The State of the Question; vvith a Summary of the reasons for vvhich amongst men of different Religi­ons, one side onely can be saued. CHAP. I.

NEVER is Malice more indis­creet, then when it chargeth others with imputation of that, to which it selfe becoms more liable, euen by that very act of accusing others. For, though guiltines be the effect of some errour, yet vsually it begets a kind of Moderation, so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions vpon others, as must apparant­ly reflect vpon themselues. Thus cannot the [Page 26]Poet endure,Quis tulerit Gracchum &c. that Gracchus, who was a factious and vnquiet man, should be inueighing against Sedition: and the Roman Oratour rebukes Phi­losophers who, to wax glorious, superscribed their Names vpon those very Bookes which they entitled, Of the contempt of glory. What then shall we say of D. Potter, who in the Title, and Text of his whole Booke doth so tragically charge Want of Charity on all such Romanists, as dare affirme, that Protestancy destroyeth Saluation; while he himselfe is in act of pronouncing the like heauy doome against Roman Catholiques? For, not satisfied with much vnciuil language, in affirming the Roman Church many Pag. 11. wayes to haue played the Harlot, and in that regard deser­ued a bill of diuorce from Christ, and detestation of Christians; in stiling her, that proud Ibid. and curst Dame of Rome, which takes vpon her to reuell in the House of God; in talking of an Idoll Pag. 4. Edit. 1. to be wor­shiped at Rome; he comes at length to thun­der out this fearefull sentence against her: For that Pag. 20 Masse of Errors (saith he) in iudgment and practise, which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from vs, we iudge a reconciliation impossible, and to vs (who are conuicted in conscience of her cor­ruptions) damnable. And in another place he saith: For vs who Pag. 81. are conuinced in conscience, that she ers in many things, a necessity lyes vpon vs, euen vnder paine of damnation, to forsake her in those Errors By the acerbity of which Censure, he doth not only make himselfe guilty of that, [Page 27]which he iudgeth to be a haynous offence in others, but freeth vs also from all colour of crime by this his vnaduised recrimination. For, if Roman Catholikes be likewise conuicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants; they may, and must, in conformity to the Doctours owne rule, iudge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable. And thus, all the Want of Cha­rity so deeply charged on vs, dissolues it selfe in­to this poore wonder, Roman Catholiques belieue in their conscience, that the Religion which they pro­fesse is true, and the contrary false.

2. Neuerthelesse, we earnestly desire, and take care, that our doctrine may not be defa­med by misinterpretation. Far be it from vs, by way of insultation, to apply it against Prote­stants, otherwise then as they are comprehen­ded vnder the generality of those who are di­uided from the only one true Church of Christ our Lord, within the Communion whereof he hath confined saluation. Neither do we vnder­stand, why our most deere Country men should be offended, if the Vniuersality be particula­rized vnder the Name of Protestants, first giuenSleïdan. l. 6. fol. 84. to certaine Lutherans, who protesting that they would stand out against the Imperiall de­crees, in defence of the Confession exhibited at Ausburge, were termed Protestants, in re­guard of such their protesting: which Confessio Augustana disclayming from, and being dis­claymed by Caluinists, and Zuinglians, our na­ming [Page 28]or exemplifying a generall doctrine vnder the particuler name of Protestantisme, ought not in any particuler manner to be odious in England.

3. Moreouer, our meaning is not, as misin­formed persons may conceiue, that we giue Protestants ouer to reprobation; that we offer no prayers in hope of their saluation; that we hold their case desperate. God forbid! We hope, we pray for their Conuersion; and some­times we find happy effects of our charitable desires. Neither is our Censure immediatly di­rected to particuler persons. The Tribunall of particuler Iudgment is Gods alone. When any man esteemed a Protestant, leaueth to liue in this world, we do not instantly with precipita­tion auouch, that he is lodged in Hell. For we are not alwayes acquainted with what suffi­ciency or meanes he was furnished for instru­ction; we do not penetrate his capacity to vn­derstand his Catechist; we haue no reuelation what light might haue cleered his errours, or Contrition retracted his sinnes, in the last mo­ment before his death. In such particuler cases, we wish more apparent signes of saluation but do not giue any dogmaticall sentence of perdi­tion How grieuous sinnes, Disobedience, Schis­me, and Heresy are, is well knowne. But to dis­cerne how far the naturall malignity of those great offences might be checked by Ignorāce, or by some such lessening circumstance, is the [Page 29]office, rather of Prudence, then of Faith.

4. Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity, as D. Potter spares vs, for whom, in the words aboue mentioned, and else where, heSee Pag. 39. makes Ignorāce the best hope of saluation. Much lesse comfort, can we expect from the fierce do­ctrine of those chiefe Protestants, who teach that for many ages before Luther, Christ had no visible Church vpon earth. Not these men alone, or such as they, but euen the 39. Articles, to which the English Protestant Clergy sub­scribes, censure our beliefe so deeply, that Igno­rance can scarce, or rather not at all, excuse vs from damnation. Our doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, is affirmed to be repugnant to the plaine words ofArt. 28. Scripture; our Masses to be blas­phemousArt. 31. Fables, with much more to be seen in the Articles themselues. In a certaine Con­fession of the Christian faith, at the end of their bookes of Psalmes collected into Meeter, and printed Cum priuilegio Regis Regali, they call vs Idolaters, and limmes of Antichrist; and hauing set downe a Catalogue of our doctrines, they conclude that for thē we shall after the General Resurrection be damned to vnquenchable fire.

5. But yet lest any man should flatter him­selfe with our charitable Mitigations, and ther­by waxe careles in search of the true Church, we desire him to reade the Conclusion of the Se­cond Part, where this matter is more explayned.

6. And, because we cannot determine, [Page 30]what Iudgmēt may be esteemed rash, or prudent, except by weighing the reasons vpon which it is grounded, we will heere, vnder one aspect, present a Summary of those Principles, from which we infer, that Protestancy in it selfe vn­repented destroyes Saluation: intending after­ward to proue the truth of euery one of the grounds, till, by a concatenation of sequels, we fall vpon the Conclusion, for which we are char­ged with Want of Charity.

7. Now, this is our gradation of reasons. Almighty God, hauing ordained Mankind to a supernaturall End of eternall felicity; hath in his holy Prouidence setled competent and con­uenient Meanes, whereby that end may be at­tained. The vniuersall grand Origen of all such meanes, is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Sauiour, whereby he merited internall grace for vs; and founded an externall visible Church, prouided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for Saluation. From hence it followeth, that in this Church amongst other aduantages, there must be some effectuall meanes to beget, and conserue fayth, to maintaine Vnity, to discouer and condemne Heresies, to appease and reduce Schismes, and to determine all Controuersies in Religion. For without such meanes, the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to saluation, not God affoard sufficient meanes to attayne that End, to which himselfe ordained Man­kind. [Page 31]This meanes to decide Controuersies in fayth and Religion (whether it should be the holy Scripture, or whatsoeuer else) must be indued with an Vniuersall Infallibility, in whatsoeuer it propoundeth for a diuine truth, that is, as reuealed, spoken, or testifyed by Almighty God, whether the matter of its na­ture, be great or small. For if it were subiect to errour in any one thing, we could not in a­ny other yield it infallible assent; because we might with good reason doubt, whether it chanced not to erre in that particuler.

8. Thus farre all must agree to what we haue said, vnlesse they haue a mind to reduce Faith to Opinion. And euen out of these grounds alone, without further proceeding, it vndeny­ably followes, that of two men dissenting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many, the one cannot be saued without repentance, vnles Ignorance accidentally may in some par­ticuler person, plead excuse. For in that case of cōtrary beliefe, one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods word, or Reuelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstāding by an infallible Propounder; which oppositiō to the Testimony of God is vndoutedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise, the thing so testifyed, be in it selfe great or small. And thus we haue already made good, what was promised in the argument of this Chapter, that amongst men of different Reli­gions, one is only capable of being saued.

9. Neuertheles, to the end that men may know in particular what is the sayd infallible meanes vpon which we are to rely in all things concerning Fayth, and accordingly may be able to iudge in what safety or danger, more or lesse they liue; and because D. Potter descen­deth to diuers particulers about Scriptures and the Church &c. we will go forward, & proue, that although Scripture be in it selfe most sa­cred, infallible, & diuine; yet it alone cannot be to vs a Rule, or Iudge, fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Re­ligion; but that there must be some externall, visible, publique, liuing Iudge, to whome all sorts of persons both l [...]a [...]ned & vnlearned, may without danger of [...]our, haue recourse; and in whose Iudgment they may rest, for the in­terpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Reuclation. And this liuing Iudge, we will most euidently proue to be no other, but that Holy, Catholique, Apostolique, and Visible Church, which our Sauiour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud.

10. If once therefore it be granted, that the Church is that means, which God hath left for deciding all Cōtrouersies in faith, it manifestly will follow, that she must be infallible in all her determinations, whether the matters of thēsel­ues be great or small; because as we sayd aboue, it must be agreed on all sides, that if that mea­nes which God hath left to determine Contro­uersies [Page 33]were not infallible in all things propo­sed by it as truths reuealed by Almighty God, it could not settle in our minds a firme, and infal­lible beliefe of any one.

11. From this Vniuersall Infallibility of God's Church it followeth, that whosoeuer wittingly denieth any one point proposed by her, as reuealed by God, is iniurious to his di­uine Maiesty, as if he could either deceiue, or be deceiued in what he testifieth. The auerring whereof were not only a fundamentall error, but would ouerthrow the very foundation of all fundamentall points, and therefore with­out repentance could not possibly stand with saluation.

12 Out of these grounds, we will shew, that although the distinction of points funda­mentall, and not fundamentall, be good and vse­full, as it is deliuered and applied by Catholique Deuines, to teach what principall Articles of faith, Christians are obliged explicitely to be­lieue: yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grieuous sinne, who knowingly disbelieues, that is, be­lieues the contrary of that which Gods Church proposeth as diuine Truth. For it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testifyed by God, & another positiuely to oppose what we know he hath testified. The former may often be excused from sinne, but neuer the latter, which only is the case in Question.

13. In the same manner shall be demon­strated, that to alleadge the Creed, as contay­ning all Articles of faith necessary to be expli­citely belieued, is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church. And this were sufficient to ouerthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth, concerning the Creed: though yet by way of Supererogation, we will proue, that there are diuers importāt matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed.

14. From the aforesaid maine principle, that God hath alwayes had, and alwaies will haue on earth, a Church Visible, within whose Communion Saluation must be hoped, and in­fallible, whose definitions we ought to belieue; we will proue, that Luther, Caluin, and all o­ther, who continue the diuision in Commu­nion, or Faith, from that Visible Church, which at, and before Luthers appearance, was spread ouer the world, cannot be excused from Schis­me, and Heresy, although they opposed her faith but in on [...] only point; wheras it is manifest, they dissent from her, in many and weighty matters, concerning as well beliefe, as practise.

15. To these reasons drawne from the ver­tue of Faith, we will add one other taken from Charitas propria, the Vertue of Charity, as it obli­geth vs, not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition, when we can put our selues in a way much more secure, as we will proue, that of the [Page 35]Roman Catholiques to be.

16. We are then to proue these points. First, that the infallible meanes to determine controuersies in matters of faith, is the visible Church of Christ. Secondly, that the distin­ction of points fundamentall, and not fundamen­tall, maketh nothing to our present Question. Thirdly, that to say the Creed containes all fun­damentall points of faith, is neither pertinent, nor true. Fourthly, that both Luther, & all they who after him, persist in diuision, from the Com­munion, and Faith of the Roman Church, can­not be excused from Schisme Fifthly, nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly, that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe, Prote­stants be in state of sinne, as long as they re­maine diuided from the Roman Church. And these six points, shall be seuerall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters.

17. Only I will heere obserue, that it see­meth very strange, that Protestants should char­ge vs so deeply with Want of Charity, for only teaching that both they, and we cannot be sa­ued, seeing themselues must affirme the like of whosoeuer opposeth any least point deliuered in Scripture, which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good. For, is it not a grieuous sinne, to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ? Is there in such deniall, any distinction betwixt points [Page 36]fundamentall, and not fundamentall, sufficient to excuse from heresy? Is it not impertinent, to alleadge the Creed contayning all fundamen­tall points of faith, as if belieuing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scri­pture? In a word: According to Protestants; Oppose not Scripture, there is no Errour a­gainst faith. Oppose it in any least point, the er­ror (if Scripture be sufficiently proposed, which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue euen fundamētall points) must be damnable. What is this, but to say with vs, Of persons contrary in whatsoeuer point of beliefe, one party only can be saued? And D. Potter must not take it ill, if Catholiques belieue they may be saued in that Religion for which they suffer. And if by occasion of this doctrine, men will still be charging vs with Want of Charity, and be resolued to take scandall where none is giuen; we must comfort our selues with that graue, and true saying of S. Gregory: If scandall S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezes. be taken from declaring a truth, it is better to permit scandall, then forsake the truth. But the solid grounds of our Assertion, and the sincerity of intention in vttering what we thinke, yield vs confidence, that all will hold for most reasona­ble the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour: Farre be it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to haue truth de­clared to him. Let vs therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controuer­ted [Page 37]betwixt Protestats & vs, for as much as con­cernes the present Question, & is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter.

CHAP. II. VVhat is that meanes, vvherby the reuealed Truthes of God are con­ueyed to our Vnderstanding, and vvhich must determine Contro­uersies in Faith and Religion.

OF our estimation, respect, and reuerence to holy Scripture euen Protestants themselues do in fact giue testimony, while they possesse it from vs, & take it vpon the integrity of our cu­stody No cause imaginable could auert our wil frō giuing the functiō of supreme & sole Iudge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impos­sible in it selfe & if both reason & experiēce did not conuince our vnderstanding, that by this assertion Contentions are increased, and not ended. We acknowledge holy Scripture, to be a most perfect Rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule: We only deny that it excludes ei­ther diuine Tradition though it be vnwritten, or an externall Iudge to keep, to propose, to in­terpret [Page 38]it in a true, Orthodoxe, and Catholique sense. Euery single Booke, euery Chapter, yea euery period of holy Scripture is infallibly true, & wants no due perfection. But must we ther­fore infer, that all other Bookes of Scripture, are to be excluded, least by addition of them, we may seeme to derogate from the perfection of the former? When the first Bookes of the old & New Testament were written, they did not ex­clude vnwritten Traditions, nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controuersies; & who hath then so altered their nature, & filled them with such iealousies, as that now they cannot agree for feare of mutuall [...]isparagemēt? What greater wrong is it for the written Word, to be compartner now with the vnwritten, then for the vnwritten, which was once alone, to be af­terward ioyned with the written? Who euer heard, that to commend the fidelity of a Kee­per, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? Or that, to extoll the integrity and knowledge, and to auouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? Are there not in Common wealths besides the lawes written & vnwritten custo­mes, Iudges appointed to declare both the one, the other, as seuerall occasions may require?

2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controuersies of faith, we gather ve­ry cleerly. From the quality of a writing in ge­nerall: From the nature of holy Writ in parti­culer, [Page 39]which must be belieued as true, and infal­lible: From the Editions, & Translations of it: From the difficulty to vnderstand it without hazard of Errour: From the inconueniences that must follow vpon the ascribing of sole Iu­dicature to it: & finally from the Confessions of our Aduersaries. And on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord, we must conclude, that [...]he it is, to whom in doubts concerning Faith and religion, all Christians ought to haue recourse.

3. The name, notion, nature, and proper­ties of a Iudge cannot in common reason a­gree to any meere writing, which, be it other­wise in its kind, neuer so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility; yet it must euer be, as all writings are, deafe, dumb, and inanimate. By a Iudge, all wise men vnderstand a Person en­d [...]ed with life, and reason, able to heare, to exa­mine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that ech one may know whether the sentence be in fauour of his cause, or against his pretence; and he must be applia­ble and able to do all this, as the diuersity of Controuersies persons, occasions, and circum­stances may require. There is a great & plaine distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule. For as in a kingdome, the Iudge hath his Rule to follow which are the receiued Lawes and customes; [Page 40]so are not they fit or able to declare, or be Iud­ges to themselues, but that office must belong to a liuing Iudge. The holy Scripture may be, and is a Rule, but cannot be a Iudge, because it being alwayes the same, cannot declare it selfe any one time, or vpon any one occasion more particularly then vpon any other; and let it be read ouer an hundred times, it wilbe still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate con­trouersies in faith, then the Law would be to end suites, if it were giuen ouer to the phansy, & glosse of euery single man.

4. This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule, D. Potter perceiued, when more then once, hauing stiled the Scripture a Iudge, by way of correcting that terme, he adds or rather a Rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge. Frō hence also it was, that though Protestants in their beginning, affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controuer­sies; yet vpon a more aduised reflection, they changed the phrase, and sayd, that not Scrip­ture, but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scrip­ture, is Iudge in Controuersies. A difference without a disparity. The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to vs, then the Scripture in which he speakes; as a mā speaking only Latin, can be no better vnder­stood, then the tongue wherein he speaketh. And therefore to say, a Iudge is necessary for deciding controuersies, about the meaning of [Page 41]Scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scri­pture. And it were a conceyt, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seeke to take away all Iudges in the kingdome, vpon this nicity, that albeit Lawes cānot be Iudges, yet the Law­maker speaking in the Law, may performe that Office; as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law, were with more perspicuity vnderstood, then the Law wherby he speaketh.

5. But though some writing were granted to haue a priuiledge, to declare it selfe vpon supposition that it were maintayned in being, and preserued entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserue it selfe, nor can complayne, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye, to guard it, by meanes of whose assured vigilancy, we may vn­doubtedly receiue it sincere and pure.

6. And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption, how could it assure vs that it selfe were Canonicall, and of infallible Verity? By saying so? Of this very affirmation, there will remaine the same Question still; how it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true? Neyther can there euer be an end of the like multiplyed de­mands, till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world, that such, or such a booke is Scripture: and yet vpon this point according to Protestāts [Page 42]all other Controuersies in fayth depend.

7. That Scripture cannot assure vs, that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture, is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words, and by all of them in deeds. M. Hooker, whome D. Pot­ter rankethPag. 131. among men of great learning and iudgement, sayth: Of thinges In his first booke of Eccles. Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6 [...]. necessary, the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scri­pture it selfe to teach. And this he proueth by the same argument, which we lately vsed, saying thas: It is not Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth, or possibly can, assure vs, that we doe well to thinke it his word. For if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which giueth testimony to the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it. Neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest, vnles besids Scri­pture, there were something which might assure vs &c. And this he acknowledgeth to be thel. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. & alibi Church. By the way. If, Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture, as this man of so great learning and iudgment affir­meth, and demonstratiuely proueth; how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article? Wherein it is sayd of the Scripture: Whatsoeuer is not read therein, nor may be proued thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be belieued as an Article of the fayth, or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation: and, concerning their beliefe and profession of this [Page 43]Article, they are particulerly examined when they be ordayned Priests and Bishops. With, Hooker, his defendant Couell doth punctually a­gree. Whitaker likewise confesseth, that the question about Canonicall Scriptures, is defi­ned to vs, not by testimony of the priuate spirit, which (sayth he) being priuate and secret, is Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 & pag. 357. vnfit to teach and refell others; but (as he acknow­ledgeth) by the Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiasticall Tradition: An argument (sayth he) whereby may be argued, and conuinced what bookes be Canonicall, and what be not. Luther sayth: This lib. de capt. Babyl. tom. 2. Wit­tomb. fol. 8 [...]. indeed the Church hath, that she can discerne the word of God, from the word of men: as Augustine confesseth, that he be­lieued the Ghospell, being moued by the authority of the Church, which did preach this to be the Gospell. Fulke teacheth, that the Church In his answere to a countefaite Catholique pag. 5. hath iudgment to discerne true writings from counterfaite, and the word of God from the writing of men, and that this iudgment she hath not of herselfe, but of the Holy Ghost. And to the end that you may not be ig­norant, from what Church you must receiue Scriptures, heare your first Patriarch Luther speaking against thē, who (as he saith) brought in Anabaptisme, that so they might despight the Pope. Verily (saith he) these Epist. cōt. Anabap. ad dnos Paro­chos tom. 2: Germ. Wit­temb. men build vpon a weake foundation. For by this meanes they ought to deny the whole Scripture, and the Office of Preaching. For, all these we haue from the Pope: otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture.

8. But now in deedes, they all make good, [Page 44]that without the Churches authority, no cer­tainty can be had what Scripture is Canoni­call, while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture. Of the Epistle of S. Iames, Luther hath these words: The Praefat. in epist. lac. inedit. Ie­nensi. Epistle of [...]ames is contentions, swelling, dry strawy and vn­worthy of an Apostolicall Spirit. Which censure of Luther, Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintai­neth. Kemnitius teacheth, that the second Epistle In Enchi­rid. pag. 63. of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of Iames, the Epistle of Iude, and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall, as not hauing sufficient Testimony In exa. min. Conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55. of their autho­rity, and therefore that nothing in controuersy can be proued out of these Ibid. Bookes The same is taught by diuers other Lutherans: and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luthers time, I wonder what new infal­lible ground they can alleadge, why they leaue their Maister, and so many of his prime Schol­lers? I know no better ground, then because they may with as much freedome abandon him, as he was bould to alter that Canon of Scripture, which he found receiued in Gods Church.

9. What Bookes of Scripture the Prote­stants of England hold for Canonicall, is not easy to affirme In their sixt Article they say: In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testa­ment, of whose authority was neuer any doub [...] in the [Page 45]Church. What meane they by these words? That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall? This were to make the Church Iudge, and not Scriptures alone. Do they only vnderstand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement? Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of fayth. By this rule (of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church) the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon, asApud Eus [...]b. l. 4. hist. cap. 26. Melito Asianus, in Synop. Athana [...]us, andIn c [...]rm. de genu [...]s Scripturis. Gregory Nazianzen. And Luther (if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church) saith: The Iewes lib de ser­uo arbitr [...]o contra Eras. tom. 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the booke of Esther in the Canon, which yet, if I might be Iudge, doth rather deserue to be put out of the Canon. And of Ecclesia­stes he saith: This In latinis Sermonibus conuiuiali­bus Francof. in 8. impr. Anno 1571. booke is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides vpon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him: whoIn Germanicis colloq. Lutheri ab Aurtfabro e­ditis Franco­furti tit. de libris veteris & noui Test. fol. 379. sayth further, that the said booke was not written by Salomon, but by Syrach in the tyme of the Ma­chabees, and that it is like to the Talmud (the Iewes bible) out of many bookes heaped into one worke, perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomous And further he sayth, thatIbid. tit. de Patriar­chis & Pro­phet fol. 282. he doth not be lieue all to haue been donne as [...] is [...]t downe. And he teacheth theTit de lib. Ʋet. & [...]out Test. booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable (or Comedy) [Page 46] to set before vs an example of Patience. And heFol. 380. deliuers this generall censure of the Pro­phets Bookes: The Sermons of no Prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their disciples, and Auditors snatched, now one sentence, and then an­other, and so put them all into one booke, and by this meanes the Bible was conserued. If this were so, the Bookes of the Prophets, being not written by themselues, but promiscuously, and casually, by their Disciples, will soone be called in question. Are not these errours of Luther, fundamentall? and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church, vpon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian, and Luciferian blasphemies? ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church! But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture. In the New Testament by the a­boue mentioned rule (of whose authority was ne­uer any doubt in the Church) diuers Bookes of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some Ancients haue doub­ted, and those which diuers Lutherans haue of late denied. It is worth the obseruation how the before mentioned sixt Article, doth specify by name all the Bookes of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall; but those of the New, without naming any one, they shuffle ouer with this generality: All the Bookes of the New Testame [...] as they are commonly receiued, we do re­ceiue, and account them Canonicall. The mystery is easily to be vnfolded. If they had descended [Page 47]to particulers, they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren. As they are com­monly receiued &c. I aske: By whom? By the Church of Rome? Then, by the same reason they must receiue diuers Bookes of the Old Testa­ment, which they reiect. By Lutherans? Then with Lutherans they may deny some Bookes of the New Testament. If it be the greater, or lesse number of voyces, that must cry vp, or downe, the Canon of Scripture, our Roman Canon will preuaile: and among Protestants the Certainty of their Fayth must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controuersy of Fact, whether the number of those who reiect, or of those others who receiue such and such Scriptures, be grea­ter. Their faith must alter according to yeares, and dayes. When Luther first appeared, he, and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church; and so this claime (Of being com­monly receiued) stood for them, till Zvinglius & Caluin grew to some equall, or greater num­ber then that of the Lutherans, and then this rule of (Commonly receaued) will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans. I would gladly know, why in the former part of their Article, they say both of the Old and New Testament: In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testa­ment, of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church; and in the latter part, speaking againe of the New Testament, they giue a far different [Page 48]rule, saying: All the Bookes of the New Testament, as they are commonly receiued, we do receiue, and ac­count them Canonicall. This I say is a rule much different from the former (Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church.) For some Bookes might be said to be Commonly re­ceiued, although they were sometime doubted of by some. If to be Commonly receiued, passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Te­stament; why not of the Old? Aboue all we de­sire to know, vpon what infallible ground, in some Bookes they agree with vs against Luther, and diuers principall Lutherans, and in others iump with Luther against vs? But seeing they disagree among themselues, it is euident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture, in assigning wherof some of them must of necessity erre, because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true.

10. Moreouer the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary, or naturall connexion with diuine Reuelation or Inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or vnderstanding them, we cannot inferre that they proceed from God, or be confirmed by diuine authority, as because Creatures inuolue a necessary relation, conne­xion, and dependance on their Creator, Philoso­phers may by the light of naturall reason, de­monstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things. In Holy Writ there are innumerable [Page 49]truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit, which are, or may be deliuered by Pagan Writers, in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture. And as for some truths peculiar to Christians, (for Example, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity &c.) the only setting them downe in Writing is not inough to be assured that such a Writing is the vndoubted word of God: otherwise some sayings of Plato, Trismegistus, Sybills, Ouid &c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture, because they fall vpon some truths proper to Christian Religion. The internall light, and inspiration which directed & moued the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures, is a hidden Quality infused into their vnderstan­ding and will, and hath no such particuler sen­sible influence into the externall Writing, that in it we can discouer, or from it demonstrate any such secret light, and inspiration; and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is diuine we cannot know from it selfe alone, but by some other extrinsecall authority.

11. And heere we appeale to any man of Iudgement, whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell vs, that they wot full well what is Scripture, by the light of Scrip­ture it selfe, or (as D. Potter word's it) by Pag. 14 [...]. that glorious beame of diuine light which shines therein; euen as our eye distinguisheth light from dark­nes, without any other help then light it selfe; and as our eare knowes a voyce, by the voyce [Page 50]it selfe alone. But this vanity is refuted, by what we sayd euen now; that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with diuine inspiration, or reuelation. Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men, for not se­ing that glorious beame of diuine light which shines in Scripture, about which they cannot agree? Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe a­lone, as being euident, proportionate, & con­natural to our faculty of seeing. That Scripture is diuine, and inspired by God, is a truth excee­ding the naturall capacity and compasse of mās vnderstanding, to vs obscure, and to be belie­ued by diuine fayth, which according to the A­postle is; argumentum Heb. v. 1 non apparentium; an ar­gument, or conuiction, of things not euident: and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not ma­nifest it selfe by it selfe alone, but must require some other meanes for applying it to our vn­derstanding. Neuer theles their owne similitu­des and instances, make against themselues. For suppose a man had neuer read, or heard of Sunne, Moone, Fire, Candle &c. and should be brought to behold a light, yet in such sort as that the Agent, or Cause Efficient from which it proceeded, were kept hidden from him; could such an one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produ­duced by the Sunne, or Moone &c? Or if one heare a voyce, and had neuer known the spea­ker, could he know from whome in particuler [Page 51]that voyce proceeded? They who looke vpon Scripture, may well see, that some one wrote it, but that it was written by diuine inspiration, how shall they know? Nay, they cannot so much as know who wrote it, vnles they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise I cānot know whose voice it is which I heare, vnles I first both know the person who speakes, & with what voice he vseth to speake; and yet euen all this supposed, I may perhaps be deceyued. For there may be voyces so like, and Hand so counterfaited, that men may be deceyued by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skillfull Painter. Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our su­pernaturall end, must be taken from Scripture, they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voyce, or writing, because they cannot know from whome a writing, or voyce pro­ceeds, vnle, first they know the person who speaketh, or writeth Nay I say more: By Scri­pture alone, they cannot so much as know, that any person doth in it, or by it, speake any thing at all: because one may write without in­tent to signify, or affirme any thing, but only to set downe, or as it were paint, such chara­cters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to set copies, not caring what the signification of the words imports; or as one transcribes a writinge which himselfe vnderstands not: or when one writes what another dictates, and [Page 52]in other such cases, wherein it is cleere, that the writer speakes, or signifies nothing in such his writing; & therefore by it we cannot heare, or vnderstand his voyce. With what certainty then can any man affirme, that by Scripture it self they can see, that the writers did intēd to si­gnify any thing at all; that they were Apostles, or other Canonical Authours; that they wrote their owne sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and finally, & especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost?

12. But let vs be liberall, and for the pre­sent suppose (not grant) that Scripture is like to corporall light, by it selfe alone able to de­termine, & moue our vnderstanding to assent; yet the similitude proues against thēselues. For light is not visible, except to such as haue eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And therefore, to hold the similitude, Scrip­ture can be cleere only to those who are en­dewed with the eye of fayth; or, as D. Potter a­boue cited sayth, to all that haue Pag. 141. eyes to dis­cerne the shining beames thereof; that is, to the be­lieuer, as immediatly after he speaketh. Fayth then must not originally proceed from Scrip­ture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Fayth, which can be no other then the [Page 53]Church.

13. Others affirme, that they know Cano­nicall Scriptures to be such, by the Title of the Bookes. But how shall we know such Inscripti­ons, or Titles to be infallibly true? From this their Answere, our argument is strengthned, be­cause diuers Apocryphall writings haue appea­red, vnder the Titles, and Names of sacred Au­thours, as the Ghospell of Thomas mentioned by S Cont. A­dimantum c. 17. Augustine: the Ghospell of Peter, which the Nazaraei did vse, asl. 2. haere­tic fab. Theodoret witnesseth, with which Scraphion a Catholique Bishop, was for sometyme deceiued, as may be read inlib. 6. cap. 10. Eusebius, who also speaketh of the Apocalyps oflib. 6. cap. 11. Peter. The like may be sayd of the Ghospells of Barnabas, Bartholomew, and other such wri­tings specifyed by PopeDist. Can. Sancta Ro­mana. Gelasius. Protestants reiect likewise some part of Esther and Daniel, which beare the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes, as also both wee, and they hould for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which go vnder the name of Esdras, and yet both of vs receiue his first and second booke. Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall: whichIn his de­fence art. 4. Pag. 31. D. Co­uell acknowledgeth in these words: It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure vs, that we doe well to thinke it is the word of God: the first outward motion leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture, is the Authority of Gods Church, which teacheth vs to receiue Marks Ghospell, who was not [Page 54]an Apostle, and to refuse the Ghospell of Thomas who was an Apostle: and to retaine Lukes Ghospell who saw not Christ, and to reiect the Ghospell of Ni­codemus who saw him.

14. Another Answere, or rather Obiection they are wont to bring: That the Scripture be­ing a principle needs no proofe among Christians. So D. Pag 234 Potter. But this neither a plaine begging of the question, or manifestly vntrue, and is di­rectly against their owne octrine, and practise. If they meane, that Scripture is one of those principles, which being the first, and the most knowne in all Sciences cannot be demonstra­ted by other Principles, they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle (for example, the Church) wherby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend, that Scripture is a Principle, but not the first, and most knowne in Christianity, then Scripture may be proued. For principles, that are not the first, nor knowne of themsel­ues may, & ought to be proued, before we can yield assent, either to them, or to other verities depending on them. It is repugnant to their owne doctrine, and practise, in as much as they are wont to affirme, that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall, and may be interpreted by another. And since euery scri­pture is a principle sufficient, vpon which to ground diuine faith, they must grant, that one Principle may, and sometime must be proued [Page 55]by another. Yea this their Answere, vpon due ponderation, falls out to proue, what we af­firme. For since all Principles cannot be pro­ued, we must (that our labour may not be end­les) come at length to rest in some principle, which may not require any other proofe. Such is Tradition, which inuolues an euidence of fact, and from hand to hand, and age to age, brin­ging vs vp to the times, and persons of the Apo­stles, and our Sauiour himselfe cōmeth to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other ar­guments, whereby they conuinced their do­ctrine to be true. Wherefore the ancient Fa­thers auouch that we must receiue the sacred Canon vpon the credit of Gods Church. S.In Sy­nopsi. Athanasius saith, that only foure Gospels are to be receiued, because the Canons of the Holy, and Catholique Church haue so determined. The third Councell ofCan. 47. Carthage hauing set downe the Bookes of holy Scripture giues the reason, be­cause, We haue receiued from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church. S. Augustine Cont. ep. Funaam. c. 5. spea­king of the Acts of the Apostles, saith: To which booke I must giue credit, if I giue credit to the Gospel, because the Catholique Church doth a like recōmend to me both these Bookes. And in the same place he hath also these words: I would not belieue the Gospell vnles the authority of the Catholique Church did moue me. A saying so plaine, that Zuinglius, is forced to cry out: Heere I Tom. 1. fol. 135. implore your e­quity to speake freely, whether this saying of Au­gustine [Page 56]seeme not ouerbould, or els vnaduisedly to haue fallen from him.

15. But suppose they were assured what Bookes were Canonicall, this will little auaile them, vnles they be likewise certaine in what language they remaine vncorrupted, or what Translations be true. Caluin Instit. c. 6. §. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text; which if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one Chapter, yea period, can be securely vnderstood without the help of some Translation. If with points: These were after S. Hierom's time, inuented by the persidious Iewes, who either by ignorance might mistake, or vpon malice force the Text, to fauour their impieties. And that the Hebrew Text still re­taines much ambiguity, is apparent by the disa­greeing Translations of Nouellists; which also proues the Greeke for the New Testament, not to be void of doubtfulnes, as Caluin Instit. ca. 7. §. 12. confes­seth it to be corrupted. And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure, what doth this help, if only Scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages. All then must be reduced to the cer­tainty of Translations into other tongues, wher­in no priuate man hauing any promise, or assu­rance of infallibility, Protestants who rely v­pon Scripture alone, will find no certaine ground for their faith: as accordingly Whitaker lib. de sancta Scri­ptura p. 523. affirmeth: Those who vnderstand not the He­brew [Page 57]and Greeke do erre often, and vnauoydably.

16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants, it will be sufficient to set downe what the laborious, exact, and iudicious Au­thor of the Protestants Apology &c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory, hath to thisTract. 1. Sect. 10. subd. 4. ioy­ned with tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd. 2. purpose. To omit (saith he) particu­lers, whose recitall would be infinite, & to touch this point but generally only, the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas, Osiander, Keckermannus, and Zuin­glius, who sayth hereof to Luther. Thou dost cor­rupt the word of God, thou art seene to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee who haue hitherto estee­med thee beyond all measure, and now proue thee to be such a man? And in like māner doth Luther reiect the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of diuinity, fooles, Asses, Antichrists, deceauers, and of Asse-like vnderstanding. In so much that when Proscheuerus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the diuines there, Luther would not receyue the same, but sending it backe reiected it, as the Protestant Writers Hospinians, and Lauatherus witnesse. The translation set forth by Oecolam­padius, and the Deuines of Basil, is reproued by Beza, who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked, and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost. The translation of Ca­stalio is condemned by Beza, as being sacrilegi­ous, [Page 58]wicked, and Ethnicall. As concerning Caluins translation, that learned Protestant Writer Ca­rolus Molinaeus saith thereof: Caluin in his Har­mony maketh the Text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe: he vseth violence to the letter of the Gospell; and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's translation (to omit the dislike had ther­of by Seluccerus the German Protestant of the Vniuersity of Iena) the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text; and giueth further sundry instances of his corruptions: as also Castalio that learned Cal­uinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehen­deth Beza in a whole booke of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errours in translation, would require a great volume. And M. Parkes saith: As for the Geneua Bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margent, or els vt­terly prohibited. All which confirmeth your Ma­iesties graue and learned Censure, in your thin­king the Geneua translation to be worst of all; and that in the Marginall notes annoxed to the Geneua translation, some are very partiall, vntrue, seditious, &c. Lastly concerning the English Transla­tions, the Puritanes say: Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Booke of Common Prayer, doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred pla­ces at the least. In so much as they do therefore professe to rest doubtfull, whether a man with a [Page 59]safe conscience may subscribe thereto. And M. Caer­lile saith of the English Translators, that they haue depraued the sense, obscured the truth, and de­ceiued the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense. And that, they shew themselues to loue darknes more then light, fal­shood more then truth. And the Ministers of Lin­colne Diocesse giue their publike testimony, terming the English Translation: A Translation that taketh away from the Text; that addeth to the Text; and that, sometime to the changing, or obscu­ring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Not with­out cause therefore did your Maiesty affirme, that you could neuer yet see a Bible well translated into English. Thus far the Author of the Prote­stants Apology &c. And I cannot forbeare to mention in particuler that famous corruption of Luther, who in the Text where it is said (Rom. 3. v. 28.) We accompt a man to be instified by faith, without the works of the Law, in fauour of Iustifi­cation by faith alone, translateth (Iustified by faith A LONE.) As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious, who in the Gospels of S. Mathew, Mark, and Luke, and in S. Paul, in place of, This is my Body; This is my bloud; translates, This signifies my Body; This signifies my bloud. And heere let Protestants consider duely of these points. Saluation cannot be hoped for without true faith: Faith according to them re­lies vpon Scripture alone: Scripture must be deliuered to most of them by the Translations: [Page 60]Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre, and no grea­ter euidence of Truth, then that it is euident some of them imbrace falshood, by reason of their contrary translations. What then remai­neth, but that truth, faith, saluation, & all, must in them rely vpon a fallible, and vncertaine ground? How many poore soules are lamenta­bly seduced, while from preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of Texts of diuine Scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? Let them ther­fore, if they will be assured of true Scriptures, fly to the alwayes visible Catholique Church, against which the gates of hell can neuer so far preuaile, as that she shall be permitted to de­ceiue the Christian world with false Scriptu­res. And Luther himselfe, by vnfortunate expe­rience, was at length forced to confesse thus much, saying: If the lib cont, Zwingl, de verit. corp. Christi in Euchar. world last longer, it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councels, & to haue recourse to them, by reason of diuers interpre­tations of Scripture which now raigne. On the con­trary side, the Translation approued by the Ro­man Church, is commended euen by our Ad­uersaries: and D. Couell in particuler sayth, that it was vsed in the Church, one thousand In his an­swere vnto M. John Burges pag. 94. three hundred yeares agoe, and doubteth not to prefer Ibid. that Translation before others. In so much, that whereas the English translations be many, and [Page 61]among themselues disagreeing, he concludeth, that of all those the approued translation authori­zed by the Church of England, is that which com­meth nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishops Bible. So that the truth of that tran­slation which we vse, must be the rule to iudge of the goodnesse of their Bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintaine our Translation if it were but for their owne sake.

17. But doth indeed the source of their ma­nifold vncertainties stop heer? No! The chiefest difficulty remaines, concerning the true mea­ning of Scripture: for attayning whereof, if Protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they do. Hence M. Hooker saith: We are In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiasti­call Policy. Sect. 6. 26. right sure of this, that Nature, Scripture, and Experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of contentions, by submitting it selfe vnto some iudiciall, and definitiue sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may, vnder any pretence, refuse to stand. D. Fields words are re­markable to this purpose: Seeing (saith he) the controuersies In his Treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Arch­bishop. of Religion in our times are growne in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few haue time and leasure, fewer strength of vnder standing to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the socie­tyes in the world, is that blessed Company of holy Ones, that hou [...]ould of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the Pillar and [Page 54]ground of Truth, that so they may imbrace her com­munion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudg­ment.

18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture, ought to be receiued from the Church, it is also proued by what we haue al­ready demonstrated, that she it is, who must de­clare what Bookes be true Scripture; wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost, why should we not belieue her, to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them. Let Pro­testants therfore eyther bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture, and not in deliuering the true sense thereof; Or els giue vs leaue to apply against them, the argu­ment, which S. Augustine opposed to the Ma­nicheans, in these words: I would not Cont. ep. Fund. cap. 5. belieue the Gospel, vnles the authority of the Church did moue me. Them therfore whom I obeyed saying, Belieue the Gospell, why should I not obey saying to me, Do not belieue Manichaeus (Luther, Caluin, &c.) Choose what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say, Belieue the Ca­tholiques; They warne me not to giue any credit to you. If therefore I belieue them, I cannot belieue thee. If thou say, Do not belieue the Catholiques, thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus, because by the preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe. If thou say, you did well to belieue them (Catholiques) commending the Gospell, but you did not well to belieue them, discommending Manichaeus; [Page 55]Dost thou thinke me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, I should belieue what thou wilts, & not belieue what thou wilts not? And do not Protestāts perfectly resemble these men, to whom S. Au­gustine spake, when they will haue men to be­lieue the Roman Church deliuering Scripture, but not to belieue her condemning Luther, and the rest? Against whom, when they first oppo­sed themselues to the Roman Church, S. Augu­stine may seeme to haue spoken no lesse pro­phetically, then doctrinally, when he said: Why should I not most lib. de vtil. cre. cap. 14. diligenily inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others, by whose au­thority I was moued to belieue, that Christ comman­ded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom I would not haue thought to haue been, or to be, if the beliefe thereof had been recom­mended by thee to me? This therefore I belieued by fame, strengthned with celebrity, consent, Antiquity. But euery one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deseruing authority. What madnes is this? Belieue them (Catholiques) that wrought to belieue Christ; but learne of vs what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they (Ca­tholiques) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to belieue Christ, then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him. If therefore we receiue the knowledge of Christ, and Scriptures from the Church, from her also must we take his do­ctrine, [Page 64]and the interpretation thereof.

19. But besides all this, the Scriptures can­not be Iudge of Controuersies, who ought to be such, as that to him not only the learned, or Ve­terans, but also the vnlearned, and Nouices, may haue recourse; for these being capable of saluation, and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned, there must be some vniuersall Iudge, which the ignorant may vnderstand, and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit. Such is the Church: and the Scri­pture is not such.

20. Now, the inconueniences which fol­low by referring all Controuersies to Scripture alone, are very cleare. For by this principle, all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall priuate Spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a publique externall, and a priuate internall voyce; & whosoeuer refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other.

21. This Tenet also of Protestants, by ta­king the office of Iudicature from the Church, comes to conferre it vpon euery particuler mā, who being driuen from submission to the Church, cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself, as others maliciously may do. Which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from diuers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity. Heare Luther: The Gouernours Tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 375. of [Page 65]Churches and Pastours of Christs sheep haue indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to giue Iudgment whether they propound the voyce of Christ, or of Ali­ens. Lubbertus sayth: As we haue In lib. de principi [...]s Christian. dogm. lib. 6. cap. 13. demonstra­ted that all publique Iudges may be deceiued in inter­preting; so we affirme, that they may erre in iudging. All faythfull men are prinate Iudges, and they also haue power to Iudge of doctrines and interpretations. Whitaker, euen of the vnlearned, sayth: They De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to haue recourse vnto the more learned, but in the meane tyme we must be carefull not to attribute to them ouer-much, but so, that still we retaine our owne freedome. Bilson also affirmeth; that, The people In his true differen­ce part. 2. must be discerners, and Iudges of that which is taught. This same pernicious doctrine is deliuered by Brentius, Zanchius, Cartwright, and others exactly cited byTract. 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. Brereley; & nothing is more common in euery Protestants mouth, then that he admits of Fathers, Councells, Church &c. as far as they agree with Scri­pture; which vpon the matter is himselfe. Thus Heresy euer fals vpon extremes: It pretends to haue Scripture alone for Iudge of Controuer­sies, and in the meane time sets vp as many Iudges, as there are men, and women in the Christian world. What good Statesmen would they be, who should idëate, or fancy such a Common wealth, as these men haue framed to themselues a Church? They verify what S. Au­gustine obiecteth against certaine Heretiques. You sce lib 32. cont. Faust. that you goe about to ouerthrow all au­thority [Page 66]of Scripture, and that euery mans mind may be to himselfe a Rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in euery Scripture.

22. Moreouer what cōfusion to the Church, what danger to the Common wealth, this de­niall of the authority of the Church, may bring, I leaue to the consideration of any Iudi­cious, indifferent man. I will only set downe some words of D. Potter, who speaking of the Proposition of reuealed Truths, sufficient to proue him that gaine saith them to be an Here­tique, sayth thus: This Proposition pag. 247 of reuealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of Pope, or Church; (Pope, and Church being excluded, let vs heare what more secure rule he will pres­cribe) but by whatsoeuer meanes a man may be con­uinced in conscience of diuine reuelation. If a Prea­cher do cleare any point of fayth to his Hearers; if a priuate Christian do make it appeare to his Neigh­bour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is deliuered by diuine reuelation of Gods word; if a man himselfe (without any Teacher) by reading the Scriptures, or hearing them read, be conuinced of the truth of any such coclusion: this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain saith any such proofe, to be an Hereti­que, and obstinate opposer of the faith. Behold what goodly safe Propounders of fayth arise in place of Gods vniuersall visible Church, which must yield to a single Preacher, a Neighbour, a man himselfe if he can read, or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read. Verily I do not see, but [Page 67]that euery well — gouerned Ciuill Common­wealth, ought to concur towards the extermi­nating of this doctrine, whereby the Interpre­tation of Scripture is taken from the Church, and conferred vpon euery man, who, whatsoe­uer is pretended to the contrary, may be a pas­sionate seditions creature.

23. Moreouer, there was no Scripture, or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses, whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture: And againe for about two thousand yeares more, from Moyses to Christ our Lord, holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel; and yet there were Gentils endewed in those dayes with diuine Faith, as appeareth in Iob, and his friends. Wherefore during so many ages, the Church alone was the decider of Controuersies, and Instructor of the faithfull. Neither did the Word written by Moses, de­priue that Church of her former Infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a Iudge: yea D. Potter acknowledgeth, that besides the Law, there was a liuing Iudge in the Iewish Church, endewed with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment; as all points belonging to di­uine Faith are. Now, the Church of Christ our Lord, was before the Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successiuely vpon seue­rall occasions; and some after the decease of [Page 68]most of the Apostles: & after they were writ­ten, they were not presently knowne to all Churches: and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Sauiour. Shall we then say, that according as the Church by little and little receiued holy Scripture, she was by the like degrees deuested of her possessed In­fallibility, and power to decide Controuersies in Religion? That some Churches had one Iud­ge of Controuersies, and others another? That with moneths, or yeares, as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published, the Church al­tered her whole Rule of faith, or Iudge of Con­trouersies? After the Apostles time, and after the writing of Scriptures, Heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in Gods Church for their discouery and condemnation, Infallibility, ei­ther to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emer­gent heresies; or infallibility to interpret Scri­ptures, already written, or, without Scripture, by diuine vn written Traditions, and affistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controuer­sies, as Tertullian saith: The soule is De test. antm. cap. 5. before the letter; and speach before Bookes; and sense before stile. Certainly such addition of Scripture, with de­rogation, or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church, would haue brought to the world diuision in matters of faith, and the Church had rather lost, then gai­ned by holy Scripture (which ought to be far [Page 69]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 gla [...]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 [Page 70]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, 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 gouernmēt 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, orHeb. 13. family; to anCant. 2. Army, to a1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. body; to aMatt. 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, 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, [Page 71]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 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 [Page 72]in interpreting Scripture; or they haue not. If not; then the Scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient groūd 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 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, [Page 73]as we noted before. Besides, how can it be in vs a fundamentall errour to say, the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controuersies, seing (not­withstanding this our beliefe) we vse for inter­preting of Scripture, all the meanes which they prescribe, as Prayer, Conferring of places, Con­sulting the Originals &c. and to these add the Instruction, and Authority of God's Church, which euen by his Confession cannot erre dam­nably, and may affoard vs more help, then can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any priuate person: & finally D Potter grants, that the Church of Rome doth not maintaine any fundamentall error against faith; and con­sequently, he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controuersy is damnable. If he answere, that their Tenet, about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controuersies, is not a fun­damentall point of faith: then, as he teacheth that the vniuersall Church may erre in points not fundamentall; so I hope he will not deny, but particuler Churches, and priuate men, are much more obnoxious to error in such points; and in particuler in this, that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controuersies: And so, the very principle vpon which their whole faith is grounded, re­maines to them vncertaine; and on the other side, for the selfe same reason, they are not cer­taine, but that the Church is Iudge of Contro­uersies, which if she be, then their case is lamen­table, who in generall deny her this authority, & [Page 74]in particular Controuersies oppose her defini­tions. Besides among publique Conclusions de­fended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the que­stions, Whether the Church haue authority to deter­ment Controuersies in faith; And, To interpret holy Scripture? The answere to both is Affirmatiue.

27. Since then, the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes where­by the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding; it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe; which blessed S. Augustine plainely affirmeth, when speaking of the Controuersy about Rebaptiza­tion of such as were baptized by Heretiques, he saith. This Devnit. Eccles. c. 22. is neither openly, nor euidently read, neither by you nor by me; yet if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we should make no doubt to performe what he should say, least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church. And a little after: Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church, doth resist our Sauiour himselfe, who by his testimony recommends the Church. I conclude ther­fore with this argument. Whosoeuer resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to vs God's Word or Reuelation, commits a sinne, which, vnrepented, excluds saluation: But who­soeuer resisteth Christs visible Church, doth re­sist that meanes, which infallibly proposeth [Page 75]God's word or reuelation to vs: Therfore who­soeuer resisteth Christs visible Church, com­mits a sinne, which, vnrepented, excluds salua­tion. Now, what visible Church was extant, when Luther began his pretended Reforma­tion, whether it were the Roman, or Protestant Church; & whether he, and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church, which was spread ouer the world, before, and in Luthers time, is easy to be determined, and importeth euery one most seriously to ponder, as a thing wheron eternall saluation dependeth. And be­cause our Aduersaries do heere most insist vpon the distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall, and in particular teach, that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this euasion, which shall be done in the next Chapter.

CHAP. III. That the distinction of points funda­mentall and not fundamentall, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present Controuersy. And that the Catholique Visible Church can­not erre, in either kind of the said points.

THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs, and therfore if it be either vntrue or impertinent (as they vnderstand, & apply it) the whole edifice built ther­on, must be ruinous and false. For if you ob­iect their bitter and continued discords in mat­ters of faith, without any meanes of agreement; they instantly tell you (as Charity Mistaken plainely shewes) that they differ only in points not fundamentall. If you conuince them, euen by their owne Confessions, that the ancient Fathers taught diuers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants; they reply, that [Page 77]those Fathers may neuertheles be saued, because those errors were not fundamentall. If you will them to remember, that Christ must alwayes haue a visible Church on earth, with admini­stration of Sacraments, and succession of Pa­stors, and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman, whose Communion and Doctrine, Luther then forsooke, and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Heresy; they haue an Answere (such as it is) that the Catholique Church cannot perish, yet may erre in points not fundamentall, and ther­fore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors, vnder paine of Damnation; as if (forsooth) it were Damnable, to hold an error not Fundamentall, nor Damna­ble. If you wonder how they can teach, that both Catholiques, and Protestants may be sa­ued in their seuerall professions; they salue this contradiction, by saying, that we both a­gree in all fundamentall points of faith, which is inough for saluation. And yet, which is pro­digiously strange, they could neuer be induced to giue a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall, but only by some generall des­cription, or by referring vs to the Apostles Creed, without determining, what points therein be fundamentall, or not fundamentall for the matter; and in what sense, they be, or be not such: and yet concerning the meaning of di­uers points contained, or reduced to the Creed, [Page 78]they differ both from vs, and amōg themselues. And indeed, it being impossible for them to exhibite any such Catalogue, the said distinction of points, although it were pertinent, and true, cannot serue them to any purpose, but still they must remaine vncertaine, whether or not they disagree from one another; from the ancient Fathers; and from the Catholique Church, in points fundamentall: which is to say, they haue no certainty, whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith, without which they can­not hope to be saued. But of this more heer­after.

2. And to the end, that what shall be sayd concerning this distinction, may be better vn­derstood, we are to obserue; that there be two precepts, which concerne the vertue of fayth, or our obligation to belieue diuine truths. The one is by Deuines called Affirmatiue, wherby we are obliged to haue a positiue, explicite be­liefe of some chiefe Articles of Christian faith. The other is termed Negatiue, which strictly binds vs not to disbelieue, that is, not to belieue the cōtrary of any one point sufficiently repre­sented to our vnderstācing, as reuealed, or spo­ken by Almighty God The sayd Affirmatiue Precept (according to the nature of such com­mands) inioynes some act to be performed, but not at all tymes, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons, in respect of all Obiects to be belieued. For obiects; we grant that some are more neces­sary [Page 79]to be explicitely, and seuerall belieued then other: eyther because they are in themselues more great, and weighty; or els in regard they instruct vs in some necessary Christian duty to­wards God, our selues, or our Neyghbour. For persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others, by reason of their office, vocation, capacity or the like. For tymes; we are not obliged to be still in act of exerci­sing acts of fayth, but according as seuerall oc­casions permit, or require The second kind of precept called Negatiue, doth (according to the nature of all such commands) oblige vni­uersally, all persons, in respect of all obiects; & at all tymes; semper & pro semper, as Deuines spea­ke. This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples. I am not obliged to be alwayes helping my Neighbour, because the Affirma­tiue precept of Charity, bindeth onely in some particuler cases: But I am alwayes bound by a Negatiue precept, neuer to doe him any hurt, or wrong. I am not alwayes bound to vtter what I know to be true: yet I am obliged, neuer to speake any one least vntruth, agaynst my know­ledge. And (to come to our present purpose) there is no Affirmatiue precept, commanding vs to be at al times actually belieuing any one, or all Articles of faith: But we are obliged, neuer to exercise any act against any one truth, knowne to be reuealed. All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely, and distinctly to know all things te­stified [Page 80]by God either in Scripture, or otherwise: but euery one is obliged, not to belieue the con­trary of any one point, knowne to be testified by God. For that were in fact to affirme, that God could be deceiued, or would deceiue; which were to ouer throw the whole certainty of our faith, wherin the thing most principall, is not the point which we belieue, which Deuines cal the Materiall Obiect, but the chiefest is the Mo­tiue for which we belieue, to wit, Almighty God's infallible reuelation, or authority which they terme the Formall obiect of our faith. In two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of fayth may be called fundamentall, and necessary to saluation. The one is taken with reference to the Affirmatiue Precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and belieue them expli­citely and seuerally. In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which D: Potter Pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to proue against his Aduersary, who in expresse words doth grant and explicateCharity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it. But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, & not say one pertinent word in defense of his distinction, as it was impugned by Charity Mi­staken, and as it is wont to be applied by Prote­stants. The other sense, according to which, points of faith may be called Fundamentall, and necessary to saluation, with reference to the Negatiue precept of faith, is such, that we can­not [Page 81]not without grieuous sinne, and forfeiture of saluation, disbelieue any one point, sufficiently propounded, as reuealed by Almighty God. And in this sense we auouch, that there is no di­stinction in points of faith, as if to reiect some must be damnable, and to reiect others, equally proposed as God's word, might stand with sal­uation. Yea the obligation of the Negatiue pre­cept is far more strict, then is that of the Affir­matiue, which God freely imposed, & may free­ly release. But it is impossible, that he can dis­pense, or giue leaue to disbelieue, or deny what he affirmeth: and in this sense, sinne & damna­tion are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall, then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall. All this I shew by an Example, which I wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for diuers other occasions hereaf­ter. The Creed of the Apostles containes diuers fundamentall points of faith, as the Deity, Trinity of Persons, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of our Sauiour Christ &c. It con­taines also some points, for their matter, and narure in themselues not fundamentall, as vn­der what Iudge our Sauiour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day &c. But yet neuer­thelesse, whosoeuer once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed, the deniall of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamentall error: & this is the precise point [Page 82]of the present question.

3. And all that hitherto hath been said, is so manifestly true, that no Protestant or Chri­stian, if he do but vnderstand the termes, and state of the Question, can possibly deny it: In so much as I am amazed, that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so en­slaue themselues to their Predecessors in Pro­testantisme, as stil to harp on this distinction, & neuer regard how impertinently, and vntruly it was applyed by them at first, to make all Pro­testants seeme to be of one fayth, because for­sooth they agree in fundamentall points. For the difference among Protestants, consists not in that some belieue some points, of which o­thers are ignorant, or not bound expressely to know (as the distinction ought to be applyed;) but that some of them disbelieue, and dire­ctly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what o­thers do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God, wherein there is no difference betweene points fundamentall, and not fundamentall; Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as reuealed by God, it is not agaynst faith to reiect them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to be­lieue them; and the like is of points not funda­mentall, which assoone as they come to be suffi­ciently propounded as diuine Truths, they can no more be denyed, then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner. Neither wil [Page 83]it auayle them to their other end, that for pre­seruation of the Church in being, it is sufficient that she do not erre in poins fundamentall. For if in the meane time she maintaine any one Er­rour against Gods reuelation, be the thing in it selfe neuer so small, her Errour is damnable, and destructiue of saluation.

4. But D. Potter forgetting to what pur­pose Protestants make vse of their distinction, doth finally ouer throw it, & yields to as much as we can desire. For, speaking of that measure pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saued, he sayth: It is inough to belieue some things by a vertuall faith, or by a generall, and as it were, a negatiue faith, whereby they are not denied or contra­dicted. Now our question is in case that diuine truths, although not fundamentall, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, euen accor­ding to him, all such deniall excludes saluation. After, he speakes more plainely. It is true (saith he) whatsoeuer pag. 212. is reuealed in Scripture, or pre­pounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamentall, in regard of the diuine authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be denied, or contradicted without Infidelity: such as euery Christian is bound with himility, and reuerence to belieue, whensoeuer the knowledge thereof is offered to him. And further: Where pag. 250. the reuealed will or word of God is suffi­ciently propounded; there he that opposeth, is conuin­ced of error, and he who is thus conuinced is an Here­tique, [Page 84]and Heresie is a worke of the flesh which exclu­deth from heauen. (Gal. 5.20.21.) And hence it followeth, that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH, and necessary for his salua­tion, that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God, whereof he may be conuinced that they are from God. Can any thing be spoken more crearely or di­rectly for vs, that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point, though neuer so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded, as a diuine truth, and that there is, in this sense, no distin­ction betwixt points fundamentall, and not fundamentall? And if any should chance to i­magine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to belieue points Fundamentall, al­though they be not sufficiently propounded, D. Potter doth not admit of thisPag. 246. difference bet­wixt points fundamentall, and not fundamen­tall. For he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of reuealed truth is required before a man can be conuin­ced, and for want of sufficient conuiction he ex­cuseth the Disciples from heresy, although they belieued not our Sauiours Resurrection,pag. 246. which is a very fundamentall point of faith. Thus then I argue out of D. Potters owne con­fesson: No error is damnable vnles the contra­ry truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God: Euery error is damnable, if the contra­ry truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God: Therfore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation, if the difference [Page 85]arise not from the manner of being propoun­ded. And what now is become of their distin­ction?

5. I will therfore conclude with this Ar­gument. According to all Philosophy and Di­uinity, the Vnity, and distinction of euery thing followeth the Nature & Essence thereof, and therfore if the Nature and being of fayth, be not taken from the matter which a man belieues, but from the motiue for which he belieues, (which is God's word or Reuelation) we must likewise affirme that the Vnity, and Diuersity of faith, must be measured by God's reuelation (which is alike for all obiects) and not by the smalnes, or greatnes of the matter which we belieue. Now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnes, or smallnes of the things belieued, is manifest; because otherwise one who belieues only fundamentall points, and another who together with them, doth al­so belieue points not fundamentall, should haue faith of different natures, yea there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men belieue, according to diffe­rēt capacities, or instruction &c. all which con­sequences are absurd, & therfore we must say, that Vnity in Fayth doth not depend vpō points fundamentall, or not fundamentall, but vpon God's reuelation equally or vnequally propo­sed: and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall [Page 86]points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different ob­iects which are belieued by them, & since they disagree in things Equally reuealed by Almighty God, it is euident that they forsake the very Formall motiue of faith, which is Gods reuela­tion and consequently loose all Faith, and Vnity therin.

6. The first part of the Title of this Chap­ter (That the distinction of points fundamentall & not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants, is both impertinent and vntrue) being demonstrated; let vs now come to the second: That the Church is infallible in all her definitions, whether they concerne points fundamentall, or not fundamentall. And this I proue by these reasons.

7. It hath beene shewed in the prcedent Chapter, that the Church is Iudge of Contro­uersies in Religion; which she could not be, if she could erre in any one point, as Doctor Potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is Iudge. Because if she could erre in some points, we could not rely vpon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing.

8. This same is proued by the reason we al­ledged before, that seeing the Church was in­fallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written (vnles we will take away all certainty of fayth for that tyme) we cannot with any shew of reason affirme, that she hath been de­priued thereof by the adioined comfort, & help [Page 87]of sacred Writ.

9. Moreouer to say, that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine, ma­keth her lyable to damnable sinne and errour; & yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably. For if in that kind of Oath, which Deuines call Assertorium, wherin God is called to witnes, euery falshood is a deadly sinne in any priuate person whatsoeuer, although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall, nor preiu­diciall to any; because the quantity, or greatnes of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner, & authority whereby it is auouched, and by the iniury that is offered to Almighty God in ap­plying his testimony to a falshood: in which respect it is the vnanimous consent of all Deui­nes, that in such kind of Oaths, no leuitas mate­riae, that is, smallnes of matter, can excuse from a mortall sacriledge, agaynst the morall vertue of Religiō which respects worship due to God: If, I say, euery least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresayd kind of Oath; much more perni­cious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound vntrue Articles of fayth, thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood, and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same. Besids, according to the doctrine of all Deuines, it is not only iniu­rious to Gods Eternall Verity, to disbelieue things by him reuealed, but also to propose as [Page 88]reuealed truths, thinges not reuealed: as in commonwealths it is a haynous offence to coy­ne eyther by counterfeyting the mettall or the stamp, or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeyt, although the contents were sup­posed to be true. And whereas, to shew the detestable sinne of such pernicious fictions, the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broa­chers of faygned reuelations, visions, miracles, prophecies &c. as in particuler appeareth in the Councell ofSub Le­on. 10. Sess. 11. Lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the Church her selfe could pro­pose false reuelations, she herselfe should haue beene the first, and chiefest deseruer to haue been censured, and as it were excommunicated by herselfe. For (as they holy Ghost sayth inCap. 13. v. 7. Iob) doth God need your lye, that for him you may speake deceypts? And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verifyed in fictitious reuelations: If any Cap. vlt. v. 18. shals add to these things, God will add vnto him the plagues which are written in this Booke: & D. Potter sayth, To add pag. 222. to it (speaking of the Creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract frō it. And therfore to say the Church may add false Reuelations, is to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernicious errour excluding saluation.

10. Perhaps some will heere reply that al­though the Church may erre, yet it is not im­puted to her for sinne, by reason she doth not erre vpon malice, or wittingly, but by igno­rance, [Page 89]or mistake.

11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cānot serue. For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall, she cannot but know, that she may erre in points not funda­mentall, at least she cannot be certaine that she cānot erre, & therfore cannot be excused from headlong & 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 [Page 90]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 Matt. 16.18. of hell shall not preuaile against her: and that, the holy Ghost 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 [Page 91]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 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 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 [Page 92]words: The Spirit shall leade you into all truth, and shall abide with Joan. c. 16.13. &c. 14.16. you for euer, he sayth: Though that promise was 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 [Page 93]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 con­sequēce; 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 [Page 94]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 [Page 95]that they can tell what points in particuler be such, I meane fundamentall; it is manifest, that it is sussiciēt 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 momēt, 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, [Page 96]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 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 lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Coūcels, 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 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 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 st [...]ēgth, against this inuincible wal whosoeuer rusheth shalbe crushed in pieces. To this argument the Protestants in the Cōference at Ratisbon, gaue this round answer: Nos ab Augustino See Pro­tocoll. Mo­nac. edit. 2. pag. 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus. [Page 97]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 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. Amōg 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 [Page 98]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 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 cōtradicteth S. Augustine, from whom we haue now 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 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 [Page 99]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 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 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 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 [Page 100]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 theInstit. 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, inCent. 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 wilbe easily agreed vpon. Luther also sayth of the Popes Pri­macy, [Page 101]it may be borne In Asser­tionibus art. 36. with [...]. 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 free­will, 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 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 Prote­stāts, which I mentionedCap. 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. Iustificatiō by saith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the Chark. in the Tower disputation the 4. dayes conference. Church: The only principall origen of Fox Act. Monn. pag. 402. Saluation: of all other points of The Con­fession of Bo­hemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 253. dectrine the chiefest and weighti [...]st. Which yet, as we haue seen, is cōtrary to other Protestants, who teach that merit of good workes is not a fundamen­tall Errour; yea, diuers Protestants defend me­rit [Page 102]of good works, as may be seene inTract. 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 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, 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 Saluatiō. And (that you may obserue how vngrounded, and partiall their Assertions be) Perkins teacheth, that the Reall presence of our Sauiours Body in the Sacramēt as it is belieued by Catholiques, is a fundamentall errour; and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Luthe­rans not to be such, notwithstāding that diuers chiefe Lutherans, to their Consubstantiation ioyne the prodigious Heresy of Vbiquitation. D. Vshher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catho­lique fayth, grants Saluation to the Aethiopians, who yet with Christian Baptisme ioyne Circū ­cision [Page 103] D. Potter Pag. 113.114. cites the doctrine of some whome he termeth men of great learning and iudgement: that, all who professe to loue and honour IESVS-CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church, and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren. One of these men of great learning and iudg­ment, is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent, whose loue & honour to Iesus-Christ, you may perceyue, by his saying, that the Chur­ches of Arians (who denyed our Sauiour Christ to be God) are to be accounted the Church of God, because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell, Morton in his Treatise of the King dome of Israel. pag. 94. which is Fayth in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God, and Sauiour of the world. And, which is more, it see­meth by these charitable men, that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to be­lieue one only God. For D. Potter pag. 121. among the arguments to proue Hookers, & Mortons opi­nion, brings this: The people of the ten Tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their grosse corrup­tions, and Idolatry, remained still a true Church. We may also, as it seemeth by these mens rea­soning, deny the Resurrection, and yet be mē ­bers of the true Church. For a learned man (sayth D. Potter pag. 122. in behalfe of Hookers, and Mortons opinion) was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church, though he did pro­fessedly doubt of the last Resurrectiō of our bo­dies. Deere Sautour! What tymes doe we be­hold? If one may be a member of the true Church, and yet deny the Trinity of Persons, [Page 104]the God head of our Sauiour, the necessity of Baptisme, if we may vse Circumcision, and with the worship of God ioyne Idolatry, wher­in doe we differ from Turks, and Iewes? or ra­ther are we not worse, then eyther of them? If they who deny our Sauiours diuinity might be accounted the Church of God, how will they deny that fauour to those ancient Heretiques, who denyed our Sauiours true humanity? and so the totall deny all of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church. S. Huary Commēt. in Matt. c. 16. maketh it of equall necessity for Saluation, that we belieue our Sauiour to be true God, and true Man, saying: This manner of Confession we are to hold, that we remember him to be the Sonne of God, and the Sonne of Man, be­cause the one without the other, can giue no hope of Saluation. And yet D. Potter sayth of the afore­sayd doctrine of Hooker and Morton: The pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approue, or reiect it, as he shall find cause. And in another placepag. 253. he shew­eth so much good liking of this doctrine, that he explicateth and proueth the Churches per­petuall Visibility by it. And in the second Edi­tion of his booke, he is carefull to declare, and illustrate it more at large then he had done be­fore: howsoeuer, this sufficiently sheweth, that they haue no certainty, what points be funda­mentall. As for the Arians in particuler, the Authour whome D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholike, but is indeed a plaine Heretique, or [Page 105]rather Atheist, Lucian-like resting at all Reli­gion, placeth Arianisme among fundamentall errors: ButA mode­rate exami­nation &c. ç. 1. paulo post initiu [...]. contrarily an English Prote­stant Deuine masked vnder the name of Ire­naeus Philalethes, in a little Booke in Latin enti­tuled, Dissertatio de pace & concordiae Ecclesiae, en­deauoureth to proue, that euen the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with saluation. Diuers Protestants haue taught, that the Ro­man Church, erreth in fundamentall points: But D. Potter, and others teach the contrary, which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points. You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error, in the matter pag. 126 and nature of it properly hereticall; because they taught that the Church remained only with them, in the part of Donatus: And yet ma­ny Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall error, that them­selues goe further, and say; that for diuers ages before Luther there was no true visible Church at all. It is then too too apparent, that you haue no agreement in specifying, what be funda­mentall points; neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be; for if you haue any such meanes, why do you not agree? You tell vs, the Creed containes all points fundamen­tall, which although it were true, yet you see it serues not to bring you to a particuler know­ledge, and agreement in such points. And no wonder. For (besides what I haue said already [Page 106]in the beginning of this Chapter, & am to deli­uer more at large in the next) after so much la­bour and paperspent to proue that the Creed cō ­taynes all fundamentall points, you conclude: It remaines pag. 241. very probable, that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundament all truths, wher­of consists the Vnity of fayth, and of the Catholique Church. Very probable? Then, according to all good Logick, the contrary may remaine very probable, and so all remaine as full of vncertain­ty, as before. The whole Rule, say you, & the fol Iudge of your faith, must be Scripture. Scri­pture doth indeed deliuer diuine Truths, but feldome doth qualify them, or declare whether they be, or be not, absolutly necessary to salua­tion. You fallpag. 215 heauy vpon Charity Mistaken, because he demands a particuler Catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you are obli­ged in conscience to doe, if you be able. For without such a Catalogue, no man can be as­sured whether or no, he haue fayth sufficient to Saluation. And therefore take it not in ill part, if we agayne and agayne demand such a Cata­logue. And that you may see we proceed faire­ly, I will performe, on our behalfe, what we request of you, & do heer deliuer a Catalogue, wherein are comprized all points by vs taught to be necessary to Saluation, in these wordes: We are obliged, vnder payne of damnation, to belieue whatsoeuer the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth, as renealed by Almighty God. If any be [Page 107]of another mind, all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique. But inough of this. And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points.

20. For, euen out of your owne doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessa­ry to saluation, any wise man will infer, that it behooues all, who haue care of their soules, not to forsake her in any one point. 1. Because they are assured, that although her doctrine proued not to be true in some point, yet euen according to D. Potter, the error cannot be fundamentall, nor destructiue of fayth, and saluation: neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the vniuersall Church. Secondly, since she is, vnder paine of eternall damnation, to be belieued, and obeyed in some things, wherin confessedly she is en­dewed with infallibility; I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment. For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence, and be afraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment? Thirdly, since (as I said) we are vndoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest, or fundamentall points, and that there is no Rule to know preci­sely what, and how many those fundamentall points be; I cannot without hazard of my soule, leaue her in any one point, lest perhaps that point or points wherin I forsake her, proue in­deed to be fundamentall, and necessary to sal­uation. [Page 108]Fourthly, that visible Church which can not erre in points fundamentall, doth with­out distinction, propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be belieued vn­der Anathema's or Curses, esteeming all those who resist, to be deseruedly cast out of her Communion, and holding it as a point necessa­ry to saluation, that we belieue she cannot erre: wherin if she speake true, then to deny any one point in particuler, which she defineth, or to af­firme in generall, that she may erre, puts a man into state of damnation. Wheras to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salua­tion, can not endanger saluation; as likewise to remaine in her Communion, can bring no great harme, because she cannot maintaine any damnable error, or practise: but to be deuided frō her (she being Christs Catholique Church) is most certainely damnable. Fifthly, the true Church, being in lawfull, and certaine posses­sion of Superiority and Power, to command & require Obedience, from all Christians in some things; I cannot without grieuous sinne with­draw my obedience in any one, vnles I euident­ly know, that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth. And who can better in­forme me, how far God's Church can proceed, then God's Church herselfe? Or to what Do­ctor can the Children, and Schoollers, with grea­ter reason, and more security, fly for direction, [Page 109]then to the Mother, and appointed Teacher of all Christians? In following her, I shall sooner be excused, then in cleauing to any particuler Sect, or Person, teaching, or applying Scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. Sixtly, the fearefull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours, haue failed, euen in fundamentall points, and suffered ship wracke of their Salua­tion ought to deter all Christians, from oppo­sing her in any one doctrine, or practise: as (to omit other, both ancient and moderne heresies) we see that diuers chiefe Protestants, preten­ding to reforme the corruptions of the Church, are come to affirme, that for many Ages, she erred to death, and wholy perished; which D. Potter, cannot deny to be a fundamentall Er­rour against that Article of our Creed, I belieue the Catholike Church, as he affirmeth it of the Donatists, because they confined the vniuersall Church within Afirica, or some other small tract of soile. Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour, it is most safe for me to belieue al the Decrees of that Church, which cānot erre fundamentally: especially if we add; That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Deuines, one errour in fayth, whether it be for the matter if selfe, great or small, destroyes fayth, as is hewed in Charity Mistaken; and cō ­sequently to accuse the Church of any one Er­rour, is to affirme, that the lost all fayth, and [Page 111]erred damnably: which very saying is damna­ble, because at leaues Christ no visible Church on earth.

21. To all these arguments I add this demō ­stration: D. Potter teacheth, that there neyther was pag. 75. nor can be any iust cause to depart frō the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himselfe. But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of fayth, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (vnles D. Potter will haue them to be­lieue one thing, and professe another:) and if such errours, and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy, publique Ser­uice, administration of Sacraments, & the like; they who perceiue such errours, must of neces­sity leaue her externall Cōmunion. And there­fore if once we grant the Church may erre, it followeth that men may, and ought to forsake her (which is against D. Potters owne wordes,) or else they are inexcusable who left the Com­munion of the Roman Church, vnder pretence of Errors, which they grant, not to be funda­mentall. And if D. Potter thinke good to ans­were this argument, he must remember his owne doctrine to be, that euen the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall.

22. An other argument for the vniuersall infallibility of the Church, I take out of D. Pot­ters owne words. If (sayth he) we pag. 97. did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly [Page 112]Catholique. These words cannot be true, vnlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique, cannot erre in points not fundamentall. For if she may erre in such points, the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall, may agree with the Church truly Catholique, if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall. Therfore either he must ac­knowledge a plaine contradiction in his owne words, or else must grant, that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamen­tall, which is what we intended to proue.

23. If Words cannot perswade you, that in all Controuersies you must rely vpon the infal­libility of the Church; at least yield your as­sent to Deeds. Hither to I haue produced Argu­ments drawne, as it were, ex naturâ rei, from the Wisdome, and Goodnes of God, who can­not faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controuersies, which, as we haue proued, can be no other, except a Visible Church, infallible in all her Definitions. But because both Catholiques and Protestants, re­ceiue holy Scripture, we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concerne Faith and Religion. Our Sa­uiour speaketh cleerely: The gates of Hell Matt. 16. shall not preuaile against her. And, I will aske my Ioan. 14. Father, and he will giue you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for euer, the Spirit of truth. And, But when he, the Spirit of Ioan. 16. truth cometh, he shall [Page 112]teach you all truth. The Apostle sayth, that the Church is, the Pillar, and ground 1. Tim. cap. 3. of Truth. And, He gaue, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Euangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, vn­to the worke of the Ministery, vnto the edifying of the body of Christ: vntill we meete all into the vnity of faith, and knowledge of the Sonne of God, into a per­fect man, into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ: that now we be not Children wauering, and carried about with euery wind of dectrine in the wie­kednes of men, in craftines, to the circumuention Ephes. 4. of Errour. All which wordes seeme cleerely inough to proue, that the Church is vniuer­sally infallible, without which, Vnity of faith could not be conserued agaynst euery wind of Doctrine: And yet Doctor Potter pag. 151.153. limits these promises & priuiledges to fundamentall points, in which he grants the Church cannot erre. I vrge the wordes of Scripture, which are v­niuersall, and doe not mention any such re­straint. I alleadge that most reasonable, and receaued Rule, that Scripture is to be vnder­stood literally, as it soundeth, vnlesse some manifest absurdity force vs to the contrary. But all will not serue, to accord our different interpretations. In the meane tyme diuers of Doctor Potters Brethren steppe in, and reiect his limitation, as ouer large, and som what tasting of Papistry: And therfore they restraine the mentioned Texts, either to the Infallibility [Page 113]which the Apostles, and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture: or else to the inui­sible Church of the Elect; and to them, not abso­lutely, but with a double restriction, that they shall not fall damnably, & finally; and other men haue as much right as these, to interpose their opinion, & interpretation. Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scri­pture: We confer diuers places and Text: We consult the Originals: We examine Transla­tions: We endeauour to pray hartily: We pro­fesse to speake sincerely; To seeke nothing but truth and saluation of our owne soules, & that of our Neighbours; and finally we vse all those meanes, which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture: Neuertheles we neither do, or haue any possible meanes to agree, as long as we are left to our selues; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remaine whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no: And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God, the Louer of soules, hath left no certaine infallible meanes, to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or vpon any other occasion. Our remedy therfore in these con­tentions must be, to consult, and heare God's Visible Church, with submissiue acknowledg­ment of her Power, and Infallibility in what­soeuer she proposeth as a reuealed truth: accor­ding [Page 114]to that diuine aduice of S. Augustine in these words. If at length De vtil. pred. oap. 8. thou seeme to be suffi­ciently tossed, and hast a desire to put an end to thy paines, follow the way of the Catholique Discipline, which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come downe euen to vs, and from vs shall descend to all posterity. And though I conceiue that the di­stinction of points fundamentall, and not funda­mentall hath now beene sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remaine, I will particulerly refell a common saying of Protestants, that it is sufficient for saluation, to belieue the Apostles Creed, which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Fayth.

CHAP. IIII. To say, that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be belieued, is neyther pertinent to the Question in hand, nor in it selfe true.

ISAY, neyther pertinent, nor true. Not pertinent: Because our Question is not, what points are necessary to be ex­plicitely belieued; but what points may be lawfully disbe­lieued, or reiected after sufficient Propositiō that they are diuine Truths. You say, the Creed cō ­taynes all points necessary to be belieued. Be it so. But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieued? Certainly it doth nor. For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contayned in the Creed, which we are not obliged distinctly, and particulerly to know & belieue, but are bound vnder paine of damna­tion not to reiect, as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture? And we hauing already shewed, that whatsoeuer is pro­posed [Page 116]by Gods Church as a point of fayth, is infallibly a truth reuealed by God; it followeth that whosoeuer denyeth any such point, oppo­seth Gods sacred testimony, whether that point be contayned in the Creed, or no. In vaine then was your care imploied to proue that al points of fayth necessary to be explicitely belieued, are contained in the Creed. Neyther was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded. His demand was (and it was most reasonable) that you would once giue vs a list of all funda­mentals, the denyall whereof destroyes Salua­tion; whereas the denyall of other points not fundamentall, may stand with saluation, al­though both these kinds of points be equally proposed as reuealed by God. For if they be not equally proposed, the difference will arise from diuersity of the Proposall, and not of the Matter fundamentull, or not fundamentall. This Ca­talogue only, can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in fayth; and vpon this many other matters depend, according to the ground of Protestants. But you will neuer aduenture to publish such a Ca­talogue. I say more: You cannot assigne any one point so great, or fundamentall, that the denyall thereof will make a man an Hereti­que, if it be not sufficiently propounded, as a diuine Truth: Nor can you assigne any one point so small, that it can without heresy be re­iected, if once it be sufficiently represented as [Page 117]reuealed by God.

2. Nay, this your instance in the Creed, is not only impertinent but directly agaynst you. For, all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall, as I shewedChap. 3. n. 3. be­fore: And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contayned in the Creed. So that it is cleere, that to make an errour damnable, it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fun­damentall.

3. Moreouer you cannot ground any cer­tainty vpon the Creed it selfe, vnlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is vniuersally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whe­ther they concerne matters great, or small, cō ­tayned, or not contained in the Creed. This is cleere. Because we must receaue the Creed it selfe vpon the credit of the Church, without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed: and yet the arguments whereby you en­deauour to proue, that the Creed contaynes all fundamentall points, are grounded vpon sup­position, that the Creed was made eyther by the Apostles themselues, or by the pag. 216 Church of their tymes from them: which thing we could not cer­tainly know, if the succeeding and still conti­nued Church, may erre in her Traditions: neyther can we be assured, whether all funda­mentall Articles which you say were out of [Page 118]the Scriptures, summed, and contracted into the A­postles Creed, were faythfully summed and cō ­tracted, and not one pretermitted, altered, or mistaken, vnlesse we vndoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it; or at least that the Church of their tymes (for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles them­selues) did vnderstand the Apostles aright; & that the Church of their tymes, did intend that the Creed should containe all fundamentall points. For if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, may she not also erre in the particulers which I haue specifyed? Can you shew it to be a fundamentall point of fayth, that the Apostles intended to cōprize all points of fayth necessary to Saluation in the Creed? Your selfe say no more then that it is very pag. 241. probable; which is farre from reaching to a fun­damentall point of fayth. Your probability is grounded vpon the Iudgment of Antiquity, and euen of the Roman Doctours, as you say in the same place. But if the Catholique Church may erre, what certainty can you expect from An­tiquity, or Doctours? Scripture is your totall Rule of fayth. Cite therefore some Text of Scripture, to proue that the Apostles, or the Church of their tymes composed the Creed, and composed it with a purpose that it shonld con­tayne all fundamentall points of fayth. Which [Page 119]being impossible to be done, you must for the Creed it selfe rely vpon the infallibility of the Church.

4. Moreouer, the Creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and mea­ning. All such as pretend to the name of Chri­stians, recite the Creed, & yet many haue erred fundamentally, as well against the Articles of the Creed as other points of faith. It is then ve­ry friuolous to say, the Creed containes all fun­damentall points, without specifying, both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true, and also in what true sense, they be fundamental. For, both these taskes, you are to performe, who teach that all truth is not fundamentall: & you do but delude the ignorant, when you say, that the Creed, taken in a Catholique pag. 216. sense, com­prehendeth all points fundamentall; because with you, all Catholique sense is not fundamen­tall: for so it were necessary to saluation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture, wherin euery least point hath a Catholique sense. Or if by Catholique sense, you vnderstand that sense which is so vniuersally to be knowne, and belieued by all, that whosoeuer failes therein cannot be saued, you trifle and say no more then this: All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to saluation, are necessary to saluation. Or: All points fundamentall, are fundamentall. After this man­ner it were an easy thing to make many true Prognostications, by saying it will certainely [Page 120]raine, when it raineth. You say the Creedpag. 216. was opened and explaned, in some parts in the Creeds of Nice &c. but how shall we vnder­stand the other parts, not explaned in those Creeds?

5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamentall, or may seeme more cleere, then that, wherin we belieue IESVS-CHRIST to be the Mediatour, Redeemer, and Sauiour of mankind, and the founder, and foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed? And yet about this Article, how many different do­ctrines are there, not only of old Heretiques, as Arius, Nestorius, Eutiches &c. but also of Prote­stants, partly against Catholiques, and partly against one another? For the said maine Article of Christ's being the only Sauiour of the world &c. according to different senses of disagree­ing Sects, doth inuolue these, and many other such questions; That Faith in IESVS-CHRIST doth iustify alone; That Sacraments haue no ef­ficiency in Iustification; That Baptisme doth not auaile Infants for saluation; vnlesse they haue an Act of faith; That there is no Sacerdo­tall Absolution from sinnes; That good works proceeding from God's grace are not merito­rious; That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne after the guilt, or offence is pardoned; No, Purgatory; No Prayers for the dead; No Sacrifice of the Masse; No Inuocation; No Mediation, or intercession [Page 121]of Saints; No inherent Iustice: No supreme Pa­stor, yea no Bishop by diuine Ordinance; No Reall presence, no Transubstantiation, with di­uers others. And why? Because (forsooth) these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Media­tor, Redeemer, Aduocate, Foundation &c. Yea and are against the truth of our Sauiours hu­mane nature, if we belieue diuers Protestants, writing against Transubstantiation. Let then any iudicious man consider, whether Doctour Potter, or others doe really satisfy, when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalo­gue, to distinguish points fundamentall, from those which they say are not fundamentall. If he will speake indeed to some purpose, let him say: This Article is vnderstood in this sense: and in this sense it is fundamentall. That other is to be vnder stood in such a mea­ning; yet according to that meaning, it is not so fundamentall, but that men may disagree, and deny it without damnation. But it were no policy for any Protestant to deale so plai­nely.

6. But to what end should we vse many ar­guments? Euen your selfe are forced to limit your owne Doctrine, and come to say, that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall points, taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent Horisies) in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, pag. 216. Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius. But this [Page 122]explication, or restriction ouerthroweth your Assertion. For as the Apostles Creed was not to vs a sufficient Catalogue, till it was explained by the first Councell, nor then till it was decla­red by another &c. so now also, as new Here­sies may arise, it will need particular explana­tion against such emergent errors; and so it is not yet, nor euer will be of it selfe alone, a par­ticular Catalogue, sufficient to distinguish be­twixt fundamentall, and not fundamentall points.

7. I come to the second part: That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall points of faith. And to the end we may not striue about things either granted by vs both, or nothing concerning the point in question, I must pre­mise these obseruations.

8. First: That it cannot be denied, but that the Creed is most full and complete, to that purpose for which the holy Apostles, inspir'd by God, meant that it should serue, and in that māner as they did intend it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such generall heads, as were most befitting, and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to Iewes, and Gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set downe, and easily learned, and remembred. And therfore, in respect of Gentiles, the Creed doth mētion God, as Crea­tor of all things; and for both Iewes and Gen­tiles, the Trinity, the Messias, and Sauiour, his [Page 123]birth, life, death, resurrection, and glory, from whom they were to hope remission of sinnes, & life euerlasting, and by whose sacred Name they were to be distinguished from all other profes­sions, by being called Christians. According to which purpose S. Thomas of Aquine 2.2. g. 1. art. 8. doth di­stinguish all the Articles of the Creed into these generall heads: That some belong to the Maiesty of the Godhead; others to the Mistery of our Sauiour Christs Humane nature: Which two generall obiects of faith, the holy Ghost doth expresse, and conioyne Ioan. 17. Haec est vita aterna &c. This is life euerlasting, that they know thee true GOD, and whom thou hast sent IESVS CHRIST. But it was not their meaning to giue vs as it were a course of Diuinity, or a Ca­techisme, or a particular Expression of all points of Faith, leauing those things to be per­formed, as occasion should require, by their owne word or writing, for their time, and af­terwards by their Successours in the Catholi­que Church. Our question then is not, whether the Creed be perfect, as far as the end for which it was composed, did require; For we belieue & are ready to giue our liues for this: but only we deny, that the Apostles did intend to comprize therin all particular points of beliefe, necessary to saluation, as euen by D. Potters ownepag. 235.215. con­fession, it doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practise, as Sacraments, Commandements, the Acts of Hope, and dutyes [Page 124]of Charity, which we are obliged not only to practise, but also to beliene by diuine infallible fayth. Will he therefore inferre that the Creed is not perfect, because it contaynes not all those necessary, and fundamentall Obiects of fayth? He will answere. No: because the Apostles in­tended only to expresse credenda, thinges to be belieued, not practised. Let him therefore giue vs leaue to say, that the Creed is perfect, be­cause it wanteth none of those Obiects of be­liefe which were intended to be set downe, as we explicated before.

9. The second obseruation is, that to satis­fy our question what points in particuler bē fundamentall, it will not be sufficient to alledg the Creed, vnlesse it containe all such points eyther expressely & immediatly; or els in such manner, that by euident, and necessary con­sequence they may be deduced from Articles both cleerely, and particulerly contayned ther­in. For if the deduction be doubtfull, we shal not be sure, that such Conclusions be fundamental: or if the Articles themselues which are sayd to be fundamentall, be not distinctly, and parti­culerly expressed, they will not serue vs to know, and distinguish all points fundamental, from those which they call, not fundamentall. We doe not deny, but that all points of fayth, both fundamentall, and not fundamentall, may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense; as for example, implicitely, gene­rally, [Page 125]or in some such inuolued manner. For when we explicitely belieue the Catholique Church, we do implicitely belieue whatsoeuer she proposeth as belonging to faith. Or else by way of reduction, that is, when we are once in­structed in the beliefe of particular points of faith, not expressed, nor by necessary consequē ­ce deducible frō the Creed; we may afterward, by some analogy, or proportion, and resem­blance, reduce it to one, or moe of those Arti­cles which are explicitely contayned in the Symbole. Thus S. Thomas the Cherubim among Deuines teacheth2. 23 q. [...] art. 8. ad 6. that the miraculous exi­stence of our Blessed Sauiours body in the Eu­charist, as likewise all his other miracles, are reduced to Gods Omnipotency, expressed in the Creed. And Doctor Potter sayth: The Eucharist pag. 2 [...]. being a seale of that holy Vnion which we haue with Christ our head, by his Spirit and Fayth, and with the Saints his members by Charity, is euidently included in the Communion of Saints. But this re­ductiue way, is farre from being sufficient to inferre out of the Articles of Gods Omnipotency, or of the Communion of Saints, that our Sauiours body is in the Eucharist, and much lesse whe­ther it be only in figure, or els in reality; by Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation &c. and least of all, whether or no these points be fundamentall. And you hyperbolize, in saying, the Eucharist is euidently included in the Commu­nion of Saints, as if there could not haue been, or [Page 126]was not a Communion of Saints, before the Blessed Sacrament was instituted. Yet it is true, that after we know, and belieue, there is such a Sacrament, we may referre it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed, and yet so, as S. Thomas referrs it to one Article, and D. Potter to another; and in respect of different analogies or effects, it may be referred to seue­rall Articles. The like I say of other points of faith, which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed, but nothing to D. Potters purpose: But contrarily it sheweth, that your affirming such and such points to be fundamentall or not fun­damentall, is meerely arbitrary, to serue your turne, as necessity, and your occasions may re­quire. Which was an old custome amongst He­retiques, as we read inDe pec­cat. Orig. cont. Pelag. l. 2. cap. 22. S. Augustine. Pelagius and Celestius, desiring fraudulently to auoyde the hatefull name of Heresies, affirmed that the question of Originall Sinne may be disputed without danger of fayth. But this holy Father affirmes that it be­longs to the foundation of fayth. We may (saith he) endure a disputant who erres in other questions not yet diligently examined, not yet diligently esta­blished by the whole authority of the Church, their errour may be borne with: but it must not passe so far as to attempt to shake the foundation of the Church. We see S. Augustine places the being of a point fundamentall or not fundamentall, in that it hath beene examined, and established by the Church, although the point of which he spea­keth, [Page 127]namely Originall Sinne, be not contay­ned in the Creed.

10. Out of that which hath beene sayd, I inferre, that Doctour Potters paines in alledging Catholique Doctours, the ancient Fathers, and the Councell of Trent, to proue that the Creed containes all points of faith, was need­lesse, since we grant it in manner aforesayd. But Doctour Potter, can not in his conscience be­lieue, that Catholique Deuines, or the Coun­cell of Trent, and the holy Fathers did intend, that all points in particuler which we are obli­ged to belieue, are contayned explicitely in the Creed; he knowing well inough, that all Ca­tholiques hold themselues obliged, to belieue all those points which the sayd Councell defi­nes to be belieued vnder an Anathema, and that all Christians belieue the commandments, Sacraments &c. which are not expressed in the Creed.

11. Neither must this seeme strange. For who is ignorant, that Summaries, Epitom'es, & the like briefe Abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science, or Sub­iect to which they belong. For as the Creed is said to containe all points of Fayth; so the De­calogue comprehends all Articles, (as I may terme them) which concerne Charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so vnderstood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing of any vice, vnlesse it be [Page 128]expressed in the ten Commandments. For, (to omit the precepts of receauing Sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the Decalogue) there are many sinnes, euen against the Law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten Commandments, except only by simi­litude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. For example, we find not expressed in the De­calogue, either diuers sinnes, as Gluttony, Drunkennesse, Pride, Sloth, Couetousnes in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greedines; or diuers of our chiefe obli­gations, as Obedience to Princes, and all Supe­riours, not only Ecclesiasticall but also Ciuill, whose Lawes Luther, Melancthon, Caluin, and some other Protestants do dangerously affirme not to oblige in conscience, and yet these men thinke they know the ten Commandments: as likewise diuers Protestants defend Vsury, to be lawfull; and the many Treatises of Ciuilians, Ca­nonists, and Casuists, are witnesses, that diuers sinnes against the light of reason, and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten Commandements; although when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull, they may be reduced to some of the Com­mandments, and yet not so euidently, and par­ticularly, but that diuers doe it in diuers man­ners.

12. My third Obseruation is: That our pre­sent [Page 129]question being, whether or no the Creed containe so fully all fundamentall points of faith, that whosoeuer do not agree in all, and euery one of those fundamentall Articles, can­not haue the same substance of faith, nor hope of Saluation; if I can produce one, or more points, not contained in the Creed, in which if two do not agree, both of them cannot expect to be saued, I shall haue performed as much as I intend; and D. Potter must seeke out some other Catalogue for points fundamentall, then the Creed. Neither is it materiall to the said pur­pose, whether such fundamentall points rest only in knowledge, and speculation or beliefe, or else be further referred to work and practise. For the Habit, or Vertue of Fayth, which incli­neth and enableth vs to belieue both specula­tiue, and practicall verities, is of one and the selfe same nature, and essence. For example, by the same Fayth, wherby I speculatiuely belieue there is a God, I likewise belieue, that he is to be adored, serued, and loued, which belong to pra­ctise. The reason is, because the Formall Obiect, or motiue, for which I yield assent to those diffe­rent sorts of materiall obiects, is the same in both, to wit, the reuelation, or word of God. Where by the way I note, that if the Vnity, or Distinction, and nature of Fayth, were to be ta­ken from the diuersity of things reuealed, by one Fayth I should belieue speculatiue verities, and by another such as tend to practise, which [Page 130]I doubt whether D. Potter himselfe will admit.

13. Hence it followeth, that whosoeuer deni­eth any one maine practicall reuealed truth, is no lesse an Heretique, then if he should deny a point resting in beliefe alone. So that when D. Potter, (to auoid our argument, that all funda­mentall points are not contained in the Creed, because in it there is no mention of the Sacra­mēts, which yet are points of so maine importā ­ce, that Protestants make the due administratiō of them to be necessary & essentiall to constitute a Church) answereth, that the Sacraments are to be pag. 235. reckoned, rather among the Agenda of the Church, then the Credenda; they are rather diuine rites & ceremonies, then Doctrines, he either grants what we affirme, or in effect sayes; Of two kinds of reuealed truths, which are necessary to be belieued, the Creed containes one sort only, ergo, it containes all kind of reuealed truths ne­cessary to be belieued. Our question is not, de no­mine but re; not what be called points of Fayth, or of practise, but what points indeed be neces­sarily to be belieued, whether they be termed Agenda, or Credenda: especially the chiefest part of Christian perfection consisting more in Action, then in barren Speculation; in good workes, then bare beliefe; in doing, then knowing. And there are no lesse contentions concerning practicall, then speculatiue truths: as Sacraments, obtayning remission of sinne, Inuocation of Saints, Prayers for dead, Adora­tion [Page 131]of Christ in the Sacrament, & many other: all which do so much the more import, as on them, beside right beliefe, doth also depend our practise, and the ordering of our life. Though D. Potter could therfore giue vs (as he will ne­uer be able to do) a minute, and exact Catalo­gue of all truths to be belieued; that would not make me able inough to know, whether or no I haue faith sufficient for saluation; till he also did bring in a particular List, of all belieued truths, which tend to practise, declaring which of them be fundamentall, which not, that so euery man might know whether he be not in some Damnable Errour, for some Article of fayth, which further might giue influence into Damnable works.

14. These Obseruations being premised, I come to proue, that the Creed doth not con­taine all points of Fayth necessary to be knowne, & belieued. And, to omit that in ge­nerall it doth not tell vs, what points be funda­mentall, or not fundamentall, which in the way of Protestants, is most necessary to be knowne; in particular, there is no mention of the greatest Euils, from which mans calamity proceeded, I meane, the sinne of the Angels, of Auam, and of Originall sinne in vs: not of the greatest good from which we expect all good, to wit, the necessity of Grace for all works ten­ding to piety. Nay, there is no mention of An­gels, good, or bad. The meaning of that most [Page 132]generall head (Oportet accedentem &c. It behooues Heb. 11.6. him that comes to God, to belieue that he is, and is a remunerator,) is questioned, by the deniall of Merit, which makes God, a Giuer, but not a Re­warder. It is not expressed whether the Article of Remission of sinnes be vnderstood by fayth a­lone, or else may admit the efficiency of Sacra­ments. There is no mention of Ecclesiasticall, Apostolicall, Diuine Traditions, one way or o­ther; or of holy Scriptures in generall, and much lesse of euery booke in particuler; nor of the Name, Nature, Number, Effects, Matter, Forme, Minister, Intention, Necessity of Sacra­ments, and yet the due administration of Sacra­ments, is with Protestants an essentiall Note of the Church. There is nothing for Baptisme of Children, nor against Rebaptization. There is no mention in fauour, or against the Sacrifice of the Masse, of Power in the Church to institute Rites, Holy dayes &c. and to inflict Excommu­nication, or other Censures: of Priesthood, Bishops, and the whole Ecclesiasticall Hie­rarchy, which are very fundamentall points; of S. Peters Primacy, which to Caluin seemeth a fundamentall error; nor of the possibility, or impossibility to keep Gods commandments; of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Fa­ther and the Sonne; of Purgatory, or Prayer for the dead, in any sense: And yet D. Potter doth not deny, but that Aerius was esteemed an He­retique, for denyingpag. 35. all sort of Commemo­ration [Page 133]for the dead. Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Inuisibility, Fallibility or Infallibi­lity; nor of other points controuerted betwixt Protestants themselues, and betweene Ptote­stants and Catholiques, which to D. Potter seeme so haynous corruptions, that they cannot with­out damnation ioyne with vs in profession therof. There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law, which yet is a very maine point of faith. And many other might be also added.

15. But what need we labour to specify particulars? There are as many importāt points of faith not expressed in the Creed, as since the worlds beginning now, & for all future times, there haue been, are, and may be innumerable, grosse, damnable, Heresies, whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed. For, euery fundamental Error must haue a contrary fundamentall truth; because of two contradi­ctory propositions, in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true. As for example, if it be a damnable error to deny the Bl. Trinity, or the God-head of our Sauiour, the beliefe of them must be a truth necessary to saluation; or rather, if we will speake properly, the Error is damnable, because the opposite Truth is neces­sary, as death is frightfull, because life is sweet; and according to Philosophy, the Priuation is measured by the Forme to which it is repug­nant. If therfore the Creed containe in particu­ler [Page 134]all fundamentall points of fayth, it must ex­plicitely, or by cleere consequence, cōprehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all Ages past, present, and to come, which no man in his wits will affirme it to doe.

16. And heer I cannot omit to signify how youpag. 255. applaude the saying of D. Vsher. That in those Propositions which without all controuersy are vniuersally receiued in the whole Christian world, so much Truth is contained, as being ioyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to euerla­sting saluation; Neither haue we cause to doubt, but that as many as walke according to this Rule (neither ouerthrowing that which they haue builded, by superin­ducing any damnable heresies therupon, nor otherwise vi [...]iating their holy fayth with a lewd and wicked con­ [...]ersation) peace shall be vpon them, and vpon the Israel of God. Now, D. Potter knowes, that the Mistery of the B. Trinity is not vniuersally re­ceiued in the whole Christian world, as appea­res in very many Heretiques, in Polony, Hunga­ry, and Transiluania, and therfore according to this Rule of D. Vsher, approued by D. Potter, the deniall of the B. Trinity, shall not exclude sal­uation.

17. Let me note by the way, that you might easily haue espied a foule contradiction in the said words of D. Vsher, by you recited, and so much applauded. For he supposeth, that a man agrees with other Churches in beliefe, which ioyned with holy Obedience may bring him to [Page 135]euerlasting saluation, and yet, that he may su­perinduce damnable heresies. For how can he super­induce damnable heresies, who is supposed to be­lieue all Truths necessary to saluation? Can there be any damnable heresy, vnlesse it contradict some necessary truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to belieue all necessary Truths? Besides if one belieuing all fundamen­tall Articles in the Creed, may superinduce dam­nable heresies; it followeth that the fundamētall truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the Creed.

18. According to this Modell of D. Potters foundation, consisting in the agreement of scarcely one point of fayth; what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one of few Articles of beliefe, who yet for the rest should be holding conceyts plain­ly contradictory: so patching vp a Religion of mē who agree only in the Article, that Christ is our Sauiour, but for the rest, are like to the parts of a Chimaera, hauing the head of a man, the necke of a horse, the shoulders of an Oxe, the foote of a Lion &c. I wrong them not heerein. For in good Philosophy there is greater repu­gnancy betweene assent and dissent, affirma­tion and negation, est est, non non (especially when all these contrradictories pretend to re­lye vpon one and the selfe same Motiue, the in­infallible Truth of Almighty God) then be­tweene the integrall parts, as head, necke, [Page 136]&c. of a mā, horse, lion, &c. And thus Protestāts are farre more bold to disagree euen in matters of fayth, then Catholique Deuines in questi­ons meerely Philosophicall, or not determined by the Church. And while thus they stand on­ly vpon fundamentall Articles, they do by their owne confession destroy the Church, which is the house of God. For the foundation alone of a house, is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Saluation, then the foundation alone of a house is fit to af­foard a man habitation.

19. Moreouer, it is most euident that Pro­testants by this Chaos rather then Church, doe giue vnauoydable occasion of desperation to poore soules. Let some one who is desirous to saue his soule repaire to D. Potter, who main­taynes these grounds, to know vpon whome he may rely, in a matter of so great consequen­ce; I suppose the Doctours answere will be: V­pon the truly Catholique Church. She cannot erre danably. What vnderstand you by the Ca­tholike Church? Cannot generall Councells, which are the Church representatiue, erre? Yes, they may weakely, or pag. 167. willfully misapply, or mis­vnderstand, or neglect Scripture, and so erre damna­bly. To whome then shall I goe for my particu­ler instructiō? I cannot confer with the vnited body of the whole Church about my parti­culer difficulties, as your selfe affirmes, that the Catholique Church cannot be told pag. 27. of priuate [Page 137]iniuries. Must I then consult with euery parti­cular person of the Catholique Church? So it seemes, by what you write in these wordes: The whole pag. 150.151. militant Church (that is all the mem­bers of it) cannot possibly erre, eyther in the whole fayth, or any necessary Article of it. You say, M. Doctour, I cannot for my instruction acquaint the vniuersall Church with my particuler scru­ples: You say, the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably: It remaynes then, that for my ne­cessary instruction, I must repaire to euery par­ticuler member of the vniuersall Church spread ouer the face of the earth: & yet you teach that the promises pag. 151. which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance, are intended not to any par­ticuler persons or Churches, but only to the Church Catholike, with which (as I sayd) it is impossi­ble for me to confer. Alas, O most vncomfor­table Ghostly Father, you driue me to despera­tion. How shall I confer with euery Christian soule, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner, or at liberty &c.? Yet vpon sup­posall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Fayth, before I haue the fayth of Miracles, how shall I proceed at our meeting? Or how shall I know the man on whome I may securely relye? Pro­cure (will you 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 [Page 138]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 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 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 [Page 139]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, [Page 140]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 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 [Page 141]tels vs, that the Creed 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 [Page 142]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 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 Act. 20.27. backe nothing, with your glosse (needfull for our saluatiō) is no proofe vnlesse you still beg the question, and doe sup­pose, that whatsoeuer the Apostles reuealed to the Church, is contayned in the Creed. And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors, and Gouernours of the Church, as is cleere by the other wordes; He called the An­cients of the Church. And afterward: Take heed to your selues, and to the whole flocke wherin the holy [Page 143]Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church. And your selfe say, that more knowledge is pag. 244 ne­cessary in Bishops, and Priests, to whom is committed the gouernment of the Church, and the care of soules, then in vulgar Laickes. Do you thinke that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed? Said they nothing of the Sacraments, Cōmandments, Duties of Hope, Charity &c?

25. Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other obiection: To say the whole fayth of those times pag. 222.223. is not contained in the Apo­les Creed, is all one, as if a man should say, this is not the Apostles Creed, but a part of it. For the fayth of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commōly call their Creed. Did not, I pray you, S. Mathew, and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture? and yet their wri­tinges are not mentioned in the Creed. It is therfore more then cleere, that the Fayth of the Apostles is of a larger extent, then the Apostles Creed.

26. To your demaund, why amongst many things of equall necessity to be belieued, the Apo­stles should pag. 225. so distinctly set downe some, and be altogether silent of others? I answere: That you must answere your owne demaund. For in the Creed there be diuers points in their nature, not fundamentall, or necessary to be explicite­ly and distinctly belieued, as aboue we shewed; why are these points which are not fundamen­tall expressed, rather then other of the same [Page 144]quality? Why our Sauiours descent to Hell, & Buriall expressed, and not his Circumcision, his manifestation to the three Kings, working of Miracles &c? Why did they not expresse Scri­ptures, Sacraments, and all fundamentall points of Fayth tending to practise, as well as those which rest in beliefe? Their intention was, par­ticularly to deliuer such Articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the Deity, Trinity, and Messias (as heretofore I haue declared) lea­uing many things to be taught by the Catholique Church, which in the Creed we all professe to belieue. Neither doth it follow, as you infer, That as well, nay better, they might haue giuen no Article, but that (of the Church) and sent vs to the Church for all the rest. For in setting downe others besides that, and not all, they make vs belieue we haue all, when pag. 223. we haue not all. For by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? One might, quite contrary to your inference, say: If the Apostles Creed containe all points necessary to saluation, what need we any Church to teach vs? and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church? What need we the Creeds of Nice, Constantinople &c. Super­fluous are your Catechisms, wherin beside the Articles of the Creed, you add diuers other par­ticulars. These would be poore consequences, and so is yours. But shall I tell you newes? For so you are pleased to esteeme it. We grant your inference, thus far: That our Sauiour Christ re­ferred [Page 145]vs to his Church, by her to be taught, & by her alone. For, she was before the Creed, and Scriptures; And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs, hath deliuered vs the Creed, but not it alone, as if nothing els were to be belieued. We haue besides it, holy Scri­pture; we haue vnwritten, diuine, Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions. It were a childish ar­gument: The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be belieued: Ergo, it is not profitable. Or; The Church alone is sufficient to teach vs by some conuenient meanes: Ergo, she must teach vs without all meanes, without Creeds, without Councels, without Scripture &c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article, but that of the Catholique Church, she must haue taught vs the other Articles in particular, by Creeds, or other meanes, as in fact we haue euen the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church. If you will belieue you haue all in the Creed, when you haue not all, it is not the Apostles, or the Church, that makes you so belieue, but it is your owne error, wherby you will needs belieue, that the Creed must containe all. For neither the Apostles, nor the Church, nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there, that one meanes of in­struction, must inuolue whatsoeuer is contained in all the rest? We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion, that it must con­taine what we imagine it ought, for better [Page 146]maintayning some opinions of our owne; but we ought to say, and belieue that it containes what we find in it; of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed: and in particuler we may learne of her, what points be contained in the Creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceiued, by belieuing we haue all in the Creed, when we haue not all: and you may in the same manner say: As well, nay better, the Apo­stles might haue giuen vs no Articles at all, as haue left out Articles tending to practise. For in set­ting down one sort of articles, & not the other, they make vs belieue we haue all, whē we haue not all.

27 To our argument, that Baptisme is not contayned in the Creed; D. Potter, besides his answere, that Sacraments belong rather to pra­ctise then fayth, (which I haue already confu­ted, and which indeed maketh agaynst him­selfe, and serueth only to shew that the Apo­stles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue) adds, that the Creed of pag. 237. Nice expressed Bap­tisme by name; confesse one Baptisme for the remissiō of Sinne Which answere is directly against him­selfe, and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of fayth, and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed, neyther explicitely, nor by any necessary consequence from other Ar­ticles expressed therein. If to make it an Arti­cle [Page 147]of fayth be sufficient that it is contayned in in the Nicene Councell; he will find that Pro­testants maintayne many errours against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels: as in particuler, that the very Coun­cell of Nice (which sayth M. Whitgift, In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reuerenced, esteemed & im­braced, next vnto the Scriptures themselues) decreed that, to those who were chosen to the Ministry vn­marryed, it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by Protestants. And 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, wilbe 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 [Page 148]as 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 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, [Page 150]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 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 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 [Page 151] 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 [Page 152]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 of the Whole, to which the particular Vnity of Parts is subordinate. This Vnity, or Onenesse (if so I may call it) is effected by Charity vniting all the members of the Church in one Mysti­call Body; contrrary to which, is Schisme, from the Greeke word signifying Scissure, or Diuision. Wherfore vpon the whole matter, we find that Schisme, as the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas de­fines it, is; A voluntary separation 2. 2. q. 39 art. in corp. & ad 3. from the Vnity of that Charity, whereby all the members of the Church are vnited. From hence he deduceth, that Schisme is a speciall and particular vice, distinct from Heresy, because they are opposite to two different Vertues: Heresy, to Fayth: Schisme, to [Page 153]Charity. To which purpose he fitly alleadgeth S. Hierome vpon these words, (Tit. 3.) A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admo­nition auoide, saying: I conceiue that there is this difference betwixt Schisme and Heresy, that Heresy iauolues some peruerse assertion: Schisme for Episco­pall dissention doth separate men from the Church. The same doctrine is deliuered by S. Augustine in these words: Heretiques lib. 1. de fid. & Symb. cap. 10. and Schismatiques call their Congregations, Churches: but Heretiques corrupt the Fayth by belieuing of God false things: but Schismatiques by wicked diuisions breake from fra­ternall Charity, although they belieue what we be­lieue. Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church, because she loues God: nor the Schismati­que, because she loues her Neighbour. And in an­other place he sayth It is wont to be demaunded Quest. Euangel ex Matt. q. 11. How Schismatiques be distinguished from He retiques: and this difference is found, that not a di­uers fayth, but the deuided Society of Communion doth make Schismatiques. It is then euident that Schisme is different from Heresy. Neuerthe­lesse (sayth Saint Thomas vbi supra as he who is depri­ued of faith must needs want Charity: so euery Heretique is a Schismatique, but not conuersi­uely euery Schismatique is an Heretique; thogh because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of fayth (according to those wordes of the Apostle, Which (a good cō ­science) some casting off, haue suffered shipwrack in their fayth) Schisme speedily degenerates to [Page 154]Heresy, as S. Hierome after the rehearsed words teacheth, saying: Though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from Heresy; yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne some heresy to it selfe, that so it may seeme to haue depar­ted from the Church vpon good reason. Neuertheles when Schisme proceeds originally from He­resy, Heresy as being in that case the predomi­nant quality in these two peccant humours, gi­ueth the denomination of an Heretique; as on the other side we are wont, especially in the be­ginning, or for a while, to call Schismatiques, those men who first began with only Schisme, though in processe of time they fell into some Heresy, and by that meanes are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques.

4. The reason why both Heresy and Schis­me are repugnant to the being of a good Catho­lique, is: Because the Catholique, or Vniuersall Church signifies One Congregation, or Com­pany of Faithfull people, and therfore implies not only Faith, to make them Faithfull belie­uers, but also Communion, or Common Vnion, to make them One in Charity, which excludes Se­paration, and Diuision: and therfore in the A­postles Creed, Communion of Saints is imme­diately ioyned to the Catholique Church.

5. From this definition of Schisme may be inferred, that the guilt therof is contracted, not only by diuision from the Vniuersall Church; but also, by a Separation from a particular [Page 155]Church or Diocesse which agrees with the V­niuersall. In this manner Meletius was a Schis­matique, but not an Heretique, because as we read in S. Epiphanus, Haeres. 68. he was of the right Faith: for his fayth was not altered at any time from the ho­ly Catholique Church &c. He made a Sect, but depar­ted not from Fayth. Yet because he made to him­selfe a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawfull Supe­riour, and by that meanes brought in a diuision in that particular Church, we was a Schisma­tique. And it is wel worth the noting, that the Meletians building new Churches put this title vpon them, The Church of Martyrs: and vpon the ancient Churches of those who succeeded Pe­ter, was inscribed, The Catholique Church. For so it is. A new Sect must haue a new name which though it be neuer so gay and specious, as the Church of Martyrs: the Reformed Church &c. yet the Nouelty sheweth that it is not the Catholi­que, nor a true Church. And that Schisme may be committed by diuision from a particular Church, we read in Optatus Mileuitanus Lib. 1. cont. Par­men. these remarkable words, (which do well declare who be Schismatiques) brought by him to proue that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique: For Caecilianus went not out from Maiorinus thy Grand-Father (he meanes his next predecessour but one, in the Bishopricke,) but Maiorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter, or of Cyprian (who [Page 156]was but a particular Bishop,) but Maiorinus, in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning be­fore Maiorinus himselfe. Seing it is manifestly knowne, that these things were so done, it euidently appeareth, that you are heires both of traditors (that is, of those who deliuered vp the holy Bible to be burned) and of Schismatiques. And it seemeth that this kind of Schisme must principally be admitted by Protestants, who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church, but hold that euery particular Diocesse, Church, or Countrey is gouerned by it selfe independantly of any one Person, or Generall Councell, to which all Christians haue obligation to submit their iudgments, and wills.

6.2. Point. As for the grieuousnes or quantity of Schisme (which was the second point propo­sed) S. Thomas teacheth, that amongst sinnes against our Neighbour,The grie­uousnes of Schisme. Schisme Supra art. 2. ad 3. is the most grieuous; because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude, or Community. And ther­fore as in a Kingdome or Common-wealth, there is as great difference betweene the crime of re­bellion or sedition, and debates among priuate men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, & a whole kingdome; so in the Church, Schisme is as much more grieuous then Sedition in a King­dome, as the spirituall good of soules surpasseth the ciuill and politicall weale. And S. Thomas adds further, that they loose the spirituall Power of Iurisdiction; and if they goe about to absolue [Page 157]from sinnes, or to excommunicate, their actions are inualid; which he proues out of the Canon Nouatianus. Causa 7. quaest. 1. which sayth: He that keepeth neither the Vnity of spirit, nor the peace of agreement, and separates himselfe from the bond of the Church, and the Colledge of Priests, can neither haue the Power, nor dignity of a Bishop. The Power also of Order (for example to consecrate the Eucharist, to ordaine Priests &c.) they cannot lawfully exercise.

7. In the iudgment of the holy Fathers, Schisme is a most grieuous offence. S. Chrysostome Hom. 11. in ep. ad E­phes. compares these Schismaticall deuiders of Christs mysticall body, to those who sacrile­giously pierced his naturall body, saying: No­thing doth so much incense God, as that the Church should be deuided. Although we should do innumera­ble good works, if we deuide the full Ecclesiasticall Congregation, we shall be punished no lesse then they who tore his (naturall) body. For that was done to the gaine of the whole world, although not with that intention: but this hath no profit at all, but there ari­seth from it most great harme. These things are spoken, not only to those who beare office, but also to those who are gouerned by them. Behold how nei­ther a morall good life (which conceipt decei­ueth many) nor authority of Magistrates, nor any necessity of Obeying Superiours can ex­cuse Schisme from being a most haynous of­fence. Optatus Mileuitanus lib. cont. Parmen. calls Schisme, In­gens flagitium: a huge crime. And speaking to the [Page 158] Donatists, sayth; that Schisme is euill in the highest degree, euen you are not able to deny. No lesse pathe­ticall is S. Augustine vpon this subiect. He reckons Schismatiques among Pagans, Here­tiques, and Iewes, saying: Religion is to be sought, neither in the confusion of Pagans, nor lib. de vera Relig. cap. 6. in the filth of Heretiques, nor in the languishing of Schismati­ques, nor in the Age of the Iewes; but among those alone who are called Christian Catholiques, or Ortho­dox, that is, louers of Vnity in the whole body, and fol­lowers of truth. Nay he esteems them worse then Infidels and Idolaters, saying: Those whom the Donatists Cont. Donatist. l. 1. cap. 8. heale from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry, they hurt more grieously with the wound of Schisme. Let here those men who are pleased vntruly to call vs Idolaters, reflect vpon them­selues, and consider, that this holy Father iud­geth Schismatiques (as they are) to be worse then Idolaters, which they absurdly call vs: and this he proueth by the example of Core, Dathan, and Abiron and other rebellious Schismatiques of the Old Testament, who were conuayed a­liue downe into Hell, and punished more open­ly then Idolaters. No doubt (sayth this holy Fa­ther) but Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 6. that was committed most wickedly, which was punished most seuerely. In another place he yoaketh Schisme with Heresy, saying vpon the Eight Beatitude: Many De serm. Dom. in moute [...]. 5. Heretiques, vnder the name of Christians, deceiuing mens soules, do suffer many such things; but therfore they are excluded from this reward, because it is not on­ly [Page 159]said, Happy are they who suffer persecution, but there is added, for Iustice. But where there is not sound fayth, there cannot be iustice. Nei­ther can Schismatiques promise to themselues any part of this reward, because likewise where there is no Charity, there cannot be iustice. And in another place, yet more effectually he saith: Being out of Epist. 204 the Church, and diuided from the heape of Vnity, and the bond of Charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternall death, though thou shouldest be burned aliue for the name of Christ. And in another place, he hath these words: If he heare not the Church let him be to cont. ad­uers. leg. & prophet lib, 2. cap. 17. thee, as an Heathen or Publican; which is more grieuous then if he were smitten with the sword, consumed with flames, or cast to wild beasts. And else where: Out of the Catho­lique Church (sayth he) one de gest. cum Emerit. may haue Fayth, Sacraments, Orders, and in summe, all things except Saluation. With S. Augustine, his Countrey man and second selfe in sympathy of spirit, S. Ful­gentius agreeth, saying: Belieue this de fide ad Pet. stedfastly without doubting, that euery Heretique, or Schisma­tique, baptized in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, if before the end of his life, he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church, what Almes soeuer he giue, yea though he should shed his bloud for the name of Christ, he cannot obtaine Saluation. Marke againe how no morall honesty of life, no good deeds, no Martyrdome, can without repentance auaile any Schismatique for salua­tion. Let vs also add that D. Potter sayth, Schis­me [Page 160]is no lessepag. 42. damnable, then Heresy.

8. But ô you Holy, Learned, Zealous Fa­thers, and Doctours of God's Church; out of these premises, of the grieuousnes of Schisme, & of the certaine damnation which it bringeth (if vnrepented) what conclusion draw you for the instruction of Christians? S. Augustine maketh this wholesome inference. There is Cont. Parm. lib. 2. cap. [...]2. no iust necessity to diuide Vnity. S. Ireneus concludeth: They cannot cont. hae­res. lib. 4. c. 62. make any so important reformation, as the euill of the Schisme is pernicious. S. Denis of Alexandria sayth: Certainely Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. all things should rather be indured, then to consent to the diuision of the Church of God: these Martyrs being no lesse glo­rious, that expose themselues to hinder the dismem­bring of the Church: then those that suffer rather then they will effer sacrifice to Idols Would to God all those who diuided themselues from that vi­sible Church of Christ, which was vpon earth when Luther appeared, would rightly consider of these things! And thus much of the second Point.

9.1. Point. We haue iust and necessary occasion, e­ternally to blesse Almighty God, who hath vouchsafed to make vs members of the Catho­lique Roman Church,Perpetuall visibility of the Church from which while men fall, they precipitate themselues into so vast absurdities, or rather sacrilegious blasphemies, as is implyed in the doctrine of the totall defi­ciency of the visible Church, which yet is main­tayned by diuers chiefe Protestants, as may at [Page 161]large be seene in Brereley, and others; out of whome I will heere name Iewell saying: The truth was vnknowne Apolog. part. 4. cap. 4. diuis. 2 And in his defēce prin­ted Ann. 1571. pag [...] 426. at that tyme, and vnheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vlderick Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell. Perkins sayth: We say, that In his exposition vpon the Creed pag. 400. before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostasy ouerspread the whole face of the earth, and that our (Protestant) Church was not then visible, to the world. Napier vpon the Re­uelations teacheth, that from the yeare of Propost 37. pag. 68. Christ three hundred and sixteene, the Antichristian and papisticall raigne hath begun, raigning vniuersally, and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares (that is, till Luthers ty­me:) And that, from the yeare of Ibid. in cap. 12. pag. 161. col. 3. Christ three bundred and sixteen, God hath withdrawne his vi­sible Church from open Assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men &c. during the space of one thousand two hundred threescore yeares: And that, the Ibid. in cap. 11. pag 145. Pope and Clergy haue possessed the outward visible Church of Christians, euen one thousand two hundred threescore yeares. And that, the Ibid. pag. 191. true Church aboad latent, and inuisible. And Brocardfol. 110. & 123. vpon the Reuelations, professeth to ioyne in opinion with Napier. Fulke affirmeth, that in the Answere to a counter­fait Cath. pag. 16. tyme of Boniface the third, which was the yeare 607. the Church was inuisible, and fled into the wilernes, there to remaine a long season. Luther sayth: Primò solus eram: At the first In praefat. operum suo­rum. I was a­lone. Iacob Hailbronerus one of the Disputants for [Page 162]the Protestant party in the Conference at Ra­tisbone, affirmethIn suo Acacatholi­co volum. a. 15. cap. 9. p. 479. that the true Church was interrupted by Apostasy from the true Fayth. Caluin sayth: It is absurd in the very Ep. 141. beginning to breake one from another, after we haue beene forced to make a separation from the whole world. It were ouerlong to alledge the wor­des of Ioannes Regius, Daniel Chamierus, Beza, Ochimus, Castalio, and others to the same pur­pose. The reason which cast them vpon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity: because they being resolued not to ac­knowledg the Romā Church to be Christs true Church, & yet being conuinced by all manner of euidence, for that diuers Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christi­ans, which could be the Church of Christ; there was no remedy but to affirme, that vpon earth Christ had no visible Church: which they would neuer haue auouched, if they had known how to auoyd the foresayd inconuenience (as they apprehended it) of submitting themselues to the Roman Church.

10. Agaynst these exterminating spirits, D. Potter, and other more moderate Protestants, professe, that Christ alwayes had, and alwayes will haue vpon earth a visible Church: other­therwise (sayth he) our Lords pag. 154 promise of her stable Matt. 16 1 [...] edification should be of no value. And in another place, hauing affirmed that Protestātes haue not left the Church of Rome, but her cor­ruptions, [Page 163]and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christs body, he seeketh to cleere himselfe and others from Schisme, because (saith he) the property pag. 76. of Schisme is (witnesse the Do­natists and Luciferians) to cut off from the Body of Christ, & the hope of saluation, the Church frō which it separates. And if any Zelotes amongst vs haue proceeded to he auier censures, their zeale may be ex­cused, but their Charity and wisedome cannot be iu­stifyed. And elswhere he acknowledgeth, that the Roman Church hath those maine, and Pag. 83. es­sentiall truths, which giue her the name and essence of a Church.

11. It being therefore granted by D. Potter, and the chiefest and best learned English Prote­stants, that Christs visible Church cannot pe­rish, it will be needles for me in this occasion to proue it. S. Augustine doubted not to say: The Prophets In Psalm. 30. Com. 2. spoke more obscurely of Christ, then of the Church: because, as I thinke, they did foresee in spirit, that men were to make parties agaynst the Church, and that they were not to haue so great strife concerning Christ: therefore that was more plainely foretold & more openly prophecyed about which grea­ter contentions were to rise, that it might turne to the condemnation of them, who haue seen it, and yet gone forth. And in another place he sayth: How doe we confide epist. 48. to haue receaued manifestly Christ himselfe from holy Scriptures, if we haue also mani­festly receaued the Church from them? And indeed to what Congregatiō shall a man haue recourse [Page 164]for the affaires of his soule, if vpon earth there be no visible Church of Christ? Besides, to ima­gine a company of men belieuing one thing in their hart, and with their mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed to doe; for if they had professed what they belieued, they would haue become visible) is to dreame of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants, but not to conceiue a right notiō of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine sayth: We cannot be saued, vnles labouring also for the S. Aug. de fide & Symbolo c. 1. saluation of others, we professe with our mouths, the same fayth which we beare in our harts. And if any man hold it lawfull to dissemble, & deny matters of fayth, we cannot be assured, but that they actually dissemble, and hide A­nabaptisme, Arianisme, yea Turcisme, & euen Atheisme, or any other false beliefe, vnder the outward profession of Caluinisme. Doe not Protestants teach that, preaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments (which cā ­not but make a Church visible) are inseparable notes of the true Church? And therfore they must eyther grant a visible Church, or none at all. No wonder then if S. Augustine account this Heresy so grosse, that he sayth against those who in his tyme defended the like errour: But this Church which In Psal. 101. hath beene of all Nations is no more, she hath perished; so say they that are not in her. O impudent speach! And afterward. This voyce so abominable, so detestable, so full of presump­tion [Page 165]and falshood, which is susteined with no truth, enlightned with no wisdome, seasoned with no salt, vaine, rash, heady, pernicious, the Holy Ghost fore saw &c. And, Peraduenture some De ouib. cap. 1. one may say, there are other Sheepe I know not where, with which I am not acquainted, yet God hath care of them. But he is too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine such things. And these men do not consider, that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible Church, they destroy their owne present Church, according to the argument which S. Augustine vrged against the Donatists in these words:De Bapt. cont. Donat. If the Church were lost in Cyprians (we may say in Gregories) time, from whence did Do­natus (Luther) appeare? From what earth did he spring? from what sea is he come? From what heauen did he drop? And in another place: How can they vaunt Lib. 3. cont. Parm. to haue any Church. if she haue ceased euer since those times? And all Deuines by defining Schisme to be a diuision from the true Church, suppose, that there must be a knowne Church, from which it is possible for men depart. But enough of this in these few words.

12. Let vs now come to the fourth,4. Point. and chiefest Point, which was, to examine whether Luther, Caluin, Luther and all that fol­low him are Schismati­ques. and the rest did not depart from the externall Communion of Christs visible Church, and by that separation became guilty of Schisme. And that they are properly Schis­matiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we haue layed, concerning the nature of [Page 166]Schisme, which consists in leauing the exter­nall Cummunion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord: and it is cleere by euidence of fact, that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Ancient Church. For they did not so much as pretend to ioyne with any Congregation which had a being before their time; for they would needs conceiue that no vi­sible Company was free from errours in do­ctrine, and corruption in practise: And therfore they opposed the doctrine; they withdrew their obedience from the Prelates; they left partici­pation in Sacraments; they changed the Litur­gy of publique seruice of whatsoeuer Church then extant. And these things they pretended to do out of a perswasion, that they were bound (forsooth) in conscience so to do, vnlesse they would participate with errors, corruptions, & superstitions. We dare not (sayth D. Potter) com­municate pag. 68. with Rome either in her publique Li­turgy, which is manifestly polluted with grosse super­stition &c. or in those corrupt and vngrounded opi­nions, which she hath added to the Fayth of Catho­liques. But now let D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther, he would haue aduentured to communicate in her pu­blique Liturgy and Doctrine, since he durst not communicate with Rome? He will not be able to assigne any, euen with any litle colour of common sense. If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ, it fol­loweth [Page 167]that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church, which soeuer it was, whether that of Rome, or any other; of which Point I do not for the present dispute. Yea this the Lutherans do not only acknowledge, but proue, and brag of If (sayth a learned Lutheran) there had been right Georgius Minus in Augustan. Confess. art. 7. de Eccles. pag. 137. belieuers which went before Luther in his office, there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous, to thinke that in the time Benedict. Morgēstern. tract de Ec­cles. pag. 145. before Lu­ther, any had the purity of Doctrine; and that Luther should receiue it from them, and not they from Lu­ther. Another speaketh roundly, and sayth it is impudency to say, that many learned men Conrad. Schlusselb. in Theolog. Cal­uinist. lib. 2. Jol. 130. in Gormany before Luther, did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell. And I add: That far greater impudency, it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe, and other Christian Catho­lique Nations, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudency to deny, that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholi­que Church, spread ouer the whole world. We haue heard Caluin saying of Protestants in ge­nerall; We were, euen, forced Ep. 141. to make a separa­tion from the whole world. And, Luther of himself in particular: In the beginning In praefar. operum suo­rum. I was alone. Ergo (say I, by your good leaue) you were at least a Schismatique, deuided from the Ancient Church, and a member of no new Church. For no sole man can constitute a Church; & thogh he could, yet such a Church could not be that [Page 168]glorious company, of whose number, great­nesse, and amplitude, so much hath been spo­ken both in the old Testament, & in the New.

13. D. Potter endeauours to auoide this e­uident Argumēt by diuers euasions; but by the confutation thereof I will (with Gods holy assistance) take occasion, euen out of his owne Answers and grounds, to bring vnanswerable reasons to conuince them of Schisme.

14. His chiefe Answere is: That they haue not left the Church, but her Corruptions.

15. I reply. This answere may be giuen ey­ther by those furious people, who teach that those abuses, and corruptions in the Church were so enormous, that they could not stand with the nature, or being of a true Church of Christ: Or else by those other more calme Pro­testants, who affirme that those errours did not destroy the being, but only deforme the beauty of the Church. Against both these sorts of men, I may fitly vse that vnanswerable Dilemma, which S. Augustine brings against the Dona­tists in these concluding words: Tell me whether the Lib. 2. cont. epist. Gaudent. c. [...]. Church at that tyme when you say she enter­tayned those who were guilty of all crimes, by the con­tagion of those sinnefull persons, perished, or perished not? Answere; whether the Church perished, or pe­rished not? Make choyce of what you thinke. If then she perished, what Church brought forth Donatus? (we may say Luther.) But if she could not perish, because so many were incorporated into her (without [Page 169]Baptisme (that is, without a secōd baptisme, or re­baptization, & I may say, without Luthers re­formation) answere me I pray you, what madnes did moue the Sect of Donatus to separate themselues from her vpō pretence to auoid the Cōmunion of bad men? I beseech the Reader to pōder euery one of S. Au­gustine words: & to consider whether anything could haue been spoken more directly against Luther, & his followers of what sort soeuer.

16. And now to answere more in particu­lar; I say to those who teach, that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages, that I can easily affoard them the courtesy, to free them from meere Schisme: but all men touched with any sparke of zeale to vindicate the wise­dome, and Goodnes of our Sauiour from blas­phemous iniury, cannot choose but belieue and proclaime them to be superlatiue Arch-hereti­ques. Neuertheles, if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity, and desire to be both formall Heretiques, & properly Schismatiques, I will tell them, that while they dreame of an inuisi­ble Church of men, which agreed with them in Fayth, they will vpon due reflection find them­selues to be Schismatiques, from those corporeal Angels, or inuisible men, because they held ex­ternal Communion with the visible Church of those times, the outward Cōmunion of w^ch vi­sible Church these moderne hot-spurs forsaking, were therby diuided frō the outward Commu­nion of their hidden Brethren, & so are Separa­tists [Page 170]from the external Communion of them, with whome they agree in fayth, which is Schisme in the most formall, and proper signification thereof. Moreouer according to D. Potter, these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismati­ques For, the reason why he thinks himselfe, and such as he is, to be cleared from Schisme, notwithstanding their diuision from the Roman Church, is because (according to his Diuini­ty) the property ofPag. 76. Schisme, is (witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians) to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Saluation, the Church from which it separats: But those Protestants of whome we now speake, cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Saluation, the Church from which they separated themselues; and they doe it directly as the Donatists (in whome you exē ­plify) did by affirming that the true Church had perished: and therefore they cannot be cleared from Schisme, if you may be their Iudge Con­sider, I pray you, how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraine, you haue at one blow strucke off from hope of Saluation, and condemned to the lowest pit, for the grieuous sinne of Schisme. And withall it im­ports you to consider, that you also inuolue your selfe, and other moderate Protestants in the selfe same crime and punishment, while you communicate with those, who, according to your owne principles, are properly, and for­mally Schismatiques. For if you held your selfe [Page 171]obliged vnder paine of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church, by rea­son of her Errors and Corruptions, which yet you confesse were not fundamentall; shall it not be much more damnable for you, to liue in Communion and Confraternity, with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church, which in the Donatists you confessepag. 12 [...]. to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed; I belieue the Church? And I desire the Reader, heer to apply an authority of S. Cy­prian (ep. 76.) which he shall find alledged in the next number. And this may suffice for con­futation of the aforesaid Answere, as it might haue relation to the rigid Caluinists.

17. For Confutation of those Protestants, who hold that the Church of Christ had al­wayes a being, and cannot erre in points fun­damentall, and yet teach, that she may erre in matters of lesse moment, wherin if they for­sake her, they would be accounted not to leaue the Church, but only her corruptions; I must say, that they change the state of our present Question, not distinguishing between internall Fayth, and externall Communion, nor between Schisme, and Heresy. This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe, who in expresse words tea­cheth, that the promises which our Lord hath made pa. 151. vnto his Church for his assistance, are in­tended, not to any particular Persons or Churches, but only to the Church Catholique: and they are to be ex­tended [Page 172]not to euery parcel, or particularity of truth, but only to points of Faith, or fundamentall. And after­wards speaking of the Vniuersall Church, he sayth: It's comfort pag. 155. inough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers, and conserue her on earth against all ene­mies; but she may not hope to triumph ouer all sinne and errour, till she be in heau [...]n. Out of which words I obserue, that, according to D. Potter, the selfe same Church, which is the Vniuersall Church, remayning the vniuersall true Church of Christ, may fall into errors and corruptions: from whence it cleerely followeth that it is im­possible to leaue the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted, and retaine externall com­munion with the Catholique Church; since the Church Catholique, and the Church so corru­pted is the selfe same one Church, or company of men. And the contrary imagination talkes in a dreame, as if the errors and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her, but were separate from her, like to Acci­dents without any Subiect, or rather indeed, as if they were not Accidents, but Hypostases, or Per­sons subsisting by themselues. For men cannot be said to liue, in, or out of the Communion of any dead creature, but with Persons, endued with life and reason; and much lesse can men be said to liue in the Communion of Accidents, as errors and corruptions are, and therfore it is an absurd thing to affirme, that Protestants diuided [Page 173]thēselues from the corruptions of the Church, but not from the Church herselfe, seing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church. All this is made more cleere, if we consider, that when Luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Chur­ches, holding contrary Doctrines, and diuided in externall Communion; one of the which two Churches did triumph ouer all error, and cor­ruption in doctrine and practise; but the other was stained with both. For to faigne this diuer­sity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories, which are silent of any such mat­ter. It is against D. Potters owne grounds, that the Church may erre in points not fundamen­tall, which were not true, if you will imagine a certaine visible Catholique Church free from error euen in points not fundamentall. It con­tradicteth the words in which he said, the Church may not hope to triumph ouer all error, till she be in heauen. It euacuateth the brag of Prote­stants, that Luther reformed the whole Church: and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique, for leauing the Cōmunion of all visible Churches, seeing (vpon this supposition) there was a vi­sible Church of Christ free from al corruption, which therefore could not be forsaken without iust imputation of Schisme. We must therefore truly affirme, that since there was but one visi­ble Church of Christ, which was truly Catho­lique, and yet was (according to Protestants) [Page 174]stained with corruption; when Luther left the external Cōmunion of that corrupted Church, he could not remaine in the Communion of the Catholique Church, no more then it is pos­sible to keep company with Christopher Potter, and not keepe company with the Prouost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford, if D. Potter and the Prouost be one, and the selfe same man: For so one should be, and not be with him at the same time. This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church, S. Cyprian v rgeth to conuince, that Nouatianus was cut off from the Church in these words: The Church isEpist. 16. ad Mag. One, which being One cannot be both within and with­out. If she be with Nouatianus, she was not with Cor­nelius. But if she were with cornelius, who succeeded Fabianus, by lawfull ordination, Nouatianus is not in the Church. I purposely heere speak only of ex­ternall Cōmunion with the Catholique Church. For in this point there is great difference be­tween internall acts of our Vnderstanding, and will; and of externall deeds. Our Vnderstanding and Will are faculties (as Philosophers speake) abstractiue, and able to distinguish, and as it were, to part things, though in themselues they be really conioyned. But reall externall deeds do take things in grosse as they find them, not se­parating things which in reality are ioyned to­gether. Thus, one may consider and loue a sin­ner as he is a man, friēd, benefactor, or the like; and at the same time not consider him, nor loue [Page 175]him as he is a sinner; because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and Will, which may respect their obiects vnder some one formality, or con­sideration, without reference to other things contained in the selfe same obiects. But if one should strike, or kill a sinnefull man, he will not be excused, by alledging, that he killed him, not as a man, but as a sinner; because the selfe same person being a man, and the sinner, the externall act of murder fell iointly vpon the man, & the sinner. And for the same reason one cannot auoide the company of a sinner, and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner. And this is our case: and in this our Aduersaries are egregiously, and many of them affectedly, mistaken. For one may in some points belieue as the Church belieueth, and dis­agree from her in other. One may loue the truth which she holds, and detest her (pretended) cor­ruptions. But it is impossible that a man should really separate himselfe from her externall Communion, as she is corrupted, and be really within the same externall Communion as she is sound; because she is the selfe same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things, and to erre in others. Now, our question for the present doth concerne only this point of exter­nall Communion: because Schisme, as it is distin­gu [...]hed from Heresy is committed when one di­uides himselfe from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Fayth; [Page 176]Wheras Heresy doth necessarily imply a diffe­rence in matter of Fayth, and beliefe: and ther­fore to say, that they left not the visible Church, but her errors, can only excuse them from He­resy (which shall be tried in the next Chapter) but not from Schisme, as long as they are really druided from the Externall Communion of the selfe same visible Church; which, notwithstan­ding those errors wherin they do in iudgment dissent from her, doth still remaine the true Ca­tholique Church of Christ; and therfore while they forsake the corrupted Church, they for­sake the Catholique Church. Thus then it re­maineth cleere, that their chiefest Answere changeth the very state of the Question; con­foundeth internall acts of the Vnderstanding with externall Deeds; doth not distinguish bet­ween Schisme and Heresy; and leaues this de­monstrated against them: That they diuided themselues from the Communion of the visi­ble Catholique Church, because they concea­ued that she needed Reformation. But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schisme, I refer to the vnpartiall Iudges, here­toforeNum. 8. alledged; as to S. Irenaeus who plaine­ly sayth: They cannot make any so important RE­FORMATION, as the Euill of the Schisme is pernicious. To S. Denis of Alexandria, saying: Certainely all things should be indured rather then to consent to the diuision of the Church of God: those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themsel­ues [Page 177]to hinder the dismembring of the Church, then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols. To S. Augustine, who tels vs: That not to heare the Church, is a more grieuous thing then if he were striken with the sword, consumed with flames, exposed to wild beasts. And to conclude all in few wordes, he giueth this generall prescription: There is no iust necessity, to diuide Vnity. And D. Potter may remember his owne words: There neither was pag. 75. nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ; no more then from Christ himselfe. But I haue shewed that Luther, and the rest departed from the Church of Christ (if Christ had any Church vpon earth:) Therfore there could be no iust cause (of Reformation, or what else soeuer) to do as they did; and therfore they must be contented to be held for Schisma­tiques.

18 Moreouer; I demaund whether those corruptions which moued them to forsake the Communion of the visible Church, were in manners, or doctrine? Corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leaue the Church, otherwise men must go not onely out of the Church, but out of the world, as the Apostle1. Cor. 5.10. sayth. Our blessed Sauiour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice corne, & sinners with iust men. If then Protestants waxe zealous, with the Seruants to plucke vp the weeds, let them first harken to the wisdome of the Maister: Let both grow vp. [Page 178]And they ought to imitate them, who as S. Augustine saith: tolerate for the Ep. 162. good of Vni­ty, that which they detest for the good of equity. And to whome the more frequent, and foule such scandals are; by so much the more is the merit of their perseuerance in the Communion of the Church, and the Martyrdome of their pa­tience, as the same Saint cals it. If they were of­fended with the life of some Ecclesiasticall per­sons, must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastours, and finally breake with Gods Church? The Pastour of Pastours, teacheth vs another lesson: Vpon the Chaire of Moyses Mat. 33. haue sitten the Scribes & Pharises. All thinges there­fore whatsoeuer they shall say to you, obserue yee, & doe yee: but according to their workes do yee not. Must people except agaynst lawes, and reuolt from Magistrates, because some are negligent, or corrupt in the execution of the same lawes, and performance of their office? If they intended Reformation of manners, they vsed a strange meanes for the achieuing of such an end, by de­nying the necessity of Confession, laughing at austerity of pennance, condemning the vowes of Chastity, pouerty, obedience, breaking fasts, &c. And no lesse vnfit were the Men, then the Meanes. I loue not recrimination. But it is well knowne to how great crimes, Luther, Caluin, Zwinglius, Beza., and other of the prime Refor­mers were notorioussy obnoxious; as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of [Page 179]what others haue deliuered vpon that subiect; whereby it would appeare, that they were very farre from being any such Apostolicall men as God is wont to vse in so great a worke. And whereas they were wont, especially in the be­ginning of their reuolt, maliciously to exagge­rate the faults of some Clergy men, Erasmus said well (Epist ad fratres inferioris Germaniae,) Let the riot, lust, ambition, auarice of Priests, and whatsoeuer other crimes be gathered together, Heresy alone doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices. Besides, nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Coun­cell of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners. And finally the vices of others are not hurtfull to any but such as imitate, and con­sent to them; according to the saying of S. Augu­stine: We conserue De vnit, Eccles. c. 2 [...] innocency, not by knowing the ill deeds of men, but by not yielding consent to such as we know, and by not iudging rashly of such faults as we know not. If you answere; that, not corruption in manners, but the approbation of them, doth yield sufficient cause to leaue the Church; I re­ply with S. Augustine; That the Church doth (as the pretended Reformers ought to haue done) tolerate or beare with scandals and cor­ruptions, but neither doth, nor can approue them. The Church (sayth he) being placed Ep. 116. be­twixt much chaffe and cockle, doth beare with many things; but doth not approue, nor dissemble, nor act those things which are against fayth, and good life. But because to approue corruption in manners [Page 180]as lawfull, were an errour against Fayth, it be­longs to corruption in doctrine, which was the second part of my demaund.

19. Now then, that corruptions in doctrine (I still speake vpon the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries) could not affoard any sufficiēt 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 [Page 181]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 pretēce 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 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 cō 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 [Page 182]points fundamentall, although she were sup­posed to erre in other points not fundamentall. Therefore, the Communion of the Visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnatiō, 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 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 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 assistāce is promised only for points fundamentall; and consequently as long as she teacheth no funda­mentall error, her Cōmunion cannot without damnation be forsakē: And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation [Page 183]which he makes against vs, where he sayth: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 Pag. 1 [...]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 Ep. con [...]. Parmen. lth. 2. çap. 11. no iust necessity to diuide V­nity. Which will appeare to be much more eui­dent [Page 184]if we cōsider 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 cōfession of cor­ruptiōs, still remayning in your Church, which you can only excuse by saying they are not fun­damētal, as like wise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall. What man of iudgment wilbe a Protestant, since that Church is confessedly a corrupt One?

22. I still proceed to impugne you expresly vpon your grounds. You say: that it is comfort inough for the Church, that the Lord in merey will secure her from all capitall dangers: but she may not [Page 185]hope to triumph ouer all sinne, and errour till she be in heauen. Now if it be comfort inough to be secured from all capital dāgers, which can arise only from errour in fundamentall points: why were not your first Reformers content with Inough, but would needs dismēber the Church, out of a pernicious greedines of more then In­ough? For, this Inough, which according to you is attained by not erring in points not funda­mētal, was enioyed before Luthers reformation, vnlesse you will now against your selfe affirme, that lōg before Luther there was no Church free from errour in fundamental points. Moreouer if (as you say) no Church may hope to triumph ouer all errour till she be in heau [...]n; You must ey­ther grant that errours not fundamentall can­not yield sufficiēt cause to forsake the Church, or els you must affirme that all Communities may, & ought to be forsaken, & so there wilbe no end of Schismes: or rather indeed there can be no such thinge as Schisme, because accor­ding to you, all Communities are subiect to errours not fundamentall, for which if they may be lawfully forsaken, it followeth cleere­ly that it is not Schisme to forsake them. Lastly, since it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be auoided in this world of temptation: and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph o­ner all sinne and errour; You must grant, that as [Page 186]she ought not to be left by reason of sinne; so neyther by reason of errours not fundamental, because both sinne, & errour are (according to you) impossible to be auoided til she be in heauē.

23. Furthermore, I aske whether it be the Quantity or Number; or Quality, and Greatnes of doctrinall errours that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion? I proue that neyther. Not the Quality, which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall, or necessary to saluation. Not the Quantity or Number: For the foundation is strong inough to support all such vnnecessary ad­ditions, as you terme them. And if they once weighed so heauy as to ouerthrow the founda­tion, they should grow to fundamentall er­rors, into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall. Hay and stubble (say you) and such pag. 153. vnprofitable stuff, laid on the roofe, destroies not the howse, whilest the maine pillars are standing on the foundation. And tell vs, I pray you, the pre­cise number of errors which cannot be tolera­ted? I know you cannot do it; and therfore be­ing vncertaine, whether or no you haue cause to leaue the Church, you are certainely obliged not to forsake her. Our blessed Sauiour hath decla­red his will, that we forgiue a priuate offender seauenty seauen times, that is, without limita­tion of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and why then dare you alledge his commaund, that you must not pardon his Church for er­rors, [Page 187]acknowledged to be not fundamentall? What excuse can you faigne to your selues, who for points not necessary to saluation, haue been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mis­chiefes, as could not but vnaucydably accom­pany so huge a breach in kingdomes, in Com­mon wealths, in priuate persons, in publique Magistrates, in body, in soule, in goods, in lise, in Church, in the state, by Schismes, by rebel­lions, by war, by famine, by plague, by bloud­shed, by all sorts of imaginable calamities vpon the whole face of the Earth, wherin as in a map of Desolation, the heauines of your crime ap­peares, vnder which the world doth pant?

24. To say for your excuse, that you left not the Church, but her errors, doth not exte­nuate, but aggrauate your sinne. For by this deuise you sow seeds of endles Schismes, & put into the mouth of all Separatists, a ready ans­were how to auoide the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England, or from any other Church whatsoeuer. They will, I say, answere, as you do prompt, that your Church may be forsaken, if she fall into errors, though they be not fundamentall: And further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors; which two grounds being once laid, it will not be hard to infer the consequence, that she may be forsaken.

25. From some other words of D. Potter I like wise proue, that for Errors not fundamen­tall, [Page 188]the Church ought not to be forsaken. There neither was (sayth he) nor can be Pag. 5. any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himselfe. To depart from a particular Church, & namely from the Church of Rome, in some doctrines and practises, there might be iust and neces­sary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted no­thing necessary to saluation. Marke his doctrine, that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ: and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not funda­mentall; Therfore (say I) we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamental, for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ, which your selfe deny: and I pray you consider whether you do not plainely contra­dict your selfe, while in the words aboue reci­ted, you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church; and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome, since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall; & that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points; as by and by we shall see more in parti­cular. And thus much be said to disproue their chiefest Answere, that they left not the Church, but her Corruptions.

26. Another euasion D. Potter bringeth, to auoid the imputation of Schisme, and it is be­cause they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ, and [Page 189]not cut off from the hope of saluation. And this (sayth he) cleares vs from pag. 76. the imputation of Schisme, whose property it is, to cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of saluation, the Church from which it separates.

27. This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approue, if first you can put him out of his wits. For what prodigious doctrines are these? Those Protestants who be­lieue that the Church erred in points necessary to saluation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable Schisme: But others who belieued that she had no damnable errors, did very well, yea were obliged to forsake her: and (which is more miraculous, or rather mon­strous) they did well to forsake her formally and precisely, because they iudged, that she re­tained all meanes necessary to saluation. I say, because they so iudged. For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe, and condemneth those others as Schismatiques, is because he hol­deth that the Church which both of them for­sooke, is not cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of saluation; whereas those other Zea­lots deny her to be a member of Christs Body, or capable of saluation, wherin alone they disa­gree from D. Potter: for in the effect of separa­tion they agree, only they do it vpon a different motiue or reason. Were it not a strang excuse if a man would thinke to cloake his rebellion, by alledging that he held the person against whom [Page 190]he rebelled to be his lawfull Soueraygne? And D. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme, because he forsooke the Church of Rome, but yet so, as that stil he held her to be the true Church, and to haue all necessary meanes to Saluation. But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery, and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind, what an vnspeakeable comfort it is, that out Aduersaries are forced to confesse, that they cannot cleere themselues from Schisme, otherwise then by acknowled­ging that they do not, nor cannot cut off from the Hope of saluation our Church. Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say: They must be damned, vnlesse we may be sa­ued. Moreouer this euasion doth indeed con­demne your zealous Brethren of Heresy, for de­nying the Churches perpetuity, but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme, which consists in being diuided from that true Church, with which a man agreeth in all points of fayth, as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles. For other wise you should cut her off from the hope of saluation, and so condemne your selfe of Schisme. And lastly euen according to the your owne definition of Schisme, you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime, vnlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contra­diction in your owne Assertions. For if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ, and the Hope [Page 191]of saluation; how come you to say in another place that you iudge a reconciliation with vs to be pag. 20. damnable? That to depart from the Church of Rome, there might be iust and necessary pag. 75. cause? That, they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their error, and neglect to vse them pag. 79. we dare not flatter them (say you) with so easy a censure, of hope of saluation? If then it be (as you say) a property of Schisme, to cut off from the hope of saluation the Church from which it separates: how wil you cleere your selfe from Schisme, who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure? and who affirme that a reconciliation with vs is damnable? But the truth is, there is no constancy in your Assertions, by reason of dif­ficulties which presse you on all sides. For, you are loath to affirme cleerly that we may be sa­ued, least such a grant might be occasion (as in all reason it ought to be) of the conuersion of Protestants to the Roman Church: And on the other side, if you affirme that our Church erred in points fundamentall, or necessary to salua­tion, you know not how, nor where, nor amōg what Company of men, to find a perpetuall visible Church of Christ before Luther: And the fore your best shift is to say, and vnsay as your occasions command. I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schis­me to cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of saluation, the Church from which it separates; wher­in you are mightily mistaken, as appeares by [Page 192]your owne example of the Donatists, who were most formall and proper Heretiques, and not Schismatiques, as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy. Besides, although the Donatists, & Luci­ferians (whom you also alledg) had byn meere Schismatiques, yet it were against all good Lo­gick, from a particular to infer a generall Rule, to determine what is the property of Schisme.

28. A third deuise I find in D. Potier to cleere his Brethren from Schisme. There is (sayth he) great difference betweene Pag. 75. a Schisme from them, and a Reformation of our selues.

29. This I confesse is a quaint subtility, by which all Schisme, and Sinne may be as well excused. For what diuell incarnate could meer­ly pretend a separation, and not rather some o­ther motiue of vertue, truth, profit, or pleasure? But now since their pretended Reformation con­sisted, as they gaue out, in forsaking the cor­ruptions of the Church, the Reformation of thē ­selues, and their diuision from vs, falls out to be one, and the selfe same thing. Nay, we see that although they infinitly disagree in the par­ticulars of their reformation, yet they symbo­lize, and consent in the generall point of for­saking our pretended corruptions: An eui­dent signe, that the thinge, vpon which their thoughts first pitched, was not any particuler Modell, or Idaea of Religion, but a setled reso­lution to forsake the Church of Rome. Where­fore this Metaphysicall speculation, that they [Page 193]intended only to reforme themselues, cannot possibly excuse them from Schisme, vnlesse first they be able to proue, that they were obliged to depart from vs. Yet for as much as concernes the fact it selfe; it is cleere, that Luthers reuolt did not proceed from any zeale of Reformati­on: The motiues which put him vpon so wret­ched, and vnfortunate a worke, were Coue­tousnes, Ambition, Lust, Pride, Enuy, and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgen­ces was not committed to himselfe, or such as he desired. He himselfe taketh God to witnesse, that he fell into these troubles casually, and Casu nō voluntate in has turbas incidi Deum ipsum testor. a­gainst his will (not vpon any intention of Reformation) not so much as dreaming or suspecting a­ny change which might Act. Ex mon. p. 404. happen. And he began to preach (against Indulgences) when he knew not what Steidan lib. 16. fol. 232. the matter meant. For (sayth he) I scar­cely vnderstood Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indul­gences meāt. In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislike of his owne vndertaken course, oftentymes (sayth he) wishing Luth. in colloq. men­sal. that I had ne­uer begunne that busines. And Fox sayth: It is apparent that Act. mon. pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinall Caietan to keepe silence, prouided also his aduersaries would do the like. M. Cowper reporteth further, that Luther by his letter submitted Cowp. in his Cronicle. himselfe to the Pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant. With much more, which may be seene inTract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 11. subd. 2. Brereley. But this is sufficient to shew, that Luther was far i­nough from intending any Reformation. And [Page 194]if he iudged a Reformation to be necessary, what a huge wickednes was it in him, to promise si­lence if his aduersaries would do the like? Or to sub­mit himselfe to the Pope, so that he might not be com­pelled to recant? Or if the Reformation were not indeed intended by him, nor iudged to be neces­sary, how can he be excused from damnable. Schisme? And this is the true manner of Luthers reuolt, taken from his owne acknowledgmēts, and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselues, wherby D. Potters faltring, & min­cing the matter is cleerly discouered, and con­futed. Vpon what motiues our Countrey was diuided from the Roman Church by king Hen­ry the Eight, and how the Schisme was conti­nued by Queene Elizabeth, I haue no hart to rip vp. The world knoweth, it was not vpon any zeale of Reformation.

30. But you will proue your former eua­sion by a couple of similitudes: If a Monastery pag. 81.80. should reforme it selfe, and should reduce into practise, ancient good discipline, when others would not; in this case could it in reason be charged with Schisme from others, or with Apostacy from its rule and order? Or as in a society of men vniuersally infe­cted with some disease, they that should free themsel­ues from the common disease, could not be therfore said to separate from the society: so neither can the re­formed Churches be truly accused for making a Schis­me from the Church, seing all they did was to reforme themselues.

31. I was very glad to find you in a Mona­stery, but sorry when I perceiued that you were inuenting wayes how to forsake your Voca­tion, and to maintaine the lawfulnes of Schis­me from the Church, and Apostasy from a Re­ligious Order. Yet before you make your finall resolutiō heare a word of aduise. Put case; That a Monastery did confessedly obserue their sub­stantiall vowes, and all principall Statutes, or Constitutions of the Order, though with some neglect of lesser Monasticall Obseruances: And that a Reformation were vndertaken, not by authority of lawfull Superiours, but by some One, or very few in comparison of the rest: And those few knowne to be led, not with any spirit of Reformation, but by some other sini­ster intention: And that the Statutes of the howse were euen by those busy-fellowes con­fessed, to haue been time out of mind vnder­stood, and practised as now they were: And further that the pretended Reformers acknow­ledged that themselues as soone as they were gone out of their Monastery, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corru­ptions, for which they left their Brethren: And (which is more) that they might fall into more enormous crimes then they did, or could do in their Monastery, which we suppose to be secu­red from all substantiall corruptions, for the a­noyding of which they haue an infallible assi­stance. Put (I say) together all these my And's, [Page 196]and then come with your If's, if a Monastery should reforme it selfe &c. and tell me, if you could excuse such Reformers from Schisme, Sedition, Rebellion, Apostasy, &c? What would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge? or tumul­tuous persons in a kingdome? Remember now your owne Tenets, and then reflect how fit a si­militude you haue picked out, to proue your selfe a Schismatique. You teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, but that for all fundamentall points she is secured from error: You teach that no particular person, or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall: You, and the whole world can witnes that when Luther began, he being but only One, opposed himselfe to All, as well sub­iects as superiours; and that euen then, when he himselfe confessed that he had no intention of Reformation: You cannot be ignorant but that many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our doctrine and practise, and do in seuerall, and many Contro­uersies, acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our side: Consider I say these points, and see whether your similitude do not con­demne your Progenitors of Schisme from God's visible Church, yea and of Apostasy also from their Religious Orders, if they were vowed Regulars, as Luther, and diuers of them were.

32. From the Monastery you are fled into an Hospitall of persons vniuersally infected with [Page 197]some disease, where you find to be true what I supposed, that after your departure from your Brethren you might fall into greater incon­ueniences, and more infectious diseases, then those for which you left them. But you are al­so vpon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons, in whose behalfe for Charities sake, let me set before you these considerati­ons. If the disease neyther were, nor could be mortall, because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life: If going thence, the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson vnder pretence of bet­tering his health: If he could not hope therby to auoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men: If by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue; could such a man without sence­lenesse be excused by saying, that he sought to free himselfe from the common disease, but not for­sooth to separate from the society? Now your selfe cōpare the Church to a man deformed withpag. 155. superfluous fingers and toes, but yet who hath not lost any vitall part: you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable errour, and the world can beare witnes what vnspeakeable mischiefes and calamities ensued Luthers reuolt from the Church. Pronounce then concerning thē, the same sentence which euen now I haue shewed them to deserue who in the manner aforesayd should separate from [Page 198]persons vniuersally infected with some disease.

33. But alas, to what passe hath Heresy brought men, who terme thēselues Christians, & yet blush not to compare the beloued Spouse of our Lord, the one Doue, the purchase of our Sauiours most precious bloud, the holy Catho­lique Church, I meane that visible Church of Christ which Luther found spread ouer the whole world; to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous singers and toes; to a society of men vniuersally infected with some disease? And yet all these comparisons, & much worse, are neyther iniurious, nor vndeserued, if once it be graunted, or can be proued, that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one point of Fayth, although not fundamentall.

34. Before I part from these similitudes, one thing I must obserue against the euasion of D. Potter, that they left not the Church, but her Corruptions. For as those Reformers of the Mo­nastery, or those other who left the company of men vniuersally infected with some disease, would deny themselues to be Schismatiques, or any way blame-worthy, but could not deny, but that they left the sayd Communities: So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend, not to haue left the visible Church, which ac­cording to them was infected with many disea­ses, but can only pretend that they did not sinne in leauing her. And you speake very strangely [Page 199]when you say: In a Society of men vniuersally infe­cted with some disease, they that should free thēselues from the Common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the Society. For if they doe not separate themselues from the Society of the in­fected persons; how do they free themselues & depart from the common disease? Do they at the same tyme remaine in the company, and yet depart from those infected creatures? We must then say, that they separate themselues from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease: Or if you say, they free their owne persons frō the common disease, yet so, that they remaine still in the Company infected, subiect to the Superiours and Gouernours thereof, eating & drinking & keeping publique Assemblies with them; you cannot but know, that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infectiō of the Ro­man Church, did not so: for they endeauoured to force the Society whereof they were parts, to be healed and reformed as they were: and if it refused, they did, when they had forces, driue them away, euen their Superiours both spiri­tuall and temporall, as is notorious. Or if they had not power to expell that supposed infected Community, or Church of that place, they departed from them corporally, whome men­tally they had forsaken before. So that you can­not deny, but Luther forsooke the external Cō ­munion, and Company of the Catholique [Page 200]Church, for which as your selfePag. 75. confesse, There neyther was nor can be any iust cause, no more then to depart from Christ himselfe. We do ther­fore inferre, that Luther and the rest who for­sooke that visible Church which they found vpon earth, were truly, and properly Schismati­ques.

35. Moreouer, it is euident that there was a diuision betweene Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose: but that Church cannot be sayed to haue deuided her selfe from him, before whose tyme she was, & in comparison of whome she was a Whole, and he but a part: therefore we must say, that he deuided himselfe & went out of her; which is to be a Schismatique, or Heretique, or both. By this argument, Optatus Meliuitanus proueth, that not Caecilianus, but Parmenianus was a Schis­matique, saying: For, Caecilianus went Lib. 1. cont. Parm. not out of Maiorinus thy Grandfather, but Maiorinus from Caecilianus: neyther did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter, or Cyprian, but Maiorinus, in whose Chaire thou sittest, which had no beginning before Maiorinus. Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manuer, it is cleere that you are heyres both of the deliuerers vp (of the holy Bible to be burned) and also of Schismati­ques. The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther, and all those who continue the diuision which he begun; and proues: That, going out, conuinceth those [Page 201]who go out to be Scismatiques; but not those from whome they depart: That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme; yea, that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen, or as it were predecessour, before it selfe: That to con­tinue in a diuision begun by others, is to be Heires of Schismatiques: and lastly; that to depart from the Communion of a particuler Church (as that of S. Cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incurre the guilt of Schisme, and conse­quently, that although Protestants, who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church, do thinke by that Heresy to cleere Luther frō Schis­me, in disobeying the Pope: Yet that will not serue to free him from Schisme, as it importeth a diuision from the obedience, or Communion of the particular Bishop, Diocesse, Church, & Countrey, where he liued.

36. But it is not the heresy of Protestants, or any other Sectaries, that can depriue S. Peter, and his Successours, of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church: which is a point con­fessed by learned Protestants to be of great An­tiquity, and for which the iudgement of diuers most ancient holy Fathers is reproued by them, as may be seen at large in Brereley Tract. 1. Sect. 3. subd. 10. exactly ci­ting the places of such chiefe Protestants. And we must say with S. Cyprian: Heresies Epist. 55. haue sprung, and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one [Page 202]Priest and Iudge is cōsidered to be for the time in the Church of God. Which words do plainely con­demne Luther, whether he will vnderstand them as spoken of the Vniuersall, or of euery particular Church. For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope, and of all particular Bishops, and Churches. And no lesse cleere is the sayd Optatus Meliuitanus, saying: Thou caust not deny Lib 2. cont. Parm. but that thou knowest, that in the Citty of Rome, there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter, wherin Peter the head of all the Apost es sat, wherof also he was called Cephas; in which one Chaire, Vnity was to be kept by all, least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues, ech one his particular Chaire; and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner, who against that one single Chaire should erect another. Many other Authori­ties of Fathers might be alledged to this pur­pose, which I omit, my intention being not to handle particular controuersies.

37. Now, the arguments which hitherto I haue brought, proue that Luther, and his fol­lowers were Schismatiques, without exami­ning (for as much as belonges to this point) whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small, because it is vniuersally true, that there can be no iust cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ, according to S. Augustine, saying: It is not possible Ep. 48. that any may haue iust cause to sepa­rate their Communion, from the Communion of the [Page 203]whole world, and call themselues the Church of Christ, as if they had separated themselues from the Com­munion of all Nations vpon iust cause. But since in­deed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine, nor can approue any corruption in manners; they cannot with any colour auoid the iust imputation of eminent Schisme, accor­ding to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words: The most manifest De Bapt. Lib. 5. ç. 1. sacriledge of Schisme is eminent, when there was no cause of sepa­ration.

38. Lastly, I proue that Protestants cannot auoid the note of Schisme, at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certaine it is that there is very great diffe­rence, for the outward face of a Church, and profession of a different fayth, between the Lu­therans, the rigid Caluinists, and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right, those other Protestants who inuented Doctri­nes far different from his, and diuided themsel­ues from him, must be reputed Schismatiques: & the like argument may proportionably be ap­plied to their further diuisions, and subdiui­sions. Which reason I yet vrge more strongly out of D Potter, pag. 20. who affirmes, that to him & to such as are conuicted in conscience of the er­rors of the Roman Church, a reconciliation is impossible, and damnable: And yet he teacheth, that their difference from the Roman Church, is not in fundamentall points. Now, since a­mong [Page 204]Protestants there is such diuersity of be­liefe, that one denieth what the other affir­meth, they must be cōuicted in conscience that one part is in error (at least not fundamētall.) and, if D. Potter will speake consequently, that a reconciliation between them is impossible: and what greater diuision, or Schisme can there be, then when one part must iudge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible, and damnable?

39. Out of all which premisses, this Con­clusion followes: That, Luther & his followers were Schismatiques; from the vniuersall visible Church; from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth, and Successour to S. Peter; from the particular Diocesse in which they receiued Baptisme; from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged; from the Bishop vnder whom they liued; many of them from the Religious Order in which they were Professed; from one ano­ther; And lastly from a mans selfe (as much as is possible) because the selfe same Protestant to day is conuicted in conscience, that his yesterday's Opinion was an error (as D. Potter knowes a man in the world who from a Puritan was tur­ned to a moderate Protestant) with whom ther­fore a reconciliation, according to D. Potters grounds, is both impossible, and damnable.

40. It seemes D. Potters last refuge to ex­cuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme, is because they proceeded according to their con­science, dictating an obligation vnder damna­tion [Page 205]to forsake the errors maintayned by the Church of Rome. His words are: Although we confesse the Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be (in some sense) a true Church, and her errors to some men not dam­nable: yet for vs who are conuinced in conscience, that she erres in many things, a necessity lyes vpon vs, euen vnder paine of damnation, to forsake her in those er­rors.

41. I answere: It is very strang, that you iudge vs extremely Vncharitable, in saying, Protestāts cannot be saued; while your selfe a­uouch the same of all learned Catholiques, whom ignorance cannot excuse. If this your pretence of conscience may serue, what Schis­matique in the Church, what popular seditious braine in a kingdome, may not alledge the di­ctamen of conscience to free themselues from Schisme, or Sedition? No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience, but we say, that they may, and ought to rectifie, and depose such a conscience, which is easy for them to do, euen according to your owne affirmation; that we Catholiques want no meanes necessary to saluation. Easy to do? Nay not to do so, to any man in his right wits must seeme impossible. For how can these two apprehensions stand toge­ther: In the Roman Church I enioy all meanes necessary to saluation, and yet I cannot hope to besaued in that Church? or, who can conioine in one braine (not crack't) these assertions. After due examination I iudge the Roman er­rors [Page 206]not to be in themselues fundamentall, or damnable; and yet I iudge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them? I say according to true reason. For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in iudging that you cannot be saued in the Roman Church, by rea­son of her errors; there is no other remedy, but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other Iudgment, that her errours are not fundamentall, nor damnable. And this is no more Charity, then you daily affoard to such o­ther Protestants as you terme Brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, (vnles you will hold, That of contradictory proposi­tions both may be true) & yet you do not iudge it damnable to liue in their Communion, be­cause you hold their errours not to be funda­mentall. You ought to know, that according to the doctrine of all Deuines, there is great diffe­rence betwixt a speculatiue perswasion, and a practicall dictamen of conscience; and therfore although they had in speculation conceiued the visible Church to erre in some doctrines, of themselues not damnable; yet with that specu­latiue iudgement they might, & ought to haue entertayned this practicall dictamen, that for points not substantiall to fayth, they neyther were bound, nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity, by breaking vnity in Gods Church. You say that, hay & stubble Pag. 155. and such vnprofitable stuffe (as are Corruptions in points [Page 207]not fundamental) layd on the roofe, destroyes not the house, whilst the maine pillars are standing on the foundation. And you would thinke him a mad­man who to be rid of such stuffe, would set his house on fire, that so he might walk in the light, as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God, for an vnnecessary light, not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christian world; rather then beare with some errours, which did not destroy the foundati­on of faith. And as for others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther, they might, & ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincētius Lyrinensis, deli­uered in these words. Indeed it is a matter of great Aduers. hares. c. 27. moment, and both most profitable to be learned, & necessary to be remembred, & which we ought againe and againe to illustrate, and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples, that almost all Catholiques may know, that they ought to receiue the Doctours with the Church, and not forsake the fayth of the Church with the Doctours: And much lesse should they forsake the fayth of the Church to follow Luther, Cal­uin, and such other Nouelists. Moreouer though your first Reformers had conceiued their owne opinions to be true; yet they might, and ought to haue doubted, whether they were certaine: because your selfe affirme, that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons, or Churches. And since in cases of vncertainties, we are not to leaue our Superiour, nor cast off [Page 208]his obedience, or publiquely oppose his decrees; your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience, with­out a publique breach: especially if with this their vncertainty, we call to mind the peaceable possession, and prescription which by the con­fession of your owne Brethren, the Church, & Pope of Rome did for many ages enioy. I wish you would examine the workes of your Bre­thren, by the words your selfe sets downe to free S. Cyprian from Schisme: euery syllable of which words conuinceth Luther, and his Cō ­partners to be guilty of that crime, and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease, & quietnes haue rectified their conscience about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian (say you) was a peaceable Pag. 124. and modest man; dis­sented from others in his iudgement, but without any breach of Charity; condemned no man (much lesse any Church) for the contrary opinion. He belieued his owne opinion to be true, but belieued not, that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others, but left them to their liberty. Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding? Did they censure no man, much lesse any Church? S. Cyprian belieued his owne Opinion to be true, but belieued not that it was neces­sary, and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly, and peremptorily to censure others. You belieue the points wherin Luther differs from vs not to be fundamentall, or necessary; and why do you not [Page 209]thence infer the like THEREFORE, he should not haue proceeded to censure others? In a word, since their disagreement from vs concer­ned only points which were not fundamen­tall, they should haue belieued that they might haue been deceaued, as well as the whole visi­ble Church, which you say may erre in such points; and therefore their doctrines being not certainely true, and certainely not necessary, they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church.

42. In other places you write so much, as may serue vs to proue that Luther, and his followers ought to haue deposed, and rectified their consciences: As for example, when you say. When the Church pag. 103. hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion, or of Rites, her declarati­on obliges all her children to peace, and externall obe­dience. Nor is it fit, or lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement to the publique; (as Luther and his fellowes did) He may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with euidence, or great probability of Scripture, or reason, and very modestly, still contayning himselfe within the dutifull respect which he oweth: but if he will factiously aduāce his own conceyts (his owne conceyts? and yet grounded vpō euidence of Scripture) & despise the Church so farre as to cut of her Communion; he may be iustly branded and condemned for a Schismatique, yea and an Heretique also in some degree, & in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true, and much more if it be [Page 210]false. Could any man, euen for a Fee, haue spo­ken more home to condemne your Predecessors of Schisme, or Heresy? Could they haue stron­ger Motiues to oppose the doctrine of the Church, and leaue her Communion, then eui­dence of Scripture? And yet, according to your owne words, they should haue answered, and rectifyed their conscience, by your doctrine, that though their opinion were true, and groun­ded vpon euidence of Scripture, or reason; yet it was not lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgment to the publique, which obligeth all Christians to peace and externall obedience: and if they cast of the communion of the Church for maintayning their owne Conceits, they may be branded for Schismatiques, and Heretiques in some degree, and in foro exteriori, that is; all other Chri­stians ought so to esteeme of them, (and why then are we accounted vncharitable for iud­ging so of you?) and they also are obliged to behaue themselues in the face of all Christian Chur­ches, as if indeed they were not Reformers, but Schismatiques, and Heretiques, or as Pagans, and Publicans. I thanke you for your ingenuous confession, in recompence wherof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of fayth, and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his iudgment, or leaue her Commu­nion, though he haue euidence of Scripture a­gainst [Page 211]her. Will you haue such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny a truth knowne to be contained in holy Scri­pture? How much more coherently do Catho­liques proceed, who belieue the vniuersall in­fallibility of the Church, and from thence are assured that there can be no euidence of Scri­pture, or reason against her definitions, nor any iust cause to forsake her Cōmunion? M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incompara­ble man, yields as much as we haue alledged out of you. The will of God is (sayth he) to haue In his Preface to his bookes of Ecclesiastical policy. Sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoeuer the sentence of iudiciall and fi­nall docision shall determine, yea though it seeme in their priuate opinion, to swarue vtterly from that which is right. Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was, which he transgres­sing must of necessity be guilty of Schisme? And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the v­niuersall infallibility of the Church, or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of distembling against their conscience, wherof now I spake? Not vnlike to this, is your doctrine deliuered elsewhere. Before the Nicene Councell (say you) many pag. 131. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists, that the Bap­tisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall; and with the Nouatians, that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners. These errors therfore (if they had gone no further) were not in themselues Hereticall, especially in the proper, and most heauy, or bitter [Page 212]sense of that word; neither was it in the Churches in­tention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. Her intention was to silence all disputes, and to settle peace and Vnity in her gouernment: to which all wise and peaceable men submitted, whatsoe­uer their opinion was. And those factious people, for their vnreasonable and vncharitable opposition, were very iustly branded for Schismatiques. For vs, the Mistaker will neuer proue that we oppose any declara­tion of the Catholique Church &c. and therfore he doth vniustly charge vs either with Schisme, or He­resy. These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations, Doctrines, and Com­maunds imposed vpon them, for silencing all disputes, and setling peace and Vnity in the gouern­ment, and therfore they still remayning obstina­tely disobedient, are iustly charged with Schisme, and Heresy. And it is to be obserued that you grant the Donatists to haue been very iustly bran­ded for Schismatiques, although their opposition against the Church did concerne (as you hold) a point not fundamentall to the Fayth, and which according to S. Augustine cannot be pro­ued out of Scripture alone; and therfore either doth euidently conuince that the Church is v­niuersally infallible, euen in points not funda­mentall, or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherin she may erre; and consequently that Luther, and his fellowes were Schismatiques, by opposing the vi­sible [Page 213]Church for points not fundamentall, though it were (vntruly) supposed that she er­red in such points. But by the way, how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell (of Nice) to be the de­claration of the Catholique Church, seeing you teach, That Generall Councels may erre euen fundamentally? And do you now say, with vs, that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresy, which is a point so often impugned by you?

43. It is therfore most euident, that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Lu­ther, which he might, and ought to haue recti­fied by meanes inowe, if Pride, Ambition, Ob­stinacy &c. had giuen him leaue. I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience, but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ; and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules, the Bloud of our blessed Sauior, atten­tiuely to ponder, and vnpartially to apply to their owne Conscience, what this Man spoke con­cerning the feelings, and remorse of his. How of­ten (sayth he) did my trembling heart Tom. 2. Germ Jen. fol. 9. & tom 2. Witt. of anno 1562 de abrong. Miss. prnat. fol. 244. beate within me, and reprehending me, obiect against me that most strong argument; Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds erre? Were so many ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee? And in another place he sayth: Dost thou who art but One, and of no Tom. 5. Annot. bre­niss. [Page 214] account, take vpon thee so great matters? What, if thou, being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all to erre, why may he not permit thee to erre? To this belong those arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councels, the Customes, the multitudes and greatnes of wise men: Whom do not these Mountaines of arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of Examples ouerthrow? And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule, that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq. menfal. fol. 158. ne­uer begun this businesse: wishing yet further that his Writings were burned, and buried Praefat. in tom. Ger­man. Ien. in eternall obliuion. Behold what remorse Luther felt, and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his owne conscience: and therfore it was no scruple, or conceiued obligation of conscience, but some other motiues which induced him to oppose the Church. And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter, and strength to maister all reluctations of conscience, heare an exam­ple or two for that purpose. Of Communion vnder both kinds, thus he sayth: If the Councell De for­mula inissae. should in any case decree this, least of all would we then vse both kinds, yea rather in despight of the Councell, and that Decree, we would vse either but one kind only, or neither, and in no case both. Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience, that to vse neither kind was against our Sauiours com­maund? Is this only to offer his opinion to be con­sidered of, as you said all men ought to do? And that you may be sure that he spoke from his [Page 215]heart, and if occasion had been offered, would haue been as good as his word; marke what he sayth of the Eleuation of the Sacrament: I did know In parna Confess. the Eleuation of the Sacrament to be Idola­tricall; yet neuerthelesse I did retaine it in the Church at Wittemberge, to the end I might vex the diuell Ca­rolostadius. Was not this a conscience large and capacious inough, that could swallow Idola­try? Why would he not toleate Idolatry in the Church of Rome (as these men are wont to blaspheme) if he could retaine it in his owne Church at Wittemberge? If Carolostadius, Lu­thers of spring, was the Diuel, who but himselfe must be his damme? Is Almighty God wont to send such furies to preach the Ghospell? And yet further (which makes most directly to the point in hand) Luther in his Booke of abroga­ing the Priuate Masse, exhorts the Augustines Friars of Wittemberg, who first abrogated the Masse, that euen against their conscience accu­sing them, they should persist in what they had begun, acknowledging that in some things he himselfe had done the like.Vid. Tan. tom. 2. dis­put. 1. q. 2. dub. 4. n. 108. And Ioannes Mathe­fias a Luther an Preacher sayth Antonius Musa the Parish Priest In orat. Germ. 12. as Lath. of Rocklitz, recounted to me that on a time he hartily moaned himselfe to the Do­ctor (he meanes Luther) that he himself could not belieue what he preached to others: And that D. Lu­ther answered; praise and thankes be to God, that this happens also to others, for I had thought it had hap­pened only to me. Are not these conscionable, and [Page 216]fit Reformers? And can they be excused from Schisme vnder pretence that they held themsel­ues obliged to forsake the Roman Church? If then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience, what will become of Luther, who a­gainst his conscience persisted in his diuision from the Roman Church?

44. Some are said to flatter themselues with another pernicious conceit, that they (for­sooth) are not guilty of sinne; Because they were not the first Authors, but only are the con­tinuers of the Schisme, which was already be­gunne.

45. But it is hard to belieue, that any man of iudgment, can thinke this excuse will subsist, when he shall come to giue vp his finall accōpt. For according to this reason, no Schisme wil be damnable, but only to the Beginners: Wheras contrarily, the longer it continues, the worse it growes to be, and at length degenerates to He­resy as wine by long keeping growes to be Vi­negar, but not by continuance returnes againe to his former nature of wine. Thus S. Augustine saith, that Heresy is Lib. 2. cont. Crese. c. 7. Schisme inueterate. And in another place: We obiect to you only the Ep. 164. crime of Schisme, which you haue also made to become H. re­sy by euill perseuering therin. And S. Hierom sayth: Though Schisme Vpon these words ad Pit. 3. Haereticum hominē &c. in the beginning may be in some sort vnderstood to be differēt from heresy; yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne to it selfe some He­resy, that it may seeme to haue departed from the [Page 217]Church vpon iust cause. And so indeed it falleth out. For men may beginne vpon passion, but af­terward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintaine their Schisme as lawfull, they fall in­to some Heresy, without which their Separation could not be iustified with any colour, as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawfull to continue a Schisme vnlawfully begunne, is an error against the maine principle of Chri­stianity, that it is not lawfull for any Christi­an to liue our of God's Church, within which alone Saluation can be had; Or, that it is not damnable to disobey her Decrees, according to the words of our Sauiour: If he shall not seare Matt. 18. the Church, let him be to thee as a Pagan or Pu­blican. And, He Iue, 10.16. that despiseth you, despiseth me. We heard aboue Optatus Mileuitanus saying to Parmenianus, that both he, and all those other who cōtinued in the Schisme begun by Maiori­nus, did inherite their Forefathers Schisme; and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Ma­iorinus in his Sea, and did not begin, but only con­tinue the Schisme. For (sayth this holy Father) Caecilianus Lib. 2. cont. Parm. went not out of Maiorinus thy Grand-Father, but Maiorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter, or Cy­prian, but Maiorinus, in whose Chaire thou sittest, which before Maiorinus (Luther) had no beginning. Seing it is euident that these things passed in this manner (that, for example, Luther departed from the Church, and not the Church from [Page 218]Luther) it is cleere that you be HEIRES both of the giuers vp of the Bible to be burned, and of SCHISMATIQVES. And the Regall Power, or example of Henry the Eight could not excuse his Subiects from Schisme according to what we haue heard out of S. Chrysostome say­ing: Nothing doth so much prouoke Hom 11. In ep st. ad Ep [...]s. the wrath of Almighty God, as that the Church should be diui­ded. Although we should do innumerable good deeds, if we diuide the full Ecclesiasticall Congregation, we shall be punished no lesse, then they who did rend his (naturall) Body; for that was done to the gaine of the whole world, though not with that intention: but this hath no good in it at all, but that the greatest hurt riseth from it. These things are spoken not only to those who be are office, but to such also as are gouerned by them. Behold therfore, how liable both Subiects, and Superiours are to the sinne of Schisme, if they breake the vnity of God's Church. The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more then in this of which we speake. They who do such things Rom. 1.32. are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent with the doers. In things which are indifferent of their owne na­ture, Custome may be occasion, that some act not well begun, may in time come to be law­fully cōtinued. But no length of Time, no Qua­lity of Persons, no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their owne mature vnlawfull: and therfore diuision from Christs my sticall Body, being of the number of [Page 219]those actions, which Deuines teach to be intrin­sece malas, euill of their owne nature and essence, no difference of Persons or Time can euer make it lawfull. D. Potter sayth: There neither was, nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himselfe. And who dares say, that it is not damnable to continue a Separa­tion from Christ? Prescription cannot in con­science runne, when the first beginner, and his Successours are conscious that the thing to be prescribed, for example goods or lands, were vn­iustly possessed at the first. Christians are not like strayes, that after a certaine time of wan­dring from their right home, fall from their ow­ner to the Lord of the Soile; but as long as they retaine the indeleble Character of Baptisme, and liue vpon earth, they are obliged to acknowled­ge subiection to God's Church. Human Lawes may come to nothing by discontinuance of Time, but the Law of God, commaunding vs to conserue Vnity in his Church, doth still re­maine. The continued disobedience of Chil­dren cannot depriue Parents of their paternall right, nor can the Grand-child be vndutifull to his Grand Father, because his Father was vnnaturall to his owne Parent. The longer God's Church is disobeyed; the profession of her Doctrine denyed her Sacraments neglected; her Liturgy condemned; her Vnity violated; the more grieuous the fault growes to be: as the longer a man with-holds a due debt, or retaines [Page 220]his Neighbours goods, the greater iniustice he commits. Constancy in euill doth not exte­nuate, but aggrauate the same, which by exten­sion of Time, receiueth increase of strength, & addition of greater malice. If these mens con­ceits were true, the Church might come to be wholy diuided by wicked Schismes, and yet af­ter some space of time, none could be accused of Schisme, nor be obliged to returne to the vi­sible Church of Christ: and so there should re­maine no One true visible Church. Let therfore these men who pretend to honour, reuerence, & belieue the Doctrine, and practise of the visible Church, and to condemne their forefathers who fosooke her, and say they would not haue done so, if they had liued in the dayes of their Fathers, and yet follow their example in remai­ning diuided from her Communion; consider, how truly these words of our Sauiour fall vpon them. Wo be to you, because you build Matt. 23. [...]. 29. &c. the Pro­phets sepulchers, and garnish the monuments of iust men, and say: If we had been in our Fathers dayes, we had not been their fellowes in the bloud of the Pro­phets. Therfore you are a testimony to your owne sel­ues, that you are the sonnes of them that killed the Prophets; and fill vp the measure of your Fathers.

46. And thus hauing demonstrated that Lu­ther, his Associates, and all that continue in the Schisme by them begunne, are guilty of Schisme, by departing from the visible true Church of Christ; it remaineth that we examine what in [Page 221]particular was that Visible true Church, from which they departed, that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to re­turne: and then we shall haue performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth Point.

47. That the Roman Church (I speake not for the present, of the particular Diocesse of Rome, 5 Point. but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world, agreeing in faith with the Chaire of Peter, Luther & the rest de­parted frō the Roman Church. whether that Sea were supposed to be in the Citty of Rome or in any o­ther place:) That (I say) the Church of Rome, in this sense, was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed, is proued by your owne Confession, who assigne for notes of the Church, the true Preaching of Gods Church, and due Administration of Sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church, since you confesse that she wā ­ted nothing fundamentall, or necessary to sal­uation; and for that very cause you thinke to cleare your selfe from Schisme, whose property, as you say, is to cut off from the pag. 78. Body of Christ and the Hope of Saluation, the Church from which it se­parates. Now that Luther and his fellowes were borne and baptized in the Roman Church, and that she was the Church out of which they de­parted, is notoriously knowne: And therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ, & Hope of Saluation, vnles you will acknowledge your selfe to deserue the iust imputatiō of Schis­me. [Page 222]Neyther can you deny her to be truly Ca­tholique by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not fundamentall. For your selfe auouch, and endeauour to proue, that the true Catholique Church may erre in such points. Moreouer, I hope you will not so much as go about to proue, that when Luther rose, there was any other true visible Church, disagreeing from the Roman, & agreeing with Protestants in their particular do­ctrines: and you cannot deny but that England in those dayes agreed with Rome, and other Na­tions with England: 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 Protestāts 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 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, [Page 223]& disagree from the Protestant Reforma­tion. They teach Transubstantiation (which point D. Potter alsoPag. 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 ProtestantDe 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 pag. 22 [...]. & Rome, are only the partiall & particu­lar fancies of the Roman Church; vnlesse happily the opinion of Transubstātiation 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 [Page 224]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, [Page 225]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 (saythAct. 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 (saythIbid. Fox) expounded the words, Ioan. 1. Suieum non receperunt: Swyne did [Page 226]not receiue him. And to conclude, they agreed in diuers things with Catholiques against Prote­stants, as may be seene inTract. 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 Illyr [...]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 In serm. de Assump. Marte. impossible, that we should be re­warded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary. [Page 227]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 beg; and yet he himselfe brake into heresy be­cause he had been depriued by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certaine Benefice; as all Schismes, & heresies begin vpon passion, which they seeke to couer with the cloake of Refor­mation. Thirdly he condemned lawfull Oaths, like the Anabaptists. Fourthly, he taught that all things came to passe by absolute necessity. Fiftly, he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did, namely, as proceeding from natu­rall forces, without the necessary help of God's grace. Sixtly, that no man is a Ciuill Magi­strate, while he is in mortall sinne; and that the people may at their pleasure correc̄t Princes, when they offend: by which doctrine he proues himselfe both an Heretique, and a Traytour.

53. As for Husse, his chiefest Doctrines were: That Lay people must receiue in both kinds; and That Ciuill Lords Prelates, and Bi­shops loose all right, and authority, while they are in mortall sinne For other things he wholy agreed with Catholiques against Protestants; [Page 228]and the Bohemians his followers being demaun­ded, in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome, propounded only these: The necessity of Communion vnder both kinds; That all ciuill Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy; That Preaching of the word, was free for all men, and in all places; That open Crimes were in nowise to be per­mitted for auoyding of greater euill. By these par­ticulars, it is apparant, that Husse agreed with Protestants against vs, in one only point of both Kinds, which according to Luther is a thing in­different; because he teacheth that Christ in this matter In epist. ad Bohemos. commaunded nothing as necessary. And he sayth further: If thou come to a place De vtr a [...] que specie Sacram. where one only kind is administred, vse one kind only, as o­thers do. Melancthon likewise holds it a thingIn Cent. epist. Theol. pag. 225. indifferent: and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants. All which considered, it is cleer that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses, Wicclifse, and Husse for members of their Church: & although they could, yet that would aduātage them litle towards the finding out a perpetuall visible Church of theirs, for the reasons aboueNum. 49. specifyed.

54. If D. Potter, would go so farre off, as to fetch the Muscouites, Armenians, Georgians, Ae­thiopians, or Abissines into his Church, they would proue ouer deare bought: For they ey­ther hold the damnable heresy of Eutiches, or vse Circumcision, or agree with the Greeke, or Roman Church. And it is most certayne that [Page 229]they haue nothing to do with the doctrine of Protestants.

55. It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all ages, and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome; it followes that she is the true Cath. Church; and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsooke her, are indeed diuine truths, de­liuered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ: And, that Luther and his followers de­parted from her, and consequently are guily of Schisme, by diuiding themselues from the Com­munion of the Roman Church. Which is cleerely conuinced out of D. Potter himselfe, although the Roman Church were but a particular Church. For he sayth: Whoseuer professes Pag. 70. himselfe to forsake the Communion of any one mēber of the body of Christ, must confesse himselfe conse­quently to forsake the whole. Since therefore in the same place he expressely acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ, and that it is cleere they haue forsaken her; it euidently followes, that they haue forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly Schisma­tiques.

56. And lastly, since the crime of Schisme is so grieuous, that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue, no multitude of good workes, no morall honesty of life, no cruell death endured euen for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guil­ty [Page 230]of that sinne from damnation; I leaue it to be considered, whether it be not true Charity to speake as we belieue, and to belieue as all Antiquity hath taught vs, That whosoeuer ey­ther beginnes,, or continues a diuision for the Ro­man Church, which we haue proued to be Christs true Militant Church on earth, cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a mē ­ber of his Triumphant Church in heauen. And so I conclude with these words of blessed Saint Augustine: It is common Cont. Parm. lib. 2. [...]ap. 3. to all Heretiques to be vnable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest, and placed in the light of all Nations; out of whose Vnity whatsoener they worke, though they seeme to doe it with great care and diligence, can no more auaile them against the wrath of God, then the Spiders web agaynst the extremity of cold. But now it is high tyme that we treat of the other sort of Diuision from the Church, which is by Heresy.

CHAP. VI. That Luther, and the rest of Pro­testants, haue added Heresy vnto Schisme.

BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Ver­tue, we cannot well determi­ne what Heresy is, nor who be Heretiques, but by the op­posite vertue of Fayth, whose Nature being once vnderstood as farre as belongs to our present purpose, we shall passe on with ease to the definition of He­resy, and so be able to discerne who be Here­tiques. And this I [...]ntend to do, not by entring into such particular Questions as are contro­uerted betweene Catholiques and Protestants, but only by applying some generall grounds, eyther already proued, or els yielded to, on all sides.

2. Almighty God hauing ordayned Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by superna­turall meanes; it was requisite that his Vnderstan­ding should be enabled to apprehend that End, [Page 232]and Meanes by a supernaturall knowledge. And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable, it could not be able sufficiently to ouer­beare our Will, & encounter with human pro­babilities, being backed with the strēgth of flesh and bloud; It was further necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certaine and infallible; and that Fayth should belieue no­thing more certainely then that it selfe is a most certaine Beliefe, and so be able to beate downe all gay probabilities of humane Opinion. And be­cause the aforesayd Meanes and End of Beatificall Vision, do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit, the certainty of fayth could not alwayes be ioy­ned with such euidence of reason, as is wont to be found in the Principles, or Conclusions of hu­mane naturall Sciences; that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh, but that he, who glories, should glory 2. Cor. 10 in our Lord. Moreouer, it was expedient that our belife, or assent to di­uine truths, should not only be vnknowne, or ineuident by any humane discourse, but that ab­solutely also it should be obscure in it selfe, and (ordinarily speaking) be void euen of super­naturall euidence; that so we might haue occa­sion to actuate, and testifie the obedience which we owe to our 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 2. Cor. 10 [...] to the Obedience of [Page 233]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 cōmaunds 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 Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for, the argu­ment of things not appearing. And, We see by a glasse 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 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 [Page 234]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 Kom. 12. &. 1. Obsequium, an Obedience, sweetned [Page 235]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 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 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 [Page 236]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 Prescript. [...]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 [Page 237]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 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 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 [Page 238]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. [Page 239] 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 [Page 240]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 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 [Page 242]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 1. Reg. 17. pickt [Page 243]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 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 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 [Page 244]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 [Page 245]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 wordsTag. 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 [Page 246]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 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 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 [Page 247]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 vniuersall Church: She hath this Cont. lit. Petil. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certaine marke, that she cannot be hid­den: She is then knowne to all Nations. The Sect of Donatus is vnknown to many Nations; therfore that cannot be she. The Sect of Luther (at least when he began, and much more before his beginning) was vnknowne to many Nations, therfore that cannot be she.

17. And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists: It is to be noted, that they neuer taught, that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it selfe further then that part of Africa, where their faction raigned, but only that in fact it was so confined, because all the rest of the Church was prophaned, by communicating with Caecilianus, whom they falsly affirmed to haue been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours, or giuers vp of the Bible to the Perse­cutors to be burned: yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome, and sent thither one Victor, a Bishop, vnder colour to take care of their Brethren in that Citty, but indeed as Baronius Anno 321. nu. 2. Spond. obserueth, that the world might account them Catholiques, by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, to communicate with [Page 248]whom was euen taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique. They had also, as S. Augustine witnesseth, a pre­tendedDe Vni. Eccles. c. 3. Church in the howse and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla, who went fly­ing out of the Catholique Church, because she had been iustly checked by Caectlianus. And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist, sayth: Heere did he first Ep. 163. attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread ouer the whole Earth &c. but because the thing was euidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of language: wherby neuertheles they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true Church ought necessarily to be confi­ned to one place, but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact, be­cause their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread ouer the world: In which point Fortunius, and the rest were more modest, then he who should affirme that Lu­ther's reformation in the very beginning was spead ouer the whole Earth; being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the Sect of the Donatists. I haue no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists, by re­membring that the Sect of these men was be­gan and promoted by the passion of Lucilla; and who is ignorant what influence two women, the Mother and Daughter, ministred to Prote­stancy in England? Nor will I stand to obserue [Page 249]their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists, who called the Chaire of Rome, the Chaire of pestilence, and the Roman Church an Harlot, which is D. Potter's owne phrase, wherin he is lesse excusable then they, because he maintai­neth her to be a true Church of Christ: & ther­fore let him duely ponder these words of S. Au­gustine against the Donatists. If I persecute him iu­stly who detracts Conc. su­per gest. cust Emeri [...] from his Neighbour, why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ, and sayth, this is not she, but this is an Har­lot? And least of all, will I consider, whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist, who wrote against Parmenianus like­wise a Donatist, who blasphemed, that the Church of Christ had perished (as you do e­uen in this your Booke write against some of your Protestant Brethren, or as you call them Zelots among you, who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresy) and yet remained among them, euen after Parmenianus had excommuni­cated him, (as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed agaynst you if it were in their power) and yet like Ticonius you remaine in their Communion, and come not into that Church which is, hath been, and shall euer be vniuersall: For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius, that although he wrote against the Donatists, yet he was of an hart De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd, as not to forsake them alto gether. And speaking of the same thing in ano­ther [Page 250]place he obserues, that although Ticonius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished; yet, he saw not (sayth this holy Father) that which in good consequence Cont. Parm. l. 1. cap. 1. he should haue seene, that those Christians of A­frica belonged to the Church spread ouer the whole world, who remained vnited, not with them who were diuided from the communion and vnity of the same world, but with such as did communicate with the whole world. But Parmenianus, and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence, and resolued rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most ma­nifest truth which Ticonius maintained, then by yiel­ding therto, to be ouercome by those Churches in A­frica, which enioyed the communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended, from which they had di­uided themselues. How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants, I desire the Reader to consider. But these and the like resemblances of Prote­stants to the Donatistes, I willingly let passe, and onely vrge the maine point: That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for diuers Centuries before Luther, and yet was (because so forsooth they will needs haue it) in the Apostles time, they must of necessi­ty affirme heretically with the Donatists, that the true and vnspotted Church of Christ peri­shed; & that she which remained on earth was (O blasphemy!) an Harlot. Moreouer the sa­me heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. [Page 251]Potter, and other Protestants, that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall; because we haue shewed that euery errour against any one reuealed truth, is Heresy and damnable, whe­ther the matter be otherwise of it selfe, great or small. And how can the Church more truly be sayd to perish, then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy? Besides, we will heereafter proue, that by any act of Heresy all diuine fayth is lost; & to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any fayth, is as much as to fancy a liuing man without life. It is therefore cleere, that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished: yea they are worse then the Donatists, who said, that the Church remained at least in Africa; whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant, that for a long space before Luther, she was no where at all. But let vs goe forward to other reasons.

18. The holy Scripture, and Ancient Fa­thers do assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a marke of Heresy; according to that of S. Iohn: They went out 2. Ioan, 19. from vs. And, Some who Act. 15.24. went out from vs. And, Our of you shall Act. 203.30. arise men speaking peruerse things. And accordin­gly Vincentius Lyrinensis sayth: Who euer Lib. ad. uersus haer, cap. 34. be­gan heresies, who did not first separate himselfe from the Vniuersality, Antiquity, and Consent of the Ca­tholique Church? But it is manifest, that when Luther appeared, there was no visible Church [Page 252]distinct from the Roman, out of which she could depart, as it is likewise well knowne that Lu­ther, & his followers departed out of her: Ther­fore she is no way lyable to this Marke of Here­sy, but Protestants cannot possibly auoid it. To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words: A Christian communicatingDimid. temp. cap. 5. with the vni­uersall Church is a Catholique, and he who is diui­ded from her, is an Heretique, and Antichrist. But Luther in his first Reformation could not com­municate with the visible Catholique Church of those times, because he began his Reforma­tion by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church: we must therfore say with S. Prosper, that he was an Heretique &c. Which likewise is no lesse cleerly proued out of S. Cy­prian, saying: Not we Lib. de Ʋnit. Ecles. departed from them, but they from vs, and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards, while they make to themselues diuers Conuenticles, they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth.

19, And that we might not remaine doubt­full what separation it is, which is the marke of Heresy, the ancient Fathers tel vs more in parti­cular, that it is from the Church of Rome, as it is the Sea of Peter. And therfore D. Potter need not to be so hot with vs, because we say & writ that the Church of Rome, in that sense as she is the Mother Church of all others, and with which all the rest agree, is truly callled the Catholique Church. S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus [Page 253]sayth: I am in the Communion Ep. 57. ad Damas. of the Chayre of Peter; I know that the Church is built vpon that Rocke. Whoseuer shall eate the Lābe out of this house he is profane. If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe, he shall perish in the tyme of the deluge: Whosoeuer doth not gather with thee, doth scatter, that is, he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. And els wheres Which doth he Lib. 1. A­polog. call his fayth? That of the Roman Church? Or that which is contained in the Bookes of Origen; If he answere, the Roman, then we are Ca­tholiques, who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen. And yet further: Know thou, that the Ibid. lib. 3. Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receiue these delusions, though an Angell should denounce otherwise, then it hath once been preached. S. Ambrose recounting how his Bro­ther Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherin to giue thanks for his deliuery from Shipwrack, sayth: he called vnto him De obitu Satyris fra­tri. the Bishop, neither did he esteeme any fauour to be true, except that of the true fayth, and he asked of him whether he agreed with the Catholique Bishops; that is, with the Ro­man Church. And hauing vnderstood that he was a Schismatique, that is, separated from the Roman Church, he abstained from communicating with him. Where we see the priuiledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed, by doctrine and practise. And the same Saint sayth of the Roman Church: From thence the Rights lib. 1. ep. 4. ad Jmpe­ratores. of Venerable Communion do flow to all. S. Cyprian sayth: They are bold Epist. 55. ad Cornel. to saile to the [Page 254]Chaire of Peter, and to the principall Church, from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung. Neither do they consider, that they are Romans, whose Fayth was com­mended by the preaching of the Apostle, to whom fal­shood cannot haue accesse. Where we see this holy Father ioynes together the principall Church, and the Chaire of Peter; and affirmeth that falshood not only hath not had, but cannot haue accesse to that Sea. And else where: Thou wrotest that I should send Epist. 52. a Coppy of the same letters to Corne­lius our Collegue, that laying aside all solicitude, he might now be assured that thou didst Communicate with him, that is, with the Catholique Church. What thinke you M. Doctor of these words? Is it so strang a thing to take for one and the same thing, to communicate with the Church & Pope of Rome, and to communicate with the Catho­lique Church? S. Irenaeus sayth: Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches, Lib. 3. çont. haer. c. 3. we de­claring the Tradition (and fayth preached to men, and comming to vs by Tradition) of the most great, most ancient, and most knowne Church, foun­ded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; which Tradition it hath from the Apostles, comming to vs by succession of Bishops; We confound all those who any way either by cuill complacence of themsel­ues, or vaine glory, or by blindnes, or ill Opinion do ga­ther otherwise then they ought. For to this Church for a more powerfull Principality, it is necessary that all Churches resort, that is, all faythfull people of what place soeuer: in which (Roman Church) the Tra­dition [Page 255]which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserued from those who are euery where. S. Augu­stin sayth: It gri [...]ues vs In psal. cont. part [...]n Donati. to see you so to ly cut off. Number the Priest euen from the Sea of Peter; and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whome. She is the Rook which the proud Gates of Hell do not ou [...]rcome. And in another place, speaking of Cacilianu he sayth: He might contemne the con­spiring Ep. 162. multitude of his Enemies, because he knew himselfe to be vnited, by Communicatory let­ters both to the Roman Church in which the Princi­pality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes florish; and to other Countreys from whence the Gospell came first into Africa. Ancient Tertullian sayth: If thou be neere Italy, thou hast Rome whose Praeser. cap. 36. Authority is neere at hand to vs: a happy Church, into which the Apostles haue powred all Doctrine, together with their bloud. S. Basill in a letter to the Bishop of Rome sayth. In very deed that which was giuen Epist. ad Pont. Rom. by our Lord to thy Piety, is worthy of that most excellent voyce which proclaymed thee Blessed, to wit, that thou maist discerne betwixt that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawfull and pure, and without any di­minution mayest preach the Fayth of our Ancestors. Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople about twelue hundred yeares agoe, said: All the bounds of the earth who haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord, and Catholiques through the whole world pro­fessing the true Faith, looke vpon the power of the Bi­shop of Rome, as vpon the sunne &c. For the Creator of the world, amongst all men of the world elected him, [Page 256](he speakes of S. Peter) to whom he granted the Chaire of Doctour to be principally possessed by a per­petuall right of Priuiledge; that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing, may haue re­course to the Oracle, and Doctrine of this instruction. Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople, more then elea­uen hundred yeares agoe in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda, writeth thus: Because Epist. ad Hormis. PP. the beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right Fayth, & in no wise to swarue from the tradition of our for-Fa­thers; because the words of our Lord cannot faile, say­ing: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church; the proofes of deeds haue made good those words, because in the Sea Apostolicall the Catholique Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable. And a­gaine: We promise heerafter not to recite in the sa­cred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church, that is to say, who consent not fully with the Sea Apo­stolique. Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose, but these may serue to shew, that both the Latin. & Greeke Fathers held for a Note of being a Ca­tholique, or an Heretique, to haue been vnited, or diuided from the Sea of Rome. And I haue purposely alledged only such Authorities of Fathers, as speake of the priuiledges of the Sea of Rome, as of things permament, and depen­ding on our Sauiours promise to S. Peter, from which a generall rule, and ground ought to be taken for all Ages, because Heauen and Earth [Page 257]shall Matt. 24.35. passe, but the word of our Lord shall re­maine for euer. So that I heere conclude, that se­ing it is manifest that Luther and his followers diuided themselues from the Sea of Rome, they beare the inseparable Marke of Heresy.

20. And though my meaning be not to treate the point of Ordination, or Succession in the Protestants Church, because the Fathers alledged in the last reason, assigne Succession as one marke of the true Church; I must not o­mit to say, that according to the grounds of Protestants themselues, they can neyther pre­tend personall Succession of Bishops, nor Successi­on of doctrine. For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a neuer-interrupted line of Persons, endued with an indeleble Quality, which Deui­nes call a Character, which cānot be taken away by deposition, degradation or other meanes what­soeuer; and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach, to preach, to gouerne the Church by lawes, precepts, censures, &c. Prote­stāts cannot pretend Successiō in either of these. For (besids that there was neuer Protestant Bi­shop before Luther, and that there can be no continuance of Succession, where there was no beginning to succeed) they cōmonly acknow­ledge no Character, & consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are depriued of Iurisdiction, or degraded, they remaine meere lay Persons as before their Or­dination; fulfilling what Tert [...]lian obiects as a [Page 258]marke of Heresy: To day a Priest, to morrow Praeser. çap. 41. a Lay-man. For if there be no immoueable Chara­cter, their power of Order must consist onely in Iurisdiction, and authority, or in a kind of mo­rall deputation to some function, which there­fore may be taken away by the same power, by which it was giuen. Neither can they pretend Succcession in Authority, or Iurisdiction. For all the Authority, or Iurisdiction which they had, was conferred by the Church of Rome, that is, by the Pope: Because the whole Church collectiuely doth not meet to ordayne Bishops or Priests, or to giue them Authority. But ac­cording to their owne doctrine, they belieue that the Pope neyther hath, or ought to haue any Iurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence, or Authority Ecclesiasticall, or Spirituall within this Realme, which they sweare euen when they are ordained Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neyther hath, nor OVGHT to haue a­ny? Or if yet he had, how could they without Schisme withdraw themselues from his obedi­ence? Besides, the Roman Church neuer gaue them Authority, to oppose Her, by whome it was giuen. But grant, their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome: after the decease of those men, who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours? The Primate of England? But from whome had he such Au­thority? And after his decease, who shall con­ferre [Page 259]Authority vpon his Successours? The temporall Magistrate? King Henry, neyther a Catholique, nor a Protestant? King Edward, a Child? Queene Elizabeth, a Woman? An In­fant of one houres Age, is true King in case of his Predecessours decease: But shal your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King, and greene Head of the Church come to yeares of discre­tion? Doe your Bishops, your Hierarchy, your Succession, your Sacraments, your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession, depēd on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerely vpon base occasions, and for shamefull ends; impugned by Caluin, and his followers; derided by the Christian world; & euen by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes, Wotton &c. not held for any necessary point of fayth? And from whome I pray you, had Bishops their Authority, when there were no Christian Kinges? Must the Greeke Patriarks receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greeke Turke. Did the Pope, by the Baptisme of Princes, loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iuris­diction vpon Bishops? Hath the temporall Ma­gistrate authority to preach, to assoile from sin­nes, to inflict excommunications, and other Censures? Why hath he not Power to excom­municate, as well as to dispense in Irregularity, as our late Soueraigne Lord King Iames, either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canter­bury, [Page 260]or els gaue commission to some Bishops to doe [...]t? and since they were subiect to their Pri­mate, and not he to them, it is cleere, that they had no Power to dispense with him, but that power must proceed from the Prince, as Supe­riour to them all, and head of the Protestants Church in England. If he haue no such autho­rity, how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not? Your Ordination, or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character, can only consist in giuing a Power, Authority, Iurisdiction, or (as I said before) some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall, or Priestly functions: If then, the temporall Magistrate confers this Power &c. he can, nay he cannot chuse but Ordaine, and consecrate Bishops, and Priests, as often as he confers Authority or Ju­risdiction: and your Bishops as soone as they are designed and confirmed by the King, must ipso faclo be Ordained and Consecrated by him without interuention of Bishops, or Matter and Forme of Ordination: Which absurdities you will be more vnwilling to grant, then well able to auoid, if you will be true to your owne doctri­nes. The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops, neuer receiued, nor will, nor can acknowledge to receiue any Spirituall Iurisdiction from any Temporall Prince, and therfore if Iurisdiction must be de­riued from Princes, he hath none at all: and yet either you must acknowledge, that he hath true [Page 261]spirituall Iurisdiction, or that your Selues can receiue none from him.

21. Moreouer, this new Reformation, or Reformed Church of Protestants, will by them be pretended to be Catholique, or Vniuersall, and not confined to England alone, as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa: and therfore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany, Holland, Scotland, France &c. In which number, they of Germany, Holland, and France, are not gouerned by Bishops, nor regard any personall Successiō, vnles of such fat-beneficed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius, who was con­secrated by Luther, (though Luther himselfe was neuer Bishop) as witnessethIn Mille­nario sexto pag. 187. Dresserus. And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops, I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary, or of diuine Institution; and so their enforced admitting of them, doth not so much furnish that kingdome with personall Suc­cession of Bishops, as it doth conuince them to want Succession of Doctrine; since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England, and the true Catholique Church: And by this want of a cō ­tinued personall Succession of Bishops, they re­taine the note of Schisme, & Heresy. So that the Church of Protestants, must either not be vni­uersall, as being confined to England; Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want Succession, you must confesse, [Page 262]that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismaticall and Hereticall Churches, but is also compounded of such Churches; & your selues cannot auoid the note of Schismatiques, or Heretiques, if it were but for participating with such hereticall Churches. For it is impos­sible to retaine Communion with the true Ca­tholique Church, and yet agree with them who are diuided from her by Schisme, or Heresy; be­cause that were to affirme, that for the selfe sa­me time, they could be within, and without the Catholique Church, as proportionably I dis­coursed in the next precedent Chapter, concer­ning the Communicating of moderate Prote­stants with those who maintaine that Heresy of the Latency and Inuisibility of Gods Church, where I brought a place of S. Cyprian to this purpose, which the Reader may be pleased to reuiew in the Fifth Chapter, and 17. Number.

22. But besides this defect in the personall Succession of Protestant Bishops, there is ano­ther of great moment; which is, that they wāt the right Forme of ordaining Bishops, and Priests, because the manner which they vse is so much different from that of the Roman Church (at least according to the common opinion of De­uines) that it cannot be sufficient for the Essence of Ordination; as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise, and will not fayle to doe if D. Potter giue me occasi­on. In the meane time the Reader may be plea­sed [Page 263]to read the AuthourSee A­damum Tā ­nerum tom. 4. disp. 7. quaest. 2. dub. 3. & 4. cited heere in the margent, & then compare the forme of our Or­dination with that of Protestants; and to remē ­ber that if the forme which they vse eyther in Consecrating Bishops, or in Ordayning Priests be at least doubtfull, they can neyther haue vn­doubted Priests, nor Bishops. For Priests cannot be ordayned but by true Bishops, nor can any be a true Bishop, vnles he first be Priest. I say, their Ordination is at least doubtfull; because that sufficeth for my present purpose. For Bi­shops and Priests, whose Ordination is noto­riously knowne to be but doubtfull, are not to be esteemed Bishops, or Priests: and no man with­out Sacriledge can receiue Sacraments from them; all which they administer vnlawfully: And (if we except Baptisme, with manifest danger of inualidity, and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated) so Prote­stants must remaine doubtfull of Remission of sinnes, of their Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, and may not pretend to be a true Church, which cannot subsist without vndoubted true Bishops, and Priests, nor without due administration of Sacraments, which (according to Protestants) is an essentiall note of the true Church. And it is a world to obserue the proceeding of En­glish Protestants in this point of their Ordinati­ons. For first, Ann. 3. Edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelue yeares of age, It was enacted, that such Dyer fol, 234. term. Mich. 6. & 7. Eliz. forme of making, and conse­crating [Page 264]of Bishops and Priests, as by six Prelates, and six other to be appointed by the King, should be deui­sed (marke this word, deuised) and set forth vn­der the great Seale; should be vsed, and none other. But after, this Act was repealed 1. Mar. Sess. 2. in so much as that when afterward An. 6. & 7. Reg. Eliz. Bishop Bonner being endicted vpon a certifitate made by D. Horne a Protestant Bi­shop of Winchester, for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacy; and he excepting agaynst the en­dictment because D. Horne was no Bishop; all the Iudges resolued that his exceptiō was good, if indeed D. Horne was not Bishop; and they were all at a stand, till An. 8. Eliz. cap. 1. the act of Edw. 6. was renewed and confirmed, with a particular prouiso, that no man should be impe­ched or molested by meanes of any certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act. Whereby it is cleere, that they made some doubt of their owne ordination; and that there is nothing but vncertainty in the whole busines of their Ordination, which (forsooth) must depend vpon six Prelats, the great Seale, Acts of Parlaments being contrary one to ano­ther, and the like.

23. But though they want Personall Suc­cession; yet at least they haue Succession of do­ctrine as they say, & pretend to proue, because they belieue as the Apostles belieued. This is to begg the Question, and to take what they may be sure, will neuer be graunted. For if [Page 265]they want Personall Succession, and sleight Ecclesiasticall Tradition, how will they per­swade any man, that they agree with the do­ctrine of the Apostles? We haue heard Tertullian saying: I will prescribe Sup. [...] against all Heretiques) that there is no meanes to proue what the Apostles preached, but by the same Churches which they foun­ded. And S. Irenaeus tels vs that, We may L. 3. [...] behold the Tradition of the Apostles in euery Church, if men be desirous to beare the truth; and we can num­ber them who were made Bishops by the Apostles in Churches, and their Successors, euen to vs. And the same Father in another place sayth: We ought to obey L. 4. [...] 43. those Priests who are in the Church, who haue Succession from the Apostles, and who together with Succession in their Bishoprickes haue receiued the certaine guift of truth. S. Augustin sayth: I am kept in the Church Contr. epist. Fun­dam. cap. 4. by the Succession of Priests from 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 Praef. ad lib. Peri [...] ­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 [Page 266]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 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 Lib. 28. cout. Faust. [...]. 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, [Page 267]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, Cap. 24. My flockes are dispersed vpon the whole face of the Earth; he adds this remarkable sentence: Not all Here­tiques 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 [Page 268]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 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 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, [Page 269]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 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 [Page 270]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 [Page 271]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 2.2. q. 3. ar. 3. in [...]orp. he who deny­eth one Article of fayth, may retayne fayth of other Articles? and resolueth that he cānot: 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, [Page 272]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 frō 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 [...]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 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 [Page 273]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: [Page 274]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 cōtained 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 light, but rather his vn­derstanding is by a necessity made captiue, and forced not to disbelieued, what is presented by [Page 275]so cleere a light: And therefore your imagina­ry fayth is not the true fayth defined by the A­postle, but an inuention of your owne.

31. That the fayth of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence, Their faith wants Pru­dence. is de­duced from all that hitherto hath beene sayd. What wisdome was it, to forsake a Church cō ­fessedly very ancient, and besids which, there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ vpon earth? A Church acknowled­ged to want nothing necessary to Saluatiō; en­dued with Succession of Bishops, with Visibility and Vniuersality of Tyme and Place; A Church which if it be not the true Church, her enemies cannot pretend to haue any Church, Ordina­tion, Scriptures, Succession, &c. and are for­ced for their owne sake, to maintaine her per­petuall Existence, and Being? To leaue, I say, such a Church, & frame a Community, with­out eyther Vnity, or meanes to procure it; a Church which at Luthers first reuolt had no lar­ger extent then where his body was; A Church without Vniuersality of place or Tyme; A Church which can pretend no Visibility, or Being, ex­cept only in that former Church which it op­poseth; A Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrine? What wisdome was it to follow such men as Luther, in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ, begun vpon meere passion? What wisdome is it to receiue from Vs, a Church, Ordination, Scriptures, Personall [Page 276]Succession, and not Succession of Doctrine? Is not this to verify the name of Heresy, which sig­nifieth Election or Choyce? Wherby they cannot auoid that note of Imprudency, (or as S. Augu­stine cals it) Foolishnes, set downe by him a­gainst the Manichees, and by me recited before. I would not (sayth he) belieue Cont. ep. Fund. ç. 5. the Gospell, vnles the Authority of the Church did moue me. Those ther­fore whom I obeyed, saying, Belieue the Gospell, why should I not obey the same men saying to me, Do not belieue Manichaeus (Luther, Caluin, &c.) Chuse what thou pleasest: If thou say, Belieue the Catholi­ques; they warne me, not to belieue thee. Wherfore if I belieue them, I cannot belieue thee. If thou say, Do not belieue the Catholiques; thou shalt not do well, in for­cing me to the fayth of Manichaeus, because by the Preaching of Catholiques, I belieued the Gospell it selfe. If thou say; you did well to belieue them (Ca­tholiques) commending the Gospell, but you did not well to belieue them, discommending Manichaeus; dost thou thinke me so very FOOLISH, that with­out any reason at all, I should belieue what thou wilt, and not belieue, what thou wilt not? Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnes, but meere Madnes, in these words: Why should I not most diligently enquire Lib. de vtil. Cred. ç. 14. what Christ commaunded of those before all others, by whose Authority I was moued to belieue, that Christ commaunded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me, what he said, whom I would not haue thought to haue been, or to be, if the Beliefe therof had been recommended by thee to [Page 277]me? This therfore I belieued by fame, strengthned with Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity. But euery one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can pro­duce nothing which deserues Authority. What MADNES is this? Belieue them (Catholiques) that we ought to belieue Christ; but learne of vs, what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they (Ca­tholiques) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to belieue Christ, then I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then those, by whom I belieued him. Lastly, I aske what wis­dome it could be to leaue all visible Churches, and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ, which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to saluation, and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fun­damentalls, and follow priuate men who may erre euen in points necessary to saluation? Es­pecially if we add, that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome, and them who agreed with her; in which sense, she was, & is, the only true Church of Christ, and not capable of any Error in fayth. Nay, euen Luther, who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques, he is forced to giue the Lye both to his owne words and deeds, in saying: We freely confesse In epist. cont. Anab. ad duos Pae­rochos. to. 2, Germ. Witt. fol. 229. & 230. that in the Papacy there are many good things, worthy the name of Christian, which haue come from them to vs. Namely, we con­fesse, [Page 278]that in the Papacy there is true Scripture, true Baptisme, the true Sacrament of the Aultar, the true keyes for remission of sinnes, the true Office of Prea­ching, true Catechisme, as our Lords Prayer, Ten Commandements, Articles of fayth &c. And af­terward: I auouch, that vnder the Papacy there is true Christianity, yea the Kernel and Marrow of Christianity, and many pious and great Saints. And againe he affirmeth, that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit, Gospells, Fayth, Baptisme, Sacra­ments, the Keyes, the Office of Preaching, Prayer, Holy Scripture, and whatsoeuer Christianity ought to haue. And a litle before: I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme onely to this end, that they may spight the Pope, as men that will receiue no­thing from Antichrist; no otherwise then the Sacra­mentaries doe, who therefore belieue only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament, meerely in hatred a­gainst the Bishop of Rome; and they thinke that by this meanes they shall ouercome the Papacy. Verily these men rely vpon a weake ground, for by this mea­nes they must deny the whole Scripture, and the Office of Preaching. For we haue all these things from the Pope; otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture. O Truth, more forcible (as S. Augustine sayes) to wring out Contra Donat. post collat. cap. 24. Confession, then is any racke, or torment! And so we may truly say with Moyses: Inimici nostri sunt Iudices: Our very Enemies giue Deut. c. 32. 31. sentence for vs.

32. Lastly, since your fayth wanteth Cer­tainty, and Prudence, it is easy to inferre that it [Page 279]wants the fourth Condition, Supernaturality. Their faith wants Su­pernatura­lity. For being but an Humane persuasion, or Opi­nion, it is not in nature, or Essence Supernatu­rall. And being imprudent, and rash, it cannot proceed from diuine Motion and Grace; and therefore it is neyther supernaturall in it selfe, or in the Cause from which it procedeth.

33. Since therefore we haue proued, that whosoeuer erres agaynst any one point of faith, looseth all diuine fayth, euen concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre; and that although he could still retayne true fayth for some points, yet any one errour in what­soeuer other matter concerning fayth, is a grie­uous sinne; it cleerely followes, that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning fayth and Religion, there can be but one part saued. For declaring of which truth, if Catho­liques be charged with Want of Charity, and Mo­desty, and be accused of rashnes, ambition, and fury, as D. Potter is very free in this kind; I de­sire euery one to ponder the words of S. Chryso­stome, who teacheth, that euery least errour o­uerthrowes all fayth, and whosoeuer is guilty therof, is in the Church, like one, who in the Common-wealth forgeth false Coyne: Let them heare (sayth this holy Father) what S. Paul sayth: Namely, that they who brought in some small errour Galat. [...]. 7. had ouerthrowne the Ghospell. For, to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he sayd, that the Ghospell was subueried. For as he who [Page 280]clips a litle of the stamp from the Kings money, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoeuer takes away the least particle of sound fayth, is wholy corrupted, alwayes going from that beginning to worse thinges. Where then are they, who condemne vs as contentious persons, because we cannot agree with Heretiques, and doe often say, that there is no difference betwixt vs and them, but that our disagreement proceeds frō Ambition to dominiere? And thus hauing shewed that Protestants want true Fayth, it remayneth that, according to my first designe, I examine whether they do not also want Charity, as it res­pects a mans selfe.

CHAP. VII. In regard of the Precept of Charity tovvards ones selfe, Protestants are in state of Sinne, as long as they remaine separated from the Roman Church.

THAT, due Order is to be ob­serued in the Theologicall Ver­tue of Charity, whereby we are directed to preferre some Ob­iects before others; is a truth taught by all Deuines, and declared in these words of holy Scripture: He hath ordered Cant. 2. [...] Charity in me. The reason whereof is: because the infinite Good­nes of God, which is the formall Obiect, or Mo­tiue of Charity, & for which all other things are loued, is differently participated by different Obiects; and therefore the loue we beare to them for Gods sake, must accordingly be vne­quall. In the vertue of Fayth, the case is farre otherwise; because all the Obiects, or points which we belieue, do equally participate the di­uine [Page 282]Testimony, or Reuelation, for which we belieue a like all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God, to speake an vn­truth, in a small, as in a great matter. And this is the ground for which we haue so often affir­med, that any least errour against Fayth, is in­iurious to God, and destructiue of Saluation.

2. This order in Charity may be conside­red; Towards God; Our owne soule; The soule of our Neyghbour; Our owne life, or Goods; and the life or goods of our Neighbour. God is to be beloued aboue all things, both ob­iectiue (as the Deuines speake) that is, we must wish or desire to God, a Good more great, per­fect, and noble then to any, or all other things: namely, all that indeed He is, a Nature Infinite, Independent, Immense &c. and also appretia­tiuè, that is, we must sooner loose what good soeuer, then leaue, and abandon Him. In the o­ther Obiects of Charity, of which I spake, this Order is to be kept. We may, but are not bound, to preferre the life and goods of our Neyghbour before our owne: we are bound to prefer the soule of our Neyghbour before our owne temporall goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spirituall necessity, and that we by our assistance can succour him, according to the saying of S. Iohn: In this we haue knowne 1. Ioan. 3. v. 16. the Charity of God, because he hath yielded his life for vs: and we ought to yield our life for our Brethren. And S. Augustine likewise sayth: A Christian [Page 283]will not doubt De meu­dac. cap. 6. to loose his owne temporall life, for the eternall life of his Neighbour. Lastly we are to prefer the spirituall good of our owne soule, be­fore both the spirituall and temporall good of our Neighbour; because as Charity doth of its owne Nature, chiefly encline the person in whom it resides, to loue God, and to be vnited with him: so of it selfe it enclines him, to pro­cure those things wherby the said Vnion with God is effected, rather to himselfe then to o­thers. And from hēce it followes, that in things necessary to saluation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoeuer, to prefer the spirituall good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his owne soule; according to those words of our Blessed Sa­uiour: What doth it Matt. 6. auaile a man, if he gaine the whole world, and sustaine the domage of his owne soule? And therfore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the Order of Cha­rity, or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selues, which Deuines call Charitas propria, to aduenture either the omitting of any meanes necessary to saluation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoeuer res­pect; & consequently, if by liuing out of the Ro­man Church we put our selues in hazard, ei­ther to want some thing necessarily required to saluation, or else to performe some act a­gainst it, we commit a most grieuous sinne, a­gainst the vertue of Charity, as it respects our [Page 284]selues, and so cannot hope for saluation, with­out repentance.

3. Now, of things necessary to saluation, there are two sorrs, according to the doctrine of all Diuines. Some things (say they) are ne­cessary to saluation, necessitate praecepti, necessa­ry only because they are commaunded; For: If thou wilt Matt. [...]. 17. enter into life, keep the Commandements. In which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the Law, or of the Commandement doth excuse the party from all faulty breach therof; so likewise doth it not exclude saluation in case of ignorance. Some other things are said to be necessary to saluation necessitate medij, finis, or salutis; because they are Meanes appointed by God to attaine our End of eternall saluation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for Saluation without them. And as the former meanes are said to be necessary, because they are commaunded; so the later are common­ly said to be commaunded, because they are neces­sary, that is: Although there were no other spe­ciall precept concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to saluation, there cannot but rise an obligation of procuring to haue them, in ver­tue of that vniuersall precept of Charity, which obligeth euery man to procure the saluation of his owne soule. In this sort diuine infallible Fayth is necessary to saluation; as likewise repentance of euery deadly sinne, and in the doctrine of [Page 285]Catholiques, Baptisme in re, that is, in act to Children, and for those who are come to the vse of reason, in voto, or harty desyre, when they cannot haue it in act. And as Baptisme is neces­sary for remission of Originall, and actuall sinne committed before it: so the Sacrament of Con­fession, or Penance is necessary in re, or in vote, in act, or desire, for the remission of mortall sinnes, cōmitted after Baptisme. The Minister of which Sacrament of Penance being necessa­rily a true Priest, true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sinnes by this Sacrament, as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose. From hence it riseth, that no ignorance, or impossibility can supply the want of those meanes which are ab­solutely necessary to saluation: As if, for exam­ple, a sinner depart this world without repen­ting himselfe of all deadly sinnes, although he dye suddenly, or vnexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sinne by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sinnes committed, and neuer re­pented. If an Infant dye without Baptisme, he cannot be saued, not by reason of any actuall sinne committed by him in omitting Baptisme, but for Originall sinne, not forgiuen by the meanes which God hath ordained to that pur­pose. Which doctrine, all, or most Protestants will (for ought I know) grant to be true, in the Children of Infidels, yea not only Luthe­rans, [Page 286]but also some other Protestants as M. Bil­son late of Winchester In his true differen­ce &c. part. 4 pag. 368. & 369. and others hold it to be true, euen in the Children of the faithfull. And if Protestants in generall disagree from Catholiques in this point, it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamentall. And the like I say of the Sacra­ment of Penance, which they deny to be neces­sary to saluation, either in act, or in desire; which error is likewise fundamentall, because it con­cernes (as I sayd) a thing necessary to salua­tion: And for the same reason, if their Priest­hood and Ordination be doubtfull, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a meanes with­out which they cannot be saued. Neither ought this rigour to seeme strang, or vniust: For Al­mighty God hauing of his owne Goodnes, with­out our merit, first ordained Man to a supernatu­rall end of eternall felicity; and then, after our fall in Adam vouchsafed to reduce vs to the at­tayning of that End, if his blessed Will be plea­sed to limit the attayning of that End, to some meanes which in his infinite Wisedome he thinkes most fit; who can say, why dost thou so? Or who can hope for that End, without such meanes? Blessed be his diuine Maiesty, for vouchsafing to ordaine vs, base creatures, to so sublime an End, by any meanes at all.

4 Out of the foresayd difference follow­eth another, that (generally speaking) in things necessary only, because they are commaunded, [Page 287]it is sufficient for auoydnng sinne, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and ap­proued by men of vertue, learning, & wisdom. Neyther are we alwayes obliged to follow the most strict, and seuere, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which we imbrace, proceeds vpon such reasons, as may warrant it to be tru­ly probable, and prudent, though the contra­ry part want not also probable grounds. For in humane affaires, and discourse, euidence and certainty cannot be alwayes expected. But when we treate not precisely of auoyding sin, but moreouer of procuring some thing without which I can not be saued; I am obliged by the Law, & Order of Charity to procure as great cer­tainty as morally I am able; and am not to fol­low euery probable Opinion, or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because if my pro­bability proue false, I shall not probably, but cer­tainly come short of Saluation. Nay in such case, I shall incurre a new sinne against the Vertue of Charity towards my selfe, which obligeth euery one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eter­nall perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of Gods grace, to make the mat­ter sure. From this very ground it is, that al­thogh some Deuines be of opiniō, that it is not a sinne to vse some Matter, or Forme of Sacra­ments, onely probable, if we respect precisely the reuerence or respect which is due to Sacra­ments, [Page 288]as they belong to the Morall infused Ver­tue of Religion; yet when they are such Sacra­ments, as the inualidity therof may endanger the saluation of soules, all doe with one con­sent agree, that it is a grieuous offence to vse a doubtfull, or onely probable Matter or Forme, when it is in our power to procure certainty. If therefore it may appeare, that though it were not certaine that Protestancy vnrepented de­stroyes Saluation (as we haue proued to be ve­ry certayne) yet at least that is probable, & with all, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already layd, that they are obliged by the law of Charity to imbrace that safe way.

5. Now, that Protestants haue reason at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced frō what we haue sayd, and proued about the vni­uersall infallibility of the Church, and of her being Iudge of Controuersies, to whome all Christians ought to submit their Iudgment (as euen some Protestants grant,) and whome to oppose in any one of her definitions, is a grie­uous sinne: As also from what we haue sayd of the Vnity, Vniuersality, and Visibility of the Church, and of Succession of Persons, and Do­ctrine; Of the Conditions of Diuine Fayth, Certainty, Obscurity, Prudence, and Supernaturali­ty, which are wanting in the fayth of Prote­stants; Of the friuolous distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall, (the co­futation [Page 289]wherof proueth that Heretiques disa­greeing among themselues in any least point, cannot haue the same fayth, nor be of the same Church:) Of Schisme; of Heresy; of the Per­sons who first reuolted from Rome, and of their Motiues; of the Nature of Fayth, which is de­stroyed by any least errour, & it is certaine that some of them must be in errour, and want the substance of true fayth; and since all pretend the like certainty, it is cleere that none of them haue any certainty at all, but that they want true fayth, which is a meanes most absolutly ne­cessary to Saluation. Moreouer, as I sayd heer­tofore, since it is granted that euery Errour in fundamentall points is damnable, & that they cannot tell in particular, what points be funda­mentall; it followes that none of them knowes whether he, or his Brethren do not erre dāna­bly, it being certayne that amongst so many dis­agreeing persons some must erre. Vpō the same groūd of not being able to assigne what points be fundamentall, I say, they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be funda­mentall or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of fayth and hope of Sal­uation. I omit to add that you want the Sacra­ment of Pennance, instituted for remission of sinnes, or at least you must confesse that you hold it not necessary; and yet your owne Bre­thren, for example, the Century Writers doeCent. 3. cap. 6. col. 127. acknowledge, that in the tymes of Cyprian, [Page 290]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 ownChap. 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 saluatiō (which [Page 291]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 Eccles. [...]. 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 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 youPag. 81. speake) but vpon an ineuitable necessity for you, either to grant saluation to [Page 292]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 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 cōtrary 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 pag. 125. Catholique Church: and consequently, you cannot allow saluation to them, as you do, and must do to vs. And thēr­fore 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 [Page 293]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 the [...]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 [Page 264]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 argument of the Donatists, which you say is all one with Ours, but refer vs to S. Augu­stin there to read it; as if euery one caried with him a Library, or were able to examine the pla­ces in S. Augustine: and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answere to an Argument so often vrged by vs, and which indeed, vnles you can confute it, ought alone to moue euery one who hath care of his soule, to take the safest way, by incorpo­rating [Page 295]himselfe in our Church. But we may ea­sily imagine the true reason of your silence. For the answere which S. Augustine giues to the Donatists, is directly against your selfe, and the same which I haue giuen: Namely, that Catho­liquesAd lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. approue the Baptisme of Donatists, but abhor their heresy of Rebaptization. And that as gold is good (which is the similitude v­sed byContrae Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustin) yet not to be sought in company of theeues; so though Baptisme be good, yet it must not be sought for in the Con­uenticle of Donatists. But you free vs from dam­nable heresy, and yield vs saluation, which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoeuer Compa­ny it is found, or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other, in which all sides a­gree, that saluation may be found. We therfore must infer, that it is safest for you to seeke sal­uation among vs. You had good reason to con­ceale S. Augustins answere to the Donatists.

10. You frame another argument in our behalfe, & make vs speake thus: If Protestants belieue the pag. 79. Religion of Catholiques, to be a safe way to Heauen, why do they not follow it? Which wise argument of your owne, you answere at large, and confirme your answere by this in­stance: The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination, and the Im­maculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin: Yet so, that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe, that is, his errour not damnable, and the Dominicans hold the [Page 296]same of the Iesuits. Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to belieue his opi­nion, because by his owne Confession it is no damna­ble error.

11. But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund, as you put into our mouths? If our Religion be a safe way to heauen, that is, not dānable; why do you not follow it? As if euery thing that is good, must be of necessity imbraced by euery body But what thinke you of the Argument framed thus? Our Religion is safe, euen by your Confession, therfore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it. And yet further, thus: Among different Religions and contrary wayes to heauen, one only can be safe: But Ours, by your owne Confession, is safe, wheras we hold that in yours there is no hope of saluation: Therfore you may, and ought to imbrace ours. This is our Argument. And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to ano­ther as we say to you; then one of them might with good consequence presse the other to belieue his opinion. You haue still the hard fortune to be beaten with your owne weapon.

12. It remaineth then that both in regard of Fayth, and Charity, Protestants are obliged to vnite themselues with the Church of Rome. And I may add also, in regard of the Theologicall Vertue of Hope, without which none can hope to be saued, and which you want, either by ex­cesse of Confidence, or defect by Despaire, not [Page 297]vnlike to your Fayth, which I shewed to be ei­ther deficient in Certainty, or excessiue in Eui­dence; as likewise according to the rigid Calui­nists, it is either so strong, that once had, it can neuer be lost; or so more then weake, and so much nothing; that it can neuer be gotten. For the true Theologicall Hope of Christians, is a Hope which keepes a meane betweene Presum­ption, and Desperation; which moues vs to worke our saluation with feare, and trembling; which conducts vs to make sure our saluation by good workes, as holy Scripture aduiseth But contra­rily, Protestants do either exclude Hope by Des­paire, with the Doctrine that our Sauiour died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to saluation; or else by vaine Presumption groū ­ded vpon a fantasticall persuasion, that they are Predestinate, which Fayth must exclude all feare, and trembling. Neither can they make their Calling certaine by good workes, who do certainly belieue that before any good workes they are iustified, and iustified euen by Fayth alone, and by that Faith wherby they certainly belieue that they are iustifyed. Which points some Protestants do expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church; the principall Origen of saluatiō; Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weigh­tiest; as already I haue noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants do now relent from the ri­gour of the aforesaid doctrine, we must affirme, that at least some of them want the Theologi­call [Page 298]Vertue of Hope; yea that none of them can haue true Hope, while they hope to be saued in the Communion of those, who defend such doctrines, as doe directly ouerthrow all true Christian Hope. And for as much as concernes Fayth, we must also infer, that they want Vnity therin (and consequently haue none at all) by their disagreement about the soule of the Church; the principall Origen of saluation; of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. And if you want true Fayth, you must by consequence want Hope; or if you hold that this point is not to be so indiuisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties, with­out preiudice to their saluation; notwithstan­ding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church &c. I must repeate what I haue said heertofore, that, euen by this Example, it is cleere, you cannot agree what points be funda­mentall: And so (to whatsoeuer answere you fly) I presse you in the same manner, and say, that you haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points, or Vnity and substance of Fayth, which cannot stand with difference in fundamentall. And so vpon the whole mat­ter, I leaue it to be considered, whether, Want of Charity can be iustly charged on vs, because we affirme, that they cannot (without repentance) be saued, who want of all other the most neces­sary meanes to saluation, which are, the three Theologicall Vertues, FAITH, HOPE, and [Page 299]CHARITY.

13. And now I end this first Part, hauing as I conceiue, complyed with my first designe (in that measure, which Tyme, Commodity, scarcity of Bookes, and my owne small Abili­ties could affoard) which was to shew, that A­mongst men of different Religions, one side onely can be saued. For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controuersies concerning Religion, and to propound truth reuealed by Almighty God; and this Meanes can be no o­ther, but the Visible Church of Christ, which at the tyme of Luthers appearance was only the Church of Rome, and such as agreed with her: We must conclude, that whosoeuer opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her Cō ­munion, doth resist God himselfe, whose spouse she is, and whose diuine truth she propounds; and therefore becomes guilty of Schisme, and Heresy, which since Luther, his Associates, and Protestants, haue done, and still continue to doe; it is not Want of Charity, but aboundance of euident cause, that forceth vs to declare this necessary Truth, PROTESTANCY VN­REPENTED DESTROYES SALVA­TION.

CHAP. I.

YOV pretend, and professe in your Preface to the Reader, that you haue not omitted without Answer any one thing of moment in all the Discourse of Charity Mistaken: and yet you omit that, which very much imported to the Question in hand, na­mely the moderate Explication of our doctri­ne, that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes Saluation; and that you must say the same of vs, if you be­lieue your owne Religion to be true, and Ours to be false: which points are prudently deliue­red by Charity Mistaken in his second Chapter; which togeather with his First, you vndertake to answere in this your First Section. And wher­as he shewed by diuers arguments that it is im­probable that the Church should want Charity, your Answere to that point is superficiall, and vntrue in some things, and none at all in others, as will easily appeare to any that shal reade Cha­rity Mistaken in his first Chapter.

2. You tell vs in very confident manner, that hardly Pag. 33. any Age in former times may compare [Page 4]with this of Ours (since this Church was happily pur­ged from Popery) for publike expressions of Charity; but you doe it in so generall termes, as if you were afrayd of being confuted. For I beseech you, D. Potter, are the Churches which Prote­stants haue built, any thing comparable to thē which haue been erected by Catholiques? Doe your Hospitalls so much deserue as to be na­med? Haue you any thing of that kind in effect of particular note, sauing the fow meane Nur­series of idle beggars and debauched people, ex­cept perhaps Suitons Hospitall, which (as I haue beene informed) was to take no profit at all till he was dead? He who (as I haue also vnder­stood) dyed so without any Children, or Bro­thers, or Sisters, or knowne kindred, as that peraduenture it might haue eschetead to the King? He who liued a wretched and penu­rious life, and drew that masse of wealth to­gether by Vsury, in which case according to good conscience, his estate without asking him leaue, was by the Law of God obnoxious to restitution, and ought to haue been applyed to pious vses? Whereas both anciently in this Countrey, and at all tymes, and specially in this last age, men see aboundance of heroicall actions of this kind performed in forrayne parts. And if it were not for feare of noting many other great Citties, as if there were any want of most munificent Hospitalls in them, wherein they abound; I could tell you of one [Page 5]called the Annunciata in the Citty of Naples, which spends three hundred thousand Crow­nes per annum, which comes to about foure­score thousand pounds sterling by the yeare, which euer feeds, and cures a thousand sicke persons, and payes for the nursing and enter­tayning of three thousand sucking children of poore people, and hath fourteene other distinct Hospitals vnder it, where the persons of those poore creatures are kept, and where they are defrayed of all their necessary charges euery weeke. I could also tell you of an Hospitall in Rome called S. Spirito of huge reuenewes, but it is not my meaning to enter into particulars, which would proue endles. In the meane time it is prety entertainment for you to belieue no more then you see, which is not much, and to talke in generall termes, by comparing that which comes in your way, with those which are in other Countries, wherof you seeme to know very little. And where I pray you can you verify that which Charity Mistaken sayth of our Church in these words. (pag. 7.) Persons sicke of all diseases are serued and attended (after the example of Christ our Lord) by the owne hands of great Princes and Prelates, and of choyce and delicate Ladies and Queenes, in the Communion of the holy Catholique Church? Would to God the first Head of your Church had not destroyed those innu­merable glorious monumēts of Charity which he found! But because our present question a­bout [Page 6]the Saueablenes of Protestants belongeth rather to Faith then Charity, out of your owne hyperbolicall affirmation. I will infer: That see­ing the Monuments of Charitable workes per­formed by Catholiques, do incomparably ex­ceed those of yours; and yet, that time for time your Charity (as you affirme) surpasseth ours; it followes very cleerly, that our Fayth and Church is far more ancient then yours, and consequently that yours cannot be Catholique for all Ages. So that by exaggeration of your Charity, you haue ouerthrowne your Fayth and Charity also, which cannot subsist without true Catholique Fayth.

3. But yet you are so ingenuous, that you do not so much as pretend to compare your Charity in conuerting soules, to that of the Ca­tholiques: nor do you so much as once venture to insinuate that the Protestant Ministers leaue their Countrey and Commodities, and the howses of rich and louing friends, to transport themselues into barbarous Nations, with the sufferance of all cruell inconueniences, and ve­ry many times of death it selfe, for the conuer­sion of soules to Christ our Lord. For of this you were expressely tould, and consequently how improbable it was, that Catholiques should seare the daungerous state of Protestants, through meere want of Charity; wheras yet for the only exercise of that vertue, they were con­tent with so much courage and ioy to cast away [Page 7]their liues, & that therfore when we made that iudgment of you, it was rather through our zeale and cordiall desire of your good, and feare of your losse, then for want of charity, or com­passion. But of this, as I was saying, you were so wise as not to speake a word. For that glo­rious marke of the Dilatation and Amplitude of Gods Church, by the Conuersion of Na­tions, Kings, and Kingdomes, so manifestly foretold by the holy Prophets, and ordained in the Gospell, 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 D [...]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 [Page 8]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 [Page 9]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 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 [Page 10]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 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 [Page 11] 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 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 prouePag. 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 vo [...] ­uersalis [Page 12]Ecclesia, sed pars vniuersalis Ecclesiae: The Roman Church is not thus the vniuersall Church, but part of the vniuersall Church, where you breake off. But Innocentius his words are these: The V­niuersall Church is said to be that which consists of all Churches, which of the Greeke word is called Catho­lique: and according to this acception of the Word, the Roman Church is not the Vniuersall Church, but part of the Vniuersall Church: Yet the first and chiefe part, as the head in the body; because in her, fulnes of power doth exist, but only a part of fulnes is deriued to others. And that One Church, which containes vn­der it selfe all Churches, is said to be the Vniuersall Church. And according to this signification of the Word, only the Roman Church is called the Vniuer­sall Church, because she alone is preferred before the rest by priuiledge of singuler dignity. As God is called the vniuersall Lord, not because he is diuided into species &c. but because all things are contained vnder his Dominion: For there is One generall Church of which Truth it selfe said to Peter; Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke &c. And the many particular Chur­ches, of which the Apostle sayth, Instantia mea &c. One doth consist of all, as the generall of particulars, & One hath the preeminence before all, because seing there is one Body of the Church, of which the Apostle sayth; We are all one Body in Christ: she excels the rest, as the Head excels the other members of the body. Thus far Innocentius; who as you see teacheth that the Roman Church is the Head of all o­thers: That although the Roman Church in one [Page 13]sense be a particular Church, yet in another sense it both is, and ought to be called the Vni­uersall Church; and finally that your Obiectiō about the repugnance betwixt the terme Vni­uersall and particular is friuolous, as he explica­tes very well by the example of Almighty God, who is said to be an Vniuersall Cause, and yet had neyther genus, nor species, and besids whom there are other particular Causes. Is this to af­firme, as you say, that the Roman Church is a topycall, or particular Church in, and vnder the Vni­uersall? Or that she is onely Topicall, or particular, as you would make the Reader belieue?

9. Your preaching, rather then prouing the Charity of your Church, Administration of Sacraments &c. must rely vpon a voluntary beg­ging of the Question, that your Religion is true; otherwise the good deeds you mention are not expressions of Charity, but professions of Heresy; The learned Cardinall Hosius saying: Whosoeuer belieues Hosiu: in Confess Petricon. çap. 14. the Article of the Catholi­que Church, belieues all things necessary to Saluation, sayes no more then you will say, that whosoe­uer belieues the whole Canon of Scripture, be­lieues all things necessary to Saluation. And you cannot but speake against your owne con­science, when you say of the Roman Church, (pag. 16.) She tells them it is Creed inough for them to belieue onely in the Catholike Church: For your selfe (pag. 198.) affirme, that the best aduised of Catholique Deuines yield there are some points ne­cessary [Page 14]to be knowne of all sorts, necessitate medi [...], in which points implicite fayth doth not suffice, & you cite some of our Authors to this purpose (Chap. 71. & 241.) and referre vs to a great many more. What conscionable dealing is this? I will not stand to note, that Hosius euen as he is cited by you in Latin, doth not say, that we be­lieue in the Church, as you make him speake in your text, but that, we belieue the Church. But i­nough of this.

10. In your First Edition, I find these wor­des: Neuer did Pag. 13. any Church affoard more plenti­fully the meanes of grace, nor more abound with all helps and aduantages of Piety, then this of ours. But in your second Edition you say: No Church of this Age doth affoard &c. Whereby you acknowledge that at first you did ouerlash, & so do you now. But it comes to you by kind. Beza makes bold to say: When I compare, euen the tymes which were next to the Apostles In epist. Theol. epist. 1. pag. 5. with ours, I am wont to say, and in my opinion not without cause, that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge; and con­trarily we haue more knowledge and lesse conscience. And M. Whitgift, your once Archbishop of Can­terbury sayth: The doctrine taught and professed In his defēce of the answer &c. pag. 472. & 473. by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder then commonly was in any Age after the A­postles &c. How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greeke Church, and La­tins also for the most part, spotted with doctrines of Free will, of Merits, of Inuocation of Saints, and [Page 15]such like. Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age, since the Apostles times, any Company of Bishops, that taught and held so sound and perfect doctrine in all points, as the Bishops of England do at this day. And will not the Puritanes say, that they are more pure then Protestants, and Anabaptists accompt themselues more vnspotted then Puritanes &c? In the meane time your own Archbishop grants that, Almost all the Bishops & learned Writers of the Greeke Church, and Latins also, were for the most part spotted with doctrines, which now you call Popish Superstitions.

11. The rest of this Section contaynes no­thing but rayling, and vntruths, continually vt­tered by euery Minister, and often answered by our Writers. In Catholique Countreys there may be good reason for not mentioning the needles praises of condemned Heretiques, lest the estimation of their morall parts, which they a­buse against Gods Church, breed a liking, and add authority to their pestiferous errors. If D. Stapleton, or any other speaking of Heretiques in generall, compare them to Magicians &c. (as Tertullian also doth) what is that to you, vnles you be resolued to proclaime your selfe an He­retique? Such sayings are not directed to their Persons, which we loue; but fall vpon their sinne: which considered in it selfe, cannot, I hope, be ouerwronged by ill language. S. Poli­carpe called an Heretique the first begotten of the Diuell. S. Paul giues them the name ofPhilip. 3.2. [Page 16]Dogs. S. Iohn Ep. 2.7. termes them Antichrists, as your Ministers are wont to call the Pope. Charity Mi­staken compares you not with Iewes, or Turkes for impossibility to be saued. Euery deadly sinne excludes saluation; yet some are more grieuous, and further from pardon then others.

12. I hope the Mistaker Pag. 19. would not wish vs conuerted from our Creed. No: But we wish you conuerted, from Erroneous Interpretations therof, to the Catholique Church, which we professe in our Creed. In the meane time these are learned arguments which may serue both sides. Protestants belieue the Creed, Ergo, they need not be couuerted. Catholiques belieue the Creed, Ergo they need not be conuerted. You tell vs of a Censure of the Creed, written by some Catholique. And in your first Edition you put, Censura Symboli Apostolici, ad instar Censurae Parisiensis. But in your second Edition, being as it seemes, sory for your former sincerity, you say absolutely, Censura Symboli Apostolici, with an &c. which helpes you in diuers occasions, both to deceiue the Reader, and yet to saue your selfe when you shall be told of corrupting the sen­tence by leauing out words, as in this particu­lar the Reader will conceiue, that it was an ab­solute Censure of the Apostles Creed; wheras con­trarily, it supposeth that the Creed, as a thing most sacred, cannot be censured, and out of that supposition, taxeth a certaine Censure framed, as he thinkes, in such manner that the Creed it [Page 17]selfe could not be free from mens Censure, if such a forme of Censure might passe for cur­rant. This I say, is the drift of that Censure, and not to censure the Creed: which thing I touch, but to answere you, who infer that some Catho­liques seeme very meanely to esteeme the Creed. But my intention is not to medle any way with that Censure of the Creed, (whose Authour in very deed is vnknowne to me) or with any Bookes, or Censures in that kind, wholy leauing those affaires to the Vicar of Christ, the Succes­sour of S. Peter; which is a great happines proper to Catholiques, who though they may disagree as men, yet as Catholiques, they haue meanes to end all Controuersies, by recourse and sub­mission to one supreme Authority.

CHAP. II.

YOVR Second Section treates principally of two points: The Vnity of the Church, where­in it consists; and; The Commu­nion of the Church, how farre necessary. Both these points haue been handled in the first Part; where I proued that Difference in any one [Page 18]point of fayth destroyeth the Being and Vnity of Fayth, and of the Church. And; That, Com­munion with the true Visible Church is so far necessary, that all voluntary error against her definitions, as Heresy is, and all diuision from her outward Society, which is Schisme, excludes saluation. By these Rules, we can certainly know what is damnable Schisme, and Heresy; whereas you, placing the Vnity of Fayth, and truth of a Church in the beliefe of points, which you call fundamentall, although it be ioyned with diffe­rence in a thousand other points, and yet not knowing what Articles in particular be funda­mentall, must giue this finall resolution: The V­nity of fayth, and of the Church consists in, We know not what. Moreouer, if you measure the Nature, and Vnity of fayth, not by the formall motiue, for which we belieue, to wit, the Word, or Reuelation of God, but by the weight of the particular obiects which are belieued, you will not be able to shew, that he who erreth in some one, or more fundamentall points, doth loose diuine infallible fayth in respect of those other truths which he belieues: and by this meanes, Persons disagreeinge, euen in Fundamentall points, may retaine the same substance or es­sence of fayth, and be of the selfe same true Church; which is most absurd, & makes a faire way to affirme, that Iewes, and Turkes are of the same Church with Christians, because they all agree in the beliefe of one God. And thus we [Page 19]haue answered the substance of your Section. Yet because you interpose many other vnne­cessary points we must follow your wādrings, lest els you may be thought to haue said some­what to vs which is vnanswerable.

2. After an vnprofitable ostentation of Erudition (which yet required no deeper lear­ning, then to read some of our Catholique In­terpreters) about the place Deut. 17. you come in the end to grant, that the High Priest in cases of moment had an absolutely infallible direction &c. And will you giue greater priuiledge of infalli­bility to the Type, then to the Thing signified, to wit, the true Church of Christ, of which the Synagogue was but a figure? You cite some Ca­tholique Authours, as affirming that by the Iudge is meant the Ciuill Magistrate, and by the Priest, not the High Priest alone. Of which Ca­tholique Authours, I haue at the present only the Dowists (as you are pleased to call them) in their Marginall Note on the 2. Chro. 19. Vers. 1. whom I find you to falsify. For their words are only these: A most plaien distinction of spirituall and temporall authority and offices, not instituied by Iosaphat, nor any other King, but by God himselfe. And vpon the words of Deut. 17. Vers. 9. Thou shalt come to the Priest of the Leuiticall Stocke, and to the Iudge that shall be at that time; they say: In the Councell of Priests one supreme Iudge, which was the High Priest. vers. 12. And further they say: There were not many Presidents at once, but in Suc­cession, [Page 20]one after another. Is this to affirme, that by the Priest, is meant not the high Priest alone? Do they not say the quite contrary? And as for your Obiectiōs against our Argument drawne from the Synagogue, to proue the infallibility of the Church, I haue answered them1. Part. Chap. 2. n. 23. heer­tofore.

3. That Core, Dathan, and Abiron, with all their Company descended aliue into the pit of Hell; you say, is rashly, and Pag. 29. vncharitably said by Cha­rity Mistaken. But you falsify his words which are: The ground Pag. 16. opened it selfe and swallowed them aliue, with all their goods into the profound pit of Hell. Are (goods) and (company) two words of one signification? And yet in your second E­dition, you cite (with all their company &c.) in a differēt letter, as the words of your Aduersarie. But suppose he had said, as you alledge him (with all their company &c.) what great crime had he committed? The holy Scripture sayth of them, and their Complices, without limitation or distinction: The Earth Num. 16. [...]. 31.32.33. brake in sunder vnder their feete; and opening her mouth, deuoured them with their Tabernacles, and all their substance, and they went downe into Hell quicke, couered with the ground, and perished out of the midst of the multi­tude. You see the Scripture speakes indefinitely, and so doth Charity Mistaken, without adding any Vniuersall particle, as All, Euery one, or the like, except when he sayth, with all their Goods, which are the very words of Scripture. Nay [Page 21]since the Scripture sayth: They went downe into Hell quicke, and perished out of the midst of the mul­titude; by what authority will you affirme, that all perished out of the midst of the multitude, but not all went downe into Hell quicke?

4. Though it were granted that those wor­des Math. 18.17. If thy Brother offend thee, tell the Church, are meant of priuate wrongs: yet it is cleere, that from thence is inferred à fortiori, that all Christians are obliged to obey the Ca­tholique Church in her decrees. And no man is so ignorant as not to know, that the holy Fa­thers do euery where apply those words against Schismatiques and Heretiques, as appeareth by S. Augustine whome heertofore1. part. cap. 5. num. 7. I cited, and S. Cyprian Lib. 1. epist. 3. & Ibid. ep. 6. and others. And I pray you, if one vtter some Heresy, in presence of his bro­ther; doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother? and consequently, is he not com­prehended in those words of our Sauiour, If thy Brother offend thee &c.? Now, if the Church were fallible, how could we be obliged vnder payne of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans, to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of fayth, which is a Vertue, that ne­cessarily inuolues infallibility? But when did you euer heare any Catholique say what you im­pose vpon Charity Mistaken, that absolute obe­dience is due vnto the Church, no appeale being al­lowed, no not pag. 28. to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholike sense, and consonantly to the iudgment of [Page 22]the most ancient and famous members of the Church? With what face can you vtter such stuffe? You know we belieue, that the Church cannot oppose Scripture.

5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Booke de vnitate Ecclesiae, which you charge Pamelius to haue committed in fa­uour of S. Peters Primacy; it is but an old obie­ction borrowed of others, and purposely an­swered by Pamelius in his notes vpon that Boo­ke: where, for his iustification he cites diuers ancient Copies, and one more then nine hun­dred yeares old. And as for the phrase & maine point it selfe, that Christ built the Church vpon Peter, it is expressely affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places, which I quote in theDe ex­hort. Mart. c. 11. ep. 55.69.73. which last is cited by S. Augu­stin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cites the like wor­des out of epist. 71. ad Quint. Margent: whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian belieued about the Authority of Saint Peter: and how much his Booke de Vni­tate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church: neyther can you in all S. Cyprians workes, or in this place in particular, shew any thing to the contrary, as you are pleased toPag. 30. affirme. To proue that our vnworthy fashion is, to alter & raze many records and Monuments of Anti­quity, you cite a moderne English Writer, & Six­tus Senensis. But both of them are alledged af­ter your fashion: for the first speakes onely of Bookes writen in fauour of the Popes Power in temporall things, wherein neuertheles we can in no wise allow of his saying, nor is he in [Page 23]this point a competent witnes; and the second directly falsifyed. For you say, he highly com­mendsEpist. de­die. ad Pium 5. Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Bookes; and, to purge the writings of all Catholique Authours, es­pecially of the Ancient Fathers, from the silth and poyson of Heresy; & there you end the sentence. But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aeta­tis nostrae: from the dregs of the Heretiques of our tymes, vnderstanding nothing else, but that the sayd holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses, Marginall notes &c. of Erasmus, and moderne Heretiques to be blotted, or taken out of the Bookes of the holy Fathers. Is not this playne falsification? And so much lesse excu­sable, because it could not be done but witting­ly, and willingly; for that in the Margent you cite the Latin, & when you come to those wor­des, especially of the ancient Fathers, you breake off with an &c. leauing out that which did directly ouerthrow the purpose for which you alledged those wordes. For want of bet­ter matter, you tell vs of an Edition of Isido­rus Pelusiotes his Greeke Epistles approued, because they contayned nothing contrary to the Ca­tholique Roman Religion: wherein what great harme is there? If the Approbator had left out Roman, would you haue made this obiection? To vs, Catholique and Roman are all one, as heer­tofore I explicated. But it seemes (say you) that they had not passed, but vpon that Condition. [Page 24]This is but a poore Consequence in Logicke: For, one effect may be produced by some cause, yet in such manner, as that the effect would follow, though that cause were taken away; & accordingly you grant that the aforesayd clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition. Neyther can you be ignorant that Catholiques do print, and reprint the writings of ancient Authours, although they contayne Heresies; as the workes of Tertullian, Origen &c And ther­fore you are lesse excusable both for making this Obiection in generall, and also for falsify­ing Sixtus Senensis in particular.

6. The places alledged by you out of S. Augu­stin against the Donatists, come far short of pro­uing, thatpag. 32. Scripture alone is the Iudge, or ra­ther (as you correct your selfe) Rule of Cōtro­uersies: & your bringing thē to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words & meaning, as will appeare by what now I am about to say. Two Questions were debated between the Ca­tholiques, & Donatists: the one concerning the Church, whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world, where the faction of Donatus did reside: The other, whether such as were baptized by Heretiques ought to be reba­ptized. We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question, pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to proue the exeternall apparant No­tes, or Markes of the Church, as Visibility, Per­petuity, Amplitude, Vniuersality &c. And no [Page 25]wonder that he appealed to Scripture. For that very Questiō being, whether the Catholiques, or Donatists, were the true Church; to suppose the Catholiques to be the true Church, and v­pon that supposition to alledge their Authority against the Donatists, had been but to beg the Question: as if there were Controuersy, whe­ther some particular Booke were Canonical Scri­pture, or no, it were an idle thing to alledge that very writing in question, to proue it selfe Canonicall: and on the other side, both the Catholikes and Donatists did acknowledge & belieue the same Scriptures, which as S. Au­gustine is wont to say, speake more cleerely of the Church, then of Christ himselfe: and ther­fore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by cleer, & not doubtfull Testimonies of holy Writ; wheras the Donatists had recourse eyther to obscure Texts, as that of the Canticles, Shew me where thou feedest, where thou liest in the mid day, to proue that the Church was cōfined to Africa; or els to humane Testimo­nies as Acts of Notaries or Scriueners, to proue that the Catholiques had been Traditores, that is had giuē vp the holy Bible to be burned; Or that they had sacrificed to Idols; Or had been cause of persecution against Christians; and that ei­ther for these crimes, or for communicating with such as had committed them, the Church had perished from among Catholiques: Or els they produced their owne bare affirmation, or [Page 26]mock-Miracles, & false Councels of THEIR OWNE: All which proofes being very par­tiall, insufficient, and impertinent, S. Augustin had reason to say: Let these fictions De vnïe. Eccles. cap. 19. of lying men, or fantasticall wonders of deceiptfull Spirits, be remoued. And: Let vs cap. 3. not heare; These things I say; These things thou saist; but let vs heare; These things our Lord sayth. And: What are our words cap. 2. wherin we must not seeke her &c. All that we obiect one against another of the giuing vp of the holy Bookes, of the Sacrificing to Idols, and of the persecu­tion, are our words. (these words you fraudulent­ly conceale, although you cite other in the selfe same Chapter, because they plainly shew what S. Augustin vnderstands by Humane Testimo­nies, & they answere all your Obiections:) And: The Question betweene vs cap. 2. is, where the Body of Christ, that is, the Church is? What then are we to do? Shall we seeke her in our words, or in the words of our Lord Iesus-Chris̄t her head? Surely we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is Truth, and best knowes his owne Body. And: Let this Head cap. 4. of which we agree, shew vs his Body, of which we disagree, that our dissentions may by his words be ended. Which words plainely declare the reason why he ap­pealed to Scriptures, because both parts agreed about them, but disagreed concerning the Church. And: That we are in the cap. 19. True Church of Christ, and that this Church is vniuersally spread ouer the earth, we proue not by OVR Doctours, or Councels, or Miracles, but by the diuine Scriptures. [Page 27]The Scriptures are the only (this word only put by you in a different letter, as if it were S. Augu­stines, is your owne addition:) Document, and foundation of our cause. These are the places by you alleaged so vnfaithfully. And will you in good earnest infer from them, that we must re­iect all Councels, neuer so lawfull; all Doctors, neuer so Orthodox; all Miracles, neuer so au­thenticall, euen those which were wrought in the Primitiue Church, & particularly in S. Au­gustines time, which he himselfe publishedDe ciuit. Det lib. 22. çap. 8. approued, and admired? And aboue all, will you infer, that after we haue found out the true Church by Markes set downe in Scripture, her voyce for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard, but to be esteemed a meere hu­mane testimony of Notaries &c. as S. Augustine vnderstood humane Testimony when he writ a­gainst the Donatists? Or will you infer that we must learne from Scripture all that which we are obliged to belieue? This you pretend, but with such successe as you are wont; that is, to plead for your Aduersary against your selfe. Which is manifestly proued by the other Que­stion of Rebaptization, controuerted with the Donatists, for which they were properly and for­mally Heretiques: and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of beliefe, he could not pro­duce Scripture, as appeares by his words, which I cited in the first Chap. [...]. num. 16. Part, and desire the Rea­der to saue me the labour of repeating them [Page 28]heere: and then he will easily see, that there is great difference betwixt the generall question of the Church, and Questions concerning parti­cular Doctrines deliuered by the Church; in which this holy Father sayth not we must haue recourse to Scripture alone, but that we ought to belieue the Church, which is recommended to vs by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very booke De vnitate Ecclesiae, out of which you brought the aforesaid places, to proue that all Controuersies must be decided by Scripture. With what modesty then do you say, The Mista­ker was ill aduised to send vs to this pag. 33. Treatise, which both in the generall ayme, and in the quality of the Arguments and proofes is so contrary to his pre­tensions?

7. You leauepag. 33. a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate v­pon: Whosoeuer S. Aug. de vnit. Eç­çles. çap. 4. will belieue aright in Christ the Head, but yet doth so dissent from his Body the Church, that their Communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused, but with themselues seuerall in some part; it is manifest that such are not in the Ca­tholique Church. Well; suppose all were done as you desire; what other thing could be conclu­ded, then this? But when Luther appeared, Protestantisme was not with the whole wher­soeuer diffused, but with himselfe alone: What will follow from hence, you haue so much Logicke that you cannot Mistake. Wherefore at this day, and for euer, we must say of the Catholique [Page 29]Church, as Saint Augustine sayd: Euery one of those (he speakes of Heretiques) is not De Vnit Eççles. ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found; but she who is ouer All, is to be found in the selfe same places, where the o­thers are.

8. You made an ill choyce of S. Epiphanius, to proue by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Euidence of Scripture. For he not only approues Tradi­tions as necessary, but also proues them out of Scripture. We ought (sayth he) to vse also Haeres. 61. Tradition, for all things cannot be taken from the ho­ly Scripture: the holy Apostles therfore deliuered some things in writing, and some things by Tradition, as the holy Apostle sayth: As I deliuered to you. And in another place: So I teach, and so I deliuered in the Churches. And the same Father, as we shall see anon, doth most cleerly approue Traditiōs, yea and confutes Aērius by Tradition alone without any Scripture. It is then no wonder, if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men belieue that he speakes of Heresies in generall, where­as his words concerne some few in particular, as the Samosatenians, Arians &c. His wordes as you translate them are these: The Diuine Haeres. 65. Goodnes hath forewarned vs agaynst Heresies by his Truth, for God foreseeing the Madnes, Impie­ty, & Fraude of the Samosatenians, Arians, Ma­nichees, and other Heretiques, hath secured vs by his diuine Word against all their subtilities. But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this: Therfore the [Page 30]holy Scripture doth make vs secure of euery word: That is hath secured vs how we are to speake, or what words to vse against the deceipts of the Samosatenians, Arians, and of other Heresies con­cerning the blessed Trinity, as it is cleere by these words immediatly following (which you thought fittest to conceale:) For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten. For how can he be the Only begotten, who is not Begotten? But he calls the Sonne the only begotten, that the Sonne may not be thought to be the Father &c. Where you see he speakes of Words, or manner of speaking, and concerning particular Heresies, which yet is made more cleere by the words immediatly precedent to the sentence by you cited, which words you also thought good to leaue out. For he first proues out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father, but that the Father is not Begotten, and therfore the Only-Begotten is the Sonne. And then he comes to the words by you cited, and teacheth, that holy Scripture hath warned vs, what words and manner of speach, or phrase we ought to vse in speaking of the Person, of the Blessed Trinity, which Schoole Deuines cal Proprietates Personarum. Yet that your Corruption might not be void of art (or rather a double fraud) in your Margent you put in Greeke S. Epiphanius his words, that so to such as vnderstood not Greeke, nor perceiue your mistranssation, your fraud might passe for honest dealing, and deceiue your Reader; and to [Page 31]others, you might answere, if need were, that in your Margent, S. Epiphanius was rightly al­leaged.

9. These words of Charity Mistaken (I must needs obserue, that (m) he (that is, S. Augustin) re­counts diuers Heresies, which are held by the Prote­stant Church at this day, and particularly that of de­nying Prayers, and Sacrifices for the dead) you cor­ruptly compendiate when you say: The Mistake [...] must needs obserue, that the Protestants hold diuers ancient Heresies, and particularly Pag. 3 [...]. that of denying Prayers for the dead. Where you omit the words (Saint Augustine recounts diuers Heresies, and in particular, that &c. (to make men belieue that it was but a bare affirmation of Charity Mistaken, and not collected out of S. Augustine: As like­wise you conceale) Sacrifices) lest the world might belieue S. Augustine was a Papist; who neuertheles both in this Treatise de haeresibus ad Quod-vult-Deum, haer. 35. cited by Charity Mi­staken, and elsewhere, teacheth that the dead are holpen by the holyDe ver [...] Apost. serm. 34. Sacrifice. After this you say: He is very much Pag. 35. mistaken in his Obserua­tion. The Commemoration of the deceased in the an­cient Church, which Aērius without reason disal­lowed, was a thing much differing from those Prayers for the dead, which are now in vse in the Church of Rome. Thus hauing substituted Commemoration of the deceased, insteed of Prayers and Sacrifices for the dead, you add, with your wonted sincerity: Our Roman Catholiques belieue (at least they say so) [Page 32]that some soules of the faithfull after their departure hence, are detained in a certaine fire bordering vpon Hell till they be throughly purged: and their Prayers for them are, that they may be released, or eased of those torments. But you are still like your selfe. You may read inDe Purg. lib. 2. cap. 6. Bellarmine, that concerning the Question, Vbisit Purgatorium, Where Purgato­ry is, the Church hath defined nothing. And to the other point: Whether in Purgatory there be true cor­poreall sire, he answers;Ib. c. 11. That it is the common Opinion of Deuines that properly there is true fire, & of the same nature with our fire. Which Doctrine is not indeed a matter of fayth, because it is no where defined by the Church, yea in the Councell of Florence the Grecians openly profess't, that they did not hold there was fire in Purgatory; neuertheles in the defini­tion which was made in the last Sess. it was defined that there is a Purgatory, without making any men­tion of fire: Neuertheles it is a most probable Opinion, by reason of the agreement of the Schoole-Deuines, which cannot be reiected without rashnes. Thus Bel­larmine.

10. Now for the maine point: That Aë­rius was put in the list of Heretiques, for denying Prayers for the Dead, which are offered to re­lease, or ease them of their paine, I proue out of Aërius his owne words; Out of S. Epiphanius whom you seeme to alledge in your behalfe; Out of the ancient Fathers, Greeke, and La­tine; & out of Protestants themselues; both in regard that they confesse the Doctrine of Pur­gatory [Page 33]and Prayer for the dead, euen as Catho­liques belieue them, to haue been belieued by the Ancient Fathers; and also in regard, they directly acknowledge, that Aërius was con­demned by the Fathers for denying Prayer for the Dead, as we belieue, and practise it.

11. Heare then your Progenitor Aërius te­stifying with his owne mouth the practise of Catholiques in those ancient dayes. How (saith he to Catholiques) doe you Apud Epiph. hae­res. 75. after Death name, the names of the dead? For if the liuing pray &c. what will it profit the dead? Or if the prayers of them who are heere, be for those who are there, then let no man be vertuous, nor let him doe any good worke, but let him get friends by what meanes he will, eyther by mo­ney, or leauing that charge to his friends at his death, & let them pray for him that he may not SVFFER any thing there: and that, irremediable sinnes com­mitted by him may not be layd to his charge. Is it not cleere inough by these wordes, that this Here­tique taxeth Prayers offered for the dead, to re­lease or lessen their paynes after this life, & not only for a bare Cōmemoration, or Thankes-giuing, or the like? And that any man may yet further consider, especially if he continue to be of as Puritanicall a Spirit, as he was who most re­sembles the spirit of this Aërius; let vs, by the way, add these words of his: Neyther ought Ibid. there to be any appointed fast, for these things are Iudaicall, and vnder the yoake of seruitude. For there is no law appointed for the iust man, but for Mur­therers [Page 34]of their Fathers and Mothers, and such like. But if I be resolued to fast, I will choose my selfe any day, and I will fast with freedome.

12. Let vs now see what S. Epiphanius in the same place sayth for your Commemoration of the deceased: As for pronouncing the names of the Dead (sayth he) what can be more profitable, good, and admirable? Because the liuing belieue that the de­ceased liue, and are not extinct, but haue a being, and liue with our Lord: And, that I may vtter a most pious doctrine, that there is hope in those who pray for their Brethren, as for those who are trauailed to another Countrey. These words you recite out of S. Epiphanius, but leaue out those words which immediatly follow, and are directly against the doctrine which you will proue out of him in that very place. For thus he saith: But the Praiers which are made for them do profit them, although they do not release the whole sin; in regard as long as we are in this world, we faile, and erre both voluntarily and against our will, to the end that, that also may be mentioned which is more perfect, we remember both the lust, & Sinners: For Sinners, imploring the mer­cy of God: But for the Iust, Fathers, Patriarches, Pro­phets, Apostles, Euangelists, Martyres, Confessors, Bishops, and Anchorites &c. that we may put a diffe­rence betwixt our Lord Iesus Christ, and all Orders of men, by that honour which we giue to him, and that to him we may giue adoration. You see that S. Epi­phanius speakes of forgiuenes of sinnes, & that he makes a difference between Prayers offered [Page 35]for deceased Sinners, and the Commemoration of Saints, who by way of Thankes-giuing, are remembred as holy men; wheras to our Sauiour Christ highest adoration is exhibited as to God; Or (as Bellarmine De Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9. sayth,) we distinguish Saints from Christ, because we offer Sacrifice of Thankes-giuing for Saints, but we do not offer Sacrifice for Christ, but to him, together with the Father, and the holy Ghost. You likewise falsi­fy S. Epiphanius, while you say out of him; That the liuing haue hope for the deceased, as for those which be from home in another Coun­trey, and that, at length they shall attaine the state which is more perfect. Which last words are not in S. Epiphanius, who neuer taught, that we offer Prayers for Saints, that they may attaine a state which is more perfect. And when S. Epiphanius sayth, that those who pray for their Brethren haue hope of them as of those who are in ano­ther Countrey; you leaue out Praying, and on­ly put in Hope. And that you may be assured how contrary S. Epiphanius is to you; not only in the doctrine of Prayer for the dead, but also in the ground and reason, for which he bel [...]ues it, namely Tradition; marke his wordes. The Church (sayth he in the same place) doth necessa­rily practise this by Tradition receiued from our An­cestors. And who can breake the Ordination of his Mother, and the Law of his Father? as Salomo [...] sayth: Heare O Sonne the words of thy Father, and retect not the Ordination of thy Mother: Shewing by this, that [Page 36]God the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost haue taught both by writing, and without writing, (be­hold diuine Traditions) and our Mother the Church, hath also in herselfe Ordinances inuiolable which cannot be broken: (behold Ecclesiasticall Traditions.) Since therfore there be Ordinances set downe in the Church, and that all be right, and admi­rable, this Seducer (Aërius) remaines confuted. And together with him all those that follow his heresy And let vs yet heare S. Epiphanius speaking a little before of another point, thus: But who knowes most of these thinges? Whether this deluded fellow (Aërius) who is yet aliu [...] &c. or those who before vs haue yielded Testimony and haue had the Tradition of the Church, which also was de­liuered from their Fore-Fathers; as they likewise lear­ned of those who were before them, in which manner the Church doth still conserue the true Fayth receiued from their Fore-Fathers, and also Traditions? Con­sider now with what reason you alleaged S. Epi­phanius, as one who sayth that all Heresy is to be confuted by euidence of Scripture; wheras he doth cleerly auouch Tradition in generall, and doth in particular consute the Heresy of Aerius, without alleaging so much as one Text of Scri­pture.

13. And though S. Epiphanius alone, might suffice both to assure vs what was the Heresy of Aërius in whose time he liued; and also to wit­nes for all the rest of the Greeke Fathers, yea & for the whole Church, (because he auouched [Page 37]Prayer for the dead to come from the Traditiō of Gods Church) yet I will add some more of the Greeke Church, as S. Dionysius Areopagita, who saith: Then the Venerable Eccles. Hierarch, cap. 1. Bishop doth pray ouer the dead party, that the diuine Goodnes would pardon all his sinnes committed by humane frailty, and transferre him to light, and the Countrey of the liuing. I wonder then how in your Text your could tel vs, thatPag. 37. conformably to your Opini­on; The ancient Church in her Liturgy remembred all those that slept in hope of the Resurrectiō of euer­lasting lyfe, and particularly the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs &c. beseeching God to giue thē rest, and to bring them (you put in a parenthesis at the Resurrectiō) to the place where the light of his coun­tenance should shine vpon them for euermore. And in your Margent, you cite S. Dionysius as fauouring you, who neuertheles in the very Chapter w^ch you cite for your Opinion, is directly agaynst you in the words euen now alledged. The like fincerity you shew in the very same Margent in citing S. Cyril, who doth cleerly affirme, that in the Sacrifice we remēber some that they would pray for vs, and others that they may be re­lieued by our Prayers and Sacrifices, in these words: When we offer this Sacrifice Catech. 5. we make mē ­tion of those who are deceased, of Patriarchs &c. that God would receyue our prayers by their intercession. And: we pray for al who are deceased, belieuing that it is a most great help to those for whom the obsecratiō of that holy and dreadfull Sacrifice is offered, S. Gre­gory [Page 38]Nyssen saith: He cannot after his departure In Orat. pro mortuis. from the body be made partaker of the Diuinity, vnles the purging fire shall cleanse the staynes of his soule.

14. Among the Latin Fathers, Protestants pretend to esteeme none more then S. Augu­stine, and yet none can speake more plainely a­gainst them in this point then he doth, who besids that he rankes Aērius among the Hereti­ques, in another place, he sayth: Purge me In Psal. 37. in this lyfe, in such sort, as that I may not need the correcting, or amending fire. And afterward: It is sayd he shall be saued as if it were by fire, and because it is sayd, he shall be saued, that fire growes to be contemned. But so it is; though he shall be saued, yet the paine of that fire is more grieuous, then what­soeuer a man can suffer in this life. And elsw where; Some suffer De ciuit. lib. 21. c. 13. temporall punishments, only in this life, others after death, others both now and then. Of which place, Fulke is enforced to say: Augustine concludes very cleerly, Consut. of Purg. pag. 110. that some suffer Tempo­rall paines after this life, this may not be denied. And in another place, S. Augustine sayth: We ought not De verbis Apost. serm. 34. to doubt, but that the dead are holpen by the Prayers of the holy Church, and by the holesome Sa­crifice, and by Ailrnes giuen for their soules, that our Lord would avale with them more mercifully then their sinnes haue deserued. For the whole Church ob­serues this, as deliuered from our Fathers. Neither can you auoide these Authorities by flying to the Requests of Gods mercy that they may haue their Pag. 39. serfect Consummation in body and soule, in the [Page 39]kingdome of God at the last Iudgment, as you speake. For (besides that all they who depart this life in Gods fauour are most assured of a perfect Consummation independantly of our Almes-deeds, Prayers &c.) S. Augustine as you haue heard speakes of a Purging fire, of Temporall Punlishments, after this life &c. And doth else­where write as if he had purposely intended to preuent this your Euasion, saying: At the Altar Tract. 84. in Joan. we do not remember Martyrs, as we do other de­ceased who rest in peace, by praying for them; but ra­ther that they would pray for vs. Which difference between Martyrs and other deceased, cannot stand with your meere Commemoration of Than­kesgiuing, or your Request for a perfect Consum­mation, both which according to your doctrine concerne Martyrs, no lesse then others. The same difference is expressed by S. Cyprian, say­ing: It is one thing to be purged, Lib. 4. ep. 2. alias epist. 52. after long tor­ment for ones sinnes, and to be long cleansed with the fire, and another thing to haue wiped away all the sinnes by suffering. S. Hierome sayth: If Ori­gen affirme that Lib. 1. cont. Pela­gianos. all Creatures endued with rea­son, are not to be lost, and granteth repentance to the Diuell; what belongs that to vs, who affirme that the Diuell, and all his Officers, and all sinneful and wicked men do eternally perish; and that Christians, if they be taken away in sinne, are to be saued after punish­ments? More Fathers may be seen in Bellarmine and other Catholique Writers. These may suf­fice to shew, what was that Beliefe & Practise of [Page 40]the Church, which Aërius opposed in his time, as you do at this day.

15. Lastly, your owne Brethren beare wit­nes thus against you. Caluin sayth: More then a thousand three hundred Instit. l. 3. c. 5. Sect. [...]. yeares ago, it was a Cu­stome to pray for the dead: But I confesse they were all driuen into Error. Bucer his words are: Because In his e­narrat. in sacra qua­tuor Euang. printed Basil. 1536. in Matt. [...]. 12. almost from the beginning of the Church, Prayers and Almes-deeds were offered for the dead, that opi­nion which S. Augustine sets downe in his Enchiri­dio cap. 110. crept in by little & little: Neither ought we to deny, that soules are released by the piety of their liuing friends, when the Sacrifice of our Mediatour is offered for them &c. Therfore I doubt not, but that from hence arose that duty of Praying, and offering Sacrifice for them. Fulke speaketh plainely: Aërius taught, that Prayer for the dead In his answer to a counterfeyt Cath. pag. 44. was vnprofita­ble, as witnesseth both Epiphanius, and Augustine, which they count for an Errour. He likewise ac­knowledgeth, that Ambrose, Chrysostome, & Au­gustine allowed Prayer for the dead: That, Tertul­lian, Augustine, Cyprian, Hierome, and a great many more do witnes, that Prayer for the dead is the Tradi­tion of the Apostles. And that Fulke vnderstands these Fathers in the sense of satisfying for Tem­porall paines after this life, I hope you will not deny. For it is cleere by what we said out of him aboue; Nay, euen in the Communion Booke allowed, and established by Act of Parlament in the second yeare of Edward the Sixth. and prin­ted in Lōdon by Edward Whitchurch Anno [...]549. [Page 41]there is Prayer for the dead: and in the yeare 1547. the first yeare of Edward the Sixth his raigne, Stow recounts, that on the 19. of Iune a Dirige was sung in euery parish Church in London for the French King late deceased; and a Dirige was also sung in the Church of S. Paul in the same Citty, & on the next morrow the Archbishop of Canterbury, assi­sted of eight Bishops, all in rich miters, & other their Pontificalls, did sing a Masse of Requiem. And (to say this by the way) there is in the same Com­munion Booke offering vp of our Prayers by Angels: as likewise in the first yeare of that Kings raigne, Communion in One Kind, in time of Necessity, is approued, as also in the Collection in English of Statutes &c. the reason heerof is ad­ded, because at that time the opinion of the Reall presence (as the Collector sayth) was not remoued from vs. Which ingenuous confession supposes that Communion in one kind cannot be disal­lowed, if we belieue the reall presence, because indeed the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour Christ is both vnder the species of bread, and vnder the species of wine.

16. You say, the Ancient Church Pag. 37. in her Liturgies remembred all those that slept in hope of the Resurrection of euer lasting lyfe, and particularly the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles &c. beseeching God to giue vnto them rest, and to bring them, (at the Resurrection, as you add) to the place where the light of his countenance should shine vpon them for euermore.

17. But readeDe Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9. Bellarmine, and you shall find a farre different thing in the Greeke Litur­gy, of which S. Epiphanius makes mention, whome you also cite in your Margent: We offer Sacrifice to thee, O Lord, for all the Patriarchs, A­postles, Martyrs, and especially for the most Blessed Mother of God. And that the Sacrifice was offe­red for those Saints onely in Thankes-giuing, the words following doe shew: By whose Prayers O God, looke vpon vs. But for other faythfull de­ceased, the speach is altered, thus: And be mind­full of all the faythfull deceased who haue slept in hope of the Resurrection, and grant them to rest where the light of thy Countenance is seene. Which last words you vntruly applied to Patriarches &c. and ad­ded at the Resurrection; wheras they are referred only to other faithfull people, for whom Sacri­fice is offered, that they may come to see the light of Gods Countenance, euen before the Resurrection; that is, as soone as they haue satis­fied for their sinnes. And now how many wayes is the Greeke Liturgy repugnant to you? It speakes of Sacrifice, which you turne to Re­membrance; It speakes of some persons whom we intreate to pray for vs, & others for whom we pray: It teacheth Prayers to Saints: It tea­cheth that Saints do already enioy the Beatifi­call Vision, and therfore that Sacrifice only of Thankes-giuing is offered for them And as for the latter Schismaticall, and Hereticall Crecians, although their Authority weigh not much; yet [Page 43]euen they professed in the Councell of Florence, that they belieued a Purgatory, & only denied that the soules were there tormented by fire; teaching neuertheles that it was a darke place, and full of paine. and your owneƲid. A­pol. Prot. tract. 1. Sect. 7. subd. 12. at 11. Brethren Sparke, Osiander, and Crispinus affirme; that about Prayer for the dead they conformed themselues to Rome. And S^r. Edwin In his re­lation &c. Sands saith; that the Greeke Church doth concur with Rome in the opinion of Transubstantiation, in Praying to Saints, in offering Sacrifices, and Prayer for the dead, Purgatory, &c. And a Treatise published by the Protestant Diuines of Wittemberge An­no 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittember­gensium &c. affirmeth that the Greeke Church at this day belieues Inuocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead, as heertofore I noted. All which considered, with what Modesty can you say: The generall opinion of Pag. 36. the Ancient Do­ctors Greeke and Latin, downe almost to these last Ages, was (and is the opinion of the Greeke Church at this day) that all the spirits of the Righteous de­ceased, are in Abrahams bosome, or in some outward Court of heauen &c. And to mend the matter you alleage in your Margent, for what you say a­bout the Greeke Church at this day, the Coun­cell ofGraeeï in Conc. Flor. ante Sess. 1. in Quaest. de Purgat. Florence; wheras indeed it is affirmed in the Councell, that Declaratum fuit &c. It was at length declared, that the Saints haue both attained, and not attained Perfect Beatitude; that is, that the soules as Soules haue attained perfect Beatitude, yet [Page 44]that they shall receiue some perfection with their bo­dies, when they shall shine as the sunne. And it is to be noted that before this declaration was made, the Greeke Emperour came into the Councell, and so it was done with the common consent of the Grecians.

18. And heere let me put you in mind, that if the Heresy of Aërius, (whether you take it in our, or your owne sense) were not fundamentall, then you may learne that to make an Heresy, or Heretique it is sufficient that the error consist in any point, though the same be not fundamen­tall. If you hold it to be fundamentall; then it fol­lowes, that Tradition, and Custome of the Church extends it selfe euen to fundamentall points in such sort, as to oppose such Tradition is a fundamentall error. For as we haue seene before, S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustine proue Prayer for the dead by Tradition, though I grant we want not Scripture for it: but you who both deny the Machabees, and also turne Prayer for the Dead, into a bare Commemoration &c. will find no Scripture, wherby to refute Aërius. Moreouer wheras you are wont to impugne a third place distinct from Heauen and Hell, by those words of Scripture: If the Tree shall fall to the South Eccle­siast. cap. 11.3. or the North, in what place soeuer it shall fall, there shall it be: and such like Argu­ments; how come you now to admit a third Temporary place, and so be forced to solue your owne obiections?

19. Now, I wish you to consider, that ey­ther the Grecians did belieue that the Saints en­ioy the Beatificall Vision, & are not (as you teach) in some outward Court; or els they thought that Inuocation of Saints may well be defended, though they doe not see the face of God; which two points youPag. 36. deny, can stand togeather. For you haue heard both out of the Greeke Li­turgy, and your Protestant Writers, that the Grecians belieue Inuocation of Saints. True it is, if Saints doe not enioy the Beatificall Vision, they cannot heare, or see our Prayers in verbo, or in the Diuine Essence, but yet they may behold vs and our Prayers by particular Reuelation, as some Catholique Deuines teach de facto, of the blessed soules, and Angels.

20. Yet if you will needs suppose that In­uocation of Saints cannot be defended, vnlesse they enioy the Beatificall Vision; you should not in true reason deny Inuocation because they are not Blessed; but contrarily you ought to belieue that they are in Blisse, because it hath alwayes beene the practise of the Ancient Church to inuocate them. Nor ought Protestants in geue­rall, to deny prayers to Saints, because they cannot heare vs; but they ought on the other side to belieue that they cā heare vs, because the Church both Greeke, and Latin hath alwayes practised, and allowed Prayers to them. M. Whitgift, as I sayd already, confesseth; that al­most all the Bishops and Writers In his de­fence of the answer. pag. 473. of the Greeke [Page 46]Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spot­ted with the doctrines of Freewill, of Merit, of In­uocation of Saints, and such like. In particular, the Saints, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, Nazian­zen, Basill, Nyssen, Chrysostome, are taxed by your Brethren for holding Inuocatiō of Saints. And your Conturists not only charge ancient O­rigen for praying for himselfe to holy Iob: but they also say, that there are manifest steps of In­uocatiō of Saints in the Doctors of that ancientƲid. A­pol Prot. tract. 1. Sect. 3. subd. 7 Age. And D. Couel affirmeth that diuers both of the Greeke In his E­xamination &c. pag. 120. and Latin Church, were spotted with errours about Freewill, Merits, Inuocation of Saints &c. That Vigilantius was condemned as an Heretike for denying Prayers to Saints, may be seen inCont. Ʋigilant. c. 2. & 3. S. Hierome, and is confessed byIn his answer to a counterfeyt Cath. pag. 46. Fulke. Thus then we see what the Ancient Church held concerning Innocation of Saints, & consequently they belieued that they heare our Prayers.

21. Your saying, that we inuocate Saints as Commissioners pag. 36. vnder God, to whome he hath delegated the power of conferring sundry benefias, de­posited in their hands, & to be bestowed at their plea­sure; I let passe as a very vulgar slaunder, vn­worthy of a particular answere. For (as the sa­cred Councell of Trent speaketh) we implore Sess. 22. cap. 3. their assistance, that they would vouchsafe to pray for vs in heauen, whose memory we keep on earth. Which wordes are also in the Masse.

22. But how solidly Bellarmine De San­ctorum Bea­titud lib. 1. cap. 2.3.4. [...]. 6. proues [Page 47]that the Saints enioy the sight of God, may be seen by weighing his Arguments drawne from Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, both Greeke and Latin, and Reasons grounded on Scripture: And your affirming, that, It may be pag. 35. thought he spake against his knowledge, & conscience, comes very vnseasonably, besides the grosse vntruth, and great folly of it, in a Treatise wherin you tax others for want of Charity. But I remember that S. Thomas among the causes of suspition, putteth the first of them to proceed from this: That a man is 2.2. q. 60. art. 3. in corp ill himselfe, and therfore being conscious of his owne sinne, he easily conceiues ill of o­thers; according to that Eccle s. 10. The foolish man walking by the way, he himselfe being foolish, doth ac­count all to be Fooles. Did your prime Brethren speake against their conscience, who affirme so many Ancient Fathers to haue beene spotted with the Inuocation of Saints, which you say cannot stand with their want of Beatitude?

23. You say; The Roman Writers vtterly con­demne the pag. 3 [...] former doctrine, and practise of Anti­quity. One of them feares not to censure it as absurd and impious: for which last words you cite in yourAzor. Instit. Mo­ral. tom. 1. cap. 20. lib. 8. § Neque vero. Margent, Azor. But it is an egregious vntruth, and falsification. For we do both ad­mitland practise Thankes-giuing for the hap­pines of Saints. And your further Requests of Gods mercy that they may haue their perfect Consum­mation both in body and soule in the kingdome of God at the last Iudgmēt, are wholy needles at lest, [Page 48]because without any dependance, or reference to our Prayers, they are most assured therof by the immutable decree of God. And you might in the same manner make Requests, that they may not loose their happines in body & soule, when they shall once haue attained it, after the generall Resurrection, which were a Request sa­uouring of Infidelity, as if the Saints could be depriued of Beatitude once enioyed. Now as for Azor, he proues in the place cited by you, that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire, but only seeme to deny a certaine determinate punishment of corporall fire, Because (sayth he) they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead, surely not for the Blessed, nor for those which be damned in Hell, which were plainely absurd and impious: it must therfore be for them, who are deceased with fayth and Piety, but haue not fully satisfied for the temporall punishment due to their sinnes. Is this to condemne the do­ctrine of Antiquity as absurd, and impious? Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice, and Prayers for the damned Ghosts, or for the Saints to satisfy for the paine due to their sinnes, as Azor meanes & speakes, and therfore doth truly say, it were ab­surd and impious? Is not this to corrupt Au­thors?

24. Wherfore vpon the whole matter we must conclude, that Aërius was condemned by the Church, and was reckoned among Hereti­ques, and particularly by S. Epiphanius, and S. [Page 49] Augustine, for the selfe same Error which you maintaine. To which Maior Proposition, if we adde this Minor, (which Charity Mistaken ex­pressely notesPag. 27. and you conceale:) But S. Augustine sayth, Whosoeuer should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted, (wherof this of Aërius is one) were not a Christian Catholique; The Conclusion will follow of it selfe.

25. Would to God, your selfe, and all Prote­stants did seriously consider, what accompt will be exacted at the last day, of those who by their erroneous doctrine, and opposition to the visi­ble Church of Christ, depriue the soules of faythfull people deceased, of the many Prayers, Sacrifices, and other good deeds, which in all ri­gour of Iustice are due to them by Title of foun­ding Colledges. Chanonryes, Chantries, Hos­pitals &c. Lesse cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporall goods, or to bereaue them of their corporall liues, then to haue abando­ned them to the Torment of a fier, which al­though as S. Augustine saythIn Psal. 37. is sleighted by worldly men, yet indeed is more grieuous then whatsoeuer can be endured in this world. Consider I say, whether this manifest Iniustice, though it did not proceed (as it doth) from he­reticall perswasion, were not alone sufficient to exclude saluation. And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead.

26. The words of S. Thomas, whom you cite (pag. 40.) to strengthen your distinction of [Page 50]points fundamentall and not fundamentall, do directly ouerthrow that sense, and purpose for which you make vse of them. For as much (sayth he) as belongs to the prime 2.2. q. 2. art. 5. in cor­por. Obiects of Beliefe, which are the Articles of Fayth, a man bound ex­plicitely to belieue them, as he is bound to haue Fayth. But as for other Obiects of fayth, a man is not bound to belieue them explicitely, but only implicitely, or in readines of mind, for as much as he is ready to belieue whatsoeuer the holy Scripture containes: But he is bound to belieue them explicitely, only when it ap­peares to him that it is contained in the doctrine of fayth. Now our Question is not about nescience, or ignorance of some points of fayth, but of dis­agreeing concerning them, one denying what another affirmes: in which case, according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas, there is nei­ther explicite, nor implicite Beliefe of such points, but positiue & direct error in them: and therfore such disagreement cannot stand with Vnity of fayth. It is strange Diuinity, to con­found, as you do, points secundary or not funda­mentall, with probable points. For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scri­pture, which are not of their owne nature prime Articles? Will you therfore infer that they are but probable? Primary, and secundary respect the matter which we belieue: Probable, and certaine are deriued from the formall reason, or motiue for which we belieue. Let two disagree in some points euen fundamentall, yet not sufficiently [Page 51]propounded as reuealed Truths, they still re­taine the same fayth; and contrarily, put case that two agree in all fundamentall points, if they disagree in any secundary point sufficient­ly applied to their vnderstanding as a reuealed truth, then the one must be an Heretique, and differ from the other, in the very nature, and substance of fayth. For as in a Musicall Consort (say you) a discord pag. 40. now and then (so it be in the Descant, and depart not from the ground) swee­tens the Harmony: so say I (retorting your own sweet similitude) because euery least error op­posing a reuealed Truth is not in the Descant, but departs from the ground of fayth, which is the attestation of God, it doth not sweeten the Har­mony, but destroyes the substance of Fayth. And heerafter it shalbe shewed, that you wrong Sta­pleton, no lesseInfra chap. 5. num. 17. then you do S. Thomas.

27. That, Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then preiu­dice the Vnity of the whole, you pretend to proue out ofEpist. 75. apud Cypr. Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian; which doctrine though it be true in some sense, yet according to your application, it is perni­cious: as if it were sufficient to Vnity of Fayth, that men agree in certaine fundamentall points, though they vary in other matters con­cerning fayth. And you should haue obserued, that Firmilianus (who wrote that Epistle in fa­uour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptization) speakes in that place of the Custome of kee­ping [Page 52]Easter: which point after it was once de­fined, remained no more indifferent, but grew to be a necessary Obiect of Beliefe, in so much that the Heretiques called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned, and anathematized by the Vniuersall Church in the Councels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Wherby it is e­uident that though some point be not in it selfe fundamentall; yet if it be once defined by the Church, the Errour degenerates into Heresy. Your Charity is alwayes Mistaken, aduantaging your Aduersary by your owne Arguments.

28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy, or Schisme destroies Sal­uation, because persons lyable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re, nor in voto; nei­ther in fact, nor in effectuall desire; as Cathecu­mens are, and as Excommunicate persons may be, if repenting their former Obstinacy, they can­not by reason of some extrinsecall impedi­ment, obtaine Absolution from the Censure.

29. You extend your Charity so far to In­fidels, as to forget fidelity in relating what Ca­tholique Deuines teach concerning them, not telling whether they require some supernaturall fayth at lest, for some Obiect; and quoting Au­thors with so great affected confusion, that a man would thinke them to maintaine the opi­nion which they expressely condemne as erro­neous, or in the next degree to Heresy. But be­cause it were a vanity to muster a number of [Page 53]Writers in a question impertinent to our pre­sent designe, which is only against Heresy or Schisme, both which exclude inuincible igno­rance; I hold it best to passe them ouer in si­lence.

30. Your saying, that A man may be a true visible membër Pag. 47. of the holy Catholique Church, who is not actually (otherwise then in vow) a mem­ber of any true visible Church; destroyes it selfe. For in the same manner and degree, neyther more nor lesse, a man is a visible member in act, or in desire of the visible Church, as he is a mē ­ber of the true Catholique Church, which is visible. And Bellarmine, whome you cite for your selfe, is directly agaynst you. For he tea­cheth that a man may de Eccles. milit. cap. 6. Respondeo. be in the Church in desire, which is sufficient for Saluation (when he is inuo­luntarily hindred from being actually of the Church) and yet not in the Church by externall Co­munion, which properly maketh him to be of the visi­ble Church; which is directly to deny what you affirmed. I might reflect what a pretty conne­ction you make in saying: who is not actually o­therwise then in vow &c. you might as well haue sayd, who is not actually, otherwise then not in act &c. But such small matters as these I willing­ly dissemble. The poore man in the Ghospell was cast out of the Synagogue by notorious in­iustice, and therefore still remayned a member of the Iewish Church, not only in desire, but also in act. You say, Athanasius stood single in [Page 54]defense of diuine Truth, all his Brethren the other Patriarchs (not he of Rome excepted) hauing subscri­bed to Arianisme, and cast him out of their Commu­nion. And you referre vs to Baronius cited in your Margent, to what purpose I know not, ex­cept to display your owne bad proceeding. For Baronius in the place by you alledgedAnno 357. num. 44. apud Spond. doth (not incidently, or only by the way, but) in­dustriously, and of set purpose cleere Pope Li­bertu [...] from hauing euer subscribed to Arianisme. He subscribed indeed to the condemnation of S. Athanasius, which was not for matter of faith but of fact, to wit, for certayne crimes obiected agaynst him, as Bellarmine De Rom. Port lib. 4. cap. 9. affirmeth, which being false, S. Athanasius did not therefore cease to be a member of the Catholike Church. If the errours of Tertullian were in themselues so smal, as you would make them, it may serue for an example, that not so much the matter, as the manner, and obstinacy is that which makes an Heretique; which ouerthrowes your distinction of points fundamentall &c.

31. The proofes which you bring from the Africans, and others, that Communion with the Roman Church was not alwayes held neces­sary to Saluation, haue been a thousand tymes answered by Catholique Writers; and they are such as you could not haue chosen any more disaduantagious to your cause. Heertofore I shewed, that Communion with the Roman Church, was by Antiquity iudged to be the [Page 55]marke of a true Belieuer. And indeed seing you speake of those times wherin Rome stood in her purity (as you say) how could any be diuided from her fayth, and yet belieue aright? Do not your selfe say: Whosoeuer professeth himselfe to for­sake Pag. 76. the Communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole? How then could any diuide themselues from the Romane Church while she was in her purity? Euen S. Cyprian, whose exam­ple you alleage, fayth: They Ad Cor­nel. ep. 33. presume to saile to the Roman Church, which is the Chaire of Peter, and to the principall Chaire, from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung. Neither do they consider that they are Romans, whose fayth was commended by the prea­ching of the Apostle, to whom falshood cannot haue ac­cesse. Optatus Mileuitanus, also an African, saith: At Rome hath been constituted to Peter [...] Parm. lib. 2. the E­piscopall Chaire, that in this only Chaire, the Vnity of all might be preserued. And S. Augustine, like wise an African, affirmeth, that Cacilianus might des­pise Epist. 62 the conspiring multitude of his enemies, (that is, of seauenty Bishops of Africa assembled in Numidia) because he saw himselfe vnited by let­ters Communicatory with the Roman Church, in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique had al­wayes flourished. And after Pelagius had been iud­ged in the East by the Bishops of Palestine, and Celestius his Disciple had been excommunicated for the same cause in Asrica by the African Bi­shops; the Mileuitan Councell referred them [Page 56]finally to the Pope, saying: We hope by the Ep. Conc. Mileu. ad Innocent. inter epist. Aug. epist. 92 mercy of our Lord Iesus-Christ, who vouchsafe to go­uerne thee consulting with him, and to heare thee praying to him, that those who hold these Doctrines so peruerse and pernicious, will more easily yield to the authority of thy Holynes, drawne out of the holy Scri­ptures. Behold the Popes prerogatiue drawne out of the holy Scriptures. And it is very strang that you will alleage the Authority of S. Cy­prian, and other Bishops of Africa, against Pope Stephen, who opposed himselfe to them in the Question of Rebaptization, wherin they agreed with the Heresy of the Donatists, which was condemned not only by the Pope, but by the whole Church, yea by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian, as S. Hierome witnes­seth, saying: Finally they who had been Coutra Luçifer. of the same opinion, set forth a new decree, saying: What shall we do? So hath it been deliuered to them by their Ancestors and ours. And Vincentius Lyrinensis spea­king of Stephen his opposing S. Cyprian, sayth: Then In Com. part. 1. the blessed Stephen resisted, together with, but yet before his Collegues; iudging it as I conceiue to be a thing worthy of him, to excell them as much in Fayth, as he did in the authority of his place.

32. Neither are you more fortunate in the example of Pope Victor, then in the other of Ste­phen. For although Eusebius (whom S. Hierome Contra Ruff. Apol. 1. stiles the Ensigne-bearer of the Arian Sect, and who was a profest Enemy of the Roman Church) doth relate that S. Irenaeus Hist. Ec­cles. lib. 5. c. 24. repre­hended [Page 57] Victor, for hauing excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for the question about kee­ping Easter: yet euen he dare not say, that Ire­naeus blamed the Pope for want of Power, but for misapplying it; which supposeth a Power to do it, if the cause had been sufficient. And the successe shewed, that euen in the vse of his Power, Pope Victor was in the right. For after his death, the Councels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus (which you receiue as lawfull Ge­nerall Councels) excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Prouinces which Victor had excommunicated: and so they came to be ranked among Heretiques vnder the name of Quartadecimam. You may know what opinion S. Irenaeus had of Popes by these words: Euery Church ought to haue recourse Aduers. Haeres. lib. 3. cap. 3. to Rome, by reason of her more powerfull Principality. And e­uen in this your instance, Eusebius doth only say, that Irenaeus did fitly exhort Pope Victor, that he should not cut off all the Churches of God, which held this ancient Tradition. Which exhortation doth necessarily imply, that Pope Victor had Power to do it, as I said already. And now I pray you, reflect vpon your precipitation in say­ing of Vactor and Stephen. Their Censures Pag. 50. were much sleighted, and their Pride and Schisme in trou­bling the peace of the Church much condemned. For they did nothing which was not approued by the vniuersall Church of God; and the Doctri­nes which they condemned were no lesse then [Page 58]hereticall. And therfore (to answere also to what you obiect pag. 52.) If the British and Scotish Bishops did adhere to the Churches of Asta in their Celebration of Easter, after the matter was knowne to be defined by the Church, their example can only be approued by such, as your selfe; nor can it either impeach the Authority, or darken the proceeding of the Pope. You cite Baronius Aun. 604. in the Margent, who directly a­gainst you relates out of Bede; that when our Apostle S. Augustine, could neither by Argu­ments, nor by Miracles wrought in their pre­sence, bow their stifnes, he prophefied that they should perish by the English, as afterwards it hapned. But you are a fit Champion for such men, and they no lesse fit examples to be al­leaged against the Authority of the Roman Church.

33. Your other example, that S. Augustine and diuers other Bishops of Africa, and their Successours for one hundred yeares together were se­nered from the Roman Communion. is manifestly vntrue in S. Augustine, and some other chiefe Bi­shops. For when king Thrasimundus had bani­shed into Sardinia almost all the Bishops, to wit, two hundred and twenty, Pope Symmachus maintained them at his owne charges, as per­sons belonging to his Communion. To the Epistle of Boniface the second to Eulalius Bi­shop of Alexandria, and the Epistle of Eulalius to the same Boniface, recited by you, out of [Page 59]which it is gathered, that after the sixt Coun­cell of Carthage for the space of one hundred yeares, the Bishops of Carthage were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church, & that in the end they were reconciled to her, Eulalius submitting himselfe to the Apostolique Sea, and anathematizing his Predecessors; Bel­larmine de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 25. answereth, that these Epistles may iustly be suspected to be Apochryphall for di­uers reasons which he alleageth, and it seemeth also by your owne words that you do doubt of them: For you say, If their owne Records Pag. 50: be true. Yet if they be authenticall, their meaning cannot be, that all the Predecessors of Eulalius were for so long space diuided from the Roman Church; the contrary being most manifest not only in S. Augustine, who kept most strict amity with Zozimus, Innocentius, and Celestinus Popes, but also in S. Fulgentius and others: but it must be vnderstood only of some Bishops of Car­thage, and in particular of Eulalius, himselfe, till he being informed of the truth, submitted him­selfe to the Roman Church. And you ought ra­ther to haue alleaged his submission, and con­demnation of his Predecessors to proue the Po­pes Authority ouer the African Church; then to obiect against it the example of some of his Predecessors, & of himselfe who afterward re­pented, and condemned his owne fact. You do well, only to mention the Protensions and forge­ries of the sea of Rome in the matter of Appeales. For [Page 60]you may know that Bellarmine Ʋbisup. doth so fully answere that point, as nothing can be more ef­fectuall to proue the Popes Supremacy in Afri­ca, then the right of Appeales from Africa to Rome, in causes of greater moment.

34. Your last instance about three Chap­ters of the Councell of Chalcedon, condemned by the fifth Generall Councell, the Bishop of Rome at length consenting, for which diuers Bishops of Italy, and also the Bishops of Ireland did ioyntly de­part from the Church of Rome, is like to your for­mer Obiections. For Baronius whome you cite in your Margent hath these words as cōtrary to your purpose as may be. Hence was it, that the Ann. 553. num. 14. apud Spond. Bishops of Venice & the adicyning Regions did gath [...] together a Councell at Aquileia agaynst the Fifth Sy­node; and the diuisions at length went as farre as [...]re­land: for all these relying on the Decree of Vigilius Pope, persuaded themselues that they might doe it. Is this to depart from the Pope, or the Roman Church; to oppose that which he is thought to oppose, & formally, because he is thought to op­pose it? Now, as for the thing it selfe, when Vi­gilius had afterward condēned the three Chap­ters, which at the first he refused to doe, and had confirmed the fifth Councell which had cō ­demned them, whosoeuer opposed that Con­demnation, were accounted Schismatiques by the whole Catholique Church: which plainly shewes the Popes Authority, and therefore whatsoeuer Bishops had opposed Vigilius, their [Page 61]example could proue no more, then the faction of rebellious persons can preiudice the right of a lawfull King. And in fine, all this Contro­uersy did nothing concerne any matter of faith, but only in fact; and not doctrine, but persons, as may be seen at large in Baronius: Neither was it betwixt Catholiques and Heretiques, but a­mong Catholiques themselues. The rest of your Section needs no answere at all: Only whereas you say; Whosoeuer willfully opposeth Pag. 57 any Ca­tholique Verity maintayned by the Catholique Visible Church, as doe Heretiques; or peruersly diuides him­selfe from the Catholique Communion, as doe Schis­matiques; the Condition of both them is damnable: What vnderstand you by Catholique verities of the Catholique Church? Are not all Verityes mayntayned by the Catholique Church, Catho­lique Verities? or how do you now distinguish Heresy, and Schisme from the Catholique Com­munion? You tells vs, (pag. 76.) that it is the property of Schisme to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Saluation, the Church from which it separats: and is it not an Heresy to cut off from the Body of Christ & hope of Saluation, the Ca­tholike Church? How then can one (accor­ding to your principles) be a Schismatique from the Catholique Church, & not be iointly an He­retique?

CHAP. III.

THE Protestants Pag. 59. neuer in­tended to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old; The Reformation did not change the substāce of Re­ligion, but only cleansed it from corrupt, and impure Qualities. Therfore (say we) the visible Church extāt be­fore those your cleansing dayes, had & still hath the substance of Religion; and so according to your owne ground we are safe, if you can pos­sibly be saued. But we haue no such dependan­ce vpon you. Nay, the same Confession which acquits vs, condemnes your selues. For while you confesse a Reformatiō of the Old Church, and neyther doe, nor can specify any Visible Church, which in your opinion needed no Re­formation; you must affirme, that the Church which you intended to reforme, was indeed the Visible Catholique Church; if so, then you cannot deny but that you departed from the Catholique Church, & are guilty of Schisme, yea and of Heresy. For if the Catholique Church was infected with erroneous doctrine which nee­ded [Page 63]Reformation; it followes, that the errours were Vniuersall, and that the Reformation con­ming after those errours, must want Vniuer­sality of Place and Tyme, and therefore be bran­ded with the marke of Heresy. For in true Di­uinity a new, and no Church are all one. More­ouer, the very Nature, & Essence of the Church requiring true fayth, it is impossible to alter any lest point of fayth, without changing the sub­stance of the Church, and Religion; and ther­fore to reforme the Church in matters of faith, is as if you should reforme a man by depriuing him of a reasonable Soule, whereby he is a man; And a Reformed Catholique are termes no lesse repugnant, then a reasonable vnreasona­ble creature, or a destroied existing thing. Wher­fore to say, the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities, are meer wordes to deceaue simple soules. And it is a lamentable case, that you can neuer be brought from such ridiculous similitudes, as heere you bring of Naaman, who was stil the same man before and after he was cured of his leprosy; Of a field o­uergrowne with weeds, thistles &c. (and your Brethren are full of twenty such childish pre­tended illustrations:) whereas euery body knowes that leprosy is accidental to a man, and weeds to a field, but Fayth is essentiall to the Church; and that Affirmation, or Negation of any one reuealed Truth whatsoeuer, are diffe­rences [Page 64]no lesse essentiall in fayth, then reaso­nable and vnreasonable in liuing Creatures. And Fayth it selfe being an accident and quality con­sisting in Affirmation, or Negation; to cleanse it from the corrupt and impure quality of affirming, or denying; is to cleanse it from its own Nature, and Essence; which is not to reforme, but to de­stroy it. Lastly, from this your forced Confes­sion, not to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old, we must inferre that the Roman Church, which you sought to purge, was the Old Church, and the Catholike Church of Christ. For if you found any other Old visible Catholike Church, which needed no Reformation, then you ney­ther intended to erect a new Church, nor to purge the Old.

2. You say, the things which Protestants Pag. 61. belieue on their part, and wherin they iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized, are most, if not all of them, so euidently and indisputably true, that their Aduersaries themselues do auow, and re­ceiue them as well as they. If this be true, and that the said Verities make vp the fayth of Protestants (as you speake) then what needed you a Re­formation to teach men the fayth of Prote­stants, which they belieued before Protestants appeared? Or how can you be excused from Schisme, who diuided your selues from that vi­sible Church, which belieued those verities which make vp your fayth? You say, If all other Christians could be coutent pag. 61.62. to keepe within these [Page 65]generall bounds, the wofull Schismes and ruptures of Christendome might be more easily healed. O words most powerfull to condemne your selues, who were not content to keep within those generall bounds, which you confesse we belieued, but would attempt new Reformations, although with so wofull Schismes and Ruptures of Chri­stendome, as you hold worthy to be lamented with teares of bloud! If our errors were not fundamentall, your Reformation could not be necessary to saluation; as when the wound or disease is knowne not to be deadly, the cure cannot be necessary to the conseruation of life.

3. The Reformation which zealous Ca­tholiques did desire, and with whose words you vainely load your Margent, were not in fayth but manners. For which if it be lawfull to for­sake a Church, no Church shall remaine vn­forsaken. But of this I haue spoken in the First Part. Luther was iustly cut of by Excommunica­tion, as a pernicious member: which yet was not done, till the Pope had vsed all meanes to reclaime him. Prouincial or Nationall Synods may seeke to reforme abuses in manners, and endeauour that the fayth already established be conserued: but if they go about to reforme the Catholique Church in any one point, they de­serue the name of Conuenticles, and not of Councels.

4. What meane you when you say; that you left the pag. 67. Church of Rome in nothing she holds [Page 66]of Christ, or of Apostolique Tradition? Do you ad­mit Traditions? Are they fallible or infallible? For if they be infallible, then may they be part of the Rule of fayth. If fallible, they are not Apo­stolique.

5. You goe then about to proue, that our doctrines are, First, doubtfull and perplexed opi­nions. 2. Doctrines vnnecessary, and forraine to the fayth: and 3. Nouelties vnknowne to Antiquity.

6. You pretend they are doubtfull, and say: The Roman Doctours doe not fully and absolutly a­gree in any one point among themselues, but only in such points wherin they agree with vs. If a manifest vntruth be a good proofe, your Argument con­uinceth. If you thinke, that disagreement in matters not defined by the Church, argues dif­ference in matters of fayth, you shew small rea­ding in our Deuines, who euen in all those Ar­ticles wherein you agree with vs, haue many different, and contrary Opinions concerning points not defined: as about some speculatiue questions concerning the Deity, the Blessed Tri­nity, Incarnation; yea there are more disputes a­bout those high Mysteries wherin you agree with vs, then in others wherin we disagree: and yet you grant, that such disputes do not argue those maine points to be doubtfull. And so you must answere your owne instance, by which you might as well proue, that Philosophers do not agree whether there be such things as Time, Motion, Quantity, Heauens, Elements, &c. be­cause [Page 67]in many particulars concerning those things, they cannot agree.

7. In the second place you affirme our do­ctrines to be vnnecessary and superfluous: because a very small measure of explicite knowledge is of ab­solute necessity. But this is very cleerly nothing at all to the purpose. For our Question is not what euery one is obliged explicitely to belieue, but whether euery one be not obliged, not to dis­belieue, or deny any one point sufficiently pro­pounded by the Church, as a diuine Truth. Nei­ther do we treate of ignorance of some points, but of plaine opposition, and contradiction both between you and vs, and also among your sel­ues. You cite Bellarmine, saying: The Apostles neuer vsed De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. to preach openly to the people, other things, then the Articles of the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commaundments, and some of the Sacraments, because these are simply necessary, and profitable for all men: the rest besides, such as a man may be saued without them. Heere you stop, leauing out the words immediately following, which are dire­ctly against you. So that (sayth Bellarmine) he haue Ibid. a will ready to imbrace and belieue them, whensoeuer they shall be sufficiently propounded to him by the Church. Besides, you falsifie Bellarmine when you make him say, that the Apostles neuer vsed to preach to the people other things then the Ar­ticles of the Apostles Creed, the commandments, and some of the Sacraments, because these are simply ne­cessary, and profitable for all men; But he sayth dire­ctly [Page 68]the contrary, namely; that the Apostles preached to all, some things which were not necessary, but only profitable to all (and therfore not superfluous as you say;) whereas yet he ex­pressely affirmes the knowledge of the Creed, commandments, and some sacraments to be ne­cessary to all. I wonder what pleasure you can take in corrupting Authors, to your owne dis­credit? Now since we must haue, as Bellar­mine rightly teacheth, a will ready to imbrace whatsoeuer is propounded by the Church; it fol­loweth, that notwithstanding your Confi­dence to the contrary, we cannot but except against your publique Seruice, or Liturgy. I haue neither will nor leisure to examine parti­culars: but Exceptions inough offer themselues to any mans first Consideration. The very oc­casion and end for which it was framed, pro­ceeded out of an Hereticall spirit, to oppose the true Visible Church: It was turned into English vpon an hereticall perswasion, and a popular insinuation, and a crafty affectation to inueigle the humor of the people, that publique Prayers were vnlawfull in an vnknowne tongue. It lea­ueth out Prayers both for deceased sinners, and to glorious Saints, blotting diuers of them out of their Calendar; and hath abrogated their fe­stiuall dayes: and the like they haue done con­cerning fasts, except those few which they vouchsafe to like: It abolisheth all memory of S. Peters Successour: It treateth only of two Sa­craments, [Page 69]excluding the rest; and in the one it omitteth most of our Ceremonies, as supersti­tious: in the other it professeth not to giue any thing but the substance of Bread and wine. It administreth to Lay people both kinds, as neces­sary by the institution of Christ our Lord: Masse, or Sacrifice it hath none: It reades and belieues Scripture heretically translated: It mentioneth no Reliques of Saints: And in a word, it is both in the whole Body, and designe, and in euery point a profession of a Church, and fayth con­trary to Catholiques, and implies a condemna­tion of our Liturgy as superstitious, & your selfe boldly say: We cannot, we Pag. 68. dare not communi­cate with Rome in her publique Liturgy, which is ma­nifestly polluted with grosse superstitions; and there­fore wee Catholiques also can no more ap­proue your practise and Liturgy, then we can imbrace your Doctrine, and fayth. I said that I had no desire to examine the particulars of your Liturgy, neither is it needfull. For we may iudge of the rest, by the very first words, or Introite of your Seruice, beginning with a Text, for which you cite Ezech. 18. At what time soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinnes from the bottome of his heart, I will put all his wickednes out of my re­membrance, sayth the Lord. But there is no such sentence in Ezechiel, whose words are these, e­uen in the Bible of the Protestants: But if the wicked will turne from all his sinnes which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that [Page 70]which is lawfull and right, he shall surely liue, he shall not die: All his Transgressions which he hath com­mitted, they shall not be mentioned vnto him: in the righteousnes which he hath done, he shall liue. Your first Reformers, the soule of whose Church was solifidian Iustification, were loth to heare of possibility to keep all the Commandments, of working Righteousnes, or liuing in the Righteousnes which he hath wrought; as also they were vnwilling to particularize with the Prophet, what is required to true Repentance, knowing full well, the different opinions of their first Progenitors about this point of Re­pentance, and therfore they thought best to cor­rupt this Text. And which is more strange, in your seruice-Booke translated into Latin, and printed in London, Per assignationem Francisci Florae, the sentence is cited at large as it is in the Prophet, and therfore the corruption still re­mayning in the English to deceiue the Vnlear­ned, is more inexcusable. Neither (in the same Introite) is the allegation of Ioel. 2. much more truly made: Rent your hearts, & not your garments, and turne to the Lord your God &c. Out of which place, you know men are wont to declaime a­gainst our corporall Penance of Fasting, Wat­ching, Hayre-cloth, Disciplines &c. but, euen according to your owne Translation, the words are: Turne you euen to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning; And rent your hearts, and not your garments &c. [Page 71]where I belieue you will confesse that your o­mission was not vsed to no purpose.

8. You speake among other things of Ima­ges, & we grant that God may be worshipped with­out an Image. But we say, that he cannot be truly worshipped by any one, who denieth worship of Images, because true worship of God cannot stand with any one Heresy. It is highly good, & lawfull, and a most holy thing to pray to God; but yet if one should belieue, that we may not also pray to liuing men, your selfe would I thinke condemne him for an Heretique, because all Christians intreate their Brethren to pray for them: By which example all your instances (pag. 72.) may be answered. Your saying out of Bellarminine that the worship, and Inuocati­on of Saints was brought into the Church, ra­ther by custom then any Precept, is answered heer­after n. 12. And I would gladly know by what authority your Church can inioyne secret Cō ­fession in some case, as (heere pag. 72.) you say she doth, if Christ haue left it free? Can a hu­mane law oblige men to reueale their secret sin­nes, in Confession? especially since they know not whether your Ministers will not thinke themselues obliged to acquaint some Officer therewith, in case the Penitent disclose any cri­me punishable by the Lawes of the Realme. To which propose I could tell you strange and true stories: as contrarily because Catholikes belieue the Sacrament of Confession to haue been insti­tuted [Page 72]by our Sauiour Christ, as necessary to Sal­uation, they consequently teach, that the Seale and Secret thereof is so sacred and inuiolable, that the Pope himselfe cannot dispense therein, though it were to saue his owne life. And now, to follow your wandrings, you may know that we doe not hinder, but giue free leaue to vn­learned persons to say their prayers in a known language: but the Church doth celebrate pu­blique Seruice in one of the learned Tongues, for weighty reasons, which haue been learned­ly set downe by our Catholique Writers. And if nothing must be read but what the People, yea learned men vnderstand, you must giue o­uer reading in publique, euen in English, di­uers Psalmes of Dauid, the Prophets, the Apo­calyps, and other parts of Scriptures, the sense and meaning wherof the people vnderstand no more, then if they were read in Hebrew. Nay, to vnderstand the words, and not the sense, is not free from danger, because they may by thē conceaue some errour, as we daily see by the exāple of Sectaries, & in that vngracious crea­ture, who lately out of Scripture, as he thought, murthered his Mother, and Brother, for being cause of his Idolatry in kneeling at the Com­munion. Happy had it beene both for him, and a thousand more, if the sacred Scriptu­res in English were not so common among them, but were read with due circumspection, and not without approbation of such as can [Page 73]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 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 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.) [Page 74] 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 cō ­sideration, what sincerity you haue vsed in al­ledging Bellarmine.

10 In the last place you affirme, that our doctrines are confessed 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 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 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 [Page 75]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 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 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 youDe 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, 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 theVbi su­pra. ç. 3. beginning of the Church of Christ: & that your owne Protestants confesse, that it is hard to know when they began, which is a signe of Antiquity, not of Nouelty. But we can tell you, when, and who, first began to oppose Indulgences, namely the Waldenses, who appea­red about the yeare 1170. And therfore the marke of Nouelty, & Heresy must fall not vpon the defenders, but the impugners of Indulgēces.

12. You say out of Bellarmine, that Leo the Third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint, as before (pag. 72.) you alleaged out of him, that the worship of Saints, was brought into the Church rather by Custome then by any Precept; and in your Margent you cite him in Latin saying: Saints began to be De Sait­ctorum beat, lib. 1. cap. 8. § v [...]. worshipped in the vniuersall Church rather by Custome then by Precept. But Bel­larmine doth not there treate in generall of worship of Saints, but only handling the Que­stion, Cuius sit &c. To whom doth it belong to Ca­nonize Saints, and prouing that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church, and not for some particular Diocesse alone; in answere to an Obiection, that there are many worshipped for Saints, who were not Cano­nized by the Pope, he hath these words: I ans­were, that the Ancient Saints began to be worship­ped in the Vniuersall Church, not so much by any Law, as by Custome: Where you breake off. But Bellarmine goeth forward, and sayth: But as other Customes haue the force of a Law by the tacite Con­sent of the Prince, without which they are of no force &c. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custome of the Churches, hath force from the tacite, or expresse Approbation of the Pope. First then, you conceale the Question of which Bel­larmine treated. Secondly, you leaue out (Vete­res) Ancient Saints, and say only Saints, and yet (Ancient) sheweth he spoke not of all Saints, but of some who were not expresly Canoni­zed, [Page 78]or Commaunded to be held for Saintes, wheras diuers others haue been Canonized by direct commaund to belieue that they are hap­py. Thirdly, in your Translation, you leaue out Vniuersall, & only put Church; wheras Bellarmine § Primo modo, expresly teacheth: That in an­cient time euery Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocesse, and de facto, they did command some Feasts to be kept, as Bellarmine proues; which shewes, that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawfull, and was to some particular persons cōmanded. Fourthly, you leaue out Bellarmines words; That the Wor­ship of some Saint generally introduced by the custome of the Churches, growes to haue the force of a Law, or Precept, by the tacite, or expresse Ap­probation of the Pope; which is contrary to that, which you cited out of Bellarmine; The worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church, rather by Custome, then any Precpt. And now to come to your former Obiection out of Bellarmine, what is it to your purpose if he affir­me that Leo the third was the first that euer Cano­nized any Saint? Doth he affirme that Leo was the first that taught Worship, and Inuocation of Saints? Or that such worship was not practised by Custome, yea & by Precept before his Time, as we haue seeme out of his words it was? Bel­larmine speakes only of such forme and solemni­ty of Canonization as afterwards was vsed: Which makes nothing for your purpose, to [Page 79]proue that our doctrine of Worship, or Inuocation of Saints, is a Nouelty. If one should affirme that the solēnity of Crowning Kings, was not vsed in all places, or tymes alike; should he therfore deny the Antiquity of Kings, or that Obedien­ce is due to them? You may see not onely the errour, but the danger also of such discourse.

13. When one reades in your Booke these words in a different letter; Not any one ancient Writer Pag. 78. reckons precisely seauen Sacraments; the first Authour that mentions that number is Peter Lombard, and the first Councell, that of Florence: and in your Margent, the names of Valentia, and Bellarmine; Who would not thinke that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard belieued that there were seauen Sacraments, neither more nor fewer? Which is most vntrue, and against their formall words, & expresse intentiōs. For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which youTom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur. cite: The same Assertion, (that there are seauen Sacraments) is proued by the Authority of Fathers. For although the more ancient Writers do not number seauen Sa­craments, all together in one place: yet it may be easi­ly shewed, especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge euery one of these Ceremo­nies to be a Sacrament. Thus Valentia in generall, and then he proues euery one of the seauen Sa­craments, out of particular places of S. Augu­stine, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Innocentius the first, Chrysostome, Bode, and Dionysius Areopagita. Now [Page 80]tell me, whether Valentia say: Not any one An­cient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments? Doth he not proue out of S. Augustine euery one of the seauen Sacraments in particular, as you could not but see in the very place cited by you? Is it all one to say: Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments, as you corrupt these Authors, and to say; The Ancient Wri­ters do not number seauen Sacraments all togea­ther in one place? Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine lesse remarkable, who hauing said that the number of seauen Sacraments is pro­ued out of Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, pre­miseth this Obseruation: That, Our Aduersaries ought not to require of vs, that Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we shew in Scri­ptures and Fathers the NAME of seauen Sacra­ments: For neither can they shew the Name of two, or three, or fower: for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechisme, as now we do, by reason of the multitude of Heresies, but only deliuered the things themselues in diuers places: Neither is this proper to Sacraments, but common to many other things. For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Sauiour, but neuer reckons how many there be: It deliuers the Ar­ticles of Fayth, but neuer sayth how many they be: The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelue Ar­ticles for some particular causes. In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture, how many Canonicall Brokes there be: But Councels afterward set downe the Canon, and the particular number, which they had learned by Tradition. And afterward he notes: [Page 81] That it is sufficient if we can shew out of Fathers and Scriptures, that the Definition of a Sacrament doth a­gree neither to more nor fewer Rites, then seauen. By which words it is cleere, that when Bellarmine sayth, Lombard was the first that named the number of seauen Sacramēts, he only meaneth, as he explicates himselfe, of the name of Seauen; as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two Sacramēts. So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine, as they are indeed, nothing can be gathered, except your very vn­conscionable Dealing.

14. What you cite out of Bellarmine, thatDe En­char. lib. 3. çap. 23. Scotus teacheth Transubstantiation to haue been neyther named, nor made an Article of fayth before the Councell of Lateran, doth not proue it to be a Nouelty, but only that Scotus did thinke it was not so expressely declared before that Coun­cell; which (sayth Bellarmine) he affirmed be­cause he had not read the Councell of Rome vn­der Gregory the Seauenth, nor had obserued the consent of Fathers. It is a fond thing to say, that euery Truth is a Nouelty, which the Church as occasion serueth doth declare more expressely then before. And if all Truthes must be decla­red alike at all tymes, vnder payne of being ac­counted Nouelties; what will become of Lu­thers Reformation, wherby he pretended to teach the world so many things which he falsly, & impiously blasphemed to haue been for solōg time buried in obliuion, and ouer-whelmed [Page 82]with corruption?

15. You cite Peter Lombard and S. Thomas, as if they affirmed Sacrifice in the Pag. 74. Eucharist to be no other, but the image or Commemoration of our Sauiours Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. But your con­science cannot but tell you, that these Authors neuer doubted whether the Masse be a true Sa­crifice or no, and therefore the Question which they propounded is, Whether Christ in the Masse be immolated, or S. Thom. 3. p. q. 83 a. 1. in corp. killed? and according to this sense they answere, that he is immolated in figure, because the vnbloudy Oblation of the Eucharist, is a representation of our Saui­ours bloudy Oblation, or Immolation on the Crosse. And that this is so, you might haue seen in S. Thomas in that very place which youAd 3. cite, where he teacheth that in this manner of being killed, or immolated in figure, Christ might haue been sayd to haue been immolated in the figures of the Old Testament, which did prefigure his death; and yet you will not ac­knowledge your selfe so perfectly Zwingliani­zed, that you will from hence inferre, that there is no more in the Eucharist then in the empty figures of the Old Law: and though you did, yet it would not serue your turne, for euen di­uers of those figures were truly & properly Sa­crifices; and therefore though the Eucharist were but a Commemoration, yet it might be a true Sacrifice withall.

16. You alledge Lindanus, that Panopl. lib. 4. part. 2. çap. 56. § Hunc igitur. in for­mer [Page 83]Ages, for 1200. yeares, the holy Cup was ad­ministred to the Laity. But you deceiue your Reader; for Lindanus plainely sayth; That both kinds were giuen to the Laity almost euery where, but yet not euery where. Which is sufficient agaynst you, who say, it is agaynst the institution of Christ not to giue both kinds to the Laity. And I shewed before, that in the raigne of King E­dward the Sixth, Communion in one kind was permitted; and that Melancthon & Luther held it as a thing indifferent.

17. That diuine Sacrifice was celebrated for diuers Ages in a known & vulgar Tongue, you would proue out ofIn 1. corp. çap. 14. Lyra. But what is this to proue our doctrine to be a Nouelty? Do we teach, that there is any diuine Law, eyther for­bidding, or commanding publique Seruice in a vulgar Tongue? And Lyra in that place tea­cheth that in these tymes it is more conuenient that it be not celebrated in a known language.

18. That the Fathers generally condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry, and allowed, yea exhorted the people with diligence, to read the Scriptures; You seekePag. 74. to proue the former part out of Polydore Virgil, and the latter out of Azor; but still with your wonted sincerity. For how often haue you been told that Polydore De In­nent. lib. 6. çap. 13. speakes not of the Ancient Fathers of the New Testamēt, but of those of the Old, naming Moy­ses, Dauid, and Ezechias, and he proueth at large, that in the New Law, Images are worthily pla­ced [Page 84]in Churches, and worshipped; and conclu­des, demanding what man is so dissolute, and so brazen faced, that wil, or can doubt, or dreame of the contrary? Azor grants, that in theMoral. Instit. lib. 8. çap. 26. part. 1. §. Respō ­deo. times of S. Chrysostome, Lay-men were conuer­sant in Scripture, because then they vnderstood Greeke or Latin, in which language the Scriptures were written; wheras now the common people for the most part vnderstand not the Latin Tongue; but such Lay people as vnderstand Greeke or Latin, do with good reason read the Scripture. Who would euer imagine, that in so short a compasse you could haue corrupted so many Authors?

19. What you say in this your Section, to excuse your Brethren from Schisme, we haue ans­wered in the First Part, and haue confuted all your euasions & similitudes. And whereas you say, thatPag. 77. although our errors be not dam­nable to him, who in simplicity of heart belieueth and professeth them; yet that he, that against fayth and conscience shall goe along with the streame, to pro­fesse and practise them, because they are but little ones; his case is dangerous, and without repentance despe­rate. I answere, that if our errors be not funda­mentall, how can they be damnable: and if they be but litle ones, that is, not fundamentall or dam­nable, how is it dānable to imbrace them, because they are litle ones, that is, because they are, as in­deed they are? If they were indeed little ones, & yet by an erroneous cōsciēce were esteemed great ones, to such a man they should indeed be dam­nable; [Page 85]but to one that knowes them to be little ones, and with such a knowledge, or cōscience, for some humane respect, of it selfe not damna­ble, doth yet imbrace them, they are not dam­nable. For still we suppose that he would not imbrace them, if his Conscience told him, that they were great ones. And who can without smiling read these your words: It is the Pag. 77. Do­ctrine of the Romane Schoole, that veniall sinnes to him that commits them, not of subreption, or of a sud­den motion, but of presumption that the matter is not of moment, change their kind and become mortall? I pray you what Schoole man teacheth that to commit a veniall sinne, knowing it to be such, makes it become mortall? For in this sense you must alleage this doctrine, if it be to your pur­pose: and in this sense it being a false doctrine, doth indeed ouerthrow that for which you al­ledge it; and proues that to imbrace errors not fundamentall, knowing them to be such, cannot be damnable; as it is not a mortall sinne, to do that which one knowes to be but veniall In the meane time you do not reflect, that if your do­ctrine might passe for true, it would be impossi­ble for both Catholiques, and Protestants, Luthe­rans, and Caluinists to be saued. For all these dif­fer at lest in points not fundamentall, and so you grant vnawares that which chiefly we intend, that of two differing in Religion, both cānot be saued, whether their differēces be great, or smal.

20. I haue told you already, that the Au­thor [Page 86]of the Moderate Examination &c. is no Ca­tholique. That other Treatise entituled, Syllabus aliquot Synodorum &c. I haue not seen, but if the Author pretend, as you say, that both Hugenots, and Catholiques may be saued, he can be no Ca­tholique.

21. You would faine auoide the note of He­retiques, which is to be named by Moderne names, deriued for the most part from their first Sect-Maisters. You renounce the names of Lu­therans, Zwinglians, or Caluinists, and to that purpose you make halfe a Sermon; But words will not serue your turne. For they are no iniu­rious Nick-names as you say, but names impo­sed by meere necessity, to distinguish you from those from whom you really differ, and to ex­presse the variety of your late Reformation. If we speake of Christians, or Catholiques without some addition, no man will dreame of you, but will thinke of vs, who had that Name before Luther appeared, and therefore it cannot ex­presse the latter Reformation. If you wilbe cal­led the Reformed Church; still the doubt remay­nes, whether you meane those who follow Luther, or Caluin, or Zwinglius &c. Neyther will the Reformed Church (if she be in her wits) make her selfe lyable to all errors of Lutherans, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Puritans &c. And in this, your prime man D. Field is more ingenious, while he acknowledgeth a necessity of the na­me of Lutherans, in these words: Neyther was [Page 77]it possible Of the Church lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 59. that so great an alteration should be effected, and not carry some remembrance of them, by whome it was procured. And Whitaker sayth: For distinctions sake we are inforced to vse the In his answer to Reynolds Preface. pag. 44. name of Protestants. And Grauerus giueth a reason why those of the same Sect with him be called Luthe­rans, saying: The only reason In his Absurda Ab­surdorū &c. in Praefat. of it is, that we may be distinguished frō Caluinists & Papists, from whom we cannot be distinguished by the generall name eyther of Christiās, or of Orthed oxe, or of Catholiques. And Hospinianus likewise sayth: I abhorre the Schis­maticall names In his Prologome­na. of Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Caluinist; (marke, the Shismaticall names) yet for distinction sake I will vse these names in this Histo­ry. The vulgar Obiection which you bring, that amongst vs also there are Franciscans, Domini­cās, Scotistes Loyalists &c. is pertinent only to cō ­uince you of manifest Nouelty: For those Na­mes are not imposed to signify difference in fayth, as the Names of Lutherans, Caluinists, are; but eyther diuers Institutes of Religion, as Dominicans, Franciscans &c. or els diuersity of opinions concerning some points not defi­ned by the Church, as Thomists, Scotists &c. And for as much as these Names be argumēts of new and particular Institutes, and are deriued from particular men, they likewise proue that the names of Lutherans, Caluinists &c. being giuen vpō diuersity in fayth, must argue a new begin­ning, & a new Sect, and Sect-Maisters concer­ning Fayth. D. Field is full to our purpose, say­ing: [Page 88] We must obserue that they who professe the fayth of Christ Ʋbi sup. pag. 58. haue been somtymes in these latter ages of the Church called after the speciall names of such men as were the Authours, Beginners, and Deuisers of such courses of Monasticall Profession, as they made choyce to follow, as Benedictins, and such like. And in his other words following, he answers your obiection of the Scotists, and Thomists, affir­ming their differences to haue been in the Controuer­sies of Religion, not yet determined by consent of the Vniuersall Church. What can be more cleere, that our differences concerne not matters of Fayth, and that the names which you mention of Frā ­ciscans, Dominicans &c. signify a Meanes of that for which they are imposed, and which they are appointed to signify, and therfore proue that the names of Lutherans &c. must signify a Nouclty in fayth?

22. But you say, that the iarres and diuisions betweene pag. 87. the Lntherans, and Caluinists doe little concerne the Church of England, which follow­eth none but Christ. And doe not Lutherans and Caluinists pretend to follow Christ as well as you? Who shall be Iudge among you? But you may easily be well assured, that as long as you follow him by contrary wayes, you can neuer come where he is. And yet indeed, doe these [...]arres little concerne the Church of England? Haue you in your Church none of those who are commonly called Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calui­nists, Puritans &c. Doth it not behooue you to [Page 89]consider, whether your Congregation can be One true Church of Christ, while you are in Communion with so many disagreeing Sects? Doth it little concerne you, whether your first Reformers Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, Puritanes be Heretiques, or no? How can it be, but that the diuisions of Lutherans, and Caluinists must concerne the Church of England? For, your Church cannot agree with them all; & if you side with one part, you must iarre with the other. Or if you agree with none of them, you disagree with all, & so make a greater diuision.

23. And therfore, being really distrustfull of this Answere, you come at length to your maine refuge, namely; that their dissentions Pag. 87. are neither many, nor so materiall, as to shake, or touch the foundation. But till you can once tell vs what points will shake the foundation, you cannot be sure whether their dissentions be not such. You say, theirPag. 90. difference about Consubstantiation, and Vbiquity is not fundamentall, because both agree, that Christ is really, and truly exhibited to ech faithfull Communicant, and that in his whole Person he is euery where. In this manner you may reconcile all heresies, and say, the Arians or Ne­storians belieued Christ to be truly God; that is, by reall, and true affection of Charity, as many among you say, Christ is really in the Sacra­ment, that is, by a reall figure, or by a reall act of fayth, as the Nestorians said of a reall act of Chari­ty: That euen according to them who deny the [Page 90] Trinity, there is truly a Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, as in God there is truly Power, Vnderstan­ding, and Will; but whether those Persons be really distinct or no, that is (as you say of Con­substantiation and Vbiquity) a nicecity inscrutable to the wit of man: and so a man may goe discour­sing of all other Heresies, which haue been con­demned by the Church. Is there not a maine difference of receiuing our Sauiours body in reall substance, and in figure alone? Or betwixt the immensity of our Sauiours Deity, and the Vbi­quity of his Humanity, which destroies the My­steries of his Natiuity Ascension, &c for who can ascend to the place where he is already? You specify only the said difference betwixt Lutherans, and Caluinists, whereas you know there are many more, 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, whoTract. 3. Sect. 7. vnder [...]. reckons no fewer then seauenty seauen diffe­rences amōg you, punctually citing the Bookes, [Page 91]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 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: [Page 92]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 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 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 [Page 93]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 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 falsi­fyPag. 99. Edit. 1. [Page 95] 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 citedPag. 102. by you, [Page 96]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 Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretique, who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded. Or (as you say else where,) It is fundamentall 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 [Page 97]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 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, thatPag. 112. con­cerning our greater safety, we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholiques, I haue answeredCap. 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, [Page 98]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 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 [Page 99]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 Epist. 48. do not make thee an He­retique, but thy wicked disagreement. And Optatus sayth: You cannot 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 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 [Page 100]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 anciēt times, Priests could not liue with wiues. And now I aske, whether in good earnest you belieue, that one may be made a Bishop, who will not belieue the Resurrection, nor wilbe baptized, or whether he may be baptized a­gainst his will? The Answere therfore may be seen in Baronius, whoAnno 410. n. 6. Spond. demonstrates out of the Epistles of Synesius himselfe, that he did these things, not to be made a Bishop, wishing (as he affirmeth) rather to dye, then to endure so great a burthen; wherin saith Baronius he seemes only to haue done in words, that which S. Am­brose pretended in deeds, which was to be estee­med incontinent, and vnmercifull, so to hinder his being made Bishop. But these extraordinary proceedings may be admired, but ought not to be imitated. To say, that the ten Tribes, not­withstanding their Idolatries, remained still a true Church; cannot but make any Christian soule tremble, to consider to what damnable absurdities, and impieties they fall who leaue the Roman Church. You falfify Magallanus In Tit. 3.11. as if he with M. Hooker affirmed, that, If an Infidell Pag. 117. should pursue to death an Heretique, [Page 101]only for Christian professions sake, the honour of Martyrdome could not be denied to him: which is contrary to the words and meaning of Ma­gallanus. For he expresly teacheth, that they do not participate of the grace of the Church, but are dead parts, and consequently not capable of saluation: Only he sayth, that they may be cal­led mēbers of the Church, because the Church can iudge and punish them. It is impossible that any Catholique Author should teach, that an Heretique, remayning an Heretique, (that is, actually and voluntarily, denying a reuealed Truth sufficiently propounded for such) can be a Martyr. But such as you are may affirme what you please. The words of Saluianus De Gn­bern. lib. [...]. which you cite, and say, that they are very remarkable, do only signify by way of doubt, whether some of the Heretiques of whom he spoke, and who in simplicity followed their Teachers (as he expresly sayth) may not be excused by igno­rance. And since you affirme, that he speakes of Arians, I would know, whether you do not thinke Arianisme to be a damnable Heresy, vnles accidentally ignorance excuse some particular persons.

7. You say, thatPag. 131. the Errors of the Do­natists concerning the inualidity of the Baptis­me giuen by Heretiques, and of the Nouatians, that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners, were not in themselues hereticall &c. Neither was it in the Churches intention (or in [Page 102]her power) to make them such by her declaration. If these errours neither in themselues, nor by the declaration of the Church be hereticall, I pray you, how are they hereticall? May a mā in these tymes hold them without note of Heresy? So you must say, vnles you grant the definitions of Gods Church to be infallible. For S. Augusti­ne professeth, that this point concerning re­baptization cannot be determined out of Scri­pture alone, as hath been sayd before. Or if you say, this Errour may be confuted out of Scrip­ture, then you must grant that it is in it selfe he­reticall, which you deny. But no wonder if by denying the infallibility of the Church, you be brought to such straytes. I goe on now to the next.

CHAP. V.

IN this Section, you handle three points. First, that the Church is infallible onely in fundamentall points. Secondly, that the Generall Councels; and, Thirdly, that the Pope may erre in points fundamē ­tall. Concerning the first, I haue spoken in the first Part; the second and third, are particu­lar disputes, from which you ought to haue ab­stained, if you had meant to haue touched in­deed the point of our Controuersy. But since you will needs fill you Booke with such parti­culars, I must also goe out of the way, to an­swere your obiections.

2. If I tooke pleasure, as you doe, to fill my Margent with quotations of Authours, I could easily shew how you mistake and wrong our Schoole-men; as if they held that something which in it self is not infinit, but really distinct from the diuine Authority, were the chiefe Motiue of fayth, the first and furthest principle into which it resolues: wheras their difference is only in explicating vnder what precise and for­mall [Page 104]consideration, God is the formall obiect of fayth: some assigning the Diuinity it selfe; o­thers, the authority of God commanding; others, which is the common opinion, teaching, that it is resolued into the diuine, or Prime Verity: and lastly euen those whome it seemes you call vnwise, and vnwarry Writers agaynst Luther, doe not teach that the Authority of the Church is the chiefest, first, and furthest principle into which fayth resolues; but at the most, that her Proposi­tion is necessary to an Act of diuine fayth; ey­ther because they conceyue that matter of faith ought to concerne the common good of Reli­gion, and so require a publique Authority or Propounder; or els because they hold that her Proposition in some sort enters into the formall obiect of fayth in respect of vs; Neither are the Authors of this opinion only Writers against Luther, as you say, but diuers other Schoole-Deuines.

3. Wheras you say, that there is no question but that Fayth is supernaturall, in regard of the Efsicient Cause, and of the Obiect, both which ought to be supernaturall; it seemes you are wil­ling to dissemble the doctrine of your great Re­former Zwinglius, whoTom. 2. exposit. fidei Christianae fol. 159. out of his excessiue Charity, placed in heauen, Hercules, Theseus, So­crates, Aristides &c. (who had no supernaturall Fayth, nor beliefe of God) as also the Children of the Heathens dying withoutTom. 2. fol. 540. Baptisme. Were not such Charitable men, very fit to re­forme [Page 105]the Church?

4. You fall againe vpon the sufficiency of Scripture, which point I haue already answe­red, & shewed in what sense all points of fayth may be contained in Scripture; to wit, in as much as the Scripture doth recommend to vs the Church, and diuine vnwritten Traditions. Neither can you alleage any one Catholique Author, ancient or moderne, who speaking of the sufficiency of Scripture, excludes Tradi­tion, by which euen Scripture it selfe is deliue­red to vs. And as for S. Augustine, and S. Basill whom you alleage for the sufficiency of Scri­pture, they be so cleerly for Tradition, that they haue been taxed by some Protestants for that cause; as likewise for the same reason some chiefe Protestants haue blamed Clemens Alexan­drinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierome, Maximus, Theophilus, Damascene, Chrysostome, Ter­tullian, Cyprian, Leo, Eusebius, and others, as may be seene inTract. 1. Sect. 3. Subd. 22. Brereley. But though Scripture alone did particularly containe all points ne­cessary to saluarion; doth it follow, thinke you, from thence, that the Church is not infallible? May not both Scripture, and Church be infal­lible in what they deliuer? Doth not your selfe grant, that the Church is infallible for points fundamentall; and for the same points the Scri­pture is also sufficient, and cleere? Which cui­dently sheweth, that you cannot deny, but that the Infallibility of the Church, may well stand [Page 106]with the sufficiency of Scripture, & consequent­ly to oppose either the Scripture or Church, is sufficient to make one an Heretique: and this is sufficient for our purpose. Yea, since you can­not deny, but that it is Heresy, to oppose the Scripture, and that you also grant that the Scri­pture affirmes the Church to be infallible in fundamentall points, it followes, that euen ac­cording to you, euery one who opposeth the Church in such points is an Heretique, euen be­cause he opposeth the Church; although the further reason heerof be, because he opposeth the Scripture, which recommends the Church. So that all which you haue said about the suffi­ciency of Scripture alone, is in diuers respects nothing to the purpose.

5. You affirme, thatPag. 136 Eckius, Pighius, Ho­sius, Turrianus, Costerus, do euery where in their writings speake wickedly, and contumeliously of the holy Scriptures. And because this is a common slander of Protestants against Catholique Wri­ters; I do heere challenge you to produce but one, I say, but one only place, either out of any one of these whome you name, or any other Ca­tholique Doctor, who speakes wickedly or contu­meliously against holy Scriptures. But be sure you do not confound speaking against Scripture it selfe, with speaking against the abuse therof, or against the letter of Scripture wrested to some hereticall sense; against which our Authors speake, and cannot speake too much. And S. Hie­rome [Page 107]with other Father do the same.

6. You proceed, and say: The Testimony Pag. 139. of the present Church workes very powerfully & pro­bably, first vpon Infidels to winne them to a Reuerend opinion of Fayth and Scriptures &c. Secondly, vpon Nouices, weaklings, and doubters in the fayth, to in­struct & confirme them, till they may acquaint them­selues with, and vnderstand the. Scriptures, which the Church deliuers as the word of God. Thirdly, vpon all within the Church, to prepare, induce, and perswade the Mind as an outward meanes to imbrace the fayth, to read, and belieue the Scriptures. But the fayth of a Christian findes not in all this, any sure ground wher­on finally to rest, or settle it selfe: Because, diuine Fayth requires a Testimony absolutely diuine, and yet, our Aduersaries yield that the Testimony of the present Church is not absolutely diuine, (to which purpose you cite in your Margent some of our Authors) and therfore it cannot rely vpon the Church.

7. This your discourse is neither pertinent, nor true. For the Question is not, as I haue often told you, whether or no, our fayth be resolued into the Authority of the Church: but whether we may not truly infer, that whosoeuer resi­steth the Church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as reuealed by God (which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamen­tall points) be not an Heretique, because at lest by resisting the Church, he consequently comes to oppose the Testimony or Reuclation of [Page 108]God, which is the formall obiect of Fayth. Be­sides, if the Testimony of the Church worke but probably vpon Infidels, and Nouices, who by you are taught to belieue that she may erre (vnles you will circumuent them, by dissem­bling her fallibility) they will haue wit inough to tell themselues, that since she may erre, and speakes but probably, she cannot worke so power­fully vpon them, but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually erre, and deceiue them. And how can the Church worke vpon all within her, to prepare, induce, and perswade the mind to imbrace the fayth, to read and belieue Scri­ptures? Are they within the Church before they haue imbraced the Fayth? Or must they want fayth till they read, and belieue the Scriptures? Or rather (since according to your Principles all fayth depends on Scripture) must they not belieue the Scripture, before they imbrace the fayth, and consequently before they be in the Church? How then doth the Church prepare, induce, and perswade them that are within her, to imbrace the fayth, and to read, and belieue the Scri­ptures? If our fayth must rest and settle only v­pon the Written Word of God, how doth S. Ire­naeus Lib. 3. cap. 4. affirme, that many Nations haue been conuerted to Christ without Scriptures? Were they conuerted only to an humane fayth?

8. And wheras you say, that the Authority of the Church is not absolutely diuine, and ther­fore cannot be the last, and formall Obiect of [Page 109]fayth, it is but an Equiuocation, and you infer that which we do not deny. Coninck whom you cite in your Margent, and translated by halues, answeres your Obiection in the very wordes which you alleage. Although (sayth he) the Church Disp. 9. dub. 5. conel. 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost, and in that sense her Testimony do in some sort rely vpon the diuine Authority, and receiue from it strength (all which words you do not translate) yet it is not truly, or properly the Testimo­ny or word, and reuelation of God, but properly it is a humane Testimony. You see then, that the Testi­mony of the Church in some sense is Diuine, that is, infallibly directed by the holy Ghost; which is inough for our purpose, although it be not Diuine in another sense, that is, her words are not the immediate voyce of God, as Scri­ptures are, because she doth not propose any new Reuelations, made immediately to her, but only infallibly declares what Reuelations haue beene made to Prophets, Apostles, &c. Your selfe affirme, that the Church is infallible in Fundamentall points, and consequently her Te­stimony is not meerly humane and fallible, and yet it is not absolutely diuine; and so you must answere your owne Argument: and you must grant that the Church being infallible in some points, may be to vs a ground sufficient for our infallible assent, or beliefe for such Articles. And if you will tell vs that fayth must be resol­ued into some Authority which is absolutely [Page 110] Diuine, as Diuine signifies that which is distinct from all things created, you will find your selfe gone too far. For Scripture it selfe, being a thing created, and not a God, is not Deuine in that sense. And the Apostles, who receiued im­mediate Reuelations from God, when after­wards they did preach, and declare them to o­thers; those Declarations, (which supposed the Reuelations already made) were not in the opi­nion of many Deuines, the testimony or word of God, but of men infallibly assisted by God: And yet I hope you will not hence inferre, that it had not been Heresy to oppose the Declarations of the Apostles, although they did not preach new Reuelations, but only declare, and pro­pound such as had been already made to them.

9. Your wordes (which are indeed but words) That Scripture Pag. 141. is of diuine Authority, the Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light which shines in Scripture, I confuted heeretofore. And what greater cōfutation can there be then by your own words, the Belieuer sees. For if he see, how doth he belieue? Or if he belieues, how doth he see? Especially since you say he belieues, and sees, vpon the same formall obiect, or motiue. Yet that Scripture is knowne by it selfe, you proue out of Bellarmine, who saych: That the Scriptu­res De verb. Deilib. 1. çap. 2. which are contayned in the Propheticall and Apostolicall Writings be most certayne and diuine, Scripture it selfe witnesseth. But these words will proue to be against your selfe. For Bellarmine in [Page 111]that place disputing agaynst the Swenckfeldian Heretiques, who denyed all Scriptures, sayth: That, he doth not alledge Ibid. Testimonies of Scrip­ture as if he thought that his Aduersaries made any great account of them, but lest the Scriptures, the Authority whereof his Aduersaries did sometymes a­buse agaynst vs who reuerence them, may be thought to fauour their doctrine. Is this to affirme that Scripture is certainely, and euidently knowne by Scripture? Or rather contrarily to say, that it must first be belieued, before it be powerfull to persuade? And therefore immediatly after the wordes by you cited which are, The Scri­pture selfe witnesseth; he adds these (which you as you are wont, leaue out) whose predictions of things to come if they were true, as the euent after­ward did manifest, why should not the Testimonies of things present be true? Where you see, that he proues not the Scripture by that beame of light which euidenly shines in Scripture, but by predicti­ons, which we grant to be a good inducement, or, as Diuines speake, an Argument of credibili­ty, and yet no infallible ground of fayth to be­lieue that Scriptures are diuine; and much lesse a beame of light cleerly conuincing vs, that Scri­pture is Scripture. For one may be inspired to prophesy, or speake truth in some point, and for others be left to humane discourse, or error, as it hapned in Balam, and the friends of Iob. And therfore Bellarmine in that very place, brings other extrinsecall Argumentes, as Miracles, [Page 112]exemplar, and visible strange punishments of such as presumed to abuse holy Scripture &c. Which euidently shewes, that he intended to bring Arguments of Credibility, and not infal­lible grounds of fayth, wherby we belieue that Scripture is Scripture, which we must take from the infallible Testimony of the Church by meanes of Tradition, wherof Bellarmine sayth: This so necessary a point, to wit, that Deverb. Dei nonseri­pro lib. 4. c. 4. there is some diuine Scripture, cannot be had from Scripture it selfe. Wherby it is manifest that you plainely corrupt Bellarmines meaning, when you go a­bout to proue out of him, that Scripture can be proued by Scripture alone, the contrary wherof he affirmes, and proues at large against the He­retiques of these times. The place which you cite of Origen, only proues that those who alrea­dy belieue the Canonicall Bookes of Scripture may proue out of them, that Scripture is diuine­ly inspired, as S. Peter Epist. 2. vers. 21. sayth. Neither doth the Authority of Saluianus proue any thing els.

10. Your saying, that we yield to the Church, an absolute Pag. 144.145. vnlimited Authority to propound what she pleaseth, and an vnlimited power to supply the defects of Scripture; I let passe as meere slaunders. As also, that the Authority of the Church is absolute, not Pag. 144. depending on Scripture, but on which the Scripture it selfe depends. And you can­not be ignorant of that, which hath been so of­ten inculcated by Catholique Writers, that the Scriptures in themselues do not depend on the [Page 113]Church, but only in respect of vs, who learno from her what Bookes be Canonical Scripture, which is to say, not the Scriptures, but our weake vnderstanding, and knowledge of Scri­pture relies on the Church, which our Sauiour Christ commandes vs to heare. And your selfe grant, that the ChurchPag. 142.143. is the ordinary outward meanes to present, and propound diuine verities to our Fayth. You will not deny that your know­ledge of the Trinity, Incarnation &c. depends on Scripture, will you thence in fer that the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation &c. in themselues depend on Scripture? as if God had not been God, vnlesse Scripture had beene written. Besides, to such as belieue Scripture we may proue the Church herselfe by Scripture, and she in all her defini­tions doth consult, examine, and submit her­selfe to Scripture, against which she neuer did, nor euer can define any thing; & in this sense also she depends on Scripture. But to make good your slaunder, youPag. 144. cite Bellarmine, af­ter your wonted fashion. If we take away De effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 25. § Tertium testimonium the Authority of the present Church of Rome, (this of Rome is your addition) and of the Trent-Coun­cell, the decrees of all other Ancient Councels, and the whole Christian fayth may be questioned as doubtfull, for the strength of all doctrines, and of all Councels depends vpon the Authority of the present Church. Would not one thinke by these words that the strength of all doctrines depēds on the Church? wheras Bellarmine only sayth, that we could not [Page 114]infallibly know, that there were such Generall Coun­cels, and that they were law full Councels, and that they defined this or that; but because the present Church which cannot erre doth so belieue, and teach vs. Which words demonstrate, that Bellarmine doth not speake of fayth, or doctrines in them­selues, but in respect of vs. And do not you your selfe teach that it is the Church, which directs vs to Scripture, and that she likewise is the ordi­nary outward meanes to present, and propound di­uine Verities, without which Propesition no obiect can be conueyed to our Pag. 142.143. fayth? And what is this, but to acknowledge, that in the ordinary way, without the guidance, direction, and Proposi­tion of the Church we haue no fayth at all.

11. You [...]ikewise cite these words out ofDe Ec­cles. mil. lib. 3. cap. 10 §. Ad haec ne­cesse est. Bellarmine: The Scriptures, Traditions, and all do­ctrines whatsoeuer depend on the Testimony of the Church (he meanes say you, that of Rome) with­out which all are wholy vncertayne. But Bellarmines words are these: Since the Scriptures, Traditions, and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend vpon the Testi­mony of the Church, all things willbe vncertaync, vnles we be most assured which is the true Church. You see Bellarmine speakes not of the particular Church of Rome, as you in your Parēthesis would make him seeme to speake. And as for the Vni­uersall true Church, what principle of Atheis. me is it, (as you very exorbitantlypag. 145 affir­me) to say, that if we did not know which were the true Church, we could haue no certainty [Page 115]of Scriptures, Traditions, or any thing els? Do you thinke that it were safe to take the Scrip­tures vpon the credit of a false Church? As wel might you take them vpon the credit of Turkes, or Infidels. And therefore, not the Assertion of Bellarmine, but the contrary to it, is a plaine principle of Atheisme. Doe not you proue the necessity of a perpetuall visible true Church, because other wise men should want that ordi­nary meanes which God hath appointed for our instruction, Direction, & Saluation? Now, if we might haue Scriptures, and true Fayth from a false Church, your more zealous Brethren, who deny a perpetuall visible true Church, might easily answere all your Arguments, and tell you, that a true Church is not necessery for fayth, and Saluation. And besides, is it not in effect all one to say (for as much as concernes our instruction) Christ hath no visible Church; & to say, that we cānot know which is the true visible Church of Christ? All the infallibility which we ascribe to the Church, is acknowled­ged to proceed from the assistance of God; how can he be said not to belieue a God, who belieues the Church, because she is assisted by God? Re­mēber that euen now I told you, that according to your owne affirmation, the Church is the ordinary meanes wherby Diuine Truth is con­ueyed to the vnderstāding: and yet you thinke your selfe free from Atheisme. The Apostles of themselues, were but mortal, frayle, & subiect to [Page 116]errour, and yet I hope, you will not thinke it a Principle of Atheisme to say, that all our fayth depends on them.

12. You taxe vs for teaching, that much of the Matter, or Obiect of fayth is not contayned in Scripture any way. But I haue already more then once sayd, that we belieue nothing but what is contained in Scripture in some sort, eyther in it selfe, or from some Principle from which it may be certaynely deduced, or in those pla­ces of Scripture which recōmend the Church, & vnwritten Traditions to vs; as if one should in his last Testament expresse diuers particulars, and should in the same Testament referre the rest to some third person, whome be had fully instructed concerning his further will, & mea­ning; whatsoeuer things were performed ac­cording to the direction of that third person, might truly be sayd to be contayned in the Te­stament; although they might also be saye not to be cōtained therin, because they are not mē ­tioned in particular. And according to this ex­plication, Canus, and Stapleton whome you cite, and other Catholikes are to be vnderstood, when they teach, that we belieue diuers things not comprehended in Scripture.

13. But you aske, with what ingenuity Pag. 146. or conscience doe they pretend Scripture in ech Contro­uersy agaynst vs, since by their owne Confession ma­ny of their Assertions are meere vnwritten Tradi­tions, leaning only on the Authority of their Church? [Page 117]I answere, that some points of faith are expresly contained in Scripture, yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded, if we tooke away the declaration of the Church. Some others, are not contained in Scripture, a­ny other way then in the generall principles of the Churches authority, and diuine Traditions; as, for example, that such Bookes in particu­lar are Canonicall writings. Some others ar [...] comprehended in Scripture, only probably. O­thers are contained so cleerly, that they may seeme sufficiently euident to a man not per­uerse; and according to these diuersities we do more or lesse alledge Scripture. If one were dis­posed to vse such Arguments as you bring, I might aske on the other side, to what purpose do you alledge Councels, Fathers, & Reasons, if out of Scripture alone you can conuince all errors against your doctrine? May not diuerse arguments be rightly alledged to proue the selfe same Conclusion?

14. Once againe, you returne to the suffi­ciency of only Scripture (that is, you returne to speake nothing which concernes the Question in hand) which you proue out of Bellarmine, though heerin (say you) as not seldome [...] 14. contra­dicting both himseife, and his fellowes. How conso­nant the writings of Bellarmine are, both to themselues, and to the common doctrine of o­ther Catholique Authors, this may serue for a sufficient proofe, that all his Aduersaries could [Page 118]neuer shew yet in all his works any one contra­diction, but such as themselues had first forged, and then obiected. And although in this gene­rall cause I do not willingly meddle with perso­nall things: yet that you may learne heerafter to speake with more circumspection, but chie­fly for the merit of a person, so eminent in lear­ning and dignity, and yet more eminent in san­ctity, I will not forbeare to assure the world and you, that when some yeares since, a perion of high authority in the world, had made himselfe beneue that he had discouered many contradi­ctions in Bellarmine, D. Dunne in a conference that he had with a person of Honour & Worth, from whom I receiued it, though I hold it not fit heer to giue his name, declared that there was no ground for this, but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another, as if he had been able to write them all in one houres space. And if you, D. Potter, be of another opi­nion, you shall do well to produce some instāce to the contrary, which may shew a reall contra­diction betweene some passage, and some other of his works, wherin it is odds that you will be answered, and he be defended. Let vs see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseueration. The Cardinall (say you) grants Bellarm. deverb. Dei interpret. cap. 10. ad arg. 1 [...]. that a Proposition is not de fide, vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme: Whatsoeuer God pag. 145. reuealed in the Scripture is true: but this or that, God hath reuealed in Scripture: ergo, it is true. If matters [Page 119]of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture, as this reason supposes, then the Proposall of the Church cannot make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth: yet to salue the soueraigne power of his Church, he makes all the strength, and truth in this Syllogisme to depend on the Testimony of the Church, and by con­sequence the truth of the Conclusion, which euer re­sembles the weaker premisse. So as if this be true, there is no truth in the Scriptures, or in our Religion, with­out the attestation of the Church. But now how many corruptions, sleights, and vntruths are couched in these lines? Let vs examine them a little. Bellarmine hauing taught, and proued at large, that the interpretation of holy Scripture be­longs not to priuate persons, but to the Church of God, which, in respect of vs, is to iudge of Scri­pture, and of all other Controuersies in Reli­gion: and hauing made this Obiection against himselfe; If our fayth depend Vbi supra vpon the Iudg­ment of the Church, then it depends vpon the word of men, and therfore doth rely vpon a most weake foun­dation; he giues this answere: The word of the Church, that is, of the Councell or Pope, when he tea­cheth as out of his Chaire, is not meerly the word of man; that is, a word subiect to error, but in some sort the word of God; that is, vttered by the assistance, and direction of the holy Ghost: nay I say, that the Here­tiques are those who indeed leane on a rotten staffe: And then he comes to the words which you ci­ted: For we must know that a Proposition of Fayth is concluded in this Syllogisme: Whatsoeuer God hath [Page 120]reuealed in Scripture is true: God hath reuealed this in Scripture: ergo it is true. Of the premisses in this Syllogisme, the first is most certaine among all; the se­cond is most firme, or certaine among Catholiques, for it relies on the Testimony of the Church, Councell, or Pope (heere you breake off, but Bellarmine ads) of which we haue in holy Scripture manifest pro­mises that they cannot erre. Act. 15. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost, & to vs: And Luke 22. I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth may not faile. But amongst Heretiques it doth rely only vpon coniectures, or the Iudgement of ones own spirit, which for the most part seemeth good, and is ill; and since the Conclusion fol­lowes the weaker part, it necessarily followes, that the whole fayth of Heretiques, is but coniecturall, and vncertayne. Thus farre Bellarmine. And now wherein I pray you consists his contradicting both himselfe, and his fellowes? Perhaps you meane, because heere he teacheth that euery Proposition of fayth must be reuealed in Scri­pture; and therefore contradicts his other do­ctrine, that besids Scripture there are vnwrit­ten Traditions. But the vanity of this obiection will by and by appeare among your other cor­ruptions, which now I set down. First, you see Bellarmines speakes not of fayth in generall, but only of matters of fayth contayned in Scrip­ture, his whole question being about the Inter­pretation thereof, that is. Whether we are to re­ly on the priuate spirit, or humane industry of conferring places &c. or els vpon the Church. [Page 121]And therefore; Secondly, he sayth not, as you cite him in a different letter, by way of an vni­uersal negation, that a Proposition is not de fide, or not belonging to fayth, vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme: Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture is true: but this, or that God hath reuealed in Scripture &c. (from whence it would follow that nothing at all could be belieued which is not contained in Scripture) but he onely sayth that a Proposition of fayth is cōcluded in this Syllogis­me; which includes no vniuersall negation, but is meant onely of those Propositions of fayth which depend on the interpretation of Scrip­ture, which was the subiect of his discourse. And therefore I wonder why you should say in generall; this reason supposes that matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture. For, to teach that some matters of faith are in Scripture, doth not suppose that all matters of fayth must be con­tayned in Scripture, and yet all the contradi­ction that heere you find in Bellarmine must be this: Such Propositions of fayth as are contay­ned in Scripture, are concluded in this Syllo­gisme: Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scrip­ture &c. Ergo all Propositions of fayth must be concluded in this Syllogisme; Ergo there are no vnwritten Traditions. A goodly contradiction! Thirdly, where did Bellarmine euer teach that the Proposall of the Church can make any vnwrit­ten Verity to become matter of fayth, as you speake? The Church doth not make Verities to be mat­ter [Page 122]of fayth, but only declares them to be such. Fourthly, you leaue out the words which cleerly explicate in what sense the Testimony of the Church may be sayd to be humane, or diuine; by which your Argument to proue that the de­claration of the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of fayth, had been answered, and your fallacy discouered. Fifihly, Bellarmine neuer af­firmed, as you say he did, that the strength and truth of the Minor in the sayd Syllogisme depends on the Testimony of the Church, but only that it is most certaine among Catholiques by the Testi­mony of the Church, because, as I haue often said, the Church cannot make any one Article to be true, but only by her declaration can make it certaine to all Catholiques, as Bellarmine said. Sixtly, you leaue out Bellarmines words, wherby he proues the infallibility of Church and Pope out of Scripture; and accordingly in the Scauenth place, that which he expresly sayth of the vncertaine coniecturall ground of Here­tiques, which can produce only a coniecturall and vncertaine Fayth, because the Conclusion followes the weaker part you make him apply to the Testimony of the Church as if it were vn­certaine, which contrarily in the words by you omitted he proues to be most certaine & infal­lible; and therfore the Conclusion which relies vpon a Proposition deliuered by her, is not sub­iect to error. Eighthly, you returne to the slaun­der, that if Bellarmines doctrine be true, there is no [Page 123]truth in the Scriptures, or in our Religion, without the attestation of the Church: as if Bellarmine had taught, that the truth of Scripture, and of all Christian Religion depends on the attestation of the Church which could not in you proceed from ignorance, but from a purpose to deceiue your Reader. For Bellarmine in that very place which you cite, declares himselfe so fully and cleerly that you cannot be excused from wilfull slaunder. I will put downe the place at large, that heerafter you, and your Brethren may ei­ther cease to make the same Obiection, or els endeauour to confute the Cardinalls answere. Bellarmine then, makes this obiection against himselfe: If the Pope iudge of Scriptures, it followes that the Pope or Councell is aboue the Scripture: and if the meaning of Scripture without the Pope or Coun­cell be not authenticall, it followes that the word of God takes his force and strength from the word of men: And then he giues this Answere: I answere, that this Argument of which Heretiques make grea­test account, consists in a meere Equiuocation. For it may be vnderstood two manner of wayes that the Church doth iudge of Scriptures: the one, That she should iudge whether that which the Scripture teaches be true, or false: The other, That putting for a most certaine ground, that the words of Scripture are most true, she should iudge what is the true interpretation of them. Now, if the Church did iudge according to the former way, she should indeed be aboue the Scri­pture, but this we do not say, though we be calumnia­ted [Page 124]by the Heretiques as if we did, who euery where cry out, that we put the Scripture vnder the Popes Feet. But that the Church or Pope doth iudge of Scri­ptures in the latter sense, which we affirme, is not to say, that the Church is aboue Scripture, but aboue the sudgment of priuate persons. For the Church doth not iudge of the Truth of Scripture, but of the vnderstan­ding of thee, and mee, and others. Neither doth the word of God receiue strength therby, but only my vn­derstanding receiues it. For the Scripture is not more true or certaine, because it is so expounded by the Church; but my Opinion is truer, when it is confir­med by the Church. What say you now? Doth Bel­larmine teach, that the Truth, or certainety of Scripture, or of the Minor in the foresaid Syllo­gisme, depēds on the Church? But in the meane time how many corruptions haue you commit­ted in this one Citation?

15. You citepag. 149. Wald [...]si to proue that theWalden. lib. 2. Doct. fid. art. 2. cap. 19. §. 1. infallibility of the Church is planted only in the Church vniuersall or the Catholique Bo­dy of Christ on earth, comprehending all his members. But though we cannot allow of Wal­densis his doctrine in some points, wherin he contradicts the consent of other Catholiques; yet he doth not teach what you affirme, but on­ly that the infallibility of the Church consists in the succession of Doctors in the Church, which is against your assertion (Pag. 150.) that the whole Militant Church (that is, all the members of it) cannot possibly erre &c. And therfore the do­ctrine [Page 125]of Waldensis is sufficient for our maine Question against you, that whosoeuer erreth in any one point deliuered by Doctours and Pa­stours succeeding one another in the visible Church, is an Heretique, and without repen­tance cannot be saued, whether the point be of it selfe fundamentall, or not fundamentall. For Waldensis maketh no such distinction, as you do: Nay, which is directly against your present As­sertion heere, and your doctrine els where, this Author (doctrinal. fidei tom. 1. Art. 2. cap. 47.) ha­uing prefixed this Title before that Chapter; That the Pope hath infringible power to determine verities of fayth, and to ouercome and cancell all he­reticall falsities; doth in the whole Chapter it selfe prosecute and proue the said Title out of the Fathers. And to the next Chapter 48. ha­uing also giuen this Title: Of the Prerogatiue of the perpetuall immunity, and purity of the Romane Church from all contagion of Heresy; he proues it in like manner through the whole Chapter. You must therfore be well aduised how you cite Authors out of one place, without consi­dering, or enquiring what they say in another.

16. Together with Waldensis, you cite Sylue­ster, saying: The Church which is Summa verb. Eccle­sia çap. 1. §. 4. affirmed not to be capable of error, is not the Pope, but the Congrega­tion of the faythfull. But this is a plaine falsifica­tion. For in that very place he teacheth; That the Pope vsing the Councell of Cardinals, or his members, cannot erre, but may erre as he is a [Page 126]particular person. And then adds: In this man­ner is to be vnderstood the Glosse, Caus. 24. q. 1. can. à recta. which sayth the Church which cannot erre is not the Pope, but the Congregation of the faythfull. So as you see that these are not the words of Syluester, as you affirme, but of another, which yet he in­terprets plainely against you. And that you may be wholy inexcusable, he doth heer referre himselfe to another place, namely, Verb. Conci­lium. §. 3. where he expresly proues, that a Councell cānot erre, no more then the Church, because if the Councell could erre, the whole Church might erre. For the Church doth not meet togeather, but only the Councell, or the Pope. Adding further, that the doctrine of the Church vpon which S. Thomas sayth we are to rely as vpon an infallible Rule, is no other then that of the Councell. And as for the Pope, he sayth, that we must not stand to the Popes de­claration, because he hath better reasons then can be alleaged to the contrary; but because he is Head of the Church, whose office is to deter­mine doubts in fayth. And a little after he ex­pressy sayth: That the Pope cannot erre when recourse is made to him in doubtfull matters as to the Head of the Church, because (sayth he) this errour would redound to the errour of the whole Church. And likewise in this very place of Sylue­ster which you cite, he also referres himselfe to Verb. fides. §. 2. where at large he proues the Po­pes infallibility, saying: That it belongeth to fayth, [Page 127]that we rely vpon the Popes determination in things belonging to fayth or manners, because the Church cannot erre in such things, and consequently he, as head of the Church, that is, as he is Pope cannot erre, although he determined without aduice of the Cardi­nals. With what conscience then, do you cite this Author against his words, meaning, and designe and ascribe to him words which he ci­teth out of another, and, as I said, explicates a­gainst you? And with the like fidelity, after Syl­uester, you do strangely alledge the Glosse Caus. 24 can. à recta with an, Et, as if the words which you cited out of Syluester (The Church which can­not erre is not the Pope &c.) had been different from that Glosse, wheras they are nothing but that Glosse, and not the words of Syluester.

17. They (you meane Catholique Do­ctours) grant, that the infallibility of the Church reacheth not pag. 14 [...]. to all questions and points in Reli­gion that may arise, but only to such Articles as may belong to the substance of fayth, such as are matters essentiall and fundamentall, simply necessary for the Church to know and belieue. To omit others D. Sta­pleton is full Princip. Doctr. lib 8. contr. 4. çap. 15. and punctuall to this purpose. He distinguisheth Controuersies of Religiō into two sorts. Some, sayth he, are about those doctrines of fayth which necessarily pertayne to the publique fayth of the Church; others about such matters as doe not ne­cessarily belong to the fayth, but may be variously held, & disputed without hurt or preiudice of fayth. Heer is such a Caos of words, and corruptions, [Page 128]as I scarce know where to beginne to vnfold them. Stapleton in the place by you alledged hath this Assertion. The infallibility of teaching in matters of fayth, granted to the Church, hath place only in defining infallibly, and proposing faithfully those doctrines of fayth, which eyther are called in question, or otherwise belong necessarily to the publi­que fayth of the Church. And afterward he af­firmeth, that those things belong necessarily to fayth, and publique doctrine of the Church which all men are bound explicitely to belieue, or els are publikely practised by the Church, or els which the Pastours are bound to belieue explicitely, and the people implicite­ly in the fayth of their Pastours. By which words it is cleere that Stapleton sayth not, that the in­fallibility of the Church reacheth only to such Articles as are matters essentiall, and fundamentall, and simply necessary for the Church, to know and be­lieue, as you affirme; but to all points which are called in question, or which are publiquely pra­ctised by the Church, whether they be funda­mentall, or not fundamentall: and therfore you do misalledge him when you say, that, he distin­guisheth Controuersies of Religion into two sorts: Some are about those doctrines of fayth, which neces­sarily pertaine to the publique fayth of the Church &c. For Stapleton explicates himselfe, as you haue heard, that whatsoeuer is called in que­stion, or practised by the Church, is the Obiect of her infallibility, which is the thing we intend to proue against Protestants; that to oppose, or [Page 129]question any one doctrine, or practise of the Church is to resist an infallible Authority, and consequently to be an Heretique. And that Sta­pleton neuer dreamed of your imaginary restrai­ning the infallibility of the Church to points fundamentall, is cleere by another place which youPag. 40 cite as out of S. Thomas and him, in this manner: Some are primitiue Articles, of the sub­stance of Religion, essentiall in the obiect of fayth. O­thers are secundary, probable, accidentall, or obscure points. For Stapleton in that place sayth, that cer­taine doctrines Staplet. Rel. controu. 1. q. 3. art. 6. are either primary Principles of fayth, or els, though not primary, yet defined by the Church, and so, as if they were primary. Others are Conclusions deduced from those principles, but yet not defined. Of the first kind are the Articles of fayth, and whatsoeuer is defined in Councels against Heretiques &c. Of the second, are questions, which either belong to the hidden works of God, or to certaine most obs­cure places of Scripture, which are beside the fayth, and of which we may be ignorant without losse of fayth, yet they may be modestly, and fruitful­ly disputed of. And afterward he teaches, that whatsoeuer the Church doth vniuersally hold, ei­ther in doctrine or manners, belongs to the founda­tion of fayth: and proues it out of S. Augustine Serm. 14. de verbis Do­mini. ep. 28.89.96. who cals the Custome of the Church, Eccle­siae morem fundatissimū & sidem fundatissimam, con­su [...]udinem Ecclesiae fundatissimā, authoritatem sta bilissimā fundatissimae ecclesiae. Could any thing be more cleere to shew, that according to Stapleton, [Page 130]the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those points which you call fundamen­tall, and that it belongs to the very foundation of Fayth, that we belieue whatsoeuer the Church holds? And that it is not lawfull for any to dis­pute against such determinatiōs of the Church? Which doth ouerthrow your distinction of points fundamentall & not fundamentall; thogh you alledge the authority of S. Thomas and Sta­pleton in fauour thereof. For S. Thomas 2.2. q. 2. are. 5. in the very place by you cited, after he had sayd, that there are some obiects of fayth which we are bound explicitely to belieue; addeth; that we are bound to belieue all other points, when they are sufficiently propounded to vs, as be­longing to fayth. You might gayne more re­putation to your selfe, and allow your aduer­sary more ease, if you would once resolue to cite your Authours with more sincerity.

18. To proue, that the infallibility of the Church extends only to fundamentall points, you also alledge Maldonatus, who sayth: That he will not repugne In Joan. 24.26. if one will affirme, that those words 10.14. vers. 16. He shall teach you all things; be referred to those other words; Whatsoeuer I haue spoken to you: as if our Sauiour did say, that the holy Ghost was to teach thē nothing, but that which he him­selfe had taught them. But do you in good earnest belieue, that our Sauiour taught the Aposlles fundamentall points alone, which all Christi­ans are bound explicitely to belieue? Or will [Page 131]you say, the Apostles were infallibly assisted only when they deliuered fundamentall points of fayth? So you must say, if Christ did teach them only points fundamentall, and the holy Ghost taught them onely those thinges which Christ had taught them, vnles you will say, they were infallible without the assistāce of the holy Ghost. You see he had good reason to say, thatFirst Part. cap. 2. num. 13. by denying the vniuersal infallibility of the Church, & limiting the promises of Christ made to her, you opened a gap for men to say that the A postles in their Preaching and Writing were not vniuersally infallible. And heer I aske, whether it be not a fundamentall errour against fayth, and Saluation, to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God? and since without question it is so, you must eyther grant, that the Church can erre fundamentally and damnably agaynst fayth, which yet your self deny; or els you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points suffi­ciently propounded as diuine Truths, whether they be in themselues fundamentall, or not fun­damentall, which is as much as we desire.

19. Agaynst the infallibility of the Church you bring a long argument, (pag. 157.158.) the force whereof is this: Nothing according to vs can be belieued by diuine fayth which hath not beene defined by the Church: But the Church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees: Therfore we cannot belieue [Page 132]by diuine fayth that she is infallible in all her decrees.

20. Before I answere your Argument, I must reflect that you do not sincerely alledge these words out of Bellarmine; Vntil Lïb. 4. de Roman. Pont. cap. 14 §. Respondeo inprimis. a doctrine be declared or defined by the Church, so lōg it might be eyther doubted of, or denyed without danger. For Bel­larmine makes no such generall Rule, but only speaking of the opiniō of Pope Iohn the two and twentith; That the Saints doe not see God before the Resurrection (which is your owne errour) he excuseth him from Heresy, because at that tyme the Church had not defined the matter. Where you see Bellarmine speakes only of a par­ticular point; which that Pope not conceauing to be contayned in Scripture, and the thing ha­uing not been expressely defined by the Church nor euidently knowne to haue beene the vni­uersall sense thereof; it was not at that tyme a matter of fayth. And he himselfe before his death retracted his errour. But to come to your Argument, I wish you would be carfull not to obiect against vs, what your selfe must answer. For doe not you teach, that the Church workes vpon all Pag. 139. within her, to prepare, induce, and per­suade the mind to imbrace the fayth, to reade and be­lieue the Scriptures? And that the ordinary meanes Pag. 142.143. appointed by God to present, and propound diui­ne Verities, is the Church? And therefore we cannot in the ordinary course belieue Scriptu­res, or any other diuine Verity, but by the Pro­posall [Page 133]of the Church. But this doctrine (that the Church is the first Inducer to imbrace the faith, and the ordinary Meanes without which we cannot belieue) is not proposed by the Church, and therefore it is not a thing which we can belieue. You likewise grant that the Church is infallible in all fundamentall points. And I aske in what decree, definition, or declaration hath the Church proposed to vs, that her selfe cannot erre in fundamentall points, especially with your addition, that she may erre in points not fundamentall? Now, to your Argument I an were: First; That it is not necessary, that the Church should by any particular decree testify her owne infallibility, because it being euident that she is the selfe same Church which was founded by our Sauiour Christ, and conti­nued from the Apostles to this Age, by a neuer interrupted succession of Pastours, and fayth­full people; it followes that she is the Church of Christ: which being once granted, it is fur­ther inferred, that all are obliged to haue re­course to her, and to rest in her iudgement for all other particular points which cōcerne faith, or Religion; which we could not be obligd to doe, if we were persuaded, that she were sub­iect to errour. Which yet is more euident, if we add, that there can be no Rule giuen in what points, we should belieue her, and in what not: and therefore we are obliged to belieue her in all. Moreouer, since the true Church must be [Page 134]Iudge of Controuersies in fayth, as we haue proued, it cleerly followes that she must be in­fallible in all points. Which vmuersall infallibi­lity being supposed out of the generall ground of Gods prouidence, which is not defectiue in things necessary, we may afterward belieue the same infallibility, euen by the Church herselfe, when she testifies that particular point of her owne infallibility: As the Scripture cannot giue Testimony to it selfe, till first it be belieued to be Gods word, yet this being once presupposed, it may afterward giue Testimony to it selfe, as S. Paul affirmeth, that, All Scripture is diuinely 2. Tim. 3.16. inspired &c. Secondly I answere, that the Church hath many wayes declared her owne infallibi­lity. which she professeth euen in the Apostles Creed, I belieue the holy Catholique Church. For she could not be holy, if she were subiect to error in matters of fayth, which is the first foundation of all sanctity; she could not be Catholique, or V­niuersal for all Ages, if at any time she could erre, and be Author that the whole world should erre in points reuealed by God; she could not be One, or Apostolicall, (as she professeth in another Creed) if she were diuided in points of fayth, or could swarue from the Doctrine of the Apostles; she could not be alwayes existent and visible, be­cause euery error in fayth destroies all Fayth, & the Church. So that while the Church, and e­uery faythfull person, belieues & professes the Sanctity, Vniuersality, Vnity, and Perpetuall Visibi­lity [Page 135]of the Church; she, and they belieue & pro­claime her infallibility in all matters of fayth: which she doth also auouch by accursing all such as belieue not her definitions; and while in all occasions of emergent Controuersies, she gathers Councels to determine them, without examining whether they concerne points fun­damentall, or not fundamentall; while in all such holy Assemblies, she sayth with the first Councell; It hath Act. 15. seemed to the holy Ghost and vs, while she proposeth diuers points to be be­lieued, which are not contained in Scripture; as that those who are baptized by Heretiques, can­not without sacriledge be rebaptized; that Bap­tisme of Infants is lawfull; that Easter is to be kept at a certaine time against the Heretiques called Quartadecimani; that the Blessed Virgin, the most Immaculate Mother of God, was eter­nally a most pure Virgin; that such particular Matter and Forme is necessary for the validity of Sacraments; that such particular Bookes, Chapters, and lines are the word of God, with diuers such other points; of all which we may say, that which S. Augustine said about Rebap­tization of Heretiques: The obscurity of this Que­stion Lib. 1. cont. Donat, cap. 7. before the schisme of Donatus did so mooue mon of great note, and Fathers and Bishops endued with great Charity, to debate and doubt without breach of peace: that for a long time in seuerall Re­gions there were diuers and doubtfull decrees, till that which was truly belieued was vndoubtedly esta­blished [Page 136]by a full Councell of the whole world. And yet the point declared in that Councell was neither fundamentall, in your sense, nor con­tained in Scripture. And to the same effect are the words of S. Ambrose, who speaking of the Heretiques, condemned in the Councell of Nice, sayth that, They were not condemned by hu­mane Lib. 1. defid. ad Gra­tian. cap. 5. industry, but by the authority of those Fa­thers: as likewise the last Generall Councell of Trent defines; That it belongs to the Church 1. Sess. 4. to iudge of the true sense, and interpretation of Scri­pture, which must needs suppose her infallibi­lity. And lastly, the thirst that euery one, who desires to saue his soule, feeles in his soule to find out the true Church; and the quiet which euery one conceiues he shall enioy, if once he find her, shewes that the very sense, and feeling of all Christians is, that the Church is infalli­ble. For otherwise what great comfort could any wiseman conceiue to be incorporated in a Church, which is conceiued to be subiect to er­ror in matters of fayth?

21. For want of better arguments you also alledgepag. 161. some Authors within the Roman Church of great learning (as you say) who haue declared their opinion, that any particular Churchs, (and by consequence the Roman) any Councels though Generall, may erre. But though that which you affirme were true, it would fall short of prouing that the Catholique Church is not infallible in all points. For, be­sides [Page 137]particular Churches, or Generall Coun­cels, there is the common Consent of all Ca­tholiques, knowne by perpetuall sacred Tradi­tion; and there is likewise the continued Suc­cession of Bishops and Pastors, in which if one should place an vniuersall infallibility, it were sufficient to ouerthrow your assertion of the fallibility of the Church. And euen your selfe teach, that the Church is infallible in all fun­damentals, and yet you affirme that any parti­cular, or Generall Councell may erre, euen to Heresy, or Fundamentall, and Damnable errours: And therfore you must grant, that according to your Principles, it is one thing to say, Gene­rall Councels may erre, and another, that the Catholique Church may erre. But yet for the thing it selfe, it is a matter of fayth, that true Generall Councels, confirmed by the Pope, cannot erre. And if any hold the contrary, he cannot be excused, except by ignorance, or in­aduertence. And as for the Romane Authors which you cite, Occham is no competent wit­nes; both because that worke of his dialogues which you cite is condemned, and because he himselfe was a knowne enemy, and rebellious against the sea Apostolique. Besides the words which you cite out of him against the Authori­ty of Councels are not his opinion, but alled­ged for arguments sake, for so he professeth ex­presly in the very preface of that worke, and of­ten repeats it, that he doth not intend to deliuer [Page 138]any opinion of his owne. Thirdly, wheras he alledgeth reasons for, and against Councels, he alledgeth but fine against them, and seauen for them. Lastly before he comes to dispute against Councels he doth in two seuerallDialog. lib. 5.1. part. cap. 25. &c. 28. places, & in the very beginning of those Chapters of which 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 youConcord. Cathol. cite, he afterward retracted. Panormitanus in the placeIn 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 indeedQuaest. in Ʋesper. art. 3. the words which you cite: [Page 139]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 [Page 140]betwixt points fundamentall, and not funda­mentall, as you do. You cite out of Canus these words: I confesse 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 precedentCap. 4. §. Tertia Cō ­ [...]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 cōtrary 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 Coū ­cell is infallible before it be confirmed by the Pope, which they endeauoured to proue be­cause the Coūcel 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 [Page 141]which you alledge to proue that Canus held a Ge­nerall Councell might erre, namely: (But when you vrge that the Church cānot 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 [Page 142]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 occasiō 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 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 Vbi su­gra pag. 352. with the Writers of our tyme, namely with M. Zwinglius, M. Caluin, M. Gualter; and surely I thinke no learned man doth dissent from them. Are not I pray you these, and the like Traditions, vpon which your Hierarchy depends, of some consequence, and worth your labour to put them in a Catalogue? Or doe you not hold the Traditions of the Apostles to be infallible true?

23. It is but a Calumny to affirme, thatpag. 163. we receiue the definitions of the Church, with no lesse deuotion then the holy Scriptures. For [Page 143]you citepag. 169. that very place of Bellarmine, where heDe Cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth downe at large fiue singular Pre­rogatiues of the holy Scriptures aboue the defi­nitions of the Church, in which respect your fault is lesse excusable. It is your owne doctrine that the Church is infallible in all fundamen­tals, and yet you will not euen in respect of such points, equall her Authority with that of holy Scripture.

24. At length you come to teach that Ge­nerall Councels may erre euen damnably, and yet you also teach, that their authority is imme­diately Pag. 162 deriued from Christ: and that their de­crees Ibid. binde all persons to externall Obedience. But will you haue men in matters of fayth ex­ternally belieue themselues, & dissemble against their conscience? And thinke that they do so by authority from Christ? The truth is, that you might as well say, the Church is inuisible, as to say, that her infallibility consists not in Generall Councels, but in this, that euery mem­ber of the Church cannot erre damnably: For, towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning fayth, all comes to one effect. And with what colour of truth, doe you say (pag. 164.165.) that you giue Generall Councells much more respect, then do most of our Aduersaries, since Catholiques belieue thē to be infallible, which you deny?

25. But you would gladly proue, that Councels are fallible, because they are discour­siue [Page 144]in their deliberations, and Pag. 167. vse the weights & moments of reason, for the drawing out of Conclu­sions from their Principles, wherin it is confessed they may mistake.

26. It is true, we grant that the Church coynes no new Reuelations, but only declares such to vs, as haue been already deliuered in the written, or vnwritten word of God; to finde which out she vseth meanes, by searching out true Records of Antiquity, by discussing the writings of Fathers, by consulting the holy Scriptures, Traditions &c. because it is the will of God that she vse such meanes. But the thing vpon which she finally relyes in her Defini­tions, ex parte Obiecti, is the Reuelation, or atte­station of God, which is the Formall and last Mo­tine of fayth; and exparte Subiecti, in behalfe of herselfe, she relies vpon the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost, directing her not to pro­pound any falshood insteed of a reuealed truth. Thus we read in the first Councell Act. 15. Cùm magna disquisitio sieret: After great search, & exa­mination of the Case, by citing Scriptures, re­lating Miracles, and the blessing of God, decla­red by the good successe, and conuersion of so many Gentiles; the final determination did not rely vpon these industries, but, Visum est Spiritui sancto, & nobis. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost, and vs: Which words expresse both the formall Mo­tiue, and chiefe efficient Cause of fayth, as also the free, and voluntary concurring of the Apo­stles, [Page 145]assisted by the Holy Ghost. And yet I hope you will not out of these diligences, & discourses of the Apostles inferre, that this Councell was fallible: Or that there was no more certainty in the Conclusion, then in the Arguments them­selues, of which some, abstracting from the assi­stance of the holy Ghost, and the Authority of the Apostles, were but, as the Deuines speake, Arguments of Credibility, and dispositions to fayth, as Miracles &c. Or will you perhaps with your first Patriarch Luther, reprehend euen this Councell of the Apostles, and say with him: That Iames, whose In Assert art. 29. opinion the whole Councell followed, changed the verdict of peter, whose iudg­ment, that the Gentiles should not be constrained to obserue the Iewish Ceremonics, was most true, & cō ­sequently the opinion of Iames and the Councell could not be true? You grant (as I must often put you in mind) that the Church is infallible in fun­damentall points, must she therfore vse no in­dustry, to attaine to the knowledge of such points? And Protestants, who hold Scripture to be the only Rule of fayth, vse meanes of con­ferring Text, consulting the Originals, Prayer, &c. for attayning the true meaning of Scri­pture; and yet you will not grant, that your fayth is fallible; because you will say, it doth not rely vpon those said fallible meanes, but fi­nally (as you apprehend) it rests in the word of God. And if any Catholique Author equall the definitions of the Church with the holy [Page 146]Scripture, his meaning is, that both the one, and the other, are so infallible, that they cannot de­liuer any vntruth. For in other respects we grāt many singular Prerogatiues to the holy Scri­pture, more then to the definitions of Coun­cels, as may partly beseen inDe Conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine.

27. Your obiection that the great Councell Pag. 170. of Chalcedon corrected the Second of Ephesus, and that S. Augustine sayth, Prouinciall Councels De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by Plenary, and Plenary Councels, the former, by the latter, hath beene answered a hundred times; and I doubt not but that you haue read Bellarmine whoDe Couc. lib. 1. cap. 6. shewes that the se­cond Councell of Ephesus proceeded vnlawful­ly, wherin S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantino­ple was murthered by the faction of Dioscorus, and the Popes Legates were driuen away, and finally the Eutichian Heresy was confirmed: for which causes that Councell was annulled by Pope Leo. You haue pickt out a pretty exam­ple to proue that lawfull Councels, confirmed by the Pope may erre. To the words of S. Augu­stine, Bellarmine answers, thatDe Con­sul. lib. 2. c. 7. §. Respon­deo Primò. either they are vnderstood of vnlawfull Councels, such as was the second of Ephesus; or els, they are to be vn­derstood of Questions concerning matter of fact, as whether Caecilianus had deliuered vp the Bible; or finally, that latter Councels may be said to correct the former, because some de­crees which concerne manners may by change of circumstāces proue inconuenient, although [Page 147]in the beginning, they were very holy and fit. Which interpretation is gathered out of S. Au­gustine himselfe, who sayth: That Councels may be corrected, when Experience doth manifest something which before did not appeare. Now, experience hath no place in vniuersall doctrines, but in particular facts, or lawes, which respect particular circumstāces of time, and place &c. Your second Citation in your Margent out of S. Augustine, Lib. 3. cōt. Maxim. whose words you did not re­cite, Bellarmine answeres in the place which I haue cited now. And heertofore I haue decla­red at large in what sense, and vpon what oc­casion, and reason, S. Augustine against the Do­natists made recourse to Scripture alone.

26. You begin to impugne the Popes in­fallibility, by saying, that Charity-Mistaken meanes by his infallible Church, only the Pope. Which saying of yours doth well declare how fallible your affirmations are. And that if the Pope define that to be white, which the eye iudges to be blacke, it must be so admitted by vs, you pretend to proue, out of I know not what papers of the Iesuites found in Padua, in witnes wherof you alleage Paulus Soarpius, a se­ditious, scandalous, and condemned Author: & we must by no meanes belieue you without bet­ter proofe. You cite also out of Bellarmine, these words: If he (the Pope) should De Rom [...]. Pont. lib. 4. c. 5. §§. Quod­antens. erre, and com­mand the practise of vice, or forbid the exercise of vertue, the Church were bound in conscience to be­lieue [Page 148]vices to be good, and vertues to be bad. Who would not thinke by these words of Bellarmine, as you corrupt him, that indeed we might be­lieue Vice to be good, and Vertueil? The direct contrary wherof he affirmes; and from thence infers that the Pope, whom the Church is obli­ged to obey as her Head, and Supreme Pastor, cannot erre in decrees of manners prescribed by him, to the whole Church. These be his words. If the Pope did erre in commanding vices, or forbidding Vertue, the Church were bound to belieue that Vice is good and Vertue ill, vnles she would sinne against her conscience. For in doubtfull things, the Church is bound to subiect herselfe to the Iudgment of the Pope, and to do what he commands, and not to do what he forbids: and lest she should sinne agaynst her conscience, she is bound to belieue, that what he commands is good, & that what he forbids is ill For the auoyding of which inconuenience he con­cludes, that the Pope cannot erre in Decrees con­cerning manners, by forbidding Vertue, or com­manding Vice. If one should proue that Scri­pture cannot erre in things concerning man­ners, because otherwise Christians, who are bound to belieue whatsoeuer the Scripture sayth, should be obliged to belieue Vertue to be ill, and Vice to be good; would you infer that indeed we are to belieue, Vertue to be ill, and Vice to be good? Or rather that indeed Scri­pture could not propose or command any such thing? This is that which Bellarmine sayth. But [Page 149]your selfe is he, according to whose principles we might be obliged to imbrace vice &c. For since you affirme, that the authority Pag. 1 [...]. of Gene­rall Councels is immediately deriued from Christ, and that, their Decrees bind all persons to externall Obe­dience; and seing you hold that they may erre perniciously both in fayth, and manners; What remaines but that we must be obliged, euen by authority immediately deriued from Christ himselfe, to erre with the Councell, and at lest externally imbrace Vice.

29. You come afterward to discourse thus: These men Pag. 17 [...]. deale not plainely with vs, when they pretend often in their disputations against vs, Scri­ptures, Fathers, Councells and the Church; since in the issue their finall and infallible argument for their fayth, is only the Popes Authority. It were indeed a happy thing, and a most effectuall way to end all Controuersies if people would submit them­selues to some visible liuing Iudge, by whom they might be instructed, & by whom it might be declared who alledge Scriptures, and Fathers right or wrong. Which since you, and your Bre­thren refuse to do, no wonder, if we be con­strained to alledge Scriptures, and Fathers, as you likewise do, though you say, that Scripture is infallible, and that all Controuersies must be decided by it alone. Besides, though the Pope be infallible, yet he is not so alone, as if he did ex­clude all other infallible meanes: for Scriptures, Generall Councells, and the Consent of the [Page 150]whole Catholique Church are also infallible. And therfore (as I was saying) it is no wonder that we alledge other Arguments besides the decrees of Popes alone. For since in our dispu­tes with you, we abound with all kind of argu­ments, why should we not make vse therof? And if you will know the reason why Coun­cells be gathered to the great good of the Church, notwithstanding the Popes infallibili­ty, you may read Bellarmine, who giuesDe Rom. Pontif lib. 4. cap. 7. §. Respondeo Id. the reason therof. I hope you will grant that S. Peter was infallible, and yet he thought good to ga­ther a Councel, Act. 15. for greater satisfaction of the faythfull, and to take away all occasions of temptation in the weaker Christians. What estimation Antiquity made of the Popes Au­thority I haue shewed heertofore. And if some who haue written Pleas, or Prescriptions against Heretiques, do not without more adoe, appeale Pag. 173. all Heretiques to the Popes Tribunall, you haue no cause to wonder; since commonly the first error of all Heretiques, is to oppose the Pope, and the Church of Rome, and therfore they must be conuinced by other Arguments. Tertullian in his Prescriptions against Heretiques doth par­ticularly aduise, and direct that Heretiques are not to be admitted to dispute out of Scripture, and that it is but in vaine to seeke to conuince them by that meanes: and yet you hold that the Scripture is not only infallible, but the sole Rule also of fayth: How then do you infer against [Page 151]vs, that if the Pope be infallible, Tertullian should haue appealed all Heretiques to his Tribunall; since he doth not appeale them to Scripture, which yet he belieued to be infalli­ble. And neuertheles the two Authors whom you cite, Tertullian, and Vincentius Lyrinensis speake, as much in aduantage of the Pope and Church of Rome, as can be imagined. If (sayth Tertullian) thou liue Praes­cript. cap. 36. neere Italy, thou hast the Citty of Rome, from thence Authority is neere at hand, euen to vs (Africans.) A happy Church, into which the Apostles haue powred their whole doctrine together with their bloud. And Vincentius Lyrinen­sis cals theIn sus Com. Pope, and Church of Rome, the Head, and other Bishops as S. Cyprian from the South, S. Ambrose from the North &c. and others from other places, the sides of the world. And I cited these words out of him before, who spea­king of Rebaptization, saith: Then In Com. part. 1. the blessed Stephen resisted, together with, but before his Collea­gues, iudging it as I conceiue, a thing worthy of him, that he should surmount them as much in Fayth, as he did in the authority of his place. Of the opposi­tion of some particular men to the Pope we haue spoken already, and in your saying that his Authority hath beene opposed by Generall Councels we will not belieue you, til you bring better proofe. That the diuisions of the Easterne from the Latine Church proceeded from the ambition, & pretensions of the Bishop of Rome, you proue by the Authority of Nilus, a Schis­matique, [Page 152]an Heretique, and a professed enemy of the Church of Rome, and of Protestants also, vnles they haue a mind to belieue that the holy Ghost proceeds not from the Sonne. And how can Nilus affirme as he doth, that the Pope refu­seth to haue the groundes of that dissension fay­rely heard and discussed in a generall Councell? For vnder Vrbanus the second a Councell was held at Barium in Apulia, where the Graecian Bi­shops being present, were conuicted of errour, in denying God the holy Ghost to proceed from God the Sonne, S. Anselme Anselm. lib. de pro­tes. Spirit. sanct. our Primate of Canterbury being the chiefe disputant in the behalfe of the Latins. Whereupon the Graecian Emperour that then ruled Alexius Comnenus be­came Catholicke, and caused the Graecian Bi­shops to hold Communion with the Roman Church so long as he liued,Baronîus tom. 12. An. 1118. as Baronius sheweth. And greater cause I haue to wonder, that you would now reuiue this Cauill of Nilus. For to say nothing of the Councell of Lyons in France vnder Gregory the tenth,Baron. ad an. 1274. where the Pa­triarke of Constantinople was present, and o­ther Hierarchs of Greece to the number of 40. be­sides innumerable Bishops and Prelates of the Latins, being more then a thousand in all, some Kings being there in person, and all by their Embassadors, namely Michael Paleologus, and Andronicus his Sonne Emperours of the East, in whose name their Embassadours recanted & abiured all errors against the Roman Church, [Page 153]namely that about the Holy Ghost: to preter­mit (I say) this instance, who doth not know, that in the generall Councell at Florence, the matter was debated vnder Eugenius the fourth, where the Graecians with their Emperour, and their Patriarch, and the Legates of three other Patriarches, and the Armenians, and the Deputyes of the Ethiopians were present, and a perfect concord was then made: from which the Greekes departing afterward, were subdued and made slaues to the Turke. And that they might see the cause of their destruction to be pertinacity in their Errour about the Holy Ghost, vpon the very feast of Pentecost (as Bel­larmine proueth) the Citty of Constantinople was taken, their Emperour killed,Lib. 2. de Christo. cap. 30. and their Empyre extinguished. And it is well knowne that the true cause of their dissension, whereu­pon a separation at last ensued, was the Con­trouersy between Ignatius lawfull Patriarch of Constantinople, whom the Pope still kept in his Communion, and Photius an ambitious Intru­der into the Patriarchate, by strength of the Imperiall Power. Which Schisme hath enlarged it selfe, by addition of the heresy, about the pro­cession of the holy Ghost. For want of better matter, you bring heere that old Obiection a­bout the Councels of Constance and Basil, defi­ning that the Councell is aboue the Pope. The Answere whereof you may read in Bellarmine, thatDe C [...]. lib. 2. c. [...]. the Popes who were deposed, were in [Page 154]time of Schisme, when it was not knowne who was the true Pope; in which case the Church hath power to prouide herselfe of an vndoub­ted Pastour: To say nothing that two of those Popes voluntarily renounced their pretence. As for the decree of the Councell of Constance, that all ought to obey a Generall Councell; he answeres, that either it is meant for time of Schisme, or if it be vniuersall, that the Councell could not make any such definition of fayth, because it was neuer confirmed by the Pope, for as much as concernes that point. And the Councell of Basill was in that particular ex­presly repealed by diuers Popes; and the whole Church receiued Eugenius as true Pope, who yet was deposed by that Councell. To disproue the Popes infallibility, you cite Victoria saying: Giue me Relect. 4. de Potest. Papae & Conc. prop. 12. ad fin. Clements, Linus, Siluesters, and I will leaue all to their pleasure. But to speake no worse of latter Popes, they are much inferiour to those ancient Ones. But you alleage this Author according to your wonted manner, that is, very vnfaithful­ly. For he in that place speakes only of Dispen­sations in Lawes, the facility and frequency wherof Victoria dislikes in these latter times; Which being wholy matter of Fact, doth no­thing preiudice the Popes Infallibility for points of Fayth.

30. To proue that there is nothing but vn­certainty in prouing the Popes infallibility,Pag. 176. you alledge some place out of Bellarmine, but with [Page 155]so great confusion and fraude, that they serue only to proue the certainty of your ill dealing. Bellarmine distinguishes two Questions: The one, whether S. Peter had any Successor in being head of the Church, and this he sayth is most certayne, and De iure diuino, or by diuine insti­tution. The other: whether it be de iure diuino, or of diuine institution, that S. Peters Successour must be the particular Bishop of Rome, and this he sayth is not so certayne (though it be true) because if S. Peter had placed his Sea in some o­ther Citty, or els had chosen no particular Cit­ty at all; yet his Successour had been, iure diui­no, Head of the Church; howbeyt in that case, he had not beene the particular Bishop of Rome. Neuertheles, because S. Peter did in fact, choose Rome, it is vpon that supposall a matter of fayth, that the Bishop of Rome, & S. Peters Suc­cessour is all one. As for example by the Law of God all lawfull Superiours are to be obeyed, and therefore though it be not of diuine insti­tutiō, that this or that man should be superiour; yet supposing that in fact he be Superiour, the general diuine Law pitches, & fastens vpō him, & obligeth vs to obey him in particular. This being presupposed, let vs now heare what you alledge out ofDe Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. Re­stant. Bellarmine. S. Peter sate many yeares Bisshop of Rome, & there he died You chāge the very Questiō. Bellarmines words in the Title of the Chapter are: Petrum Romae vsque admor­tem Episcopum fuisse. That S. Peter was Bishop of [Page 156]Rome till his death. And he explaines his mea­ning to be, That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he kept that Bishoprick till his death: which is a different thing from what you say; That S. Pe­ter sate many yeares Bishop of Rome, and there he died. For he might haue been many yeares Bi­shop of Rome, and also died at Rome, and yet not died Bishop of Rome; as one may be Bishop of London for some yeares, and dy at London, & yet not dye Bishop of London. Now Bellarmine sayth, that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome, which indeed was the maine point; and proues, that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters successour; wher­as to dye at Rome is accidentall to his being Bi­shop of Rome, and in fact diuers Bishops of Rome died in France, and els where. But let vs goe on. You say that the first reason by which Bellar­mine proues that S. 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 [Page 157]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 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 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 [Page 158]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 In Orat. cont. Auxē ­tium. and S. A­thanasius 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 [Page 159]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.