Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
Thomas holds the first and Durand the later Then you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and proved it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himself and gives his reason because it is the common Opinion of the School Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther Dispute and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawful for them to say I conceive thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I deny it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The Bishop said That M. Rogers was but a private man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publike Authority be accounted onely a private man c. B. § 13 Num. 1 I said truth when I said M. Rogers was a private man And I take it you will not allow every speech of every 〈…〉 though allowed by Authority to have his Books Printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath been oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church yet I see you mean not to leave it And surely as Controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand But I have long thought it a kinde of descent into Hell to be conversant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seek to blinde the People or cast a mist before evident Truth lest it cause a final descent to that place of Torment But since you will hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers his Exposition or Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us And as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie over the whole Church Shall he have his power over the Catholike Church given him expresly in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he had fed to Confirm and in all these not to erre and fail in his Ministration And is the Catholike Church in and over which he is to do all these great things quite left out of the Scripture Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if he could so prescribe for what he now Claims Num. 2 But what if after all this M. Rogers there says no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge He descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And again Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this Article is M. Rogers We the Church of England or rather his and some others Judgment in the Church of England Num. 3 Now here A. C. will have somewhat again to say though God knows 't is to little purpose 'T is that the Jesuit urged M. Roger's Book because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers if he please But he ought not to say that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed First not because his Book was publikely allowed For many Books among them as well as among us have been Printed by publike Authority as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners and yet containing many things in them of Opinion only or private Judgment which yet is far from the avowed Positive Doctrine of the Church the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words or things controverted And this is more frequent among their School-men than among any of our Controversers as is well known Nor secondly because his Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England For suppose the worst and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title is his private Judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more than I should say every thing said by Thomas or Bonaventure is Angelical or Seraphical Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphical and the other Angetical Doctor And yet their works are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Num. 4 Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to express our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will go far to bring A. C. off whatsoever I shall say against him For first let me instance in any private man that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth he will say he know it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knows Secondly If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much yet he will answer 't is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it that is perhaps it is not the very Title of his Book But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question What Not in any matter Were not Vega and Soto two private men Is it not a matter subject to Question to great Question in these Days Whether a man may be certain of his being in the state of Salvation certitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth not Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the Councel of Trent And yet these two great Fryers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councel and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
if being called will not be of one mind Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this Case provided no Rule no Judge Infallibly to determine Controversies and to procure Unity and Certainty of Belief Indeed the Protestants admit no Infallible Means Rule or Judge but only Scripture which every man may interpret as he pleaseth and so all shall be uncertain Truly I must confess there are many Impediments to hinder the Calling of a General Councel You know in the Ancient Church there was hinderance enough and what hurt it wrought And afterward though it were long first there was provision made for frequent calling of Councels and yet no Age since saw them called according to that Provision in every Circumstance therefore Impediments there were enough or else some declined them wilfully though there were no Impediments Nor will I deny but that when they were called there were as many Practices to disturb or pervert the Councels And these Practices were able to keep many Councels from being all of one mind But if being called they will not be of one mind I cannot help that Though that very not agreeing is a shrewd sign that the other Spirit hath a party there against the Holy Ghost Now A. C. would know what is to be done for Re-uniting of a Church divided in Doctrine of the Faith when this Remedy by a General Councel cannot be had Sure Christ our Lord saith he hath provided some Rule some Judge in such and such like Cases to procure unity and certainty of Belief I believe so too for he hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture And that by the manifest Places in it which need no Dispute no External Judge is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief in Necessaries to Salvation And in Non necessariis in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation Num. 4 And therefore A. C. does not well to make that a Crime that the Protestants admit no Infallible Rule but the Scripture only Or as he I doubt not without some scorn terms it beside only Scripture For what need is there of another since this is most Infallible and the same which the Ancient Church of Christ admitted And if it were sufficient for the Antient Church to guide them and direct their Councels why should it be now held insufficient for us at least till a free General Councel may be had And it hath both the Conditions which Bellarmine requires to a Rule Namely that it be Certain and that it be Known For if it be not certain it is no Rule and if it be not known 't is no Rule to us Now the Romanists dare not deny but this Rule is Certain and that it is sufficiently Known in the manifest Places of it and such as are necessary to Salvation none of the Antients did ever deny so there 's an Infallible Rule Num. 5 Nor need there be such fear of a Private Spirit in these manifest things which being but read or heard teach themselves Indeed you Romanists had need of some other Judge and he a propitious one to crush the Pope's more powerful Principality out of Pasce oves feed my sheep And yet this must be the meaning if you will have it whether Gideon's fleece be wet or dry Judg. 6. that is whether there be dew enough in the Text to water that sense or no. But I pray when God hath left his Church this Infallible Rule what warrant have you to seek another You have shewed us none yet what e're you think you have And I hope A. C. cannot think it follows that Christ our Lord hath provided no Rule to determine necessary Controversies because he hath not provided the Rule which he would have Num. 6 Besides let there be such a living Judge as A. C. would have and let the Pope be he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all Times from Renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For Oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith And what will A. C. in this Case do Will he send Christ our Lord to provide another Rule than the Decision of the Bishop of Rome because he can neither make Unity nor Certainty of Belief And as 't is most apparent he cannot do it de facto so neither hath he power from Christ over the Whole Church to do it nay out of all doubt 't is not the least reason why de facto he hath so little success because de Jure he hath no power given But since A. C. requires another Judge besides the Scripture and in Cases when either the time is so difficult that a General Councel cannot be called or the Councel so set that they will not agree Let 's see how he proves it Num. 7 'T is thus every earthly Kingdom saith he when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all Occasions why doth he not add here And which being called will not always be of one mind as he did add it in Case of the Councel hath besides the law-Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Unity in all Temporal Affairs And shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the law-Law-Books of the Holy-Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one Chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Unity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This is a very plausible Argument with the Many But the foundation of it is but a Similitude and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing And so I doubt it will prove here I 'le observe Particulars as they lie in order Num. 8 And first he will have the whole Militant Church for of that we speak a Kingdom But this is not certain For they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successors in an Aristocratical or rather a Mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one Body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very Expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the Places of Scripture and other Arguments brought by Bellarm. to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought it fitter to govern it Aristocratically by Divers
no more Num. 8 Now if any man shall say that in this Point of Rebaptization S. Cyprian himself was in the wrong Opinion and Pope Stephen in the right I easily grant that but yet that Errour of his takes not off his judgment what he thought of the Papal or Roman Infallibility in those times For though afterwards S. Cyprian's Opinion was condemned in a Councel at Rome under Cornelius and after that by Pope Stephen and after both in the first Councel of Carthage yet no one word is there in that Councel which mentions this as an Errour That he thought Pope Stephen might Erre in the Faith while he proclaimed he did so In which though the particular Censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was erroneous for Stephen erred not in that yet the General which results from it namely that for all his being in the Popedom he might erre is most true Num. 9 2 The second Father which Bellarmine cites is Saint Jerome His words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such Praestigia's Deceits and Delusions into it though an Angel should preach it otherwise then it was preach'd at first and being armed and fenced by S. Paul's Authority cannot be changed Where first I will not doubt but that S. Jerome speaks here of Faith for the Praestigiae here mentioned are afterwards more plainly expressed for he tells us after That the Bishop of Rome had sent Letters into the East and charged Heresie upon Ruffinus And farther that Origen's Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were translated by him and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome that by his means they might loose the verity of the Faith which they had learned from the Apostle Therefore the Praestigiae before-mentioned were the cunning illusions of Ruffinus putting Origen's Book under the Martyr Pamphilus his name that so he might bring in Heresie the more cunningly under a name of Credit and the more easily pervert the peoples Faith So of the Faith he speaks And secondly I shall as easily confess that S. Jerom's speech is most true but I cannot admit the Cardinal's sense of it for he imposes upon the word Fides For by Romana Fides the Roman Faith he will understand the particular Church of Rome which is as much as to say Romanos Fideles the Faithful of that Church And that no wily delusions or cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them Now hereupon I return to that of S. Cyprian If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos why may not Perfidia before signife Perfidos Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers as Terms Opposite And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably So with these great Masters with whom 't is almost grown to be Quod volumus rectum est what we please shall be the Authors meaning Perfidia must signifie absolutely Errour in Faith Misbelief but Fides must relate to the Persons and signifie the Faithful of the Roman Church And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deal of Reason For Romana Fides the Roman Faith as it was commended by the Apostle of which S. Jerome speaks is one thing and the Particular Roman Church of which the Cardinal speaks is another The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias wily delusions into it if it did it could not be the whole and undefiled Faith of Christ which they learned from the Apostle and which is so fenced by Apostolical Authority as that it cannot be changed though an Angel should preach the contrary But the Particular Church of Rome hath admitted Praestigias divers crafty Conveyances into the Faith and is not fenced as the Faith it self is And therefore though an Angel cannot contrary that yet the bad Angel hath sowed Tares in this By which means Romana Fides though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed yet it is not the same for the sense of it nor for the super and praeter-structures built upon it or joyned unto it So the Roman Faith that is the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romans and after commended in them was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other then that One and this one can never be changed in or from it self by Angel or Devil But in mens hearts it may receive a change and in particular Churches it may receive a change and in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change And ye see S. Hierome himself confesses that the Pope himself was afraid ne perderent lest by this Art of Ruffinus the people might lose the verity of the Faith Now that which can be lost can be changed For usually Habits begin to alter before they be quite lost And that which may be lost among the People may be lost among the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy too if they look not to it as it seems they after did not at Rome though then they did Nay at this time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Book and all the Errours in it coming under the name of Pamphilus And so S. Hierome himself expresly and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine For he desires Ruffinus to change the Title of the Book that Errour may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus and so to free from danger the Roman Simplicity Where by the way Roman unerring Power now challenged and Roman Simplicity then feared agree not very well together 3 The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is S. Gregory Nazianzen And his words are That Ancient Rome from of old hath the right Faith and always holds it as becomes the City which is Governess over the whole World to have an entire Faith in and concerning God Now certainly it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire And having the Government of a great part of the World then in her power it became her so much the more as her Example thereby was the greater And in S. Gregory Nazianzen's time Rome did certainly hold both rectam integram Fidem the right and the whole entire Faith of Christ. But there is nor Promise nor Prophecie in S. Gregory that Rome shall ever so do For his words are plain decet semper it becomes that great City always to have and to hold too integram Fidem the entire Faith But at the other semper 't is retinet that City from of old holds the right Faith yet But he saith not retinebit semper that the City of Rome shall retain it ever no more then it shall ever retain the Empire of the World Now it must be assur'd that it shall ever hold the entire Faith of Christ before we can be assured that that particular Church can never Erre or be Infallible Num. 11 Besides these the Cardinal names
that shall endeavour to shake the foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded Num. 11 Secondly If S. Augustine did mean by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded this is made firm by full Authority of the Church and the words following these to shake the foundation of the Church yet it can never follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all points defined by the Church are fundamental in the Faith For first no man denies but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded upon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamental in the Faith For things may be founded upon Humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore every thing determined by the Church is founded Again that which follows That those things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore Fundamental in the Faith For full church-Church-Authority always the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but church-Church-Authority and church-Church-Authority when it is at Full Sea is not simply Divine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamental in the Faith And yet no erring Disputer may be indured to shake the foundation which the Church in Councel lays But plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Councel if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prove it is not Fundamental if indeed and verily it be not so Num. 12 And I have read some-body that says is it not you That things are fundamental in the Faith two ways One in their Matter such as are all things which be so in themselves The other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plain truth this is no more then if you should say Some things are fundamental in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall never be able to prove that any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being only can possibly be fundamental in the Faith Num. 13 And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you It is a venture but I shall finde it untempered Your Assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamental Your proof this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church Then it seems your meaning is that this point there spoken of The remission of Original Sin in Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a General Councel First if you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Councel but only in Nationals But Bellarmine is deceived For while the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Councel to Excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serve your turn for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not mean the Sentence of that Councel in this place Secondly if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenical Synod Plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authority of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenical Councel but for some National as this was condemned in a National Councel And then the full Authority of the Church here is no more then the full Authority of the Church of Africk And I hope that Authority doth not make all Points defined by it to be fundamental You will say Yes if that Councel be confirmed by the Pope And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church and not bestow one word upon the Pope by whose Authority only that Councel as all other have their fulness of Authority in your Judgment An inexpiable Omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true Num. 14 But here A. C. steps in again to help the Jesuite and he tells us over and over again That all points made firm by full Authority of the Church are fundamental so firm he will have them and therefore fundamental But I must tell him That first 't is one thing in Nature and Religion too to be firm and another thing to be fundamental These two are not Convertible 'T is true that every thing that is fundamental is firm But it doth not follow that every thing that is firm is fundamental For many a Superstructure is exceeding firm being fast and close joyned to a sure foundation which yet no man will grant is fundamental Besides whatsoever is fundamental in the Faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Desinition is the Churches foundation And so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her foundation is laid Now this is so absurd for any man of Learning to say that by and by after A. C. is content to affirm not only that the prima Credibilia the Articles of Faith but all which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church under Christ the Prime Foundation And here he 's out again For first all which pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by fundamental in the Faith to all men And secondly the whole Discourse here is concerning Faith as it is taken Objectivè for the Object of Faith and thing to be believed but that Faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts is taken Subjective for the Habit and Act of Faith Now to confound both these in one period of speech can have no other aim then to confound the Reader But to come closer both to the Jesuite and his Defender A. C. If all Points made firm by full Authority of the Church be fundamental then they must grant that every thing determined by the Councel of Trent is fundamental in the Faith For with them 't is firm and Catholike which that
Councel Decrees Now that Councel Decrees That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent or calling of the People or of any Secular Power And yet they can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councel fundamental in the Faith 'T is true I do not grant that the Decrees of this Councel are made by full Authority of the Church but they do both grant and maintain it And therefore 't is Argumentum ad hominem a good argument against them that a thing so defined may be firm for so this is and yet not fundamental for so this is not Num. 15 But A. C. tells us further That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis And as that Learned Father uses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applies it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maximes and A. C. will force it to every Determination of the Church Now Catholike Maximes which are properly fundamental are certain prime truths deposited with the Church and not so much determined by the Church as published and manifested and so made firm by her to us For so Vincentius expresly Where all that the Church doth is but ut hoc idem quod anteà that the same thing may be believed which was before believed but with more light and clearness and in that sense with more firmness then before Now in this sense give way to a Disputator errans every Cavilling Disputer to deny or quarrel at the Maximes of Christian Religion any one or any part of any one of them and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examine her own Decrees and to see that she keep Dogmata deposita the Principles of Faith unblemished and uncorrupted For if she do not so but that Novitia veteribus new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the Repository of Verity may be changed in lupanar errorum I am loath to English it By the Church then this may nay it ought to be done however every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much less obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita these deposited Principles But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church yet that may be done without shaking the foundation where the Determinations themselves belong but to the fabrick and not to the foundation For a whole frame of Building may be shaken and yet the foundation where it is well laid remain firm And therefore after all A. C. dares not say the foundation is shaken but only in a sort And then 't is as true that in a sort it is not shaken Num. 16 2 For the second part of his Argument A. C. must pardon me if I dissent from him For first All Determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation For some Determinations of the Church are made firm to us per chirographum Scripturae by the hand-writing of the Scripture and that 's Authentical indeed Some other Decisions yea and of the Church too are made or may be if Stapleton inform us right without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Writ But Bellarmine falls quite off in this and confesses in express terms That nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident consequence And if nothing can be certain but so then certainly no Determination of the Church it self if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these either express Word of God or evident consequence out of it So here 's little agreement in this great Point between Stapleton and Bellarmine Nor can this be shifted off as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God Written and Bellarmine of the Word of God Unwritten as he calls Tradition For Bollarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation And I hope A. C. will not tell us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputation there is quite beside the matter or else he must speak of the written Word and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned But to return If A. C. will he may but I cannot believe that a Definition of the Church which is made by the express Word of God and another which is made without so much as a probable Testimony of it or a clear Deduction from it are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation Nay I must say in this case that the one Determination is firm by Divine Revelation but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all but the Churches Authority only ◠Secondly I cannot believe neither That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the Power which it commits to General Councels lawfully called yet it is not always of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei that which is Dogmatical in the Faith For instance I think you dare not deny but the Councel of Trent was lawfully called and yet I am of Opinion that few even of your selves believe that the Councel of Trent hath the same fulness with the Councel of Nice in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness Thirdly suppose that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation and sufficiently applied by one and the sante full Authority yet it will not follow that they are all alike fundamental in the Faith For I hope A. C. himself will not say that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition then the Propositions of Canonical Scripture Now all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation but they are not all alike fundamental in the Faith For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter and S. Andrew
them very deservedly And were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit and reasonable to uphold their credit that Novices and young Beginners in a Science which are not able to work strongly upon Reason nor Reason upon them may have Authority to believe till they can learn to Conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theology to have a Text a Scripture a Rule which Novices may be taught first to believe that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are Deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can deny these Grounds and if it cannot then a meer Natural man may be thus far convinced That the Text of God is a very Credible Text. Num. 19 Well these are the four ways by most of which men offer to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Divine and Infallible Warrant And it seems no one of these doth it alone The Tradition of the present Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine The Light which is in Scripture it self is not bright enough it cannot bear sufficient witness to it self The Testimony of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what means we believe but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object fit for Belief And for Reason no man expects that that should prove it it doth service enough if it enable us to disprove that which misguided men conceive against it If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient means to prove it either we must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these And to all this again A. C. says nothing For the Tradition of the Church then certain it is we must distinguish the Church before we can judge right of the Validity of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven no question but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like Validity written or delivered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Books of Scripture are the Word of God is the most general and uniform the Church of England never excepted And when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholike Church moved me which Place you urged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by iâ— some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in General not excluding after-ages But sure to include Christ and his Apostles And the certainty is there abundance of certainty in it self but how far that is evident to us shall after appear Num. 21 But this will not serve your turn The Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive But the contrary to this is proved before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Divine To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For first it serves by a full consent to work upon the minds of unbelievers to move them to read and to consider the Scripture which they hear by so many Wise Learned and Devouâ— men is of no meaner esteem than the Word of God And secondly It serves among Novices Weakings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirm them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scripture which the Church delivers as the Word of God And thus again some of your own understand the fore-cited Place of St. Augustine I would not believe the Gospel c. For he speaks it either of Novices or Doubters in the Faith or else of such as were in part Infidels You at the Conference though you omit it here would needs have it that S. Augustine spake even of the faithful which I cannot yet think For he speaks to the Manichees and they had a great part of the Infidel in them And the words immediately before these are If thou shouldest â—ind one Qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldest thou do to make him believe Ego verò non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serves and there need be no Question between us But then every thing that is the first Inducer to believe is not by and by either the Principal Motive or the chief and last Object of Belief upon which a man may rest his Faith Unless we shall be of Jacobuâ— Almain's Opinion That we are per priâ—â— magis first and more bound to believe the Church than the Gospel Which your own Learned men as you may see by â— Mel. Canus reject as Extreme â—oul and so indeed it is The first knowledge then after the Quid Nominâ—â— is known by Grammar that helps to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to Demonstrate a Truth and make it evident is his Logick But when he hath made a Demonstration he resolves the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammatical or Logical Principles but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in thiâ— Particular a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading Means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God but when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other Writings with the help of Ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voyce of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self then Tradition alone could give And then he that Believes resolves his last and full Assent That Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the Help and Direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it self upon the Helps but upon that Divine Light which the Scripture no Question hath in it self but is not kindled till these Helps come Thy Word is a Light so David A Light Therefore it is as much manifestatiâ—um sui as alâ—eriâ—s a manifestation to it self as to other things which it shews but still not till the Candle be Lighted not till there hath been a Preparing Instruction What Light it is Children call the Sun and Moon Candles Gods Candles They see the light as well as men but cannot distinguish between them
to the Apostles only for the setling of them in all Truth And yet not simply all For there are some Truths saith Saint Augustine which no mans Soul can comprehend in this life Not simply all But all those Truths quae non poterant portare which they were not able to bear when He Conversed with them Not simply all but all that was necessary for the Founding propagating establishing and Confirming the Christian Church But if any man take the boldness to inlarge this Promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles themselves that will fall out which Saint Augustine hath in a manner prophecied Every Heretick will shelter himself and his Vanities under this Colour of Infallible Verity Num. 30 I told you a little before that A. C. his Pen was troubled and failed him Therefore I will help to make out his Inference for him that his Cause may have all the strength it can And as I conceive this is that he would have The Tradition of the present Church is as able to work in us Divine and Infallible Faith That the Scripture is the Word of God As that the Bible or Books of Scripture now printed and in use is a true Copy of that which was first written by the Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and delivered to the Church 'T is most true the Tradition of the present Church is alike operative and powerful in and over both these works but neither Divine nor Infallible in either But as it is the first moral Inducement to perswade that Scripture is the Word of God so is it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have is a true Copy of that which was first written But then as in the former so in this latter for the true Copy The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest upon the naked Tradition of the present Church but must by and with it go higher to other Helps and Assurances Where I hope A. C. will confess we have greater helps to discover the truth or falshood of a Copy than we have means to look into a Tradition Or especially to sift out this Truth That it was a Divine and Infallible Revelation by which the Originals of Scripture were first written That being far more the Subject of this Inquiry than the Copy which according to Art and Science may be examined by former preceding Copies close up to the very Apostles times Num. 31 But A. C. hath not done yet For in the last place he tells us That Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other And truly for my part I shall easily grant him this so he will grant me this other Namely That though they do mutually yet they do not equally confirm the Authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the Authority of Church-Traditions truly so called But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the Authority of the Scripture And this is manifest by A. C.'s own Similitude For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and His Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seal confirm the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seal and hand But the Embassadors word of mouth confirms His Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they called Letters of Credence if they give not him more Credit than he can give them But that which follows I cannot approve to wit That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospel are Gods Legats and the Scriptures Gods Letters which he hath appointed his Legates to deliver and expound So far 't is well but here 's the sting That these Letters do warrant that the People may hear and give Credit to these Legates of Christ as to Christ the King himself Soft this is too high a great deal No Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King himself Nor was any Priest never so lawfully sent ever of that Authority that Christ himself No sure For ye call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so I am saith our Saviour S. John 13. And certainly this did not suddenly drop out of A. C's Pen. For he told us once before That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition that is the lawfully sent Preachers of the Church are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Why but is it possible these men should go thus far to defend an Error be it never so dear unto them They as Christ Divine and Infallible Authority in them Sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith I have often heard some wise men say That the Jesuite in the Church of Rome and the Precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in many things though they would seem most to differ And surely this is one For both of them differ extremely about Tradition The one in magnifying it and exalting it into Divine Authority the other vilifying and depressing it almost beneath Humane And yet even in these different ways both agree in this Consequent That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Nay are the very word of God So A. C. expresly And no less then so have some accounted of their own factious words to say no more than as the Word of God I ever took Sermons and so do still to be most necessary Expositions and Applications of Holy Scripture and a great ordinary means of saving knowledge But I cannot think them or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible The Ancient Fathers of the Church preached far beyond any of these of either faction And yet no one of them durst think himself Infallible much less that whatsoever he preached was the Word of God And it may be Observed too That no men are more apt to say That all the Fathers were but Men and might Erre than they that think their own preachings are Infallible Num. 32 The next thing after this large Interpretation of A. C. which I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God which I here use is the same which the Ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other Arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self This way the Church went in S. Augustine's Time He was no enemy to Church-Tradition yet when he would prove that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the All-sufficient way and gives
there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Story can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Jews Enemies to Christ they bear witness to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimony for any Authority upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Unwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Belief when it is true and remains so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth cannot deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non subest falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured insallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falshood can come but by a Divine Testimony This Testimony is absolute in Scripture it self delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God and so sealed to our Souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motive is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Divine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our Faith but only as is before expressed Num. 2 And now to come close to the Particular The time was before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart that you and We were all of One Belief That belief was tainted in tract and corruption of times very deeply A Division was made yet so that both Parts held the Creed and other Common Principles of Belief Of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God For our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it Since this Division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this Principle Nay We have given it all honour and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie even to the containing of all things necessary to salvation with Satis superque enough and more than enough which your selves have not done do not And for begetting and setling a Belief of this Principle we go the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing Motive to embrace this Principle only we cannot go so far in this way as you to make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten For this is to go so far in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not only to receive us in but another after to let us out into more open and richer ground And we go a better way than you Because after we are moved and prepared and induced by Tradition we resolve our Faith into that Written Word and God delivering it in which we find materially though not in Terms the very Tradition that led us thither And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way because at the end we find the way proved And do what can be done you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the Present Church alone can give And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoveret Unless the Authority of the Church moved me but not alone but with other Motives else it were not commovere to move together And the other Motives are Resolvers though this be Leader Now since we go the same way with you so far as you go right and a better way than you where you go wrong we need not admit any other Word of God than we do And this ought to remain as a Presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture between you and us But you say that F. From this the Lady called us and desiring to hear Whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church The B. granted That it was B. § 20 Num. 1 One occasion which moved Tertullian to write his Book d◠Praescript adversus Haereticos was That he saw little or no Profit come by Disputations Sure the Ground was the same then and now It was not to deny that Disputation is an Opening of the Understanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirm that any such Disquisition is in and of it self unprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Jews and all Comers No sure it was some Abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one Abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth And so I find it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form or so answered There is a great deal of Difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you use but no man else that I know I am sure not I. Num. 2 For The Church may import in our Language The only true Church and perhaps as some of you seem to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike And this I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the Whole And this I never did nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right as you impose upon me For Ens and Verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is
that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Councel which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferencie to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens Num. 2 And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madness of the Protestants A. C. adds That the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may Accuse Witness Judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children How far forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the mean time though I cannot grant her to be either yet let 's suppose her to be both that A. C's Argument may have all the strength it can have Nor shall it force me as plausible as it seems to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shock of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would fain have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or took it upon him to be Accuser and Witness and Judge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Liberty to Judge between them For the great Philosopher tells us That the Chief Magistrate is Custos juris the Guardian and keeper of the Law and if of the Law then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him And even Tiberius himself in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take to himself he put him off thus No the Laws grow less where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or Witness than themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the loss of Education they punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are grown up and come to some full use of their own Reason the Apostles Rule is Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevail not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a son against unnatural Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over-Imperious Father And an express Law there was among the Jews Deut. 21. when Children were grown up and fell into great extremities that the Parents should then bring them to the Magistrate and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law the Scripture and suppose her a Mother yet there is or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are grown up if she forget all good Nature and turn Stepdame to them Num. 3 Well the Reason why the Jesuite asked the Question Quo Judice Who should be Judge He says was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Judges in their own Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he knew the Jesuites mind as well as himself as sure I think he doth That the Jesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the General Church as the Jesuite understood my meaning The Jesuite here took my meaning right For I confess I said there were Errors in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the General Church could not or would not Reform such it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves But then I added That the General Church not universally taken but in these Western parts fell into those Errors being swayed in these later Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome under whose Government it was for the most part forced And all men of understanding know how oft and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it in any Body Natural Politick or Ecclesiastical Num. 4 Yea but A. C. tells us That never any Competent Judge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power on Earth or in Hell it self can so far prevail against the General Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches And for proof of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. John 14. and 16. In this troublesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in general The Church of England is content to pass that over And though She tells us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in general She is modestly silent But since A. C. will needs have it That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith he should do well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to all mens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most Lear ned Protestants grant it But if he mean that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in general which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles is yet made a Point of Faith and may prove dangerous to the Salvation of some which believe it and practise after it as his words seem to import especially if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as Bellarm. says She may and yet not Erre Then perhaps it may be said and without any wrong to the Catholike Church that the Whole Militant Church hath
to the Contrary make the Error appear and until thereupon another Councel of equal Authority did reverse it Well! I say it again But is there any one word of mine in the Caution that speaks of our knowing of this Errour Surely not one that 's A. C's Addition Now suppose a General Councel actually Erring in some Point of Divine Truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be known to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yeelded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental verity in which case a General Councel cannot easily erre I would have A. C. and all wise men Consider Whether External Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversies arise in the Church some end they must have or they 'll tear all in sunder And I am sure no wisdome can think that fit Why then say a General Councel Erre and an Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law it self invalid I would have it wisely considered again whether it be not fit to allow a General Councel that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts have Namely That there be a Declaration of the Invalidity of it's Decrees as well as of the Laws of other Courts before private men can take liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a declaration if the Councel stand not in force A. C. sets up Private Spirits to control General Councels which is the thing he so often and so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therefore it may seem very fiâ— and necessary for the Peace of Christondome that a General Councel thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appear as that another Councel of equal Authority reverse it For as for Moral Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith which alone are spoken of here And if another Councel of equal Authority cannot be gotten together in an Age that is such an Inconvenience as the Church must bear when it happens And far better is that inconvenience than this other that any Authority less than a General Councel should rescind the Decrees of it unless it erre manifestly and intolerably Or that the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this Errour neglect or refuse to call a Councel and examine it And there come in National or Provincial Councels to reform for themselves But no way must lye open to private men to Refuse obedience till the Councel be heard and weighed as well as that which they say against it yet with Bellarmines Exception still so the errour be not manifestly intolerable Nor is it fit for Private men in such great Cases as this upon which the whole peace of Christendome depends to argue thus The Error appears Therefore the Determination of the Councel is ipso â—ure invalid But this is far the safer way I say still when the Errour is neither Fundamental nor in it self manifest to argue thus The Determination is by equal Authority and that secundùm jus according to Law declared to be invalid Therefore the Errour apears And it is a more humble and conscientious way for any private man to suffer a Councel to go before him then for him to out-run the Councel But weak and Ignorant mens out-running both God and his Church is as bold a fault now on all sides as the daring of the Times hath made it Common As for that which I have added concerning the Possibility of a General Councels erring I shall go on with it without asking any farther leave of A. C. § 33 For upon this Occasion I shall not hold it amiss a little more at large to Consider the Poynt of General Councels How they may or may not erre And a little to look into the Romane and Protestant Opinion concerning them which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church and which is most preservative of Peace established or ablest to reduce perfect unity into the Church of Christ when that poor Ship hath her ribs dashed in sunder by the waves of Contention And this I will adventure to the World but only in the Nature of a Consideration and with submission to my Mother the Church of England and the Mother of us all the Universal Catholick Church of Christ As I do most humbly All whatsoever else is herein contained First then I Consider whether all the Power that an Occumenical Councel hath to Determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in that Determination it hath it not all from the Catholike Universal Body of the Church and Clergie in the Church whose Representative it is And it seems it hath For the Government of the Church being not Monarchical but as Christ is Head this Principle is inviolable in Nature Every Body Collective that represents receives power and priviledges from the Body which is represented else à Representation might have force without the thing it represents which cannot be So there is no Power in the Councel no Assistance to it but what is in and to the Church But yet then it may be Questioned whether the Representing Body hath all the Power Strength and Priviledge which the Represented hath And suppose it hath all the Legal power yet it hath not all the Natural either of strength or wisdom that the whole hath Now because the Representative hath power from the Whole and the Main Body can meet no other way therefore the Acts Laws and Decrees of the Representative be it Ecclesiastical or Civil are Binding in their Strength But they are not so certain and free from Errour as is that Wisdom which resides in the Whole For in Assemblies meerly Civil or Ecclesiastical all the able and sufficient men cannot be in the Body that Represents And it is as possible so many able and sufficient men for some particular business may be left out as that they which are in may miss or mis-apply that Reason and Ground upon which the Determination is principally to rest Here for want of a clear view of this ground the Representative Body erres whereas the Represented by vertue of those Members which saw and knew the ground may hold the Principle inviolated Secondly I Consider That since it is thus in Nature and in Civil Bodies if it be not so in Ecclesiastical too some reason must be given why For that Body also consists of men Those men neither all equal in their perfections of Knowledge and Judgement whether acquired by Industry or rooted in Nature or infused by God Not all equal nor any one of them perfect and absolute or freed from passion and humane infirmities Nor doth their meeting together make them Infallible in all things though the Act which is hammered out by many together
Faith in such holiness of life and conversation as is without all infamy and reproach That is as our English renders that Creed exceeding well Which Faith unless a man do keep whole and undefiled even with such a life as Monius himself shall not be able to carp at So Athanasius who certainly was passing able to express himself in his own Language in the beginning of that his Creed requires That we keep it entire without diminution and undesiled without blame And at the end that we believe it faithfully without wavering But inviolate is the mistaken word of the old Interpreter and with no great knowledge made use of by A. C. And then fourthly though this be true Divinity That he which hopes for Salvation must believe the Whole Creed and in the right sense too if he be able to comprehend it yet I take the true and first meaning of inviolate could Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have signified so not to be the holding of the true sense but not to offer violence oâ— a forced sence or meaning upon the Creed which every man doth not that yet believes it not in a true sence For not to believe the true sence of the Creed is one thing But 't is quite another to force a wrong sence upon it Fifthly a Reason would be given also why A. C. is so earnest for the whole Faith and bauks the word which goes with it which is holy or undesiled For Athanasius doth alike exclude from Salvation those which keep not the Catholike Faith holy as well as these which keep it not whole I doubt this was to spare many of his holy Fathers the Popes who were as far as any the very â—ewdâ—st among men without exception from keeping the Catholike Faith holy Sixthly I agree to the next part of his Exposition That a man that will be saved must believe the whole Creed for the true formal reason of divine Revelation For upon the Truth of God thus revealed by Himself 〈◊〉 the infallible certainty of the Christian Faith But I do not grant that this is within the compass of S. Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor of the word Inviolate But in that respect 't is a meer strain of A. C. And then lastly though the whole Catholike Church be sufficient in applying this to us and our Belief not our Understanding which A. C. is at again yet Infallible She is not in the proposal of this Revelation to us by every of her Pastors some whereof amongst you as well as others neglect or forget at least to feed Christ's sheep as Christ and his Church hath fed them Num. 13 But now that A. C. hath taught us as you see the meaning of S. Athanasius in the next place he tells us That if we did believe any one Article we finding the same formal Reason in all and applied sufficiently by the same means to all would easily believe all Why surely we do not believe any one Article onely but all the Articles of the Christian Faith And we believe them for the same formal Reason in all namely Because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his Word and by his Churches Ministration But so long as they do not believe all in this sort saith A. C. Look you He tells us we do not believe all when we profess we do Is this man become as God that he can better tell what we believe than we our selves Surely we do believe all and in that sort too Though I believe were S. Athanasius himself alive again and a plain man should come to him and tell him he believed his Creed in all and every particular he would admit him for a good Catholike Christian though he were not able to express to him the formal reason of that his belief Yea but saith A. C. while they will as all Hereticks do make choice of what they will and what they will not believe without relying upon the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church they cannot have that one saving Faith in any one Article Why but whatsoever Hereticks do we are not such nor do we so For they which believe all the Articles as once again I tell you we do make no choice And we do relie upon the Infallible Authority of the Word of God and the whole Catholike Church And therefore we both can have and have that one saving Faith which believes all the Articles entirely though we cannot believe that any particular Church is infallible Num. 14 And yet again A. C. will not thus be satisfied but on he goes and adds That although we believe the same truth which other good Catholikes do in some Articles yet not believing them for the same formal reason of Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by Infallible church-Church-Authority c. we cannot be said to have one and the same Infallible and Divine Faith which other good Catholike Christians have who believe the Articles for this formal Reason sufficiently made known to them not by their own fancy nor the fallible Authority of humane deductions but by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God If A. C. will still say the same thing I must still give the same answer First he confesses we believe the same Truth in some Articles I pray mark his phrase the same Truth in some Articles with other good Catholike Christians so far his Pen hath told Truth against his will for he doth not I wot well intend to call us Catholikes and yet his Pen being truer than himself hath let it fall For the word other cannot be so used as here it is but that we as well as they must be good Catholikes For he that shall say the old Romans were valiant as well as other men supposes the Romans to be valiant men And he that shall say The Protestants believe some Articles as well as other good Catholikes must in propriety of speech suppose them to be good Catholikes Secondly as we do believe those some Articles so do we believe them and all other Articles of Faith for the same formal reason and so applied as but just before I have expressed Nor do we believe any one Article of Faith by our own fancy or by fallible Authority of humane deductions but next to the Infallible Authority of God's Word we are guided by his Church But then A. C. steps into a Conclusion whither we cannot follow him For he says that the Article to be believed must be sufficiently made known unto us by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God that is of men Infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God as all lawfully called continued and confirmed General Councels are assisted That the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation I make no doubt For if it could the gates
Valentinus Cerdon Appelles c. Tertull. de praescript advers Haerâ—t c. 46 48 49 51 c. * Libertini rident â—â—em omnem quam de Resurrectione habemus idque jam nobis evenâ—sse dicunt quod adhuc expectamus c. ut Homo sciat Animam suam Spiritum 〈◊〉 esse perpetuâ— viventem in Coelis c. Calv. instructione advers Libertinos c. 22. prinâ— Sunt etiam hodie Libertini qui eam irrident Resurrectionem quae tractatur in Scripturis tantùm ad Animas referunt Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. Class 3. Ca. 15. Nu. 4. Punct 3. Punct 4. †Hebr. 11. 37. Cyrillus Alexandrinus malè audivit quod Ammonium Martyrem appellavit quem constitit teâ—eritatis poenas dedisse non Necessitate negandi Christi in tormentis esse mortuum Socr. Hist. Eccl. L. 7. c. 14. b Optatus L. 4. Cont. Parmen c Tertul. L. de Praescrip c. 48. d Tertul. Ibid. e Tertul. L. de Carne Christi c. 14. f Si ad Jesu Christi respicias Essentiam atque Naturam non nisi Hominem eum fuisse constantèr affirmamus Volkelius Lib. 3. de Religione Christianâ cap. 1. * §. 35. Nu. 2. fine †Extra Ecclesiam neminem Vivificat Spiritus Sanctus S. Aug. Epist. 50. ad finem Field L. 1. de Eccles. c. 13. una est Fidelium Universalis Ecclesia extra quam nullus salvatur Conc. Lateran Can. 1. And yet even there there 's no mention of the Roman Church ‖ And so doth A. C. too Out of the Catholike Roman Church there is no Possibility of Salvation A. C. p. 65. * And Daughter Sion was Gods own phrase of old of the Church Isa. 1. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hyppol Orat. de Consum mundi Et omnis Ecclesia Virgo appellata est S. Aug. Tr. 13. in S. Joh. †For Christ was to be preached to all Nations but that Preaching was to begin at Jerusalem S. Luc. 24. 47. according to the Prophesie Mic. 4. 2. And the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch Acts 11. 26. And therefore there was a Church there before ever S. Peter came thence to settle One at Rome Nor is it an Opinion destitute either of Authority or Probability That the Faith of Christ was preached and the Sacraments administred here in England before any settlement of a Church in Rome For S. Gildas the Ancientest monument we have and whom the Romanists themselves reverence says expresly That the Religion of Christ was received in Brittany Tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris c. In the latter time of Tiberius Caesar. Gildas de excid Brit. whereas S. Peter kept in Jewry long after Tiberius his death Therefore the first Conversion of this Island to the Faith was not by S. Peter Nor from Rome which was then a Church Against this Rich. Broughton in his Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain Centur. 1. C. 8. §. 4. says expresly That the Protestants do freely acknowledge that this Clause of the time of Tiberius tempore summo Tiberii Caesaris is wanting in other Copies of that holy Writer and namely in that which was set forth by Pol. Virgil and others Whereas first these words are express in a most fair and ancient Manuscript of Gildas to be seen in Sir Rob. Cotton's Study if any doubt it Secondly these words are as express in the printed Edition of Gildas by Polyd. Virg. which Edition was printed at London An. 1525. and was never reprinted since Thridly these words are as express in the Edition of Gildas by Jo. Joselin printed at London also An. 1568. And this falshood of Broughton is so much the more foul because he boasts Praefat. to his Reader fine That he hath seen and diligently perused the most and best Monuments and Antiquities extant c. For if he did not see and peruse these he is vainly false to say it if he did see them he is most maliciously false to belie them And Lastly whereas he says The Protestants themselves confess so much I must believe he is as false in this as in the former till he name the Protestants to me which do confess it And when he doth he shall gain but this from me That those Protestants which confessed it were mistaken For the thing is mistaken * Return of Untruths upon M. Jewel Art 4. Untruth 105. †For I am sure there is a Roman Church that is but a Particular Bâ—llarm L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. And then you must either shew me another Roman Church which is The Catholike Or you must shew how One and the same Roman Church is in different Respects or Relations A Particular and yet The Catholike Which is not yet done And I do not say A Particular and yet A Catholike But A Particular and yet The Catholike Church For so you speak For that which Card. Peron hath That the Roman Church is the Catholike Causally because it insuses Universality into all the whole Body of the Catholike Church can I think satisfie no man that reads it That a Particular should insuse Universality into an Universal Peron L. 4. of his Reply c. 9. * Rom. 14. 4. * Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed Credendi simplicitas tutissiniâ—â— fâ—tiâ— S. Aug. Cont. Fund c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 21. Omission of Inquiry many times saves the people †Hereticks in respect of the Profession of sundry Divine Verities which they still retain in common with right Believers c. do still pertain to the Church Field L. 1. de Eccles. c. 14. Potest aliquis Ecclesia membrum esse secundum quid qui tamen simpliciter non est Haereticus recedens à Fide non dimittitur ut Paganiâ—â— sed propter Baptismi Characterem punitur ut transfuga Excommunicationis gladio spiritualitèr occiditur Stapl. Controv. 1. q. 2. A. 3. Notabil 3. The Apostle pronounces some gone out S. Joh. 2. 19. from the fellowship of sound Believers when as yet the Christian Religion they had not utterly cast off In like sense and meaning throughout all Ages Hereticks have justly been hated as branches cut off from the true Vine yet only so far forth cut off as the Heresies have extended For both Heresie and many other Crimes which wholly sever from God do sever from the Church of God but in part only Hooker L. 5. Eccles. Pol. § 68. ‖ Ipsis Magistris pereuatibus nisi fortè ante mortem resipuerint Luth. de Serv. Arbit Hâ—resiarche plâ—s peccant quà m alii qui Heresin aliquam secuti Supplem Tho. q. 99. A. 4. c. * Si mihi videretur uâ—â—s idem Haereticus Haereticis credens homo c. S. Aug. L. 1. de util Cred. c. 1. Et Epist 162. ad Donatist Episc. †S. Mat. 18. 17. Qui oppugnaut Regulam Veritatis S. Aug L. de Haeresibus versus sinem ‖ Cypriaâ—us Reatus Martyr S. Aug. L. 1. de Bapt. cont Doâ—at c. 18.
can neither deceive nor be deceived And he adds That the Probation of the Church can make it known to all that the Object of Divine Faith is revealed from God and therefore certain and not to be doubted but the Church can adde no certainty no firmness to the Word of God revealing it Num. 6 Nor is this hard to be farther proved out of your own School for Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greek Church If there be saith he a true real difference between the Greeks and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be verè Haeretici truly and indeed Hereticks And he speaks this of the old Greeks long before any Decision of the Church in this Controversie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S. Hierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge I deny not but that Scotus adds there That howsoever this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if he intend by it That whatsoever the Church defines shall be ipso facto and for that Determinations sake Fundamental For if before the Determination supposing the Difference real some of those Worthies were truly Hereticks as he confesses then somewhat made them so And that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somewhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it made them Hereticks against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser then to intend this It may be he saw the stream too strong for him to swim against therefore he went on with the Doctrine of the Time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith but meant not to betray the truth For he goes no farther then Ecclesia declaravit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is used by divers Num. 7 Now the Master teaches and the Scholars too That every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another intus est is not another contrary thing but is contained within the Bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erroneous because instead of declaring it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Councel either that which she declares was intus or extra in the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were extra without the nature of the thing declared then the Declaration of the thing is false and so far from being fundamental in the Faith If it were intus within the compass and nature of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise fundamental then the thing is which is declared for that which is intus cannot be larger or deeper then that in which it is if it were it could not be intus Therefore nothing is simply fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares Num. 8 And it is slight and poor Evasion that is commonly used that the Declaration of the Church makes it Fundamental quoad nos in respect of us for it doth not that neither For no respect to us can vary the Foundation The Churches Declaration can binde us to Peace and External Obedience where there is not express Letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing fundamental to us that is not so in its own Nature For if the Church can so adde that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing away from the foundation and make it by declaring not to be Fundamental which all men grant no power of the Church can do For the power of adding any thing contrary and of detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden and alike denied Now nothing is more apparent then this to the eye of all men That the Church of Rome hath determined or declared or defined call it what you will very many things that are not in their own nature fundamental and therefore neither are nor can be made so by her adjudging them Now to all this discourse that the Church hath not power to make any thing fundamental in the Faith that intrinsecally and in its own nature is not such A. C. is content to say nothing Num. 9 2 For the second That it is proved by this place of S. Augustine That all points defined by the Church are fundamental You might have given me that place cited in the Margin and cased my pains to seek it but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it For you do so extraordinarily right this place that you were loth I think any body should see how you wrong it The place of S. Augustine is this against the Pelagians about Remission of Original Sin in Infants This is a thing founded an erring Disputer is to be born with in other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firm by full Authority of the Church their errour is to be born with but it ought not to go so far that it should labour to shake the foundation it self of the Church This is the place but it can never follow out of this place I think That every thing defined by the Church is fundamental Num. 10 For first he speaks of a foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not a Church-definition This appears for few lines before he tells us There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian Whether Baptism was concluded to the eighth day as well as Circumcision And no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no Question was moved that Question that was made was Answered And again That S. Cyprian took that which he gave in Answer from the foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives hath not one word of any Definition of the Church therefore ea res that thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and setled Scripture-Doctrine not any Definition of the Church Therefore that which he took out of the Foundation of the Church to fasten the stone that shook was not a Definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it self the Scripture upon which it is builded as appeareth in the Milevitane Councel where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputer is not to be born any longer
them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
God is uttered to men either immediately by God himself Father Son and Holy Ghost and so 't was to the Prophets and Apostles Or mediately either by Angels to whom God had spoken first and so the Law was given Gal. 3. and so also the Message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin S. Luke 1. or by the Prophets and Apostles and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church But their being written gave them no Authority at all in regard of themselves Written or Unwritten the Word was the same But it was written that it might be the better preserved and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church and the more faithfully in our Memories And you have been often enough told were truth and not the maintaining of a party the thing you seek for that if you will shew us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles we will acknowledge it to be Divine and Infallible So written or unwritten that shall not stumble us But then A. C. must not tell us at least not think we shall swallow it into our Belief That every thing which he says is the unwritten Word of God is so indeed Num. 8 I know Bellarmine hath written a whole Book De verbo Dei non scripto of the Word of God not written in which he handles the Controversie concerning Traditions And the Cunning is to make his weaker Readers believe that all that which He and his are pleased to call Traditions are by and by no less to be received and honoured than the unwritten Word of God ought to be Whereas 't is a thing of easie knowledge That the unwritten Word of God and Tradition are not Convertible Terms that is are not all one For there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church for ought appears And there are many Traditions affirmed at least to be such by the Church of Rome which were never warranted by any Unwritten Word of God Num. 9 First That there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church is manifest For when or where were the words which Christ spake to his Apostles during the forty days of his Conversing with them after his Resurrection first delivered over to the Church or what were the Unwritten Words he then spake If neither He nor His Apostles or Evangelists have delivered them to the Church the Church ought not to deliver them to her Children Or if she do tradere non traditions make a Tradition of that which was not delivered to her and by some of Them then She is unfaithful to God and doth not servare depositum faithfully keep that which is committed to her Trust. 1 Tim. 6. And her Sons which come to know it are not bound to obey her Tradition against the Word of their Father For wheresoever Christ holds his peace or that his words are not Registred I am of S. Augustines Opinion No man may dare without rashness say they were these or these So there were many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church and therefore never made Tradition And there are many Traditions which cannot be said to be the Unwritten Word of God For I believe a Learned Romanist that will weigh before he speaks will not easily say That to Anoint or use Spittle in Baptism or to use three Dippings in the use of that Sacrament or divers other like Traditions had their Rise from any Word of God unwritten Or if he be so hardy as to say so 't is gratis dictum and he will have enough to do to prove it So there may be an Unwritten Word of God which is no Tradition And there are many Traditions which are no Unwritten Word of God Therefore Tradition must be taken two ways Either as it is the Churches Act delivering or the Thing thereby delivered and then 't is Humane Authority or from it and unable infallibly to warrant Divine Faith or to be the Object of it Or else as it is the Unwritten Word of God and then where ever it can be made to appear so 't is of divine and infallible Authority no Question But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in this Particular He tells us We must know infallibly that the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and that this must be done by Unwritten Tradition but so as that this Tradition is the Word of God unwritten Now let him but prove that this or any Tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon is the Word of God though unwritten and the business is ended But A. C. must not think that because the Tradition of the Church tells me these Books are Verbum Dei Gods Word and that I do both honour and believe this Tradition That therefore this Tradition it self is Gods Word too and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this Belief in me Therefore for ought A. C. hath yet added we must on with our Inquiry after this great Business and most necessary Truth Num. 10 2. For the second way of proving That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it self only and by the witness that it can so give to it self I could never yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells us Such Books containing such and such Particulars are the Canon and Infallible Will and Word of God So if there were any such place that were no sufficient proof For a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness of that and again of that another and where ever it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the Whole And no created thing can alone give witness to it self and make it evident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Except those Principles only of Natural knowledge which appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding without any Discourse And yet they also to the weaker sort require Induction preceding Now this Inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same which cannot be Besides if this inward Light were so clear how could there have been any variety among the Ancient Believers touching the Authority of S. James and S. Jude's Epistles and the Apocalyps with other Books which were not received for divers years after the rest of the New Testament For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is And how could the Gospel of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas and other counterfeit pieces obtain so much credit with some as to be received
are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God and so infallible Verity to the least point of them Doth any man doubt this The world cannot keep him from going to weigh it at the Balance of Reason whether it be the Word of God or not To the same Weights he brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it self all Testimonies within which seem to bear witness to it and in all this there is no harm the danger is when a man will use no other Scale but Reason or prefer Reason before any other Scale For the Word of God and the Book containing it refuse not to be weighed by Reason But the Scale is not large enough to contain nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and full force of either Reason then can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands upon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equity and Justice than any thing in the World which any Infidel or meer Naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himself Num. 15 The Ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures no Christians more and having to do with Philosophers men very well seen in all the subtilties which Natural Reason could teach or learn They were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to rely so much as They did upon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deal with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authority of the Book of God by such Arguments as Unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable if they weighed them with indifferencie For though I set the Mysteries of Faith above Reason which is their proper place yet I would have no man think They contradict Reason or the Principles thereof No sure For Reason by her own light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true But all the Light she hath will never be able to find them false Nor may any man think that the Principles of Religion even this That Scriptures are the Word of God are so indifferent to a Natural eye that it may with as just cause lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other For though this Truth That Scripture is the Word of God is not so demonstratively evident à priori as to enforce Assent yet it is strengthen'd so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it self and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it Num. 16 Nay yet farther It is not altogether impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them deny some apparent Principle of their own For Example It is an apparent Principle and with them That God or the Absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of any Possession For if He could be forced by another Greater He were neither Prince nor Absolute nor God in their own Theologie Now they must grant That that God and Christ which the Scripture teaches and we believe is the only true God and no other with him and so deny the Deity which they worshipped or else deny their own Principle about the Deity That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession For their Gods Saturn and Serapis and Jupiter himself have been adjured by the Name of the true and only God and have been forced out of the bodies they possessed and confessed themselves to be foul and seducing Devils And their Confession was to be supposed true in point of Reason For they that were adored as Gods would never belie themselves into Devils to their own reproach especially in the presence of them that worshipped them were they not forced This many of the Unbelievers saw therefore they could not in very force of Reason but they must either deny their God or deny their Principle in Nature Their long Custome would not forsake their God and their Reason could not forget their Principle If Reason therefore might judge among them they could not worship any thing that was under Command And if it be reasonable to do and believe this then why not reasonable also to believe That Scripture is his Word given to teach himself and Christ since there they find Christ doing that and giving power to do it after which themselves saw executed upon their Devil-Gods Num. 17 Besides whereas all other written Laws have scarce had the honour to be duly observed or constantly allowed worthy approbation in the Particular places where they have been established for Laws this Law of Christ and this Canon of Scripture the container of it is or hath been received in almost all Nations under Heaven And wheresoever it hath been received it hath been both approved for Unchangeable good and believed for Infallible verity This perswasion could not have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason unless we shall think all the World unreasonable that received it And certainly God did not give this admirable faculty of Reasoning to the Soul of man for any cause more prime than this to discover or to Judge and allow within the Sphere of its own Activity and not presuming farther of the way to Himself when and howsoever it should be discovered Num. 18 One great thing that troubled Rational men was that which stumbled the Manichee an Heresie it was but more than half Pagan namely That somewhat must be believed before much could be known Wise men use not to believe but what they know And the Manichee scorned the Orthodox Christian as light of Belief promising to lead no Disciple after him but upon evident knowledge This stumbles many but yet the Principle That somewhat must be believed before much can be known stands firm in Reason still For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if Reason be able to see this and confess it if almost all Artists have granted it if in the Mathematicks where are the Exactest Demonstrations there be Quaedam postulata some things to be first Demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed Who can justly deny that to Divinity A Science of the Highest Object God Himself which he easily and reasonably grants to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without proving so have they almost all some Text some Authority upon which they rely in some measure and it is Reason they should For though these Sciences make not their Texts Infallible as Divinity doth yet full consent and prudent Examination and long continuance have won reputation to them and setled reputation upon
four proofs all internal to the Scripture First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly That there hath been such performance of it Fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas à d muniendam Fidem for the Defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinens places Authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self And your own School confesses this was the way ever The Woman of Samaria is a known Resemblance but allowed by your selves For quotidiè daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman that is the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives c. But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe his word before the words of the Woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus the School taught then and thus the Gloss commented then And when men have tired themselves hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures even to this knowledge of them That they are the Word of God is the Tradition of the Church but when they are in They hear Christ himself immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithful And his sheep do not only hear but know his voice And then here 's no vicious Circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church and then round about the Church by the Scripture Only distinguish the Times and the Conditions of men and all is safe For a Beginner in the Faith or a Weakling or a Doubter about it begins at Tradition and proves Scripture by the Church But a man strong and grown up in the Faith and understandingly conversant in the Word of God proves the Church by the Scripture And then upon the matter we have a double Divine Testimonie altogether Infallible to confirm unto us That Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves who delivered immediately to the world the Word of Christ. The other the Scripture it self but after it hath received this Testimonie And into these we do and may safely Resolve our Faith As for the Tradition of after-Ages in and about which Miracles and Divine Power were not so evident we believë them by Gandavo's full Confession because they do not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certain Scripture And it appears by men in the middle Ages that these writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time Num. 33 And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seem to speak differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselves touching Scripture and Tradition And that as well in this Point to prove Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant Exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say We have the Scriptures by Tradition or the like either They mean the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it and there when it is known to be such we may resolve our Faith Or if they speak of the Present Church then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Scripture as by an according Means to the Prime Tradition But because it is not simply Divine we cannot resolve our Faith into it nor settle our Faith upon it till it resolve it self into the Prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers Nay can you or any of your Quarter shew any one Father of the Church Greek or Latine that ever said We are to resolve our Faith that Scripture is the Word God into the Tradition of the present Church And again when the Fathers say we are to rely upon Scripture only they are never to be understood with Exclusion of Tradition in what causes soever it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for all things but because it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if any man will presume upon his own strength and go single without the Church Num. 34 To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long Discourse to prove That Scripture is the Word of God I shall now in the Last place put all together that so the whole state of the Question may the better appear First then I shall desire the Reader to consider that every Rational Science requires some Principles quite without its own Limits which are not proved in that Science but presupposed Thus Rhetorick presupposes Grammar and Musick Arithmetick Therefore it is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles also which she proves not but presupposes And the chiefest of these is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority Secondly that there is a great deal of difference in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity and those of any other Art or Science whatsoever For the Principles of all other Sciences do finally resolve either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science or into those Principles which are per se nota known by their own light and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science And this is it which properly makes them Sciences because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration as forces Reason to yeeld unto them But the Principles of Divinity resolve not into the Grounds of Natural Reason For then there would be no room for Faith but all would be either Knowledge or Vision but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernatural And of this we have just so much light and no more than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture Thirdly That though the Evidence of these Supernatural Truths which Divinity teaches appears not so manifest as that of the Natural yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible than they For they proceed immediately from God that Heavenly Wisdom which being the fountain of ours must needs infinitely precede ours both in Nature and excellence He that teacheth man knowledge shall not be know Psal. 94. And therefore though we reach not the Order of their Deductions nor can in this life come to the vision of them
boty by Divine and by Infallible Proof But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary not by Knowledge of such Principles as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no. I have said thus much upon this great Occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture And I have proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Jesuites for certainly this Question was Captiously asked it had been sufficient to have restored the Question thus How do you know the Testimony of the Church by which you say you know Scripture to be the Word of God to be Divine and Infallible If they prove it by Scripture as all of them do and as A. C. doth how do they know that Scripture to be Scripture It is but a Circular Assurance of theirs by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Scripture And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church That is upon the Matter the Churches Infallibility upon the Churches Infallibility But I labour for edification not for destruction And now by what I have here said I will weigh my Answer and his Exception taken against it F. The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed and needed not to be Proved B. § 17 Why but did I say That this Principle The Books of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no Proof at all to a Natural man Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith yea or perhaps to a Doubter or Weakling in the Faith Can you think me so weak It seems you do But sure I know there is a great deal of difference between Ethnicks that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are Born in the Church The first have a farther way about to this Principle The other in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it That the Books commonly called The Bible or Scripture are the Word of God And I dealt with you as with a Christian though in Errour while you call Catholike The Words before spoken by me were That the Scripture only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question between us and you is Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subject the Scripture is and must be supposed The Quaere between the Roman-Catholicks and the Church of England being only of the Praedicate the thing uttered of it Namely Whether it contain all Fundamentals of Faith all Necessaries for Salvation within it Now since the Question proposed in very form of Art proves not but supposes the Subject I think I gave a satisfying Answer That to you and me and in this Question Scripture was a Supposed Principle and needed no Proof And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent it is against all Art yea and Equity too in Reasoning to call for a proof of That here which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety to Question it it must be tried in a preceding Question and Dispute by it self Yet here not you only but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply against M. John White Wherein I plainly shewed that this Answer was not good and that no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point ◠§ 18 Num. 1 Indeed here you read out of a Book which you called your own a large Discourse upon this Argument But surely I so untied the knot of the Argument that I set you to your Book again For your self confess that against this you read what you had formerly written Well! what ere you read there certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to M. Hooker and my self that because we call it a Supposed or Presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysical Discourse to prove That that which is a Praecognitum fore-known in Science must be of such light that it must be known of and by it self alone and that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the Word of God Num. 2 I will not now enter again into that Discourse having said enough already how far the Beam which is very glorious especially in some parts of Scripture gives light to prove it self You see neither Hooker nor I nor the Church of England for ought I know leave the Scripture alone to manifest it self by the light which it hath in it self No but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun-shine then indeed we settle for our Direction yet not upon the first opening of the morning-light but upon the Sun it self Nor will I make needless enquiry how far and in what manner a Praecognitum or Supposed Principle in any Science may be proved in a Higher to which that is subordinate or accepted for a Prime Nor how it may in Divinity where Prae as well as Post-cognita things fore as well as after-known are matters and under the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly Nor whether a Praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests upon Divine Authority must needs have as much and equal Light to Natural Reason as Prime Principles have in Nature while they rest upon Reason Nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient Light because not equal Your own School grants That in us which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us there is less Light less Evidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge upon which there can be no doubt But I think the School will never grant That the Principles of Faith even this in Question have not sufficient Evidence And you ought not to do as you did without any Distinction or any Limitation deny a Praecognitum or Prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science in their Light and Evidence a thing in it self directly against Reason Num. 3 Well though I do none of this yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in again and tells me That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion between them that whether it be in Science or in Faith the Praecognitum or thing supposed as known must be prius cognitum
of the principal Contents A AFricanes their opposing the Romane Church and separating from it 112. c. they are cursed and damned for it by Eulalius and this accepted by the Pope Ibid. S. Augustine involved in that curse 113 Ja. Almain against the Popes Infallibility 172. his absurd Tenet touching the belief of Scripture and the Church 53 Alphonsus à Castro his confession touching the Popes fallibility 173 his moderation touching heresie 17. his late Editions shrewdly purged 173 S. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury how esteemed of by Pope Urban the second 111 Apocrypha some Books received by the Trent-Fathers which are not by Sextus Senensis 218 Of Appeals to forreign Churches 110 111 112. no Appeal from Patriarchs or Metropolitans ib. Aristotle falsly charged to hold the mortality of the Soul 72 Arrians the large spreading of them 179. wherein they dissented from the Orthodox Christians 201 Assistance what promised by Christ to his Church what not 60 106 c. 151 c. what given to his Church and Pastors thereof 62 64 156 157 166 233 Assurance infallible even by humane proof 80 81 S. Augustine cleared 22 37 38 53 54 82 110 123 c. righted 89 158 159 229 his proofs of Scripture 65 The Author bis small time to prepare for this conference 15. his submission to the Church of England and the Church Catholike 150 151. the Rule of his faith 246. pride imputed to him and retorted upon the imputors 246 247 B BAptism of anointing use of spittle and three dippings in it 44. that of Infants how proved out of Scripture 36 37. acknowledged by some Romanists that it may be proved thence 37. the necessity of it 36. how proved by tradition and S. Augustine's minde therein 37 38. that by Hereticks Schismaticks and Sinners not theirs but Christs 195 S. Basil explained 59 Beatitude supreme how to be attained 73 Belief of some things necessary before they be known 51. Vid. Faith Bellarmine his cunning discovered and confuted 7 8 9 136 his dissent from Stapleton 26. and from Catharinus 32 his absurd and impious tenet touching belief of Scripture confuted 56 Berengarius his gross recantation 214 S. Bernard righted 88 89 Biel his true assertion touching things that be de Fide 252 Bishops their calling and authority over the Inferious Clergy 114 115. their places and precedencies ordered Ibid. the titles given them of old 110. all of the same merit and degree 131 Bodies representing and represented their power priviledges c. compared together 150 c. 171 Britanny of old not subject to the Sea of Rome 111 112. S. Gildas his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the conversion of it 203. and that testimony vindicated ibid. C CAlvin and Calvinists for the Real presence 191 c. 193 Campanella his late Eclogue 138 Campian his boldness 94 Canterbury the ancient place and power of the Archbishops thereof 111 112 Capellus his censure of Batonius 98 Certainty vid. Faith Certainty of Salvation vid. Salvation Christs descent into Hell vid. Descent Church whereon founded 8 9. wherein it differeth from a General Councel 18 no particular one infallible 3 4 58 59 c. not that of Rome 3 4 6 7 c. 11 12. Catholike Church which is it 203. c. her declarations what fundamental what not 20. how far they binde 20 21. her authority not divine 22. not in those things wherein she cannot erre 42. wherein she cannot universally erre 90 91 104 157. what can take holiness from her 91 92. in what points of faith she may erre 104 105. her errours corruptions how and by whom caused 126. what required of her that she may not erre 127. she in the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth in her 132 c. how she must be always visible 207. the invisible in the visible 90. of her double Root 240 241. what the opinion of the Ancients concerning it 237 238 c. 240. A Church and the Church how they differ 82 83 84 c. by what assistance of the Spirit the Church can be made infallible 58. the authority of the Primitive compared with that of the present Church 52 Church of Caesarea her title given by Gregory Naz. 110 Greek Church vid. G. Church of England a part of the Catholike 104 c. where her Doctrine is set down 32 33. her Motherly dealing with her Children ibid. her Articles and Canons maintained 33. of her positive and negative Articles 34 35. her purity 245. how safe to communicate with her 243. what Judges and Rules in things spiritual she hath and acknowledgeth 138. how she is wronged by the Romane 204. Salvation more certain in her than in the Romane 212 c. How one particular Church may judge another 108 c. mutual criminations of the Eastern and Western 116 A Church in Israel after her separation from Judah 97 Church of Rome wherein she hath erred 12 58. sometimes right not so now 85. though she be a true Church yet not Right or Orthodox 82 83. her want of charity 16 17. her determining of too many things the cause of many evils 30 33. her severity in cursing all other Christians 33 34. how fâ—â— she extendeth the authority of her testimony 41. her rash condemning of others 90 92. how she and how other Churches Apostolike 242. how corrupted in Doctrine and Manners 95 96. she not the Catholike Church 120 240 241. false titles given her 237. her belief how different from that of the ancient Church 213. other Churches as well as she called Matres and Originales Ecclesiae 237. A Church at Jerusalem Antioch and probably in England before one at Rome 103. Cardinal Peron his absurd tent that the Romane Church is the Catholike causally 104. vid. Errours Pope Rome Concomitancy in the Eucharist vid. Eucharist Conference the occasion of this 1 2 the Jesuites manner of dealing in this and in two former 311 Confessions Negative made by Churches in what case needful 101 Controversies that in them consent of parties is no proof of truth 188 190 198 c. Counsels their fallibility 150 158 162 163 c. 225. the infallibility they have is not exact but congruous infallibility 166. whence and where it is principally resident 166 172. none of the present Church absolutely infallible 59. confirmation of them by the Pope a Romane novelty 128. who may dispute against them who not 22 25. how inferiours may judge of their decrees 161. a general Councel the onely fit judge of the present Controversies 136 139. and how that to be qualified 99 101 127 145 146 c. the Bishop of Rome not always President in general Councels 140 141. what impediments have been and now are of calling and continuing them 129. what confirmation they need 127 128 147. what of them lawful what not 141 c. what obedience to be yielded to them erring 146 147 168 169 c. what 's the utmost they can do 20. the words Visum est
procession from the Son added to the Creed by the Romane Church 16 97. the Greek Church her errour touching this 14. what and how dangerous 16 God proof of the true one by testimony of the false ones 50 Government of the Church in what sense Monarchical in what Aristocratical 130 131 c. how a Monarchical not needful 138 S. Gregory Naz. vindicated 8 his humility and mildness 110 Pope Gregory VII the raiser of the Papacy to the height 135 136. his XXVII Conâ—lusions the Basis of the Papal greatness 118 Creek Church notwithstanding her errour still a true Church 16. and justified by some Romanists ibid. her hard usage by the Church of Rome 17. of her Bishops their subscription to the Councel of Florence 227 H HEresies what maketh them 20. the occasion of their first springing up 128. how and by whom began at Rome 10 11 Hereticks who and who not 105. none to be rashly condemned for such 17. that some may pertain to the Church 105. who they be that teach that faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept 92 93 S. Hierome explained 6 88. in what esteem he had Bishops 115 Hooker righted 56 57 158 I St. James believed to have been Successor of our Lord in the Principality of the Church 122 Idolaters their gods how put down by Christian Religion 50 51. Idolatry how maintained in the Church of Rome and with what evil consequents 181 c. Of Jeremias the Greek Patriarch 〈◊〉 Censâ—â—e 145 Jesuites◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of dealing in this Conference 211. their cunning in expounding the Fathers to their own purpose 7. their confidence 15. their arrogancy 111. their subtile malignity 244. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves infallibility 61. their desire of having one King 〈◊〉 one Pope 65 66. their late cunning argument to draw Protestants to them answered c. 194. their falsification of the Authors words 86 87. A perfect Jesuitism 84 Jews the ground of their belief of the old Testament 79 Images how worshipped by the Church of Rome 12. against adoration of them 181. Cassander his complaint of it 182. The flying from Image-worship should not make 〈◊〉 to run into prophaneness and irreverence against God 183 Infallible two acceptions of it 80 Infallible and Firm how they differ 127. the evils ensuing the opinion of the Churches and the Popes Infallibility 143 c. 170 175. what an Infallibilty of the Church Stapleton is forced to acknowledge 166 167 Vid. Councels and Pope and Church Innocent the third â—â—â— extolling the Pope above the Emperour 134 c. Against Invocation of Sainâ—t 181 Irenâ—â—â— vindicated 118 c. 249 250 251 Israel a Church after her separation from Judah 97 Judge who to be in controversies touching faith and manners 101 102 c. 108 253. what Judges of this kinde the Church hath 127 253. who to judge when a general Councel cannot be had 129. that no visible Judge can prevent or remedy all Heresie and Schism 130. A visible living Judge of all Controversies whether always necessary 130. c. wherein private men may judge and wherein not 2 149 160 K THe Keys to whom given and how 123 167 Kings Custodes utriúsque tabulae 134. not to be tyranniz'd over by the Pope 125. their supremacy in things spiritual 134. some Romanists for the deposing and killing of them 221 Knowledge of God how difficult 71 72. what Knowledge needful to breed faith 55 56. what degree of it is necessary to salvation hard to determine 212 236. the Apostles Knowledge how different from that of their hearers 69 L AGainst Limbus Patrum 198 213 Literae Communicatoriae what they were and of what use 132 Peter Lombard condemned of Heresie by the Pope 174 M MAldonate answered 147 Manichees their soul Heresie and what stumbled them 151 Manners Corruption in them no sufficient cause of separation 94 95 Martyrs of the Feasts made of old at their Oratories 182 Mass the English Liturgy better and safer than it 201. what manner of sacrifice it is made by them of Rome 200 Matrix and Radix in S. Cyprian not the Roman Church 238 240 Merits against their condignity 185 Miracles what proofs of Divine truth 48 69. not wrought by all the Writers of Scripture 69. what kind of assent is commonly given to them ibid. Multitude no sure mark of the truth 198 N NOvatians their original 3 10. Novatian how dealt with by Saint Cyprian 23 239 c. O OBedience of that which is due to the Church her Pastors 155 Occham his true Resolution touching that which maketh an Article of faith 254 Origen his Errours obtruded by Ruffinus 6. he the first Founder of Purgatory 227 231 P PApists their denying possibility of salvation to Protestants confuted and their reasons answered 185 186 187. of their going to Protestant Churches and joyning themselves to their Assemblies 244 Parents their power over their children 103 Parliaments what matters they treat of and decree 138 139 Pastors lawfully sent what assistance promised to them 61 62. their Embassie of what authority 64 Patriarchs all alike supream 111 112 116. no appeal from them 117 111 1â—2 People the unlearned of them saved by the simplicity of faith 105 Perfidia the different significations of it 4 5 6 S. Peter of Christs prayer for him 106 107 124 125. of his Primacy Preeminency and Power 121 c. 123 152. in what sense the Church is said to be built upon him 122. that he fell but not from the faith 123 124. whether he were universal Pastor 125. the highest power Ecclesiastical how given to him and how to the rest of the Apostles 109 110 247 248 Pope not infallible 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 58 59 124 147 253. how improbable and absurd it is to say he is so 174 175 c. he made more infallible by the Romanists than a general Councel 172. his infallibility held by some against Conscience 174 175. if he had any it were useless 177. how opposed by Alphonsus à Castro 172 173. the belief and knowledge of it both of them impossible 177. that he may erre and hath erred 136. that he may erre as Pope 174 175. prefer'd by some before a general Councel 172. not Monarch of the Church 132. he hath not a negative voice in Councels 253. made by some as infallible without as with a general Councel 172 173. his confirmation of general Councels of what avail 180. of his power in France and Spain 132 133 136. how much greater he is made by some than the Emperour 132 133 c. 137. his power slighted by some great Princes 132 133 136. whether he may be an Heretick and being one how to be dealt with 176. all his power prerogatives c. indirectly denied by Stapleton 30 Popes the fall of some of them and the consequents thereof 95 Of their Power and Principality 109 110 c. 253. their subjection to the Emperour 115 116. and how lost by the Emperor
the Son then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Son in this they seem to agree with us in eandem Fidei sententiam upon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the Sentence of Faith is the same penitus eadem even altogether the same Can the Point be Fundamental You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so deny them Salvation which cannot be had out of the true Church but I for my part dare not so do And Rome in this particular should be more moderate if it be but because this Article Filioque was added to the Creed by her self And 't is hard to adde and Anathematize too Num. 3 It ought to be no easie thing to condemn a man of Heresie in foundation of faith much less a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greek especially so as to make them no Church Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keys at his own Girdle And it is good counsel which Alphonsus a Castro one of your own gives Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselves to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that separates from the Church simply and not in part only I must needs profess that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Cross is heavy already had been more plainly and moderately dealt withal though they think a diverse thing from us then they have been by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forc'd F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against D. White concerning Points Fundamental B. § 10 Num. 1 Hereupon it is true that you read a large Discourse out of a Book printed which you said was yours the particulars all of them at the least I do not now remember nor did I then approve But if they be such as were formerly brought against Doctor White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine which Sentence I do not at all remember was so much as named in the Conference much less was it stood upon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But now you tell us of a great Proof made out of this place For these words of yours contain two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental The other That this is proved out of this place of S. Augustine Num. 2 1 For the first That all Points defined by the Church are fundamental It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her Greatness to blast every Opposer she had with the Name of Heretick or Schismatick for this served to shrivel the Credit of the persons And the persons once brought into contempt and ignominy all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of Creditable Persons to back and support it To make this proceeding good in these later years this course it seems was taken The School that must maintain and so they do That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leave the wise and active Heads to take order that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them Num. 3 But since these men distinguish not nor you between the Church in general and a General Councel which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith though I be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by Lawful General and consenting Authority though I give as much as can justly be given to the Definitions of Councels truly General Nay suppose I should grant which I do not That General Councels cannot erre yet this cannot down with mé That all Points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it self for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the Souls of men rest upon a shaking foundation No If it be a true foundation it must be common to all and firm under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are fundamental And Irenaeus lays this for a ground That the whole Church howsoever dispersed in place speaks this with one mouth He which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speak utters no more then this and less then this the most simple doth not utter Therefore the Creed of which he speaks is a common is a constant Foundation And an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which have the use of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church utter this Num. 4 Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right move far from the foundation without which Deductions explicitly believed many millions of Christians go to Heaven and cannot therefore be fundamental in the Faith True Deductions from the Article may require necessary belief in them which are able and do go along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion But I do not see either that the Learned do make them necessary to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be fundamental and yet to some mens Salvation they are necessary Num. 5 Besides that which is fundamental in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be fundamental after the Church hath defined it it was fundamental before the Definition else it is moveable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immoveable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councel be it never so General can alter immoveable Verities no more then it can change immoveable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councel define any thing the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the Definition of the Church if it be not so in it self For if the Church had this power she might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selves deny For the Articles of the Faith cannot increase in substance but only in Explication And for this I 'le be judg'd by Bellarmine who disputing against Amb. Catharinus about the certainty of Faith tells us That Divine Faith hath not its certainty because 't is Catholike i. common to the whole Church but because it builds on the Authority of God who is Truth it self and