〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things which are behind or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the afflictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ in my flesh 〈◊〉 his body which is the Church The first part of these words prooueth that S. Paul suffered for the Collossians But because he might suffer for the confirmation of their faith or as an example of patience or by way of persecution because he preached the Gospell to them and other Churches it cannot be concluded that hee suffered to make satisfaction for their sinnes Secondly The next words conclude not Satisfaction for Christs Afflictions and Passions are of two kinds Some Personall and in his owne flesh Some By Sympathie and compassion in his members The first are satisfactorie the second are exemplarie purgatiue probatiue or for the edifying of the Church S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not the first Esa. 63.3 for then Christs sufferings vpon the Crosse were imperfect but both S. Paul and all other iust persons which patiently beare affliction and indure the Crosse supply and accomplish that which is yet wanting in Christ as he is considered in a mysticall vnion to his Church Christ saith to Saul Act. 9.4 Saul Saul Why persecutest thou me and v. 5. I am Iesus whom thou persecutest S. Augustine and S. Gregorie say That Christ and the Church are one mysticall Body Therefore when the members suffer the head suffers and the afflictions of the members are the afflictions of Christ 2. Cor. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12. It is also remarkeable that not onely the Fathers but the maior part of Popish Doctors expound this Scripture in such sort that it serueth not at all to maintaine Papall Indulgences And Estius a moderne Pontifician saith That whereas 〈◊〉 of his part straine the Text of S. Paul to prooue Satisfactions and Indulgences himselfe is of mind that the said Doctrine cannot effectually be prooued by this place The other place 2. Cor. 12. 15. I wil verie gladly spend and be spent for you or as the Rhemists translate I most gladly will bestow and will my selfe moreouer be bestowed for your soules affoordeth no argument for Satisfactions and Pardons Caietan Estius Iustinian and other Popish expositors themselues deliuer the sence of this Text in manner following S. Paul manifesteth his paternall affection to the Corinthians saying I am readie not only as a Father to bestow all that I haue vpon you so farre am I from seeking any thing of yours but also to spend my life for you Now by what Art or Engine can Papists extort Pardons or Satisfactions out of this Text doth it follow that if Saint Paul be readie to spend himselfe life and state for the good of his flocke therefore there is a rich stocke and treasure of superabundant Passions and Satisfactions laid vp by S. Paul to bee spent by the Corinthians at their need Surely our Aduersarie intended rather to deride the world than to giue men satisfaction when he presented vs with such inconsequent stuffe But the Iesuit secondeth his former inference by a testimonie of Origen I answer Origen in the place obiected speaketh of purging sinne it selfe by the passions of Martyres and not of the temporall mulct or paine of sinne onely But the bloud of Martyres purgeth not sinne it selfe by way of condigne Satisfaction our Aduersaries being witnesses but at the vttermost by way of Deprecation now Deprecation and Satisfaction properly taken are of diuers natures The place of S. Augustine is strained against his meaning for this Father speaketh of all the members of Christ which suffer for their Masters cause But in our Aduersaries Tenet all that suffer for Christ haue not superabundant Satisfactions but onely some And this Father is so farre from maintaining workes of Supererogation as that he saith Pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus c. According to our small measure we pay that which we are obliged vnto and according to our power we cast in as it were the stint of our passions but they which pay a stint and render that whereunto of right they are obliged haue not superaboundant Passions or workes of Supererogation IESVIT This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant confessours in prison did release the penalties that sinners were inioined to performe to satisfie non onely the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall paine as appeareth by the testimonie of S. Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall paine was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyres vnto the poenitents that receiued indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For hee falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholique custome of remitting penalties vnto sinners for the merits of Martyres speaking thus Let it suffice the Martirs that they haue cancelled and satisfied their owne sinnes Jt is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpon others that which as a great benefit was bestowed vpon him And speaking vnto the Martir saith Jf thou bee a sinner how can the oyle of thy lampe suffice both for thee and mee By which haereticall impugnation appeares that the Catholicke Doctrine then was that men might satisfie one for another and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martirs were applied for the Redemption of some others more remisse and negligent not from eternall but onely temporall punishment ANSWER You are an vnfaithfull Relatour of the practise of the Primitiue Church which was as followeth After foule and enormous knowne offences committed by Christians and especially after denying the Faith or Sacrificing to Idols offendours were put to a grieuous and long Penance It fell out sometimes that there was iust reason why the rigour of Penance should be mittigated either in respect of the kinde of duresse imposed or in regard of the length and continuance Which fauour the Bishops and Pastours of each Church not the Romane onely had authoritie by the Canons to grant as they saw iust cause This mitigation and relaxation of Penance was called by the name of Pardon and Indulgence and in the same there was no buying or selling no reference to Purgatorie Secondly Whereas you pretend that Popes Pardons were in vse in the Primitiue Church many of your owne part controll your impudencie to wit Durand Antonine Maior Roffensis Angelus de Clauasio Cassander And 〈◊〉 denyes That the Church hath any Treasurie 〈◊〉 of the merits of Christ and of the Saints The 〈◊〉 is maintained by Angelus de Clauasio
rewarder of them that seeke him F. I asked How then it happened as Mr Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. The English Church neuer made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Shee was content to put that Article among those to which she requires subscription not as doubting of the sense but to preuent the Cauills of some who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse or but an Exposition of it And sure the B. thinkes and so doe I That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article than the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you trie the Church of England by Mr Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meere Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is euerie where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England neuer doubted it and S. Augustine prooues it And yet againe you are different for the sense For you agree not whether the Soule of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his death did goe downe into Hell really and was present there or virtually and by effects onely For Thomas holds the first and Durand holds the latter Then you agree not whether the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and prooued it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himselfe and giues his reason because it is the common opinion of the Schoole Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and beleeues them without further dispute and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawfull for them to say I conceiue thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I denie it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The B. said That Mr Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if Mr Rogers writing as he did by publike Authoritie be accounted onely a priuate man c. B. The B. said truth when he said Mr Rogers was a priuate man And I take it you will not allow euerie speech of euerie man though allowed by Authoritie to be printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath beene oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church yet I see you meane not to leaue it And surely as Controuersies are now handled by some of your partie at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell to be conuersant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seeke to blind the people or cast a mist before euident Truth least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment But since you hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than Rogers is with vs and as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he hath fed to confirme and in all these not to erre and faile in his ministration And is the Catholike Church in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things quite left out Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes But what if after all this Mr Rogers there sayes no such thing as in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge he descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And againe Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article is Mr Rogers Wee the Church of England or rather his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England F. But if Mr Rogers be onely a priuate man In what Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What was the B. so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants or That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England as this speech seemes to implie Sure he was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines Nor yet speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church as appeares by their seuerall Confessions Nor did the B. say That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine Shee is not so narrow nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations Yet shee is not such a Shrew to her Children as to denie her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation as your owne Schoolemen differ And if the Church of Rome since shee grew to her greatnesse had not beene so fierce in this course Christendome I persuade my selfe had beene in happier peace at this day F. And that the Scriptures onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles vpon Scripture and her Negatiue Refute where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed in Scripture nor directly
iustifie their departure How could he say this since he did not graunt that they did depart There is difference betweene departure and causelesse thrusting from you for out of the Church is not in your power to thrust vs Thinke on that And so much the B. said expressely then That which the B. did ingenuously confesse was this That Corruption in Manners onely is no sufficient cause to make a seperation in the Church Nor is it It is a truth agreed on by the Fathers and receiued by Diuines of all sorts saue by the Cathari to whom came the Donatist and the Anabaptist against which Caluin disputes it strongly And Saint Augustine is plaine There are bad Fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be euer a seperation in heart and in manners but a corporall seperation must be expected at the Sea shore that is the end of the World And the best Fish that are must not teare and breake the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously confessed for you as by the B. For if Corruption in Manners were a iust cause of actuall seperation of one Church from another in that Catholike Bodie of Christ the Church of Rome hath giuen as great cause as any since as Stapleton graunts there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man Heresie onely excepted with which that Sea hath not beene foulely stayned especially from eight hundred yeeres after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grants it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars Defection to looke to his Cure himselfe F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. This the B. spake indeed And can you prooue that he spake not true in this But the B. added though here againe you are pleased to omit That some of her Errors were dangerous to saluation For it is not euerie light Error in disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can be a iust cause of seperation in that admirable Bodie of Christ which is his Church for which he gaue his Naturall Bodie to be rent and torne vpon the Crosse that this Mysticall Bodie of his might be One. And S. Augustine inferres vpon it That he is no way partaker of Diuine Charitie that is an enemie to this Vnitie Now what Errors in Doctrine may giue iust cause of seperation in this Bodie were it neuer so easie to determine as I thinke it is most difficult I would not venture to set it downe least in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Doore for Schisme which I will neuer doe vnlesse it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as endanger saluation in the Church of Rome is euident to them that will not shut their eyes The proofe whereof runs through the particular Points that are betweene vs and so it is too long for this discourse which is growne too bigge alreadie F. Which when the generall Church would not reforme it was lawfull for particular Churches to reforme themselues I asked Quo Iudice Did this appeare to be so B. Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Church may reforme it selfe if the generall will not I had thought and doe so still That in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawfull for the Church since Christ to doe as the Church before Christ did and might doe The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes this Church came to haue a seperation vpon a most vngodly Policie of 〈◊〉 so that it neuer pieced together againe To a Common Councell to reforme all they would not come Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe when Israel would not ioyne Sure it was or else the Prophet deceiues me that sayes exactly Though Israel transgresse yet letnot Iudah sinne And S. Hierome expresses it in this verie patticular sinne of Heresie and Error in Religion Nor can you say that Israel from the time of the seperation was not a Church for there were true Prophets in it Elias and Elizaeus and others and thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal And there was saluation for these which cannot be where there is no Church And God threatens to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away into Non Ecclesiam into no Church And they are expressely called the people of the Lord in Iehu's time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Iudah is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you doe for if that be true you must graunt that the Multitude and greater number is ours And where then is Multitude your numerous Note of the Church But you cannot plead it For certainely if any Calues be set vp they are in Dan and Bethel they are not ours Besides to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners is as lawfull for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo iudice lyes alike against both And yet I thinke it may be prooued that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne If shee erred in this Fact confesse her Error if shee erred not Why may not another Church doe as shee did A learned Schooleman of yours saith she may The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree vpon this Truth since the Authoritie of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawfull for euerie particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he meanes Catholike as fore-determined by the Church in generall for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell was nor And how the Grecians were vsed in the after Councell such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute but Catholike stands there for that which is so in the 〈◊〉 of it and fundamentally Nor can you iustly say That the Church of Rome did or might doe this by the Popes Authoritie 〈◊〉 the Church For suppose he haue that and that his Sentence be infallible I say suppose both but I giue neither yet neither his Authoritie nor his 〈◊〉 can belong vnto him as the particular Bishop of that See but as the 〈◊〉 Head of the whole Church And you are all so lodged in this that Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the
yeere when nor the Pope vnder whom this Addition was made A particular Church then if you iudge it by the Schoole of Rome or the Practise of Rome may publish any thing that is Catholike where the whole Church is silent and may therefore reforme any thing that is not Catholike where the whole Church is negligent or will not But you are as iealous of the honour of Rome as Capellus is who is angrie with Baronius about certaine Canons in the second Mileuitan Councell and saith That he considered not of what consequence it was to graunt to particular Churches the power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Romane See which as hee saith and you with him was neuer lawfull nor euer done But suppose this were so the B. his speech was not Not consulting but in case of neglecting or refusing Besides you must be put in remembrance too that the B. spake at that time and so must all that will speake of that Exigent of the Generall Church as it was for the most part forced vnder the Gouernment of the Romane See and this you vnderstand well enough for in your verie next words you call it the Romane Church Now I make no doubt but that as the vniuersall Catholike Church would haue reformed her selfe had shee beene freed of the 〈◊〉 yoake so while shee was vnder that yoake the Church of Rome was if 〈◊〉 the onely yet the chiefe hinderance of Reformation And then in this sense it is more than cleare That if the Romane Church will neither reforme nor suffer Reformation it is lawfull for any particular Church to reforme it selfe so long as it doth it peaceably and keepes it selfe to the Foundation F. Which Question I asked as not thinking it equitie that Protestants in their owne Cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Romane Church B. You doe well to tell the reason now why you asked this Question the B. sayes you did not 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conference if you had you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 receiued your Answere It is most true No man in common 〈◊〉 ought to be suffered to be Accuser Witnesse and 〈◊〉 in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But is there not 〈◊〉 little 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 too that any man that is accused should be the Accused and yet Witnesse and Iudge in his owne Cause 〈◊〉 If the first may hold no man shall be Innocent and if the last none will be Nocent And what doe we here with in their owne Cause against the Roman Church Why is it not your owne too against the Protestant Church And if it be a cause common to both as certaine it is then neither part alone may be Iudge If neither alone may iudge then either they must be iudged by a Third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture Or if there be a iealousie or doubt of the sense of Scripture they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitiue Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a Generall Councell which fhall be lawfully called and fairely and freely held to iudge the difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as priuate mens F. I also asked Who ought to iudge in this case The B. said a Generall Councell B. And surely What greater or surer Iudgement you can haue where sense of Scripture is doubted than a Generall Councell I doe not see Nor doe you doubt for you adde F. I told him That a Generall Councell to wit of Trent had alreadie iudged not the Romane Church but the Protestants to hold Errors That saith the B. was not a lawfull Councell B. It is true that you replyed for the Councell of Trent And the B. his answere was not onely That that Councell was not Legall in the necessarie conditions to be obserued in a Generall Councell but that it was no Generall Councell which againe you are content to omit Consider it well First Is that Councell Legall the Abettors whereof maintaine publikely That it is lawfull for them to conclude any Controuersie and make it be de Fide and so in your iudgement Fundamentall though it haue not I doe not say now the written Word of God for warrant either in expresse Letter or necessarie sense and deduction as all vnerring Councels haue had and as all must haue that will not erre but not so much as probable Testimonie from it nay quite Extra without the Scripture Nay more Is that Councell Legall where the Pope the chiefe person to be reformed shall sit President in it and be chiefe Iudge in his owne Cause against all Law Diuine Naturall and Humane In a place not free but in or too neere his owne Dominion To which all were not called that had deliberatiue or 〈◊〉 voyce In which none had Suffrage but such as were sworne to the Pope and the Church of Rome and professed Enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Councell And the Pope himselfe to shew his Charitie had declared and pronounced the Appellants Heretikes before they were condemned by the Councell I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no lawfull Councell And I thinke the Decrees of such a One are omni iure nulla and carrie their nullitie with them through all Law And againe Is that Councell Generall that hath none of the Easterne Churches consent nor presence there Are all the Greekes so become non Ecclesia no Church that they haue no interest in Generall Councels It numbers indeed among the Subscribers sixe Greekes they might be so by Nation or by Title purposely giuen them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greeke Church to the Councell Or is it to be accounted a Generall Councell that in many Sessions had scarce ten Archbishops or fortie or fiftie Bishops present And for the West of Christendome neerer home it reckons one English S. Asaph but Cardinall Poole was there too English indeed he was by birth but not sent to that Councell by the King and Church of England but as one of the Popes Legats for at the beginning of the Councell he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterburie hee neuer went ouer to the Councell And can you prooue that S. Asaph went thither by Authoritie There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greekes In all the Sessions vnder Paul the third but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the Sixt vnder Iulius the third when Henry the second of France protested against that Councell And in the end it is well knowne how all the French which were then a good partie held off till the Cardinall of Lorraine was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things vpon good grounds and were most vnworthily ouer-borne F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councell of Nice The B. would not
commanded points of Controuersie to bee decided according to the rule of holy Scriptures as I shall heereafter make manifest in this Treatise yea sometimes the doctrine of one sound member of the Church hath beene a Soueraigne meanes to conuert errants and consequently to reforme such as were misled by errour Neither is reformation vnreasonable or impossible although they which reprooue others are themselues exorbitant in some things because the same must bee performed not by accomodation to the humor of Reproouers but according to the diuine rule wherein all things are straight and perfect Lastly when the Roman Church it selfe is in Schisme and Combustion which hapned at the Councell of Constance and Basill and in the dayes of Antipopes shall no reformation be required because the Parties litigant being of contrarie opinions the same cannot be proportioned according to euery ones seuerall humour The second reason taken from Councells Customes c. is deficient in both the parts For neither are the Romish doctrines to wit Communion in one kind Popes pardons Latin Seruice Purgatorie Apocryphall Scriptures Vulgar Translation preferred before the Originall Text Transubstantiation c. defined by any generall Councell or deriued from the Apostles or Primitiue Church by custome and vniuersall consent And later Councells and Customes must giue place to holy Scripture Yea according to S. Augustine no vnderstanding man did euer make the Councells of Bishops equall to Sacred Scripture And some of our learned Aduersaries confesse That a generall Councell of Popes Cardinalls and Bishops is not of equall Authority with the Colledge of the Apostles Others also of them affirme That such Councels are fallible and subiect to errour The third reason wherein it is affirmed That Protestants forsaking the common rule of Faith present the world with Scriptures vnderstood by priuate Illumination is grounded vpon a false suggestion for we assume to our selues no other Illumination than only of ordinarie grace and we maintaine no other exposition of Scripture as diuine but such as is deliuered by the holy Ghost in the Scripture And the sence of holy Scripture deliuered by the Primitiue Church is followed by Protestants with farre more respect than by Romists But our Aduerfaries are the men who dissembling the same in words doe in truth maintaine priuate Illumination For they affirme That the Bishops of Rome haue infallibilitie of Iudgement by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not by the studie and meditation of holy Scripture IESVIT Wherefore there beeing no possibilitie that the Catholike part could gaine Peace to Christendome by any yeelding vnto our Aduersaries either reasonable or vnreasonable whither should louers of Concord turne themselues but vnto your gracious Maiestie that haue in your Power the Affections of Protestants and therefore would bee the fittest Instrument for their Re-vnion with the Romane Church The God of Charitie hath put into your Maiesties Heart a desire of Vnitie of the Church and in your Hand an Oliue-Bough-Crowne of Peace which you may set on the Head of Christendome which wearie of endlesse Contention poureth foorth vnto your Maiestie her Suppliant Complaint Quem das finem Rex magne laborum And seeing nothing hindereth but that your selfe are not yet satisfied in some Doctrines of the Roman Church particularly in the Nine Points your Maiestie hath set downe in writing J humbly present vnto your Maiestie these my poore Labours for your satisfaction so much desired of the Christian World And to the end that this my Answere may be in it selfe more solid and better accepted of your Maiestie before J descend vnto particulars J thinke best first to shew in generall the Romane to bee the onely true Church For this was the Occasion and Subiect of the Conference betwixt Dr White and mee ANSWER What a vast and impossible I will not heere say impious enterprise doe you in the depth of your sublimated wit cast vpon our Gracious Soueraigne Must his Maiestie haue the Office of a Proctor and Factor for the Court of Rome nay of a Lieutenant of the Papall Forces to revnite all Protestants to the Church of Rome Had you meant the procuring of a Free Generall Coancell of all Christendome or at least of all the Westerne Church for the reducing eyther of the Deuiate parts home to the Truth or the exasperated parts to a more charitable complying in things indifferent or tollerable in which discussion as well the Papacie it selfe as other matters might bee subiect to Tryall such a Worke might be fit for a Church-man to mooue and for his Majestie to affect than whom no Prince no nor priuate Christian is more forward in Zeale and furnished in Wisedome to purge the Distempers and heale the Wounds of the Christian Church But your former words shew the frensie of the Demand when you fore-lay this for a Ground Satis imperitè nimis obstinatè That those particular Enormities that wee Protestants call to haue reformed are the verie Foundations of the Vnitie of Faith Catholike Principles c. And so this your dreamed Re-vnion must bee not to come on your part one step towards vs but our running headlong to you which is no other than a slauish subjection of all Churches to the Papacie and the trampling Gods Truth and Gods People vnder the foot of the vnerrable vncontroulable Grand Seigniour of the seuen-Hilled Citie It seemeth you haue forgotten or would extinguish the validitie and memorie of his Majesties most judicious Writings in maintenance of Orthodoxe Religion and of the Libertie of Christendome and shaking the verie Foundations of Papall Corruptions and Tyrannie Otherwise you neuer would thus boldly and leaudly call to so puissant a Champion in the Lords Battailes to sound Retreat To whom the state of Christendome to speake in your phrase poureth foorth her Suppliant Complaint but to an end opposite to your Projects Qua Roma patet fera regnat Erinnis In facinus iurasce putes Dent ocius omnes Quas Meruere pati sic stat sententia poenas TOVCHING THE NECESSITIE OF VNderstanding the Qualitie of the ROMAN CHVRCH IESVIT Thinke best first to shew in generall the Roman to be the onely true Church For this was the occasion and subiect of the conference betwixt Dr. WHITE and me and is the most important and manifest point of controuersie in which all other are inuolued ANSVVER THe most important Neither most nor important at all to all but onely to those who are either inuolued in that Church or vexed by it If people may attaine saluation without knowing the qualitie of the Romane Church then it is not of all Questions and Controuersies most important to know whether the Romane Church is the true Church or not But many people may bee saued without this knowledge for all they may attaine saluation which are baptised and which beleeue and repent Mark 16 16. Acts 2 38. and which haue all the ordinarie meanes of Saluation
Heathen or Publicane but euery one which opposeth against the true Church inordinately and without iust cause is onely so to be accounted First there is opposition by way of counsell and aduice and this maketh no man an Hereticke as appeareth by Paphnutius opposing the Councell of Nice Secondly there is opposition by way of reprehension and true confutation of errour by authoritie of the holy Scriptures And this also maketh no man an Hereticke because he that in a lawfull manner propugneth the faith of the Scriptures maintaineth the Law and veritie of God and fulfilleth the Diuine Precept requiring man to contend for the truth 1. Tim. 6. 11. 2. Tim. 4. 7. And also performeth a worke of charitie in labouring to conuert people from errour Iam. 5. 19 20. Saint Augustines place Epist. 118. c. 5. ad Ianuar. is vnderstood of outward ceremonies and adiaphorous rites in respect of their vse vnblameable and not of matters of faith and therefore it appertaineth not to the question in hand IESVITS 4th Argument That doctrine which Tradition hath deliuered as the doctrine of all Ancestours without deliuering any Orthodox opposition against it that is opposition made by any confessed Catholicke Doctours or Fathers is doctrine deriued from the Apostles without change ANSWER This Proposition is denied for new Doctrine may bee brought in after the decease of the antient Fathers and because the same was vnheard of in their dayes they could make no such plaine and direct opposition against it as that either Historians might take notice thereof or the maintainers of such Doctrine haue no euasion by distinctions and sophisticall slights to elude their Testimonies IESVIT But such is the Doctrine of the Roman Church which Consent and Tradition of Ancestors doth deliuer and doth not together deliuer that any confessed Orthodox Father opposed against it ANSVVER Some Doctrines of the later Roman Church were opposed by the antient Roman Bishops themselues to wit Adoration of Images by Gregorie the Great Communion in one kind by Leo the first Transubstantiation by Gelasius the first The temporall dominion of Popes and Bishops ouer Princes by S. Chrysostome Optatus Mileuitanus and Gregorie the first The dignitie and title of vniuersall Bishop by the same Gregorie And the Doctrine of Papals preferring the old Translation before the originall Text making Apocriphall bookes Canonicall prohibiting lay people to read the Scriptures and exalting the authoritie of the present Church aboue the Scriptures are condemned by many antient Fathers IESVIT We know indeed by Tradition that some in former times stood against many points of the Roman Doctrine as Arrius Pelagius Waldo the Albigenses Wiclife Husse and some others but they are not confessed 〈◊〉 Fathers but were noted for nouelty and singularity and for such by Tradition described vnto vs which kind of opposition doth not discredit the Doctrine of the Church but rather makes the same to appeare more cleerely and famously Apostolicall ANSVVER 〈◊〉 opposed the Doctrine of the holy 〈◊〉 and of the 〈◊〉 Church and was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 and the Fathers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that by the Scriptures and the Pelagians were 〈◊〉 conuicted by S. Augustine and his Scholers out of the holy Scripture And although Pope Celestine approoued S. Augustines Faith and condemned these Hereticks yet that was not the principall reason whereupon they were reputed Heretickes by the Christian world but the falshood of their Doctrine prooued such by repugnancie with the Scriptures made them to be so esteemed And how many Heretickes were discouered and confuted by the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares out of the Scriptures before the Roman Church ascended to the height of authoritie The Waldenses were no Hereticks as I haue formerly prooued but were only branded with that aspersion by Papals whose pride and tyrrannie they did oppose and had S. Paul himselfe beene aliue and reprooued the errour and wickednesse of the Babilonian Harlot he must not haue escaped her censure and malice Wicliffe and Husse were blessed instruments of Christ vindicating and defending Gods Truth withheld in Iniquitie neither did they hold such blasphemies as the Romists cast vpon them They might haue some opinions in points lesse materiall wherein perhaps they concurre not with our Doctrine as likewise the Waldenses but as for those vile reports which Romists make of their Doctrine no indifferent person will regard it for euen at this day when things are in present view and action you calumniate the persons and falsifie the Doctrine of all your Opposites as grosly as euer Pagans traduced the Primitiue Christians And many of the Bookes and Writings of Wicliffe and Husse are extant wherein are found no such Doctrines as Papists haue charged them with IESVIT Seeing as euen Doctor Field doth confesse when a Doctrine is in any age constantly deliuered as a matter of Faith and as receiued from Ancestors in such sort as the Contradictors thereof were in the beginning noted for Noueltie and if they persisted in contradiction in the end charged with 〈◊〉 it is not possible but such a Doctrine should come by Succession from the Apostles What more euident signe of a perpetuall Apostolicall Tradition than this ANSWER You mistake the Doctors meaning for he speaketh of the most famous and eminent of euery age in sensu composito that is of the most famous and eminent of euery age which consent and agree the latter with the former But he affirmeth not in sensu 〈◊〉 that whatsoeuer the most famous in any one particular age constantly deliuered c. is descended from the Apostles Whiles this reuerend Diuine was liuing such passages of his booke were obiected against him by Papists which caused him to explane himselfe and among other things he saith I neuer make the judgement and opinion of present Bishops of Apostolicall Churches to be the rule to know Traditions by but denie it c. And make onely the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches successiuely from the beginning witnessing the same things to be a rule in this kind IESVIT Protestants answer that it is sufficient that the Roman Doctrine was contradicted by Orthodox Fathers and that this may be prooued by their writings which they haue left vnto posteritie though their opposition was not noted by Antiquitie nor by fame of Tradition deliuered vnto posteritie But this answere leaues no meanes whereby common people may know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church without exact examining and looking into their workes which common people cannot do J prooue it if against euery Tradition of the Church difficill and obscure passages of the Fathers may be brought and this doth suffice to make the same questionable then no Tradition can be certainely knowne without exact reading and examining and looking into the holy Fathers But no Tradition or Doctrine is so constantly and cleerely deliuered
expressed are sufficient to prooue that the holy Apostles were the Authors or Approuers of all the Scriptures of the New Testament and if these with other humane motiues of credibilitie be not the same doubt which is made concerning them may with greater probabilitie be made concerning vnwritten Traditions And secluding the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe no other diuine testimonie can be produced to satisfie them which are doubtfull touching the veritie of vnwritten Tradition and the authoritie of the present Church If one will not beleeue the Scriptures because of the authoritie of God speaking in them neither will he beleeue the present Church consisting of persons in whom is possibilitie of error IESVIT For we may distinguish three properties of the Doctrine of Faith to wit to be true to be reuealed of God to be preached and deliuered by the Apostles The highest ground by which I am persuaded and resolued that my Faith is true is the authoritie of God reuealing it the highest ground on which I am resolued that my Faith is reuealed is the credit and authoritie of Christ Iesus and his Apostles who deliuered the same as diuine and sacred but the highest ground that mooueth me to beleeue that my Faith was preached by the Apostles is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles that so teacheth me ANSVVER The last part of the former distinction is denied The highest ground meaning diuine which mooueth vs to beleeue that the doctrine of Faith was preached by the Apostles is not the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles but the holy Scripture of the New Testament for the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles is beleeued because of the authoritie of the said Church and whosoeuer beleeueth that Tradition or Testimonie must first of all know the Church to be an infallible witnesse But the word of God only the greater and most worthie part whereof by our Aduersaries confession is contained in the Scriptures giueth authoritie to the Church for the Church is founded vpon the word of God Eph. 2.20 and the word of God is the immortall seed which produceth and giueth being to the Church Luc. 8.11 Ia. 1.18 it selfe vpon the Apostles 〈◊〉 word and Doctrine which is principally contained in the Scripture 〈◊〉 Into this principle St. Augustine resolued his faith against the 〈◊〉 who pretended the Scriptures were corrupted confuting them by Tradition of the Church affirming that he would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point for though he beleeued the Gospel to 〈◊〉 souer aignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God 〈◊〉 it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as sacred preached it yet that this Gospel as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more excellent 〈◊〉 than the testimony of the present Church descended by continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles neither can we imagine any higher except we flye to particular and to priuate reuelation which is absurd ANSWER St. Augustines words C. Epist. Manichei c. 4. doe not proue that after he was fully conuerted he resolued his faith finally and principally into the authority of the Church succeeding the Apostles First St. Augustine resolued his faith finally and principally into that which he knew to be infallible and totally diuine But he was not so persuaded of the Church succeeding the Apostles because he thought it possible for the principall members of that Church to 〈◊〉 and be deceiued and he prefers the authority of the Scriptures before the iudgement of Councels and Fathers in which some of our aduersaries place the 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiasticall infallibility Moreouer it appeareth by Saint Augustine in the second chapter of this Booke that he did not make the authority of the Church the highest ground of resolution of his faith for he saith that manifest verity is to be preferred before all other tbings whereby he was held in the Catholike Church but that whose authority must be preferred before all other things is the highest ground of faiths resolution Secondly because St. Augustines meaning in this place is obscure and dubious our aduersaries cannot conclude certainely from hence 1. Some Schoolemen hold that he speaketh of acquisite or Historicall Faith which is an introductiō to infused faith and then it is inconsequent to argue that because Saint Augustine at his first conuersion and being a Nouice in Faith did ground his Historicall faith vpon the authority of the Church therefore the authority of the Church is vniuersally and after men are conuerted the highest ground of resolution Most men are at first induced by externall motiues to giue credit to the Scriptures as the people of Samaria were by the testimony of the woman to beleeue that Christ was a Prophet Ioh. 4.42 Altisiodor summa in prolog li. 3. tr 3.9.4 But as these people afterwards beleeued because of Christs owne words so they which by the Churches authority are first persuaded to heare and reade the doctrine of the Scriptures afterwards by the light of grace doe perceiue the diuine Maiestie wisedome efficacie and verity of the said doctrine and resolue their faith into the diuine authority of the holy Ghost manifesting himselfe in the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture Secondly other learned Papists hold that St. Augustine in the place obiected by the authority of the Church vnderstood the Church wherein the Apostles themselues gouerned and of which they were parts and then no meruaile if he resolued his faith into the authority of the Church because in this notion the Church comprehends the Colledge of the Apostles whose testimony concerning the Scripture was altogether Diuine And although St. Augustine conioyneth the authority of the latter Church with the former wherein were the Apostles yet he did not equally and with the same manner of beleeuing ground his faith vpon both for when a Preacher deliuereth Apostolicall doctrine we beleeue both the Preacher and the Doctrine and we could not haue knowne the doctrine but by the Preacher yet we resolue not our faith finally and principally into the authority of the Preacher but into the diuine verity it selfe preached by him Euery thing by which we are mooued to beleeue and without whose authority we should not haue beleeued is not the principall obiect whereunto diuine faith is finally resolued as appeareth by miracles preaching instruction of Parents c. IESVIT Vpon the former place of Saint Augustine the Iesuit inferreth That because we haue no stronger or more excellent proofe than the testimonie of the present Churcb descended by continuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles to confirme that the Gospell as wee haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles therefore Saint Augustine resolued his faith that
it was Apostolicall finally and principally into the authority of the present Church ANSWER Saint Augustine deliuers not the former and therfore the Iesuit cannot inferre the latter we haue indeed no stronger or more excellent morall proofe than the perpetual testimony of the Church succeeding the Apostles but we haue a stronger and more excellent diuine proofe to wit the Prophesie of Christ and his Apostles concerning the perpetuall preseruation of the Gospell vnto the end of the world also that the Aposcolical Scriptures were once incorrupt is manifest because they were giuen by diuine inspiration And it is apparant that they were not afterwards corrupted because no authority or sufficient Argument can be produced to procue them in whole or in part to haue been corrupted Now that which being once knowne by diuine testimony to haue beene incorrupt cannot be prooued afterwards to haue been corrupted doth by diuine testimony appeare to be incorrupt because the first diuine testimony standeth still in force The Text of the Gospell was once knowne by diuine testimonie to haue beene incorrupt and it cannot be prooued to haue beene afterwards corrupted Ergo It doth still appeare by diuine testimonie that the Text of the Gospell is incorrupt and the resolution of Faith finally and principally resteth vpon that diuine testimonie and not vpon the 〈◊〉 of the present Church Lastly the harmony coherence of the Gospel both with the Scriptures of the old Testament Lu. 24.27 Act. 28.23 and of the seuerall parts of the Gospel among themselues do manifest that the text of the new Testament is incorrupt For if the same were corrupted in any part corruption of words would produce alteration and difference of matter but we find at this day a perfect harmonie of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament And from the same being an inward Argument we may collect that the text of the Gospell is at this day incorrupt Now hauing so many Arguments besides the authoritie of the present Church to prooue the integritie of the text of the Gospell we do not flie neither is it necessarie to flie to priuat Spirit or particular Reuelation for assurance and that which our Aduersaries obiect against vs saying that we resolue our Faith and Religion into the priuat Spirit is a foolish calumniation for we resolue our Faith into the authoritie of Gods outward word expounded vnto vs by such helpes and meanes as both the Scripture it selfe and the antient Church require as into the diuine motiue and obiect of beleefe and we affirme that his grace and holy Spirit working by the outward meanes inableth draweth and persuadeth the conscience to assent Iohn 6.45 12.37 38.1 Cor. 2.12 c. 12.3 2. Cor. 3.5 Act. 16.14 1. Iohn 2.20.27 Esay 50.5 And herein we flie to no priuat Spirit or Reuelation but maintaine the ordinarie assistance of diuine grace according to the doctrine of the holy Scripture and of S. Augustine and the common Tenet of the Scholemen themselues IESVITS 2. Argument Secondly J 〈◊〉 that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianitie are persuaded about all substantiall points of Faith by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian Faith in all points necessarie and snfficient vnto Saluation but they haue not Faith of all these maine and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neither vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages and so if they beleeue vpon Scripture they beleeue vpon Scripture translated into their mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truely translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build of it they must first know what are the maine and substantiall points and firmely beleeue them so that they would not beleeue the Scripture translated against them for if they knew them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truely translated if they do not before hand firmely beleeue them why should they bee readie to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations which differ from them Ergo Originally and before they know any Scripture they haue Faith grounded on the Tradition of their ancestors by the light whereof they are able to judge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely beleeue by Tradition ANSVVER The question which the Iesuit vndertaketh to prooue in his foure Arguments is that our resolution of Faith stayeth finally vpon the perpetuall Tradition of the Church and not vpon the Scripture His second argument to prooue this is taken from the manner of vulgar and illiterate people in resoluing their Faith For if these being the greater part of Christianitie do ground their Creed touching all points of doctrine necessarie to Saluation vpon Tradition of their ancestors andif they haue true Faith before they know and vnderstand the Scripture then Christian Faith at least-wise among the greater part of Christians is resolued finally into the Tradition of ancestors and not of the Scriptures And he prooueth that these vulgar people haue Faith touching all points necessarie to Saluation before they know the Scriptures because it is impossible for them to read or vnderstand Scripture vntill it be translated into their mother tongue and they are not able to iudge of translations or know them to be true vnlesse they first beleeue the principall points of Christian Faith and by comparing translations of Scripture with the said doctrines of Faith formerly by them beleeued be inabled to iudge of the Truth of Translations This Paralogisme hath certaine ambiguous or equiuocall termes which must be distinguished and then I will applie my answer First the terme of Scripture may be taken for the letter and text of the Scripture together with the names of the seueral Bookes Authors and Sections and secondly it may signifie the doctrine of the Scripture without mention of the particular Bookes Iohn 7.38 Rom. 1 2 3 4. Secondly Resolution of Faith is either distinct and explicite wherein beleeuers are able to declare the seueral reasons of their Faith and to proceed from one reason of beleeuing to another vntill they ascend by degrees to the principall ground or else Implicit and Vertuall wherein beleeuers cannot proceed distinct ly and with explication of the seuerall reasons and grounds of Faith but resting themselues vpon one prime and radicall ground are readie for the authoritie of the same to beleeue all other particular reasons and verities of Faith when they are declared vnto them Thirdly Tradition may signifie either doctrine of Faith and good manners not contained or written in holy Scripture expressely or inuoluedly or else the same doctrine which is found in holy Scripture deliuered by Ancestors or Teachers by word of mouth These distinctions premised I answer the obiection 1.