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
the Affirmatiue precept of Charity bindeth onely in some particuler cases But I am alwayes bound by a Negatiue precept neuer to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwayes bound to vtter what I know to be true yet I am obliged neuer to speake any one least vntruth agaynst my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmatiue precept commanding vs to be at al times actually belieuing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged neuer to exercise any act against any one truth knowne to be reuealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but euery one is obliged not to belieue the contrary of any one point knowne to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceiued or would deceiue which were to ouer throw the whole certainty of our faith wherin the thing most principall is not the point which we belieue which Deuines cal the Materiall Obiect but the chiefest is the Motiue for which we belieue to wit Almighty God's infallible reuelation or authority which they terme the Formall obiect of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of fayth may be called fundamentall and necessary to saluation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmatiue Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and belieue them explicitely and seuerally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D Potter (a) Pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to proue against his Aduersary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate (b) Charity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter not say one pertinent word in defense of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to saluation with reference to the Negatiue precept of faith is such that we cannot not without grieuous sinne and forfeiture of saluation disbelieue any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by Almighty God And in this sense we auouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reiect some must be damnable and to reiect others equally proposed as God's word might stand with saluation Yea the obligation of the Negatiue precept is far more strict then is that of the Affirmatiue which God freely imposed may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or giue leaue to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth and in this sense sinne damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an Example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for diuers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes diuers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Sauiour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and narure in themselues not fundamentall as vnder what Iudge our Sauiour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neuerthelesse whosoeuer once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error this is the precise point of the present question 3. And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he do but vnderstand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslaue themselues to their Predecessors in Protestantisme as stil to harp on this distinction neuer regard how impertinently and vntruly it was applyed by them at first to make all Protestants seeme to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some belieue some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherein there is no difference betweene points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as reuealed by God it is not agaynst faith to reiect them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither wil it auayle them to their other end that for preseruation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she do not erre in poins fundamentall For if in the meane time she maintaine any one Errour against Gods reuelation be the thing in it selfe neuer so small her Errour is damnable and destructiue of saluation 4. But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth finally ouer throw it yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saued he sayth It is inough to belieue some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue faith whereby they are not denied or contradicted Now our question is in case that diuine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted and therefore euen according to him all such deniall excludes saluation After he speakes more plainely It is true saith he whatsoeuer (d) pag. 212. is reuealed in Scripture or prepounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the diuine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denied or contradicted without Infidelity such as euery Christian is bound with himility and reuerence to belieue whensoeuer the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where (e) pag. 250. the reuealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Gal. 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God whereof he may be conuinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more crearely or directly for vs that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though neuer so small if once it be sufficiently
propounded as a diuine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to belieue points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this (f) Pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of reuealed truth is required before a man can be conuinced and for want of sufficient conuiction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they belieued not our Sauiours Resurrection (g) pag. 246. which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters owne confesson No error is damnable vnles the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Euery error is damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Therfore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5. I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Diuinity the Vnity and distinction of euery thing followeth the Nature Essence thereof and therfore if the Nature and being of fayth be not taken from the matter which a man belieues but from the motiue for which he belieues which is God's word or Reuelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diuersity of faith must be measured by God's reuelation which is alike for all obiects and not by the smalnes or greatnes of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnes or smallnes of the things belieued is manifest because otherwise one who belieues only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also belieue points not fundamentall should haue faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men belieue according to differēt capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd therfore we must say that Vnity in Fayth doth not depend vpō points fundamentall or not fundamentall but vpon God's reuelation equally or vnequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different obiects which are belieued by them since they disagree in things Equally reuealed by Almighty God it is euident that they forsake the very Formall motiue of faith which is Gods reuelation and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therin 6. The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and vntrue being demonstrated let vs now come to the second That the Church is infallible in all her definitions whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall And this I proue by these reasons 7. It hath beene shewed in the prcedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies in Religion which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once persuaded that she is Iudge Because if she could erre in some points we could not rely vpon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8. This same is proued by the reason we alledged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written vnles we will take away all certainty of fayth for that tyme we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that she hath been depriued thereof by the adioined comfort help of sacred Writ 9. Moreouer to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and errour yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Deuines call Assertorium wherin God is called to witnes euery falshood is a deadly sinne in any priuate person whatsoeuer although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor preiudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnes of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner authority whereby it is auouched and by the iniury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the vnanimous consent of all Deuines that in such kind of Oaths no leuitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a mortall sacriledge agaynst the morall vertue of Religiō which respects worship due to God If I say euery least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresayd kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound vntrue Articles of fayth thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besids according to the doctrine of all Deuines it is not only iniurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieue things by him reuealed but also to propose as reuealed truths thinges not reuealed as in commonwealths it is a haynous offence to coyne eyther by counterfeyting the mettall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeyt although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernicious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of faygned reuelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particuler appeareth in the Councell of (h) Sub Leon 10. Sess 11. Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false reuelations she herselfe should haue beene the first and chiefest deseruer to haue been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as they holy Ghost sayth in (i) Cap. 13. v. 7. Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speake deceypts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verifyed in fictitious reuelations If any (k) Cap. vlt. v. 18. shal s add to these things God will add vnto him the plagues which are written in this Booke D. Potter sayth To add (l) pag. 222. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract frō it And therfore to say the Church may add false Reuelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernicious errour excluding saluation 10. Perhaps some will heere reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason she doth not erre vpon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cānot serue For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall at least she cannot be certaine that she cānot erre therfore cannot be excused from headlong
Articles of the Creed into these generall heads That some belong to the Maiesty of the Godhead others to the Mistery of our Sauiour Christs Humane nature Which two generall obiects of faith the holy Ghost doth expresse and conioyne Ioan. 17. Haec est vita aterna c. This is life euerlasting that they know thee true GOD and whom thou hast sent IESVS CHRIST But it was not their meaning to giue vs as it were a course of Diuinity or a Catechisme or a particular Expression of all points of Faith leauing those things to be performed as occasion should require by their owne word or writing for their time and afterwards by their Successours in the Catholique Church Our question then is not whether the Creed be perfect as far as the end for which it was composed did require For we belieue are ready to giue our liues for this but only we deny that the Apostles did intend to comprize therin all particular points of beliefe necessary to saluation as euen by D. Potters owne (i) pag. 235.215 confession it doth not comprehend agenda or things belonging to practise as Sacraments Commandements the Acts of Hope and dutyes of Charity which we are obliged not only to practise but also to beliene by diuine infallible fayth Will he therefore inferre that the Creed is not perfect because it contaynes not all those necessary and fundamentall Obiects of fayth He will answere No because the Apostles intended only to expresse credenda thinges to be belieued not practised Let him therefore giue vs leaue to say that the Creed is perfect because it wanteth none of those Obiects of beliefe which were intended to be set downe as we explicated before 9. The second obseruation is that to satisfy our question what points in particuler beÌ„ fundamentall it will not be sufficient to alledg the Creed vnlesse it containe all such points eyther expressely immediatly or els in such manner that by euident and necessary consequence they may be deduced from Articles both cleerely and particulerly contayned therin For if the deduction be doubtfull we shal not be sure that such Conclusions be fundamental or if the Articles themselues which are sayd to be fundamentall be not distinctly and particulerly expressed they will not serue vs to know and distinguish all points fundamental from those which they call not fundamentall We doe not deny but that all points of fayth both fundamentall and not fundamentall may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense as for example implicitely generally or in some such inuolued manner For when we explicitely belieue the Catholique Church we do implicitely belieue whatsoeuer she proposeth as belonging to faith Or else by way of reduction that is when we are once instructed in the beliefe of particular points of faith not expressed nor by necessary consequeÌ„ce deducible froÌ„ the Creed we may afterward by some analogy or proportion and resemblance reduce it to one or moe of those Articles which are explicitely contayned in the Symbole Thus S. Thomas the Cherubim among Deuines teacheth (l) 2. 23 q. â—â— art 8. ad 6. that the miraculous existence of our Blessed Sauiours body in the Eucharist as likewise all his other miracles are reduced to Gods Omnipotency expressed in the Creed And Doctor Potter sayth The Eucharist (m) pag. 2â—â— being a seale of that holy Vnion which we haue with Christ our head by his Spirit and Fayth and with the Saints his members by Charity is euidently included in the Communion of Saints But this reductiue way is farre from being sufficient to inferre out of the Articles of Gods Omnipotency or of the Communion of Saints that our Sauiours body is in the Eucharist and much lesse whether it be only in figure or els in reality by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation c. and least of all whether or no these points be fundamentall And you hyperbolize in saying the Eucharist is euidently included in the Communion of Saints as if there could not haue been or was not a Communion of Saints before the Blessed Sacrament was instituted Yet it is true that after we know and belieue there is such a Sacrament we may referre it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed and yet so as S. Thomas referrs it to one Article and D. Potter to another and in respect of different analogies or effects it may be referred to seuerall Articles The like I say of other points of faith which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed but nothing to D. Potters purpose But contrarily it sheweth that your affirming such and such points to be fundamentall or not fundamentall is meerely arbitrary to serue your turne as necessity and your occasions may require Which was an old custome amongst Heretiques as we read in (n) De peccat Orig. cont Pelag. l. 2. cap. 22. S. Augustine Pelagius and Celestius desiring fraudulently to auoyde the hatefull name of Heresies affirmed that the question of Originall Sinne may be disputed without danger of fayth But this holy Father affirmes that it belongs to the foundation of fayth We may saith he endure a disputant who erres in other questions not yet diligently examined not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the Church their errour may be borne with but it must not passe so far as to attempt to shake the foundation of the Church We see S. Augustine places the being of a point fundamentall or not fundamentall in that it hath beene examined and established by the Church although the point of which he speaketh namely Originall Sinne be not contayned in the Creed 10. Out of that which hath beene sayd I inferre that Doctour Potters paines in alledging Catholique Doctours the ancient Fathers and the Councell of Trent to proue that the Creed containes all points of faith was needlesse since we grant it in manner aforesayd But Doctour Potter can not in his conscience belieue that Catholique Deuines or the Councell of Trent and the holy Fathers did intend that all points in particuler which we are obliged to belieue are contayned explicitely in the Creed he knowing well inough that all Catholiques hold themselues obliged to belieue all those points which the sayd Councell defines to be belieued vnder an Anathema and that all Christians belieue the commandments Sacraments c. which are not expressed in the Creed 11. Neither must this seeme strange For who is ignorant that Summaries Epitom'es the like briefe Abstracts are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science or Subiect to which they belong For as the Creed is said to containe all points of Fayth so the Decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may terme them which concerne Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so vnderstood as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice vnlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandments For to omit the precepts of receauing
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
cont Parm. went not out of Maiorinus thy Grand-Father but Maiorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter or Cyprian but Maiorinus in whose Chaire thou sittest which before Maiorinus Luther had no beginning Seing it is euident that these things passed in this manner that for example Luther departed from the Church and not the Church from Luther it is cleere that you be HEIRES both of the giuers vp of the Bible to be burned and of SCHISMATIQVES And the Regall Power or example of Henry the Eight could not excuse his Subiects from Schisme according to what we haue heard out of S. Chrysostome saying Nothing doth so much prouoke (d) Hom 11. In ep st ad Epâ—â—s the wrath of Almighty God as that the Church should be diuided Although we should do innumerable good deeds if we diuide the full Ecclesiasticall Congregation we shall be punished no lesse then they who did rend his naturall Body for that was done to the gaine of the whole world though not with that intention but this hath no good in it at all but that the greatest hurt riseth from it These things are spoken not only to those who be are office but to such also as are gouerned by them Behold therfore how liable both Subiects and Superiours are to the sinne of Schisme if they breake the vnity of God's Church The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more then in this of which we speake They who do such things (e) Rom. 1.32 are worthy of death and not only they that do them but they also that consent with the doers In things which are indifferent of their owne nature Custome may be occasion that some act not well begun may in time come to be lawfully coÌ„tinued But no length of Time no Quality of Persons no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their owne mature vnlawfull and therfore diuision from Christs my sticall Body being of the number of those actions which Deuines teach to be intrinsece malas euill of their owne nature and essence no difference of Persons or Time can euer make it lawfull D. Potter sayth There neither was nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe And who dares say that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ Prescription cannot in conscience runne when the first beginner and his Successours are conscious that the thing to be prescribed for example goods or lands were vniustly possessed at the first Christians are not like strayes that after a certaine time of wandring from their right home fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soile but as long as they retaine the indeleble Character of Baptisme and liue vpon earth they are obliged to acknowledge subiection to God's Church Human Lawes may come to nothing by discontinuance of Time but the Law of God commaunding vs to conserue Vnity in his Church doth still remaine The continued disobedience of Children cannot depriue Parents of their paternall right nor can the Grand-child be vndutifull to his Grand Father because his Father was vnnaturall to his owne Parent The longer God's Church is disobeyed the profession of her Doctrine denyed her Sacraments neglected her Liturgy condemned her Vnity violated the more grieuous the fault growes to be as the longer a man with-holds a due debt or retaines his Neighbours goods the greater iniustice he commits Constancy in euill doth not extenuate but aggrauate the same which by extension of Time receiueth increase of strength addition of greater malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholy diuided by wicked Schismes and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schisme nor be obliged to returne to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remaine no One true visible Church Let therfore these men who pretend to honour reuerence belieue the Doctrine and practise of the visible Church and to condemne their forefathers who fosooke her and say they would not haue done so if they had liued in the dayes of their Fathers and yet follow their example in remaining diuided from her Communion consider how truly these words of our Sauiour fall vpon them Wo be to you because you build (f) Matt. 23. â— 29. c. the Prophets sepulchers and garnish the monuments of iust men and say If we had been in our Fathers dayes we had not been their fellowes in the bloud of the Prophets Therfore you are a testimony to your owne selues that you are the sonnes of them that killed the Prophets and fill vp the measure of your Fathers 46. And thus hauing demonstrated that Luther his Associates and all that continue in the Schisme by them begunne are guilty of Schisme by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that Visible true Church from which they departed that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to returne and then we shall haue performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth Point 47. That the Roman Church I speake not for the present of the particular Diocesse of Rome 5 Point but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in faith with the Chaire of Peter Luther the rest departed froÌ„ the Roman Church whether that Sea were supposed to be in the Citty of Rome or in any other place That I say the Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proued by your owne Confession who assigne for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods Church and due Administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confesse that she waÌ„ted nothing fundamentall or necessary to saluation and for that very cause you thinke to cleare your selfe from Schisme whose property as you say is to cut off from the (g) pag. 78. Body of Christ and the Hope of Saluation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellowes were borne and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously knowne And therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ Hope of Saluation vnles you will acknowledge your selfe to deserue the iust imputatioÌ„ of Schisme Neyther can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not fundamentall For your selfe auouch and endeauour to proue that the true Catholique Church may erre in such points Moreouer I hope you will not so much as go about to proue that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeing from the Roman agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines and you cannot deny but that England in those dayes agreed with Rome and other Nations with England
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
1. epist 3. Ibid. ep 6. and others And I pray you if one vtter some Heresy in presence of his brother doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother and consequently is he not comprehended in those words of our Sauiour If thy Brother offend thee c. Now if the Church were fallible how could we be obliged vnder payne of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of fayth which is a Vertue that necessarily inuolues infallibility But when did you euer heare any Catholique say what you impose vpon Charity Mistaken that absolute obedience is due vnto the Church no appeale being allowed no not (r) pag. 28. to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholike sense and consonantly to the iudgment of the most ancient and famous members of the Church With what face can you vtter such stuffe You know we belieue that the Church cannot oppose Scripture 5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Booke de vnitate Ecclesiae which you charge Pamelius to haue committed in fauour of S. Peters Primacy it is but an old obiection borrowed of others and purposely answered by Pamelius in his notes vpon that Booke where for his iustification he cites diuers ancient Copies and one more then nine hundred yeares old And as for the phrase maine point it selfe that Christ built the Church vpon Peter it is expressely affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places which I quote in the (s) De exhort Mart. c. 11. ep 55.69.73 which last is cited by S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cites the like wordes out of epist 71. ad Quint. Margent whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian belieued about the Authority of Saint Peter and how much his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church neyther can you in all S. Cyprians workes or in this place in particular shew any thing to the contrary as you are pleased to (t) Pag. 30. affirme To proue that our vnworthy fashion is to alter raze many records and Monuments of Antiquity you cite a moderne English Writer Sixtus Senensis But both of them are alledged after your fashion for the first speakes onely of Bookes writen in fauour of the Popes Power in temporall things wherein neuertheles we can in no wise allow of his saying nor is he in this point a competent witnes and the second directly falsifyed For you say he highly commends (u) Epist dedie ad Pium 5. Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Bookes and to purge the writings of all Catholique Authours especially of the Ancient Fathers from the silth and poyson of Heresy there you end the sentence But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aetatis nostrae from the dregs of the Heretiques of our tymes vnderstanding nothing else but that the sayd holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses Marginall notes c. of Erasmus and moderne Heretiques to be blotted or taken out of the Bookes of the holy Fathers Is not this playne falsification And so much lesse excusable because it could not be done but wittingly and willingly for that in the Margent you cite the Latin when you come to those wordes especially of the ancient Fathers you breake off with an c. leauing out that which did directly ouerthrow the purpose for which you alledged those wordes For want of better matter you tell vs of an Edition of Isidorus Pelusiotes his Greeke Epistles approued because they contayned nothing contrary to the Catholique Roman Religion wherein what great harme is there If the Approbator had left out Roman would you haue made this obiection To vs Catholique and Roman are all one as heertofore I explicated But it seemes say you that they had not passed but vpon that Condition This is but a poore Consequence in Logicke For one effect may be produced by some cause yet in such manner as that the effect would follow though that cause were taken away accordingly you grant that the aforesayd clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition Neyther can you be ignorant that Catholiques do print and reprint the writings of ancient Authours although they contayne Heresies as the workes of Tertullian Origen c And therfore you are lesse excusable both for making this Obiection in generall and also for falsifying Sixtus Senensis in particular 6. The places alledged by you out of S. Augustin against the Donatists come far short of prouing that (u) pag. 32. Scripture alone is the Iudge or rather as you correct your selfe Rule of Cōtrouersies your bringing thē to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words meaning as will appeare by what now I am about to say Two Questions were debated between the Catholiques Donatists the one concerning the Church whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world where the faction of Donatus did reside The other whether such as were baptized by Heretiques ought to be rebaptized We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to proue the exeternall apparant Notes or Markes of the Church as Visibility Perpetuity Amplitude Vniuersality c. And no wonder that he appealed to Scripture For that very Questiō being whether the Catholiques or Donatists were the true Church to suppose the Catholiques to be the true Church and vpon that supposition to alledge their Authority against the Donatists had been but to beg the Question as if there were Controuersy whether some particular Booke were Canonical Scripture or no it were an idle thing to alledge that very writing in question to proue it selfe Canonicall and on the other side both the Catholikes and Donatists did acknowledge belieue the same Scriptures which as S. Augustine is wont to say speake more cleerely of the Church then of Christ himselfe and therfore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by cleer not doubtfull Testimonies of holy Writ wheras the Donatists had recourse eyther to obscure Texts as that of the Canticles Shew me where thou feedest where thou liest in the mid day to proue that the Church was cōfined to Africa or els to humane Testimonies as Acts of Notaries or Scriueners to proue that the Catholiques had been Traditores that is had giuē vp the holy Bible to be burned Or that they had sacrificed to Idols Or had been cause of persecution against Christians and that either for these crimes or for communicating with such as had committed them the Church had perished from among Catholiques Or els they produced their owne bare affirmation or mock-Miracles false Councels of THEIR OWNE All which proofes being very partiall insufficient and impertinent S. Augustin had reason to say Let these fictions (w) De vnïe Eccles cap. 19. of lying men or fantasticall wonders of deceiptfull
the same points the Scripture is also sufficient and cleere Which cuidently sheweth that you cannot deny but that the Infallibility of the Church may well stand with the sufficiency of Scripture consequently to oppose either the Scripture or Church is sufficient to make one an Heretique and this is sufficient for our purpose Yea since you cannot deny but that it is Heresy to oppose the Scripture and that you also grant that the Scripture affirmes the Church to be infallible in fundamentall points it followes that euen according to you euery one who opposeth the Church in such points is an Heretique euen because he opposeth the Church although the further reason heerof be because he opposeth the Scripture which recommends the Church So that all which you haue said about the sufficiency of Scripture alone is in diuers respects nothing to the purpose 5. You affirme that (d) Pag. 136 Eckius Pighius Hosius Turrianus Costerus do euery where in their writings speake wickedly and contumeliously of the holy Scriptures And because this is a common slander of Protestants against Catholique Writers I do heere challenge you to produce but one I say but one only place either out of any one of these whome you name or any other Catholique Doctor who speakes wickedly or contumeliously against holy Scriptures But be sure you do not confound speaking against Scripture it selfe with speaking against the abuse therof or against the letter of Scripture wrested to some hereticall sense against which our Authors speake and cannot speake too much And S. Hierome with other Father do the same 6. You proceed and say The Testimony (e) Pag. 139. of the present Church workes very powerfully probably first vpon Infidels to winne them to a Reuerend opinion of Fayth and Scriptures c. Secondly vpon Nouices weaklings and doubters in the fayth to instruct confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the. Scriptures which the Church deliuers as the word of God Thirdly vpon all within the Church to prepare induce and perswade the Mind as an outward meanes to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue the Scriptures But the fayth of a Christian findes not in all this any sure ground wheron finally to rest or settle it selfe Because diuine Fayth requires a Testimony absolutely diuine and yet our Aduersaries yield that the Testimony of the present Church is not absolutely diuine to which purpose you cite in your Margent some of our Authors and therfore it cannot rely vpon the Church 7. This your discourse is neither pertinent nor true For the Question is not as I haue often told you whether or no our fayth be resolued into the Authority of the Church but whether we may not truly infer that whosoeuer resisteth the Church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as reuealed by God which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamentall points be not an Heretique because at lest by resisting the Church he consequently comes to oppose the Testimony or Reuclation of God which is the formall obiect of Fayth Besides if the Testimony of the Church worke but probably vpon Infidels and Nouices who by you are taught to belieue that she may erre vnles you will circumuent them by dissembling her fallibility they will haue wit inough to tell themselues that since she may erre and speakes but probably she cannot worke so powerfully vpon them but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually erre and deceiue them And how can the Church worke vpon all within her to prepare induce and perswade the mind to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue Scriptures Are they within the Church before they haue imbraced the Fayth Or must they want fayth till they read and belieue the Scriptures Or rather since according to your Principles all fayth depends on Scripture must they not belieue the Scripture before they imbrace the fayth and consequently before they be in the Church How then doth the Church prepare induce and perswade them that are within her to imbrace the fayth and to read and belieue the Scriptures If our fayth must rest and settle only vpon the Written Word of God how doth S. Irenaeus (f) Lib. 3. cap. 4. affirme that many Nations haue been conuerted to Christ without Scriptures Were they conuerted only to an humane fayth 8. And wheras you say that the Authority of the Church is not absolutely diuine and therfore cannot be the last and formall Obiect of fayth it is but an Equiuocation and you infer that which we do not deny Coninck whom you cite in your Margent and translated by halues answeres your Obiection in the very wordes which you alleage Although sayth he the Church (g) Disp 9. dub 5. conel 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost and in that sense her Testimony do in some sort rely vpon the diuine Authority and receiue from it strength all which words you do not translate yet it is not truly or properly the Testimony or word and reuelation of God but properly it is a humane Testimony You see then that the Testimony of the Church in some sense is Diuine that is infallibly directed by the holy Ghost which is inough for our purpose although it be not Diuine in another sense that is her words are not the immediate voyce of God as Scriptures are because she doth not propose any new Reuelations made immediately to her but only infallibly declares what Reuelations haue beene made to Prophets Apostles c. Your selfe affirme that the Church is infallible in Fundamentall points and consequently her Testimony is not meerly humane and fallible and yet it is not absolutely diuine and so you must answere your owne Argument and you must grant that the Church being infallible in some points may be to vs a ground sufficient for our infallible assent or beliefe for such Articles And if you will tell vs that fayth must be resolued into some Authority which is absolutely Diuine as Diuine signifies that which is distinct from all things created you will find your selfe gone too far For Scripture it selfe being a thing created and not a God is not Deuine in that sense And the Apostles who receiued immediate Reuelations from God when afterwards they did preach and declare them to others those Declarations which supposed the Reuelations already made were not in the opinion of many Deuines the testimony or word of God but of men infallibly assisted by God And yet I hope you will not hence inferre that it had not been Heresy to oppose the Declarations of the Apostles although they did not preach new Reuelations but only declare and propound such as had been already made to them 9. Your wordes which are indeed but words That Scripture (h) Pag. 141. is of diuine Authority the Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light which shines in Scripture I confuted heeretofore And what greater
but in some sort the word of God that is vttered by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost nay I say that the Heretiques are those who indeed leane on a rotten staffe And then he comes to the words which you cited For we must know that a Proposition of Fayth is concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in Scripture is true God hath reuealed this in Scripture ergo it is true Of the premisses in this Syllogisme the first is most certaine among all the second is most firme or certaine among Catholiques for it relies on the Testimony of the Church Councell or Pope heere you breake off but Bellarmine ads of which we haue in holy Scripture manifest promises that they cannot erre Act. 15. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost to vs And Luke 22. I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth may not faile But amongst Heretiques it doth rely only vpon coniectures or the Iudgement of ones own spirit which for the most part seemeth good and is ill and since the Conclusion followes the weaker part it necessarily followes that the whole fayth of Heretiques is but coniecturall and vncertayne Thus farre Bellarmine And now wherein I pray you consists his contradicting both himselfe and his fellowes Perhaps you meane because heere he teacheth that euery Proposition of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture and therefore contradicts his other doctrine that besids Scripture there are vnwritten Traditions But the vanity of this obiection will by and by appeare among your other corruptions which now I set down First you see Bellarmines speakes not of fayth in generall but only of matters of fayth contayned in Scripture his whole question being about the Interpretation thereof that is Whether we are to rely on the priuate spirit or humane industry of conferring places c. or els vpon the Church And therefore Secondly he sayth not as you cite him in a different letter by way of an vniuersal negation that a Proposition is not de fide or not belonging to fayth vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture c. from whence it would follow that nothing at all could be belieued which is not contained in Scripture but he onely sayth that a Proposition of fayth is cōcluded in this Syllogisme which includes no vniuersall negation but is meant onely of those Propositions of fayth which depend on the interpretation of Scripture which was the subiect of his discourse And therefore I wonder why you should say in generall this reason supposes that matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture For to teach that some matters of faith are in Scripture doth not suppose that all matters of fayth must be contayned in Scripture and yet all the contradiction that heere you find in Bellarmine must be this Such Propositions of fayth as are contayned in Scripture are concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture c. Ergo all Propositions of fayth must be concluded in this Syllogisme Ergo there are no vnwritten Traditions A goodly contradiction Thirdly where did Bellarmine euer teach that the Proposall of the Church can make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth as you speake The Church doth not make Verities to be matter of fayth but only declares them to be such Fourthly you leaue out the words which cleerly explicate in what sense the Testimony of the Church may be sayd to be humane or diuine by which your Argument to proue that the declaration of the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of fayth had been answered and your fallacy discouered Fifihly Bellarmine neuer affirmed as you say he did that the strength and truth of the Minor in the sayd Syllogisme depends on the Testimony of the Church but only that it is most certaine among Catholiques by the Testimony of the Church because as I haue often said the Church cannot make any one Article to be true but only by her declaration can make it certaine to all Catholiques as Bellarmine said Sixtly you leaue out Bellarmines words wherby he proues the infallibility of Church and Pope out of Scripture and accordingly in the Scauenth place that which he expresly sayth of the vncertaine coniecturall ground of Heretiques which can produce only a coniecturall and vncertaine Fayth because the Conclusion followes the weaker part you make him apply to the Testimony of the Church as if it were vncertaine which contrarily in the words by you omitted he proues to be most certaine infallible and therfore the Conclusion which relies vpon a Proposition deliuered by her is not subiect to error Eighthly you returne to the slaunder that if Bellarmines doctrine be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church as if Bellarmine had taught that the truth of Scripture and of all Christian Religion depends on the attestation of the Church which could not in you proceed from ignorance but from a purpose to deceiue your Reader For Bellarmine in that very place which you cite declares himselfe so fully and cleerly that you cannot be excused from wilfull slaunder I will put downe the place at large that heerafter you and your Brethren may either cease to make the same Obiection or els endeauour to confute the Cardinalls answere Bellarmine then makes this obiection against himselfe If the Pope iudge of Scriptures it followes that the Pope or Councell is aboue the Scripture and if the meaning of Scripture without the Pope or Councell be not authenticall it followes that the word of God takes his force and strength from the word of men And then he giues this Answere I answere that this Argument of which Heretiques make greatest account consists in a meere Equiuocation For it may be vnderstood two manner of wayes that the Church doth iudge of Scriptures the one That she should iudge whether that which the Scripture teaches be true or false The other That putting for a most certaine ground that the words of Scripture are most true she should iudge what is the true interpretation of them Now if the Church did iudge according to the former way she should indeed be aboue the Scripture but this we do not say though we be calumniated by the Heretiques as if we did who euery where cry out that we put the Scripture vnder the Popes Feet But that the Church or Pope doth iudge of Scriptures in the latter sense which we affirme is not to say that the Church is aboue Scripture but aboue the sudgment of priuate persons For the Church doth not iudge of the Truth of Scripture but of the vnderstanding of thee and mee and others Neither doth the word of God receiue strength therby but only my vnderstanding receiues it For the Scripture is not more true or certaine because it is so expounded by the Church but my Opinion
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