gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controuersies infallibility setled in a liuing Iudge is incomparably more vsefull and fit then if it were conceiued as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giuing to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is deriued from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is stil endewed with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Saluation I would therfore glaâ—ly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was depriued of infallibility in some points not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so vnworthily and vniustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially of we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments iudgments Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particulerly and minutely deliuered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Sauiour leauing the determination or declaration of particulers to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter (i) Pag. 24. against this argument drawne from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue obiects that we might as well infer that Christians must haue one soueraigne Prince ouer all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparity is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their ciuill gouernmeÌ„t of Christian Common-wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a howse or (k) Heb. 13. family to an (l) Cant. 2. Army to a (m) 1. Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a (n) Matt. 12 kingdome c. all which require one Maister one Generall one head one Magistrate one spirituall King as our blessed Sauiour with fiet Vnum ouile (o) Ioan. c. 10. ioyned Vnus Pastor One sheepefold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to saluation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend vpon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Samour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their seuerall Lawes disterent gouernments diuersity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this obiection returneth vpon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controuersies in Religion 24. This discourse is excellently proued by ancient S. Irenaeus (p) lib. 3. c. 4 in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they deliuered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ hauing saluation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or Inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from God's Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich Storehowse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient grouÌ„d for infallible faith nor a meete Iudge of Controuersies If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all controuersies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controuersies although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute an other Iudge of Controuersies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I aske D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controuersies in faith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well aduised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to know what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Couell expressely saith Doubtles (q) In his defence of M. Hokers bookes art 4. p. 31. it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues but so esteemed by vs for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controuersies cannot be ended without some externall liuing authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in vs a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controuersies seing notwithstanding this our beliefe we vse for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which euen by his Confession cannot erre damnably and may affoard vs more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any priuate person finally D Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintaine any fundamentall error against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controuersy is damnable If he answere that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controuersies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he teacheth that the vniuersall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particuler Churches and priuate men are much more obnoxious to error in such
And therefore eyther Christ had no visible Church vpon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those ProtestaÌ„ts who affirme the Roman Church to haue lost the Nature being of a true Church do by ineuitable Consequence grant that for diuers Ages Christ had no visible Church on Earth from which errour because D. Potter disclaymeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall and damnable errour and that she is not cut of from the Body of Christ and the Hope of Saluation And if saith he any Zelots amongst vs haue proceeded (h) Jhid to heauier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisedome cannot be iustifyed 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may obiect No man is ignorant that the Grecians euen the Schismaticall Grecians do in most points agree with Roman Catholiques disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 229. confesseth Inuocation of Saints and Angels veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enioyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrisme Extreme-vnction All the seauen Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Almes for the dead Monachisme That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Deusnes of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Icremiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana Confesaone c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles pag. 233. Crispinus by Syr Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestats (l) pag. 22â— Rome are only the partiall particular fancies of the Roman Church vnlesse happily the opinion of TransubstaÌ„tiation may be excepted wherin the latter Grecians seene to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudius a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title wherof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greeke Church in the seauen Sacraments As for the Heresy of the Grecians that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Sonne I suppose that Protestants disauow them in that errour as we doe 49. D. Potter will not I thinke so much wrong his reputation as to tell vs that the Waldenses Wicctiffe Husse or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knowes that the example of such men is subiect to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Ages nor in all Countries but confined to certaine places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastours They differed among themselues and from Protestants also They agreed in diuers things with vs against Protestants They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies 50. The Waldenses begun not before the yeare 1218. so far were they from Vniuersality of all Ages For their doctrine first they denied all Iudgments which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbaoth for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this meanes to make their Maister Waldo a meere lay man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy men ought to haue no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no diuision of Parishes nor Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a barne Fiftly that men ought not to take an oath in any case Sixtly that those persons sinned mortally who accompanied without hope of issue Seauenthly they held all things done aboue the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor ciuill Magistrate being guilty of mortall sinne did enioy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Iudges Tenthly they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleauenthly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion and so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their Fayth and made Offertories confessions and communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so vnlearned that sayth (m) Act. Mon. pag. 628. Fox he gaue rewards to certaine learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth confer the forme of religion in his time to the infallible word of God A godly example for such as must needs haue the Scripture in English to be read by euery simple body with such fruit of godly doctrine as we haue seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Maister so vnlearned that some of them sayth (n) Ibid. Fox expounded the words Ioan. 1. Suieum non receperunt Swyne did not receiue him And to conclude they agreed in diuers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seene in (o) Tract 2. cap. 2. sect subd 3. Brereley 51. Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For besides that the same things are testified by Protestant Writers as Illyrâ—cus Cowper others our Authours cannot be suspected of partiality in disfauour of Protestants vnles you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred yeares agoe did both foresee that there were to be Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants and disagreed from them in others And vpon what ground can they belieue our Authours for that part wherin the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagine they lyed in the rest 52. Neither could Wicliffe continue a Church neuer interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he liued more then one hundred and fifty yeares to wit the yeare 1371. He agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the euer Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seemes to me (p) In serm de Assump Marte impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seauen Saciaments Purgatory and other points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines as diuers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions nor propriety in any thing but should
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
veniall ob leuit atem materiae because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration as for example to steale a penny is veniall although theft in his kind be a deadly sinne But it is likewise true that this Rule is not generall for all sorts of sinnes there being some so inexcusably wicked of their owne nature that no smalnes of matter nor paucity in number can defend them from being deadly sinnes For to giue an instance what Blasphemy against God or voluntary false Oath is not a deadly sinne Certainely none at all although the saluation of the whole world should depend vpon swearing such a falshood The like hapneth in our present case of Heresy the iniquity wherof redoundin to the iniury of God's supreme wisdom Goodnes is alwayes great enormous They were no precious stones which Danid (n) 1. Reg. 17. pickt out of the water to encounter Golias and yet if a man take from the number but one and say they were but foure against the Scripture affirming them to haue been fiue he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne Why Because by this subtraction of One he doth depriue Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceiue or be deceiued in any one thing it were but wisdome to suspect him in all And seing euery Heresy opposeth some Truth reuealed by God it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sinne For if voluntary Blasphemy and Periury which are opposite only to the infused Morall Vertue of Religion can neuer be excused from mortall sinne much lesse can Heresy be excused which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Fayth 11. If any obiect that Schisme may seeme to be a greater sinne then Heresy because the Vertue of Charity to which Schisme is opposite is greater then Fayth according to the Apostle saying Now there remaine (o) 1. Cor. 13.13 Fayth Hope Charity but the greater of these is Charity S. Thomas answeres in these words Charity hath two Obiects one principal to wit the Diuine (p) 2.2 q. 39. ar 2. in corp ad 3. Goodnes another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is lesse then the obiect of Fayth which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Fayth doth rely and therfore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a generall manner as it comprehends Heresy and other vices against Fayth 12. Hauing therfore sufficiently declared wherin Heresy consists Let vs come to proue that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we haue demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13. Now that Luther his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy I proue by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as reuealed by God is formall Heresy as we haue shewed out of the definition of Heresy But Luther Caluin and the rest did oppose diuers truths propounded by the visible Church as reuealed by God yea they did therfore oppose her because she propounded as diuine reuealed truths things which they iudged either to be false or human inuentions Therfore they committed formall Heresy 14. Moreouer euery Errour agaynst any doctrine reuealed by God is damnable Heresy whether the matter in it selfe be great or small as I proued before and therefore eyther the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of form all Heresy because one of them must erre against the word testimony of God but you grant perforce that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably I add that she cannot erre damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy 15. Besides we haue shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controuersies therfore must be infallible in all her Proposalls which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she deliuereth as reuealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himselfe and therefore cannot be excused from grieuous Heresy 16. Agayne If Luther were an Heretique for those points wherin he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that Gods visible true Church is not vniuersal but confined to one onely place or corner of the world is according to your owne expresse words (q) Tag 126. properly Heresy agaynst that Article of the Creed wherein we orofesse to belieue the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresy because he limited the vniuersal Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himselfe and other chiefe Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began and much more for diuers Ages before was not Vniuersall nor spread ouer the world but was confined to that compasse of ground which did containe Luthers body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy If S. Augustine in those times sayd to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies (r) Epist. 50. of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not onely in Africa as these men with most impudēt vanity do raue but that she is spred ouer the whole earth much more may it be sayd It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cā not be confined to the Citty of Wittemberg or to the place where Luthers feet stood but must be spread ouer the whole world It is therefore must impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually agaynst Luther then against the Donatists For hauing out of those words In thy seed all Nations shall be blessed proued that Gods Church must be vniuersal he sayth Why (s) De Vnit. Eccles cap. 6. doe you superadde by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth except where he may haue Donatus for his Coheyre Giue me this Vniuersall Church if it be among you shew your selues to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Giue vs this Church or else laying aside all fury receyue her from vs. But it is euident that Luther could not when he he said At the beginning I was alone giue vs an vniuersall Church Therfore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receiue her from vs. And therfore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the
very Sea of Peter the Apostle to whom our Sauiour after his Resurrection committed his Sheep to be fed euen to the present Bishop Origen to this purpose giueth vs a good and wholesome Rule happy if himselfe had followed the same in these excellent words Since there be many who thinke (f) Praef. ad lib. Periâ—â—â—chon they belieue the things which are of Christ and some are of different opinion from those who went before them let the preaching of the Church be kept which is deliuered by the Apostles by order of Succession and remaines in the Church to this very day that only is to be belieued for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church In vaine then do these men brag of the doctrine of the Apostles vnles first they can demonstrate that they enioy a continued Succession of Bishops from the Apostles and can shew vs a Church which according to S. Augustin is deduced by vndoubted SVCCESSION from the Sea (g) Cont. Faust cap. 2 of the Apostles euen to the present Bishops 23. But yet neuerthelesse suppose it were granted that they agreed with the doctrine of the Apostles this were not sufficient to proue a Succession in Doctrine For Succession besides agreement or similitude doth also require a neuer-interrupted conueying of such doctrine from the time of the Apostles till the dayes of those persons who challenge such a Succession And so S. Augustine sayth We are to belieue that Gospell which from the time of the Apostles the (h) Lib. 28. cout Faust. â— 2. Church hath brought downe to our dayes by a neuer-interrupted course of times and by vndoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begun by Luther was interrupted for diuers Ages before him is manifest out of History and by his endeauouring a Reformation which must presuppose abuses He cannot therfore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrine which he sought to reuiue and reduce to the knowledge and practise of men And they ought not to proue that they haue Succession of doctrine because they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles but contrarily we must infer that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a neuer-interrupted Succession of doctrine from the times of the Apostles till Luther And heere it is not amisse to note that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not brag of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not beene free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24. And as Want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniuersality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout diuers Countreys and Nations cannot help towards that Vniacrsality of Place wherwith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more and more lay open their diuision and want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Obseruation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all moderne Heretiques wherein this holy Father hauing cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiel (i) Cap. 24. My flockes are dispersed vpon the whole face of the Earth he adds this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques (k) Lib. de Pastorib c. 8. are spred ouer the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spred ouer the whole face of the Earth some heere some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In diuers places they are diuers one Mother Pride hath begot them all as our one Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he sayth If thou know not thy selfe goe (m) Ep. 48. thou forth I do not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from vs but they were not of vs. Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flocke but of diuers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheep but feed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is One flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set downe the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselues which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head vnder Christ And so it being proued that Protestants hauing neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniuersality of Time or Place cannot auoid the iust note of Heresy 25. Hitherto we haue brought arguments to proue that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negatiue Precept of fayth which obligeth vs vnder paine of damnation not to imbrace any one error contrary to any truth sufficiently propounded as testified or reuealed by Almighty God Which were inough to make good that among Persons who disagree in any one point of fayth one part only can be saued Yet we will now proue that whosoeuer erreth in any one point doth also breake the Affirmatiue Precept of Fayth wherby we are obliged positiuely to belieue some reuealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Fayth which is necessary to saluation euen necessitate finis or medij as Deuines speake that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the vse of Reason was or can be saued without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Fayth (n) Hebr. 11.6 it is impossible to please God 26. In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique fayth are required Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to be wanting in the beliefe of Protestants euen in those points which are true in themselues and to which they yield assent as hapneth in all those particulars wherin they agree with vs from whence it will follow that they wanting true Diuine Fayth want meanes absolutely necessary to saluation 27. And first The fayth of Protestants wanteth Certainty that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because they denying the Vniuersall infallibility of the Church can haue no certaine ground to know what Obiects are reuealed or testifyed by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but-without the direction declaration of the Church we can neyther haue certaine meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faythfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Euery Protestant as I suppose
is persuaded that his owne opinions be true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of diuers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceiued And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certaine ground whereon to relye for vnderstanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Fayth euen concerning fundamentall points vpon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometymes fayle it is cleere that the ground of their fayth is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometyme it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to leade them to errour As all Arch-heretiques belieuing some truths and withall diuers errours vpon the same ground and motiue haue indeed no true diuine infallible fayth but only a fallible humane opinion and persuasion For if the ground vpon which they rely were certaine it could neuer produce any errour 28. Another cause of Vncertainty in the fayth of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that euery errour in fundamentall points destroieth the substance of fayth and yet cannot determine what points be fundamentall it followeth that they must remaine vncertayne whether or no they be not in some fundamentall errrour so want the substance of fayth without which there can be no hope of Saluation 24. And that he who erreth against any one reuealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Diuine fayth is a very true doctrine deliuered by Catholique Deuines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 2.2 q. 3. ar 3. in â—orp he who denyeth one Article of fayth may retayne fayth of other Articles and resolueth that he caÌ„not which he proueth Argumenta sed contra because As deadly sinne is opposite to Charity so to deny one Article of fayth is opposite to fayth But Charity doth not remaine with any one deadly sinne therefore faith doth not remaine after the denyall of any one Article of fayth Whereof he giues this further reason Because sayth he the nature of euery habit doth depend vpon the formall Motiue Obiect therof which Motiue being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remayne But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds froÌ„ the same supreme verity Whosoeuer therefore doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scriptures as vpon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of fayth but belieues those things which belong to fayth by some other meanes then by fayth as if one â—hould remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleere that he hath not certaine knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule but only vpon his owne will And so it is cleere that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of fayth is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therfore it is manifest that whosoeuer is an Heretique in any one Article of fayth concerning other Articles hath not fayth but a kind of Opinion or his owne will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue (q) Ad 2. all the Articles of fayth for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoeuer fals from this reason or motiue is totally depriued of fayth From this true doctrine we are to infer that to retaine or want the substance of fayth doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods diuine Testimony which is inuolued in euery least error against Fayth And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certaine Rule to know why rather one then another it manifestly followes that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreouer D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of fayth it followes that she doth not erre in any one point against fayth because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas euery such error destroyes the substance of fayth Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of fayth it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherin they are contrary to her And this may suffice to proue that the fayth of Protestants wants Infallibility 30. And now for the second Condition of fayth I say If Protestants haue Certainty They want the second Condition of Fayth Obscurity they want Obscurity and so haue not that fayth which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the fayth of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Bookes are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleere and euident at least in all points necessary to Saluation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to Saluation is euidently knowne by them to be true by this argument It is certayne and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in the word of God is true But it is certaine and euident that these Bookes in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in these Bookes is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certaine and euident that whatsouer is contayned in these Bookes is true but it is certayne and euident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sinne c. are coÌ„tained in these Bookes Therfore it is certaine and euident that these particular Obiects are true Neyther will it auaile you to say that the sayd Principles are not euident by naturall discourse but only to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speake For supernaturall euidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall euidence doth neyther can the party so enlightned be sayd voluntarily to captiuate his vnderstanding to that
for example the Century Writers doe (g) Cent. 3. cap. 6. col 127. acknowledge that in the tymes of Cyprian and Tertulian Priuate Confession euen of Thoghts was vsed and that it was then commanded and thought necessary The like I say concerning your Ordination which at least is very doubfull consequently all that depends thereon 6. On the other side that the Roman Church is the safer way to Heauen not to repeat what hath been already sayd vpon diuers occasions I will againe put you in mynd that vnles the Roman Church was the true Church there was no visible true Church vpon Earth A thing so manifest that Protestants themselues confesse that more then one thousand yeares the Roman Church possessed the whole world as we haue shewed heertofore out of their own (h) Chap. 5. num 9. words from whence it followes that vnlesse Ours be the true Church you cannot pretend to any perpetuall visible Church of your Owne but Ours doth not depend on yours before which it was And heere I wish you to consider with feare and trembling how all Roman Catholiques not one excepted that is those very men whom you must hold not to erre damnably in their beliefe vnlesse you wil destroy your owne Church and saluation do with vnanimous consent belieue and professe that Protestancy vnrepented destroies Saluation and then tell me as you will answere at the last day whether it be not more safe to liue die in that Church which euen your selues are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of saluatioÌ„ which are your owne words then to liue in a Church which the sayd confessedly true Church doth firmely belieue and constantly professe not to be capable of saluation And therfore I conclude that by the most strict obligation of Charity towards your owne soule you are bound to place it in safety by returning to that Church from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed least too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in your selues He that loues (i) Eccles â— 27. the danger shall perish therin 7. Against this last argument of the greater security of the Roman Church drawne from your owne confession you bring an Obiection which in the end will be found to make for vs against your selfe It is taken from the words of the Donatists speaking to Catholiques in this manner Your selues confesse (k) pag. 112. our Baptisme Sacraments and Fayth heer you put an Explication of your owne and fay for the most part as if any small error in fayth did not destroy all Faith to be good and auayleable We deny yours to be so and say there is no Church no saluation amongst you Therfore it is safest for all to ioyne with vs. 8. By your leaue our Argument is not as you say for simple people alone but for all them who haue care to saue their soules Neither is it grounded vpon your Charitable Iudgment as you (l) Pag. 81. speake but vpon an ineuitable necessity for you either to grant saluation to our Church or to entaile certaine damnation vpon your owne because yours can haue no being till Luther vnles ours be supposed to haue been the true Church of Christ And since you terme this Argument a Charme take heed you be none of those who according to the Prophet Dauid do not heare the voyce of him (m) Psal v. 6. who charmeth wisely But to come to the purpose Catholiques neuer granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saued And therfore you hauing cited out of S. Augustin the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when you come to the coÌ„trary words of the Donatists you add No Church No Saluation making the Argument to haue quinque terminos without which Addition you did see it made nothing against vs For as I said the Catholiques neuer yielded that among the Donatists there was a true Church or hope of saluation And your selfe a few leaues after acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an errour which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly hereticall against that Article of the Creed wherin we professe to belieue the holy (n) pag. 125. Catholique Church and consequently you cannot allow saluation to them as you do and must do to vs. And theÌ„rfore the Donatists could not make the like argument against Catholiques as Catholiques make against you who grant vs Saluation which we deny to you But at least you will say this Argument for the Certainty of their Baptisme was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our saluation therfore that Catholiques should haue esteemed the Baptisme of the Donatists more Certaine then their owne and so haue allowed Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques or sinners as the Donatists esteemed all Catholiques to be I answere no. Because it being a matter of fayth that Baptisme administred by Heretiques obseruing due Matter Forme c. is valide to rebaptize any so baptized had beene both a sacriledge in reitering a Sacrament not reiterable and a profession also of a damnable Heresy and therfore had not been more safe but certainly damnable But you confesse that in the doctrine or practise of the Roman Church there is no beliefe or profession of any damnable errour which if there were euen your Church should certainly be no Church To belieue therfore and professe as we do cannot exclude Saluation as Rebaptization must haue done But if the Donatists could haue affirmed with truth that in the opinion both of Catholiques and themselues their Baptisme was good yea and good in such sort as that vnles theirs was good that of the Catholiques could not be such but theâ—â—s might be good though that of the Catholiques were not and further that it was no damnable error to belieue that Baptisme administred by the Catholiques was not good nor that it was any Sacriledge to reiterate the same Baptisme of Catholiques If I say they could haue truly affirmed these things they had said somewhat which at least had seemed to the purpose But these things they could not say with any colour of truth and therfore their argument was fond and impious But we with truth say to Protestants You cannot but confesse that our doctrine containes no damnable error and that our Church is so certainely a true Church that vnlesse ours be true you cannot pretend any Yea you grant that you should be guilty of Schisme if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of saluation But we neither do nor can grant that yours is a true Church or that within it there is hope of saluation Therfore it is safest for you to ioyne with vs. And now against whom hath your Obiection greatest force 9. But I wonder not a little and so I thinke will euery body else what the reason may be that you do not so much as goe about to answere the
when our Sauiour bid the Apostles preach to all Nations and yet neuer performed by Protestants by euidence of fact and by the confession of our Aduersaries doth shine most bright in the Church of Rome 4. But I cannot say that you omitted to raile against the Iesuites whom I will not dishonour so much as to defend them against that which you offer so impertinently vulgarly and meanely against them and particularly because in defence of a common cause I will not be diuerted by the consideration of particular persons though by reason of the Eminency of the person of Cardinall Dâ—ossat I cannot for beare to tell you that you falsify him when you make him say in his eight Epistle that he collected from their wicked doctrine and practises that they belieue neither in Iesus Christ nor the Pope For the Cardinall speakes not those words of any doctrine or practises of the Iesuites And in the funerall Oration which was pronounced at the Exequyes of the said Cardinall and is prefixed before the Booke which you alleadge it is affirmed that he of his owne accord and without being dealt with to that purpose did negociate the read mission of the Iesuites into France So far was he from collecting from their doctrine practises that they belieue neither in Iesus Christ nor in the Pope And as for our doctrine which concernes the incompatibility of Protestancy with saluation as proper to the Iesuites it is an idle speach void of all colour of truth For it is so far from being proper to them that it is common to all Roman Catholiques in the world and you shall neuer be able to shew me any one of an entire fame who holds the contrary 5. And wheras you aske Why may not a Protestant be saued since he belieues entirely the Scriptures the Catholique Creeds and whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in all ages hath belieued as necessary to saluation You may take the answere out of my First Part where I haue shewed that he neither keepes the Commaundments nor belieues all things necessary to saluation yea and belieues not any one point with diuine and supernaturall fayth who disobeyes and disagrees from the visible Church of Christ in any one thing propounded by her as a Diuine truth 6. You tell vs that you are no further departed from the present Roman Church then she is departed from herselfe But no wise man will belieue this till you can informe him what visible Church at or before Luthers appearance remained pure out of which the Roman Church had formerly departed or els you must confesse that the whole Church of Christ was corrupted Which because you will neuer be able to doe with truth you must be forced to confesse that she still kept her integrity without any spot of erroneous doctrine and therfore that your departure out of her cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy 7. You say truly That it is meerly impossible (b) Pag. 10. the Catholique Church should want Charity because the good spirit of Truth and Loue euer assists and animates that great Body But you speake not consequently to your owne Assertion that the Catholique Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall For if the good spirit of Truth may faile to assist her fayth why may not the good Spirit of Loue faile to direct her Charity Nay if we obserue it well the Want of Charity which you impute to vs is resolued into this doctrinall point Protestancy vnrepented destroies saluation Which Doctrine and Assertion if you hold to be a fundamentall errour you depriue vs of saluation and become as vncharitable to vs as you say we are to you If it be not a fundamentall point then according to your principles the Church may erre therin and so want Charity by iudging that Protestants cannot be saued 8. What we vnderstand by the Roman Catholique Church I haue explained heertofore to wit all Christians vnited with the Church of Rome as it is the sea of Peter In which sense it is not a part but comprehendeth all the Catholique Church which heertofore I proued out of the Fathers as in some proportion we do not vnderstand the Tribe of Iuoa alone by the Iewish Church though the other Tribes were called by the name of the Iewish People and Church from that principall Tribe of Iuda So that your marginall quotations to proue that the Church of Rome is a particular Church are emplored to proue that which no man denies if we speake of the particular Diocesse of Rome and not as it is the Sea of Peter to which all Christian Catholiques dispersed throughout the whole world are vnited Which Sea of Peter setled in Rome being the Roote the Center the Fountaine the Idaea of all Ecclesiasticall Vnion in all Christian Churches giueth them the denomination of Roman Catholiques which doth no more limit the whole Catholique Church then the name of Iewish Church did limit the whole Sinagogue to the Tribe of Iuda alone And therfore your thred-bare Obiection that Catholique Roman (c) Pag. 11. are termes repugnant signifying vniuersall particular vanisheth vtterly away by this different acception of the Roman Church and serues only to conuince by your owne obiection that D. Potter or the Church of England cannot stile themselues Catholique because Catholique signifieth Vniuersall and D. Potter and the Church of England are things particular And I would gladly know what your Brethren meane when they affirme the Roman Church for diuers Ages to haue possessed the whole world Do they thinke that the particular Diocesse of Rome was lifted ouer the Alpes Or when your Prelates demaund whether we be Roman Catholiques do they demaund whether we dwell in the Citty or Diocesse of Rome And heer I note in a word what now cometh to my mind that I wonder D. Andrewes a man so highly esteemed among Protestants would tell vs that the Roman Church is indiuiduum (d) In Rest. ad Apolog. Card. Bollar ad ca. 5. as the Logicians call it and that Catholique is Genus or a generall kind For to omit that the thing it selfe is ridiculous it maketh directly for vs because euery indiuiduum containes in it selfe the Genus as Peter for example is a substance a sensible creature c. and so if the Roman Church be indiuiduum it must containe Catholique in it selfe and so the Roman Church must of necessity be affirmed to be a Catholique Church Before I leaue this point I must tell you that you corrupt Innocentius Tertius to proue (e) Pag. 12. that the Roman Church was anciently esteemed a Topical or particular Church distinct from others and in vnder the vniuersal in these words It is called the Vniuersall Church which consists of all Churches where you put an c. and then add Ecclesia Romana sic non est voâ—uersalis Ecclesia sed pars vniuersalis Ecclesiae The Roman Church is not thus the vniuersall Church but part of
in one of the learned Tongues for weighty reasons which haue been learnedly set downe by our Catholique Writers And if nothing must be read but what the People yea learned men vnderstand you must giue ouer reading in publique euen in English diuers Psalmes of Dauid the Prophets the Apocalyps and other parts of Scriptures the sense and meaning wherof the people vnderstand no more then if they were read in Hebrew Nay to vnderstand the words and not the sense is not free from danger because they may by thē conceaue some errour as we daily see by the exāple of Sectaries in that vngracious creature who lately out of Scripture as he thought murthered his Mother and Brother for being cause of his Idolatry in kneeling at the Communion Happy had it beene both for him and a thousand more if the sacred Scriptures in English were not so common among them but were read with due circumspection and not without approbation of such as can iudge better of them then themselues And in very truth it seemes strange not only not safe but euen shamefull that for example the Bookes of Leuiticus and the Canticles besids many passages in other Bookes should he promiscuously made subiect to the vulgar eyes of sensual and vnmortifyed people who morally will be sure to make no other vse thereof then to hurt themselues together with the abusing prophaning so holy a thing as euery word of holy Scripture is in it selfe 9. Now to come to your other particulars we acknowledge and professe all Merits to be the gift of God and therfore they cannot withdraw vs from relying on him You cite Bellarmine saying It is safest not to trust (m) Pag. 73. to a mans owne Merits but wholy and solely to cast himselfe on the mercy of Iesus-Christ But doth Bellarmine say that it is safest to relye on Gods Mercy alone and to deny all Merits as Protestants do This indeed were to your purpose But let vs heare Bellarmine rightly cited It is sayth he most safe to place (n) De Justificat lib. 5. c. 7. § Sittertia propositio al our trust in the sole mercy Benignity of God Heere you stay But Bellarmine goes on and sayth I explicate my sayd Proposition for it is not to be so vnderstood as if a man with all his forces ought not to attend to good workes Or that we ought not to confide in them as if they were not true Iustice or could not vndergo the Iudgment of God for no wonder if Gods owne gifts as all our merits are may endure his examination but we only say that it is more safe as it were to forget our former Merits and to looke onely vpon the mercy of God Both because no man can without a reuelation certaynely know that he hath true merits or that he is to perseuere in them to the end And also because in this place of Temptation nothing is more easy then to conceyue Pride by the consideration of our good workes I leaue it therefore to any mans cōsideration what sincerity you haue vsed in alledging Bellarmine 10 In the last place you affirme that our doctrines are confessed (o) Pag. 13. Nouelties and you go about to proue it by a few instances all which being either nothing to the purpose or plainely mistaken or manifestly vntrue do excellently proue against your selfe how ancient our Religion is Your instance about the Popes infallibility is not to the purpose of prouing that the Roman Church teacheth any Nouelty For Bellarmine out of whom you cite a few Authours who teach that the Popes Decrees without a Councell are not infallible sayth That that Doctrine (p) De Rom. Pont. l. 4. ç. 1. is yet tolerated by the Church though he affirme it to be erroneous and the next degree to Heresy The same Answere serues for your other example concerning the Popes Authority aboue that of a Generall Councell of which Bellarmine sayth They are not properly Heretiques who hold the contrary but (q) De Concil l. 2. cap. 17. Denique Lateranense they cannot be excused from great temerity And you are not ignorāt but that euen those who defend these doctrines do vnanimously consent against you that the Pope is Head of the Church But I pray you what Consequence is it Some Authors deny or doubt of the Popes Infallibility or his Authority ouer a Generall Councell Ergo these doctrines are Nouelties May not priuate men be mikaken euen in doctrines which of themselues are most ancient as is knowne by experience in many Truths which both you and we maintaine For how many Bookes of Scripture were once doubted of by some which now your selues receiue as Canonicall Are you therfore Nouelists You ouerlash then when you say Aboue a thousand (r) Pag. 72. Edit 1. yeares after Christ the Popes iudgment was not esteemed infallible nor his authority aboue that of a generall Councell and especially when you cite Bellarmine to make good your sayings And your affirming out of Bellarmine de Indulg l. 2. c. 17. that Eugenius the 3. who began his Papacy 1145. was (s) Pag. 72. Edit 1. the first that granted Indulgences is a huge vntruth and falsification of Bellarmine who in that very place directly expresly purposely proues that other Popes before Eugenius granted Indulgences names them in particular Wheras you say that the Councels of Constance and Basil decreed the Councell to be aboue the Pope you might haue seene the Answere in Bellarmine in the same Booke which you (t) De Concil l 2. ç. 19. cite that these two Councels at that time were not lawfull Councels or sufficient to define any matters of Fayth 11. You say Many of them meaning Catholique Doctours yield also that Papall Indulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity And to proue this you alledge Bellarmine (u) De Indulg l. 2. ç. 27. who cites Durand S. Antoninus and Roffensis Neither do these three which you by I know not what figure call many say as you do that Indulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity but only for the first fiue hundred yeares as Bellarmine sayth in the place by you cited therfore you take to your selfe a strange priuiledge to multiply persons and enlarge tymes and yet these Authors do not deny Indulgences And as Bellarmine answeres We ought not to say that Indulgences are not indeed Ancient because two or three Catholiques haue not read of them in Ancient Authors And you may with greater shew deny diuers Bookes of Scripture which more then three Writers did not only say they were not receiued by Antiquity but did expresly reiect them As for the thing it selfe Bellarmine sheweth that Indulgences are no lesse ancient then the (y) Vbi supra ç. 3. beginning of the Church of Christ that your owne Protestants confesse that it is hard to know when they began which is a signe of Antiquity not of Nouelty
the one is by you cited deliuer his opinion in the person of his Disciple to be directly for the infallible authority of Councels So as heer is a double corruption the one the citing words for his opinion which are not so the other the concealing those which are his and directly to the contrary Clemangis his workes are forbidden That worke of Cusanus which you (c) Concord Cathol cite he afterward retracted Panormitanus in the place (d) In cap. Significasti extra de Electione cited by you may seeme to speake of Councells disagreeing from the Pope and though he say that if the Councell erred it did not follow that the whole Church should erre because the faith might remaine in others yet that doth not conuince that he held a Generall Councell together with the Pope might erre For Canus hath the very same Obiection and Answere and yet as we shall see anon he holds it to be a matter of faith that General Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre Neuertheles if Panormitanus did hold that Generall Councells with the Pope might erre he can only be excused because he did not affirme it with pertinacity Petrus de Aliaco hath indeed (e) Quaest in Vesper art 3. the words which you cite but they are not spoken by him as his opinion but as the opinion of some others so he hath also the cleane contrary proposition viz. that a generall Councell cannot erre nor euen the Remane Church which you might as well haue alledged for his opinion as the other but the truth is that neither are alledged by him as his owne doctrine but as the opinion of others as I said which he expreslly sayth that he doth forbeare to discusse for the present contenting himselfe onely with these three Conclusions which expresse his owne opinion First that alwayes there is some Church which is ruled by the law of Christ which according to his former explication is as much as to say that there is alwayes some Church which cannot erre The second that it is not conuinced out of Scripture that any particular Church is in such manner conformed to the rule of Christs law The third is that it is conuinced out of Scripture that alwayes there is some vniuersall Church which neuer swarues from the rule of Christ Neither will it aduantage you that he teacheth that any particular Church may erre For as I haue often told you the Roman Church in the sense which I haue heertofore declared is all one with the Vniuersall Church and so his doctrine that the Vniuersall Church cannot erre directly proues that the Romane cannot erre And when he teacheth that the Vniuersall Church cannot erre he doth not distinguish betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall as you do You cite out of Canus these words I confesse (f) Canus loc lib. 5. c. 5. §. At contrà that euery Cenerall Councell doth represent the whole Church But when you vrge that the Church cannot erre it is true in that sense in which faithfull people vnderstand it which is that the whole Church together that is all faythfull people do not erre But this doth not hinder but that the greater part of the Church may erre I should scarcely haue belieued it to be possible for any man aliue who pretends to haue credit common fame to peruert the sense of this Author as you do vnles I did see with mine owne eyes both what you write and indeed what Canus affirmes For in the Chapter next precedent (g) Cap. 4. §. Tertia CoÌ„â—lusio to that which you cite he hauing affirmed that a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope makes a thing certayne and belonging to fayth in respect of vs áddeth that this Conclusion is so certayne that the coÌ„trary is hereticall which he proues by diuers good conuincing reasons and among the rest that if such a Councell could erre there were no way certaine to decide Controuersies of fayth And in the place which you cite afterward he impugnes their opinion who affirme that a Generall CouÌ„cell is infallible before it be confirmed by the Pope which they endeauoured to proue because the CouÌ„cel represents the whole Church and therfore can erre no more then the vniuersall Church it selfe To which Argument he answeres in the words which I set downe and which you alledge to proue that Canus held a Generall Councell might erre namely But when you vrge that the Church caÌ„not erre it is true in that sense in which faythfull people vnderstand it which is that the whole Church together that is all faythfull people do not erre and therefore it is euident that you bring them directly agaynst his words and meaning bring the Obiection for his answere And besides what we haue already related out of him within fiue lines after the words cited by you he sayth The Councell would be infallible if it were confirmed by the Pope I leaue it to your owne consideration what iudgement euen you would frame of any other beside your selfe if he should cite Authours in this manner 22. You haue no reason to be so much offended that we equall diuine vnwritten Traditions with the written word of God For we haue so reuerend an opinion of Gods word as that whersoeuer we find it our fayth belieues it to be most infallible nor can we belieue that pen inke and paper can add any certainty to the Truth thereof Without cause also you accuse the Romane Church of supine negligence because she hath not as yet giuen a Catalogue of vnwritten Traditions as well as of all the Bookes of Scripture For you might also condemne the Ancient Church which did not for diuers ages deliuer any Catalogue of Canonicall Bookes which yet afterward she did as occasion required And as the Councell of Trent by reason of your heresies whereby you denyed diuers Canonicall Bookes of Scripture set downe a perfect Canon of Scripture so as iust necessary occasioÌ„ may require the holy Ghost by which she is directed will not fayle to assist her in making a Catalogue of vnwritten Traditions I cannot find but that your moderne Brethren will gladly admit of some Apostolicall Traditions agaynst the Puritans and why then doe you not make a Catalogue of them as you haue done of the Bookes of Scripture Your famous Archbishop of Canterbury sayth For so much as the Originall (i) M. Witgift in his his defence c. pag. 351 beginning of these names Metropolitan Archbishop c. such is their Antiquity cannot be found so farre as I haue read it is to he supposed they haue their Originall from the Apostles themselues for as I remember S. Augustine hath this Rule in his 118. Epistle And in proofe of this Rule of S. Augustine he adds It is of credit (k) Vbi sugra pag. 352. with the Writers of our tyme namely with M. Zwinglius M. Caluin M. Gualter and surely I thinke no
pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamētall to be belieued by Christians as matters of faith wherin she can haue no certainty yea which alwayes imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also reuealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose herselfe to danger of falshood error and in fact doth alwayes erre in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwayes vncertaine if she in such things may be deceiued 12. Besides if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall which is not such or els erre in keeping and conseruing from corruptions such Scriptures as are already belieued to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphall Scripture as she deliuers there is no fundamentall error against faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of diuine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply diuine reuelation to any point not reuealed or els must yield that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she haue not been deceiued already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall haue no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be obserued that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwayes knowne to be Canonicall haue been afterward receiued for such but neuer any one Booke or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or reiected for Apocryphall A signe that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost neuer to propose as diuine truth any thing not reuealed by God that Omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not reuealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Sauiour Christ neuer hath nor neuer will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the generall promises of our Sauiour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamētall namely that the gates (m) Matt. 16.18 of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Ioan. 16.13 shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to points fundamentall and whatsoeuer general Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their Infallibility they may by D. Potters example be explicated restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be further affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe points fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is diuinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answere to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherin it deliuereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby sayth The Apostle (o) In his Sermōsserm 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speakes very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeauoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamētall because as Nature so God is neither defectiue in (p) pag. 150. necessaries nor lauish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to saluation that so God be not accused as defectiue in necessaries or lauish in superfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall leade you into all truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for euer he sayth Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151.152 directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniuersall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and belieue them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Diuinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye vnrouealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth vs to vnderstand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reueale but all pertayning to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to saluation Marke what he sayth That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles is verified in the vniuersall Church but by all truth is not vnderstood simply all but all appertayning to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to saluation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be vnderstood only of all truth absolutly necessary to saluation consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as diuine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the sayd promise to be verifyed in the Churh And as he limits the aforesayd wordes to points fundamentall so may he restrayne what other text soeuer that can be brought for the vniuersall infallibility of the Apostles or Seriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receiue this answere of his owne from himseife How many truths lye vnreuealed in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be vnderstood of truths absolutely necessary to Saluation Are not these fearefull cōsequences And yet D. Potter will neuer be able to auoyd them till he come to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in al points by her proposed as diuine truths thus it is vniuersally true that she is lead into al truth in regard that our Sauiour neuer permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Booke or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it containe no fundamentall errour yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the
consequeÌ„ce because if once we doubt of one Booke receiued for Canonicall the whole Canon is made doubtfull and vncertayne and therefore the Infallibility of Scripture must be vniuersall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15. I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receaued for such I may doubt of all And thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches Infallibility in some points we could not belieue her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof belieue that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intended to proue Yet I add that Protestants cannot make vse of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend For if D. Potter can tell what points in particuler be fundamentall as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoeuer he meets with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Saluation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary Truths are eyther manifestly contayned therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which doctrines being put togeather to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particuler be such I meane fundamentall it is manifest that it is sussicieÌ„t for Saluation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to saluation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to auoyde this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particuler till they belieue that Christs promises to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16. Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant learned or vnlearned doth or can with assurance belieue the vniuersall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser momeÌ„t which they call not fundamentall because they belieue that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they go to learne of her least other wise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certaine and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselues to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learne not of her but will be be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Sauiour himselfe counselled and commaunded to seeke to heare to obey the Church S. Augustine was of a very different mind from Protestants If sayth he the (s) Epist. 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnes And in another place he sayth That which (t) lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds and is not ordained by CouÌ„cels but hath alwaies beene kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proued by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be belieued as deriued from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the (u) lib. 10. de Genesi ad liter cap. 23. Church saith he in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be belieued vnles it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ (w) Serm. 54. de verbis Apost c. 18. is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not belieuing But God forbid that I should say Infants doe not belieue I haue already sayd he belieues in another who sinned in another It is sayd he belieues it is of force and he is reckoned among the faythfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this stâ—eÌ„gth against this inuincible wal whosoeuer rusheth shal be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the CoÌ„ference at Ratisbon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino (x) See Protocoll Monac edit 2. pag. 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus In this we plainely disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but deliuered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner We follow (y) lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 33. indeed in this matter euen the most certaine authority of Canonicall Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet euen in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to vs. AmoÌ„g many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we proue some points not particulerly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church euen in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therfore relying on her we rely on Scripture without danger of being deceiued by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And else where he sayth Seing this is (z) De vnit Eccles c. 19. written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speake the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresy wherin he coÌ„tradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now
say to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of fayth For if he doe his fayth for point of beliefe is sufficient for saluation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether he hold all fundamentall points or no For til you tel me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretikes But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth Are you sure of that not sure I hould it very probable (y) pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or euen wagers This yields a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contayne all points necessary to be belieued whether they rest in the vnderstanding or else do further extend to practise No. It was cōposed to deliuer Credenda not Agenda to vs Fayth not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to saluation Still you chalke out new pathes for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particuler be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answere to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertaine (z) pag. 211.213.214 to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly belieued by euery Christian that will be saued They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make vp our Fayth in Christ that is that common fayth which is alike precious in all being one the same in the highest Apostle the meanest belieuer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God and the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I vnderstand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell vs what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet vnlesse you do this your Doctrine serues onely either to make men despaire or els to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and who giue one certaine Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Fayth in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with saluation And seing your selfe acknowledges that these men do not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to loyne with them for the securing of my soule and the auoyding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who vnderstand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which heer I haue made are either your owne direct Assertions or euident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let vs answere some few Obiections of D. Potters against that which we haue said before to auoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he sayth The Creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21. This answere makes for vs. For by giuing a reason why it was needles that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles iudged it needles to expresse all necessary points of fayth in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Bookes in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had neuer been written and which is more the Creed euen in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles conteined in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tels vs that the Creed (b) pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are deliuered in Scripture therfore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliuer the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other vnlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctours cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told vs it was needles that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth therby sufficiently auow the diuine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would aske him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines deliuered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needles to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of diuine authority but we are also bound vnder paine of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Bookes not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answere grants as much as we desire which is that all points of fayth are not contained in the Apostles Creed euen as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no wayes contained in the Apostles Creed and therfore containe an Addition not an Explanation therof 23. But how can it be necessary sayth D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the (c) pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their tymes I answere You trifle not distinguish betweene the Apostles beliefe and that abridgement of some Articles of fayth which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you begg the question by supposing that the Apostles belieued no more then is contained in their Creed which euery vnlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons 24. Your pretended proofe out of the Acts that the Apostles reuealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God keeping (d) Act. 20.27
your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Concilijs part prima sayth that he vnderstands not the Holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon it sayth that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to haue wiues Hath sayth he the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells but to binde and loade his Ministers which impossblie dangerous and vnnecessary lawes I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes wil be vnderstood by Protestants in a farre different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree how Baptisme forgiues sinnes nor what grace it confers Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as (m) lib. de Haeres in 69. to rebaptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the vniuersall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void euen in the very Heretiques thēselues In which few words this holy Father deliuereth agaynst the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants That to make an Heresy or an Heretique knowne for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of Gods Church That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is hereticall and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be cōuinced for such out of Scripture And that neyther the Heresy of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not containe all points of fayth necessary to saluation And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnity of fayth and Spirit in the same Church vnles there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of fayth and in externall profession and Communion also wherof we are to speake in the next Chapter according to the saying of S. Augustine You are (n) Aug. ep 48. with vs in Baptisme and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Vnity and bond of peace and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with vs. CHAP. V. That Luther Caluin their associates and all vvho began or continue the separation from the externall Cōmunion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how vnwilling mindes we Catholiques are drawne to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whoses soules if they employed their best bloud they would iudge that it could not be better spent If we reioyce that they are contristated at such titles our ioy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contristated to repentance that so after vnpartiall examination they finding themselues to be what we say may by Gods holy grace beginne to dislike what themselues are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt vncharitable bitternes pernicious flatery not yielding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but vttering the substance of truth in so Caritable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speake according to the wholesome aduise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these diuine words We doe not affect peace with (a) Orat. 32. preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and milde yet we seeke to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and contayning our selues within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these thinges my iudgement is and for my part I prescribe the same Law to all that deale with soules and treate of true doctrine that neyther they exasperate mens minds by harshnes nor make thē haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of fayth they behaue themselues prudently and aduisedly and doe not in eyther of these things exceed the meane With whome agreeth S. Leo saying It be houeth vs in such causes to be (b) Epist 8. most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserued and Truth maintayned 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnes grieuousnes or so to terme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell vs who may without iniury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnes or quantity such as find themselues guilty therof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and whether they may conceiue any hope of saluation or no. And because Schisme wil be found to be a diuision from the Church which could not happen vnles there were alwayes a visible Church we wil Thirdly proue or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been such a Visible Congregation of Faythfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Caluin and the rest did separate themselues from the Communion of that alwayes visible Church of Christ and therfore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it euident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same diuision are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3. For the first point touching the Nature 1. Point or Quality of Schisme as the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in similitude with God as his last End and Felicity The nature of Schisme and by hauing the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is vnited to God by Fayth his Will by Charity The former relies vpon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth vs to his infinite Goodnes Fayth hath a deadly opposite Heresy Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Diuision Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it vniteth vs to our Neighbour his contrary is Separation or diuision of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one priuate person hath a single relation to another or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation which we call the Church and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another because the chiefest Vnity is that
corruptions in doctrine I still speake vpon the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries could not affoard any sufficieÌ„t cause or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can erre in points fundamentall as we shewed out of his owne expresse words which he also of set purpose deliuereth in diuers other places and all they are obliged to maintaine the same who teach that Christ had alwayes a visible Church vpon earth because any one fundamentall error ouerthrowes the being of a true Church Now as Schoolemen speake it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plaine that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say a liuing dead man to affirme that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to saluation or damnably yet that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any fundamentall Article of Fayth the beliefe therof cannot be damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Fayth Therfore it cannot be damnable to remaine in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schisme who vpon preteÌ„ce of necessity in point of conscience forsooke her And D. Potter will neuer be able to salue a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church (a) Pag. 75. of Rome in some Doctrine and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to saluation For if notwithstanding these doctrines and practises she wanted nothing necessary to saluation how could it be necessary to saluation to forsake her And therfore we must still coÌ„ clude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schisme 20. From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation vpon pretence that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine as long as for the truth of her Fayth and beliefe she performeth the duty which she oweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Sauiour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to do But euen according to D Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall Therefore the Communion of the Visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnatioÌ„ vpon pretence that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine The Maior or first Proposition of it selfe is euident The Minor or second Proposition doth necessarily fellow out of D. Potters owne doctrine aboue rehearsed That the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be (b) Pag. 151. extended only to points of Fayth or fundamentall Let me note heer by the way that by his Or he seemes to exclude from Fayth all points which are not fundamentall so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is (c) pag. 155. comfort inough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph ouer all sinne and error till she be in heauen For it is euident that the Church for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Sauiour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to do more then God doth assist her to doe which assistaÌ„ce is promised only for points fundamentall and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error her CoÌ„munion cannot without damnation be forsakeÌ„ And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against vs where he sayth (d) pag. 221. May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heauen narrowier then our Sauiour left it c since he himselfe obligeth men vnder paine of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errours against which our Sauiour thought it needles to promise his assistance and for which he neither denieth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to do more then she may euen hope for or to performe on earth that which is proper to heauen alone 21. And as from your owne doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points we haue proued that it was a grieuous sinne to forsake her so doe we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church which any man in his wits will belieue to be indued with at last as much infallibility as priuate men can challenge and D. Potter expressely affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended (e) Pag. 1â—1 to any particuler persons or Churches and therefore to leaue the Church by reason of errours was at the best hand but to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing ouer errours and without necessity or vtility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine sayth There is (f) Ep. conâ— Parmen lth 2. çap. 11. no iust necessity to diuide Vnity Which will appeare to be much more euident if we coÌ„sider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines yet to leaue her Communion to remedy the old were but to add a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods because the truth is but one indiuisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that euen according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall in which any priuate Reformer may faile and therfore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose Communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and euen into damnable errors Remember I pray you what your selfe affirmes Pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remaine there and beere are taken away Yet neither heere perfectly nor euery where alike Behold a faire coÌ„fession of corruptioÌ„s still remayning in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundameÌ„tal as like wise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall What man of iudgment wil be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt One 22. I still proceed to impugne you expresly vpon your grounds
Peter died Bishop of Rome is so weake that himselfe sayth only suadere videtur it seemes to perswade This Bellarmine sayth only of one reason besides which he bringeth diuers other demonstrations neither is it necessary for the certainty of any truth that euery reason for it be euident And it is the doctrine of Philosophers that the best methode is to begin with probable Arguments and then to ascend to demonstrations Moreouer in this very subiect Vdalricus Velenus a Lutheran wrote a Booke to proue that S. Peter was neuer at Rome and to that purpose he brings eighteen reasons which he calls Persuasions yet he holds them for euident Demonstrations If then Bellarmine out of his great modesty say that his first reason seemes to persuade must you thence inferre that it doth not demonstrate And indeed it is a very good and solid argument After this you go forward and cite Bellarmine saying There God cōmanded him to fixe his Chaire to leaue his full Power to his heyres and Successours the Popes And then you adde But what certainty of this Indeed saith Bellarmine it is no where (r) De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Ob seruandum est tertiò expressed in Scripture that the Pope you should add of Rome as Bellarmine hath it succeeds Peter therefore happily it is not of diuine right that he succeeds him Yet it is not improbable that (s) Ibid. § Et quontam God commanded him to fasten his Seate at Rome and it may be deuoutly so belieued And it may be truly belieued that you corrupt Bellarmine First when you speake of Popes you leaue out of Rome in which word consisteth the maine point For Bellarmine teaches that it is most certaine and de iure diuino that S. Peter should haue Popes to succeed him but he holdeth it not so certaine whether it be of diuine institution that his Successour should be Pope of Rome that is haue his Seate fixed at Rome although de facto it be there Bellarmines wordes are It is not all one that a thing be a point of fayth and that it be of diuine institution For it was not a diuine Law that S. Paul should haue a cloake yet it is a point of fayth that S. Paul had a Cloake Though then it be not exprsly contained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter thus far you goe and leaue out the words immediately following which explicate the whole matter Yet it is euidently deduced out of Scripture that some must succeed S. Peter but that he who succeeds him is the Bishop of Rome we know by the Apostolicall Tradition of S. Peter which Tradition Generall Councels Decrees of Popes and Consent of Fathers haue declared as heerafter shall be demonstrated And according to this cleere explication he said a little before Because S. Marcellus Pope in his Epistle ad Antiochenos writes that S. Peter came to Rome by the Commandment of our Lord and S. Ambrose (t) In Orat. cont Auxētium and S. Athanasius (u) In Apolog pro fuga sua affirme that S. Peter suffered Martyrdome at Rome by the commandment of Christ it is not improbable that our Lord did also expresly command that S. Peter should so settle his Seate at Rome that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him But howsoeuer this be at lest this manner of Succession proceeds not from the first institution of the Popedome which is deliuered in Scripture Do you not see what Bellarmine deliuers for certaine what for lesse certaine It is certaine that S. Peter must haue Successours it is certaine that in fact his Successour is the Bishop of Rome but it is not so certaine that by diuine institution his Successour is the Bishop of Rome but that might proceed from the act of S. Peter who actually liued and died Bishop of Rome though he might haue chosen some other particular Diocesse These things Bellarmine deliuers very cleerly but you do so inuolue his words as one would belieue that he held it for vncertaine whether actually the Pope of Rome be S. Peters Successour or whether it be certaine and of diuine institution that S. Peter left any Successour at all both which are plainely against his meaning and expresse words 31. Your other obiections are so old and triuiall that they deserue no Answere I sayd already that in time of Schisme the Church hath power to declare or elect a true and vndoubted Pope and in the meane tyme God in his Prouidence can gouerne his Church without new definitions of Popes of which there is not alwayes so precise necessity as that the Church may not subsist without thē for a time as for three hundred yeares from the Apostles tymes she was without any one Generall Councell and as the Iewes for two thousand yeares were without Scripture If any should enter symonically be accepted by the Churh as Pope God will eyther not permit him to define any matter of fayth or els will assist him not to erre perniciously not for his owne sake but in respect of the Church which cannot be ledde into errour as she might if that reputed Pope could define a falshood because the members are obliged to conforme themselues to one whome they esteeme their Head And you your selfe must say the same For since all the spirituall Power and Iurisdiction of your first Prelates was deriued from Rome you must affirme that a Pope accepted for such by the Church is sufficiently enabled for all necessary acts and functions notwithstanding that secret impediment For otherwise you might endanger the Authority of your owne Prelates And the same you must in proportion say of all publique Magistrates The same answere serues to your other Obiectiō that we are not sure whether he that is elected Pope be baptized For it belongs to Gods prouidence not to permit any whome the Church hath elected for her head to erre perniciously though indeed your suppositions are neuer to be admitted but we are to belieue that whosoeuer in a tyme free from Schisme is accepted by the Church for true Pope is such indeed And I wonder you doe not reflect that these obiections are also against your owne Bishops Or if you say that your spirituall Iurisdiction comes from the Temporall Prince the same difficulty wil remaine cōcerning him For I suppose you will not say that one who is not baptized and consequently not a Christian can meerly by vertue of his Temporall Power giue spirituall Iurisdiction And though you say that it is not want of intention in the Minister which can make voyde the Sacrament of Baptisme yet you will not deny but that there may be other essentiall defects hindring the validity therof as for example if by error the water be so mingled that it be not elementall water or if the forme of the words in Baptisme be not pronounced entierely c. For in your forme of Publique Baptisme
heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particuler point deliuered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques sayth The (a) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be belieued to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the vniuersall Church obserueth which are therfore with good reason belieued to haue beene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleere is S. Chrysostome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess 2. Stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our Epistle saith Hence it is (b) Hom. 4. manifest that they deliuered not all things by letter but many things also without writing these also are worthy of beliefe Let vs therfore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome saying I answere (c) De Sacra Script pag. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father But let vs conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approue any error against fayth or good manners The Church sayth he being (d) Ep. 119. placed betwixt much chasse cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor do those things which are against fayth or good life 17. And as I haue proued that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yield infallible assent to the Church in any one point so by the same reason I proue that they cannot rely vpon Scripture it selfe in any one point of sayth Not in points of lesser moment or not fundamentall because in such points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may erre thinke it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in points fundamentall because they must first know what points be fundamentall before they can be assured that they cannot erre in vnderstanding the Scripture and consequently independantly of Scripture they must foreknow all fundamentall points of fayth and therfore they do not indeed rely vpon Scripture either for fundamentall or not fundamentall points 18. Besides I mainely vrge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell vs of certaine points which they call fundamentall and we cannot wrest from them a list in particuler of such points without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of saluation And which is most lamentable insteed of giuing vs such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselues about the making of it 19. Caluin holds the (e) Instit. l. 4. çap. 2. Popes Primacy Inuocation of Saints Freewill and such like to be fundamentall errors ouerthrowing the Gospell Others are not of his mind as Melancthon who sayth in (f) Cent. Ep. Theolog. cp 74. the opinion of himselfe and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of vse or profit to this end that Consent of Doctrine may be retained An agreement therfore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed vpon If the Popes Primacy be a meanes that consent of Doctrine may be retained first submit to it and other articles wil be easily agreed vpon Luther also sayth of the Popes Primacy it may be borne (g) In Assertionibus art 36. withâ—â— And why then O Luther did you not beare with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme who chose rather to deuide Gods Church then to beare with that which you confesse may be borne withall But let vs go forward That the doctrine of free-will Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Worship and Inuocation of Saints Reall presence Transubstantiation Receauing vnder one kind Satisfaction and Merit of workes and the Masse be not fundamentall Errours is taught respectiuè by diuers Protestants carefully alledged in the Protestants (h) Tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. after F. Apology c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulke Henry Spark Goade Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindall Francis Fohnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian fayth so called by ProtestaÌ„ts which I mentioned (i) Cap. 1. n. 4. heertofore wherin we are damned vnto vnquencheable fire for the doctrine of Masse Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-seruice Mans merit with such like IustificatioÌ„ by saith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the (k) Chark in the Tower disputation the 4. dayes conference Church The only principall origen of (l) Fox Act. Monn pag. 402. Saluation of all other points of (m) The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 253. dectrine the chiefest and weightiâ—st Which yet as we haue seen is coÌ„trary to other Protestants who teach that merit of good workes is not a fundamentall Errour yea diuers Protestants defend merit of good works as may be seene in (n) Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder nt n. 15. Brereley One would thinke that the Kings Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their liues was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his booke agaynst Bellarmine tells vs that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines And Wotton denies that Protestants (o) In his answere to a Popish pamphlet p. 68. Hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of fayth O freedome of the new Ghospell Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritanes neyther Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saued Some as Castalio (p) Vid. Gul. Reginald Caln Turcism lib. 2. çap. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants hold that doctrines about the Supper Baptisme the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and diuers other such questions are not necessary to SaluatioÌ„ And that you may obserue how vngrounded and partiall their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Reall presence of our Sauiours Body in the SacrameÌ„t as it is belieued by Catholiques is a fundamentall errour and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstaÌ„ding that diuers chiefe Lutherans to their Consubstantiation ioyne the prodigious Heresy of Vbiquitation D. Vshher in
as about the Canon of Scripture c. as also between Protestants and Puritans c. And I could put you in mind of your Brethren who teach that for diuers Ages the visible Church perished and yet S. Augustine teacheth that there is nothing more euident in Scripture then the Vniuersality of the Church as also who deny that Bishops are by diuine Institution who oppose your whole Hierarchy as Antichristian who differ from you in the forme of Ordination of Ministers all which are fundamental points But I will refer the Reader to the most exact Brereley who (z) Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder ◠reckons no fewer then seauenty seauen differences amōg you punctually citing the Bookes and pages where you may find them And yet for the present I will set downe some words of Doctor Willet testifying your differences From this fountaine sayth he haue sprung (a) In his meditation vpō the 122. Psa pag. 91. forth these and such like whirle-points and bubbles of new doctrine as for example that the Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know That they are not alone complete to euerlasting felicity That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God That there are works of Supererogation That the Church of Rome as it now standeth is the family of Christ That Idolaters and wicked Heretiques are members of the visible Church let D. Potter heere remember what himselfe sayth of the Roman Church and what he relateth about the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton that among Heretiques there may be a true Church That there is in Ordination giuen a indeleble Character That they haue power to make Christs body That Sacraments are necessary in their place and no lesse required then beliefe it selfe That the soules of Infants dying without Baptisme are damned c. Do you thinke that the necessity of Baptisme and other Sacraments the sufficiency of sole Scripture which your English Clergy professeth at their Ordination and those other points are but small matters But besides these and many more there are two other maine generall transcendent differences among you The one whether you do not differ in maine points which though you deny yet others affirme The other what be maine or fundamentall points Vpon which two differences i◠will necessarily follow that you cannot know whether you haue the same substance of fayth and hope of saluation or no. But though your differences were all reduced to one and that how small soeuer that one were sufficient to exclude Vnity of faith among you as I haue often said and proued I haue no mind to spend time in telling you how vn-scholler-like you say Two brothers (b) Pag. 87. in their choller may renounce ech other and disclaime their amity yet that heat cannot dissolue their inward and essentiall relation For when a mans Brother dyes doth he loose any essentiall relation I alwayes thought that essentiall relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong and the essence from them and a man who still remaynes a man may yet cease to be a Brother It is therfore no essentiall relation 24. I grant that Differences in Ceremonies or discipline do not alwayes infer diuersity of fayth yet when one part condemnes the Rites and discipline of the other as Antichristian or repugnant to Gods word as it hapneth among Protestants then differences in Ceremontes redound to a diuersity in fayth 25. Luther tempered by (c) Pag. 93. mild Melancthon that honour of Germany did much relent and remit of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius and began to approue the good Counsels of peace If inconstancy concerning matters of Fayth be Mildnes Melancton was I grant extremely mild in which respect he was noted euen by Protestāts was disliked by Luther How much Luther relented of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius let himselfe declare in these words which you could not but read in Charity-Mistaken I hauing now one of my feet (d) Pag. 53. in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God That I will with all my heart condemne and eschew Carolostadius Zwinglius Oecolampadius and their disciples nor will I haue familiarity with any of them eyther by letter writing words nor deeds accordingly as the Lord hath commanded If in Polonia the followers of Luther and Caluin haue long liued together in concord as you would haue vs belieue the thing being really not true they must thanke the good Catholique King vnder whome they liue who is able and apt to punish when there is great excesse But if they had the raynes in their owne hand what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that Kingdome then is found in other places where they haue more power In Polonia there are many Arians and Trinitarians who liue in outward concord with the rest But will you acknowledge them for Brethren to Lutherans Caluinists and your selfe The answere will be hardly made if you sticke to your owne grounds and I may well passe on to the rest CHAP. IIII. YOVR very beginning promiseth small sincerity in that which followes For you make Charity-Mistaken say that Protestants be Heretiques at the lest if not Infidels wheras he only sayth substantially proueth that whosoeuer doth disbelieue any one Article of fayth doth not assent to all the rest by diuine infallible fayth but by an humane perswasion which is a point of great consideration and of which it seemes you are very loath to speake 2. You take much paines to proue what we do not deny For it maketh nothing to the purpose whether or no the Proposition of the Church belong to the formall Obiect of fayth as heertofore I haue told you Nor do we deny Scripture to containe all mattes of fayth if it be rightly vnderstood because Scripture among other Verities doth also recommend vnto vs the Church diuine Traditions though they be vnwritten And you egregiously falsify (a) Pag. 99. Edit 1. Bellarmine as if he excluded the Authority of the Church wheras in the place by you cited de verb. Dei lib. 1. c. 2. he only speakes against the priuate spirit and euen there proues out of S. Augustine that God will haue vs learne of other men We likewise teach that tho Church doth not make any new Articles of fayth but only propounds and declares to vs the old Only I would haue you heere consider that whether or no Scripture be the sole Rule of fayth or whether fayth be resolued into diuine Reuelation alone or els partly into the Proposition of the Church all is one for the maine Question whether persons of diuers Religions can be saued For this remaineth vndoubted that it cannot be but damnable to oppose any truth sufficiently declared to be contained in Scripture or reuealed by God 3. No lesse impertinent is your other discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For
we grant that it is not alwayes easy to determine in particuler occasions whether this or that doctrine be such Because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or diuine Tradition or Definition of the Church and much more whether the person be an Heretique which requireth certaine conditions as Capacity Pertinacy sufficient Proposition c. which are not alwayes so easily explicated and discerned and for these respects S. Augustine in the place cited (b) Pag. 102. by you had good reason to say That it is hard to know what makes an Heretique But it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter to giue a generall definition of Heresy or Heretique since in this very Section you dispatch it quickly saying He is iustly (c) Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretique who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded Or as you say else where It is fundamentall (d) Pag. 250. to a Christians Fayth and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God wherof he may be conuinced that they are from God Nay if you will speake with coherence to your owne grounds it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable Heresy for you I say who measure all Heresy by opposition to Scripture and further affirme that Scripture is cleere in all fundamentall points For by this meanes it will be easy for you to discerne what error opposeth those fundamental Truths which are cleerly contained in Scripture 4. In your discourse concerning the Controuersy between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian you shew a great deale of passion against the Roman Church which you impugne out of an Epistle of Firmilianus who at that time was a party against the Pope and who in particuler did afterward recant togeather with the other Bishops who once ioyned with S. Cyprian as we haue already shewed out of S. Hierome may be also seen in an Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusch hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherin Firmilianus in particular is named therfore you are inexcusable who say they persisted in their opinion wheras the proceeding of S. Stephen was necessary to preuent a pernicious error of rebaptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretiques which afterward was condemned by the whole Church And as for S. Cyprians mild proceeding which you so much commend out of your ill will to S. Stephen because he was Pope S. Augustine saith The things which (e) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. Cyprian in anger hath spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. Wherfore you could not haue picked out an example more in fauour of Popes then this And you must giue vs leaue not to credit what you say That both Stephen and Cyprian erred in some sense For Stephen only affirmed that Baptisme was not inualide precisely because it is giuen by Heretiques as S. Cyprian affirmed it to be but yet if the Heretiques erred either in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme Stephen neuer affirmed such Baptisme to be valid which had been more then he granted euen to the Baptisme of Catholiques 5. Your Argument to proue that (f) Pag. 112. concerning our greater safety we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholiques I haue answered (g) Cap. 7. num 7. in the First Part. You would make men belieue that we are like the Donatists who washed Church wall and vestments of Catholiques broke their Chalices scraped their Altars c. But I pray you consider whether Chalices Vestments Palls or Corporals and Altars do expresse the Protestant Church of England Scotland Geneua Holland c. or the Church of Rome 6. You spend diuers pages in propounding Arguments for the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton That whersoeuer a company of men (h) Pag. 113. doe iointly professe the substance of Christian Religion which is fayth in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mynd and will there is a Church wherein Saluation may be had notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practise yea although it be of that nature that it seeme to fight with the very foundation and so haynous as that in respect thereof the people stayned with this corruption are worthy to be abhorred of all men and vnworthy to be called the Church of God But because these and such monstruous Assertions proceed from other errours which I haue already both cleerly and at large confuted to wit the Fallibility of the Church the Distinction of points fundamental and not fundamentall c. I referre you to those places and heere onely obserue into what precipices they fall who deny the vniuersall Infallibility of the Church And it is strange that you your selfe did not see the manifest contradictions inuolued in this wicked doctrine For how can it be a Church wherein Saluation may be had and yet be vnworthy to be called the Church of God How can that man haue fayth in Iesus Christ with submission to his doctrine in mind and will who is supposed to ioyne with his beliefe in Iesus Christ other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against Gods word or Reuelation Can submission in mind or will or obseruation of his Commandments stand with actuall voluntary error against his word Is it not a prime Commandment to belieue Gods word Do not your selfe affirme that it is Infidelity to deny whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture How then can a Church be said to haue meanes for saluation and life wherin is wanting Fayth the first ground of saluation The Fathers sometimes called the Donatists Brethren by reason of their true Baptisme not for their possibility to be saued according as S. Augustine said to them The Sacraments of Christ (i) Epist 48. do not make thee an Heretique but thy wicked disagreement And Optatus sayth You cannot (k) Lib. 4◠but be our brethren whom the same Mother the Church hath begotten in the same bowels of Sacraments whom God our Father hath in the same manner receiued as adopted Children namely on his behalfe and for as much as concernes the vertue of Baptisme The Conclusion of your discourse may well beseeme the doctrine for which you bring it A learned man (l) Pag. 122. anciently was made a Bishop of the Catholique Church although he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies You might haue added that he would not belieue that the world should euer haue an end and further absolutely refused to be baptized And that he would not as the History recoūteth liue a single life as other Priests but that he would liue with a wife For Synesius who is the man you meane publiquely protested all these things and you are wise inough to take only what might seeme to serue your turne as this concerning the single liues of Priests did not because it sheweth that in those