out from some Body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Hereticks but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Jesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confess as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Hereticks for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an Error while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your Doctrine no formal Heresie The third says indeed that of the Professors of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresie But not one of them all that says or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretick Hereticks I confess do always do so But they that do so are not always Hereticks for perhaps the State of the Church may make it necessary for them to do so as Rebels always disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings Command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 22. In the 19. § We have the Authority of eight Fathers urged to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresie Which kind of Argument I might well refuse to answer unless you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as Ancient for any Doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the World more unequal or unreasonable than that you should press us with such Authorities as these and think your selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the Tribunal of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alledged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them nay all of them that are nay way considerable fall short of your purpose 23. Obj. S. Hierome you say Ep. 57. ad Damasum professes I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters Consider again that he says only that he was then in Communion with the Chair of Peter Not that he always would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter He says that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but not that only Nor that alwaies Nay his judgment as shall appear is express to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we mean to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must be conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that Doctrine which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceived it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgements in matters of Faith to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the Authority of the Eastern Church than to reject it from the Canon upon the Anthority of the Roman How comes it to pass that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I fear you will lose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoiding this run into a greater danger of being forced to confess the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible Hierom. de scrip Eccle. tit Fortunatianus that he should ever believe that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could have been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia and brought after two Years Banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday thirteen hundred Years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather than the dis-interessed time-fellows or immediate Successors of Liberius himself yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question whether S. Hierome though so And if this cannot be denied I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman Faith and the Catholick were the same or that the Roman Faith received no delusions no not from an Angel I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he strained too high only of Damasus and never conceived that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24. Obj. S. Ambrose de obitu Satyri fratris saith of his Brother Satyrus that inquiring for a Church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from Shipwreck he called to him the Bishop and he asked him whether he agreed with the Catholick Bishops that is with the Roman Church And when he understood that he was a Schismatick that is Separated from the Roman Church he abstained from Communicating with him Answ No more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholick Bishops and the Roman Church were then at Unity so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetual and that no man could ever agree with the Catholick Bishops but he must agree with the Roman Church this he says not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholick Bishops 24. Obj. S. Cyprian saith Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are bold to Sail to the Chair of S. Peter and to the principal Church from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose
it not as well as yours and whether some mens persuasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more than a mans persuasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to have taken it if he has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by a just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some mark upon Hereticks that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferred on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Popes right or an Usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiastical And if by Ecclesiastical only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to lose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to lose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it until good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present Government established be as unlawful to go about to restore it whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schism a man may not withdraw obedience from an Usurped Authority commanding unlawful things Whether the Roman Church might not give Authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her Errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Judge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Trajan gave his Sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he Governed well he should use it for him if ill against Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to Preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her Errors in Doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not Authority to Preach the whole Gospel of Christ and consequently against her Doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospel of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the Church of Rome for any Lay-man or Woman that has ability to persuade others by Word or by Writing from Error and unto truth And why this Liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other Commission or Vocation than that of a Christian to do a work of Charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without any unnecessary disturbance of order to persuade men out of a false unto a true way of Eternal happiness Especially the Apostle having assured us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the Error of his way shall save a Soul from Death and shall hide a multitude of Sins Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not Consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinals do the Pope whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the Government in their Hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonical exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Judah and the first Christian Emperors were of the Jewish and Christian Church be any new found Doctrine Whether it be not true that Bishops being made Bishops have their Authority immediately from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings Authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has Authority immediately from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the Authority of the Cardinals Whether you do well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more Authority in ordering the affairs of the Church than the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give Authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdom and yet not be capable of doing it himself as well as a Bishop may give Authority to a Physician to practice Physick in his Diocess which the Bishop cannot do himself Whether if Nero the Emperor would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to Preach the Gospel of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have questioned his Authority to do so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. JAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to do any thing that is lawful Whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispenced with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incur any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a Character and ours doth not Whether the power of Consecrating and Ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have Authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of Architecture and had it immediately by infusion from God himself yet if they were the Kings Subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortress for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himself yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his Subjects that has this power to ordain any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it do not follow that whensoever the King commands an House to be Built a Message to be delivered or a Murtherer to be Executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect Messenger or Executioner As well as that they are ipso facto Ordained and Consecrated who by the Kings Authority are commended to the Bishops to be Ordained and Consecrated Especially seeing the King
mad than to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seem great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismaticks because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrows and undoes it all again and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismaticks because they bad not the fellowship of Communion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. John writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me do you esteem the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolick Churches was a certain mark of Heresie or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages heretical If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman than for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schism only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urged this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might do that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresie apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 33. You see S. Austins words make very little or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinal Perrons rule is much more to be regarded than his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretation a You do ill to translate it the Principality of the Sea Apostolick as if there were but one whereas S. Austin presently after speaks of Apostolical Churches in the plural number and makes the Bishops of them joynt Commissioners for the judging of Ecclesiastical causes I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in Succession touching the great question of Appeals wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so far in the first or second Milevitan Council as to b The words of the Decree which also Bellarmine l. 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to have been formed by S. Austin are these Si qui Africani ab Episcopis provocandum putaverint non nisi ad Africana provocent Concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina antem qui putaverit appellandum à nullo intra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted For whereas the Fathers of that Council intended it particularly against the Church of Rome he tells us they forbad Appeals to all excepting only the Church of Rome decree any African Excommunicate that should appeal to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes clearly and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of Faith that Union and Conformity with the Doctrin of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholick and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Unless you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points and not necessary in this or else so horribly impious as believing this doctrin of the Roman Church true and her power to receive Appeals derived from divine Authority notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it and to Anathematize all those Africans of what condition soever that should appeal unto it I say of what condition soever For it is evident that they concluded in their determination Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity And Cardinal Perrons pretence of the contrary is a shameless falshood repugnant to the plain a The words are these Praefato debito salutationis officio impendio deprecamur ut deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes non faciliùs admittatis nec à nobis excommunicates ultra in Communionem velitis recipere quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facile advertet venerabilitas tua Nam si de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur id praecavert quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit observari words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome 34. Obj. Tertullian saith Praescrip cap. 36. If thou be near Italy thou bast Rome whose Authority is near at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrin together with their blood Ans Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of sincerity For you produce with great ostentation what he says of the Church of Rome but you and your fellows always conceal and dissemble that immediately before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolick Church and that as he sends them to Rome who lived near Italy so those near Achaia he sends to Corinth those about Macedonia to Philippi and Thessalonica those of Asia to Ephesus His words are Go to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the business of thy salvation run over the Apostolical Churches wherein the Chairs of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places wherein their Authentick Epistles are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of every one Is Achaia near thee there thou hast Corinth If thou art not far from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast Thessalonica If thou canst go into Asia there thou hast Ephesus If thou be adjacent to Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is near at hand to us in Africk A happy Church into which the Apostles poured forth all their Doctrine together with their Blood c. Now I pray Sirtell me if you can for blushing why this place might not have been urged by a Corinthian or Philippian or Thessalonian or an Ephesian to shew that in the Judgment of Tertullian separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie as justly and rationally as you alledge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only Certainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church though at that time a good Topical Argument and perhaps a better than any the Hereticks had especially in conjunction with other Apostolick Churches yet I say you must grant it perforce but a Fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus and Thessalonica and Philippi and Corinth or you must maintain the authority of
Argument drawn from Communicating of Infants as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility p. 68. V. An Argument against Infallibility drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries p. 80. VI. A Letter relating to the same subject p. 89. VII An Argument against the Roman Churches Infallibility taken from the Contradictions in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation p. 91. VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto p. 94. IX A Discourse concerning Tradition p. 103. The Reader is desired to take notice of a great mistake of the Printer and to Correct it That he has made this the running Title over most of the Additional Pieces viz. A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar which should only have been set over the first there are also some literal mistakes as pag. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like not to be imputed to the Author A CONFERENCE BETWIXT Mr. CHILLINGWORTH AND Mr. LEWGAR Thesis THE Church of Rome taken diffusively for all Christians communicating with the Bishop of Rome was the Judge of Controversies at that time when the Church of England made an alteration in her Tenents Argu. She was the Judge of Controversies at that time which had an Authority of deciding them But the Church of Rome at that time had the Authority of deciding them Ergo. Answ A limited Authority to decide Controversies according to the Rule of Scripture and Universal Tradition and to oblige her own Members so long as she evidently contradicted not that Rule to obedience I grant she had but an unlimited an infallible Authority or such as could not but proceed according to that Rule and such as should bind all the Churches in the World to Obedience as the Greek Church I say she had not Quest When your Church hath decided a Controversie I desire to know whether any particular Church or person hath Authority to reexamine her decision whether she hath observed her Rule or no and free himself from the obedience of it by his or her particular judgment Answ If you understand by your Church the Church Catholick probably I should answer no but if you understand by your Church that only which is in Subordination to the See of Rome or if you understand a Council of this Church I answer yea Arg. That was the Catholick Church which did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity But the Church of Rome at that time was the only Church that did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity Ergo. Quest What mean you by Apostolick Unity Answ I mean the Unity of that Fellowship wherein the Apostles Lived and Died. Quest Wherein was this Unity Answ Herein it consisted that they all professed one Faith obeyed one Supream Tribunal and communicated together in the same Prayers and Sacraments Solut. Then the Church of Rome continued not in this Apostolick Unity for it continued not in the same Faith wherein the Apostles Lived and Died for though it retained so much in my judgment as was essential to the being of a Church yet it degenerated from the Church of the Apostles times in many things which were very profitable as in Latin Service and Communion in one kind Argu. Some Church did continue in the same Faith wherein the Apostles lived and died But there was no Church at that time which did continue in the Apostles Faith besides the Roman Church Ergo. Answ That some Church did continue in the Apostles Faith in all things necessary I grant it that any did continue in the Integrity of it and in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable I deny it Quest Is it not necessary to a Churches continuing in the Apostles Faith that she continue in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable Answ A perfect conformity in all things is necessary to a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith but to an imperfect continuance an imperfect conformity is sufficient and such I grant the Roman Church had Quest Is not a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith necessary to a Churches continuance in Apostolick Unity Asw It is necessary to a perfect continuance in Apostolick Unity Argu. There was some one company of Christians at the time of Luthers rising which was the Catholick Church But there was no other company at that time besides the Roman Ergo the Roman at that time was the Catholick Church Answ There was no one company of Christians which in opposition to and Exclusion of all other companies of Christians was the Catholick Church Argu. If the Catholick Church be some one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies then if there was some one company she was one in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies But the Catholick Church is one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of c. Ergo There was then some one company which was the Catholick Church in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies The Minor proved by the Testimonies of the Fathers both Greek and Latin testifying that they understood the Church to be one in the sense alledged 1. If this Unity which cannot be separated at all or divided is also among Hereticks what contend we farther Why call we them Hereticks S. Cypr. Epist 75. 2. But if there be but one Flock how can he be accounted of the Flock which is not within the number of it Id Ibid. 3. When Parmenian commends one Church he condemns all the rest for besides one which is the true Catholick other Churches are esteemed to be among Hereticks but are not S. Optat. lib. 1. 4. The Church therefore is but one this cannot be among all Hereticks and Schismaticks Ibid. 5. You say you offer for the Church which is one this very thing is part of a lie to call it one which you have divided into two Id Ibid. 6. The Church is one which cannot be amongst us and amongst you it remains then that it be in one only place Id Ibid. 7. Although there be many Heresies of Christians and that all would be called Catholicks yet there is always one Church c. S. August de util credend c. 7. 8. The question between us is where the Church is whether with us or with them for she is but one Id de unitat c. 2. 9. The proofs of the Catholick prevailed whereby they evicted the Body of Christ to be with them and by consequence not to be with the Donatists for it is manifest that she is one alone Id. Collat. Carthag lib. 3. 10. In illud cantic 6.7 There are 60 Queens and 80 Concubines and Damosels without number but my Dove is one c. He said not my Queens are 60 and my Concubines c. but he said my Dove is but one because all the Sects of
it may without any fault at all some go one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments and expect some Elias to solve doubts and reconcile repugnances Now in all such Questions one side or other which soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended Sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so and therefore are not to be damned as men opposing that which they either know to be a truth delivered in Scripture or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved as men who endeavour to find the Truth but fail of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceive impossible is very obvious and easie 14. To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any any one Truth contained in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knew it to be so or have no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15. To the second Whether there be in such denial any distinction between Fundamental and not Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a distinction But the Reason is because these points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamental which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knows them to be so Those not Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16. To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alledged to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more than a sufficient Summary of those points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17. To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that of Persons contrary in belief one part only can be saved I answer By no means For they may differ about points not contained in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie and a self-condemning obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter do not take it ill that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary he may justly condemn you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you do that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. The ANSWER to the Second CHAPTER Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion C. M. Of our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves give Testimony while they possess it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody c. I HIL Ad § 1. He that would Usurp an absolute Lordship and Tyranny over any People need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws made to maintain the Common Liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compass his own design as well if he can get the Power and Authority to interpret them as he pleases and add to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws if he can rule his People by his Laws and his Laws by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish Her Tyranny over mens Consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the Holy Scriptures the Pillars and Supporters of Christian Liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places Translated into almost all Languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successful was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publick and authorized interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrine she pleased under the Title of Traditions or Definitions For by this means she might both serve her self of all those causes of Scripture which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon Her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished she could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her Power limitted or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the minds of men that unwritten Doctrines if proposed by her were to be received with equal reverence to those that were written and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seemed in never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges no farther than you please but your Servants and Instruments always prest and in readiness to advance your designs and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a Crown on their head and a Reed in their Hands and to bow before them and cry Hail King of the Jews to pretend a great deal of esteem and respect and reverence to them as here you do But to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and sincere obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not that which I command you Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of Infallibility which makes your Errors incurable Leave Picturing God and Worshiping him by Pictures Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men Debar not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood Let your publick Prayers and Psalms and Hymes be in such Language as is for the Edification of the Assistants Take not from the Clergy that Liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Do not impose upon men that Humility of Worshiping Angels which S. Paul condemns Teach no more proper Sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledge them that Die in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their Labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after Consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs Body and Blood Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to
not go about this noble work presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Council of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himself moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Council is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himself 96. If you say your meaning is only That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infalliblyassisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all Errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot do this without taking away their free-will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their free-will in believing and in professing their belief 97. Obj. To the place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Contr. ep Fund c. 5. Answ I answer That not the Authority of the present Church much less of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone moved Saint Austin to believe the Gospel but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved and which it self needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Universal and Original Tradition lies against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may do well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of Manichaeus unless you can shew the things agrees to them as well as him 98. If you say that S. Austin speaks here of the Authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99. I answer First that it is a vain presumption of yours that the Catholick Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austin speak here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it and its both Personal and Doctrinal succession from the Apostles His Argument will be like a Buskin that will serve any leg It will serve to keep an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholick as well as a Catholick from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the Title of Catholicks and the Church as much as the Papists now do If then you should have come to an Ancient Goth or Vandal whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should have moved him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me do not believe the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say believe the Arrians they warn me not to give any Credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say do not believe the Arrians thou shalt not do well to force me to the Faith of the Homoousians because by the Preaching of the Arrians I believed the Gospel it self If you say you did well to believe them commending the Gospel but you did not well to believe them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethink your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 101. And whereas you say S. Austin may seem to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing Answ I answer Until you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his Baptism Education and Faith from the Ministry of this Church say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commandded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Jesus did those miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Books of the New
Church you say is Infallible I am very doubtful of it How shall I know it The Scripture you say affirms it as in the 59. of Esau My spirit that is in thee c. Well I confess I find there these words but I am still doubtful whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ and if they be whether they mean as you pretend You say the Church says so which is infallible Yea but that is the Question and therefore not to be begged but proved Neither is it so evident as to need no proof otherwise why brought you this Text to prove it Nor is it of such a strange quality above all other Propositions as to be able to prove it self What then remains but that you say Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text will evince that this is the sense of it Perhaps they will But Reasons cannot convince me unless I judge of them by my Reason and for every man or woman to relie on that in the choice of their Religion and in the interpreting of Scripture you say is a horrible absurdity and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter nor desire me to make use of it 119. But Universal Tradition you say and so do I too is of it self credible and that has in all Ages taught the Churches Infallibility with full consent If it have I am ready to believe it But that it has I hope you would not have me take upon your word for that were to build my self upon the Church and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appear for a secret Tradition is somewhat like a silent Thunder You will perhaps produce for the confirmation of it some sayings of some Fathers who in every Age taught this Doctrine as Gualterius in his Chronology undertakes to do but with so ill success that I heard an able Man of your Religion profess that in the first three Centuries there was not one Authority pertinent but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary Again how shall I be assured that the places have indeed this sense in them Seeing there is not one Father for 500 years after Christ that does say in plain terms The Church of Rome is Infallible What shall we believe your Church that this is their meaning But this will be again to go into the Circle which made us giddy before To prove the Church Infallible because Tradition says so Tradition to say so because the Fathers say so The Fathers to say so because the Church says so which is Infallible Yea but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them Yes if we may use our Reason and rely upon it Otherwise as light shews nothing to the Blind or to him that uses not his eyes so reason cannot prove any thing to him that either has not or uses not his reason to judge of them 120. Thus you have excluded your self from all proof of your Churches Infallibility from Scripture or Tradition And if you fly lastly to Reason it self for succour may not it justly say to you as Jephte said to his Brethren Ye have cast me out and banished me and do you now come to me for succour But if there be no certainty in Reason how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you aledge for this purpose Either I may judge of them or not if not why do you propose them If I may why do you say I may not and make it such a monstrous absurdity That men in the choice of their Religion should make use of their Reason which yet without all question none but unreasonable men can deny to have been the chiefest end why Reason was given them 121. Ad § 22. An Heretick he is saith D. Potter who opposeth any truth which to be a Divine Revelation he is convinced in Conscience by any means whatsoever Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man be it by reading Scripture or hearing them read And from hence you infer that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith A most strange and illogical deduction For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man that such or such a Doctrine is Divine Revelation and yet though he be a true propounder in this point yet propound another thing falsely and without proof and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point Your Preachers in their Sermons do they not propose to men Divine Revelations and do they not sometimes convince men in Conscience by evident proof from Scripture that the things they speak are Divine Revelations And whosoever being thus convinced should oppose this Divine Revelation should he not be an Heretick according to your own grounds for calling Gods own Truth into question And would you think your self well dealt with if I should collect from hence that you make every Preacher a safe that is an infallible Propounder of Faith Be the means of Proposal what it will sufficient or insufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were if it were possible the barking of a Dog or the chirping of a Bird or were it the Discourse of the Devil himself yet if I be I will not say convinced but persuaded though falsly that it is a Divine Revelation and shall deny to believe it I shall be a formal though not a material Heretick For he that believes though falsly any thing to be Divine Revelation and yet will not believe it to be true must of necessity believe God to be false which according to your own Doctrine is the formality of an Heretick 122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil Government that men without warrant from God should Usurp a Tyranny over other mens Consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometimes against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I do not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say that a Man may be a passionate and Seditious Creature from whence you would have us infer that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his Passion and raise Sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you do made private men infallible interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as Instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harm they can do by their passionate or seditious interpretations but only endanger both their Temporal and Eternal happiness I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge yet we do not deny but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all Seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebels and Traytors and Thieves and Murderers 123. Ad §
Books and not the Authority of the Books and therefore if a man should profess the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equal reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the VIII King of England as that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of him yet it were no mortal sin nor no sin at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should perform the whole Will of the dead should fully satisfie the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160. This discourse whether it be rational and concluding or no I submit to better judgment But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamental is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth of it because we say the whole Church much more particular Churches and private men may err in points not Fundamental A pretty Sophism depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may err he cannot be certain that he doth not err And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentals that even the Fundamentals of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Judge may possibly err in judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your own as an Egg to an Egg or Milk to Milk 163. Ad § 27. C. M. S. Austin plainly affirms that to oppose the Churches definitions is to resist God himself speaking of the Controversie of Rebaptization de Unit. Eccl. cap. 22. where he saith that Christ bears witness to his Church and whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church c. I HIL I Answer First that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augustines judgment nor submit to his authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshiping of Images not concerning the State of Saints souls before the day of judgment not touching the Virgin Maries freedom from actual and original sin not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to Hell that die without Baptism not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councils even general Councils not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the half Communion not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you will not stand to S. Austines judgment and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heat delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately where he says In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scriptur is omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem moresque vivendi 3. We say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholick Church of far greater extent and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church 4 He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5. He says not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies but for a credible witness of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practiecs of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to impudence it self undeniable that upon this ground of believing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that in S. Austines time and that by S. Austine himself and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as truth 164. To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answer That though the visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtful nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without sin to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ But you press us farther and demand what Visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to infer that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unless it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor CHAP. III. The ANSWER to the Third CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie
others I hope had Chairs besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another viz. in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100. Obj. But he stiles S. Peter Head of the Apostles and says that from thence he was called Cephas Answ Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a Stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supream Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one Act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five years should do no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgment of it As strange methinks it is that you so many Ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to do and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their Head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their Error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirm it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No less a wonder was it that S. Paul should so far forget S. Peter and himself as that first mentioning him often he should do it without any Title of Honour Secondly speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with S. Peter in particular rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing inferior to the very Chiefest Apostles But besides all this though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very far from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his Government of the Church Universal Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the Foundations of the Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building it is incongruous that Foundations should succeed Foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 101. Ad § 37. Obj. What you here cite out of S. Austin if it be applied to Luther's Separation is impertinent For it is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole World another to separate from all the Communions in the World One thing to divide from them who are United among themselves another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separated from the whole World of Christians United in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not have just cause to leave them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est Erratum sed Traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The World I mean of Christians and Catholicks was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakened their own Authority and taken away from you this Plea of S. Austin which stands upon no other Foundation but the Unity of the whole Worlds Communion 102. Ad § 38. Obj. If Luther were in the right most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong Answ But that either he or they were Schismaticks it follows not Or if it does then either the Jesuits are Schismaticks from the Dominicans or they from the Jesuites The Canonists from the Jesuits or the Jesuits from the Canonists The Scotists from the Thomists or they from the Scotists The Franciscans from the Dominicans or the Dominicans from the Franciscans For between all these the World knows that in point of Doctrine there is plain and irreconcileable contradiction and therefore one Part must be in Error at least not Fundamental Thus your Argument returns upon your self and if it be good proves the Roman Church in a manner to be made up of Schismaticks But the answer to it is that it begs this very false and vain supposition That whosoever Errs in any point of Doctrine is a Schismatick 103. Ad § 39. In the next place you number up your Victories and tell us that out of these premises this conclusion follows That Luther and his followers were Schismaticks from the Visible Church the Pope the Diocess wherein they were baptized from the Bishop under whom they lived from the Country to which they belonged from their Religious order wherein they were professed from one another and lastly from a mans self Because the self same Protestant is convicted to day that his yesterdays opinion was an Error To which I answer that Luther and his followers separated from many of these in some opinions and practices But that they did it without cause which only can make them Schismaticks that was the only thing you should have proved and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment All of them for weight and strength were cousin-germans to this pretty device wherewith you will prove them Schismaticks from themselves because the self same Protestant to
Faith was commended by the Preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have access Answ For S. Cyprian all the World knows that he b It is confessed by Baronius Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bellarm l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. §. Tertia ratio resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re-baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion c Confessed by Baronius An 258. N. 14. 15. By Card. Perron Repl. l. 1. c. 25. Ibid. were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excommunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinal Perren magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary and Cyprian in particular so far cast off as for it to be pronounced by Stephen a false Christ Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were commanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace and Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. John forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holds still his former opinion and though out of respect to the Churches peace d Vide Con. Carth. apud sur To. 1. he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise than he held yet he conceived Stephen and his adherents d Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. Aug. ep 48. lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. to hold a pernitious Error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversation in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so far was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that no other Bishop but our Lord Jesus only had power to Judge with Authority of his Judgment and as plainly intimates that Stephen for usurping such a power and making himself a Judge over Bishops was little better than a Tyrant and as heavily almost he censures him and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in Error in that very place where he delivers that famous saying How can he have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother little doubting it seems but a man might have the Church for his Mother who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome and far from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him that to be United to the Roman Church and to the Church was all one and that separation from S. Peters Chair was a mark I mean a certain mark either of Schism or Heresie 26. But you have given a false or at least a strained Translation of S. Cyprians forecited Words for Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have access as if he had exempted the Roman Church from a possibility of Error but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access meaning those perfidious Schismaticks whom he there complains of and of these by a Rhetorical insinuation he says that with such good Christians as the Romans were it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment As for his joyning the Principal Church and the Chair of Peter how that will serve to prove separation from the Roman Church to be a mark of Heresie it is hard to understand Though we do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chair of S. Peter in regard he is said to have Preached the Gospel there and the principal Church because the City was the principal and imperial City which prerogative of the City if we believe the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon was the ground and occasion why the Fathers of former times I pray observe conferred upon this Church this prerogative above other Churches 27. Obj. But in another place Epist 52. S. Cyprian makes Communicating with Cornelius the Bishop of Rome and with the Catholick Church to be the same Answ This does not prove that to Communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to Communicate with the Catholick Church is always for that you assume one and the same thing S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all but of the Bishop only who when he doth Communicate with the Catholick Church as Cornelius at that time did then whosoever Communicates with him cannot but Communicate with the Catholick Church and then by accident one may truely say such a one Communicates with you that is with the Catholick Church and that to Communicate with him is to Communicate with the Catholick Church As if Titius and Sempronius be together he that is in company with Titius cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius As if a General be marching to some place with an Army he that then is with the General must at that time be with the Army And a man may say without absurdity such a time I was with the General that is with the Army and that to be with the General is to be with the Army Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his Body the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to the Body and a man may say truly of it this finger is joyned to the hand that is to the Body and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body because all these things are by accident true And yet I hope you would not deny but the finger might possibly be joyned to the hand and yet not to the Body the hand being cut off from the Body and a man might another time be with his General and not with his Army he being absent from the Army And therefore by like Reason your collection is Sophistical being in effect but this to communicate with such a Bishop of Rome who did Communicate with the Catholick Church was to Communicate with the Catholick Church therefore absolutely and always it must be true that to Communicate with him is by consequent to Communicate with the Catholick Church and to be divided from the Communion is to be an Heretick 28. Obj. S. Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cont haer c. 3. Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most Ancient and known Church founded by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles coming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by vain Glory Blindness
will not deny but that these Bishops may refuse to do what he requires to be done lawfully if the person be unworthy if worthy unlawfully indeed but yet de facto they may refuse and in case they should do so whether justly or unjustly neither the King himself nor any Body else would esteem the person Bishop upon the Kings designation Whether many Popes though they were not Consecrated Bishops by any temporal Prince yet might not or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopal function in this or that place And whether the Emperors had not authority upon their desert to deprive them of their jurisdiction by imprisonment or banishment Whether Protestants do indeed pretend that their Reformation is Universal Whether in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa you do not forget your self and contradict what you said above in § 17. of this Chapter where you tell us they had some of their Sect residing in Rome Whether it be certain that none can admit of Bishops willingly but those that hold them of Divine institution Whether they may not be willing to have them conceiving that way of Government the best though not absolutely necessary Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops not to be of Divine institution be Schismatical and Heretical for thinking so Whether your form of ordaining Bishops and Priests be essential to the constitution of a true Church Whether the forms of the Church of England differ essentially from your forms Whether in saying that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church wherein I have proved it plainly impossible that any man should be so much as morally certain either of his own Priesthood or any other mans Lastly whether any one kind of these external Forms and Orders and Government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may not be diverse in diverse places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whatsoever it be All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor proposition of your former Syllogism and your proofs of it and I will promise to debate them fairly with you if first you will bring some better proof of the Major That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresie which for the present remains both unproved and unprobable 40. Obj. You say The Fathers assign Succession as one mark of the true Church Answ I confess they did urge Tradition as an Argument of the Truth of their Doctrine and of the falshood of the contrary and thus far they agree with you But now see the difference They urged it not against all Hereticks that ever should be but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their Doctrine and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations So Tertullian not a leaf before the words by you cited Nay they urged it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not be found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did mean wholly but by word of mouth And that thereupon Paul also said we speak wisdom amongst the perfect So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alledge Against these men being thus necessitated to do so they did urge Tradition but what or whose Tradition was it Certainly no other but the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolick Churches with one Mouth and one Voice teaching the same Doctrine Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church yet is it apparent that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest Irenaeus Tertullian Origen testifie as much in the words cited and S. Austin in the place before alledged by me This Tradition they did urge against these men and in a time in comparison of ours almost contiguous to the Apostles So near that one them Irenaeus was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. John the Apostle Tertullian and Origen were not an Age removed from him and the last of them all little more than an Age from them Yet after all this they urged it not as a demonstration but only as a very probable argument far greater than any their Adversaries could oppose against it So Tertullian in the place above quoted § 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should Err in one Faith it should be should have Erred into one Faith And this was the condition of this Argument as the Fathers urged it Now if you having to deal with us who question no Book of Scripture which was not Anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholicks nay who refuse not to be tried by your own Canons your own Translations who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose only except that we will not allow you to be our Judges if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles a fair time for the purest Church to gather much dross and corruptions and for the mystery af iniquity to bring its work to some perfection which in the Apostles time began to work If I say you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches being now Catholick to it self alone and Heretical to all the rest nay not only with her Ancient Original Traditions but also with her post-nate and introduced Definitions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and Ancient Tradition and all this to decline an indifferent Trial by Scripture under pretence wherein also you agree with the calumny of the Old Hereticks that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition If I say notwithstanding all these differences you will still be urging us with this argument as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urged the Old Hereticks certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have not only that we have no School-Divinity nor Metaphysicks but no Logick or common sense that we are but Pictures of men and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain 41. But now suppose I should be liberal to you and grant what you cannot prove that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetual mark of the true Church I beseech you what will come of it What that want of Succession is a certain sign of an Heretical company Truly
chargeable for forsaking that guide which God has appointed me to follow But what if I forsook it because I thought I had reason to fear it was one of those blind guides which whosoever blindly follows is threatned by our Saviour that both he and his guide shall fall into the Ditch then I hope you will grant it was not pride but Conscience that moved me to do so for as it is wise humility to obey those whom God hath set over me so it is sinful credulity to follow every man or every Church that without warrant will take upon them to guide me shew me then some good and evident title which the Church of Rome has to this office produce but one reason for it which upon trial will not finally be resolved and vanish into uncertainties and if I yield not unto it say if you please I am as proud as Lucifer in the mean time give me leave to think it strange and not far from a Prodigee that this Doctrin of the Roman Churches being the guide of faith if it be true doctrin should either not be known to the four Evangelists or if it were known to them that being wise and good men they should either be so envious of the Churches happiness or so forgetful of the work they took in hand which was to write the Gospel of Christ as that not so much as one of them should mention so much as once this so necessary part of the Gospel without the belief whereof there is no salvation and with the belief whereof unless men be snatcht away by sudden death there is hardly any damnation It is evident they do all of them with one consent speak very plainly of many things of no importance in comparison hereof and is it credible or indeed possible that with one consent or rather conspiracy they should be so deeply silent concerning this unum necessarium You may believe it if you can for my part I cannot unless I see demonstration for it for if you say they send us to the Church and consequently to the Church of Rome this is to suppose that which can never be proved that the Church of Rome is the only Church and without this supposal upon Division of the Church I am as far to seek for a guide of my Faith as ever As for example In that great division of the Church when the whole world wondred saith Saint Hierom that it was become Arrian when Liberius Bishop of Rome as S. Athanasius and S. Hilary testifie subscribed their Heresie and joyned in Communion with them Or in the division between the Greek and the Roman Church about the procession of the Holy Ghost when either side was the Church to it self and each part Heretical and Schismatical to the other what direction could I then an ignorant man have found from that Text of Scripture Unless he hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican or Upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Again give me leave to wonder that neither S. Paul writing to the Romans should so much as intimate this their priviledge of Infallibility but rather on the contrary put them in fear in the eleventh Chapter that they as well as the Jews were in danger of falling away That Saint Peter the pretended Bishop of Rome writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his departure should not once acquaint the Christians whom he writes to what guide they were to follow after he was taken from them That the writers of the New Testament should so frequently forewarn men of Hereticks false Christs false prophets and not once arm them against them with letting them know this onely sure means of avoiding their danger That so great a part of the New Testament should be imployed about Antichrist and so little or indeed none at all about the Vicar of Christ and the guide of the faithful That our Saviour should leave this onely means for the ending of Controversies and yet speak so obscurely and ambiguously of it that now our Judge is the greatest Controversie and the greatest hinderance of ending them That there should be better evidence in the Scripture to intitle the King to this Office who disclaims it than the Pope who pretends it That S. Peter should not ever exercise over the Apostles any one act of Jurisdiction nor they ever give him any one Title of Authority over them That if the Apostles did know S. Peter was made head over them when our Saviour said Thou art Peter c. they should still contend who should be the first and that our Saviour should never tell them S. Peter was the man That S. Paul should say he was in nothing inferiour to the very chief Apostles That the Catechumenists in the primitive Church should never be taught this foundation of their Faith that the Church of Rome was Guide of their Faith That the Fathers Tertullian S. Hierom and Optatus when they flew highest in commendation of the Roman Church should attribute no more to her than to all other Apostolical Churches That in the Controversie about Easter the Bishops and Churches of Asia should be so ill Catechised as not to know this Principle of Christian Religion The necessity of Conformity in Doctrin with the Church of Rome That they should never be pressed with any such necessity of conformity in all things but onely with the Tradition of the Western Churches in that point That Irenaeus and many other Bishops notwithstanding ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam should not yet think that a necessary Doctrin nor a sufficient ground of Excommunication which the Church of Rome though to be so That S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know this foundation of it That they likewise were never urged with any such necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome nor ever charged with heresie or error for denying it That when Liberius joyned in Communion with the Arrians and subscribed their heresie the Arrians then should not be the Church and the Guide of Faith That never any Hereticks for three Ages after Christ were pressed with this Argument of the Infallibility of the present Church of Rome or charged with denyal of it as a distinct Heresie so that Aeneas Sylvius should have cause to say Ante tempora Concilii Niceni quisque sibi vivebat parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam That the Ecclesiastical Story of those times mentions no Acts of Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches as if there should be a Monarchy and the Kings for some Ages together should exercise no act of Jurisdiction in it That to supply this defect the Decretal Epistles should be so impudently forged which in a manner speak nothing else but Reges Monarchas I mean the Popes making Laws for exercising authority
he is present with them he commands every one what he will have done and there is no need as yet of making his last Will. So also Christ as long as he was present on Earth though neither now is he wanting for a time commanded his Apostles whatsoever was necessary But just as an Earthly Father when he feels his Death approaching fearing lest after his Death the Brothers should fall out and quarrel he calls in Witnesses and translates his Will from his dying Heart into Writing-Tables that will continue long after him Now if any controversie arises among the Brothers they do not go to his Tomb but consult his last Will and thus he whilst he rests in his Grave does speak to them in those silent Tables as if he were alive He whose Testament we have is in Heaven Therefore we are to enquire his pleasure in the Gospel as in his last Will and Testament It is plain from hence that he knew not of any living speaking audible Judge furnished with Authority and infallibility to decide this controversie had he known any such assisted with the Spirit of God for this purpose it had been horrible impiety against God and the Churches peace to say there was none such or the Spirit of God was not able by his assistance to keep this Judge from being hindred with partiality from seeing the Truth Had he thought the Bishop of Romes speaking ex Cathedra to be this Judge now had been the time to have said so but he says directly the contrary and therefore it is plain he knew of no such Authority he had Neither is there the like reason for a Judge finally and with Authority to determine controversies in Religion and civil differences For if the controversie be about Mine and Thine about Land or Money or any other thing it is impossible that both I should hold the possession of it and my adversary too and one of us must do injury to the other which is not fit it should be Eternal But in matters of Doctrine the case is clean contrary I may hold my opinion and do my Adversary no wrong and my Adversary may hold his and do me none Texts of Scripture alledged for Infallibility The Texts alledged for it by Cardinal Perron and Mr. Stratford are partly Prophecies of the Old Testament partly promises of the New 1. Esa 1.26 Thou shalt be called the City of Justice the faithful City 2. Esa 52.1 Through thee shall no more pass any that is uncircumcised or unclean 3. Esa 59.21 As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever 4. Esa 62.6 Upon thy Walls Hierusalem I have appointed Watchmen all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace 5. Jerem. 31.33 This shall be the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel saith the Lord I will give my Law in their Bowels and in their Heart I will write it and I will be their God and they shall be my People 6. Ezek. 36.27 I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them 7. Ezek. 37.26 I will give my Sanctification in the midst of them for ever 8. Ose 2.19 20. I will dispouse thee to me for ever and I will dispouse thee to me in Justice and judgment and in mercy and commiserations I will Espouse thee to me in Faith and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. 9. Cant. 4.7 Thou art all fair my Love and there is no spot in thee Now before we proceed further let us reflect upon these places and make the most of them for the behoof of the Roman Church and I believe it will then appear to any one not veil'd with prejudice that not one of them reaches home to the conclusion intended which is That the Roman Church is infallible The first place perhaps would do something but that there are Three main exceptions against it 1. That here is no evidence not so much as that of probability that this is here spoken of the Church of Rome 2. That it is certain that it is not spoken of the Church of Rome but of the Nation of the Jews after their conversion as is apparent from that which follows Zion shall be redeemed with judgment and her converts with righteousness 3. That it is no way certain that whatsoever Society may be called the City of righteousness the faithful City must be infallible in all her Doctrine with a great deal more probability it might challenge from hence the priviledg of being Impeccable which yet Roman Catholicks I believe do not pretend to The Second place is liable to the same exceptions the Church of Rome is not spoken of in it but Zion and Hierusalem and it will serve as well nay better to prove Impeccability than Infallibility The third place is the Achilles for this opinion wherein every writer Triumphs but I wonder they should do so considering the Covenant here spoken of is made not with the Church of Rome but with Zion and them that turn from transgression in Jacob the words are And the Redeemer shall come out of Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit that is in thee and my Words c. Now if the Church of Rome be Zion and they that turn from iniquity in Jacob they may have Title to this Covenant if not they must forbear and leave it to the Jews after their Conversion to whom it is appropriated by a more Infallible Interpreter than the Pope I mean S. Paul Rom. 11.26 And it seems the Church of Rome also believes as much for otherwise why does she in the Margent of her Bible send us to that place of S. Paul for an exposition Read the 4th place and you shall find nothing can be made of it but this that the Watchmen of Hierusalem shall never cease importuning God for the sending of the Messias To this purpose speaks the Prophet in ver 1. For Zions sake I will not hold my peace and for Hierusalems sake I well not rest until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness But the words following these that are objected make it most evident which are ye that make mention of the Lord keep not silence and give him no rest till he establish and till he make Hierusalem a praise in the Earth The 5th place had they set down entirely for very shame they could not have urged it for the Infallibility of the Roman Church The words are Behold the days come saith the Lord
without alteration should then be profitable and now unprofitable then all things considered expedient to be used if not necessary and therefore commanded And now though there be no variety in the case all things considered not necessary nor expedient and therefore forbidden The Issue of all this Discourse for ought I can see must be this That either both parts of a Contradiction must be true and consequently nothing can be false seeing that which contradicteth truth is not so or else that the Ancient Church did err in believing something expedient which was not so and if so why may not the present Church err in thinking Latin Service and Communion in one kind expedient or that the present Church doth err in thinking something not expedient which is so And if so why may she not err in thinking Communicating the Laity in both kinds and Service in vulgar Languages not expedient V. An Argument drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries against Infallibility THE Doctrin of the Millenaries was That before the worlds end Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years and that the Saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness That this Doctrin is by the present Roman Church held false and Heretical I think no man will deny That the same Doctrin was by the Church of the next Age after the Apostles held true and Catholick I prove by these two Reasons The first Reason Whatsoever doctrin is believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of any Age of the Church and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned that is to be esteemed the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times But the Doctrin of the Millenaries was believed and taught by the eminent Fathers of the Age next after the Apostles and by none of that Age opposed or condemned Therefore it was the Catholick Doctrin of the Church of those times The Proposition of this Syllogism is Cardinal Perrons rule in his Epistle to Casaubon 5. observ And is indeed one of the main pillars upon which the great Fabrick of his Answer to King James doth stand and with which it cannot but fall and therefore I will spend no time in the proof of it But the Assumption thus I prove That Doctrin which was believed and taught by Papias Bishop of Hierapolis the disciple of the Apostles disciples according to Eusebius who lived in the times of the Apostles saith he by Justin Martyr Doctor of the Church and Martyr by Melito Bishop of Sardis who had the gift of Prophesie witness Tert. and whom Bellarmine acknowledgeth a Saint By S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons and Martyr and was not opposed and condemned by any one Doctor of the Church of those times That Doctrine was believed and taught by the most Eminent Fathers of that Age next to the Apostles and opposed by none But the former part of the Proposition is true Ergo the Latter is also true The Major of this Syllogism and the latter part of the Minor I suppose will need no proof with them that consider that these here mentioned were equal in number to all the other Ecclesiastical Writers of that Age of whom there is any memory remaining and in weight and worth infinitely beyond them they were Athenagoras Theophilus Antiochenus Egesippus and Hippolitus of whose contradiction to this Doctrine there is not extant neither in their works nor in story any Print or Footstep which if they or any of them had opposed it had been impossible considering the Ecclesiastical Story of their time is Written by the professed Enemies of the Millinaries Doctrine who could they have found any thing in the monuments of Antiquity to have put in the Ballance against Justin Martyr and Irenaeus no doubt would not have buried it in silence which yet they do neither vouching for their opinion any one of more Antiquity than Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived saith Eusebius nostra aetate in our Age but certainly in the latter part of the third Century For Tatianus because an Heretick I reckon not in this number And if any man say that before his fall he wrote many Books I say it is true but withal would have it remembred that he was Justin Martyrs Scholar and therefore in all probability of his Masters Faith rather than against it all that is extant of him one way or other is but this in S. Hierome de Script Eccles Justini Martyris sectator fuit Now for the other part of the Minor that the forementioned Fathers did believe and teach this Doctrine And first for Papias that he taught it it is confessed by Eusebius the Enemy of this Doctrine Lib. 3. Hist Eccles c. 33. in these words Other things besides the same Author Papias declares that they came to him as it were by unwritten Tradition wherein he affirms that after the Resurrection of all Flesh from the Dead there shall be a Kingdom of Christ continued and established for a thousand years upon Earth after a humane and corporeal manner The same is confessed by S. Hierome another Enemy to this opinion descript Eccles S. 29. Papias the Auditor of John Bishop of Hieropolis is said to have taught the Judaical Tradition of a thousand years whom Irenaeus and Apollinarius followed And in his preface upon the Commentaries of Victorinus upon the Apocalypse thus he writes before him Papias Bishop of Hieropolis and Nepos Bishop in the parts of Egypt taught as Victorinus does touching the Kingdom of the thousand years The same is testified by Irenaeus lib. 5. cont Her c. 33. where having at large set forth this Doctrine he confirms it by the Authority of Papias in these words Papias also the Auditor of John the familiar friend of Policarpus an Ancient man hath testified by writing these things in the fourth of his Books for he hath writtten five And concerning Papias thus much That Justin Martyr was of the same belief it is confessed by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Stae l. 6. An. 347. by Feverdentius in his premonition before the five last Chapters of the 5th Book of Irenaeus By Pamelius in Antidoto ad Tertul. parad paradox 14. That S. Melito Bishop of Sardis held the same Doctrine is confessed by Pamelius in the same place and thereupon it is that Gennadius Massiliensis in his Book de Eccles dogmatibus calls the followers of this opinion Melitani as the same Pamelius testifies in his Notes upon that fragment of Tertullian de Spe fidelium Irenaeus his Faith in this point is likewise confessed by Eusebius in the place before quoted in these words He Papias was the Author of the like Error to most of the Writers of the Church who alledged the Antiquity of the Man for a defence of their side as to Irenaeus and whosoever else seemed to be of the same opinion with him By S. Hierome in the place above cited de script Eccles S. 29. Again in Lib. Ezek. 11. in these words For neither do we
each to other without having these parts in several places then the distinction is vain But it is impossible that any thing should have several parts one out of another without having these parts in several places Therefore the distinction is vain The Major of this Syllogism he took for granted The Minor he proved thus Whatsoever body is in the proper place of another body must of necessity be in that very body by possessing the demensions of it therefore whatsoever hath several parts one out of the other must of necessity have them one out of the place of the other and consequently in several places For illustration of this Argument he said If my head and belly and thighs and legs be all in the very same place of necessity my head must be in my belly and my belly in my thighs and my thighs in my legs and all of them in my feet and my feet in all of them and therefore if my head be out of my belly it must be out of the place where my belly is and if it be not out of the place where my belly is it is not out of my belly but in it Again to shew that according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation our Saviours body in the Eucharist hath not the several parts of it out of one another he disputed thus Wheresoever there is a body having several parts one out of the other there must be some middle parts severing the extreme parts But here according to this Doctrin the extreme parts are not severed but altogether in the same point Therefore here our Saviours Body cannot have parts one out of other Mr. Dan. To all this for want of a better Answer gave only this Let all Scholars peruse these After upon better consideration he wrote by the side of the last Syllogism this Quoad entitatem verum est non quoad locum that is according to entity it is true but not according to place And to Let all Scholars peruse these he caused this to be added And weigh whether there is any new matter worth a new Answer Chillingworth Replyed That to say the extreme parts of a body are severed by the middle parts according to their entity but not according to place is ridiculous His reasons are first Because severing of things is nothing else but putting or keeping them in several places as every silly woman knows and therefore to say they are severed but not according to place is as if you should say They are heated but not according to heat they are cooled but not according to cold Indeed is it to say they are severed but not severed VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his own Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto I Reconciled my self to the Church of Rome because I thought my self to have sufficient reason to believe that there was and must be always in the World some Church that could not err and consequently seeing all other Churches disclaimed this priviledge of not being subject to error the Church of Rome must be that Church which cannot err I was put into doubt of this way which I had chosen by D. Stapleton and others who limit the Churches freedom from Error to things necessary only and such as without which the Church can be a Church no longer but grantted it subject to error in things that were not necessary Hereupon considering that most of the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholicks were not touching things necessary but only profitable or lawful I concluded that I had not sufficient ground to believe the Roman Church either could not or did not err in any thing and therefore no ground to be a Roman Catholick Against this again I was perswaded that it was not sufficient to believe the Church to be an infallible believer of all doctrins necessary but it must also be granted an infallible teacher of what is necessary that is that we must believe not only that the Church teacheth all things necessary but that all is necessary to be believed which the Church teacheth to be so in effect that the Church is our Guide in the way to Heaven Now to believe that the Church was an infallible Guide and to be believed in all things which she requires us to believe I was induced First because there was nothing that could reasonably contest with the Church about this Office but the Scripture and that the Scripture was this Guide I was willing to believe but that I saw not how it could be made good without depending upon the Churches authority 1. That Scripture is the Word of God 2. That the Scripture is a perfect rule of our duty 3. That the Scripture is so plain in those things that concern our duty that whosoever desires and endeavors to find the will of God there shall either find it or at least not dangerously mistake it Secondly I was drawn to this belief because I conceived that it was evident out of the Epistle to the Ephesians that there must be unto the worlds end a Succession of Pastors by adhering to whom men might be kept from wavering in matters of faith and from being carried up and down with every wind of false doctrin That no Succession of Pastors could guard their adherents from danger of error if themselves were subject unto error either in teaching that to be necessary which is not so or denying that to be necessary which is so and therefore That there was and must be some Succession of Pastors which was an infallible guide in the way to Heaven and which should not possibly teach any thing to be necessary which was not so nor any thing not necessary which was so upon this ground I concluded that seeing there must be such a Succession of Pastors as was an infallible guide and there was no other but that of the Church of Rome even by the confession of all other Societies of Pastors in the world that therefore that Succession of Pastors is that infallible Guide of Faith which all men must follow Upon these grounds I thought it necessary for my salvation to believe the Roman Church in all that she thought to be and proposed as necessary Against these Arguments it hath been demonstrated unto me and First against the first That the reason why we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God neither is nor can be the Authority of the present Church of Rome which cannot make good her Authority any other way but by pretence of Scripture and therefore stands not unto Scripture no not in respect of us in the relation of a Foundation to a building but of a building to a Foundation doth not support Scripture but is supported by it But the general consent of Christians of all Nations and Ages a far greater company than that of the Church of Rome and delivering universally the Scripture for the word of God is the ordinary