That it would call again and reform yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance upon just cause made evident that this Representing Body had failed in Trust or Truth And this Power no Body Collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Councel or call it what you will that represents it Nay in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councel hath power to order settle and Define differences arisen concerning Faith This Power the Councel hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held have is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches power front God And this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a General Councel than that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars and it self but not binde the whole Church from calling again and in the After-calls upon just Cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just Cause For if the Councel be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approve the Councel and then the Definitions of it are Binding And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body a Lawful General Councel And certain it is no Power but her own may do it Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits For all Decisions in such a Councel are Binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councel shall remain the Supreme External Living Temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Onely the Whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendred to her to represent her self again in a new Councel and in it to order what was amiss Num. 7 Nay your Opinion is yet more unreasonable For you do not onely make the Definition of a General Councel but the Sentence of the Pope infallible nay more Infallible than it For any General Councel may erre with you if the Pope confirm it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body the Councel nor in the Whole Body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome Now I may ask you to what end such a trouble for a General Councel Or wherein are we nearer to Unity if the Pope confirm it not You answer though not in the Conference yet elsewhere That the Pope erres not especially giving Sentence in a General Councel And why especially Doth the Deliberation of a Councel help any thing to the Conclusion Surely not in your Opinion For you hold the Conclusion Prophetical the means fallible and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Prophetick Conclusion And just as the Councel is in Stapleton's Judgement for the Definition and the Proofs so is the Pope in the Judgement of Melch. Canus and them which followed him Prophetical in the Conclusion The Councel then is called but onely in effect to hear the Pope give his Sentence in more state Else what means this of Stapleton The Pope by a Councel joyned unto him acquires no new Power or Authority or Certainty in Judging no more than a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it than it is without them Or this of Bellarmine That the firmness and infallibility of a General Councel is onely from the Pope not partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel So belike the Presence is necessary not the Assistance Which opinion is the most groundless and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church And I am perswaded many Learned men among your selves scorn it at the very heart And I avow it I have heard some Learned and Judicious Romane Catholikes utterly condemn it And well they may For no man can affirm it but he shall make himself a scorn to all the Learned men of Christendom whose Judgements are not Captivated by Romane power And for my own part I am clear of Jacobus Almain's Opinion And a great wonder it is to me That they which affirm the Pope cannot erre do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirm it did not the daily Works of the Popes compel them to believe the Contrary For very many of them have led lives quite Contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross Impiety if their own Historians be true Take your choice of John the thirteenth about the year 966. Or of Sylvester the second about the year 999. Or John the eighteenth about the year 1003. Or Benedict the ninth about the year 1033. Or Boniface the eighth about the year 1294. Or Alexander the sixth about the year 1492. And yet these and their like must be Infallible in their Dictates and Conclusions of Faith Do your own believe it Surely no. For Alphonsus à Castro tells us plainly That he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to attribute this unto him that he can neither erre nor mistake in expounding the holy Scripture This comes home And therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd Purge For these words are Express in the Edition at Paris 1534. But they are not to be found in that at Colen 1539. Nor in that at Antwerp 1556. Nor in that at Paris 1571. Harding says indeed Alphonsus left it out of himself in the following Editions Well First Harding says this but proves it not so I may chuse whether I will believe him or no. Secondly be it so that he did that cannot help their Cause a whit For say he did mislike the sharpness of the Phrase or ought else in this speech yet he alter'd not his Judgement of the thing For in all these later Editions he speaks as home if not more than in the first and says Expresly That the Pope may erre not onely as a private person but as Pope And in difficult Cases he addes That the Pope ought to Consult Viros doctos men of Learning And this also was the Opinion of the Ancient Church of Christ concerning the Pope and his Infallibility For thus Liberius and he ◠Pope himself writes to Athanasius Brother Athanasius if you think in the presence of God and Christ as I do I pray subscribe this Confession which is thought to be the true Faith of the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church that
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-Authority always the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but Church-Authority and 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
But as it is appliable to the whole Church Militant in all succeeding times so the Promise was made with a Limitation namely that the Blessed Spirit should abide with the Church for ever and lead it into all Truth but not simply into all Curious Truth no not in or about the Faith but into all Truth necessary to Salvation And against this Truth the Whole Catholike Church cannot erre keeping her self to the direction of the Scripture as Christ hath appointed her For in this very Place where the Promise is made That the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things 't is added that He shall bring all things to their remembrance What simply all things No But all things which Christ had told them S. John 14. So there is a Limitation put upon the words by Christ himself And if the Church will not erre it must not ravel Curiously into unnecessary Truths which are out of the Promise nor follow any other Guide than the Doctrine which Christ hath lest behind him to govern it For if it will come to the End it must keep in the Way And Christ who promised the Spirit should lead hath no where promised that it shall follow its Leader into all Truth and at least not Infallibly unless you will Limit as before So no one of these Places can make good A. C.'s Assertion That the whole Church cannot erre Generally in any 〈◊〉 Point of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Absolute Foundations she cannot in Deductions and superstructures she may Num. 6 Now to all that I have said concerning the Right which Particular Churches have to Reform themselves when the General Church cannot for Impediments or will not for Negligence which I have proved at large before All the Answer that A. C. gives is First Quo Judice Who shall be Judge And that shall be the Scripture and the Primitive Church And by the Rules of the one and to the Integrity of the other both in Faith and Manners any Particular Church may safely Reform it self Num. 7 Secondly That no Reformation in Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches In which Case also he saith Particular Churches may not take upon them to Judge and Condemn others of Errors in Faith Well how far forth Reformation even of Faith may be necessary in the General Church I have expressed already And for Particular Churches I do not say that they must take upon them to Judge or Condemn others of Error in Faith That which I say is They may Reform themselves Now I hope to Reform themselves and to Condemn others are two different Words unless it fall out so that by Reforming themselves they do by consequence Condemn any other that is guilty in that Point in which they Reform themselves and so far to Judge and Condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives religiously doth not by and by sit in Judgment and Condemn with his mouth all Prophane Livers But yet while he is silent his very Life condemns them And I hope in this way of Judicature A. C. dares not say 't is unlawful for a particular Church or man to Condemn another And 〈◊〉 whatsoever A. C. can say to the contrary there are divers Cases where Heresies are known and notorious in which it will be hard to say as he doth That one Particular Church must not Judge or Condemn another so far forth at 〈◊〉 as to 〈◊〉 and protest against the Heresie of it Num. 8 Thirdly If one Particular Church may not Judge or Condemn another what must then be done where Particulars need Reformation What Why then A. C. tells us That Particular Churches must in that Case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful sub Principality the Principality of an Apostolike Chair Or if you will the Apostolike Chair in relation to the West and South parts of the Church all the other four Apostolike Chairs being in the East Now this no man denies that understands the state and story of the Church And Calvin confesses it expresly Nor is the Word Principatus so great nor were the Bishops of those times so little as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and the Latine Fathers of this great and Learnedst Age of the Church made up of the fourth and fifth hundred years always understanding Principatus of their Spiritual Power and within the Limits of their several Jurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in S. Augustine That this Principality of the Apostolike Chair in the Church of Rome was then or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmine insinuates there and as A. C. would have it here And to prove that S. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any Power out of his own Limits which God knows were far short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the very same Epistle For afterwards saith S. Augustine when the pertinacie of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only they gave them leave to be beard by forein Bishops And after that he hath these words And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not usurp to himself this Judgment which was determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate And what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole Cause In which Passage there are very many things Observeable As first that the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly that if the Pope had come in without this Leave it had been an Usurpation Thirdly that when he did thus come in not by his own Proper Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Judges with him Fourthly that these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperor and his Power that which the Pope will least of all indure Lastly lest the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperor S. Aug. tells us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad Curam ejus to the Emperors Care and charge and that He is to give an Account to God for it And Melciades did sit and Judge the Business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastor of the whole Church say A. C. what he please Nor had he any Supremacie over the other Patriarchs And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument
of the Primitive Church The Text there is A Patriarchâ non datur Appellatio From a Patriarch there lies no Appeal No Appeal Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacie over the whole Church Therefore certainly not then received as Universal Pastor And S. Gregory himself speaking of Appeals and expresly citing the Laws themselves says plainly That the Patriarch is to put a final end to those Causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Archbishops but then he adds That where there is nor Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocess there they are to have recourse to the Sea Apostolike as being the Head of all Churches Where first this implies plainly That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his Judgment is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome Secondly 'T is as plain That in those Ancient times of the Church-Government Britain was never subject to the Sea of Rome For it was one of the Six Diocesses of the West Empire and had a Primate of its own Nay John Capgrave one of your own and Learned for those times and long before him William of Malmesbury tell us that Pope Urban the second at the Councel held at Barâ— in Apulia accounted my Worthy Predecessor S. Anselm as his own Compeer and said he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world So he then termed this Island Now the Britains having a Primate of their own which is greater than a Metropolitan yea a Patriarch if you will He could not be Appealed from to Rome by S. Gregorie's own Doctrine Thirdly it will be hard for any man to prove there were any Churches then in the World which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitane Fourthly if any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome For manifest it is that the Bishops which were Ordained in places without the Limits of the Roman Empire which places they commonly called Barbarous were all to be Ordained and therefore most probable to be governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople And for Rome's being the Head of all Churches I have said enough to that in divers parts of this Discourse Num. 11 And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of Africk I shall borrow another reason from the Practice of that Church why by Principatus S. Augustine neither did nor could mean any Principality of the Church or Bishop of Rome over the Whole Church of Christ. For as the Acts of Councels and Stories go the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melciades his temper set themselves to assert their own Liberties and held it out stoutly against Zozimus Boniface the first and Coelestine the first who were successively Popes of Rome At last it was concluded in the sixth Councel of Carthage wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops of which S. Augustine himself was one that they would not give way to such a manifest incroachment upon their Rights and Liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Coelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal Separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more than one hundred years Now that such a Separation there was of the African Church from Rome and a Reconciliation after stands upon the Credit and Authority of two publike Instruments extant both among the Ancient Councels The one is an Epistle from Boniface the Second in whose time the Reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the Separation instiganâ—e Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an Exemplar Precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessors which went against the Church of Rome Amongst which Eulalius must needs Curse S. Augustine And Pope Boniface accepting this Submission must acknowledge that S. Augustine and the rest of that Councel deserved this Curse and dyed under it as violating Rectae Fidei Regulam the Rule of the Right Faith so the Exemplar Precum begins by refusing the Popes Authority I will not deny but that there are divers Reasons given by the Learned Romanists and Reformed Writers for and against the Truth and Authority of both these Instruments But because this is too long to be examin'd here I will say but this and then make my use of it to my present purpose giving the Church of Rome free leave to acknowledge these Instruments to be true or false as they please That which I shall say is this These Instruments are let stand in all Editions of the Councels and Epistles Decretal As for Example in the Old Edition by Isidor Anno 1524. And in another Old Edition of them Printed Anno 1530. And in that which was published by P. Crabbe Anno 1538. And in the Edition of Valentinus Joverius Anno 1555. And in that by Surius Anno 1567. And in the Edition at Venice by Nicolinus Anno 1585. And in all of these without any Note or Censure upon them And they are in the Edition of Binius too Anno 1618. but there 's a Censure upon them to keep a quarter it may be with Baronius who was the first I think that ever quarrelled them and he doth it tartly And since Bellarmine follows the same way but more doubtfully This is that which I had to say And the Use which I shall make of these Instruments whether they be true or false is this They are either true or false that is of necessity If they be false then Boniface the Second and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious Forgers and that of Records of great Consequence concerning the Government and Peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that Sea and all this foolishly and to no purpose For if there were no such Separation as these Records mention of the African Churches from the Roman to what end should Boniface or any other counterfeit an Epistle of his own and a Submission of Eulalius On the other side if these Instruments be true as the sixth Councel of Carthage against all other Arguments makes me incline to believe they are in Substance at least though perhaps not in all Circumstances then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome That this Separation continued above one hundred years That the Church of Africk made this Separation in a National Councel of their own which had in it two hundred and seventeen Bishops That this Separation was made
have not I do not say now the Written Word of God for Warrant either in express Letter or necessary Sense and deduction as all unerring Councels have had and as all must have that will not eâ—â—e but not so much as Probable Testimony from it nay quite extra without the Scripture Nay secondly Is that Councel Legal where the Pope the Chief Person to be Reformed shall sit President in it and be Chief Judge in his own Cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humanein a place not free but in or too near his own Dominion To which all were not called that had Deliberative or Consultative Voice In which none had Suffrage but such as were sworn to the Pope and the Church of Rome and professed Enemies to all that called for â—eformation or a free Councel And the Pope himself to shew his Charity had declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were Condemned by the Councel I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no Lawful Councel and I think the Decrees of such a one are omni jure nulla and carry their Nullity with them through all Law Num. 2 Again Is that Councel General that hath none of the Eastern Churches Consent nor presence there Are all the Greeks so become Non Ecclesia no Church that they have no interest in General Councels It numbers indeed among the Subscribers six Greeks They might be so by Nation or by Title purposely given them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greek Church to the Councel Or is it to be accounted a General Councel that in many Sessions had scarce Ten Archbishops or Forty or Fifty Bishops present And for the West of Christendom nearer home it reckons one English S. Assaph But Cardinal Poole was there too And English indeed he was by Birth but not sent to that Councel by the King and Church of England but as one of the Popes Legates And so we finde him in the five first Sessions of that Councel And at the beginning of the Councel he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterbury he never went over to the Councel And can you prove that S. Assaph went thither by Authority There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greeks In all the Sessions under Paul the Third but two French-men and sometimes none as in the six under Julius the third when Henry II of France protested against that Councel And in the end it is well known how all the French which were then a good part held off till the Cardinal of Loraigne was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things upon good grounds and were most unworthily over-born Num. 2 To all this A. C. hath nothing to say but That it is not necessary to the Lawfulness and Generalness of a Councel that all Bishops of the World should be actually present subscribe or consent but that such Promulgation be made as iâ— morally sufficient to give notice that such a Councel is called and that all may come if they will and that a major part at least of those that are present give assent to the Decrees I will forget that it was but p. 59. in which A. C. speaks of all Pastors and those not onely summoned but gathered together And I will easily grant him that 't is not necessary that all Bishops in the Christian world be present and subscribe But sure 't is necessary to the Generalness of a Councel that some be there and authorized for all Particular Churches And to the freedom of a Councel that all that come may come safe And to the Lawfulness of a Councel that all may come uningaged and not fastened to a side before they sit down to argue or deliberate Nor is such a Promulgation as A. C. mentions sufficient but onely in case of Contumacy and that where they which are called and refuse to come have no just Cause for their not coming as too many had in the Case of Trent And were such a Promulgation sufficient for the Generalness of a Councel yet for the Freedom and the Lawfulness of it it were not F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councel of Nice The Bishop would not admit the Case to be like B. § 28 So indeed you said And not you alone It is the Common Objection made against all that admit not every latter Councel as fully as that Councel of Nice famous through all the Christian world In the mean time nor you nor they consider that the Case is not alike as I then told you If the Case be alike in all why do not you admit that which was held at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus as well as Nice If you say as yours do It was because the Pope approved them not That 's a true Cause but not adequate or full For it was because the Whole Church refused them with whom the Romane Prelate standing then entire in the Faith agreed and so for his Patriarchate refused those Councels But suppose it true that these Synods were not admitted because the Pope refused them yet this ground is gained That the Case is not alike for mens Assent to all Councels And if you look to have this granted That the Pope must confirm or the Councel's not lawful we have far more reason to look that this be not denied That Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or necessary sense or the Councel is not lawful For the Coâ—sent and Confirmation of Scripture is of far greater Authority to make the Councel Authentical and the Decisions of it de side than any Confirmation of the Pope can be Now of these two the Councel of Nice we are sure had the first the Rule of Scripture and you say it had the second the Pope's Confirmation The Councel of Trent we are able to prove had not the first and so we have no reason to respect the second And to what end do your Learned men maintain that a Councel may make a Conclusion de fide though it be simply ab extra out of all bound of Scripture but out of a Jealousie at least that this of Trent and some others have in their Determinations left both Letter and Sense of Scripture Shew this against the Councel of Nice and I will grant so much of the Case to be like But what will you say if Constantine required That things thus brought into Question should be answered and solved by Testimony out of Scripture And the Bishops of the Nicene Councel never refused that Rule And what will you say if they profess they depart not from it but are ready by many Testimontes of divine Scripture to demonstrate their Faith Is the Case then alike betwixt it and Trent Surely no. But you say that I pretended
as I do Num. 2 First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or any other there be promised to the present Church an absolute Infallibility Or whether such an Infallibility will not serve the turn as Stapleton after much wrigling is forced to acknowledge One not every way exact because it is enough if the Church do diligently insist upon that which was once received and there is not need of so great certainty to open and explicate that which lies hid in the seed of Faith sown and deduce from it as to seek out and teach that which was altogether unknown And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of Infallibility than the present Church which yet if it follow the Scripture is Infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of Certainty which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes five Prerogatives in Certainty of Truth that the Scripture hath above a Councel and at last Concludes That They may be said to be equally certain in Infallible Truth Num. 3 The next thing I Consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous Infallibility in the Church Is it not residing according to Power and Right of Authority in the whole Church always understanding the Church in this place pro Communitate Praelatorum for Church-Governours which have Votes in Councels and in a General Councel onely by Power deputed with Mandate to determine The Places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers upon them make me apt to believe this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receive the Keys of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church Now for this Particular suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Errour and suppose the Key rightly used Infallible in this yet this Infallibility is primely in the Church Docent in whose person not strictly in his own S. Peter received the Keys But here Stapleton lays cross my way again and would thrust me out of this Consideration He grants that S. Peter received these Keys indeed and in the Person of the Church but saith he that was because he was Primate of the Church And therefore the Church received the Keys finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himself and his Successors received the Keys in his own Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I keep on in my Consideration still For the Church here is taken pro Communitate Praelatorum for all the Prelates that is for the Church as 't is Docent and Regent as it Teaches and Governs For so onely it relates to a General Councel And so S. Augustine and Stapleton himself understand it in the places before alleadged Now in this sense S. Peter received the Keys formally for himself and his Successours at Rome but not for them onely but as he received them in the person of the whole Church Docent so he received them also in their Right as well as his own and for them all And in this sense S. Peter received the Keys in the person of the Church by Stapleton's good leave both Finally and Formally For I would have it considered also whether it be ever read in any Classick Author That to receive a thing in the person of another or sustaining the person of another is onely meant Finally to receive it that is to his good and not in his right I should think he that receives any thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and to his use but in his right too And that the formal right is not in the receiver onely but in him or them also whose person he sustains while he receives it I 'll take one of Stapleton's own Instances A Consul or prime Senator in an Aristocratical Government such as the Churches is Ministerially under Christ receives a Priviledge from the Senate and he receives it as Primarily and as Formally for them as for himself and in the Senates right as well as his own he being but a chief part and they the whole And this is S. Peter's Case in Relation to the whole Church Docent and Regent saving that his Place and Power was Perpetual and not Annual as the Consul 's was This Stumbling-block then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in this Notion by the hands of S. Peter received the Keys and all Power signified by them and transmitted them to their Successours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to use them but still in and by the same hands and perhaps to open and shut in some things Iufallibly when the Pope and a General Councel too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seek how to turn these Keys in their Wards Num. 4 The third Particular I Consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation and that this Power of not erring so is not communicable to a General Councel which represents it but that the Councel is subject to errour This supposition doth not onely preserve that which you desire in the Church an Infallibility but it meets with all inconveniences which usually have done and daily do perplex the Church And here is still a Remedy for all things For if Private Respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and favour of some parties if weakness of them which have the managing if any unfit mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrench the Councel the Whole Church upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another Body or Councel and to take order for what was amiss either practised or concluded So here is a means without any infringing any lawful Authority of the Church to preserve or reduce Unity and yet grant as I did and as the Church of England doth That a General Councel may erre And this course the Church heretofore took for she did call and represent her self in a new Councel and define against the Heretical Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is evident And in other Councels named by Bellarmine Now the Church is never more cunningly abused than when men out of this Truth that she may erre infer this Falshood that she is not to be Obeyed For it will never follow She may Erre Therefore She may not Govern For he that says Obey them which have the Rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls Heb. 13. commands Obedience and
defining any one Divine Truth how can we be Infallibly certain of any other Truth defined by it For if it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all 'T is most true if such a Councel may erre in one it may in another and another and so in all of like nature I say in all of like nature And A. C. may remember he expressed himself a little before to speak of the Defining of such Divine Truths as are not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed of all sorts of men Now there is there can be no necessity of an Infallible certainty in the whole Catholike Church and much less in a General Councel of thing not absolutely necessary in themselves For Christ did not intend to leave an Infallibe certainty in his Church to satisfie either Contentious or Curious or Presumptuous Spirits And therefore in things not Fundamental not Necessary 't is no matter if Councels erre in one and another and a third the whole Church having power and means enough to see that no Councel erre in Necessary things and this is certainty enough for the Church to have or for Christians to expect especially since the Foundation is so strongly and so plainly laid down in Scripture and the Creed that a modest man might justly wonder why any man should run to any later Councel at least for any Infallible certainty Num. 22 Yet A. C. hath more Questions to ask and his next is How we can according to the ordinary Course be Infallibly assured that it erres in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same Authority defines both to be Divine Truth A. C. taking here upon him to defend M. Fisher the Jesuite could not but see what I had formerly written concerning this difficult Question about General Councels And to all that being large he replied little or nothing Now when he thinks that may be forgotten or as if he did not at all lye in his way he here turns Questionist to disturb that business and indeed the Church as much as he can But to this Question also I answer again If any General Councel do now erre either it erres in things absolutely necessary to Salvation or in things not necessary If it erre in things Necessary we can be infallibly assured by the Scripture the Creeds the four first Councels and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in another If it be in non necessariis in things not necessary 't is not requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance As for that which follows it is notoriously both cunning and false 'T is false to suppose that a General Councel defining two things for Divine Truths and erring in one but not erring in another doth define both equally by one and the same Authority And 't is cunning because these words by the same Authority are equivocal and must be distinguished that the Truth which A. C. would hide may appear Thus then suppose a General Councel erring in one point and not in another it doth define both and equally by the same delegated Authority which that Councel hath received from the Catholike Church But it doth not define both and much less equally by the same Authority of the Scripture which must be the Councels Rule as well as private mens no nor by the same Authority of the whole Catholike Church who did not intentionally give them equal power to define Truth and errour for Truth And I hope A. C. dares not say the Scripture according to which all Councels that will uphold Divine Truth must Determine doth equally give either ground or power to define Errour and Truth Num. 23 To his former Questions A. C. adds That if we leave this to be examined by any private man this examination not being Infallible had need to be examined by another and this by another without end or ever coming to Infallible certainty necessarily required in that one faith which is necessary to salvation and to that peace and unity which ought to be in the Church Will this inculcating the same thing never be left I told the Jesuite before that I give no way to any private man to be Judge of a General Councel And there also I shewed the way how an erring Councel might be rectified and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored without lifting any private spirit above a Councel and without this process in Infinitum which A. C. so much urges and which is so much declined in all Sciences For as the understanding of a man must always have somewhat to rest upon so must his Faith But a private man first for his own satisfaction and after for the Churches if he have just cause may consider of and examine by the Judgment of discretion though not of power even the Definitions of a General Councel But A. C. concludes well That an Infallible certainty is necessary for that one Faith which is necessary to salvation And of that as I expressed before a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds and the four first General Councels to which for things Necessary and Fundamental in the Faith we need no assistance from other General Councels And some of your own very honest and very Learned were of the same Opinion with me And for the peace and unity of the Church in things absolutely necessary we have the same infallible direction that we have for Faith But in Things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also if about them Christian men do differ 't is no more than they have done more or less in all Ages of the Church and they may differ and yet preserve the One necessary Faith and Charity too entire if they be so well minded I confess it were heartily to be wished that in these things also men might be all of one mind and one judgment to which the Apostle exhorts 1 Cor. 1. But this cannot be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailties which here hang thick and close about her The want both of Unity and Peace proceeding too often even where Religion is pretended from Men and their Humours rather than from Things and Errours to be found in them Num. 24 And so A. C. tells me That it is not therefore as I would perswade the fault of Councels Definitions but the pride of such as will prefer and not submit their private Judgments that lost and continues the loss of peace and unity of the Church and the want of certainty in that one afore-said soul-saving Faith Once again I am bold to tell A. C. there is no want of certainty most infallible certainty of That one soul-saving Faith And if for other opinions which flutter about it there be a difference a dangerous difference as at this day there is yet
ears of seduced Christians in all humane and divided parties whatsoever Num. 4 After these Reasons thus given by him A. C. tells me That I neither do nor can prove any superstition or errour to be in the Romane Religion What none at all Now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome wore so happy and the whole Catholike Church thereby blessed with Truth and Peace For I am confident such Truth as that would soon either Command Peace or confound Peace-Breakers But is there no Superstition in Adoration of Images None in Invocation of Saints None in Adoration of the Sacrament Is there no errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giving it but in one kinde None about Purgatory About Common Prayer in an unknown tongue none These and many more are in the Romane Religion if you will needs call it so And 't is no hard work to prove every of these to be Errour or Superstition or both But if A. C. think so meanly of me that though this be no hard work in it self yet that I such is my weakness cannot prove it I shall leave him to enjoy that opinion of me or what ever else he shall be pleased to entertain and am far better content with this his opinion of my weakness than with that which follows of my pride for he adds That I cannot prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion but by presuming with intolerable pride to make my self or some of my fellows to be Judge of Controversies and by taking Authority to censure all to be Superstition and Errour too which sutes not with my fancy although it be generally held or practised by the Universal Church Which saith he in S. Augustine's judgment is most insolent madness What not prove any Superstition any Errour at Rome but by Pride and that Intolerable Truly I would to God A. C. saw my heart and all the Pride that lodges therein But wherein doth this Pride appear that he censures me so deeply Why first in this That I cannot prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion unless I make my self or some of my fellows Judge of Controversies Indeed if I took this upon me I were guilty of great Pride But A. C. knows well that before in this Conference which he undertakes to Answer I am so far from making my self or any of my fellows Judge of Controversies that I absolutely make a lawful and free General Councel Judge of Controversies by and according to the Scriptures And this I learned from S. Augustine with this That ever the Scripture is to have the prerogative above the Councel Nay A. C. should remember here that he himself taxes me for giving too much power to a General Councel and binding men to a strict Obedience to it even in Case of Errour And therefore sure most innocent I am of the most intolerable pride which he is pleased to charge upon me and he of all men most unfit to charge it Secondly A. C. will have my pride appear in this that I take Authority to censure all for Errour and Superstition which sutes not with my own fancy But how can this possible be since I submit my judgment in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and upon new and necessary doubts to the judgment of a lawful and free General Councel And this I do from my very heart and do abhor in matters of Religion that my own or any private mans fancy should take any place and least of all against things generally held or practised by the Universal Church which to oppose in such things is certainly as S. Augustine calls it Insolentissimae insaniae an Attempt of most insolent madness But those things which the Church of England charges upon the Roman Party to be superstitious and erroneous are not held or practised in or by the Universal Church generally either for time or place And now I would have A. C. consider how justly all this may be turned upon himself For he hath nothing to pretend that there are not gross Superstitions and Errours in the Romane Perswasion unless by intolerable pride he will make himself and his Party Judge of Controversies as in effect he doth for he will be judged by none but the Pope and a Councel of his ordering or unless he will take Authority to free from Superstition and Errour whatsoever sutes with his fancy though it be even Superstition it self and run cross to what hath been generally held in the Catholike Church of Christ Yea though to do so be in S. Augustine's judgment most insolent madness And A. C. spake in this most properly when he called it taking of Authority For the Bishop and Church of Rome have in this particular of judging Controversies indeed taken that Authority to themselves which neither Christ nor his Church Catholike did ever give them Here the Conference ended with this Conclusion Num. 5 And as I hope God hath given that Lady mercy so I heartily pray that he will be pleased to give all of you a Light of his Truth and a Love to it that you may no longer be made Instruments of the Pope's boundless Ambition and this most unchristian brain-sick device That in all Controversies of the Faith he is Infallible and that by way of Inspiration and Prophecy in the Conclusion which he gives To the due Consideration of which and God's mercy in Christ I leave you Num. 6 To this Conclusion of the Conference between me and the Jesuite A. C. says not much But that which he doth say is either the self same which he hath said already or else is quite mistaken in the business That which he hath said already is this That in matters of Faith we are to submit our judgments to such Doctors and Pastors as by Visible Continual Succession without change brought the Faith down from Christ and his Apostles to these our days and shall so carry it to the end of the world And that this Succession is not found in any other Church differing in Doctrine from the Romane Church Now to this I have given a full Answer already and therefore will not trouble the Reader with needless and troublesome repetition Then he brings certain places of Scripture to prove the Pope's Infallibility But to all these places I have likewise answered before And therefore A. C. needed not to repeat them again as if they had been unanswerable Num. 7 One Place of Scripture onely A. C. had not urged before either for proof of this Continued Visible Succession or for the Pope's Infallibility Nor doth A. C. distinctly set down by which of the two he will prove it The Place is Ephes. 4. Christ ascending gave some to be Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers c. for the
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
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-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-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
any Christian be offended that there should be a good end of Controversies Can you think of a better end than by a General Councel And if you have a most Gracious King inclined unto it as you say it was offered how can you acquit your selves if you do not consent Now here A. C. marvels what kinde of General Councel I would have and what Rules I would have observed in it which are morally like to be observed and make an end of Controversies better then their Catholike General Councels Truly I am not willing to leave A. C. unsatisfied in any thing Nor have I any meaning to trouble the Church with any New Devisings of mine Any General Councel shall satisfie me and I presume all good Christians that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same Conditions which General Councels observed in the Primitive Church which I am sure were Councels General and Catholike what ever yours be But I doubt that after all noise made about these Requisite Conditions A. C. and his Fellows will be found as much if not more defective in performance of the Conditions than in the Conditions themselves Well the Jesuite goes on for all this F. I asked the B. whether he thought a General Councel might erre He said it might B. § 31 I presume you do not expect I should enter into the Proof of this Controversie Whether a General Councel may erre in Determination or not Your self brought no Proof that it cannot and till that be brought my speech is good that it can and yet I hope to be found no Infringer of any Power given by Christ to his Church But it seems by that which follows you did by this Question Can a General Councel erre but seek to win ground for your other which follows F. If a General Councel may erre what nearer are we then said I to unity after a Councel hath determined Yes said he although it may erre yet we should be bound to hold with it till another come to reverse it B. § 32 Num. 1 Whether a General Councel may erre or not is a Question of great Consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church not onely without Remedy against an Errour once determined but also without sense that it may need a Remedy and so without care to seek it which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this day To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely to disrespect former Councels of the Church but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now Determine into which Errour some Opposers of the Church of Rome have fallen And upon this is grounded your Question Wherein are we nearer to unity if a Councel may erre But in relating my Answer to this you are not so candid for my words did not sound as yours seem to do That we should hold with the Councel erre or not erre till another came to reverse it As if Grounds of Faith might vary at the Racket and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them Num. 5 You forget again omit at least and with what minde you best know the Caution which I added For I said The Determination of a General Councel erring was to stand in force and to have External Obedience at the least yeelded to it till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the Contrary made the Errour appear and until thereupon another Councel of equal Authority did reverse it And indeed I might have returned upon you again If a General Councel not Confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Councel And you may answer Yes For although a General Councel may erre yet the Pope as Head of the Church cannot An excellent means of Unity to have all in the Church as the Pope will have it what ever Scripture say or the Church think And then I pray to what end a General Councel Will his Holiness be so holy as to confirm a General Councel if it determine against him And as for Bellarmines Reasons why a General Councel should be useful if not necessary though the Pope be Infallible they are so weak in part and in part so unworthy that I am sorry any necessity of a bad Cause should force so Learned a man to make use of them Num. 3 Here A. C. tels me The Caution mentioned as omitted makes my Answer worse then the Jesuite related it And that in two things First in that the Jesuite relates it thus Although it may erre but the Caution makes it as if it did actually erre Secondly in that the Jesuite relates That we are bound to hold it till another come to reverse it that is we not knowing whether it do erre or not but onely that it may erre But the Caution puts the Case so as if the Determination of a General Councel actually erring were not ipso jure invalid but must stand in force and have external Obedience yeelded to it till not onely moral Certainty but Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the Contrary make the errour appear And when it appears we must yeeld our Obedience till a Councel of equal Authority reverse it which perhaps will not be found in an whole Age. So either the Jesuite relates this speech truly or less disgracefully And A. C. thinks that upon better Judgement I will not allow this Caution Truly I shall not thank the Jesuite for any his kindness here And for the Caution I must and do acknowledge it mine even upon advisement and that whether it make my Answer worse or better And I think farther that the Jesuite hath no great Cause to thank A. C. for this Defence of his Relation Num. 4 First then the Jesuite so says A. C. doth in his Relation make it but a supposition That a General Councel may erre But the Caution expresses it as actually erring True But yet I hope this Expression makes no General Councel actually erre And then it comes all to one whether I suppose that such a Councel may erre or that it do erre And 't is fitter for clearing the Difficulties into which the Church falls in such a Case to suppose and more then a supposition it is not a General Councel actually erring then as only under a Possibility of Erring For the Church hath much more to do to vindicate it self from such an Errour actually being than from any the like Errour that might be Num. 5 Secondly A. C. thinks he hath got great advantage by the words of the Caution in that I say A General Councel erring is to stand in force and have external Obedience at least so far as it consists in silence Patience and forbearance yeelded to it till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration
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
Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient Cause of Faith and in some sort the very formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians do do with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but sâ—o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church â— for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophecie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so
this the Protestants all agree And for the second the immediate Deductions they are not formally Fundamental for all men but for such as are able to make or understand them And for others 't is enough if they do not obstinately or Schismatically refuse them after they are once revealed Indeed you account many things Fundamental which were never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church such as are all the Decrees of General Councels which may be all true but can never be all Fundamental in the Faith For it is not in the power of the whole Church much less of a General Councel to make any thing Fundamental in the Faith that is not contained in the Letter or sense of that common Faith which was once given and but once for all to the Saints S. Jude 3. But if it be A. C's meaning to call for an Infallible Assurance of all such Points of Faith as are Decreed by General Councels Then I must be bold to tell him All those Decrees are not necessary to all mens salyation Neither do the Romanisis themselves agree in all such determined Points of Faith Be they determined by Councels or by Popes For Instance After those Books which we account Apocryphal were defined to be Canonical and an Anathema pronounced in the Case Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them And after Pope Leo the tenth had defined the Pope to be above a General Councel yet many Roman Cathalikes defend the Contrary And so do all the Sorbâ—nists at this very day Therefore if these be Fundamental in the Faith the Romanists differ one from another in the Faith nay in the Fundamentals of the Faith And therefore cannot have Infallible Assurance of them Nor is there that Unity in the Faith amongst them which they so much and so often boast of For what Scripture is Canonical is a great point of Faith And I believe they will not now Confess That the Popes power over a General Councel is a small one And so let A. C. look to his own Infallible Assurance of Fundamentals in the Faith for ours God be thanked is well And since he is pleased to call for a particular Text of Scripture to prove all and every thing of this nature which is ridiculous in it self and unreasonable to demand as hath been shewed yet when he shall be pleased to bring forth but a particular known Tradition to prove all and every thing of this on their side it will then be perhaps time for him to call for and for us to give farther Answer about particular Texts of Scripture Num. 9 After all this Ouestioning A. C. infers That I had need seek out some other Infallible Rule and means by which I may know these things infallibly or else that I have no reason to be so confident as to adventure my soul that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith How weak this Inference is will easily appear by that which I have already said to the premises And yet I have somewhat left to say to this Inference also And first I have lived and shall God willing die in the Faith of Christ as it was professed in the Ancient Primitive Church as it was professed in the present Church of England And for the Rule which governs me herein if I cannot be confident for my soul upon the Scripture and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it I will be confident upon no other And secondly I have all the reason in the world to be confident upon this Rule for this can never deceive me Another that very other which A. C. proposes namely the Faith of the Roman Church may Therefore with A. C's leave I will venture my salvation upon the Rule aforesaid and not trouble my self to seek another of mans making to the forsaking and weakening of this which God hath given me For I know they Committed two Evils which forsook the Fountain of Living Waters to hew out to themselves Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no Water Jer. 2. For here 's the Evil of Desertion of that which was Right and the Evil of a bad Choice of that which is hew'd out with much pains and care and is after Useless and Unprofitable But then Thirdly I finde that a Romanist may make use of an Implicite Faith at his pleasure but a Protestant must know all these things Infallibly that 's A. C's word Know these things Why but is it not enough to believe them Now God forbid it should Else what shall become of Millions of poor Christians in the world which cannot know all these things much less know them Infallibly Well I would not have A. C. weaken the Belief of poor Christians in this fashion But for things that may be known as well as believed nor I nor any other shall need forsake the Scripture to seek another Rule to direct either our Conscience or our Confidence Num. 10 In the next place A. C. observes That the Jesuite was as confident for his part with this difference that he had sufficient reason of his Confidence but I had not for mine This is said with the Confidence of a Jesuite but as yet but said Therefore he goes on and tells us That the Jesuite had reason of his Confidence out of express Scriptures and Fathers and the Infallible Authority of the Church Now truly Express Scriptures with A. C's patience he hath not named one that is express nor can he And the few Scriptures which he hath alledged I have Answered and so have others As for Fathers he hath named very few and with what success I leave to the Readers judgment And for the Authority of the Catholike Church I hold it as Infallible as he and upon better Grounds but not so of a General Councel which he here means as appears after And for my part I must yet think and I doubt A. C. will not be able to disprove it that express Scripture and Fathers and the Authority of the Church will rather be found proofs to warrant my Confidence than his Yea but A. C. saith That I did not then taxe the Jesuite with any rashness It may be so Nor did he me So there we parted even Yea but he saith again that I acknowledge there is but one saving Faith and that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith which was all the Jesuite took upon his soul. Why but if this be all I will confess it again The first That there is but one faith I confess with S. Paul Ephes. 4. And the other that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith or Church I confess with that charity which S. Paul teacheth me Namely to leave all men especially the weaker both sex and sort which hold the Foundation to stand or fall to their own Master Rom. 14. And this is no mistaken charity As
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
in the Apostles that witnessed it But to make it knowledge in the Auditors the same or like Revelation and as clear must be made to them For they could have no other knowing Assurance Credible they might and had So A. C. is wary there but comes not home to the Business and so might have held his peace For the Question is not what clear Evidence the Apostles had but what Evidence they had which heard them * Esay 53. 1. †Jer. 20. 7. ‖ Acts 17. 32. And had Zedechiah and the people seen it as clearly as Jeremy himself did that the word he spake was Gods word and Infallible Jerusalem for ought we know had not been laid desolate by the Chaldean But because they could not see this by the way of knowledge and would not believe it by way of Faith they and that City perished together Jer. 38. 17. * Nemo pius nisi qui Scripturae credit S. Aug. L. 26. cont Fanstum c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture that doth not believe that it is the Word of God I say which doth not believe I do not say which doth not know Oportet quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quod vero Animam habemus unde manifestum Si enim Visibilibus credere velis de Deo de Angelis de meute de Animâ dubitabis sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt Et certé si manifestis credere velis Invisibilious magis quà m Visibilibus credere oportet Licet enim admirabile sit dictum verum tamen apud mentem habentes valde certum vel in confesso Ex homil 13. S. Chrysost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit Fronto Paris 1636. * Nemo pius nisi qui Scripturae credit S. Aug. L. 26. cont Fanstum c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture that doth not believe that it is the Word of God I say which doth not believe I do not say which doth not know Oportet quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quod vero Animam habemus unde manifestum Si enim Visibilibus credere velis de Deo de Angelis de meâ—te de Animâ dubitabis sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt Et certé si manifestis credere velis Invisibilious magis quà m Visibilibus credere oportet Licet enim admirabile sit dictum verum tamen apud mentem habentes valde certum vel in confesso Ex homil 13. S. Chrysost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit Fronto Paris 1636. Pun. 6. †And this is the Ground of that which I said before §. 15. Nu. 1. That the Scripture only and not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of our Faith Namely when the Authority of Scripture is first yeelded unto S. Luke 9. 23. ‖ Intellectus Credentis determinatur per Voluntatem non per Rationem Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad tertium And what power the Will hath in Case of mens Believing or not Believing is manifest Jer. 44. But this is spoken of the Will compared with the Understanding only leaving the Operations of Grace free over both Pun. 7. b Coâ—â—n â—ijis enim sententia est Patrum Theologorum aliorum demonstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse Sed à posteriori per effectus Sic Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. Et Damasc. I. 1 Ortho. Fid. c. 3. Almain in 3. sent D. 24. q. 1. But what may be demonstrated by natural reason by natural light may the same be known And so the Apostle himself Rom. 1. 20. Invisibilia Dei a Creaturâ mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntut And so Calvin most clearly I. 1. Instit. c. ◠§. 1. Aperire oculos nequeunt quin aspicere eum coguntur though Bellarmine would needs be girding at him L. 4. de Grat. Lib. Arbit cap. 2. Videtur autem Ratio iis quae apparent attestari Omnes enim homines de Diis ut ille loquitur habent existimationem Arist. I. 1. de Coelo T. 22. c Damasc. L. 1. Ortho. Fid. c. 4. d 1 Tim. 6. 16. Et uâ— Vestiglum sic accedendi relinquit S. Aug. nisi dugeas imaginatione cogitationis lucem solis innumerabiliter vel quid aliud c. â— 8. de Trin. c. 2. Solus modus accedendi Preces sunt Boet. de Consolat Philos. L. 5. prosa 3. e Prates Scientias Philosophicas necesse est ut ponatur alia Scientia divinitâ—s revelata de iis quae hominis captum excedunt Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 1. f And therefore Biel is express That God could not reveal any thing that is to come nisi illud esset â— Deo praescitum seu praevisum i. e. unless God did fully comprehend that which he doth reveal Biâ—l in 3. sent D. 23. q. 2. A. 1. g Nullus Intellectus Creatus videndo Deum potest cognoscere Omnia que Deus facit vel potest facere Hoc enim esset Comprehendere ejus virtutem c. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. C. Ad Argumentum Quod Deus ut Speculum est Et quod omnia quae fieri possunt in eo resplendent Respondet Thom. Quod non est necessarium quod videns speculum omnia in speculo videat nisi speculum vtsu suo comprehendat Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. ad 2. Now no man can comprehend this Glass which is God Himself h Deus enim est Speculum voluntarium revelans quae quot vult alicui beato non est Speculum naturaliter repraesentans omnia Biel. Suppl in 4. Sent. D. 49. q. 3. propos 3. i For if Reason well put to its search did not find this out how came Arist. to affirm this by rational disquisition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Restat ut mens sola extrinsecùs accâ—dat eaque sola divina sit nihil enim cum ejus Actione communicat Actio corporalis Arist. l. 2. de gen Anim. c. 3. This cannot be spoken of the Soul were it mortal And therefore I must needs be of Paulus Benius his opinion who says plainly and proves it too Turpiter affixam à quibusdam Aristottli Mortalitatis Animae Opinionem Benius in Timaeum Platonis Decad. 2 â— L. 3. k For if Reason did not dictate this also whence is it that Aristotle disputes of the way and means of attaining it L. 1. Moral c. 9. And takes on him to prove That Felicity is rather an Honourable than a Commendable thing c. 12. And after all this he adds Deo beata tota vita est hominibus autem catenus quatenus similitudo quaedam ejusmodi Operationis ipsis inest Arist. L. 10. Moral c. 8. l S. John 17. 3. Ultima Beatitudo
Philippico in os resistere palam ausus est Onuph in Plat. in vitâ— Constantini 1. * Platina in vita Gregor 2 3. * Ut laboranti Romae Ecclesiae primo quoque tempore auxilium â—erret c. Platin. in vita Greg. 3. †Quaeres semel incoepta cum â—ongobardici Regni excidio fiâ—ita est Onuph in Plat. in vita Constantini Primi ‖ Reddiâ—us itaâ—ue Romaâ—â—â— Exarcâ—atus est quicquid Paâ—um Apenninum interjacet c. Plat. in vita Stephan Secundi * Imperator in gratiam cum Gregorio rediit eundèmque in Pontificatu confirmavit ut tum Imperatorum mos erat Plat. in vitá Gregor septim †Multi deinde fuerunt Imperatores Hen. similiores quà m Jul. Caesari quos subigere non fuit difficile dum domi rerum omnium securi c. Calv. L. 4. Iustit c. 11. §. 13. ‖ For in a Synod at Rome about the year 1076. Pope Gregory the Seventh established certain brief Conclusions twenty seven in number upon which stands almost all the Greatness of the Papacie These Conclusions are called Dictatus Papae And they are reckoned up by Baronius in the year 1076. Nu. 31 32 c. But whether this Dictatorship did now first invade the Church I cannot certainly say The chief of these Propositions follow here Quòd solus Rom. Pontifex jure dicatur Universalis Quòd solius Papae pedes omnes Principes deosculentur Quòd liceat illi Imperatores Deponere Quòd nulla Synodus absque praecepto ejus debâ—t Generalis vocari Quòd nullum Capitulum nullâ—sque Liber Caâ—onicus habeatur absque illius Authoritate Quòd sententia illius à nullo debet retractari ipse omnium solus retractare potest Quòd Rom. Ecclesia nunquam erravit nec in perpetuum Scripturâ— testante errabit Quòd Rom. Pontifex si Caâ—onicè fuerit ordinatus meritis B. Petri indubitantèr efficitur sanctus Quòd à fidelitate Iniquorum subditâ—s potest absoâ—â—â—re * Euseb. L. 5. c. 25. †Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam i. e. eos qui sunt undique fideles In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio Iren. L. 3. c. 3. A. C. p. 58. ‖ Ed. Brierwood of the Jurisdiction and Limits of the Patriarchs in the time of the Nicen Councel Ad. Qu. 1. M. S. * Apud Alexandriam ut in urbe Româ vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Aegypti ut hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat Ruffin L. 1. Eccles. Hist. c. 6. †Peron L. 2. of his Reply c. 6. ‖ Quia cùm Orientales Graecae Ecclesiae Africanae etiam multis inter se Opinionum dissentionibus tumultuareâ—tur haec sedatior aliis minùs turbulenta fuerit Calv. L. 4. Iustit c. 6. §. 16. A. C. p. 58. * Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum Petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei aedificata est portae inferorum non valebunt adversus illam c. Juxta omnem enim modum in Ipso firmata est fides qui accepit Clavem Coelorum c. In hoc enim omnes Quaestiones ac Subtilitates fidei inveniuntur Epiphan in Ancorato Edit Paris Lat. 1564. fol. 497. A. Edit verò Graecâ— Latin Tom. 2. p. 14. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there begins the Argument of Epiphanius ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. S. Mat 16. 17. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Qui factus est nobis reverâ solida Petra firmans fidem Domini In quâ Petra aedificata est Ecclesia juxta omnem modum Primo quòd confessus est Christum esse Filium Dei vivi statim audivit Super hanc Petram solidae fidei aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Etiam de Spiritu Sancto idem c. Epiphan L. 2. Haeres 59. contra Catharos Tom. 1. p. 500. Edit Graeco-Lat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. * Ille primus speaking of S. James the Lords Brother Episcopalem Cathedram coepit quum ei ante caeteros omnes suum in terris Thronum Dominus tradidisset Epipham L. 3. Haeres 78. Tom. 2. p. 1039. Et serè similitèr Tom. 1. L. 1. Haeres 29. A. C. p. 58. * Bellar. L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. §. Respondeo Pontificaâ—um †◠25. N. 10. * Bellar. Ibid. †The Fathers gave three Prerogatives to S. Peter Of Authority Of Primacie And of Principality But not of Supremacit of Power Raynold contra Hart. cap. 5. Divis. 3. And he proves it at large ‖ S. Mat. 16. 18. * S. Mat. 18. 18. S. Joh. 20. 22. †Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia c. S. Aug. Tract 50. in S. Joh. A. C. p. 58. * S. Luk. 22. 32. †Deum dare ut in side perseveretur S. Prosper L. 1. de Vocat Gent. c. 24. * Rogavi ut non deficeret c. Et certè juxta vos in Apostoli erat positum potestate si voluisset ut non deficeret fides ejus c. S. Hieron l. 2. adversus Pelagianos †Aliquid speciale Bellarm. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Secundò quia sine ‖ Ut nec ipse ut Pontisex doceret unquam aliquid contra fidem sive ut in Side ejus inveniretur qui doceret Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Alterum Privilegium est * Theophylactus floruit circa An. Dom. 1072. †Qui◠〈◊〉 habeo Principâ—m Discipulorum confirma caeteros Hoc enim decet'sâ— qui post me Ecclesia Petra es Fundamentum Bellarm. L. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. §. Praeter hos Ex Theophyl in 21. S. Luc. ‖ 〈◊〉 ibid §. Est igitur tertia * Ex quibus privilegiis primum fortasse non â—â—â—â—vit ad pâ—stâ—res at secundum sine dâ—biâ—â—â—â—â—vit ad Posterâ—s sive Successores 〈◊〉 ibid. â— Alterum Privilegium †Bellar. â— â— de Rom. 〈◊〉 c. â— S. Joh. 11. 〈◊〉 * Donum hoc loco Petro impetratum etiam ad Successores pertinet Bell. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. â— Quartò donum hoc S. Joh. 29. 151 * Mat. 28. 21. S. Mat. 10. 17. The same power and charge is given to them all A. C. p. 58. †And this seems to me to allude to that of S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. 2. and Heb. 5. 12. Some are fed with milk and some with stronger meat The Lambs with milk and the Sheep with stronger meat But here A. C. follows Pope Hildebranâ— close who in the Case of the Emperor then asked this Question Quando Christus Ecclesiam suam Petro commisit dixit Pâ—sâ—â—â—ves 〈◊〉 excepâ—tâ—â— Reges Platin. in vita Greg. 7. And certainly Kings are not exempted from
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
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