnwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as seuerall occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controuersies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particuler which must be belieued as true and infallible From the Editions Translations of it From the difficulty to vnderstand it without hazard of Errour From the inconueniences that must follow vpon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it finally from the Confessions of our Aduersaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that â—he it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and religion all Christians ought to haue recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind neuer so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must euer be as all writings are deafe dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men vnderstand a Person endâ—ed with life and reason able to heare to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that ech one may know whether the sentence be in fauour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to do all this as the diuersity of Controuersies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great plaine distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a kingdome the Iudge hath his Rule to follow which are the receiued Lawes and customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselues but that office must belong to a liuing Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwayes the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or vpon any one occasion more particularly then vpon any other and let it be read ouer an hundred times it wil be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controuersies in faith then the Law would be to end suites if it were giuen ouer to the phansy glosse of euery single man 4. This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceiued when more then once hauing stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he adds or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge FroÌ„ hence also it was that though Protestants in their beginning affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controuersies yet vpon a more aduised reflection they changed the phrase and sayd that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controuersies A difference without a disparity The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to vs then the Scripture in which he speakes as a maÌ„ speaking only Latin can be no better vnderstood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controuersies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernicious if one should seeke to take away all Iudges in the kingdome vpon this nicity that albeit Lawes caÌ„not be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity vnderstood then the Law wherby he speaketh 5. But though some writing were granted to haue a priuiledge to declare it selfe vpon supposition that it were maintayned in being and preserued entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserue it selfe nor can complayne or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may vndoubtedly receiue it sincere and pure 6. And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure vs that it selfe were Canonicall
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
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
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
is truer when it is confirmed by the Church What say you now Doth Bellarmine teach that the Truth or certainety of Scripture or of the Minor in the foresaid Syllogisme depeÌ„ds on the Church But in the meane time how many corruptions haue you committed in this one Citation 15. You cite (g) pag. 149. Waldâ—â—si to proue that the (h) Walden lib. 2. Doct. fid art 2. cap. 19. §. 1. infallibility of the Church is planted only in the Church vniuersall or the Catholique Body of Christ on earth comprehending all his members But though we cannot allow of Waldensis his doctrine in some points wherin he contradicts the consent of other Catholiques yet he doth not teach what you affirme but only that the infallibility of the Church consists in the succession of Doctors in the Church which is against your assertion Pag. 150. that the whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre c. And therfore the doctrine of Waldensis is sufficient for our maine Question against you that whosoeuer erreth in any one point deliuered by Doctours and Pastours succeeding one another in the visible Church is an Heretique and without repentance cannot be saued whether the point be of it selfe fundamentall or not fundamentall For Waldensis maketh no such distinction as you do Nay which is directly against your present Assertion heere and your doctrine els where this Author doctrinal fidei tom 1. Art 2. cap. 47. hauing prefixed this Title before that Chapter That the Pope hath infringible power to determine verities of fayth and to ouercome and cancell all hereticall falsities doth in the whole Chapter it selfe prosecute and proue the said Title out of the Fathers And to the next Chapter 48. hauing also giuen this Title Of the Prerogatiue of the perpetuall immunity and purity of the Romane Church from all contagion of Heresy he proues it in like manner through the whole Chapter You must therfore be well aduised how you cite Authors out of one place without considering or enquiring what they say in another 16. Together with Waldensis you cite Syluester saying The Church which is (i) Summa verb. Ecclesia çap. 1. §. 4. affirmed not to be capable of error is not the Pope but the Congregation of the faythfull But this is a plaine falsification For in that very place he teacheth That the Pope vsing the Councell of Cardinals or his members cannot erre but may erre as he is a particular person And then adds In this manner is to be vnderstood the Glosse Caus 24. q. 1. can à recta which sayth the Church which cannot erre is not the Pope but the Congregation of the faythfull So as you see that these are not the words of Syluester as you affirme but of another which yet he interprets plainely against you And that you may be wholy inexcusable he doth heer referre himselfe to another place namely Verb. Concilium § 3. where he expresly proues that a Councell caÌ„not erre no more then the Church because if the Councell could erre the whole Church might erre For the Church doth not meet togeather but only the Councell or the Pope Adding further that the doctrine of the Church vpon which S. Thomas sayth we are to rely as vpon an infallible Rule is no other then that of the Councell And as for the Pope he sayth that we must not stand to the Popes declaration because he hath better reasons then can be alleaged to the contrary but because he is Head of the Church whose office is to determine doubts in fayth And a little after he expressy sayth That the Pope cannot erre when recourse is made to him in doubtfull matters as to the Head of the Church because sayth he this errour would redound to the errour of the whole Church And likewise in this very place of Syluester which you cite he also referres himselfe to Verb. fides § 2. where at large he proues the Popes infallibility saying That it belongeth to fayth that we rely vpon the Popes determination in things belonging to fayth or manners because the Church cannot erre in such things and consequently he as head of the Church that is as he is Pope cannot erre although he determined without aduice of the Cardinals With what conscience then do you cite this Author against his words meaning and designe and ascribe to him words which he citeth out of another and as I said explicates against you And with the like fidelity after Syluester you do strangely alledge the Glosse Caus 24 can à recta with an Et as if the words which you cited out of Syluester The Church which cannot erre is not the Pope c. had been different from that Glosse wheras they are nothing but that Glosse and not the words of Syluester 17. They you meane Catholique Doctours grant that the infallibility of the Church reacheth not (k) pag. 14â— to all questions and points in Religion that may arise but only to such Articles as may belong to the substance of fayth such as are matters essentiall and fundamentall simply necessary for the Church to know and belieue To omit others D. Stapleton is full (l) Princip Doctr. lib 8. contr 4. çap. 15. and punctuall to this purpose He distinguisheth Controuersies of ReligioÌ„ into two sorts Some sayth he are about those doctrines of fayth which necessarily pertayne to the publique fayth of the Church others about such matters as doe not necessarily belong to the fayth but may be variously held disputed without hurt or preiudice of fayth Heer is such a Caos of words and corruptions as I scarce know where to beginne to vnfold them Stapleton in the place by you alledged hath this Assertion The infallibility of teaching in matters of fayth granted to the Church hath place only in defining infallibly and proposing faithfully those doctrines of fayth which eyther are called in question or otherwise belong necessarily to the publique fayth of the Church And afterward he affirmeth that those things belong necessarily to fayth and publique doctrine of the Church which all men are bound explicitely to belieue or els are publikely practised by the Church or els which the Pastours are bound to belieue explicitely and the people implicitely in the fayth of their Pastours By which words it is cleere that Stapleton sayth not that the infallibility of the Church reacheth only to such Articles as are matters essentiall and fundamentall and simply necessary for the Church to know and belieue as you affirme but to all points which are called in question or which are publiquely practised by the Church whether they be fundamentall or not fundamentall and therfore you do misalledge him when you say that he distinguisheth Controuersies of Religion into two sorts Some are about those doctrines of fayth which necessarily pertaine to the publique fayth of the Church c. For Stapleton explicates himselfe as you haue heard that whatsoeuer is called in
question or practised by the Church is the Obiect of her infallibility which is the thing we intend to proue against Protestants that to oppose or question any one doctrine or practise of the Church is to resist an infallible Authority and consequently to be an Heretique And that Stapleton neuer dreamed of your imaginary restraining the infallibility of the Church to points fundamentall is cleere by another place which you (m) Pag. 40 cite as out of S. Thomas and him in this manner Some are primitiue Articles of the substance of Religion essentiall in the obiect of fayth Others are secundary probable accidentall or obscure points For Stapleton in that place sayth that certaine doctrines (n) Staplet Rel. controu 1. q. 3. art 6. are either primary Principles of fayth or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those principles but yet not defined Of the first kind are the Articles of fayth and whatsoeuer is defined in Councels against Heretiques c. Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden works of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the fayth and of which we may be ignorant without losse of fayth yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoeuer the Church doth vniuersally hold either in doctrine or manners belongs to the foundation of fayth and proues it out of S. Augustine (o) Serm. 14. de verbis Domini ep 28.89.96 who cals the Custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimuÌ„ sidem fundatissimam consuâ—â—udinem Ecclesiae fundatissimaÌ„ authoritatem sta bilissimaÌ„ fundatissimae ecclesiae Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those points which you call fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Fayth that we belieue whatsoeuer the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinatioÌ„s of the Church Which doth ouerthrow your distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall thogh you alledge the authority of S. Thomas and Stapleton in fauour thereof For S. Thomas (o) 2.2 q. 2. are 5. in the very place by you cited after he had sayd that there are some obiects of fayth which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other points when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to fayth You might gayne more reputation to your selfe and allow your aduersary more ease if you would once resolue to cite your Authours with more sincerity 18. To proue that the infallibility of the Church extends only to fundamentall points you also alledge Maldonatus who sayth That he will not repugne (p) In Joan. 24.26 if one will affirme that those words 10.14 vers 16. He shall teach you all things be referred to those other words Whatsoeuer I haue spoken to you as if our Sauiour did say that the holy Ghost was to teach theÌ„ nothing but that which he himselfe had taught them But do you in good earnest belieue that our Sauiour taught the Aposlles fundamentall points alone which all Christians are bound explicitely to belieue Or will you say the Apostles were infallibly assisted only when they deliuered fundamentall points of fayth So you must say if Christ did teach them only points fundamentall and the holy Ghost taught them onely those thinges which Christ had taught them vnles you will say they were infallible without the assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost You see he had good reason to say that (q) First Part. cap. 2. num 13. by denying the vniuersal infallibility of the Church limiting the promises of Christ made to her you opened a gap for men to say that the A postles in their Preaching and Writing were not vniuersally infallible And heer I aske whether it be not a fundamentall errour against fayth and Saluation to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God and since without question it is so you must eyther grant that the Church can erre fundamentally and damnably agaynst fayth which yet your self deny or els you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths whether they be in themselues fundamentall or not fundamentall which is as much as we desire 19. Agaynst the infallibility of the Church you bring a long argument pag. 157.158 the force whereof is this Nothing according to vs can be belieued by diuine fayth which hath not beene defined by the Church But the Church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees Therfore we cannot belieue by diuine fayth that she is infallible in all her decrees 20. Before I answere your Argument I must reflect that you do not sincerely alledge these words out of Bellarmine Vntil (r) Lïb. 4. de Roman Pont. cap. 14 §. Respondeo inprimis a doctrine be declared or defined by the Church so loÌ„g it might be eyther doubted of or denyed without danger For Bellarmine makes no such generall Rule but only speaking of the opinioÌ„ of Pope Iohn the two and twentith That the Saints doe not see God before the Resurrection which is your owne errour he excuseth him from Heresy because at that tyme the Church had not defined the matter Where you see Bellarmine speakes only of a particular point which that Pope not conceauing to be contayned in Scripture and the thing hauing not been expressely defined by the Church nor euidently knowne to haue beene the vniuersall sense thereof it was not at that tyme a matter of fayth And he himselfe before his death retracted his errour But to come to your Argument I wish you would be carfull not to obiect against vs what your selfe must answer For doe not you teach that the Church workes vpon all (s) Pag. 139. within her to prepare induce and persuade the mind to imbrace the fayth to reade and belieue the Scriptures And that the ordinary meanes (t) Pag. 142.143 appointed by God to present and propound diuine Verities is the Church And therefore we cannot in the ordinary course belieue Scriptures or any other diuine Verity but by the Proposall of the Church But this doctrine that the Church is the first Inducer to imbrace the faith and the ordinary Meanes without which we cannot belieue is not proposed by the Church and therefore it is not a thing which we can belieue You likewise grant that the Church is infallible in all fundamentall points And I aske in what decree definition or declaration hath the Church proposed to vs that her selfe cannot erre in fundamentall points especially with your addition that she may erre in points not fundamentall Now to your Argument I an were First That it is not necessary that the Church should by any particular decree testify her owne
forget that Charity Mistaken among other instances alledges this to proue that all points of fayth are not contained in the Creed to which you giue no answere at all but only tell vs what your owne opinion is And that it may appeare how you comply with your promise not to omit without Answere any one thing of moment heare what Charity Mistaken sayth to this purpose in these words S. Peter sayth that S. Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to be vnderstood and which the vnlearned and vnstable did peruert to their owne destructions S. Austen declares vpon this place that the places misvnderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceiued to be by fayth alone And of purpose to countermine that error he sayth that S. Iames wrote his Epistle and proued therin that good works were absolutely necessary to the act of Iustification Heereupon we may obserue two things the one that an error in this point alone is by the iudgment of S. Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it and the other that the Apostles Creed which speakes no one word therof is no good rule to let vs know all the fundamentall points of fayth Did not all this discourse deserue some answere from one who professes to omit nothing 7. But now you come to a new busines and say If the (f) Pag. 239. Romane Church be not guilty of Manicheisme why is single life called Chastity and commended as an eminent degree of sanctimony As if forsooth Marriage must be ill because a single lyfe is better Why doe you not lay the same aspersion vpon our Sauiour Christ who proposed Chastity as one of the Euangelicall Councells vpon S. Paul who sayth that (h) 1. Cor. 7. he who doth not marry melius facit doth better vpon the Ancient Fathers who so highly extoll a single life You cannot be ignorant but that among diuers degrees of Chastity Catholique Deuines do also place Coniugall Chastity which they hold to be good and meritorious though yet inferiour to the other 8. You goe on and aske why Marriage is sayd to be incompatible with (i) Innocent Papa dist 82. can Proposuisti holines or with (k) Idem Gods fauour nay counted a (l) Bell. de Clericis cap. 19. §. I am verò pollution worse then (m) Coster Enchirid c. de Caelib whoredome With better reason we may say why doe you peruert and corrupt Authours agaynst your owne conscience Innocentius whome you cite sayth only It is not lawfull that they should be admitted to sacred functions that is holy Orders who liue with their wiues because it is written Be holy because I am holy sayth our Lord. Is this to say absolutely that Marriage is incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that holines which by the Churches Ordination is required in Priests S. Paul sayth that an vnmaried woman (n) I. Cor. 7. and a Virgin thinkes of things belonging to God that she may be holy in body and soule Will you hence inferre that the Apostle affirmes Marriage to be incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that peculiar holines which Virginity is apt to breed Those words Be holy because I am holy are taken out of Leuit. chap. 11. vers 44. where the Iewes are forbidden to touch certaine beasts and yet I hope you will not accuse God of Manicheisme as if the eating of such beasts were incompatible with holines The other words alledged by Innocentius Those who are in flesh cannot please God are vnderstood as I said of that particular holines and pleasing of God which is required in those that take holy Orders To proue that Bellarmine accounts Marriage a pollution you alleage out of him these words (o) De Clericis cap. 19. §. Iamverò Not only the Marriage of Priests which is sacriledge not marriage but euē the Marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certaine pollution turpitude But why doe you take pleasure in alledging Authours against their owne meaning Bellarmine to proue how cōgruous conueniēt it is that Priests should lead a single lyfe after many Authorities of Scriptures Councels Fathers proues it also by reason it selfe in regard that Marriage is a great impediment to Ecclesiasticall functions and beginning with the action of sacrificing he sayth Matrimony as Saint Hierome saith lib. 1. in Iouinian hinders the office of sacrificing because there is required most great purity and sanctity therein as S. Chrysostome in his sixt Booke of Priesthood doth declare and it cannot be denyed but that in the act of Marriage there is mingled a certaine impurity and pollution not which is sinne but which arose from sinne For though Caluin exclayme against Pope Siricius who is so ancient that he sate an 385. because he called the Marriage of Priests Pollution yet that not only the Marriage of Priests which is not marriage but sacriledge but also the Martrimony of holy persons is not exercised without a certayne pollution and turpitude appeares by the rebellion of nature and the shamefastnes of men in that act who alwayes seeke to be hidden as S. Augustine hath obserued lib. 14. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 17. Thus Bellarmine and indeed S. Augustine in the next Chap. expresly speakes de pudore Concubitus non solum vulgari sed etiam coniugali And now what but malice can reprehend any one tittle in this doctrine of Bellarmine or rather in the doctrine of the Fathers by him cited which containes against you Sacrifice single life of Priests Moreouer you falsify both Innocētius and Bellarmine who speake not of Marriage in it selfe of which you make them speake in your Text but of the act thereof and therfore Innocentius sayth Qui exercent cum vxore carnale consortium And Bellarmine sayth Non exercetur sine pollutione quadam c. Which is not euen so much as to say the act it selfe is pollution but only Non exercetur sine pollutione c. and this also not absolutely but with a limitation non sine pollutione quadam c. For Matrimony of it selfe may stand with most perfect Chastity yea with Virginity as appeareth in the most Immaculate Mother of God And at this day a married man may be made Priest if his wife consent and other Conditions prescribed in the holy Canons be obserued And wheras you say It seemes by S. Augustine they the Manichees did not forbid meates or marriage as absolutely impure or to all only their choyce Elect ones must obstaine the other vulgar their Auditors were lefte at their liberty This obiection taken out of Peter Martyr is answered by Bellarmine in the Chapter next to that which you cited that S. Augustine lib. 30. contra Faustum cap. 6. writes that the Manichees did absolutly forbid Marriage because though they did permit it to their Auditors yet it was only for that they could not do otherwise
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