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
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 Church of their tymes for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles themselues did vnderstand the Apostles aright that the Church of their tymes did intend that the Creed should containe all fundamentall points For if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall may she not also erre in the particulers which I haue specifyed Can you shew it to be a fundamentall point of fayth that the Apostles intended to cōprize all points of fayth necessary to Saluation in the Creed Your selfe say no more then that it is very (d) pag. 241. probable which is farre from reaching to a fundamentall point of fayth Your probability is grounded vpon the Iudgment of Antiquity and euen of the Roman Doctours as you say in the same place But if the Catholique Church may erre what certainty can you expect from Antiquity or Doctours Scripture is your totall Rule of fayth Cite therefore some Text of Scripture to proue that the Apostles or the Church of their tymes composed the Creed and composed it with a purpose that it shonld contayne all fundamentall points of fayth Which being impossible to be done you must for the Creed it selfe rely vpon the infallibility of the Church 4. Moreouer the Creed consisteth not so much in the words as in their sense and meaning All such as pretend to the name of Christians recite the Creed yet many haue erred fundamentally as well against the Articles of the Creed as other points of faith It is then very friuolous to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points without specifying both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true and also in what true sense they be fundamental For both these taskes you are to performe who teach that all truth is not fundamentall you do but delude the ignorant when you say that the Creed taken in a Catholique (e) pag. 216. sense comprehendeth all points fundamentall because with you all Catholique sense is not fundamentall for so it were necessary to saluation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture wherin euery least point hath a Catholique sense Or if by Catholique sense you vnderstand that sense which is so vniuersally to be knowne and belieued by all that whosoeuer failes therein cannot be saued you trifle and say no more then this All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to saluation are necessary to saluation Or All points fundamentall are fundamentall After this manner it were an easy thing to make many true Prognostications by saying it will certainely raine when it raineth You say the Creed (f) pag. 216. was opened and explaned in some parts in the Creeds of Nice c. but how shall we vnderstand the other parts not explaned in those Creeds 5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamentall or may seeme more cleere then that wherin we belieue IESVS-CHRIST to be the Mediatour Redeemer and Sauiour of mankind and the founder and foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed And yet about this Article how many different doctrines are there not only of old Heretiques as Arius Nestorius Eutiches c. but also of Protestants partly against Catholiques and partly against one another For the said maine Article of Christ's being the only Sauiour of the world c. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects doth inuolue these and many other such questions That Faith in IESVS-CHRIST doth iustify alone That Sacraments haue no efficiency in Iustification That Baptisme doth not auaile Infants for saluation vnlesse they haue an Act of faith That there is no Sacerdotall Absolution from sinnes That good works proceeding from God's grace are not meritorious That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne after the guilt or offence is pardoned No Purgatory No Prayers for the dead No Sacrifice of the Masse No Inuocation No Mediation or intercession of Saints No inherent Iustice No supreme Pastor yea no Bishop by diuine Ordinance No Reall presence no Transubstantiation with diuers others And why Because forsooth these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Mediator Redeemer Aduocate Foundation c. Yea and are against the truth of our Sauiours humane nature if we belieue diuers Protestants writing against Transubstantiation Let then any iudicious man consider whether Doctour Potter or others doe really satisfy when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue to distinguish points fundamentall from those which they say are not fundamentall If he will speake indeed to some purpose let him say This Article is vnderstood in this sense and in this sense it is fundamentall That other is to be vnder stood in such a meaning yet according to that meaning it is not so fundamentall but that men may disagree and deny it without damnation But it were no policy for any Protestant to deale so plainely 6. But to what end should we vse many arguments Euen your selfe are forced to limit your owne Doctrine and come to say that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall points taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Horisies in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople (g) pag. 216. Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius But this explication or restriction ouerthroweth your Assertion For as the Apostles Creed was not to vs a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councell nor then till it was declared by another c. so now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors and so it is not yet nor euer will be of it selfe alone a particular Catalogue sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamentall and not fundamentall points 7. I come to the second part That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall points of faith And to the end we may not striue about things either granted by vs both or nothing concerning the point in question I must premise these obseruations 8. First That it cannot be denied but that the Creed is most full and complete to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspir'd by God meant that it should serue and in that māner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of faith but such generall heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to Iewes and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set downe and easily learned and remembred And therfore in respect of Gentiles the Creed doth mētion God as Creator of all things and for both Iewes and Gentiles the Trinity the Messias and Sauiour his birth life death resurrection and glory from whom they were to hope remission of sinnes life euerlasting and by whose sacred Name they were to be distinguished from all other professions by being called Christians According to which purpose S. Thomas of Aquine (h) 2.2 g. 1. art 8. doth distinguish all the
say to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of fayth For if he doe his fayth for point of beliefe is sufficient for saluation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether he hold all fundamentall points or no For til you tel me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretikes But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth Are you sure of that not sure I hould it very probable (y) pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or euen wagers This yields a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contayne all points necessary to be belieued whether they rest in the vnderstanding or else do further extend to practise No. It was cōposed to deliuer Credenda not Agenda to vs Fayth not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to saluation Still you chalke out new pathes for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particuler be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answere to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertaine (z) pag. 211.213.214 to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly belieued by euery Christian that will be saued They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make vp our Fayth in Christ that is that common fayth which is alike precious in all being one the same in the highest Apostle the meanest belieuer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God and the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I vnderstand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell vs what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet vnlesse you do this your Doctrine serues onely either to make men despaire or els to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and who giue one certaine Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Fayth in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with saluation And seing your selfe acknowledges that these men do not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to loyne with them for the securing of my soule and the auoyding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who vnderstand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which heer I haue made are either your owne direct Assertions or euident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let vs answere some few Obiections of D. Potters against that which we haue said before to auoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he sayth The Creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21. This answere makes for vs. For by giuing a reason why it was needles that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles iudged it needles to expresse all necessary points of fayth in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Bookes in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had neuer been written and which is more the Creed euen in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles conteined in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tels vs that the Creed (b) pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are deliuered in Scripture therfore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliuer the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other vnlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctours cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told vs it was needles that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth therby sufficiently auow the diuine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would aske him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines deliuered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needles to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of diuine authority but we are also bound vnder paine of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Bookes not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answere grants as much as we desire which is that all points of fayth are not contained in the Apostles Creed euen as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no wayes contained in the Apostles Creed and therfore containe an Addition not an Explanation therof 23. But how can it be necessary sayth D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the (c) pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their tymes I answere You trifle not distinguish betweene the Apostles beliefe and that abridgement of some Articles of fayth which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you begg the question by supposing that the Apostles belieued no more then is contained in their Creed which euery vnlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons 24. Your pretended proofe out of the Acts that the Apostles reuealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God keeping (d) Act. 20.27
Communion of Christs visible Church and by that separation became guilty of Schisme And that they are properly Schismatiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we haue layed concerning the nature of Schisme which consists in leauing the externall Cummunion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord and it is cleere by euidence of fact that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Ancient Church For they did not so much as pretend to ioyne with any Congregation which had a being before their time for they would needs conceiue that no visible Company was free from errours in doctrine and corruption in practise And therfore they opposed the doctrine they withdrew their obedience from the Prelates they left participation in Sacraments they changed the Liturgy of publique seruice of whatsoeuer Church then extant And these things they pretended to do out of a perswasion that they were bound forsooth in conscience so to do vnlesse they would participate with errors corruptions superstitions We dare not sayth D. Potter communicate (a) pag. 68. with Rome either in her publique Liturgy which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstition c. or in those corrupt and vngrounded opinions which she hath added to the Fayth of Catholiques But now let D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther he would haue aduentured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrine since he durst not communicate with Rome He will not be able to assigne any euen with any litle colour of common sense If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church which soeuer it was whether that of Rome or any other of which Point I do not for the present dispute Yea this the Lutherans do not only acknowledge but proue and brag of If sayth a learned Lutheran there had been right (b) Georgius Minus in Augustan Confess art 7. de Eccles pag. 137. belieuers which went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous to thinke that in the time (c) Benedict Morgēstern tract de Eccles pag. 145. before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receiue it from them and not they from Luther Another speaketh roundly and sayth it is impudency to say that many learned men (d) Conrad Schlusselb in Theolog. Caluinist lib. 2. Jol. 130. in Gormany before Luther did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell And I add That far greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Christian Catholique Nations and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spread ouer the whole world We haue heard Caluin saying of Protestants in generall We were euen forced (e) Ep. 141. to make a separation from the whole world And Luther of himself in particular In the beginning (f) In praefar operum suorum I was alone Ergo say I by your good leaue you were at least a Schismatique deuided from the Ancient Church and a member of no new Church For no sole man can constitute a Church thogh he could yet such a Church could not be that glorious company of whose number greatnesse and amplitude so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament in the New 13. D. Potter endeauours to auoide this euident Argumēt by diuers euasions but by the confutation thereof I will with Gods holy assistance take occasion euen out of his owne Answers and grounds to bring vnanswerable reasons to conuince them of Schisme 14. His chiefe Answere is That they haue not left the Church but her Corruptions 15. I reply This answere may be giuen eyther by those furious people who teach that those abuses and corruptions in the Church were so enormous that they could not stand with the nature or being of a true Church of Christ Or else by those other more calme Protestants who affirme that those errours did not destroy the being but only deforme the beauty of the Church Against both these sorts of men I may fitly vse that vnanswerable Dilemma which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words Tell me whether the (g) Lib. 2. cont epist. Gaudent c. ◠Church at that tyme when you say she entertayned those who were guilty of all crimes by the contagion of those sinnefull persons perished or perished not Answere whether the Church perished or perished not Make choyce of what you thinke If then she perished what Church brought forth Donatus we may say Luther But if she could not perish because so many were incorporated into her without Baptisme that is without a secōd baptisme or rebaptization I may say without Luthers reformation answere me I pray you what madnes did moue the Sect of Donatus to separate themselues from her vpō pretence to auoid the Cōmunion of bad men I beseech the Reader to pōder euery one of S. Augustine words to consider whether anything could haue been spoken more directly against Luther his followers of what sort soeuer 16. And now to answere more in particular I say to those who teach that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages that I can easily affoard them the courtesy to free them from meere Schisme but all men touched with any sparke of zeale to vindicate the wisedome and Goodnes of our Sauiour from blasphemous iniury cannot choose but belieue and proclaime them to be superlatiue Arch-heretiques Neuertheles if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity and desire to be both formall Heretiques properly Schismatiques I will tell them that while they dreame of an inuisible Church of men which agreed with them in Fayth they will vpon due reflection find themselues to be Schismatiques from those corporeal Angels or inuisible men because they held external Communion with the visible Church of those times the outward Cōmunion of which visible Church these moderne hot-spurs forsaking were therby diuided frō the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren so are Separatists from the external Communion of them with whome they agree in fayth which is Schisme in the most formall and proper signification thereof Moreouer according to D. Potter these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismatiques For the reason why he thinks himselfe and such as he is to be cleared from Schisme notwithstanding their diuision from the Roman Church is because according to his Diuinity the property of (h) Pag. 76. Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Saluation the Church from which it separats But those Protestants of whome we now speake cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of Saluation the Church from which they separated themselues and they doe it directly as
God not only by submitting our Will to his Will and Commaunds but by subiecting also our Vnderstanding to his Wisdome Words captiuating as the Apostle speakes the same Vnderstanding (b) 2. Cor. 10 â— to the Obedience of Fayth Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made cleere to vs the truths which now are certainely but not euidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it selfe not obedience but necessity coÌ„maunds our assent For this reason Deuines teach that the Obiects of Fayth being not euident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from belieuing by sufpending our Iudgement or exercising no act one way or other but also to disbelieue that is to belieue the contrary of that which Fayth proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnes This obscurity of fayth we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Fayth is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse (d) 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a darke manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter sayth Which you do well attending vnto as to (e) 2 Pet. 1. v. 19. a Candle shining in a darke place 3. Fayth being then obscure wherby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certaine and infallible wherin it surpasseth humane Opinion it must rely vpon some motiue and ground which may be able to giue it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motiue ground or formall Obiect of Fayth were any thing euidently presented to our vnderstanding and if also we did euidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we belieue our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but euident which as we said is against the nature of our Fayth If likewise the motiue or ground of our fayth were obscurely propounded to vs but were not in it selfe infallible it would leaue our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therfore for the ground of our Fayth find out a motiue obscure to vs but most certaine in it selfe that the act of fayth may remaine both obscure and certaine Such a motiue as this can be no other but the diuine Authority of almighty God reuealing or speaking those truths which our fayth belieues For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our fayth and yet not draw it out of Obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can euince that God reuealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had been no lesse perfect then he is although he had neuer reuealed any of those obiects which we now belieue 4. Neuertheles because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnes doth concur with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endured with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle sayth rationabile (f) Kom 12. 1. Obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoued to belieue with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certaine And therfore Almighty God obliging vs vnder paine of eternal damnation to belieue with greatest certainty diuers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot faile to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motiues and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the obiects which we belieue proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceiued and so Good that it cannot deceiue according to the words of Dauid Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Deuines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make vs euidently see what we belieue yet they cuidently conuince that in true wisdome and prudence the obiects of fayth deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed by God For without such reasons inducements our iudgment of fayth could not be conceiued prudent holy Scripture telling vs that he who soone (h) Eccles 19 belieues is light of hart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with euidence of credibility and the obiects of fayth retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to be euidently credible and euidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Sauiour his Apostles did not euidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not beene Fayth but Science and all had been necessitated to belieue which we see fell out otherwise but they were euidently conuinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths reuealed by God 5. These euident Arguments of Credibility are in great aboundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetualy existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we haue from our next Predecessors and these from theirs vpward till we come to the Apostles our Blessed Sauiour which gradiation is known by euidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man deliuers to another And it is euident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in priuate ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction inuented by themselues as ancient Tertullian well sayth How is it likely that so many (i) Prescript â—ap 28. so great Churches should erre in one fayth Among many euents there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs haue varied But that which amongmany is found to be One is not mistaken but delieuered Dare then any body say that they erred who deliuered it With this neuer interrupted existence of the Church are ioyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories ouer so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought vp to the Apostles themselues she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the diuine Certainty which they receiued from our Blessed Sauiour himselfe reuealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receiue it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praesc c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by
meanes of holy Tradition we cannot conioyne the present Church doctrine with the Church and doctrine of the Apostles but must inuent some new meanes and arguments sufficient of themselues to find out and proue a true Church and fayth independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition as is truly obserued by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that (l) Praesc 5.21 there is no meanes to proue what the Apostles preached but by the same Churches which they founded 6. Thus then we are to proceed By euidēce of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath alwayes been a neuer interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles tyme belieuing professing and practising such and such doctrines By euident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sanctity Vnity c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles and our Blesseed Sauiour himselfe confirmed their doctrine we are assured that what the sayd neuer interrupted Church proposeth doth deserue to be accepted aknowledged as a diuine truth By euidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrines as diuine truths that is as reuealed and testifyed by Almighty God By this diuine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we belieue and so the last period ground motiue and formall obiect of our Fayth is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity which neyther can deceyue nor be deceiued 7. By this orderly deduction our Faith commeth to be endued with these qualities which we said were requisite thereto namely Certainly Obscurity and Pruderce Certaimy proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded conueied to our vnderstanding by such a meane as is infallible in it selfe and to vs is euidently knowne that it proposeth this point or that and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them which meanes we haue proued to be only the visible Church of Christ Obscurity from the māner in which God speakes to Mankind which ordinarily is such that it doth not manifestly shew the person who speakes nor the truth of the thing spoken Prudence is not wanting because our fayth is accompanied with so many arguments of Credibility that euery wel disposed Vnderstanding may ought to iudge that the doctrines so cōfirmed deserue to be belieued as proceeding from Authority 8. And thus from what hath been said we may easily gather the particular nature or definition of Fayth For it is a voluntary or free infallible obscure assent to some truth because it is testifyed by God is sufficiently propounded to vs for such which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible Church of Christ I say Sufficiently proposed by the Church not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposall of the Church enter into the formall Obiect or motiue of Fayth or whether an error be any heresy formally and precisely because it is against the proposition of the Church as if such proposall were the formall Obiect of fayth which D. Potter to no purpose at all labours so very hard to disproue But I only affirme that when the Church propoūds any Truth as reuealed by God we are assured that it is such indeed so it instantly growes to be a fit Obiect for Christian fayth which onclines and enables vs to belieue whatsoeuer is duely presented as a thing reuealed by Almighty God And in the same manner we are sure that whosoeuer opposeth any doctrine proposed by the Church doth thereby contradict a truth which is testified by God As when any lawfull Superiour notifies his will by the meanes and as it were proposall of some faithfull messenger the subiect of such a Superiour in performing or neglecting what is deliuered by the messenger is said to obey or disobey his owne lawfull Superiour And therfore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church we may and we do most truly say that not to belieue what the Church proposeth is to deny God's holy word or testimony signified to vs by the Church according to that saying of S. Irenaeus We need not goe (m) Lib. 3. cont heres cap. 4. to any other to seeke the truth which we may easily receiue from the Church 9. From this definition of fayth we may also know what Heresy is by taking the contrary termes as Heresy is contrary to Fayth and saying Heresy is a voluntary error against that which God hath reucaled and the Church hath proposed for such Neither doth it import whether the error concerne points in themselues great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall For more being required to an act of Vertue then of Vice if any truth though neuer so small may be belieued by Fayth assoone as we know it to be testified by diuine rouelation much more will it be a formall Heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propoūded as a thing witnessed by God 10. This diuine Fayth is diuided into Actuall and Habituall Actuall fayth or fayth actuated is when we are in act of consideration and beliefe of some mystery of Fayth for example that our Sauiour Christ is true God and Man c. Habituall fayth is that from which we are denominated Faithfull or Belieuers as by actuall fayth they are stiled Belieuing This Habit of fayth is a Quality enabling vs most firmely to belieue Obiects aboue human discourse and it remaineth permanently in our Soule euen when we are sleeping or not thinking of any Mystery of Fayth This is the first among the three Theologicall Vertues For Charity vnites vs to God as he is infinitely Good in himselfe Hope ties vs to him as he is vnspeakably Good to vs. Fayth ioynes vs to him as he is the Supreme immoueable Verity Charity relies on his Goodnes Hope on his Power Fayth on his diuine Wisedome From hence it followeth that Fayth being one of the Vertues which Deuines terme Infused that is which cannot be acquired by human wit or industry but are in their Nature Essence supernaturall it hath this property that it is not destroied by little and little contrarily to the Habits called acquisiti that is gotten by human endeuour which as they are successiuely produced so also are they lost successiuely or by little and little but it must either be conserued entire or wholy destroied And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary it must be totally ouerthrowne and as it were demolished and razed by euery such act Wherfore as Charity or the Loue of God is expelled from our soule by any one act of Hatred or any other mortall sinne against his diuine Maiesty and as Hope is destroied by any one act of voluntary Desperation so Fayth must perish by any one act of Heresy because euery such act is directly and formally opposite therunto I know that some sinnes which as Deuines speake are ex genere suo in in their kind grieuous and mortall may be much lessened and fall to be
alleage in your Margent for what you say about the Greeke Church at this day the Councell of (u) Graeeï in Conc. Flor. ante Sess 1. in Quaest de Purgat Florence wheras indeed it is affirmed in the Councell that Declaratum fuit c. It was at length declared that the Saints haue both attained and not attained Perfect Beatitude that is that the soules as Soules haue attained perfect Beatitude yet that they shall receiue some perfection with their bodies when they shall shine as the sunne And it is to be noted that before this declaration was made the Greeke Emperour came into the Councell and so it was done with the common consent of the Grecians 18. And heere let me put you in mind that if the Heresy of Aërius whether you take it in our or your owne sense were not fundamentall then you may learne that to make an Heresy or Heretique it is sufficient that the error consist in any point though the same be not fundamentall If you hold it to be fundamentall then it followes that Tradition and Custome of the Church extends it selfe euen to fundamentall points in such sort as to oppose such Tradition is a fundamentall error For as we haue seene before S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine proue Prayer for the dead by Tradition though I grant we want not Scripture for it but you who both deny the Machabees and also turne Prayer for the Dead into a bare Commemoration c. will find no Scripture wherby to refute Aërius Moreouer wheras you are wont to impugne a third place distinct from Heauen and Hell by those words of Scripture If the Tree shall fall to the South (w) Ecclesiast cap. 11.3 or the North in what place soeuer it shall fall there shall it be and such like Arguments how come you now to admit a third Temporary place and so be forced to solue your owne obiections 19. Now I wish you to consider that eyther the Grecians did belieue that the Saints enioy the Beatificall Vision are not as you teach in some outward Court or els they thought that Inuocation of Saints may well be defended though they doe not see the face of God which two points you (x) Pag. 36. deny can stand togeather For you haue heard both out of the Greeke Liturgy and your Protestant Writers that the Grecians belieue Inuocation of Saints True it is if Saints doe not enioy the Beatificall Vision they cannot heare or see our Prayers in verbo or in the Diuine Essence but yet they may behold vs and our Prayers by particular Reuelation as some Catholique Deuines teach de facto of the blessed soules and Angels 20. Yet if you will needs suppose that Inuocation of Saints cannot be defended vnlesse they enioy the Beatificall Vision you should not in true reason deny Inuocation because they are not Blessed but contrarily you ought to belieue that they are in Blisse because it hath alwayes beene the practise of the Ancient Church to inuocate them Nor ought Protestants in geuerall to deny prayers to Saints because they cannot heare vs but they ought on the other side to belieue that they cā heare vs because the Church both Greeke and Latin hath alwayes practised and allowed Prayers to them M. Whitgift as I sayd already confesseth that almost all the Bishops and Writers (y) In his defence of the answer pag. 473. of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with the doctrines of Freewill of Merit of Inuocation of Saints and such like In particular the Saints Ambrose Augustine Hierome Nazianzen Basill Nyssen Chrysostome are taxed by your Brethren for holding Inuocatiō of Saints And your Conturists not only charge ancient Origen for praying for himselfe to holy Iob but they also say that there are manifest steps of Inuocatiō of Saints in the Doctors of that ancient (z) Vid Apol Prot. tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 7 Age. And D. Couel affirmeth that diuers both of the Greeke (a) In his Examination c. pag. 120. and Latin Church were spotted with errours about Freewill Merits Inuocation of Saints c. That Vigilantius was condemned as an Heretike for denying Prayers to Saints may be seen in (b) Cont. Vigilant c. 2. 3. S. Hierome and is confessed by (c) In his answer to a counterfeyt Cath. pag. 46. Fulke Thus then we see what the Ancient Church held concerning Innocation of Saints consequently they belieued that they heare our Prayers 21. Your saying that we inuocate Saints as Commissioners (d) pag. 36. vnder God to whome he hath delegated the power of conferring sundry benefias deposited in their hands to be bestowed at their pleasure I let passe as a very vulgar slaunder vnworthy of a particular answere For as the sacred Councell of Trent speaketh we implore (e) Sess 22. cap. 3. their assistance that they would vouchsafe to pray for vs in heauen whose memory we keep on earth Which wordes are also in the Masse 22. But how solidly Bellarmine (f) De Sanctorum Beatitud lib. 1. cap. 2.3.4 ◠6. proues that the Saints enioy the sight of God may be seen by weighing his Arguments drawne from Scriptures Councels Fathers both Greeke and Latin and Reasons grounded on Scripture And your affirming that It may be (g) pag. 35. thought he spake against his knowledge conscience comes very vnseasonably besides the grosse vntruth and great folly of it in a Treatise wherin you tax others for want of Charity But I remember that S. Thomas among the causes of suspition putteth the first of them to proceed from this That a man is (h) 2.2 q. 60. art 3. in corp ill himselfe and therfore being conscious of his owne sinne he easily conceiues ill of others according to that Eccle s 10. The foolish man walking by the way he himselfe being foolish doth account all to be Fooles Did your prime Brethren speake against their conscience who affirme so many Ancient Fathers to haue beene spotted with the Inuocation of Saints which you say cannot stand with their want of Beatitude 23. You say The Roman Writers vtterly condemne the (i) pag. 3◠former doctrine and practise of Antiquity One of them feares not to censure it as absurd and impious for which last words you cite in your (k) Azor. Instit. Moral tom 1. cap. 20. lib. 8. § Neque vero Margent Azor. But it is an egregious vntruth and falsification For we do both admitland practise Thankes-giuing for the happines of Saints And your further Requests of Gods mercy that they may haue their perfect Consummation both in body and soule in the kingdome of God at the last Iudgmēt are wholy needles at lest because without any dependance or reference to our Prayers they are most assured therof by the immutable decree of God And you might in the same manner make Requests that they may not loose their
happines in body soule when they shall once haue attained it after the generall Resurrection which were a Request sauouring of Infidelity as if the Saints could be depriued of Beatitude once enioyed Now as for Azor he proues in the place cited by you that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire but only seeme to deny a certaine determinate punishment of corporall fire Because sayth he they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead surely not for the Blessed nor for those which be damned in Hell which were plainely absurd and impious it must therfore be for them who are deceased with fayth and Piety but haue not fully satisfied for the temporall punishment due to their sinnes Is this to condemne the doctrine of Antiquity as absurd and impious Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice and Prayers for the damned Ghosts or for the Saints to satisfy for the paine due to their sinnes as Azor meanes speakes and therfore doth truly say it were absurd and impious Is not this to corrupt Authors 24. Wherfore vpon the whole matter we must conclude that Aërius was condemned by the Church and was reckoned among Heretiques and particularly by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine for the selfe same Error which you maintaine To which Maior Proposition if we adde this Minor which Charity Mistaken expressely notes (m) Pag. 27. and you conceale But S. Augustine sayth Whosoeuer should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted wherof this of Aërius is one were not a Christian Catholique The Conclusion will follow of it selfe 25. Would to God your selfe and all Protestants did seriously consider what accompt will be exacted at the last day of those who by their erroneous doctrine and opposition to the visible Church of Christ depriue the soules of faythfull people deceased of the many Prayers Sacrifices and other good deeds which in all rigour of Iustice are due to them by Title of founding Colledges Chanonryes Chantries Hospitals c. Lesse cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporall goods or to bereaue them of their corporall liues then to haue abandoned them to the Torment of a fier which although as S. Augustine sayth (n) In Psal 37. is sleighted by worldly men yet indeed is more grieuous then whatsoeuer can be endured in this world Consider I say whether this manifest Iniustice though it did not proceed as it doth from hereticall perswasion were not alone sufficient to exclude saluation And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead 26. The words of S. Thomas whom you cite pag. 40. to strengthen your distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall do directly ouerthrow that sense and purpose for which you make vse of them For as much sayth he as belongs to the prime (o) 2.2 q. 2. art 5. in corpor Obiects of Beliefe which are the Articles of Fayth a man bound explicitely to belieue them as he is bound to haue Fayth But as for other Obiects of fayth a man is not bound to belieue them explicitely but only implicitely or in readines of mind for as much as he is ready to belieue whatsoeuer the holy Scripture containes But he is bound to belieue them explicitely only when it appeares to him that it is contained in the doctrine of fayth Now our Question is not about nescience or ignorance of some points of fayth but of disagreeing concerning them one denying what another affirmes in which case according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas there is neither explicite nor implicite Beliefe of such points but positiue direct error in them and therfore such disagreement cannot stand with Vnity of fayth It is strange Diuinity to confound as you do points secundary or not fundamentall with probable points For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scripture which are not of their owne nature prime Articles Will you therfore infer that they are but probable Primary and secundary respect the matter which we belieue Probable and certaine are deriued from the formall reason or motiue for which we belieue Let two disagree in some points euen fundamentall yet not sufficiently propounded as reuealed Truths they still retaine the same fayth and contrarily put case that two agree in all fundamentall points if they disagree in any secundary point sufficiently applied to their vnderstanding as a reuealed truth then the one must be an Heretique and differ from the other in the very nature and substance of fayth For as in a Musicall Consort say you a discord (p) pag. 40. now and then so it be in the Descant and depart not from the ground sweetens the Harmony so say I retorting your own sweet similitude because euery least error opposing a reuealed Truth is not in the Descant but departs from the ground of fayth which is the attestation of God it doth not sweeten the Harmony but destroyes the substance of Fayth And heerafter it shal be shewed that you wrong Stapleton no lesse (q) Infra chap. 5. num 17. then you do S. Thomas 27. That Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then preiudice the Vnity of the whole you pretend to proue out of (s) Epist. 75. apud Cypr. Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian which doctrine though it be true in some sense yet according to your application it is pernicious as if it were sufficient to Vnity of Fayth that men agree in certaine fundamentall points though they vary in other matters concerning fayth And you should haue obserued that Firmilianus who wrote that Epistle in fauour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptization speakes in that place of the Custome of keeping Easter which point after it was once defined remained no more indifferent but grew to be a necessary Obiect of Beliefe in so much that the Heretiques called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned and anathematized by the Vniuersall Church in the Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus Wherby it is euident that though some point be not in it selfe fundamentall yet if it be once defined by the Church the Errour degenerates into Heresy Your Charity is alwayes Mistaken aduantaging your Aduersary by your owne Arguments 28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy or Schisme destroies Saluation because persons lyable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re nor in voto neither in fact nor in effectuall desire as Cathecumens are and as Excommunicate persons may be if repenting their former Obstinacy they cannot by reason of some extrinsecall impediment obtaine Absolution from the Censure 29. You extend your Charity so far to Infidels as to forget fidelity in relating what Catholique Deuines teach concerning them not telling whether they require some supernaturall fayth at lest for some Obiect and quoting Authors with so great affected confusion that a man would thinke them to maintaine the opinion which they
that (e) De Enchar lib. 3. çap. 23. Scotus teacheth Transubstantiation to haue been neyther named nor made an Article of fayth before the Councell of Lateran doth not proue it to be a Nouelty but only that Scotus did thinke it was not so expressely declared before that Councell which sayth Bellarmine he affirmed because he had not read the Councell of Rome vnder Gregory the Seauenth nor had obserued the consent of Fathers It is a fond thing to say that euery Truth is a Nouelty which the Church as occasion serueth doth declare more expressely then before And if all Truthes must be declared alike at all tymes vnder payne of being accounted Nouelties what will become of Luthers Reformation wherby he pretended to teach the world so many things which he falsly impiously blasphemed to haue been for solōg time buried in obliuion and ouer-whelmed with corruption 15. You cite Peter Lombard and S. Thomas as if they affirmed Sacrifice in the (f) Pag. 74. Eucharist to be no other but the image or Commemoration of our Sauiours Sacrifice vpon the Crosse But your conscience cannot but tell you that these Authors neuer doubted whether the Masse be a true Sacrifice or no and therefore the Question which they propounded is Whether Christ in the Masse be immolated or (g) S. Thom. 3. p. q. 83 a. 1. in corp killed and according to this sense they answere that he is immolated in figure because the vnbloudy Oblation of the Eucharist is a representation of our Sauiours bloudy Oblation or Immolation on the Crosse And that this is so you might haue seen in S. Thomas in that very place which you (h) Ad 3. cite where he teacheth that in this manner of being killed or immolated in figure Christ might haue been sayd to haue been immolated in the figures of the Old Testament which did prefigure his death and yet you will not acknowledge your selfe so perfectly Zwinglianized that you will from hence inferre that there is no more in the Eucharist then in the empty figures of the Old Law and though you did yet it would not serue your turne for euen diuers of those figures were truly properly Sacrifices and therefore though the Eucharist were but a Commemoration yet it might be a true Sacrifice withall 16. You alledge Lindanus that (i) Panopl lib. 4. part 2. çap. 56. § Hunc igitur in former Ages for 1200. yeares the holy Cup was administred to the Laity But you deceiue your Reader for Lindanus plainely sayth That both kinds were giuen to the Laity almost euery where but yet not euery where Which is sufficient agaynst you who say it is agaynst the institution of Christ not to giue both kinds to the Laity And I shewed before that in the raigne of King Edward the Sixth Communion in one kind was permitted and that Melancthon Luther held it as a thing indifferent 17. That diuine Sacrifice was celebrated for diuers Ages in a known vulgar Tongue you would proue out of (k) In 1. corp çap. 14. Lyra. But what is this to proue our doctrine to be a Nouelty Do we teach that there is any diuine Law eyther forbidding or commanding publique Seruice in a vulgar Tongue And Lyra in that place teacheth that in these tymes it is more conuenient that it be not celebrated in a known language 18. That the Fathers generally condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry and allowed yea exhorted the people with diligence to read the Scriptures You seeke (l) Pag. 74. to proue the former part out of Polydore Virgil and the latter out of Azor but still with your wonted sincerity For how often haue you been told that Polydore (m) De Innent lib. 6. çap. 13. speakes not of the Ancient Fathers of the New Testamēt but of those of the Old naming Moyses Dauid and Ezechias and he proueth at large that in the New Law Images are worthily placed in Churches and worshipped and concludes demanding what man is so dissolute and so brazen faced that wil or can doubt or dreame of the contrary Azor grants that in the (n) Moral Instit. lib. 8. çap. 26. part 1. §. Respōdeo times of S. Chrysostome Lay-men were conuersant in Scripture because then they vnderstood Greeke or Latin in which language the Scriptures were written wheras now the common people for the most part vnderstand not the Latin Tongue but such Lay people as vnderstand Greeke or Latin do with good reason read the Scripture Who would euer imagine that in so short a compasse you could haue corrupted so many Authors 19. What you say in this your Section to excuse your Brethren from Schisme we haue answered in the First Part and haue confuted all your euasions similitudes And whereas you say that (o) Pag. 77. although our errors be not damnable to him who in simplicity of heart belieueth and professeth them yet that he that against fayth and conscience shall goe along with the streame to professe and practise them because they are but little ones his case is dangerous and without repentance desperate I answere that if our errors be not fundamentall how can they be damnable and if they be but litle ones that is not fundamentall or damnable how is it dānable to imbrace them because they are litle ones that is because they are as indeed they are If they were indeed little ones yet by an erroneous cōsciēce were esteemed great ones to such a man they should indeed be damnable but to one that knowes them to be little ones and with such a knowledge or cōscience for some humane respect of it selfe not damnable doth yet imbrace them they are not damnable For still we suppose that he would not imbrace them if his Conscience told him that they were great ones And who can without smiling read these your words It is the (p) Pag. 77. Doctrine of the Romane Schoole that veniall sinnes to him that commits them not of subreption or of a sudden motion but of presumption that the matter is not of moment change their kind and become mortall I pray you what Schoole man teacheth that to commit a veniall sinne knowing it to be such makes it become mortall For in this sense you must alleage this doctrine if it be to your purpose and in this sense it being a false doctrine doth indeed ouerthrow that for which you alledge it and proues that to imbrace errors not fundamentall knowing them to be such cannot be damnable as it is not a mortall sinne to do that which one knowes to be but veniall In the meane time you do not reflect that if your doctrine might passe for true it would be impossible for both Catholiques and Protestants Lutherans and Caluinists to be saued For all these differ at lest in points not fundamentall and so you grant vnawares that which chiefly we intend that of two differing in Religion both cānot