England are grounded upon Scripture we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant Belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councels held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine Therefore we desire not to be Judges in our own Cause And if any whom A. C. calls a Novellist can truly say and maintain this he will quickly prove himself no Novellist And for the Negative Articles they refute where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it Upon this Negative ground A. C. infers again That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it In which case he professes he would gladly know what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants And in Conclusion professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made unless we will acknowledge Authority of Church-Tradition necessary in this Case Num. 3 And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an Answer I will give it freely And first in the General I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition not expresly at least not evidently what means he If he speak of the Letter of the Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his Addition is vain If he speak of the Meaning of the Scripture then his Addition is cunning For many things are Expresly in Scripture which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there And what e're he mean my words are That our Negative Articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture without any Addition of Expresly or Evidently And he should have taken my words as I used them I lke nor Change nor Addition nor am I bound to either of A. C's making And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it For are there not many things in Good Logick concluded directly which yet are not concluded Demonstratively Surely there are For to be directly or indirectly concluded flows from the Mood or Form of the Syllogism To be demonstratively concluded flows from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths the Syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical because the Propositions are such If the Propositions be probable only though the Syllogism be made in the clearest Mood yet is the Conclusion no more The Inference or Consequence indeed is clear and necessary but the Consequent is but probable or topical as the Propositions were Now my words were only for a Direct Conclusion and no more though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution For Scripture here is the thing spoken of And Scripture being a Principle and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christians whereof no man desires any farther proof I would fain know why that which is plainly and apparently that is by direct Consequence proved out of Scripture is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity and if there can be none why did he add Demonstratively Num. 4 Next in particular I answer to the Instance which A. C. makes concerning the Baptism of Infants That it may be concluded directly and let A. C. judge whether not demonstratively out of Scripture both that Infants ought to be baptized and that Baptism is necessary to their Salvation And first that Baptism is necessary to the Salvation of Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which he hath bound us is express in S. John 3. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God So no Baptism no Entrance Nor can Infants creep in any other ordinary way And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ. And secondly That Infants ought to be baptized is first plain by Evident and Direct Consequence out of Scripture For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all Doubt the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left only to Extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ Secondly 't is very near an Expression in Scripture it self For when S. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Act. 2. he applies two comforts unto them Verse 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then Verse 39. he infers For the promise is made to you and to your children The Promise What Promise What Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your Children And therefore A. C. may finde it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture For some of his own Party Ferus and Salmeron could both find it there And so if it will do him any pleasure he hath my Answer which he saith he would be glad to know Num. 5 'T is true Bellarmine presses a main place out of S. Augustine and he urges it hard S. Augustine's words are The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolâ—cal Tradition The place is truly cited but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is For first 't is not denied That this is an Apostolical Tradition and therefore to be believed But secondly not therefore only Nor doth S. Augustine say so nor doth Bellarmine press it that way The truth is it would have been somewhat difficult to find the Collection out of Scripture only for the Baptism of Infants since they do not actually believe And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi that this Custom of the Church had not been to be believed had it not been an Apostolical Tradition But the Tradition being Apostolical led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture And this is not the least use of Tradition to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture though
to the Apostles only for the setling of them in all Truth And yet not simply all For there are some Truths saith Saint Augustine which no mans Soul can comprehend in this life Not simply all But all those Truths quae non poterant portare which they were not able to bear when He Conversed with them Not simply all but all that was necessary for the Founding propagating establishing and Confirming the Christian Church But if any man take the boldness to inlarge this Promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles themselves that will fall out which Saint Augustine hath in a manner prophecied Every Heretick will shelter himself and his Vanities under this Colour of Infallible Verity Num. 30 I told you a little before that A. C. his Pen was troubled and failed him Therefore I will help to make out his Inference for him that his Cause may have all the strength it can And as I conceive this is that he would have The Tradition of the present Church is as able to work in us Divine and Infallible Faith That the Scripture is the Word of God As that the Bible or Books of Scripture now printed and in use is a true Copy of that which was first written by the Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and delivered to the Church 'T is most true the Tradition of the present Church is alike operative and powerful in and over both these works but neither Divine nor Infallible in either But as it is the first moral Inducement to perswade that Scripture is the Word of God so is it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have is a true Copy of that which was first written But then as in the former so in this latter for the true Copy The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest upon the naked Tradition of the present Church but must by and with it go higher to other Helps and Assurances Where I hope A. C. will confess we have greater helps to discover the truth or falshood of a Copy than we have means to look into a Tradition Or especially to sift out this Truth That it was a Divine and Infallible Revelation by which the Originals of Scripture were first written That being far more the Subject of this Inquiry than the Copy which according to Art and Science may be examined by former preceding Copies close up to the very Apostles times Num. 31 But A. C. hath not done yet For in the last place he tells us That Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other And truly for my part I shall easily grant him this so he will grant me this other Namely That though they do mutually yet they do not equally confirm the Authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the Authority of Church-Traditions truly so called But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the Authority of the Scripture And this is manifest by A. C.'s own Similitude For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and His Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seal confirm the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seal and hand But the Embassadors word of mouth confirms His Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they called Letters of Credence if they give not him more Credit than he can give them But that which follows I cannot approve to wit That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospel are Gods Legats and the Scriptures Gods Letters which he hath appointed his Legates to deliver and expound So far 't is well but here 's the sting That these Letters do warrant that the People may hear and give Credit to these Legates of Christ as to Christ the King himself Soft this is too high a great deal No Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King himself Nor was any Priest never so lawfully sent ever of that Authority that Christ himself No sure For ye call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so I am saith our Saviour S. John 13. And certainly this did not suddenly drop out of A. C's Pen. For he told us once before That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition that is the lawfully sent Preachers of the Church are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Why but is it possible these men should go thus far to defend an Error be it never so dear unto them They as Christ Divine and Infallible Authority in them Sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith I have often heard some wise men say That the Jesuite in the Church of Rome and the Precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in many things though they would seem most to differ And surely this is one For both of them differ extremely about Tradition The one in magnifying it and exalting it into Divine Authority the other vilifying and depressing it almost beneath Humane And yet even in these different ways both agree in this Consequent That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Nay are the very word of God So A. C. expresly And no less then so have some accounted of their own factious words to say no more than as the Word of God I ever took Sermons and so do still to be most necessary Expositions and Applications of Holy Scripture and a great ordinary means of saving knowledge But I cannot think them or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible The Ancient Fathers of the Church preached far beyond any of these of either faction And yet no one of them durst think himself Infallible much less that whatsoever he preached was the Word of God And it may be Observed too That no men are more apt to say That all the Fathers were but Men and might Erre than they that think their own preachings are Infallible Num. 32 The next thing after this large Interpretation of A. C. which I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God which I here use is the same which the Ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other Arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self This way the Church went in S. Augustine's Time He was no enemy to Church-Tradition yet when he would prove that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the All-sufficient way and gives
would fain through Master Roger's sides wound the Church of England as if she were unsetled in the Article of Christs Descent into Hell pag. 21. And he endeavours the same in this pag. 46. In the first he is very earnest to prove That the Schism was made by the Protestants pag. 23. And he is as earnest for it in this pag. 55. In the first he lays it for a Ground That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation from Faith or Church pag. 24. And the same Ground he lays in this pag. 55. In the first he will have it That the Holy Ghost gives continual and Infallible Assistance to the Church pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this pag. 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Erring of the Greek Church pag. 28. And as much makes he in this pag. 44. In the first he makes a great noyse about the place in St. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans c. pag. 18. and 24. And so doth he here also pag. 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe That he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sentence of S. Bernard 'T is intolerable Pride And that of S. Augustine 'T is insolent madness to oppose the Doctrine or Practice of the Catholike Church pag. 25. And twice he is at the same Art in this pag. 56. and 73. In the first he tells us That Calvin confesses That in the Reformation there was a Departure from the whole world pag. 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world and of no Voluntary but a forced Departure and wrote this to Melancthon to work Unity among the Reformers not any way to blast the Reformation Yet we must hear of it again in this pag. 56. But over and above the rest one Place with his own gloss upon it pleases him extreamly 'T is out of S. Athanasius his Creed That whosoever doth not hold it entire that is saith he in all Points and Inviolate that is saith he in the true unchanged and uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This he hath almost verbatim in the first page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader under the Name of W. I. and then agian the very same in this if not with some more disadvantage to himself page 70. And perhaps had I leasure to search after them more Points than these Now the Reasons which moved me to set down these Particulars thus distinctly are two The One that whereas the Jesuite affirms that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters and little or nothing about the main and great general Point of a Continual Infallible Visible Church in which that Lady required satisfaction and that therefore this third Conference was held It may hereby appear that the most material both Points and Proofs are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences though little be related of the second Conference by A. C. as appears in the Preface of the Publisher W. I. to the Reader So this tends to nothing but Ostentation and shew The Other is that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it It cannot but appear by this and their handling of other Points in Divinity that they labour indeed but no otherwise then like an Horse in a Mill round about in the same Circle no farther at night then at noon The same thing over and over again from Tu es Petrus to Pasce oves from thou art Peter to Do thou feed my Sheep And back again the same way F. The Lady asked Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith Upon my soul said the Bishop you may Upon my soul said I there is but one saving Faith and that is the Roman B. § 38 Num. 1 So it seems I was consident for the Faith professed in the Church of England else I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soul. And sure I had reason of this my Confidence For to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church To receive the four great General Councels so much magnified by Antiquity To believe all Points of Doctrine generally received as Fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are controverted between us I would fain see any one Point maintained by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the Foundation You have many dangerous Errours about the very Foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith But there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Yet this is true too That there is but one saving Faith But then every thing which you call De Fide of the Faith because some Councel or other hath defined it is not such a Breach from that One saving Faith as that he which expresly believes it not nay as that he which believes the Contrary is excluded from Salvation so his Disobedience therewhile offer no violence to the Peace of the Church nor the Charity which ought to be among Christians And Bellarmine is forced to grant this There are many things de Fide which are not absolutely necessary to salvation Therefore there is a Latitude in the Faith especially in reference to different mens salvation To set Bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Just thus far you must believe in every Particular or incur Damnation is no work for my Pen. These two things I am sure of One That your peremptory establishing of so many things that are remote Deductions from the Foundation to be believed as Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation hath with other Errours lost the Peace and Unity of the Church for which you will one day Answer And the other That you of Rome are gone farther from the Foundation of this One saving Faith than can ever be proved we of the Church of England have done Num. 2 But here A. C. bestirs himself finding that he is come upon the Point which is indeed most considerable And first he answers That it is not sufficient to beget a Confidence in this Case to say we believe the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the Ancient Primitive Church believed them c. Most true if we onely say and do not believe And let them which believe not while they say they do look to it on all sides for on all sides I doubt not but such there are But if we do say it
you are bound in Charity to believe us unless you can prove the Contrary For I know no other proof to men of any Point of Faith but Confession of it and Subscription to it And for these particulars we have made the one and done the other So 't is no bare saying but you have all the proof that can be had or that ever any Church required For how far that Belief or any other sinks into a mans heart is for none to judge but God Num. 3 Next A. C. Answers That if to say this be a sufficient Cause of Considence he marvels why I make such difficulty to be Confident of the Salvation of Romane Catholikes who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants do Truly to say this is not a sufficient cause but to say and believe it is And to take off A. C's wonder why I make difficulty great difficulty of the salvation of Romane Catholikes who he says believe all this and in a far better manner than Protestants do I must be bold to tell him That Romanists are so far from believing this in a better manner than we do that under favour they believe not part of this at all And this is most manifest For the Romanists dare not believe but as the Romane Church believes And the Romane Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture and the Creeds in the sense in the which the Ancient Primitive Church received them For the Primitive Church never interpreted Christ's descent into Hell to be no lower than Limbus Patrum Nor did it acknowledge a Purgatory in a side-part of Hell Nor did it ever interpret away half the Sacrament from Christ's own Institution which to break Stapleton confesses expresly is a Damnable Errour Nor make the Intention of the Priest of the Essence of Baptism Nor believe Worship due to Images Nor dream of a Transubstantiation which the Learned of the Romane party dare not understand properly for a change of one substance into another for then they must grant that Christ's real and true Body is made of the Bread and the Bread changed into it which is properly Transubstantion Nor yet can they express it in a credible way as appears by Bellarmine's Struggle about it which yet in the end cannot be or be called Transubstantiation and is that which at this day is a scandal to both Jew and Gentile and the Church of God Num. 4 For all this A. C. goes on and tells us That they of Rome cannot be proved to depart from the Foundation so much as Protestants do So then We have at last a Confession here that they may be proved to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so far as the Protestants do I do not mean to Answer this and prove that the Romanists do depart as far or farther from the Foundation than the Protestants for then A. C. would take me at the same lift and say I granted a departure too Briefly therefore I have named here more Instances than one In some of which they have erred in the Foundation or very neer it But for the Church of England let A. C. instance if he can in any one Point in which She hath departed from the Foundation Well that A. C. will do For he says The Protestants erre against the Foundation by denying infallible Authority to a General Councel for that is in effect to deny Infallibility to the whole Catholike Church No there 's a great deal of difference between a General Councel and the whole Body of the Church Aud when a General Councel erres as the second of Ephesus did on t of that great Catholike Body another may be gathered as was then that of Chalcedon to do the Truth of Christ that right which belongs unto it Now if it were all one in effect to say a General Councel can erre and that the Whole Church can erre there were no Remedy left against a General Councel erring which is your Case now at Rome and which hath thrust the Church of Christ into more straits than any one thing besides But I know where you would be A General Councel is Infallible if it be confirmed by the Pope and the Pope he is Infallible else he could not make the Councel so And they which deny the Councels Infallibility deny the Pope's which confirms it And then indeed the Protestants depart a mighty way from this great Foundation of Faith the Popes Infallibility But God be thanked this is onely from the Foundation of the present Romane Faith as A. C. and the Jesuite call it not from any Foundation of the Christian Faith to which this Infallibility was ever a stranger Num. 5 From Answering A. C. falls to asking Questions I think he means to try whether he can win any thing upon me by the cunning way A multis Interrogationibus simul by asking many things at once to see if any one may make me slip into a Confession inconvenient And first he asks How Protestants admitting no Infallible Rule of Faith but Scripture onely can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire Scripture and Creed and the Four first General Councels and in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitive Church believed 'T is just as I said Here are many Questions in one and I might easily be caught would I answer in gross to them all together but I shall go more distinctly to work Well then I admit no ordinary Rule left in the Church of Divine and Infallible Verity and so of Faith but the Scripture And I believe the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church Then by all other credible Motives as is before expressed And last of all by the light which shines in the Scripture it self kindled in Believers by the Spirit of God Then I believe the entire Scripture Infallibly and by a Divine Infallibility am sure of my Object Then am I as sure of my Believing which is the Act of my Faith conversant about this Object For no man believes but he must needs know in himself whether he believes or no and wherein and how far he doubts Then I am Infallibly assured of my Creed the Tradition of the Church inducing and the Scripture confirming it And I believe both Scripture and Creed in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed them and am sure that I do so Believe them because I cross not in my Belief any thing delivered by the Primitive Church And this again I am sure of because I take the Belief of the Primitive Church as it is expressed and delivered by the Councels and Ancient Fathers of those times As for the Four Councels if A. C. ask how I have them that is their true and entire Copies I answer I have them from the Church-Tradition onely And that 's Assurance enough for this And so I am fully as sure as A. C.
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
double divine authority 54 65 66. what measure of light is or can be required in it 55 56 as now set forth and printed of what authority it is 59 63 Scripture and Tradition confirm either other mutually not equally 63 The way of the Ancient Church of proving Scripture to be Gods Word 65. four proofs brought for it ibid. the seeming contradiction of Fathers touching Scripture and Tradition reconciled 66. belief of Scripture the true grounds of it 71 72 73. rules of finding the true sense of it 41. how rich a store-house it is 73 74. the writers of it what certainty we have who they were 69. proof of its Divine Authority to whom necessary 75 infallible assurance of that Authority by humane proof 8. that it is a Rule sufficient and infallible 129 130. three things observable in that Rule 129. its prerogative above general Councels 157. compared with Church-definitions 162. what assurance that we have the true sense of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. 215 216 c. some Books of Scripture anciently doubted of and some not Canonical received by some into the Canon 46 Separation Actual and Causal 92 93 for what one Church may lawfully Separate from another 90 94 95. Corruption in manners no sufficient cause of Separation 94 95. what Separation necessary 86 Sermons exalted to too great a height both by Jesuites and Precistans 64. their true worth and use ibid. Simanca his soul tenet concerning â—aith given to Hereticks 93 Sixtus Senensis his doubting of some of the Apocryphal Books received by the Councel of Trent 218 Socinianism the monster of Heresies 202 Archbishop of Spalato made to speak for Rome 231 Of the Private Spirit 46 47 161 Succession what a one a note of the Church 249 250 not to be found in Rome 251. Stapleton his inconstancy concerning it 250 T TEstimony of the Church whether Divine or Humane 39 The Testimony of it alone cannot make good the Infallibility of the Scripture 42 43 Theophilus of Alexandria his worth and his violent Spirit 115 Traditions what to be approved 29 30 34 43 44. Tradition and Scripture-proofs of the same things 38. is not a sufficient proof of Scripture 39 40. it and Gods unwritten Word not terms convertible 43 44. Tradition of the present Church what uses it hath 52 53 55 81. how it differeth from the Tradition of the Primitive Church 52 63. Tradition of the Church meer humane Authority 58. what Tradition the Fathers meant by saying we have the Scriptures by Tradition 66 67. Tradition Apostolical the necessity and use of it 66 67. Tradition how known before Scripture 77. what most likely to be a Tradition Apostolical 38 39. the danger of leaning too much upon Tradition 78. Against Transubstantiation 180 188 189 192 212. Suarez his plain confession that it is not of necessary belief 188. Cajetane and Alphonsus à Castro their opinion concerning it 221. Scandal taken by Averroes at the Doctrine of it 213. vid. Eucharist True and Right their difference 82 83 V VIctor Pope taxed by Irenaeus 118. Vincentius Lirinensis cleared 25 Union of Christendome how little regarded and how hindered by Rome 200 212 Unity the causes of the breaches thereof 235 c. Not that Unity in the Faith amongst the Romanists which they so much boast of 218 Universal Bishop a title condemned by S. Gregory yet usurped by his Successors 116 W WOrd of God that it may be written and unwritten 43. why written 44. uttered mediately or immediately 43. many of Gods unwritten Words not delivered to the Church 44 45 Vid. Scripture and Tradition Worth of men of what weight in proving truth 197 A Table of the places of Scripture which are explained or vindicated Genesis Cap. 1. vers 16. pag. 136. Deuteronomy Cap. 4. v. 2. p. 21. c. 13. v. 1 2 3. p. 69. c. 21. v. 19. 103. p. c. 17. v. 18. p. 135. 1 Samuel Chap. 3. v. 13. p. 103. c. 8. v. 3 5 ibid. 3 Kings Cap. 12. v. 27. p. 96. c. 13. v. 11. p. 194. c. 17. p. 193. c. 19. v. 18. p. 194. 4 Kings Cap. 3. p. 97 193. c. 23. p. 100. 135. 2 Chron. Cap. 29. v. 4. p. 100 135. Psalms Psal. 1. v. 2. p. 73. Proverbs Cap. 1. v. 8. c. 15. v. 20. c. 6. v. 20 22. p. 169 170. Isaiah Cap. 44. passim p. 71. c. 53. v. 1. p. 70. Jeremiah Cap. 2. v. 13. p. 219. c. 5. v. 31. p. 78. c. 20. v. 7. c. 38. v. 17. p. 70. S. Matthew Cap. 9. v. 12. p. 37. c. 12. v. 22 c. 16. v. 17. p. 50. c. 16. v. 18. p. 9 106. 123. 240. c. 16. v. 19. p. 47. c. 18. v. 18. p. 123. c. 18. v. 20. p. 152 154 c. 18. v. 17. p. 168 185. c. 22. v. 37 p. 236. c. 28. v. 19 20. p. 61 106. c. 28 v. 21. p. 106. c. 28. v. 29. p. 125. c. 28. v. 20. p. 151. c. 26. v. 27. p. 169. S. Mark Cap. 10. v. 14. p. 38. c. 13. v. 22. p. 69. S. Luke Cap. 10. v. 16. p. 61. c. 12. v. 48. p. 236. c. 22. v. 35. p. 30. c. 9. v. 23. p. 71. c. 22. v. 37. p. 100. c. 12. v. 32. p. 123 151. c. 24. v. 47. p. 104. S. John Cap. 5. v. 47. p. 79. c. 6. v. 70. p. 251. c. 9. v. 29. p. 79. c. 10. v. 4. p. 65. c. 10. v. 41. p. 70. c. 11. v. 42. p. 124. c. 14. v. 16. p. 62. 151. c. 14. v. 26. p. 107 151. c. 16 v. 13. p. 62 151. c. 16. v. 14. p. 151. c. 17. v. 3. p. 72. c. 19. v. 35. p. 69. c. 20. v. 22. p. 123. c. 21. v. 15. p. 30 125. c. 5. v. 31. p. 57. c. 2. v. 19. p. 105. Acts. Cap. 4. v. 12. p. 136. c. 6. v. 9. p. 82. c. 9. v. 29. c. 19. v. 17. p. 82. c. 11. v. 26. p. 103. c. 15. v. 28. p. 46 151 155 171. Romans Cap. 5. v. 15. p. 22. c. 1. v. 20. p. 29 72. c. 1. v. 8. p. 88. c. 1. v. 18. p. 222. c. 10. v. 10. p. 245. c. 10. v. 14 15. p. 231. c. 3. v. 4. p. 232. c. 11. v. 16. p. 91. c. 13. v. 1. p. 134 1 Corinth Cap. 1. v. 10. p. 235. c. 2. v. 11. p. 207. c. 3. v. 2. p. 125. c. 3. v. 11. p. 152. c. 2. v. 14. p. 48. c. 5. v. 5. p. 166. c. 11. v. 1. p. 61. c. 11. v. 23. p. 169. c. 11. v. 19. p. 235 236. c. 12. v. 3 4. p. 47. 12 10. p. 70. 12 28. p. 247. c. 13. v. 1. p. 134. Galath Cap. 3. v. 19. p. 43. Ephesians Cap. 2. v. 20. p. 152. c. 4. v. 11. p. 247. c. 4. v. 13. p. 248. c. 5. v. 2. p. 199. c. 5. v. 27. p. 169. 2 Thes. Cap. 2. p. 39. c. 2. v. 9. p. 70. c. 2. v. 15. p. 46. 1 Tim. Cap. 3. v. 15. p. 22. c.
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
not obvious to every eye there And that this is S. Augustine's meaning is manifest by himself who best knew it For when he had said as he doth That to baptize children is Antiqua fidei Regula the Ancient Rule of Faith and the constant Tenet of the Church yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also For when Pelagius urged That Infants needed not to be baptized because they had no Original Sin S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only but argues from the Text thus What need have Infants of Christ if they be not sick For the sound need not the Physitian S. Mat. 9. And again is not this said by Pelagins ut non accedaent ad Jesum That Infants may not come to their Saviour Sed clamat Jesus but Jesus cries out Suffer Little ones to come unto me S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvine Namely That all men acknowledge the Baptism of Infants to descend from Apostolical Tradition And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church Which he speaks not in regard of Tradition but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scripture over and above Tradition As for Tradition I have said enough for that and as much as A. C. where 't is truly Apostolical And yet if any thing will please him I will add this concerning this particular The Baptizing of Infants That the Church received this by Tradition from the Apostles By Tradition And what then May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition I hope A. C. will never say so For certainly in Doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolical as that which hath a root and a Foundation in Scripture For Apostles cannot write or deliver contrary but subordinate and subservient things F. I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are balieved to be Scripture yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be proved B. § 16 Num. 1 I did never love too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel and circle him so long between proving Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Devil find a means to dispute him into Infidelity and make him believe neither I hope this is no part of your meaning Yet I doubt this Question How do you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harm than you will be ever able to help by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted upon by you and is in it self a matter of such Consequence I will sift it a little farther Num. 2 Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Divinity have used divers means to prove it All have not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolve Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into only Tradition For only and no other proof are equal To prove the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God there are several Offers at divers proofs For first some fly to the Testimony and witness of the Church and her Tradition which constantly believes and unanimously delivers it Secondly some to the Light and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it self with other internal proofs which are observed in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoever Thirdly some to the Testimony of the Holy Ghost which clears up the light that is in Scripture and seals this Faith to the Souls of men that it is Gods Word Fourthly all that have not imbrutished themselves and sunk below their species and order of Nature give even Natural Reason leave to come in and make some proof and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments And this must be admitted if it be but for Pagans and Insidels who either consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. and that is done by this very evidence Num. 3 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church which is your way That taken and considered alone it is so far from being the only that it cannot be a sufficient Proof to believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God For that which is a full and sufficient proof is able of it self to settle the Soul of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to do this For it may be further asked Why we should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered We may believe Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded of you How that may appear And if this be demanded either you must say you have it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit you object to other men or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture as all of you do And that very offer to prove it out of Scripture is a sufcient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher Proof than the Churches Tradition which in your Grounds is or may be Questionable till you come thither Besides this is an Inviolable ground of Reason That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit than the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith The Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the Conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible than the Articles of the Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Resolved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony But this your Learned and wary men deny And therefore I hope your self dare not affirm Num. 4 Again if the Voyce of the Church saying the Books of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God be the formal Object of Faith upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my self then every man not only may but ought to resolve his Faith into the Voyce or Tradition of the Church for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formal Object of the Faith But nothing can be more evident than this That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church Therefore neither is that Testimony or Tradition alone the formal Object of Faith The Learned of your own part grant this Although in that Article of the Creed I believe the Catholike Church
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the natural man sees some Light of Moral counsel and instruction in Scripture as well as Believers But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light and cannot distinguish between the Sun and twelve to the Pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it have cleared his understanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first Moral Motive to Belief But the Belief it self That the Scripture is the Word of God rests upon the Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed all that which the Church gave in Testimony as will after appear And as in the Voyce of the Primitive and Apostolical Church there was simply Divine Authority delivering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul the Voyce of God i◠plainly heard in Scripture it self And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it And the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace Num. 22 The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish For first you pretend we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture No we do not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and we go to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here we differ we use the Tradition of the present Church as the first Motive not as the Last Resolution of our Faith We Resolve only into Prime Tradition Apostolical and Scripture it self Num. 23 Secondly you pretend we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolical Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods unwritten Word and Divine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Divine Authority Well I Suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Divine but by the present Church yet it doth not follow that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Authority because Divine Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove it For suppose I had not nor could have full assurance of Apostolical Tradition Divine yet the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to move any reasonable man that it is fit he should read the Scripture and esteem very reverently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of Doubt That Scripture is the Word of God Infallible and Divine Num. 24 Thirdly you pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known Lumine suo by the Light and Testimony which it hath in and gives to it self Against this you give reason for your selves and proof from us Your Reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it self then every man that can and doth but read it may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God which we see by daily experience men neither do nor can First it is not absolutely nor universally true There is sufficient Light therefore every man may see it Blinde men are men and cannot see it and sensual men in the Apostles judgment are such Nor may we deny and put out this Light as insufficient because blind eyes cannot and perverse eyes will not see it no more than we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sick cannot eat it Next we do not say That there is such a full light in Scripture as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in Prime Principles Every whole is greater than a Part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carry a natural Light with them and evident for the Terms are no sooner understood then the Principles themselves are fully known to the convincing of mans understanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light we do neither say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man do let him answer for himself The Question is only of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other Principle is an Evidence as well as Knowledge and the Belief is firmer than any Knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine Authority which cannot deceive whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in Deductions from Principles But the Evidence is not so clear For it is of things not seen in regard of the Object and in regard of the Subject that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glass or dark speaking Now God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the Soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church unless you be of Bellarmine's Opinion That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures is not omninò necessary to Salvation Num. 25 The Authority which you pretend against this is out of Hooker Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seem well read tell us That Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his Word for if any one Book of Scripture did give Testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authority of Gods Church Certainly Hooker gives a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelity and integrity in citing him For in the first place Hooker's speech is Scripture it self cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it self can It must needs
truly that Being which it is in truth of Substance But this word Right is not so used but is referr'd more properly to perfection in Conditions And in this sense every thing that hath a true and real Being is not by and by Right in the Conditions of it A man that is most dishonest and unworthy the name a very Thief if you will is a True man in the verity of his Essence as he is a Creature endued with Reason for this none can steal from him nor he from himself but Death But he is not therefore a Right or an upright man And a Church that is exceeding corrupt both in Manners and Doctrine and so a dishonour to the Name is yet a True Church in the verity of Essence as a Church is a Company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are Baptized into his Name But yet it is not therefore a Right Church either in Doctrine or Manners It may be you meant cunningly to slip in this word Right that I might at unawares grant it Orthodox But I was not so to be caught For I know well that Orthodox Christians are keepers of integrity and followers of right things so St. Augustine of which the Church of Rome at this day is neither In this sense then no Right that is no Orthodox Church at Rome Num. 3 And yet no News it is that I granted the Roman Church to be a True Church For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me and the Truth cannot deny it For that Church which receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as á partial and imperfect Rule and both the Sà craments as Instrumental Causes and Seals of Grace though they add more and misuse these yet cannot but be a True Church in essence How it is in Manners and Doctrine I would you would look to it with a single eye For if Piety and a Peaceable mind be not joyned to a good understanding nothing can be known in these great things Num. 4 Here A. C. tells us That the Jesuite doth not say that the Lady asked this Question in this or any other precise form of words But saith the Jesuite is sure her desire was to know of me whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church And how was the Jesuite sure the Lady desired to hear this from me Why A. C. tells us that too For he adds That the Jesuite had particularly spoken with her before and wished her to insist upon that Point Where you may see and 't is fit the Clergy of England should consider with what cunning Adversaries they have to deal who can find a way to prepare their Disciples and instruct them before-hand upon what Poynts to insist that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences which should never come there And this once known I hope they will the better provide against it But A. C. goes on and tells us That certainly by my Answer the Ladies desire must needs be to hear from me not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church c. but whether I would grant that there is but one holy Catholike Church and whether the Roman Church that is not only that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it be not it About A Church and The Church I have said enough before and shall not repeat Nor is there any need I should For A. C. would have it The Church The One Holy Catholike Church But this cannot be granted take the Roman Church in what sense they please in City or Diocess or all that agree with it Yet howsoever before I leave this I must acquaint the Reader with a perfect Jesuitism In all the Primitive Times of the Church a Man or a Family or a National Church were accounted Right and Orthodox as they agreed with the Catholike Church But the Catholike was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Jesuites new School The One Holy Catholike Church must be measured by that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholike For so A. C. says expresly The Lady would know of me not whether that were the Catholike Church to which Rome agreed but whether that were not the Holy Cathotholike Church which agreed with Rome So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the Custody of the Roman not of the Catholike Church and a man cannot agree with the Catholike Church of Christ in this new Doctrine of A. C. unless he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all 's safe and he is as Orthodox as he need be Num. 5 But A. C. is yet troubled about the form of the Ladies Question And he will not have it That she desired to know whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church Though these be her words according to the Jesuites own setting down but he thinks the Question was Whether the Church of Rome was not the Right Church Not Be not but was not Was not That is was not once or in time past the Right Church before Luther and others made a breach from it Why truly A. C. needed not have troubled himself half so much about this For let him take his Choice It shall be all one to me whether the Question were asked by Be oâ— by Was For the Church of Rome neither is nor waâ— the Right Church as the Lady desired to hear A Particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong and then in some things right and in some things wrong But The Right Church or The Holy Catholike Church it never was nor ever can be And therefore was not such before Luther and Others either left it or were thrust from it A particular Church it was But then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither For the Church of Rome both was and was not a Right or Orthodox Church before Luther made a Breach from it For the word Anâ—e Before may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off or long before and then in the Prime times of it it was a most Right and Orthodox Church But it may look also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some Ages before that And then in those times Rome was a Corrupt and a tainted Church far from being Right And yet both these times Before Luther made his Breach So here A. C. should have been more distinct For the word Before includes the whole time before Luther in part of which time that Church of Rome was Right and in other part whereof it was wrong But A. C. adds yet That I suspected the Lady would iâ—ser if once that Church were Right what
erred in such a Point of Divine Truth and of Faith Nay A. C. confesses expresly in his very next words That the Whole Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture and otherwise So then in A. C's judgment the Whole Militant Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths Now that which knows not all must be ignorant of some and that which is ignorant of some may possibly erre in one Point or other The rather because he confesses the knowledge of it must be got by Learning and Learners may mistake and erre especially where the Lesson is Divine Truth out of Scripture out of Difficult Scripture For were it of plain and easie Scripture that he speaks the Whole Church could not at any time be without the knowledge of it And for ought I yet see the Whole Church Militant hath no greater warrant against Not erring in than against Not knowing of the Points of Divine Truth For in 8. John 16. There is as large a Promise to the Church of knowing all Points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuite can produce for Her Not erring in any And if She may be ignorant or mistaken in learning of any Point of Divine Truth Doubtless in that state of Ignorance she may both Erre and teach her Error yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not Nay perhaps teach that as a Matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth Always provided it be not in any Point simply Fundamental of which the Whole Catholike Church cannot be Ignorant and in which it cannot Erre as hath before been proved Num. 5 As for the Places of Scripture which A. C. cites to prove that the Whole Church cannot Erre Generally in any one Point of Divine Truth be it Fundamental or not they are known Places all of them and are alledged by A. C. three several times in this short Tract and to three several purposes Here to prove That the Universal Church cannot Erre Before this to prove that the Tradition of the present Church cannot Erre After this to prove that the Pope cannot Erre He should have done well to have added these Places a fourth time to prove that General Councels cannot Erre For so doth both Stapleton and Bellarmine Sure A. C. and his fellows are hard driven when they must fly to the same Places for such different purposes For A Pope may Erre where a Councel doth not And a General Councel may Erre where the Catholike Church cannot And therefore it is not likely that these places should serve alike for all The first Place is Saint Matthew 16. There Christ told Saint Peter and we believe it most assuredly That Hell-Gates shall never be able to prevail against his church But that is That they shall not prevail to make the Church Catholike Apostatize and fall quite away from Christ or Erre in absolute Fundamentals which amounts to as much But the Promise reaches not to this that the Church shall never Erre no not in the lightest matters of Farth For it will not follow Hell-Gates shall not prevail against the Church Therefore Hellish Devils shall not tempt or assault and batter it And thus Saint Augustine understood the place It may fight yea and be wounded too but it cannot be wholly overcome And Bellarmine himself applies it to prove That the Visible Church of Christ cannot deficere Erre so as quite to fall away Therefore in his judgment this is a true and a safe sense of this Text of Scripture But as for not Erring at all in any Point of Divine Truth and so making the Church absolutely Infallible that 's neither a true nor a safe sense of this Scripture And 't is very remarkable that whereas this Text hath been so much beaten upon by Writers of all sorts there is no one Father of the Church for twelve hundred years after Christ the Counterfeit or Partial Decretals of some Popes excepted that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this Place but her Non deficiencie that hath been and is justly deduced hence And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can The next Place of Scripture is Saint Matthew 28. The Promise of Christ that he will be with them to the end of the World But this in the general voyce of the Fathers of the Church is a promise of Assistance and Protection not of an Infallibility of the Church And Pope Leo himself enlarges this presence and providence of Christ to all those things which he committed to the execution of his Ministers But no word of Infallibility is to be found there And indeed since Christ according to his Prowise is present with his Ministers in all these things and that one and a Chief of these All is the preaching of his Word to the People It must follow That Christ should be present with all his Ministers that Preach his Word to make them Infallible which daily Experience tells us is not so The third Place urged by A. C. is S. Luke 22. Where the Prayer of Christ will effect no more than his Promise hath performed neither of them implying an Infallibility for or in the Church against all Errors whatsoever And this almost all his own side confess is spoken either of S. Peter's person only or of him and his Successors both Of the Church it is not spoken and therefore cannot prove an unerring Power in it For how can that place prove the Church cannot Erre which speaks not at all of the Church And 't is observable too that when the Divines of Paris expounded this Place that Christ here prayed for S. Peter as he represented the Whole Catholike Church and obtained for it that the Faith of the Catholike Church nunquam desiceret should never so erre as quite to fall away Bellarmine is so stiff for the Pope that he says expresly This Exposition of the Parisians is false and that this Text cannot be meant of the Catholike Church Not be meant of it Then certainly it ought not to be alledged as Proof of it as here it is by A. C. The fourth Place named by A. C. is S. John 14. And the consequent Place to it S. John 16. These Places contain another Promise of Christ concerning the coming of the Holy Ghost Thus That the Comforter shall abide with them for ever That this Comforter is the Spirit of Truth And That this Spirit of Truth will lead them into all Truth Now this Promise as it is applied to the Church consisting of all Believers which are and have been since Christ appeared in the Flesh including the Apostles is absolute and without any Restriction For the Holy Ghost did lead them into all Truth so that no Error was to be found in that Church
that Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he says expresly That according to the old Custome the Roman Patriarchs Charge was confined within the Limits of the Suburbicarian Churches To avoid the force of this Testimony Cardinal Peron lays load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with Passion Ignorance and Rashness And one piece of his Ignorance is That he hath ill translated the Canon of the Councel of Nice Now be that as it may I neither do nor can approve his Translation of that Canon nor can it be easily proved that he purposely intended a Translation All that I urge is that Ruffinus living in that time and Place was very like well to know and understand the Limits and Bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived Secondly here 's That it had potentiorem a more powerful Principality than other Churches had And that the Protestants grant too and that not only because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus first in Order and Degree which some One must be to avoid Confusion But also because the Roman Sea had won a great deal of Credit and gained a great deal of Power to it self in Church-Affairs Because while the Greek yea and the African Churches too were turbulent and distracted with many and dangerous Opinions the Church of Rome all that while and a good while after Irenaeus too was more calm and constant to the Truth Thirdly here 's a Necessity say they required That every Church that is the faithful which are every where agree with that Church But what simply with that Church what ever it do or believe No nothing less For Irenaeus adds with that Church in quâ in which is conserved that Tradition which was delivered by the Apostles And God forbid but it should be necessary for all Churches and all the faithful to agree with that Ancient Apostolike Church in all those Things in which it keeps to the Doctrine and Discipline delivered by the Apostles In Iraeneus his time it kept these better than any other Church and by this in part obtained potentiorem Principalitatem a Greater power than other Churches but not over all other Churches And as they understand Irenaeus a Necessity lay upon all other Churches to agree with this but this Necessity was laid upon them by the Then Integrity of the Christian Faith there professed not by the Universality of the Roman Jurisdiction now challenged And let Rome reduce it self to the Observation of Tradition Apostolike to which it then held and I will say as Irenaeus did That it will be then necessary for every Church and for the Faithful every where to agree with it Lastly let me Observe too That Irenaeus made no doubt but that Rome might fall away from Apostolical Tradition as well as other Particular Churches of great Name have done For he does not say in quâ servanda semper erit sed in quâ servata est Not in which Church the Doctrine delivered from the Apostles shall ever be entirely kept That had been home indeed But in which by God's Grace and Mercy it was to that time of Irenaeus so kept and preserved So we have here in Irenaeus his Judgment the Church of Rome then Entire but not Infallible And endowed with a more powerful Principality than other Churches but not with an Universal Dominion over all other Churches which is the Thing in Question Num. 14 But to this place of Irenaeus A. C. joyns a Reason of his own For he tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successor and therefore to Him we must have recourse The Fathers I deny not ascribe very much to S. Peter But 't is to S. Peter in his own person And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them And yet did he never intend to give an Absolute Principality to Rome in S. Peter's right There is a Noted Place in that Father where his words are these For the Lord himself made S. Peter the first of the Apostles a firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it c. For in him the Faith is made firm every way who received the Key of Heaven c. For in him all the Questions and Subtilties of the Faith are sound This is a great Place at first sight too and deserves a Marginal Note to call young Readers eyes to view it And it hath this Note in the Old Latine Edition at Paris 1564. Petri Principatus Praestantia Peters Principality and Excellencie This Place as much shew as it makes for the Roman Principality I shall easily clear and yet do no wrong either to S. Peter or the Roman Church For most manifest it is That the Authority of S. Peter is urged here to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost And then follow the Elogies given to S. Peter the better to set off and make good that Authority As that he was Princeps Apostolorum the Prince of the Apostles and pronounced blessed by Christ because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Son so did he again the Godhead of the Holy Ghost After this Epiphanius calls Him solidam Petram a solid Rock upon which the Church of God was founded against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail And adds That the Faith was rooted and made firm in him every way in him who received the Key of Heaven And after this he gives the Reason of all Because in Him mark I pray 't is still in Him as he was blessed by that Revelation from God the Father S. Mathew 16. were found all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Nice-Cities and exactness of the Christian Faith For he professed the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And so Omni modo every Point of Faith was rooted in Him And this is the full meaning of that Learned Father in this passage Now therefore Building the Church upon Saint Peter in Epiphanius his sense is not as if He and his Successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever But it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Peter made And so He expresses himself elsewhere most plainly Saint Peter saith he who was made to us indeed a solid Rock firming the Faith of our Lord. On which Rock the Church is built juxta omnem modum every way First that he Confessed Christ to be the Son of the Living God and by and by he heard Upon this Rock of solid Faith I will build my Church And the same Confession he made of the Holy Ghost Thus was S. Peter a solid Rock upon which the Church was founded omni modo every way That is the Faith of the Church was ‖ confirmed by him in every Point But that S. Peter was any
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
rather than by One Vice-Roy And I believe this is true For all the time of the first three hundred years and somewhat better it was governed Aristocratically if we will impartially consider how the Bishops of those times carried the whole Business of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to or rejecting them from their Communion For I have carefully Examined this for the first six hundred years even to and within the time of S. Gregory the great Who in the beginning of the seventh hundred year sent such Letters to Augustine then Archbishop of Canterbury and to Quirinus and other Bishops in Ireland And I finde That the Literae Communicatoriae which certified from one Great Patriarch to another who were fit or unfit to be admitted to their Communion if they upon any Occasion repaired to their Seas were sent mutually And as freely and in the same manner from Rome to the other Patriarchs as from them to it Out of which I think this will follow most directly That the Church-Government then was Aristocratical For had the Bishop of Rome been then accounted Sole Monarch of the Church and been put into the Definition of the Church as he is now by Bellarmine all these Communicatory Letters should have been directed from him to the rest as whose admittance ought to be a Rule for all to Communicate but not from others to him or at least not in that even equal and Brotherly way as now they appear to be written For it is no way probable that the Bishops of Rome which even then sought their own Greatness too much would have submitted to the other Patriarchs voluntarily had not the very Course of the Church put it upon them Num. 9 Besides this is a great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus That wheresoever there is a Church there the Church is in the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth in the Church And so also the Church was in the Roman Empire Now from this Ground I argue thus If the Church be within the Empire or other Kingdom 't is impossible the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For no Emperor or King will indure another King within his Dominion that shall be greater than himself since the very induring it makes him that indures it upon the matter no Monarch Nor will it disturb this Argument That two Great Kings in France and Spain permit this For he that is not blind may see if he will of what little value the Pope's power is in those Kingdoms farther than to serve their own turns of Him which They do to their great advantage Nay farther the Ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church seem to me plain for this For the Councel of Antioch submits Ecclesiastical Causes to the Bishops And what was done amiss by a Bishop was corrigible by a Synod of Bishops but this with the Metropolitane And in Case these did not agree the Metropolitane might call in other Bishops out of the neighbouring Provinces And if Things setled not this way a General Councel under the Scripture and directed by it was the Highest Remedy And S. Cyprian even to Pope Cornelius himself says plainly That to every Bishop is ascribed a portion of the flock for him to govern And so not all committed to One. In all this the Government of the Church seems plainly Aristocratical And if all other Arguments fail we have one left from Bellarmine who opposes it as much as any twice for failing And yet where he goes to Exclude Secular Princes from Church-Government all his Quotations and all his Proofs run upon this Head to shew That the Government of the Church was ever in the Bishops What says A. C. now to the Confession of this great Adversary and in this great Point extorted from him by force of Truth Now if this be true then the whole foundation of this Argument is gone The Church Militant is no Kingdom and therefore not to be Compared or Judged by One. The Resemblance will not hold Num. 10 Next suppose it a Kingdom yet the Church Militant remaining one is spread in many Earthly Kingdoms and cannot well be ordered like any one particular Kingdom And therefore though in one particular Kingdom there be many Visible Judges and one Supreme yet it follows not That in the Universal Militant Church there must be one Supreme For how will he enter to Execute his Office if the Kings of those Kingdoms will not give leave Now here though A. C. expresses himself no farther yet I NUM 11. well know what he and his Fellows would be at They would not be troubled to ask leave of any several Kings in their several Dominions No they would have one Emperor over all the Kings as well as One Pope over all the Bishops And then you know who told us of two great Lights to govern the World the Sun and the Moon that is the Pope and the Emperor At the first it began with more modesty The Emperor and the Pope And that was somewhat Tolerable For S. Augustine tells us That the Militant Church is often in Scripture called the Moon both for the many Changes it hath and for its obscurity in many times of its peregrination And he tells us too That if we will understand this place of Scripture in a Spiritual Sense Our Saviour Christ is the Sun and the Militant Church as being full of changes in her estate the Moon But now it must be a Triumphant Church here Militant no longer The Pope must be the Sun and the Emperor but the Moon And lest Innocents own power should not be able to make good his Decretal Gasper Schioppiâ—â— doth not only avow the Allusion or Interpretation but is pleased to express many Circumstances in which he would fâ—in make the world believe the Resemblance holds And lest any man should not know how much the Pope is made greater than the Emperor by this Comparison the Gloss furnishes us with that too and tells us that by this it appears that since the Earth is seven times greater than the Moon and the Sun eight times greater than the Earth it must needs follow that the Pope's power is forty seven times greater than the Emperor's I like him well he will make odds enough But what doth Innocent the Third give no Reason of this his Decretal Yes And it is saith he because the Sun which rules in the day that is in Spiritual things is greater than the Moon which rules but in the night and in carnal things But is it possible that Innocentius the Third being so wise and so able as that nothing which he did or commended or disproved in all his life should after his death be thought fit to be changed could think that such an Allusion of Spiritual things to the Day which the Sun governs and Worldly Business to the Night which the Moon
must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the Childe of one mans sufficiency If then a General Councel have no ground of Not erring from the Men or the Meeting either it must not be at all or it must be by some assistance and power upon them when they are so met together And this if it be less than the Assistance of the holy Ghost it cannot make them secure against Errour Num. 1 Thirdly I Consider That the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Errour That 's no Question and as little there is That a Councel hath it But the Doubt that troubles is Whether all the assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such a High manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Councel in matters Fundamental in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike Infallible Now the Romanists to prove there is infallible assistance produce some places of Scripture but no one of them infers much less inforces an Infallibility The places which Stapleton there rests upon are these I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And This Spirit shall abide with you for ever And Behold I am with you to the end of the world To these others adde The founding of the Church upon the Rock against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail And Christ's Prayer for S. Peter That his Faith fail not And Christ's Promise That where two or three are gathered together in his Name he will be in the midst of them And that in the Acts It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Num. 2 For the first which is Leading into all truth and that for ever All is not always universally taken in Scripture Nor is it here simply for All Truth For then a General Councel could no more erre in matter of Fact than in matter of Faith in which yet your selves grant it may erre But into All Truth is a limited all Into all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation And this when they suffer themselves to be led by the Blessed Spirit by the Word of God And all Truth which Christ had before at least fundamentally delivered unto them He shall receive of mine and shew it unto you And again He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you And for this necessary Truth too the Apostles received this Promise not for themselves and a Councel but for themselves and the whole Catholike Church of which a Councel be it never so General is a very little part Yea and this very Assistance is not so absolute not in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neither doth Christ in that place speak directly of a Councel but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine Num. 3 As for Christ's being with them unto the end of the world the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the Ancient Church we may understand him present in Majestie in Power in Ayd and Assistance against the Difficulties they should finde for Preaching Christ which is the native sense as I take it And this Promise was made to support their weakness As for his Presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speaks of any Infallible Assistance farther than the succeeding Church keeps to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the Guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers refer their Speech to the Church Universal not to any Councel or Representative Body And Maldonate addes That this His presence by teaching is or may be a Collection from the place but is not the Intention of Christ. Num. 4 For the Rock upon which the Church is founded which is the next Place we dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ laid his Apostles no question but upon Himself With these S. Peter was laid no man questions and in prime place of Order would his claiming Successours be content with that as appears and divers Fathers witness by his particular designment Tu es Petrus But yet the Rock even there spoken of is not S. Peter's person either onely or properly but the Faith which he professed And to this besides the Evidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it is not spoken of the Not erring of the Church principally but of the Not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and dangerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things even de fide of the Faith which yet are not necessary to Salvation Besides even here again the Promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councel at least no further than a Councel builds as a Church is built that is upon Christ. The next Place is Christ's Prayer for S. Peter's Faith The native sense of which Place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him above the rest But to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope or in his Chair or in the Romane Sea or in a General Councel though the Pope be President I finde no one Ancient Father that dare adventure it And Bellarmine himself beside some Popes in their own Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsly alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the Place till he come down to Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorick and the other two are men of yesterday compared with Antiquity and lived when it was God's great grace and Learned mens wonder the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are And Thomas is resolute That what is meant here beyond S. Peter's Person is referred to the whole Church And the Gloss upon the Canon-Law is more peremptory than he even to the Denial that it is meant of the Pope And if this Place warrant not the Popes Faith where is the Infallibility of the Councel that in your Doctrine depends upon it Num. 6 The next Place is Bellarmine's choice one and his first and he says 't is a proper place for Proof of the Infallibility of General Councels This Place is Christ's Promise Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them S. Matth. 18. And he tells us The strength of the Argument is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former and that the Argument is drawn à Minori
ad Majus from the less to the greater Thus If two or three gathered together in my Name do always obtain that which they ask at Gods hands to wit wisdom and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them How much more shall all the Bishops gathered together in a Councel always obtain wisdom and knowledge to Judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church I answer First 't is most true that here is little strength in these words alone For though the Fathers make different interpretations of this place of Scripture yet most of them agree in this That this Place is to be understood of Consent in Prayer And this is manifest enough in the Text it self Secondly I think there is as little strength in them by the Argument drawn à Minori ad Majus And that I prove two ways First Because though that Argument hold in Natural and Necessary things yet I doubt it holds not either in Voluntary or Promised things or things which depend upon their Institution For he that promises the less doth not hereby promise the greater and he which will do the less will not always do the greater Secondly Because this Argument from the less to the greater can never follow but where and so far as the thing upon which the Argument is founded agrees to the less For if it do not always agree to the less it cannot Necessarily pass from thence to the greater Now that upon which this Argument is grounded here is Infallible hearing and granting the Prayers of two or three met together in the Name of Christ. But this Infallibility is not always found in this Less Congregation where two or three are gathered together For they often meet and pray yet obtain not because there are divers other Conditions necessarily required as S. Chrysostom observes to make the Prayers of a Congregation heard beside their gathering together in the Name of Christ. And therefore it is not extended to a greater Congregation or Councel unless the same Conditions be still observed Neither doth Christs Promise Ero in Medio I will be in the midst of them infer That they the greater or the less three or three hundred have all even necessary things infallibly granted unto them as oft as they ask if they ask not as well as they ought as what they ought And yet most true it is that where more or fewer are gathered together in the Name of Christ there is he in the midst of them but to assist and to grant whatsoever he shall finde fit for them not Infallibly whatsoever they shall think fit to ask for themselves And therefore S. Cyprian though he use this very Argument à Minori ad Majus from the less to the greater yet he presumes not to extend it as Bellarmine doth to the obtaining of Infallibility but onely useth it in the General way in which there neither is nor can be doubt of the truth of it Thus If two that are of one minde to God-ward can do so much what might be done if there were Unanimity among all Christians Undoubtedly more but not All what soever they should ask unless all other Requisites were present Thirdly in this their own Great Champions disagree from Bellarmine or he from them For Gregory de Valentia and Stapleton tell us That this place doth not belong properly to prove an Infallible Certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the Name of Christ but to the efficacie of Consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the Name of Christ if at least that be for their souls health For else you may prove out of this Place That not onely the Definition of a General Councel but even of a Provincial nay of two or three Bishops gathered together is valid and that without the Popes Assent Num. 7 The last Place mentioned for the Infallibility of General Councels is that Acts 15. where the Apostles say of themselves and the Councel held by them It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us And They might well say it For They had Infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost and They kept close to his Direction But I do not finde that any General Councel since though they did implore as they ought the Assistance of that Blessed Spirit did ever take upon them to say in terminis in express terms of their Definitions Visum est Spiritui Sancto Nobis It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Us. Acknowledging even thereby as I conceive a great deal of Difference in the Certainty of those things which a General Councel at after Determined in the Church and those which were setled by the Apostles when They sate in Councel But though I do not finde That They used this speech punctually and in terms yet the Fathers when They met in Councel were Confident and spake it out That They had Assistance from the Holy Ghost yet so as that They neither took Themselves nor the Councels They sate in as Infallibly Guided by the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were And Valentia is very right That though the Councel say they are gathered together in the Holy Ghost yet the Fathers are neither Arrogant in using the speech nor yet infallible for all that And this is true whether the Pope approve or disapprove their Definitions Though Valentia will not admit that The Pope must be with him infallible what ever come of it Now though this be but an Example and include no Precept yet both Stapleton and Bellarmine make this Place a proper Proof of the Infallibility of General Councels And Stapleton says the Decrees of Councels are the very Oracles of the Holy Ghost which is little short of Blasphemy And Bellarmine addes that Because all other Councels borrowed their form from this therefore other lawful Councels may affirm also That their Decrees are the Decrees of the Holy Ghost Little considering therewhile That it is one thing to borrow the Form and another thing to borrow the Certainty and the Infallibility of a Councel For suppose that After-Councels did follow the Form of that first Councel exactly in all Circumstances yet I hope no advised man will say There is the like Infallibility in other Councels where no man sate that was Inspired as was in this where all that sate as Judges were Inspired Or if any Jesuite will be so bold as to say it he had need bring very Good Proof for it and far better than any is brought yet Now that all Councels are not so Infallible as was this of the Apostles nor the Causes handled in them as there they were is manifest by One of their own who tells us plainly That the Apostles in their Councel dealt very prudently did not precipitate their Judgement but weighed all things For in Matters of Faith and which touch the Conscience it is not enough to
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
secure way in regard of Roman Corruptions And A. C. cannot plead for himself that he either knew not this or that he overlook'd it for himself disputes against it as strongly as he can What modesty or Truth call you this For he that confesses a possibility of Salvation doth not thereby confess no peril of Damnation in the same way Yea but if some Protestants should say there is peril of Damnation to live and die in the Roman Faith their saying is nothing in comparison of the number or worth of those that say there is none So A. C. again And beside they which say it are contradicted by their own more Learned Brethren Here A. C. speaks very confusedly But whether he speak of Protestants or Romanists or mixes both the matter is not great For as for the Number and Worth of men they are no necessary Concluders for Truth Not Number for who would be judged by the Many The time was when the Arrians were too many for the Orthodox Not Worth simply for that once misled is of all other the greatest misleader And yet God forbid that to Worth weaker men should not yield in difficult and Perplexed Questions yet so as that when Matters Fundamental in the Faith come in Question they finally rest upon an higher and clearer certainty than can be found in either Number or Weight of men Besides if you mean your own Party you have not yet proved your Party more worthy for Life of Learning than the Protestants Prove that first and then it will be time to tell you how worthy many of your Popes have been for either Life or Learning As for the rest you may blush to say it For all Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of Damnation for any man to live and die in the Roman perswasion And you are not able to produce any one Protestant that ever said the contrary And therefore that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of Damnation are contradicted by their own more Learned Brethren Num. 7 And thus having cleared the way against the Exceptions of A. C. to the two former Instances I will now proceed as I promised to make this farther appear that A. C. and his Fellows dare not stand to that ground which is here laid down Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary Confesses to be true or whereon the differing Parties agree And that if they do stand to it they must be forced to maintain the Church of England in many things against the Church of Rome And first I Instance in the Article of our Saviour Christs Descent into Hell I hope the Church of Rome believes this Article and withal that Hell is the place of the Damned so doth the Church of England In this then these dissenting Churches agree Therefore according to the former Rule yea and here in Truth too 't is safest for a man to believe this Article of the Creed as both agree That is that Christ descended in Soul into the Place of the Damned but this the Romanists will not endure at any hand For the School agree in it That the Soul of Christ in the time of his death went really no farther than in Limbum Patrum which is not the place of the Damned but a Region or Quarter in the upper part of Hell as they call it built up there by the Romanist without Licence of either Scripture or the Primitive Church And a man would wonder how those Builders with untempered Mortar found light enough in that dark Place to build as they have done Secondly I 'll instance in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds That Christ Instituted it so is confessed by both Churches and the Ancient Churches received it so is agreed by both Churches Therefore according to the former Rule and here in Truth too 't is safest for a man to receive this Sacrament in both kinds And yet here this Ground of A. C. must not stand for good no not at Rome but to receive in one kinde is enough for the Laity And the poor Bohemians must have a Dispensation that it may be lawful for them to receive the Sacrament as Christ commanded them And this must not be granted to them neither unless they will ackdowledge most opposite to Truth that they are not bound by Divine Law to receive it in both kinds And here their Building with untempered Mortar appears most manifestly For they have no shew to maintain this but the fiction of Thomas of Aquin That he which receives the Body of Christ receives also his Blood per ‖ concomitantiam by concomitancy because the Blood goes always with the Body of which Term Thomas was the first Author I can yet finde First then if this be true I hope Christ knew it And then why did he so unusefully institute it in both kinds Next if this be true Concomitancy accompanies the Priest as well as the People and then why may not he receive it in one kinde also Thirdly this is apparently not true For the Eucharist is a Sacrament Sanguinis effusi of Blood shed and poured out And Blood poured out and so severed from the Body goes not along with the Body per concomitantiam And yet Christ must rather erre or proceed I know not how in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kindes rather than the Holy unerring Church of Rome may do amiss in the Determination for it and the Administration of it in one kinde Nor will the Distinction That Christ instituted this as a Sacrifice to which both kinds were necessary serve the turn For suppose that true yet he instituted it as a Sacrament also or else that Sacrament had no Institution from Christ which I presume A. C. dares not affirm And that Institution which the Sacrament had from Christ was in both kindes And since here 's mention happen'd of Sacrifice my Third Instance shall be in the Sacrifice which is offer'd up to God in that Great and High Mystery of our Redemption by the death of Christ. For as Christ offer'd up himself once for all a full and all-sufficient Sacrifice for the sin of the whole world So did He Institute and Command a Memory of this Sacrifice in a Sacrament even till his coming again For at and in the Eucharist we offer up to God three Sacrifices One by the Priest onely that 's the Commemorative Sacrifice of Christs Death represented in Bread broken and Wine poured out Another by the Priest and the People joyntly and that is the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving for all the Benefits and Graces we receive by the precious death of Christ. The Third by every particular man for himself onely and that is the Sacrifice of every mans Body and Soul to serve
of Hell had prevailed against it which our Saviour assures me S. Matth. 16. they shall never be able to do But that all General Councels be they never so lawfully called continued and confirmed have Infallible Assistance I utterly deny 'T is true that a General Councel de post facto after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then Infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath already clearly and truly determined without Errour But that a General Councel à parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be Infallible in all its after-determinations whatsoever they shall be I utterly deny And it may be it was not without cunning that A. C. shuffled these words together Called Continued and Confirmed for be it never so lawfully called and continued it may erre But after 't is confirmed that is admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also Infallible that is it deceives no man For so all Truth is and is to us when 't is once known to be Truth But then many times that Truth which being known is necessary and Infallible was before both contingent and fallible in the way of proving it and to us And so here a General Councel is a most probable but yet a fallible way of inducing Truth though the Truth once induced may be after 't is found necessary and Infallible And so likewise the very Councel it self for that particular in which it hath concluded Truth But A. C. must both speak and mean of a Councel set down to deliberate or else he says nothing Num. 15 Now hence A. C. gathers That though every thing defined to be a Divine Truth in General Councels is not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed as some other Truths are by all sorts yet no man may after knowledge that they are thus defined doubt deliberately much less obstiuately deny the Truth of any thing so defined Well in this Collection of A. C. First we have this granted That every thing defined in General Councels is not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed by all sorts of men And this no Protestant that I know denies Secondly it is affirmed that after knowledge that these Truths are thus defined no man may doubt deliberately much less obstinately deny any of them Truly Obstinately as the word is now in common use carries a fault along with it And it ought to be far from the temper of a Christian to be obstinate against the Definitions of a General Councel But that he may not upon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and upon Demonstrative grounds constantly deny even such Definitions yet submitting himself and his grounds to the Church in that or another Councel is that which was never till now imposed upon Believers For 'T is one thing for a man deliberately to doubt and modestly to propose his Doubt for satisfaction which was ever lawful and is many times necessary And quite another thing for a man upon the pride of his own Judgment to refuse external Obedience to the Councel which to do was never Lawful nor can ever stand with any Government For there is all the reason in the world the Councel should be heard for it self as well as any such Recusant whatsoever and that before a Judge as good as it self at least And to what end did S. Augustine say That one General Councel might be amended by another the former by the Later if men might neither deny nor so much as deliberately doubt of any of these Truths defined in a General Councel And A. C. should have done well to have named but one ancient Father of the Primitive Church that ever affirmed this For the Assistance which God gives to the whole Church in general is but in things simply necessary to eternal Salvation therefore more than this cannot be given to a General Councel no nor so much But then if a General Councel shall forget it self and take upon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expresly known or actually believed which are the things which A. C. here speaks of In these as neither General Councel no◠the whole Church have infallible Assistance so have Christians liberty modestly and peaceably and upon just grounds both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny such the Councels Definitions For instance the Councel of Florence first defined Purgatory to be believed as a Divine Truth and matter of Faith if that Councel had Consent enough so to define it This was afterwards deliberately doubted of by the Protestants after this as constantly denied then confirmed by the Councel of Trent and an Anathema set upon the head of every man that denies it And yet scarce any Father within the first three hundred years ever thought of it Num. 16 I know Bellarmine affirms it boldly That all the Fathers both Greek and Latine did constantly teach Purgatory from the very Apostles times And where he brings his Proofs out of the Fathers for this Point he divides them into two Ranks In the first he reckons them which affirm Prayer for the dead as if that must necessarily infer Purgatory Whereas most certain it is that the Ancients had and gave other Reasons of Prayer for the dead then freeing them out of any Purgatory And this is very Learnedly and at large set down by the now Learned Primate of Armagh But then in the second he says there are most manifest places in the Fathers in which they affirm Purgatory And he names there no fewer then two and twenty of the Fathers A great Jury certainly did they give their Verdict with him But first within the three hundred years after Christ he names none but Tertullian Cyprian and Origen And Tertullian speaks expresly of Hell not of Purgatory S. Cyprian of a Purging to Amendment which cannot be after this Life As for Origen he I think indeed was the first Founder of Purgatory But of such an One as I believe Bellarmine dares not affirm For he thought there was no Punishment after this life but Purgatory and that not onely the most impious men but even the Devils themselves should be saved after they had suffered and been Purged enough Which is directly contrary to the Word of God expounded by his Church In the fourth and fifth the great and Learned Ages of the Church he names more as S. Ambrose But S. Ambr. says That some shall be saved quasi per ignem as it were by fire leaving it as doubtful what was meant by that Fire as the Place it self doth whence it is taken 1 Cor. 3. S. Hierome indeed names Purging by fire But 't is not very plain that he means it after this life And howsoever this is most plain That S. Hierome is
edification of the Church Now if he do mean to prove the Pope's Infallibility by this place in his Pastoral Judgement Truly I do not see how this can possibly be collected thence Christ gave some to be Apostles for the Edification of his Church Therefore S. Peter and all his Successors are Infallible in their Pastoral Judgement And if he mean to prove the Continued Visible Succession which he saith is to be found in no Church but the Romane there 's a little more shew but to no more purpose A little more shew Because it is added Vers. 13. That the Apostles and Prophets c. shall continue at their work and that must needs be by Succession till we all meet in unity and perfection of Christ. But to no more purpose For 't is not said that they or their Successors should continue at this work in a personal uninterrupted Succession in any one Particular Church Romane or other Nor ever will A. C. be able to prove that such a Succession is necessary in any one particular place And if he could yet his own words tell us the Personal Succession is nothing if the Faith be not brought down without change from Christ and his Apostles to this day and so to the end of the world Now here 's a piece of Cunning too The Faith brought down unchanged For if A. C. mean by the Faith the Creed and that in Letter 't is true the Church of Rome hath received and brought down the Faith unchanged from Christ and his Apostles to these our days But then 't is apparently false That no Church differing from the Romane in Doctrine hath kept that Faith unchanged and that by a visible and continued Succession For the Greek Church differs from the Romane in Doctrine and yet hath so kept that Faith unchanged But if he mean by the Faith unchanged and yet brought down in a continual visible Succession not onely the Creed in Letter but in Sense too And not that onely but all the Doctrinal Points about the Faith which have been Determined in all such Councels as the present Church of Rome allows as most certainly he doth so mean and 't is the Controversie between us then 't is most certain and most apparent to any understanding man that reads Antiquity with an impartial eye that a Visible Continual Succession of Doctors and Pastors have not brought down the Faith in this sence from Christ and his Apostles to these days of ours in the Romane Church And that I might not be thought to say and not to prove I give instance And with this that if A. C. or any Jesuite can prove That by a Visible Continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist Or the Eucharist in one kinde Or Purgatory Or worship of Images Or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism Or the Power of the Pope over a General Councel Or his Infallibility with or without it Or his Power to depose Princes Or the publike Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other Points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause Beside for Succession in the general I shall say this 'T is a great happiness where it may be had Visible and Continued and a great Conquest over the Mutability of this present world But I do not finde any one of the Ancient Fathers that makes Local Personal Visible and Continued Succession a Necessary Signe or Mark of the true Church in any one place And where Vincentius Lirinensts calls for Antiquity Universality and Consent as great Notes of Truth he hath not one word of Succession And for that great place in Irenaeus where that Ancient Father reckons the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to Eleutherius who sate in his time and saith That this is a most full and ample proof or Ostension Vivificatricem Fidem that the Living and Life-giving Faith is from the Apostles to this day Conserved and delivered in Truth And of which place Bellarmine boasts so much Most manifest it is in the very same place that Irenaeus stood as much upon the Succession of the Churches then in Asia and of Smyrna though that no prime Apostolical Church where Polycarpus sate Bishop as of the Succession at Rome By which it is most manifest that it is not Personal Succession onely and that tyed to one Place that the Fathers meant but they taught that the Faith was delivered over by Succession in some places or other still to their present time And so doubtless shall be till Time be no more I say The Faith But not every Opinion true or false that in tract of time shall cleave to the Faith And to the Faith it self and all it's Fundamentals we can shew as good and full a Succession as you And we pretend no otherwise to it than you do save that We take in the Greeks which you do not Only we reject your gross Superstitions to which you can shew no Succession from the Apostles either at Rome or else-where much less any one uninterrupted And therefore he might have held his peace that says It is evident that the Roman Catholike Church only hath had a Constant and uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and Doctors and Tradition of Doctrine from Age to Age. For most evident it is That the Tradition of Doctrine hath received both Addition and Alteration since the first five hundred years in which Bellarmine confesses and B. Jewel maintains the Churches Doctrine was Apostolical Num. 8 And once more before I leave this Point Most evident it is That the Succession which the Fathers meant is not tyed to Place or Person but 't is tyed to the Verity of Doctrine For so Tertullian expresly Beside the order of Bishops running down in Succession from the beginning there is required Consanguinitas Doctrinae that the Doctrine be allyed in blood to that of Christ and his Apostles So that if the Doctrine be no kinnâ— to Christ all the Succession become strangers what nearness soever they pretend And Irenaeus speaks plainer than he We are to obey those Presbyters which together with the Succession of their Bishopricks have received Charisma Veritatis the gift of truth Now Stapleton being press'd hard with these two Authorities first Confesses expresly That Succession as it is a Note of the true Church is neither a Succession in place onely nor of Person onely but it must be of true and sound Doctrine also And had he stayed here no man could have said better But then he saw well he must quit his great Note of the Church-Succession That he durst not doe Therefore he begins to cast about how he may answer these Fathers and yet maintain Succession Secondly therefore he tells us That that which these Fathers say do nothing weaken Succession but that it shall still be a main Note of the true
Church and in that sense which he would have it And his Reason is * Because sound Doctrine is indivisible from true and lawful Succession Where you shall see this great Clerk for so he was not able to stand to himself when he hath forsaken Truth For 't is not long after that he tells us That the People are led along and judge the Doctrine by the Pastors But when the Church comes to examine she judges the Pastors by their Doctrine And this he says is necessary Because a man may become of a Pastor a Wolf Now then let Stapleton take his choice For either a Pastor in this Succession cannot become a Wolf and then this Proposition's false Or else if he can then sound Doctrine is not inseparable from true and Legitimate Succession And then the former Proposition's false as indeed it is For that a good Pastor may become a Wolf is no news in the Ancient Story of the Church in which are registred the Change of many Great men into Hereticks I spare their Names And since Judas chang'd from an Apostle to a Devil S. John 6. 't is no wonder to see others change from Shepherds into Wolves I doubt the Church is not empty of such Changelings at this day Yea but Stapleton will help all this For he adds That suppose the Pastors do forsake true Doctrine yet Succession shall still be a true Note of the Church Yet not every Succession but that which is legitimate and true Well And what is that Why That Succession is lawful which is of those Pastors which hold entire the Unity and the Faith Where you may see this Sampson's hair cut off again For at his word I 'll take him And if that onely be a Legitimate Succession which holds the Unity and the Faith entire then the Succession of Pastors in the Romane Church is illegitimate For they have had more Schisms among them than any other Church Therefore they have not kept the Unity of the Church And they have brought in gross Superstition Therefore they have not kept the Faith entire Now if A. C. have any minde to it he may do well to help Stapleton out of these briars upon which he hath torn his Credit and I doubt his Conscience too to uphold the Corruptions of the Sea of Rome Num. 9 As for that in which he is quite mistaken it is his Inference which is this That I should therefore consider carefully Whether it be not more Christian and less brain-sick to think that the Pope being S. Peter's Successour with a General Councel should be Judge of Controversies c. And that the Pastoral Judgment of him should be accounted Infallible rather than to make every man that can read the Scripture Interpreter of Scripture Decider of Controversies Controller of General Counsels and Judge of his Judges Or to have no Judge at all of Controversies of Faith but permit every man to believe as he list As if there were no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth which were instead of one saving Faith to induce a Babylonical Confusion of so many faiths as fancies Or no true Christian Faith at all From which Evils Sweet Jesus deliver us I have considered of this very carefully But this Inference supposes that which I never granted nor any Protestant that I yet know Namely That if I deny the Pope to be Judge of Controversies I must by and by either leave this supream Judicature in the hands and power of every private man that can but read the Scripture or else allow no Judge at all and so let in all manner of Confusion No God forbid that I should grant either For I have expresly declared That the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and a lawful and free General Councel determining according to these is Judge of Controversies And that no private man whatsoever is or can be Judge of these Therefore A. C. is quite mistaken and I pray God it be not wilfully to beguile poor Ladies and other their weak adherents with seeming to say somewhat I say quite mistaken to infer that I am either for a private Judge or for no Judge for I utterly disclaim both and that as much if not more than he or any Romanist whoever he be But these things in this passage I cannot swallow First That the Pope with a General Councel should be Judge for the Pope in Ancient Councels never had more power than any the other Patâ—â—â—râ—hs Precedency perhaps for Orders sake and other respects he had Nor had the Pope any Negative voice against the rest in point of difference No nor was he held superiour to the Councel Therefore the ancient Church never accounted or admitted him a Judge no not with a Councel much less without it Secondly it will not down with me that his Pastoral Judgement should be Infallible especially since some of them have been as Ignorant as many that can but read the Scripture Thirdly I cannot admit this â—eâ—ther though he do most cunningly thereby abuse his Readers That any thing hath been said by me out of which it can justly be inferred That there 's no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth For there is most Infallible certainty of it that is of the Foundations of it in Scripture and the Creeds And 't is so clearly delivered there as that it needs no Judge at all to sit upon it for the Articles themselves And so entire a Body is this one Faith in it self as that the Whole Church much less the Pope hath not power to add one Article to it nor leave to detract any one the least from it But when Controversies arise about the meaning of the Articles or Superstructures upon them which are Doctrines about the Faith not the Faith it self unless where they be immediate Consequences then both in and of these a Lawful and free General Councel determining according to Scripture is the best Judge on earth But then suppose uncertainty in some of these superstructures it can never be thence concluded That there is no Infallible certainty of the Faith it self But 't is time to end especially for me that have so Many Things of Weight lying upon me and disabling me from these Polemick Discourses beside the Burden of sixty five years compleat which draws on apace to the period set by the Prophet David Psal. 90. and to the Time that I must go and give God and Christ an Account of the Talent committed to my Charge In which God for Christ Jesus sake be merciful to me who knows that however in many Weaknesses yet I have with a faithful and single heart bound to his free Grace for it laboured the Meeting the Blessed Meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church and which God in his own good time will I hope effect To Him be all Honour and Praise for ever AMEN FINIS A Table
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
Spiritui sancto Nobis not used by any posteriour Councel 155. the first and later Councels differently assisted 156 166. whence they have their power and assistance 150 c. the prior may be amended by the posterior 158 c. what decrees of them are necessary to be believed 161. how they are held by the Romanists to be infallible 163. their decrees by Stapleton held to be the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 156. that they are not Prophetical in their conclusions 163 164. Of their necessity and frequency 128. that they may erre the whole Church not erring 168. their errours how to be amended 101. how made of no worth at all by the Romanists without the Pope 17â— Councels and Fathers how we are sure we have their true copies â—â—6 217. Conclusions of Councels how to be believed 226 their determinations not all of equal authority 234. by whom they were and ought to be called 140 141. against the Popes being above a general Councel 218 252. Conditions required to make a Councel lawful 142 143. Protestants invited to one upon doubtful and dangerous terms 92 Of the Councel of Florence and the Greeks their subscribing to it â—27 Councel of Constance her injurious proceeding against Husse c. 92 93. Becanus his defence of it confuted ibid. it s great errour touching Communion in one kinde 170 Councel of Nice the absence of the Western Bishops from it how recompenced 144 Councel of Africk in S. Cypriâ—ns time erred about Baptism by Hereticks 158 Councel of Trent how occasioned and what an one it was 99. not general nor legal and so null 140 143. compared with ancient Councels 26 27 142 143 c. the blinde pâ—rtinacy of the Fathers there 93. her dangerous and wilful errour concerning the intention of those that administer the Sacraments 179 180. claimed by Soâ—o and Vega for their contrary Tenets 32 of things there determined 24. there the Pope ought not to have sate as President 140 141. Bishops made of purpose to make a major part there 143. more Italian Bishops in it than of all Christendome beside ibid. its addition of twelve new Articles to the Creed 222 Creed that it is a Rule of faith 27. that it is wholly grounded on Scripture 29. some words added to it why and by whom 9. Iremâ—us his famous testimony of it 218 Athanasian Creed expounded and vindicated 210 223 S. Cyprian cleared 3 c. and 6 and righted 237 S. Cyril of Alexandria vindicated 8 9 D DEmonstrative reasons of greater force than any other humane proof 161. direct proof and demonstrative how they differ 35 Descent of Christ into Hall how hâ—ld by the Church of England and how by those of Rome 29 30 198 Dissent and difference in opinion what may stand with the peace of the Church 234 235 Disputations their use 82. when and how lawful for a private man to dispute with the whole Church â—4 publike disputations how safe or available 94 95. in what case to be admitted between the English and the Romish Clergy 94 Divinity that it hath a science above it and what 79. the Principles of it otherwise confirmed than those of any other Art 67 68 78 79 Donatus two of that name 196 Donatists compared with the Romanists 194 195 196 whether any of them living and dying so had possibility of salvation and which 195 196. whether they were guilty of Hâ—resie ibid. E EMperour whom the Jesuites would have to be 233 137 vid. Pope Epiphanius cleared and vindicated 121 122 Errours not fundamental to whom and in what case damnable 208 209 242. Errours of Councels vid. Councels Errours of the Romane Church wanting all proof from ancient Councels and Fathers 221 c. 250. what be the most dangerous of them 245. Errours of Papists to whom fundamental 217. vid. Church of Rome Eucharist a threefold Sacrifice in it 199 200. mutilated by the Romane Church 12 170 171. upon what hard terms the Bohemians were dispens'd with to have it in both kinds 198. the Papists tyed by their own grounds to believe of it as the Church of England doth 187 c. the Church of England and other Protestants believe Christs real presence in it 188 289 c. 191 192 193. Concoâ—itancy in it Thomas of Aquin's fiction confuted 198. Bellarmines notorious contradiction of Christs being in it corporally present 192 193. his new and intricate Doctrine touching Tran substantiation 213 214. of the unbloody Sacrifice and the bloody how they differ 199 200. the propitiatory and gratulatory Sacrifice how they differ 199 200 Expositions such only right as the thing expounded containeth 20 The Extravagants censured 139 F FAith how it is unchangable and yet hath been changed 7. what is certain by the certainty of it 25 26. not to be termeâ— the Romane but the Christian or Catholike Faith 88 c. the two Regular precepts of it 27. of its prime Principles and how they differ from the Articles of it 28. the last Resolution of it into what it should be 41 42 c. 57 65 66 215 223 224 c. Faith acquired faith in sus'd wherein either or both required 233. how few things are essential to the Faith 234 235. how its Principles differ from those of sciences 67. its foundation the Scripture 34. by it man brought to his last happiness 68 70 71. how by it the understanding is captivated 72. that it is an act produced by the will 48 68. the Principles of it have sufficient evidence of proof 77. It and Reason compared in their objects c. 164 c. a latitude in it in reference to different mens salvation 212 236. things of two sorts belonging to it 24. what by it to be believ'd explicitly what not 217 218. of the perfection and certainty of it 252. of things not necessary to salvation no infallible Faith can be among men 233. foundation of Faith how shaken 25. how fretted by those of Rome 59. the Catholike and now Romane Faith â—ot both one 220. Faith of Scripture to be Gods Word infused by the Holy Ghost 47 48. the true grounds of it 71 72 73 74. our Faith of it how it differs from that of those who wrote Scripture 70 71. Faith of Scripture that it hath all perfections necessary 73 74. how firm and invincible it is 74 75 Felicity what it is and that the soul of man is capable of it 72 Ferus his acknowledgment of the difference 'twixt the first Councels and the late ones 156 Fundamental what maketh a point to be such 19 20 22. that decrees of Councels are not such 87. what points be so and what not 17 18. 21 22 27 c. 217 218. not all of a like primeness 28. all Fundamentals held by the whole Church 18. Points not Fundamental how and to whom necessary to salvation 18 19. Firm and Fundamental how they differ 23 G GErson his ingenuity 99 Holy Ghost how said to be lost 14. his
the Name of Persecution and in the mean time let M. Fisher and his Fellows Angle in all parts of your Dominions for your Subjects If in your Grace and Goodness you will spare their Persons Yet I humbly beseech You see to it That they be not suffer'd to lay either their Weels or bait their Hoooks or cast their Nets in every stream lest that Tentation grow both too general and too strong I know they have many Devices to work their Ends But if they will needs be fishing let them use none but Lawful Nets Let 's have no dissolving of Oathes of Allegiance No deposing no killing of Kings Noblowing up of States to settle Quod Volumus that which fain they would have in the Church with many other Nets as dangerous as these For if their Profession of Religion were as good as they pretend it is if they cannot Compass it by Good Means I am sure they ought not to attempt it by Bad. For if they will do evil that good may come thereof the Apostle tells me Their Damnation's just Rom. 3. Now as I would humbly Beseech Your Majesty to keep a serious Vatch upon these Fsher-men which pretend S. Peter but fish not with His Net So whould I not have You neglect another sort of Anglers in a Shallower Water For they have some ill Nets too And if they may spread them when and whore they will God know what may become of it These have not so strong a Back abroad as the Romanists have but that 's no Argument to suffer them to encrease They may grow to equal Strength with Number And Factious People at home of what Sect or fond Opinion soever they be are not to be neglected Partly because they are so Near. And 't is ever a dangerous Firâ— that begins in the Bedstraw And partly because all those Domestick Evils which threaten a Rent in Church or State are with far more safety prevented by Wisdom than punished by Justice And would men consider it right they are far more beholding to that man that keeps them from falling than to him takes them up though it be to set the Arm or the Leg that 's broken in the Fall In this Discourse I have no aim to displease any nor any hope to please all If I can help on to Truth in the Church and the Peace of the Church together I shall be glad be it in any measure Nor shall I spare to speak necessary Truth out of too much Love of Peace Nor thrust on Unnecessary Truth to the Breach of that Peace which once broken is not so easily sâ—der'd again And if for Necessary Truths sake onely any man will be offended nay take nay snatch at that offence which is not given I know no fence for that 'T is Truth and I must tell it 'T is the Gospel and I must preach it 1 Cor. 9. And far safer it is in this Case to bear Anger from men than a Woe from God And where the Foundations of Faith are shaken be it by Superstition or Prophaneness he that puts not to his hand as firmly as he Can to support them is too wary and hath more Care of himself then of the Cause of Christ. And 't is a Wariness that brings more danger in the end then it shuns For the Angel of the Lord issued out a Curse against the Inhabitants of Meroz because they came not to help the Lord to help the Lord against the mighty Judg. 5. I know 't is a Great ease to let every Thing be as it will and every man believe and do as he list But whether Governors in Statâ— or Church do their duty there while is easily seen since this is an effect of no King in Israel Judg. 17. The Church of Christ upon Earth may be compared to a Hive of Bees and that can be no where so steddily placed in this world but it will be in some danger And men that care neither for the Hive nor the Bees have yet a great mind to the Honey And having once tasted the sweet of the Churches Maintenance swallow that for Honey which one day will be more bitter than Gall in their Bowells Now the King and the Priest more than any other are bound to look to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners and that in the first place For that 's by farre the Best Honey in the Hive But in the second place They must be Careful of the Churches Maintenance too else the Bees shall make Honey for others and have none left for their own necessary sustenance and then all 's lost For we see it in daily and common use that the Honey is not taken from the â—ees but they are destroyed first Now in this great and Busie Work the King and the Priest must not fear to put their hands to the Hive though they be sure to be stung And stung by the Bees whose Hive and House they preserve It was King Davids Caâ—e God grant it be never Yours They came about me saith the Psal. 118. like Bees This was hard usage enough yet some profit some Honey might thus be gotten in the End And that 's the Kings Case But when it comes to the Priest the Case is alter'd They come about him like Waspes or like Hornets rather all sting and no Honey there And all this many times for no offence nay sometimes for Service done them would they see it But you know who said Behold I come shortly and my reward is with me to give to every man according as his Works shall be Revel 22. And he himself is so exceding great a Reward as that the manifold stings which are in the World howsoever they smart here are nothing when they are pressed out with that exceeding weight of Glory which shall be revealed Rom. 8. Now one Thing more let me be bold to Observe to Your Majesty in particular concerning Your Great Charge the Church of England 'T is in an hard Condition She professes the Ancient Catholike Faith And yet the Romanist condemns Her of Novelty in her Doctrine She practises Church-Government as it hath been in use in all Ages and all Places where the Church of Christ hath taken any Rooting both in and ever since the Apostles Times And yet the Separatist condemns Her for Antichristianism in her Discipline The plain truth is She is between these two Factions as between two Milstones and unless Your Majesty look to it to Whose Trust She is committed She 'l be grownd to powder to an irrepairable both Dishonour and loss to this Kingdom And 't is very Remarkable that while both these press hard upon the Church of England both of them Cry out upon Persecution like froward Children which scratch and kick and bite and yet cry out all the while as if themselves were killed Now to the Romanist I shall say this The Errors of the Church of Rome
are grown now many of them very Old And when Errors are grown by Age and Continuance to strength they which speak for the Truth though it be far Older are ordinarily challenged for the Bringers in of New Opinions And there is no Greater Absurdity stirring this day in Christendom than that the Reformation of an Old Corrupted Church will we â—ill we must be taken for the Building of a New And were not this so we should never be troubled with that idle and impertinent Question of theirs Where was your Church before Luther For it was just there where their's is now One and the same Church still no doubt of that One in Substance but not One in Condition of state and purity Their part of the same Church remaining in Corruption and Our part of the same Church under Reformation The same Naaman and he a Syrian still but Leprous with them and Cleansed with us The same man still And for the Separatist and him that lays his Grounds for Separation or Change of Discipline though all he says or can say be in Truth of Divinity and among Learned men little better than ridiculous yet since these fond Opinions have gain'd some ground among your people to such among them as are wilfully seâ— to follow their blind Guides through thick and thin till they fall into the Ditch together I shall say nothing But for so many of them as mean well and are onely misled by Artifice and Cunning Concerning them I shall say thus much only They are Bells of passing good mettle and tuneable enough of themselves and in their own disposition and a world of pity it is that they are Rung so miserably out of Tune as they are by them which have gotten power in and over their Consciences And for this there is yet Remedy enough but how long there will be I know not Much talking there is Bragging Your Majesty may call it on both sides And when they are in their ruff they both exceed all Moderation and Truth too So far till both Lips and Pens open for all the World like a Purse without money Nothing comes out of this and that which is worth nothing out of them And yet this nothing is made so great as if the Salvation of Souls that Great work of the Redeemer of the World the Son of God could not be effected without it And while the one faction cryes up the Church above the Scripture and the other the Scripture to the neglect and Contempt of the Church which the Scripture it self teaches men both to honour and obey They have so far endangered the Belief of the One and the Authority of the Other as that neither hath its Due from a great part of Men. Whereas according to Christs Institution The Scripture where 't is plain should guide the Church And the Church were there 's Doubt or Difficulty should expound the Scripture Yet so as neither the Scripture should be forced nor the Church so bound up as that upon Just and farther Evidence She may not revise that which in any Case hath slipt by Her What Success this Great Distemper caused by the Collision of two such Factions may have I know not I cannot Prophesie This I know That the use which Wise men should make of other mens falls is not to fall with with them And the use which Pious and Religious men should make of these great Flaws in Christianity is not to Joyn with them that make them nor to help to dislocate those main Bones in the Body which being once put out of Joynt will not easily be set again And though I cannot Prophesie yet I fear That Atheism and Irreligion gather strength while the Truth is thus weakned by an Unworthy way of Contending for it And while they thus Contend neither part Consider that they are in a way to induce upon themselvs and others that Contrary Extream which they seem most both to fear and oppose Besides This I have ever Observed That many Rigid Professors have turn'd Roman Catholiks and in that Turn have been more Jesuited than any other And such Romanists as have chang'd from them have for the most part quite leaped over the Mean and been as Rigid the other way as Extremity it self And this is there be not both Grace and Wisdom to govern it is a very Natural Motion For a man is apt to think he can never run far enough from that which he once begins to hate And doth not Consider therewhile That where Religion Corrupted is the thing he hates a Fallacy may easily be put upon him For he ought to hate the Corruption which depraves Religion and to run from it but from no part of Religion it self which he ought to Love and Reverence ought he to depart And this I have Observed farther That no one thing hath made Conscientious men more wavering in their own mindes or more apt and easie to be drawn aside from the sincerity of Religion professed in the Church of England than the Want of Uniform and Decent Order in too many Churches of the Kingdom And the Romanists have been apt to say The Houses of God could not be suffer'd to lye so Nastily as in some places they have done were the True worship of God observed in them Or did the People think that such it were â—istrue the Inward Worship of the Heart is the Great Service of God and no Service acceptable without it But the External worship of God in his Church is the Great Witness to the World that Our heart stands right in that Service of God Take this away or bring it into Contempt and what Light is there left to shine before men that they may see our Devotion and glorifie our Father which is in Heaven And to deal clearly with Your Majesty These Thoughts are they and no other which have made me labour so much as I have done for Decency and an Orderly settlement of the External Worship of God in the Church For of that which is Inward there can be no Witness among men nor no Example for men Now no External Action in the world can be Uniform without some Ceremonies And these in Religion the Ancienter they be the better so they may fit Time and Place Too many Over-burden the Service of God And too few leave it naked And scarce any Thing hath hurt Religion more in these broken Times than an Opinion in too many men That because Rome had thrust some Unnecessary and many Superstitious Ceremonies upon the Church therefore the Reformation must have none at all Not considering therewhile That Ceremonies are the Hedge that fence the Substance of Religion from all the Indignities which Prophaneness and Sacriledge too Commonly put upon it And a Great Weakness it is not to see the strength which Ceremonies Things weak enough in themselves God knows adde even to Religion it self But a far greater to see it and yet to Cry Them down all
and without Choyce by which their most hated Adversaries climb'd up and could not crie up themselves and their Cause as they do but by them And Divines of all the rest might learn and teach this Wisdom if they would since they see all other Professions which help to bear down their Ceremonies keep up their own therewhile and that to the highest I have been too bold to detain Your Majesty so long But my Grief to see Christendom bleeding in Dissention and which is worse triumphing in her own Blood and most angry with them that would study her Peace hath thus transported me For truely it Cannot but grieve any man that hath Bowels to see All men seeking but as S. Paul foretold Phil. 2. their own things and not the things which are Jesus Christs Sua Their own surely For the Gospel of Christ hath nothing to do with them And to see Religion so much so Zealously pretended and called upon made but the Stalking-Horse to shoot at other Fowl upon which their Aym is set In the mean time as if all were Truth and Holiness it self no Salvation must be possible did it lye at their Mercy but in the Communion of the One and in the Conventicles of the Other As if either of these now were as the Donatists of old reputed themselves the only men in whom Christ at his coming to Judgment should find Faith No faith S. Augustine and so say I with him Da veniam non Credimus Pardon us I pray we cannot believe it The Catholike Church of Christ is neither Rome nor a Conventicle Out of that there 's no Salvation I easily Confess it But out of Rome there is and out of a Conventicle too Salvation i◠not shut up into such a narrow Conclave In this ensuing Discourse therefore I have endeavour'd to lay open those wider-Gates of the Catholike Church confined to no Age Time or Place Nor knowing any Bounds but That Faith which was once and but once for all deliver'd to the Saints S. Jude 3. And in my pursuit of this way I have searched after and deliver'd with a single heart that Truth which I profess In the publishing whereof I have obeyed Your Majesty discharg'd my Duty to my power to the Church of England Given account of the Hope that is in me And so testified to the world that Faith in which I have lived and by God's blessing and favour purpose to dye But till Death shall most unfainedly remain Your MAJESTIES Most faithful Subject And Most Humble and Obliged Servant W. CANT A RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN WILLIAM LAWD Then L. Bishop of S. DAVIDS afterwards Lord Arch-Bishop of CANTERBURY AND M. FISHER the JESUITE F. The occasion of this Conference was B. § 1 THe occasion of this Third Conference you should know sufficiently You were an Actor in it as well as in two other VVhether you have related the two former truly appears by D. White the late Reverend L. Bishop of Ely his Relation or Exposition of them I was present at none but this Third of which I here give the Church an Account But of this Third whether that were the Cause which you alledge I cannot tell You say F. It was observed That in the second Conference all the Speech was about particular matters little or none about a continual infallible visible Church which was the chief and only Point in which a certain Lady required satisfaction as having formerly setled in her minde That it was not for her or any other unlearned persons to take upon them to judge of particulars without depending upon the judgment of the True Church B. § 2 The Opinion of that Honourable Person in this was never opened to me And it is very fit the people should look to the Judgment of the Church before they be too busie with Particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authority denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgment especially in things familiar and evident which even ordinary Capacities may as easily understand as read And therefore some Particulars a Christian may judge without depending F. This Lady therefore having heard it granted in the first Conference That there must be a continual visible Company ever since Christ teaching unchanged Doctrine in all Fundamental Points that is Points necessary to Salvation desired to hear this confirmed and proof brought which was that continual infallible visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attain Salvation And therefore having appointed a time of Meeting between a B. and Me and thereupon having sent for the B. and Me before the B. came the Lady and a Friend of hers came first to the Room where I was and debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a continual visible Church as they had heard granted by D. VVhite and L. K. c. B. Num. 1 § 3 VVhat D. White and L. K. granted I heard not But I think both granted a continual and a visible Church neitherof them an Infallible at least in your sense And your self in this Relation speak distractedly For in these few lines from the beginning hither twice you adde Infallible between continual and visible and twice you leave it out But this concerns D. W. and he hath answered it Num. 2 Here A. C. steps in and says The Jesuite did not speak distractedly but most advisedly For saith he where he relates what D. VVhite or L. K. granted he leaves out the word Infallible because they granted it not But where he speaks of the Lady there he addes it because the Jesuite knew it was an Infallible Church which she sought to rely upon How far the Catholick Militant Church of Christ is Infallible is no Dispute for this place though you shall finde it after But sure the Jesuite did not speak most advisedly nor A. C. neither nor the Lady her self if she said she desired to relye upon an Infallible Church For an Infallible Church denotes a Particular Church in that it is set in opposition to some other Particular Church that is not Infallible Now I for my part do not know what that Lady desired to relye upon This I know if she desired such a Particular Church neither this Jesuite nor any other is able to shew it her No not Bellarmine himself though of very great ability to make good any Truth which he undertakes for the Church of Rome But no strength can uphold an Errour against Truth where Truth hath an able Defendant Now where Bellarmine sets himself purposely to make this good That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in matter of Faith Out of which it follows That there may be found a Particular Infallible Church you shall see what he is able to perform Num. 3 1 First then after he hath distinguished to express his meaning in what sense the
Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in things which are de Fide of the Faith He tells us this Firmitude is because the Sea Apostolick is fixed there And this he saith is most true And for proof of it he brings three Fathers to justifie it 1 The first Saint Cyprian whose words are That the Romans are such as to whom Persidia cannot have access Now Persidia can hardly stand for Errour in Faith or for Misbelief but it properly signifies Malicious Falshood in matter of Trust and Action not Errour in Faith but in Fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church And why may it not here have this meaning in S. Cyprian Num. 4 For the Story there it is this In the Year 255 there was a Councel in Carthage in the Cause of two Schismaticks Felicissimus and Novatian about restoring of them to the Communion of the Church which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry Felicissimus would admit all even without Penance and Novatian would admit none no not after Penance The Fathers forty two in number went as the Truth led them between both Extremes To this Councel came Privatus a known Heretick but was not admitted because he was formerly Excommunicated and often condemned Hereupon he gathers his Complices together and chuses one Fortunatus who was formerly condemned as well as himself Bishop of Carthage and set him up against S. Cyprian This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with Letters Testimonial from their own Party and pretend that twenty five Bishops concurred with them and their desire was to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church and to have their new Bishop acknowledged Cornelius then Pope though their haste had now prevented S. Cyprian's Letters having formerly heard from him both of them and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them nor receive their Letters They grew insolent and furious the ordinary way that Schismaticks take Upon this Cornelius writes to S. Cyprian and S. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African Fugitives declares their Schism and wickedness at large and incourages Him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline and Censures against any the boldest threatâ—ings of wicked Schismaticks This is the Story and in this is the Passage here urged by Bellarmine Now I would fain know why Perfidia all circumstances considered may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing which these men having practised at Carthage thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also but that he was wary enough not to be over-reach'd by busie Schismaticks Num. 5 2. Secondly Let it be granted that Perfidia doth signifie here Errour in Faith and Doctrine For I will not deny but that among the African Writers and especially S. Cyprian it is sometimes so us'd and therefore here perhaps But then this Priviledge of not erring dangerously in the Faith was not made over absolutely to the Romans that are such by Birth and dwelling only but to the Romans qua tales as they were such as those first were whose Faith was famous through the World and as long as they continued such which at that time it seems they did And so S. Cyprian's words seem to import eos esse Romanos that the Romans then under Pope Cornelius were such as the Apostle spake of and therefore to whom at that time or any time they still remaining such perfidious misbelief could not be welcom or rather indeed perfidious Misbelievers or Schismaticks could not be welcom For this very Phrase Perfidia non potest habere accessum directs us to understand the word in a Concrete sense Perfidiousness could not get access that is such perfidious persons Excommunicated out of other Churches were not likely to get access at Rome or to finde admittance into their Communion It is but a Metonymie of speech the Adjunct for the Subject a thing very usual in Elegant Authors and much more in later times as in S. Cyprian's when the Latine Language was grown rougher Now if it be thus understood I say in the Concrete then it is plain that S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibility of Errour but to brand his Adversaries with a Title due to their Merit calling them Perfidious that is such as had betrayed or perverted the Faith Neither can we loose by this Construction as will appear at after Num. 6 3. But thirdly When all is done what if it be no more then a Rhetorical excess of speech Perfidia non potest for non facile potest It cannot that is it cannot easily Or what if S. Cyprian do but Laudando praecipere by commending them to be such instruct them that such indeed they ought to be to whom Perfidiousness should not get access Men are very bountiful of their Complements sometimes Syneâ—ius writing to Theophilus of Alexandria begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I both will and a Divine Necessity lies upon me to esteem it a Law whatsoever that Throne meaning his of Alexandria shall determine Nay the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that signifies to determine like an Oracle or as in Gods stead Now I hope you will say this is not to be taken Dogmatically it is but the Epistolers Courtesie only And why not the like here For the haste which these Schismaticks made to Rome prevented S. Cyprian's Letters yet Cornelius very careful of both the Truth and Peace of the Church would neither hear them nor receive their Letters till he had written to S. Cyprian Now this Epistle is S. Cyprian's Answer to Cornelius in which he informs him of the whole truth and withal gives him thanks for refusing to hear these African Fugitives In which fair way of returning his thanks if he make an Honourable mention of the Romans and their Faith with a little dash of Rhetorick even to a Non potest for a Non facile potest 't is no great wonder Num. 7 But take which Answer you will of the three this is plain that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome For this is more then manifest by the Contestation which after happened between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen about the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Hereticks For he saith expresly That Pope Stephen did then not only maintain an Errour but the very Cause of Hereticks and that against Christians and the very Church of God And after this he chargeth him with Obstinacy and Presumption I hope this is plain enough to shew that S. Cyprian had no great Opinion of the Roman Infallibility Or if he had it when he writ to Cornelius certainly he had chang'd it when he wrote against Stephen But I think it was no change and that when he wrote to Cornelius it was Rhetorick and
Cyrillus and Ruffinus but he neither tells us where nor cites their words Yet I think I have found the most pregnant place in S. Cyril and that makes clearly against him For I finde expresly these three things First That the Church is Inexpugnable and that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it but that it shall in perpetuum manere remain for ever And this all Protestants grant But this That it shall not fall away doth not secure it from all kinds of Errour Secondly Bellarmine quotes S. Cyril for the particular Roman Church and S. Cyril speaks not of the Roman at all but of the Church of Christ that is the Catholike Church Thirdly that the Foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath is placed not in or upon the Person much less the Successor of S. Peter but upon the Faith which by God's Spirit in him he so firmly professed which is the common received Opinion both of the Ancient Fathers and the Protestants Upon this Rock that is upon this Faith will I build my Church S. Matth. 16. So here 's all the good he hath gotten by S. Cyril unless he can cite some other place of S. Cyril which I believe he cannot Num. 12 And for Ruffinus the place which Bellarmine aims at is in his Exposition upon the Creed and is quoted in part the Chapter before But when all his words shall be laid together they will make no more for Bellarmine and his Cause then the former places have done Ruffinus his words then run thus Before I come to the words of the Creed this I think sit to warn you of that in divers Churches some things are found added to the words of the Creed But in the Church of the City of Rome this is not found done And as I think it is for that no Heresie did take its rise or beginning there And for that the Old Custom is there observed namely that they which are to receive the grace of Baptism do publickly repeat the Creed in the hearing of the people who would not admit such Additions But in other places as far as I can understand by reason of some Hereticks some things were added but such as were to exclude the sense of their Novel Doctrine Now these words make little for Bellarmine who cites them and much against Ruffinus that uttered them They make little for Bellarmine First because suppose Ruffinus his speech to be true yet this will never follow In Ruffinus his time no Heresie had taken its beginning at Rome therefore no Heresie hath had rooting there so many hundred years since Secondly Bellarmine takes upon him there to prove That the particular Church of Rome cannot Erre Now neither can this be concluded out of Ruffinus his words First because as I said before to argue from Non sumpsit to Ergo sumere non potest No Heresie hath yet begun there therefore none can begin there or spring thence is an Argument drawn ab Actu ad Potentiam negative from the Act to the Power of Being which every Novice in Learning can tell proceeds not Negatively And common reason tells every man 't is no consequence to say Such a thing is not or hath not been therefore it cannot be Secondly because though it were true that no Heresie at all did ever take its beginning at Rome yet that can never prove that the particular Church of Rome can never Erre which is the thing in Question For suppose that no Heresie did ever begin there yet if any that began elsewhere were admitted into that Church it is as full a proof that that Church can Erre as if the Heresie had been hatched in that Nest. For that Church erres which admits an Heresie in it as well as that which broaches it Now Ruffinus says no more of the Roman Church then non sumpsit exordium no Heresie took its beginning there but that denies not but that some Heretical Taint might get in there And 't is more then manifest that the most famous Heresies in their several times made their abode even at Rome And 't is observable too that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus his words then these In Ecclesia Urbis Romae neque Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium mos ibi servatur antiquus as if this were an entire speech whereas it comes in but as a Reason given of the speech precedent and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great Observer of the Customs of the Church whereas he speaks but of one particular Custom of reciting the Creed before Baptism But after all this I pray did no Heresie ever begin at Rome Where did Novatianism begin At Rome sure For Baronius Pamelius and Petavius do all dispute the point whether that Sect was denominated from Novatianus the Roman Priest or Novatus the African Bishop and they conclude for Novatian He then that gave that Name is in all right the Founder and Rome the Nest of that Heresie and there it continued with a Succession of Bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine which is near upon two hundred years Nay could Ruffinus himself be ignorant that some Heresie began at Rome No sure For in this I must challenge him either for his weak memory or his wilful errour For Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius his History but had been at the pains to translate him Now Eusebius says plainly that some Hereticks spread their venom in Asia some in Phrygia and others grew at Rome and Florinus was the Ring-leader of them And more clearly after Irenaeus saith he directed divers Epistles against this Florinus and his Fellow Blastus and condemns them of such Heresies as threw them and their Followers into great Impiety c. Those at Rome corrupting the sound Doctrine of the Church Therefore most manifest it is that some Heresie had its rise and beginning at Rome But to leave this slip of Ruffinus most evident it is that Ruffinus neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome Infallible for if he had esteemed so of it he would not have dissented from it in so main a Point as is the Canon of the Scripture as he plainly doth For reckoning up the Canonical Books he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon then heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a main Point of Faith the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible for if she were right in her reckoning then she is wrong now and if she be right now she was wrong then and if she do not reckon more now then she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer then she and so dissents from her which doubtless he durst not have done had he thought her
judgment Infallible Yea and he sets this mark upon his Dissent besides That he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so and no otherwise then as he received them out of the Monuments of the Forefathers and out of which the Assertions of our Faith are to be taken Last of all had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome yet there is very little reason that the Pope and his Clergy should take any Benefit by it For S. Hierome tells us That when Ruffinus was angry with him for an Epistle which he writ not he plainly sent him to the Bishop of Rome and bid him exposiulate with him for the Contumely put upon him in that he received not his Exposition of the Faith which said he all Italy approved And in that he branded him also dum nesciret behinde his back with Heresie Now if the Pope which then was rejected this Exposition of the Creed made by Ruffinus and branded him besides with Heresie his Sentence against Ruffinus was just or unjust If unjust then the Pope erred about a matter of Faith and so neither he nor the Church of Rome Infallible If just then the Church of Rome labours to defend her self by his Pen which is judged Heretical by her self So whether it were just or unjust the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait when she must beg help of him whom she branded with Heresie and out of that Tract which she her self rejected and so uphold her Infall ibility by the judgment of a man who in her judgment had erred so foully Nor may she by any Law take benefit of a Testimony which her self hath defamed and protested against Num. 13 With these Bellarmine is pleased to name sâ—x or seven Popes which he saith are all of this Opinion But of Popes Opinions he saith That these Testimonies will be contemned by the Hereticks Good words I pray I know whom the Cardinal means by Hereticks very well But the best is his Call cannot make them so Nor shall I easily contemn seven Ancient Bishops of Rome concurring in Opinion if apparent Verity in the thing it self do not force me to dissent and in that case I shall do it without contempt too This only I will say That seven Popes concurring in Opinion shall have less weight with me in their own Cause then any other seven of the more Ancient Fathers Indeed could I swallow Bellarmine's Opinion That the Pope's Judgment is Infallible I would then submit without any more aâ—o But that will never down with me unless I live till I dote which I hope in God I shall not Num. 14 Other Proofs then these Bellarmine brings not to prove that the particular Church of Rome cannot erre in or from the Faith And of what force these are to sway any judgment I submit to all indifferent Readers And having thus examined Bellarmines Proofs That the particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith I now return to A. C. and the Jesuite and tell them that no Jesuite or any other is ever able to prove any particular Church Infallible Num. 15 But for the particular Church of Rome and the Pope with it erred it hath and therefore may erre Erred I say it hath in the Worship of Images and in altering Christ's Institution in the Blessed Sacrament by taking away the Cup from the People and divers other particulars as shall appear at after And as for the Ground which is presumed to secure this Church from Errour 't is very remarkable how the Learned Cardinal speaks in this Case For he tells us that this Proposition So long as S. Peter's Chair is at Rome that particular Church cannot erre in the Faith is verissima most true and yet in the very next words 't is Fortasse tam vera peradventure as true as the former that is That the Pope when he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the Faith cannot erre in any case What is that Proposition most true And yet is it but at a peradventure 't is as true as this Is it possible any thing should be absolutely most true and yet under a peradventure that it is but as true as another Truth But here without all Peradventure neither Proposition is true And then indeed Bellarmine may say without a Fortasse That this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre so long as the Sea Apostolike is there is as true as this The Pope cannot erre while he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the Faith For neither of them is true But he cannot say that either of them is verissima most true when neither of them hath Truth Num. 16 2 Secondly if the particular Church of Rome be Infallible and can neither erre in the Faith nor fall from it then it is because the Sea Apostolike cannot be transferred from Rome but must ever to the Consummation of the World remain there and keep that particular Church from erring Now to this what says Bellarmine What Why he tells us That it is a pious and most probable Opinion to think so And he reckons four Probabilities that it shall never be remov'd from Rome And I will not deny but some of them are fair Probabilities but yet they are but Probabilities and so unable to convince any man Why but then what if a man cannot think as Bellarmine doth but that inforced by the light of his Understanding he must think the quite contrary to this which Bellarmine thinks pious and so probable What then Why then Bellarmine himself tells you that the quite contrary Proposition to this namely That S. Peter's Chair may be severed from Rome and that then that particular Church may erre is neither Heretical nor manifestly Erroneous So then by Bellarmine's own Confession I am no Heretick nor in any manifest errour if I say as indeed I do and think it too that 't is possible for S. Peter's Chair to be carried from Rome and that then at least by his own Argument that Church may erre Num. 17 Now then upon the whole matter and to return to A. C. If that Lady desired to rely upon a particular Infallible Church 't is not to be found on earth Rome hath not that gift nor her Bishop neither And Bellarmine who I think was as able as any Champion that Church hath dares not say 't is either Heresie or a manifest errour to say That the Apostolike Sea may be removed thence and that Church not only erre in Faith but also fall quite away from it Now I for my part have not ignorance enough in me to believe that that Church which may Apostatize at some one time may not erre at another especially since both her erring and failing may arise from other Causes besides that which is mention'd by the Cardinal And if it may erre 't
is not Infallible F. The Question was Which was that Church A Friend of the Ladies would needs defend That not only the Roman but also the Greek Church was right B. § 4 When that Honourable Personage answered I was not by to hear But I presume he was so far from granting that only the Roman Church was right as that he did not grant it right and that he took on him no other defence of the poor Greek Church then was according to truth F. I told him That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that even his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost B. § 5 You are very bold with His Majesty to relate him upon Hear-say My intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majesty said But if he said it not you have been too credulous to believe and too sudden to report it Princes deserve and were wont to have more respect then so If His Majesty did say it there is Truth in the speech the Errour is yours only by mistaking what is meant by losing the Holy Ghost For a particular Church may be said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways or in two degrees 1 The one when it loses such special assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous Errours and sins and the temporal punishment which is due unto them And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost for they erred against him they sinned against God And for this or other sins they were delivered into another Babylonish Captivity under the Turk in which they yet are and from which God in his mercy deliver them But this is rather to be called an Errour circa Spiritum Sanctum about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an Errour against the Holy Ghost 2 The other is when it loses not only this assistance but all assistance ad hoc to this that they may remain any longer a true Church and so Corinth and Ephesus and divers other Churches have lost the Holy Ghost but in this sense the whole Greek Church lost not the Holy Ghost For they continue a true Church in the main substance to and at this day though Erroneous in this Point which you mention and perhaps in some other too F. The Ladies Friend not knowing what to answer called in the Bishop who sitting down first excused himself as one unprovided and not much studied in Controversies and desiring that in case he should fail yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of B. § 6 This is most true For I did indeed excuse my self and I had great reason so to do And my Reason being grounded upon Modesty for the most part there I leave it Yet this it may be fit others should know that I had no information where the other Conferences brake off no instruction at all what should be the ground of this third Conference nor the full time of four and twenty hours to bethink my self And this I take upon my Credit is most true whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Bran your daily work and came throughly furnished to the business and might so lead on the Controversie to what your self pleased and I was to follow as I could S. Augustine said once Scio me invalidum esse I know I am weak and yet he made good his Cause And so perhaps may I against you And in that I preferr'd the Cause before my particular Credit that which I did was with modesty and according to Reason For there is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon any one particular man And great reason that the personal defects of any man should press himself but not the Cause Neither did I enter upon this service out of any forwardness of my own but commanded to it by Supreme Authority F. It having an hundred better Scholars to maintain it then he To which I said there were a thousand better Scholars then I to maintain the Catholike Cause B. § 7 In this I had never so poor a Conceit of the Protestants Cause as to think that they had but an hundred better then my self to maintain it That which hath an hundred may have as many more as it pleases God to give and more then you And I shall ever be glad that the Church of England which at this time if my memory reflect not amiss I named may have far more able Defendants then my self I shall never envy them but rejoyce for her And I make no question but that if I had named a thousand you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the Catholike Cause as you call it And this confidence of yours hath ever been fuller of noise then proof But you proceed F. Then the Question about the Greek Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred B. § 8 Then I think the Question about the Greek Church was proposed But after you had with confidence enough not spared to say That what I would not acknowledge in this Cause you would wring and extort from me then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denied But every Errour denies not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ deny it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The Bishop said That the Errour was not in Point Fundamental B. § 9 Num. 1 I was not so peremptory My speech was That divers Learned men and some of your own were of Opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a Question not simply Fundamental I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous Errour in Divinity And sure it would have grated the Foundation if they had so denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as that they had made an inequality between the Persons But since their form of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a true Church for this though I confess them an erroneous Church in this particular Num. 2 Now that divers Learned men were of Opinion that à Filio and per Filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not Fundamental is evident The Master and his Scholars agree upon it The Greeks saith he confess the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. John 16. And since Non est aliud it is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and
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
can neither deceive nor be deceived And he adds That the Probation of the Church can make it known to all that the Object of Divine Faith is revealed from God and therefore certain and not to be doubted but the Church can adde no certainty no firmness to the Word of God revealing it Num. 6 Nor is this hard to be farther proved out of your own School for Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greek Church If there be saith he a true real difference between the Greeks and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be verè Haeretici truly and indeed Hereticks And he speaks this of the old Greeks long before any Decision of the Church in this Controversie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S. Hierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge I deny not but that Scotus adds there That howsoever this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if he intend by it That whatsoever the Church defines shall be ipso facto and for that Determinations sake Fundamental For if before the Determination supposing the Difference real some of those Worthies were truly Hereticks as he confesses then somewhat made them so And that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somewhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it made them Hereticks against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser then to intend this It may be he saw the stream too strong for him to swim against therefore he went on with the Doctrine of the Time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith but meant not to betray the truth For he goes no farther then Ecclesia declaravit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is used by divers Num. 7 Now the Master teaches and the Scholars too That every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another intus est is not another contrary thing but is contained within the Bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erroneous because instead of declaring it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Councel either that which she declares was intus or extra in the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were extra without the nature of the thing declared then the Declaration of the thing is false and so far from being fundamental in the Faith If it were intus within the compass and nature of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise fundamental then the thing is which is declared for that which is intus cannot be larger or deeper then that in which it is if it were it could not be intus Therefore nothing is simply fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares Num. 8 And it is slight and poor Evasion that is commonly used that the Declaration of the Church makes it Fundamental quoad nos in respect of us for it doth not that neither For no respect to us can vary the Foundation The Churches Declaration can binde us to Peace and External Obedience where there is not express Letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing fundamental to us that is not so in its own Nature For if the Church can so adde that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing away from the foundation and make it by declaring not to be Fundamental which all men grant no power of the Church can do For the power of adding any thing contrary and of detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden and alike denied Now nothing is more apparent then this to the eye of all men That the Church of Rome hath determined or declared or defined call it what you will very many things that are not in their own nature fundamental and therefore neither are nor can be made so by her adjudging them Now to all this discourse that the Church hath not power to make any thing fundamental in the Faith that intrinsecally and in its own nature is not such A. C. is content to say nothing Num. 9 2 For the second That it is proved by this place of S. Augustine That all points defined by the Church are fundamental You might have given me that place cited in the Margin and cased my pains to seek it but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it For you do so extraordinarily right this place that you were loth I think any body should see how you wrong it The place of S. Augustine is this against the Pelagians about Remission of Original Sin in Infants This is a thing founded an erring Disputer is to be born with in other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firm by full Authority of the Church their errour is to be born with but it ought not to go so far that it should labour to shake the foundation it self of the Church This is the place but it can never follow out of this place I think That every thing defined by the Church is fundamental Num. 10 For first he speaks of a foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not a Church-definition This appears for few lines before he tells us There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian Whether Baptism was concluded to the eighth day as well as Circumcision And no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no Question was moved that Question that was made was Answered And again That S. Cyprian took that which he gave in Answer from the foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives hath not one word of any Definition of the Church therefore ea res that thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and setled Scripture-Doctrine not any Definition of the Church Therefore that which he took out of the Foundation of the Church to fasten the stone that shook was not a Definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it self the Scripture upon which it is builded as appeareth in the Milevitane Councel where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputer is not to be born any longer
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
Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
into the Canon if the evidence of this Light were either Universal or Infallible of and by it self And this though I cannot approve yet methinks you may and upon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will deny but that there is as much light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it self to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Divine and infallibly the Unwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the †Apostles that the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to bear witness to their own Verity as the Church is to bear witness to her own Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selves would never go to the Scripture to prove that there are Traditions as you do if you did not think the Scripture as easie to be discovered by inbred light in it self as Traditions by their light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirm That Scripture may be known to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it self as it is which you affirm That a Tradition may be known to be such by the light which it hath in it self which is an excellent Proposition to make sport withal were this an Argument to be handled merrily Num. 11 3. For the third Opinion and way of proving either some think that there is no sufficient warrant for this unless they fetch it from the Testimony of the Holy Ghost and so look in vain after special Revelations and make themselves by this very Conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing private spirit or else you would fain have them think so For your side both upon this and other Occasions do often challenge That we resolve all our Faith into the Dictates of a private Spirit from which we shall ever prove our selves as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed upon that there must be a Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum under which can rest no possible errour That the Books of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which go to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this do mean by Faith Objectum Fidei the Object of Faith that is to be believed then no question they are out of the ordinary way For God never sent us by any word or warrant of his to look for any such special and private Testimony to prove which that Book is that we must believe But if by Faith they mean the Habit or Act of Divine infused Faith by which vertue they do believe the Credible Object and thing to be believed then their speech is true and confessed by all Divines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infused Habit in respect whereof the Soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but He. For the Holy Ghost as He first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles So did he not leave the Church in general nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to believe what himself had revealed and made Credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receive a kind of preparation or Occasion of Beginning from the Testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man he cannot believe be the Object never so Credible The speech is true then but quite out of the State of this Question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this Object Credible and fit to be believed against all impeachment of folly and temerity in Belief whether men do actually believe it or not For which no man may expect inward private Revelation without the external means of the Church unless perhaps the case of Necessity be excepted when a man lives in such a time and place as excludes him from all ordinary means in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the Souls of men nor to tye him to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great wisdom and providence He hath tied and bound all mankind Num. 12 Private Revelation then hath nothing ordinarily to do to make the Object Credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves By which if there arise any Doubting or Infirmity in the Faith others may strengthen us or we afford means to support them Whereas the Testimony of the Spirit and all private Revelation is within nor felt nor seen of any but him that hath it So that hence can be drawn no proof to others And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it unless both They and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an unalterable Rule by man or Angel To all this A. C. says nothing save that I seem not to admit of an Infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit ex parte subjecti without any infallible Reason and that sufficiently applied ex parte objecti which if I did admit would open a gap to all Enthusiasms and dreams of fanatical men Now for this yet I thank him For I do not only seem not to admit but I do most clearly reject this phrensie in the words going before Num. 13 4. The last way which gives Reason leave to come in and prove what it can may not justly be denied by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven nor believe this Book in which God hath written the way yet Grace is never placed but in a reasonable Creature and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up that the end it hath is to be spiritual eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature only it cannot but never to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend Now the use of Reason is very general and man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a Reason why he will believe though after he once believes his Faith grows stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other can in this life Num. 14 In this Particular the Books called the Scripture
there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Story can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Jews Enemies to Christ they bear witness to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimony for any Authority upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Unwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Belief when it is true and remains so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth cannot deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non subest falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured insallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falshood can come but by a Divine Testimony This Testimony is absolute in Scripture it self delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God and so sealed to our Souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motive is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Divine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our Faith but only as is before expressed Num. 2 And now to come close to the Particular The time was before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart that you and We were all of One Belief That belief was tainted in tract and corruption of times very deeply A Division was made yet so that both Parts held the Creed and other Common Principles of Belief Of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God For our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it Since this Division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this Principle Nay We have given it all honour and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie even to the containing of all things necessary to salvation with Satis superque enough and more than enough which your selves have not done do not And for begetting and setling a Belief of this Principle we go the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing Motive to embrace this Principle only we cannot go so far in this way as you to make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten For this is to go so far in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not only to receive us in but another after to let us out into more open and richer ground And we go a better way than you Because after we are moved and prepared and induced by Tradition we resolve our Faith into that Written Word and God delivering it in which we find materially though not in Terms the very Tradition that led us thither And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way because at the end we find the way proved And do what can be done you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the Present Church alone can give And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoveret Unless the Authority of the Church moved me but not alone but with other Motives else it were not commovere to move together And the other Motives are Resolvers though this be Leader Now since we go the same way with you so far as you go right and a better way than you where you go wrong we need not admit any other Word of God than we do And this ought to remain as a Presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture between you and us But you say that F. From this the Lady called us and desiring to hear Whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church The B. granted That it was B. § 20 Num. 1 One occasion which moved Tertullian to write his Book d◠Praescript adversus Haereticos was That he saw little or no Profit come by Disputations Sure the Ground was the same then and now It was not to deny that Disputation is an Opening of the Understanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirm that any such Disquisition is in and of it self unprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Jews and all Comers No sure it was some Abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one Abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth And so I find it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form or so answered There is a great deal of Difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you use but no man else that I know I am sure not I. Num. 2 For The Church may import in our Language The only true Church and perhaps as some of you seem to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike And this I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the Whole And this I never did nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right as you impose upon me For Ens and Verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is
hindred it now to be Since that did not depart from the Protestant Church but the Protestant Church from it Truly I neither suspected the Inference would be made nor fear it when it is made For 't is no News that any Particular Church Roman as well as another may once have been Right and afterwards wrong and in far worse case And so it was in Rome after the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat S. Mat. 13. But whether these Tares were sowen while their Bishops slept or whether They themselves did not help to sow them is too large a Disquisition for this Place So though it were once Right yet the Tares which grow thick in it are the Cause why 't is not so now And then though that Church did not depart from the Protestants Church yet if it gave great and just Cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the Errors of it while it in some Particulars departed from the Truth of Christ it comes all to one for this Particular That the Roman Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing Superstition and Error F. Farther he confessed That Protestants had made a Rent and Division from it B. § 21 Num. 1 I confess I could here be heartily angry but that I have resolved in handling matters of Religion to leave all gall out of my Ink for I never granted that the Roman Church either is or was the right Church 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable Rent in the Church and I make no Question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and Redress of Abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the Cause of it is The Woe runs full out of the mouth of * Christ ever against him that gives the Offence not against him that takes it ever But you have by this carriage given me just cause never to treat with you or your like but before a Judge or a Jury Num. 2 But here A. C. tells me I had no cause to be angry either with the Jesuite or my self Not with the Jesuite for he writ down my words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the Passage and that I did say either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis either in these or equivalent words That the Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church What did the Jesuite set down my words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken and were they so few as these The Protestants did make the Schism and yet was his memory so short that he cannot tell whether I uttered this iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis Well I would A. C. and his Fellows would leave this Art of theirs and in Conferences which they are so ready to call for impose no more upon other men than they utter And you may observe too that after all this full Assertion that I spake this iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis A. C. concludes thus The Jesuite took special notice in fresh memory and is sure he related at least in sense just as it was uttered What 's this At least in sense just as it was uttered Do not these two Enterfeire and shew the Jesuite to be upon his shuffling pace For if it were just as it was uttered then it was in the very form of words too not in sense only And if it were but At least in sense then when A. C. hath made the most of it it was not just as 't was uttered Besides at least in sense doth not tell us in whose sense it was For if A. C. mean the Jesuite's sense of it he may make what sense he pleases of his own words but he must impose no sense of his upon my words But as he must leave my words to my self so when my words are uttered or written he must leave their sense either to me or to that genuine Construction which an Ingenuous Reader can make of them And what my words of Grant were I have before expressed and their sense too Num. 3 Not with my self That 's the next For A. C. says 'T is truth and that the world knows it that the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the name of Protestants by protesting against it No A. C. by your leave this is not truth neither and therefore I had reason to be angry with my self had I granted it For first the Protestants did not depart For departure is voluntary so was not theirs I say not theirs taking their whole Body and Cause together For that some among them were peevish and some ignorantly zealous is neither to be doubted nor is there danger in confessing it Your Body is not so perfect I wot well but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of Ours You must not suffer for these nor We for those nor should the Church of Christ for either Next the Protestants did not get that Name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her Errors and Superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome and our Protestation is ended and the Separation too Nor is Protestation it self such an unheard-of thing in the very heart of Religion For the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are called by your own School Visible Signs protesting the Faith Now if the Sacraments be Protestantia Signes Protesting why may not men also and without all offence be called Protestants since by receiving the true Sacraments and by refusing them which are corrupted they do but Protest the sincerity of their Faith against that Doctrinal Corruption which hath invaded the great Sacrament of the Eucharist and other Parts of Religion Especially since they are men which must protest their Faith by these visible Signs and Sacraments Num. 4 But A. C. goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the Cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by Excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and Practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is Pride and S. Augustine Madness So then in his Opinion First Excommunication on their Part was not the Prime Cause of this Division but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions Why but then in my Opinion That holding and teaching was not the Prime Cause neither but the Corruptions and Superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the Prime Cause was theirs still Secondly A.
C's words are very considerable For he charges the Protestants to be the Authors of the Schism for obstinate holding and teaching contrary Opinions To what I pray Why to the Roman Faith To the Roman Faith It was wont to be the Christian Faith to which contrary Opinions were so dangerous to the Maintainers But all 's Roman now with A. C. and the Jesuite And then to countenance the Business S. Bernard and S. Augustine are brought in whereas neither of them speak of the Roman and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholike nor the Roman but of a Particular Church or Congregation Or if he speak of the Catholike of the Roman certainly he doth not His words are Quae major superbia c. What greater pride than that one man should prefer his judgment before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world So A. C. out of Saint Bernard But Saint Bernard not so For these last words of all the Christian Churches in the world are not in Saint Bernard And whether Toti Congregationi imply more in that Place than a Particular Church is not very manifest Nay I think 't is plain that he speaks both of and to that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching And I believe A. C. will not easily find where tota Congregatio the whole Congregation is used in Saint Bernard or any other of the Fathers for the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And howsoever the meaning of S. Bernard be 't is one thing for a private man Judicium suum praeferre to prefer and so follow his private Judgment before the Whole Congregation which is indeed Lepra proprii Consilii as S. Bernard there calls it the proud Leprosie of the Private Spirit And quite another thing for an Intelligent man and in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholike Church And much more may a whole National Church nay the whole Body of the Protestants do it And for S. Augustine the Place alledged out of him is a known Place And he speaks indeed of the Whole Catholike Church And he says and he says it truly 'T is a part of most insolent madness for any Man to dispute whether that be to be done which is usually done in and through the whole Catholike Church of Christ Where first here 's not a word of the Roman Church but of that which is tota per Orbem all over the World Catholike which Rome never yet was Secondly A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith whereas S. Augustine speaks there expresly of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church and particularly about the Manner of Offering upon Maundy Thursday whether it be in the Morning or after Supper or both Thirdly 't is manifest by the words themselves that S. Augustine speaks of no Matter of Faith there Roman nor Catholike For Frequentat and Faciendum are for Things done and to be done not for Things believed or to be believed So here 's not One Word for the Roman Faith in either of these Places And after this I hope you will the less wonder at A. C's Boldness Lastly a right sober man may without the least Touch of Insolencie or Madness dispute a Business of Religion with the Roman either Church or Prelate as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor so it be with Modesty and for the finding out or Confirming of Truth free from Vanity and purposed Opposition against even a Particular Church But in any other way to dispute the Whole Catholike Church is just that which S. Augustine calls it Insolent Madness Num. 5 But now were it so that the Church of Rome were Orthodox in all things yet the Faith by the Jesuite's leave is not simply to be called the Roman but the Christian and the Catholike Faith And yet A. C. will not understand this but Roman and Catholike whether Church or Faith must be one and the same with him and therefore infers That there can be no just Cause to make a Schism or Division from the whole Church For the whole Church cannot universally erre in Doctrine of Faith That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true and 't is granted by drivers Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamental Doctrines And therefore 't is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schism from the whole Church But here 's the Jesuite's Cunning. The whole Church with him is the Roman and those parts of Christendom which subject themselves to the Roman Bishop All other parts of Christendom are in Heresie and Schism and what A. C. pleases Nay soft For another Church may separate from Rome if Rome will separate from Christ. And so far as it separates from Him and the Faith so far may another Church fever from it And this is all that the Learned Protestants do or can say And I am sure all that ever the Church of England hath either said or done And that the whole Church cannot erre in Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and Necessary to all mens Salvation besides the Authority of thoso Protestants most of them being of prime Rank seems to me to be clear by the Promise of Christ S. Matth. 16. That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Whereas most certain it is that the Gates of Hell prevail very far against it if the Whole Militant Church universally taken can Erre from or in the Foundation But then this Power of not Eâ—ring is not to be conceived as if it were in the Church primò per se Originally or by any power it hath of it self For the Church is constituted of Men and Humanum est errare all men can erre But this Power is in it partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ and partly by the Matter which it teacheth which is the unerring Word of God so plainly and manifestly delivered to her as that it is not possible she should universally fall from it or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to Salvation Besides it would be well weighed whether to believe or teach otherwise will not impeach the Article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholike Church which we profess we believe For the Holy Catholike Church there spoken of contains not only the whole Militant Church on earth but the whole Triumphant also in Heaven For so S. Augustine hath long since taught me Now if the whole Catholike Church in this large extent be Holy then certainly the whole Militant Church is Holy as well as the Triumphant though in a far lower degree in as much as all Sanctification all Holiness is imperfect in this life as well in Churches as in Men Holy then the whole Militant Church is For that which the Apostle speaks of Abraham is true of the Church which is a Body Collective made
up of the spiritual seed of Abraham Rom. 11. If the root be holy so are the branches Well then the whole Militant Church is Holy and so we believe Why but will it not follow then That the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in the Foundations of the Faith That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her Curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule no doubt need be made But if She can erre either from the Foundation or in it She can be no longer Holy and that Article of the Creed is gone For if she can erre quite from the Foundation then She is nor Holy nor Church but becomes an Infidel Now this cannot be For all Divines Ancient and Modern Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into general Apostacie And if She Erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then She may be a Church of Christ still but not Holy but becomes Heretical And most Certain it is that no Assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy Other Errors that are of a meaner alay take not Holiness from the Church but these that are dyed in grain cannot consist with Holiness of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation And therefore if we will keep up our Creed the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that Falsum may subesse Fidei Catholicae That falshood and that in a high degree in the very Article may be the Subject of the Catholike Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholike Church And if She be not still Holy then at that time when she is not so we believe a Falshood under the Article of the Catholike Faith Therefore a very dangerous thing it is to cry out in general terms That the whole Catholike Militant Church can Erre and not limit nor distinguish in time that it can erre indeed for Ignorance it hath and Ignorance can Erre But Erre it cannot either by falling totally from the Foundation or by Heretical Error in it For the Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners taught and Commanded in the Doctrine of Faith Num. 6 Now in this Discourse A. C. thinks he hath met with me For he tells me That I may not only safely grant that protestants made the Division that is now in the Church but further also and that with a safe Confidence as one did was it not you saith he That it was ill done of those who first made the Separation Truly I do not now remember whether I said it or no. But because A. C. shall have full satisfaction from me and without any Tergiversation if I did not say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who ere they were that first made the separation But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only but of Causal separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the Cause of it is And he makes the Separation that gives the first just Cause of it not he that makes an Actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says 't is most true Neither can he deny it in this sense in which I have expressed it for his very Assertion against us though false is in these Terms That we gave the first Cause Therefore he must mean it of Causal not of Actual Separation only Num. 7 But then A. C. goes on and tells us That after this Breach was made yet the Church of Rome was so kind and careful to seek the Protestants that She invited them publikely with Safe-conduct to Rome to a General Councel freely to speak what they could for themselves Indeed I think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants But I doubt it was to bring them within their Net And she invited them to Rome A very safe place if you mark it for them to come to just as the Lyon in the Apologue invited the Fox to his own Den. Yea but there was Safe-Conduct offered too Yes Conduct perhaps but not safe or safe perhaps for going thither but none for coming thence Vestigia nulla retrorsum Yea but it should have been to a General Councel Perhaps so But was the Conduct safe that was given for coming to a Councel which they call General to some others before them No sure John Hus and Jerome of Prage burnt for all their Safe-Conduct And so long as Jesuites write and maintain That Faith given is not to be kept with Hereticks And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured as it hath hitherto done and no exception put in of force and violence A. C. shall pardon us that we come not to Rome nor within the reach of Roman Power what freedom of Speech soever be promised us For to what end Freedom of Speech on their part since they are resolved to alter nothing And to what end Freedom of speech on our part if after speech hath been free life shall not Num. 8 And yet for all this A. C. makes no doubt but that the Romane Church is so far from being Cause of the continuance of the Schism or hinderance of the Re-union that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample Safe-Conduct if any hope might be given that the Protestants would sincerely seek nothing but Truth and Peace Truly A. C. is very Resolute for the Roman Church yet how far he may undertake for it I cannot tell But for my part I am of the same Opinion for the continuing of the Schism that I was for the making of it That is that it is ill very ill done of those whoever they be Papists or Protestants that give just Cause to continue a Separation But for free-hearings or Safe-Conducts I have said enough till that Church do not only say but do otherwise And as for Truth and Peace they are in every mans mouth with you and with us But lay they but half so close to the hearts of men as they are common on their tongues it would soon be better with Christendom than at this day it is or is like to be And for the Protestants in general I hope they seek both Truth and Peace sincerely The Church of England I am sure doth and hath taught me to pray for both as I most heartily do But what Rome doth in this if the world will not see I will not Censure Num. 9 And for that which A. C. adds That such a
free hearing is more than ever the English Catholikes could obtain though they have often offered and desired it and that but under the Princes word And that no Answer hath nor no good Answer can be given And he cites Campian for it How far or how often this hath been asked by the English Romanists I cannot tell nor what Answer hath been given them But surely Campian was too bold and so is A. C. too to say Honestum responsum nullum no good Answer can be given For this I think is a very good Answer That the Kings and the Church of England had no Reason to admit of a Publike Dispute with the English Romish Clergy till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome That that Church will submit to a Third who may be an Indifferent Judge between us and them or to such a General Councel as is after mentioned And this is an Honest and I think a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour And therefore the more publike the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schism too F. Moreover he said he would ingenuously acknowledge That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departing from it B. § 22 I would I could say you did as ingenously repeat as I did Confess For I never said That Corruption of Manners was or was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departure How could I say this since I did not grant that they did Depart otherwise than is before expressed There is difference between Departure and causless Thrusting from you For out of the Church is not in your Power God be thanked to thrust us Think on that And so much I said expresly then That which I did ingenuously confess was this That Corruption in Manners only is no sufficient Cause to make a Separation in the Church Nor is it It is a Truth agreed on by the Fathers and received by Divines of all sorts save by the Cathari to whom the Donatist and the Anabaptist after accorded And against whom Calvin disputes it strongly And S. Augustine is plain There are bad fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be ever a Separation in heart and in manners but a corporal separation must be expected at the Sea-shore that is the end of the world And the best fish that are must not tear and break the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously Confessed for you as by me For if Corruption in Manners were a just Cause of Actual Separation of one Church from another in that Catholike Body of Christ the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any since as Stapleton grants there is scaree any sin that can be thought by man Heresie only excepted with which that Sea hath not been foully stained especially from eight hundred years after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grant it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars defection to look to his Cure himself F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. § 23 This I spake indeed And can you prove that I spake not true in this But I added though here again you are pleased to omit it That some of the Errors of the Roman Church were dangerous to Salvation For it is not every light Error in Disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can be a just Cause of Separation in that Admirable Body of Christ which is his Church or of one Member of it from another For he gave his Natural Body to be rent and torn upon the Cross that his Mystical Body might be One. And St. Augustine infers upon it That he is no way partaker of Divine Charity that is an enemy to this Unity Now what Errors in Doctrine may give just Cause of Separation in this Body or the Parts of it one from another were it never so easie to determine as I think it is most difficult I would not venture to set it down in particular lest in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Door for Schism which surely I will never do unless it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger Salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes The proof whereof runs through the Particular Points that are between us and so is too long for this Discourse Now here A. C. would fain have a Reason given him Why I did endeavour to shew what Cause the Protestants had to make that Rent or Division if I did not grant that they made it Why truly in this reasonable demand I will satisfie him I did it partly because I had granted in the general that Corruption in Manners was no sufficient cause of Separation of one Particular Church from another and therefore it lay upon me at least to Name in general what was and partly because he and his Party will needs have it so that we did make the Separation And therefore though I did not grant it yet amiss I thought it could not be to Declare by way of Supposition that if the Protestants did at first Separate from the Church of Rome they had reason so to do For A. C. himself confesses That Error in Doctrine of the Faith is a just Cause of Separation so just as that no Cause is just but that Now had I leasure to descend into Particulars or will to make the Rent in the Church wider 't is no hard matter to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith and dangerously too And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to Particulars A. C. his Importunity forcing me to it F. Which when the General Church would not Reform it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves B. § 24 Num. 1 Is it then such a strange thing that a Particular Church may reform it self if the General will not I had thought and do so still That in Point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawful for the Church since Christ to do as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Jews and Proselytes This Church came to have a Separation upon a most ungodly Policie of Jeroboam's so that it never pieced together again To a Common Councel to reform all they would not come Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self when Israel would not joyn Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me that
says expresly Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah sin And S. Hierome expounds it of this very particular sin of Heresie and Error in Religion Nor can you say that Israel from the time of the Separation was not a a Church for there were true Prophets in it Elias and Elizaeus and others and thousands that had not bowed knees to 〈◊〉 And there was Salvation for these which cannot be in the Ordinary way where there is no Church And God threatens to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away in Non Ecclesiam into no-No-Church And they are expresly called the People of the Lord in 〈◊〉 time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Judan is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you do for if that be true you must grant that the Multitude and greater number is ours and where then is Multitude your â—â—merous Note of the Church For the Ten Tribes were more than the two But you cannot plead it For certainly if any Calves be set up they are in Dan and in Bethel They are not ours Num. 2 Besides to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners is as lawful for a Particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo Judice lies alike against both And yet I think it may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a Particular Church did promulgate an Orthodox Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son If she erred in this Fact confess her Error if she erred not why may not another Particular Church do as she did A learned School-man of yours saith she may The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree upon this Truth since the Authority of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawful for every particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he means Catholike as fore-determined by the Church in general for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a General Councel was not And how the Grecians were used in the after-Councel such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute But Catholike stands there for that which is so in the nature of it and Fundamentally Nor can you justly say That the Church of Rome did or might do this by the Pope's Authority over the Church For suppose he have that and that his Sentence be Infallible I say suppose both but I give neither yet neither his Authority nor his Infallibility can belong unto him as the particular Bishop of that Sâ—a but as the Ministerial Head of the whole Church And you are all so lodged in this that Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the year when nor the Pope under whom this Addition was made A Particular Church then if you judge it by the School of Rome or the Practice of Rome may publish any thing that is Catholike where the whole Church is silent and may therefore Reform any thing that is not Catholike where the whole Church is negligent or will not Num. 3 But you are as jealous of the honour of Rome as Capellus is who is angry with Baronius about certain Canons in the second Milevitane Councel and saith That he considered not of what consequence it was to grant to Particular Churches the Power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Roman Sea which as he saith and you with him was never lawful nor ever done But suppose this were so my Speech was not Not consulting but in Case of Neglecting or Refusing Or when the difficulty of Time and Place or other Circumstances are such that a General Councel cannot be called or not convene For that the Roman Sea must be consulted with before any Reformation be made First most certain it is Capellus can never prove And secondly as certain that were it proved and practised we should have no Reformation For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured if that Sea alone should be her Physitian which in truth is her Disease Num. 4 Now if for all this you will say still that a Provincial Councel will not suffice but we should have born with Things till the time of a General Councel First 't is true a General Councel free and entire would have been the best Remedy and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far and eaten so deep into Christianity But what Should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all rather than be cured in time by a Physitian of a weaker knowledge and a less able Hand Secondly We live to see since if we had stayed and expected a General Councel what manner of one we should have had if any For that at Trent was neither general nor free And for the Errors which Rome had contracted it confirmed them it cured them not And yet I much doubt whether ever that Councel such as it was would have been called if some Provincial and National Synods under Supreme and Regal Power had not first set upon this great work of Reformation Which I heartily wish had in all places been as Orderly and Happily pursued as the Work was right Christian and good in it self But humane frailty and the Heats and Distempers of men as well as the Cunning of the Devil would not suffer that For even in this sense also The wrath of man doth not accomplish the will of God S. James 1. But I have learned not to reject the Good which God hath wrought for any evil which men may fasten to it Num. 5 And yet if for all this you think 't is better for us to be blind than to open our own eyes let me tell you very Grave and Learned Men and of your own Party have taught me That when the Universal Church will not or for the Iniquities of the Times cannot obtain and settle a free general Councel 't is lawful nay sometimes necessary to Reform gross Abuses by a National or a Provincial For besides Alb. Magnus whom I quoted before Gerson the Learned and devout Chancellor of Paris tells us plainly That he will not deny but that the Church may be reformed by parts And that this is necessary and that to effect it Provincial Councels may suffice and in some things Diocesan And again Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Councel or command them to be reformed in Provincial Councels Now Gerson lived about two hundred years since But this Right of Provincial Synods that they might decree in Causes of Faith and in Cases of Reformation where Corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ was practised much
above a thousand years ago by many both National and Provincial Synods For the Councel at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemned Photinus and Sabellius And their Heresies were of high Nature against the Faith The Councel at Gangra about the same time condemned Eustathius for his condemning of Marriage as unlawful The first Councel at Carthage being a Provincial condemned Rebaptization much about the year 348. The Provincial Councel at Aquileia in the year 381. in which S. Ambrose was present condemned Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie The second Councel of Carthage handled and Decreed the Belief and Preaching of the Trinity And this a litte after the year 424. The Councel of Milevis in Africa in which S. Augustine was present condemned the whole Course of the Heresie of Pelagius that great and bewitching Heresie in the year 416. The second Councel at Orange a Provincial too handled the great Controversies about Grace and Free-will and set the Church right in them in the year 444. The third Councel at Toledo a National one in the year 589. determined many things against the Arrian Heresie about the very Prime Articles of Faith under fourteen several Anathema's The fourth Councel at Toledo did not only handle Matters of Faith for the Reformation of that People but even added also some things to the Creed which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds Nay the Bishops did not only practise this to Condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods and so Reform those several Places and the Church it self by parts But They did openly challenge this as their Right and Due and that without any leave asked of the Sea of Rome For in this Fourth Councel of Toledo They Decree That if there happen a Cause of Faith to be setled a General that is a National Synod of all Spain and Galicia shall be held thereon And this in the year 643. Where you see it was then Catholike Doctrine in all Spain that a National Synod might be a Competent Judge in a Cause of Faith And I would fain know what Article of the Faith doth more concern all Christians in general than that of Filióque And yet the Church of Rome her self made that Addition to the Creed without a General Councel as I have shewed already And if this were practised so often and in so many places why may not a National Councel of the Church of England do the like as She did For She cast off the Pope's Usurpation and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighth's time And by the Records in the Arch-bishops Office orderly kept and to be seen In the Reformation which came after our Princes had their parts and the Clergy theirs And to these Two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs That our Princes had their parts is manifest by their Calling together of the Bishops and others of the Clergy to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation And the Clergy did their part For being thus called together by Regal Power they met in the National Synod of sixty two And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by Acts of State and the Royal Assent In this Synod the Positive Truths which are delivered are more than the Polemicks So that a meer Calumny it is That we profess only a Negative Religion True it is and we must thank Rome for it our Confession must needs contain some Negatives For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored Nor can we admit Maimed Sacraments Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue And in a corrupt time or place 't is as necessary in Religion to deny falshood as to assert and vindicate Truth Indeed this later can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former an Affirmative Verity being ever included in the Negative to a Falshood As for any Error which might fall into this as any other Reformation if any such can be found then I say and 't is most true Reformation especially in Cases of Religion is so difficult a work and subject to so many Pretensions that 't is almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far or fall too short in some smaller things or other which in regard of the far greater benefit coming by the Reformation it self may well be passed over and born withal But if there have been any wilful and gross errors not so much in Opinion as in Fact Sacriledge too often pretending to reform Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them Num. 6 But now before I go off from this Point I must put you in remembrance too That I spake at that time and so must all that will speak of that Exigent of the General Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman Sea And this you understand well enough For in your very next words you call it the Roman Church Now I make no doubt but that as the Universal Catholike Church would have reform'd her self had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke so while she was for the most in these Western parts under that yoke the Church of Rome was if not the Only yet the Chief Hinderance of Reformation And then in this sense it is more than clear That if the Roman Church will neither Reform nor suffer Reformation it is lawful for any other Particular Church to Reform it self so long as it doth it peaceably and orderly and keeps it self to the Foundation and free from Sacriledge F. I asked Quo Judice did this appear to be so Which Question I asked as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own Cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Roman Church B. § 25 Num. 1 You do well to tell the reason now why you asked this Question For you did not discover it at the Conference if you had you might then have received your Answer It is most true No man in common equity ought to be suffered to be Accuser Witness and Judge in his own Cause But is there not as little reason and equity too that any man that is to be accused should be the Accused and yet Witness and Judge in his own Cause If the first may hold no man shall be Innocent and if the last none will be Nocent And what do we here with in their own Cause against the Roman Church Why Is it not your own too against the Protestant Church And if it be a Cause common to both as certain it is then neither Part alone may be Judge If neither alone may judge then either they must be judged by a Third which stands indifferent to both and
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
hapned in all parts of the world as that neither for the present the Homage of the Pope was useful to the Emperor nor the Protection of the Emperor available for the Pope By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself A thing which as it pleased him well enough So both he and his Successors made great Advantage by it For being grown to that Eminence by the Emperor and the greatness of that City and Place of his abode He found himself the more free the greater the tempest was that beat upon the other And then first He set himself to alionâ—te the hearts of the Italians from the Emperor Next he Opposed himself against him And about the year seven hundred and ten Pope Constantine the first did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperor in defence of Images As Onâ—phrius tells us After him Gregory the Second and the third took up his example and did the like by Leo Isaurus By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not Italy only but Rome too This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron And very fitly he meets with Charles Martel in France that famous warrior against the Saracens Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards This address seems very advisedly taken at least it proves very fortunate to them both For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy which had then stood two hundred and four years which was the Popes security And it brought the Crown of France into the House of Charles and shortly after the Western Empire And now began the Pope to be great indeed For by the Bounty of Pâ—pin Son of Charles that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope So that now of a Bishop he became a Temporal Prince But when Charles the Great had set up the Western Empire then he resumed the Ancient and Original Power of the Emperor to govern the Church to call Councels to order Papal Elections And this Power continued in his Posterity For this Right of the Emperor was in force and use in Gregory the Seventh's time Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth whom he afterward deposed And it might have continued longer if the succeeding Emperors had had abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own Right But the Pope keeping a strong Councel about him and meeting with some Weak Princes and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous Wars grew stronger till he got the better So this is enough to shew how the Popes climed up by the Emperors till they over-topped them which is all I said before and have now proved And this was about the year 1073. For the whole Popedom of Gregory the Seventh was begun and ended within the Reign of William the Conqueror Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success The Emperor sometimes plucking from the Pope and the Pope from the Emperor winning and losing ground as their Spirits Abilities Aids and Opportunities were till at the last the Pope setled himself upon the Grounds laid by Gregory the Seventh in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world Num. 13 Thirdly A. C. knowing 't is not enough to say this That the Pope is Pastor of the whole Church labors to prove it And first he tells us that Irenaeus intimates so much but he doth not tell us where And he is much scanted of Ancient Proof if Irenaeus stand alone Besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallicane Church and a very unlikely man to Captivate the Liberty of that Church under the more powerful Principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his Judgment touching that Principality than the Actions of his Life When Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow was not Irenaeus the Chief man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him The Supreme and Infallible Pastor of the Universal Church But the Place of Irenaeus which A. C. means I think is this where he uses these words indeed but short of A. C's sense of it To this Church he speaks of Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique round about should have recourse Should have recourse so A. C. translates it And what doth this avail him Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time That upon any Disference arising in the Faith Omnes undique Fideles all the Faithful or if you will all the Churches round about should have recourse that is resort to Rome being the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Principality than any other at that time in those parts of the world Well Will this exalt Rome to be the Head of the Church Universal What if the States and Policies of the world be much changed since and this Conveniencie of resorting to Rome be quite ceased Then is not Rome devested of her more powerful Principality But the meaning of A. C. is We must so have recourse to Rome as to submit our Faith to hers And then not only in Irenaeus his time but through all times reform Our selves by her Rule That is all the Faithful not undique round about but ubique every where must agree with Rome in point of Faith This he means and Rome may thank him for it But this Irenaeus saith not nor will his words bear it nor durst A. C. therefore construe him so but was content to smooth it over with this ambiguous phrase of having recourse to Rome Yet this is a place as much stood upon by them as any other in all Antiquity And should I grant them their own sense That all the faithful every where must agree with Rome which I may give but can never grant yet were not this saying any whit prejudicial to us now For first here 's a powerful Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome And that no man of Learning doubts but the Church of Rome had within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction and that was very large containing all the Provinces in the Diocess of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocess which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicarias There were ten of them The three Islands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firm land of Italy And this I take it is plain in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Niâ—â—ne Connecâ—â— as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the Bounds of
'le tell you how I know it Somewhat above four hundred years after Innocentius made his Comment upon the two great Lights the Sun and the Moon the Pope and the Emperor a Spanish Friar follows the same resemblance between the Monarchies of Rome and Spain in a Tract of his intitled The Agreement of the two Catholike Monarchies and Printed in Spanish in Madrid Anno 1612. In the Frontispiece or Title-page of this Book there are set out two Scutchions The one bearing the Cross-Keys of Rome The other the Arms of Castile and Leon both joyned together with this Motto In vinculo pacis in the bond of peace On the one side of this there is a Portraiture resembling Rome with the Sun shining over it and darting his beams on S. Peters Keys with this Inscription Luminare Majus the greater Light that it may govern the City that is Rome and the whole world And on the other side there 's another Image designing Spain with the Moon shining over that and spreading forth its Rays upon the Spanish Scutchion with this Impress Luminare minus the less Light that it may be subject to the City of Rome he means and so be Lord to govern the whole world besides And over all this in the top of the Title-page there is Printed in Capital Letters Fecit-Dens duo Luminaria magna God made two great Lights There follows after in this Author a Discovery at large of this Blazoning of these Arms but this is the Substance of it and abundantly enough to shew what is aimed at by whom and for whom And this Book was not stollen out without the will and consent of the State For it hath Printed before it all manner of Licence that a Book can well have For it hath the approbation of Father Pedro de Buyza of the Company of the Jesuites Of John de Arcediano Provincial of the Dominicans Of Diego Granero the Licencer appointed for the Supreme Councel of the Inquisition And some of these revised this Book by Order from the Lords of that Councel And last of all the Kings Priviledge is to it with high Commendation of the Work But the Spaniards had need look to it for all this lest the French deceive them For now lately Friar Campanella hath set out an Eclogue upon the Birth of the Dolphin and that Permissu Superiorum by Licence from his Superiors In which he says expresly That all Princes are now more afraid of France than ever for that there is provided for it Regnum Universale The Universal Kingdom or Monarchy Num. 13 But 't is time to Return For A. C. in this passage hath been very Careful to tell us of a Parliament and of Living Magistrates and Judges besides the Law-Books Thirdly therefore the Church of England God be thanked thrives happily under a Gracious Prince and well understands that a Parliament cannot be called at all times And that there are Visible Judges besides the Law-Books and One Supreme long may he be and be happy to settle all Temporal differences which certainly he might much better perform if his Kingdoms were well rid of A. C. and his fellows And she believes too That our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church besides his Law-book the Scripture Visible Magistrates and Judges that is Archbishops and Bishops under a gracious King to govern both for Truth and Peace according to the Scripture and her own Canons and Constitutions as also those of the Catholike Church which cross not the Scripture and the Just Laws of the Realm But she doth not believe there is any Necessity to have one Pope or Bishop over the Whole Christian world more than to have one Emperour over the whole world Which were it possible She cannot think fit Nor are any of these intermediate Judges or that One which you would have Supreme Infallible But since a Kingdom and a Parliament please A. C. so well to patern the Church by I 'le follow him in the way he goes and be bold to put him in minde that in some Kingdoms there are divers Businesses of greatest Consequence which cannot be finally and bindingly ordered but in and by Parliament And particularly the Statute-Laws which must bind all the Subjects cannot be made and ratified but there Therefore according to A. C.'s own Argument there will be some Businesses also found Is not the setling of the Divisions of Christendom one of them which can never be well setled but in a General Councel And particularly the making of Canons which must binde all Particular Christians and Churches cannot be concluded and established but there And again as the Supreme Magistrate in the State Civil may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament though he may Dispense with the Sanction or penalty of the Law quoad hic nunc as the Lawyers speak So in the Ecclesiastical Body no Bishop no not the Pope where his Supremacie is admitted hath power to disanul or violate the true and Fundamental Decrees of a General Councel though he may perhaps dispense in some Cases with some Decrees By all which it appears though somewhat may be done by the Bishops and Governors of the Church to preserve the unity and certainty of Faith and to keep the Church from renting or for uniting it when it is rent yet that in the ordinary way which the Church hath hitherto kept some things there are and upon great emergent Occasions may be which can have no other help than a lawful free and well composed General Councel And when that cannot be had the Church must pray that it may and expect till it may or else reform its self per partes by National or Provincial Synods as hath been said before And in the mean time it little beseems A. C. or any Christian to check at the wisdom of Christ if he have not taken the way they think fitting to settle Church-Differences Or if for the Churches Sin or Tryal the way of Composing them be left more uncertain than they would have it that they which are approved may be known 1 Cor. 11. 19. But the Jesuite had told me before that a General Councel had adjudged these things already For so he says F. I told him that a General Couneeâ— to wit of Trent had already Judged not the Roman Church but the Protestants to â—â—lâ— Errours That saith the B. was not a Lawful Councel B. § 27 Num. 1 It is true that you replyed for the Councel of Trent And my Answer was not onely That the Councel was not Legal in the necessary Conditions to be observed in a General Councel but also That it was no General Councel which again you are content to omit Consider it well First is that Councel Legal the Abettors whereof maintain publikely That it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and shake it be deside and so in your Judgement Fundamental though it
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
so to be amended in a later Councel I think will thus appear First his word is Emendari to be amended which properly supposes for errour and faultiness not Explanation And S. Augustine needed not to go to a word of such a forced sense nor sure would especially in a Disputation against Adversaries Next S. Augustine's Dispute is against S. Cyprian and the Councel held at Carthage about Baptism by Hereticks in which Point that National Councel erred as now all agree And S. Augustine's Deduction goes on Scripture cannot be other than right that is the Praerogative of it but Bishops may and be Reprehended for it if peradventure they erre from the Truth and that either by more Learned Bishops or by Provincial Councels Here Reprehension and that for deviation from the Truth is I hope Emendation properly and not Explanation onely Then Provincial Councels they must yeeld to General And to yeeld is not in case of Explanation onely Then it follows That even Plenary Councels themselves may be amended the former by the later still retaining that which went before If peradventure they erred or made deviation from the Truth And if this be not so I would fain know why in one and the same tenour of words in one and the same continuing Argument and Deduction of S. Augustine Reprehendi should be in proper sense and à veritate deviatum in proper sense and Cedere in proper sense and onely Emendari should not be proper but stand for an Explanation If you say the Reason is because the former words are applied to men and National Councels both which may erre but this last to General Councels which cannot erre This is most miserable Begging of the Principle and thing in Question Num. 5 Again S. Augustine concludes there That the General Councel preceding may be amended by General Councels that follow When that is known which lay hid before Not as Stapleton would have it Lay hid as in the seed of Ancient Doctrine onely and so needed nothing but explanation but hid in some darkness or ambiguity which led the former into errour and mistaking as appears For S. Augustine would have this amendment made without Sacrilegious Pride doubtless of insulting upon the former Councel that was to be amended and without swelling Arrogancy sure against the weakness in the former Councel and without contention of envie which uses to accompany mans frailty where his or his friends Errour is to be amended by the later Councel and in holy Humility in Catholike Peace in Christian Charity no question that a Schism be not made to tear the Church as here the Donatists did while one Councel goes to reform the lapse of another if any be Now to what end should this Learned Father be so zealous in this work this highest work that I know in the Church Reviewing and Surveying General Councels to keep off Pride and Arrogance and Envie and to keep all in Humility Peace and Charity if after all this noise he thought later Councels might do nothing but amend that is explain the former Num. 6 That Shift which Bellarmine addes to these two of Stapleton is poorest of all namely That S. Augustine speaks of unlawful Councels and it is no question but they may be amended as the second Ephesine was at Chalcedon For this Answer hath no Foundation but a peradventure Nor durst Bellarmine rest upon it And most manifest it is that S. Augustine speaks of Councels in general that they may erre and be amended in Doctrine of Faith and in case they be not amended that then they be condemned and rejected by the Church as this of Ephesus and divers others were And as for that meer Trick of the Popes Instruction Approbation or Confirmation to preserve it from Errour or ratifie it that it hath not erred the most ancient Church knew it not He had his Suffrage as other great Patriarchs had and his Vote was highly esteemed not onely for his Place but for worth too as Popes were then But that the Whole Councel depended upon him and his Confirmation was then unknown and I verily think at this day not Believed by the Wise and Learned of his Adherents Num. 1 Fifthly it must be considered If a General Councel may erre who shall judge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is less then a General Councel Why but this yet lays all open to uncertainties and makes way for a Whirlwind of a Private Spirit to ruffie the Church No neither of these First all is not open to uncertainties For General Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a Great and an Awful Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith keeping themselves to God's Rule and not attempting to make a New of their own and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them Nor doth it make way for the Whirlwind of a private Spirit For private Spirits are too giddy to rest upon Scripture and to heady and shallow to be acquainted with Demonstrative Arguments And it were happy for the Church if she might never be troubled with Private Spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotly objected against Hooker the Authour calls him a Wise Protestant yet turns thus upon him If a Councel must yeeld to a Demonstrative Proof Who shall judge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For every man that will kick against the Church will say the Scripture he urges is evident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leave all to the wildness of a Private Spirit Can any ingenuous man read this Passage in Hooker and dream of a Private Spirit For to the Question Who shall judge Hooker answers as if it had been then made An Argument necessary and Demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to think or say it is Demonstrative The Light then of a Demonstrative Argument is the Evidence which it self hath in it self to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a Quarrel be made Who shall decide it No Question but a General Councel not a Private Spirit first in the intent of the Authour for Hooker in all that Discourse makes the Sentence of the Councel binding and therefore that is made Judge not a Private Spirit And then for the Judge of the Argument it is as plain For if it be evident to any man then to so many Learned men as are in a Councel doubtless And if they cannot but assent it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave
we may be the more certain that you think concerning the Faith as We do Ut ego etiam persuasus sim inhaesitantèr That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to Command me Now I would fain know if the Pope at that time were or did think himself Infallble how he should possibly be more certainly perswaded of any Truth belonging to the Faith by Athanasius his concurring in Judgement with him For nothing can make Infallibility more certain than it is At least not the concurring judgement of that is Fallible as S. Athanasius was Beside the Pope Complemented exceeding low that would submit his unerring Judgement to be commanded by Athanasius who he well knew could Erre Again in the Case of Easter which made too great a noise in the Church of old Very many men called for S. Ambrose his Judgement in that Point even after the Definition of the Church of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome And this I presume they would not have done had they then conceived either the Pope or his Church infallible And thus it continued down to Lyra's time For he says expresly That many Popes as well as other Inferiours have not onely erred but even quite Apostatized from the Faith And yet now nothing but Infallibility will serve their turns And sometimes they have not onely taken upon them to be Infallible in Cathedrâ in their Chair of Decision but also to Prophesie Infallibly out of the Scripture But Prophetical Scripture such as the Revelation is was too dangerous for men to meddle with which would be careful of their Credit in not Erring For it fell out in the time of Innocent the third and Honorius the the third as Aventine tells us That the then Popes assured the world that Destruction was at hand to Saracens Turks and Mahumetans which the Event shewed were notorious untruths And 't is remarkable which happened anno 1179. For then in a Councel held at Rome Pope Alexander the third Condemned Peter Lombard of Hereste And he lay under that Damnation for thirty and six years till Innocent the third restored him and condemned his Accusers Now Peter Lombard was then condemned for something which he had written about the humane Nature of our Saviour Christ. S◠here was a great Mysterie of the Faith in hand something about the Incarnation And the Pope was in Cathedrâ and that in a Councel of three hundred Archbishops and Bishops And in this Councel he condemned Peter Lombard and in him his Opinion about the Incarnation And therefore of necessity either Pope Alexander erred and that in Cathedrâ as Pope in Condemning him or Pope Innocentius in restoring him The truth is Pope Alexander had more of Alexander the Great than of S. Peter in him And being accustomed to Warlike Employments he understood not that which Peter Lombard had written about this Mystery And so He and his Learned Assistants condemned him unjustly Num. 8 And whereas you profess after That you hold nothing against your Conscience I must ever wonder much how that can be true since you hold this of the Pope's Infallibility especially as being Prophetical in the Conclusion If this be true why do you not lay all your strength together all of your whole Society and make this one Proposition evident For all Controversies about matters of Faith are ended and without any great trouble to the Christian World if you can but make this one Proposition good That the Pope is an Infallible Judge Till then this shame will follow you infallibly and eternally That you should make the Pope a meer man Principium Fidei a Principle or Author of Faith and make the mouth of him whom you call Christs Vicar sole Judge both of Christ's Word be it never so manifest and of his Church be she never so Learned and careful of his Truth And for Conclusion of this Point I would fain know since this had been so plain so easie a way either to prevent all Divisions about the Faith or to end all Controversies did they arise why this brief but most necessary Proposition The Bishop of Rome cannot erre in his Judicial Determinations concerning the Faith is not to be found either in letter or sense in any Scripture in any Councel or in any Father of the Church for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ For had this Proposition been true and then received in the Church how weak were all the Primitive Fathers to prescribe so many Rules and Cautions for avoidance of Heresie as Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis and others do and to endure such hard Conflicts as they did and with so many various Haereticks To see Christendom so rent and torn by some distempered Councels as that of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and others Nay to see the whole world almost become Arrian to the amazement of it self And yet all this time not so much as call in this Necessary Assistance of the Pope and let the world know That the Bishop of Rome was infallible that so in his Decision all Differences might cease For either the Fathers of the Church Greek as well as Latine knew this Proposition to be true That the Pope cannot Erre Judicially in matters belonging to the Faith or they knew it not If you say they knew it not you charge them with a base and unworthy Ignorance no ways like to over-cloud such and so many Learned men in a Matter so Necessary and of such infinite use to Christendom If you say they knew it and durst not deliver this Truth how can you charge them which durst die for Christ with such Cowardise towards his Church And if you say they knew it and with-held it from the Church you lay a most unjust Load upon those Charitable souls which loved Christ too well to imprison any Truth but likely to make or keep peace in his Church Catholike over the world But certainly as no Divine of Worth did then dream of any such Infallibility in Him so is it a meer Dream or worse of those Modern Divines who affirm it now And as S. Augustine sometimes spake of the Donatists and their absurd limiting the whole Christian Church to Africa onely so may I truely say of the Romanists confining all Christianity to the Romane Doctrine governed by the Pope's Infallibility I verily perswade my self That even the Jesuites themselves laugh at this And yet unless they say this which they cannot but blush while they say they have nothing at all to say But what 's this to us we envie no man If the Pope's Decision be infallible Legant Let them read it to us out of the Holy Scripture and we 'll believe it Num. 9 In the mean time take this with you That most certain it is That the Pope hath no Infallibility to attend his Cathedral Judgement in things belonging to the Faith For
his times And he was both born dead during the Reign of Henry the third of England Nay it stands yet as a Monument in the very Missal against the present Practice of the Church of Rome That then it was usually Given and received in both kindes And for Invocation of Saints though some of the Ancient Fathers have some Rhetorical flourishes about it for the stirring up of Devotion as they thought yet the Church then admitted not of the Innovation of them but onely of the Commemoration of the Martyrs as appears clearly in S. Augustine And when the Church prayed to God for any thing she desired to be heard for the Mercies and the Merits of Christ nor for the Merits of any Saints whatsoever For I much doubt this were to make the Saints more than Mediators of Intercession which is all that you acknowledge you allow the Saints For I pray is not by the Merits more than by the Intercession Did not Christ redeem us by his Merits And if God must hear our Prayers for the Merits of the Saints how much fall they short of sharers in the Mediation of Redemption You may think of this For such Prayers as these the Church of Rome makes at this day and they stand not without great scandal to Christ and Christianity used and authorized to be used in the Missal For instance Upon the Feast of S. Nicolas you pray That God by the Merits and Prayers of S. Nicolas would deliver you from the fire of Hell And upon the Octaves of S. Peter and S. Paul you desire God that you may Obtain the Glory of Eternity by their Merits And on the Feast of S. Bonaventure you pray that God would absolve you from all your sins by the Interceding Merits of Bonaventure And for Adoration of Images the Ancient Church knew it not And the Modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism in the Practice of it and driven to scarce Intelligible Subtilties in her Servants Writings that defend it And this without any Care had of Millions of Souls unable to understand her Subtilties or shun her Practice Did I say the Modern Church of Rome is grown too like Paganism in this Point And may this speech seem too hard Well if it do I 'll give a Double Account of it The One is 'T is no harsher Expression than They of Rome use of the Protestants and in Cases in which there is no shew or resemblance For Becanus tells us 'T is no more lawful to receive the Sacrament as the Calvinisis receive it than to worship Idols with the Ethnicks And Gregory de Valentia enlarges it to more Points than one but with no more truth The Sectaries of our times saith he seem to Erre culpably in more things than the Gentiles This is easily said but here 's no Proof Nor shall I hold it a sufficient warrant for me to sowre my Language because these men have dipped their Pens in Gall. The Other Account therefore which I shall give of this speech shall come vouched both by Authority and Reason And first for Authority I could set Ludovicus Vives against Becanus if I would who says expresly That the making of Feasts at the Oratories of the Martyrs which S. Augustine tells us The best Christians practised not are a kinde of Parentalia Funeral-feasts too much resembling the superstition of the Gentiles Nay Vives need not say resembling that superstition since Tertullian tells us plainly that Idolatry it self is but a kinde of Parentation And Vives dying in the Communion of the Church of Rome is a better testimony against you than Becanus or Valentia being bitter enemies to our Communion can be against us But I 'll come nearer home to you and prove it by more of your own For Cassander who lived and died in your Communion says it expresly That in this present Case of the Adoration of Images you came full home to the Superstition of the Heathen And secondly for Reason I have I think too much to give that the Modern Church of Rome is grown too like to Paganism in this Point For the Councel of Trent it self confesses That to believe there 's any Divinity in Images is to do as the Gentiles did by their Idols And though in some words after the Fathers of that Councel seem very religiously careful that all Occasion of dangerous Errour be prevented yet the Doctrine it self is so full of danger that it works strongly both upon the Learned and Unlearned to the scandal of Religion and the perverting of Truth For the Unlearned first how it works upon them by whole Countries together you may see by what happened in Asturiis Cantabria Galetia no small parts of Spain For there the People so He tells me that was an Eye-witness and that since the Councel of Trent are so addicted to their worm-eaten and deformed Images that when the Bishops commanded new and handsomer Images to be set up in their rooms the poor people cried for their old would not look up to their new as if they did not represent the same thing And though he say this is by little and little amended yet I believe there 's very little Amendment And it works upon the Learned too more than it should For it wrought so far upon Lamas himself who bemoaned the former Passage as that he delivers this Doctrine That the Images of Christ the blessed Virgin and the Saints are not to be worshipped as if there were any Divinity in the Images as they are material things made by Art but onely as they represent Christ and the Saints for else it were Idolatry So then belike according to the Divinity of this Casuist a man may worship Images and ask of them and put his trust in them as they represent Christ and the Samâ—s For so there is Divinity in them though not as Things yet as Representers Anâ— what I pray did or could any Pagan Priest say more than this For the Proposition resolved is this The Images of Christ and the Saints as they represent their Exemplars have Deity or Divinity in them And now I pray A. C. do you be judge whether this Proposition do not teach Idolatry And whether the Modern Church of Rome be not grown too like to Paganism in this Point For my own part I heartily wish it were not And that men of Learning would not strain their wits to spoil the Truth and rent the Peace of the Church of Christ by such dangerous such superstitious vanities For better they are not but they may be worse Nay these and their like have given so great a Scandal among us to some ignorant though I presume well-meaning men that they are afraid to testifie their duty to God even in his own House by any outward Gesture at all Insomuch that those very Ceremonies which by the Judgement of Godly and Learned
men have now long continued in the Practice of this Church suffer hard measure for the Romish Superstitions sake But I will conclude this Point with the saying of B. Rhenanus Who could endure the people says he rushing into the Church like Sivine into a Stye Doubtless Ceremonies do not hurt the people but profit them so there be a Mean kept and the By be not put for the Main that is so we place not the principal part of our Piety in them The Conference grows to an end and I must meet it again ere we part For you say F. After this we all rising the Lady asked the B. whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith He answered She might B. § 34 What not one Answer perfectly related My Answer to to this was General for the ignorant that could not discern the Errours of that Church so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a religious life But why do you not speak out what I added in this Particular That it must needs go harder with the Lady even in point of Salvation because she had been brought to understand very much for one of her Condition in these Controverted causes of Religion And ◠person that comes to know much had need carefully bethink himself that he oppose not known Truth against the Church that made him a Christian. For Salvation may be in the Church of Rome and yet they not finde it that make surest of it Here A. C. is as confident as the Jesuite himself That I said expresly That the Lady might be saved in the Roman Faith Truly 't is too long since now for me to speak any more than I have already upon my Memory But this I am sure of That whatsoever I said of her were it never so particular yet was it under the Conditions before expressed F. I bad her mark that B. § 35 Num. 1 This Answer I am sure troubles not you But it seems you would fain have it lay a load of envy upon me that you profess you bad the Lady so carefully mark that Well you bad her Mark that For what For some great matter or for some new Not for some New sure For the Protestants have ever been ready for Truth and in Charity to grant as much as might be And therefore from the beginning many Learned men granted this So that you needed not have put such a serious Mark that upon my speech as if none before had or none but I would speak it And if your Mark that were not for some New matter was it for some Great Yes sure it was For what greater then Salvation But then I pray mark this too That might be saved grants but a Possibility no sure or safe way to Salvation The Possibility I think cannot be denied the Ignorants especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the Building And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it But a secure way they cannot go that hold with such corruptions when they know them Now whether it be wisdome in such a Point as Salvation is to forsake a Church in the which the Ground of Salvation is firm to follow a Church in which it is but possible one may be saved but very probable he may do worse if he look not well to the Foundation judge ye I am sure S. Augustine thought it was not and judged it a great sin in Point of Salvation for a man to prefer incerta certis uncertainties and naked possibilities before an evident and certain Course And Bellarmine is of opinion and that in the Point of Justification That in regard of the uncertainty of our own Righteousness and of the danger of vain glory tutissimum est 't is safest to repose our whole trust in the Mercy and goodness of God And surely if there be One safer way than another as he confesses there is he is no wise man that in a matter of so great moment will not betake himself to the safest way And therefore even you your solves in the Point of Condignity of Merit though you write it and preach it boysterously to the People yet you are content to die renouncing the condignity of all your own Merits and trust to Christs Now surely if you will not venture to die as you live live and believe in time as you mean to die Num. 2 And one thing more because you bid Mark this let me remember to tell you for the benefit of others Upon this very Point That we acknowledge an honest ignorant Papist may be saved you and your like work upon the advantage of our Charitie and your own want of it to abuse the weak For thus I am told you work upon them You see the Protestants at least many of them confess there may be salvation in our Church We absolutely deny there is salvation in theirs Therefore it is safer to come to Ours than to stay in theirs to be where almost all grant Salvation than where the greater part of the world deny it This Argument is very prevailing with men that cannot weigh it and with women especially that are put in fear by violent though causless denying Heaven unto them And some of your party since this have set out a Book called Charity mistaken But beside the Answer fully given to it this alone is sufficient to Confute it First that in this our Charity what ever yours be is not mistaken unless the Charity of the Church her self were mistaken in the Case of the Donatists as shall after appear Secondly even Mistaken Charity if such it were is far better than none at all And if the Mistaken be ours the None is yours Yea but A. C. tells us That this denial of Salvation is grounded upon Charity as were the like threats of Christ and the Holy Fathers For there is but one true Faith and one true Church and out of that there is no Salvation And he that will not hear the Church S. Matth. 18. let him be as a Heathen and a Publican Therefore he says 't is more Charitie to forewarn us of the danger by these threats than to let us run into it through a false security 'T is true that there is but one true Faith and but one true Church But that one both Faith and Church is the Catholike Christian not the Particular Roman And this Catholike Christian Church he that will not both hear and obey yea and the Particular Church in which he lives too so far as it in necessaries agrees with the Universal is in as bad condition as a Heathen and a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse And were we in this Case we should thank A. C. for giving us warning of our danger But 't is not so For he thunders out all these threats and denial of salvation because we joyn not with the Roman Church in all things as if
her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meer begging of the Question and then threatning upon it without all ground of Reason or Charity In the mean time let A. C. look to himself that in his false security he run not into the danger and loss of his own salvation while he would seem to take such care of ours But though this Argument prevails with the weak yet it is much stronger in the cunning than the true force of it For all Arguments are very moving that lay their ground upon the Adversaries Confession especially if it be confessed and avouched to be true But if you would speak truly and say Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withal that the Errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were utterly broken Besides the force of this Argument lies upon two things one directly Expressed the other but as upon the By. Num. 3 That which is expressed is We and our Adversaries consent that there is salvation to some in the Roman Church What would you have us as malicious at least as rash as your selves are to us and deny you so much as possibility of Salvation If we should we might make you in some things strain for a Proof But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ And therefore seek not to help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely do where you can come to work upon them And this was an old trick of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptism whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church or in the part of Donatus they exhorted all to be baptized among them Why Because both parts granted that Baptism was true among the Donatists which that peevish Sect most unjustly denied the sound part as S. Augustine delivers it I would ask now Had not the Orthodox true Baptism among them because the Donatists denied it injuriously Or should the Orthodox against Truth have denied Baptism among the Donatists either to cry quittance with them or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts granted But Mark this how far you run from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you deny salvation most unjustly to us from which you are farther off your selves Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why do not you believe with us in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most Blessed Sacrament the Worthy receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ truly and really and of all the Benefits of his Passion Your Roman Catholikes add a manner of this his Prefence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this Presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this Consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England than with the Roman or Lutheran Because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion Nay Suarez himself and he a very Learned Adversary what say you to this A. C doth Truth force this from him Confesses plainly That to Believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Salvation And yet he knew well the Church had determined it And Bellarmine after an intricate tedious and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Aductive Conversion A thing which neither Divinity nor Philosophy ever heard of till then is at last forced to come to this Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech illud tenendum eâ—t this is to be held that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantial but after a secret and ineffable manner and not like in all things to any natural Conversion whatsoever Now if he had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs real Presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no man could have spoke better And therefore if you will force the Argument always to make that the safest way of Salvation which differing Parties agree on why do you not yield to the force of the same Argument in the Belief of the Sacrament one of the most immediate means of Salvation where not onely the most but all agree And your own greatest Clarks cannot tell what to say to the Contrary Num. 4 I speak here for the force of the Argument which certainly in it self is nothing though by A. C. made of great account For he says 'T is a Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth Just as Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptism But in truth 't is nothing For the Syllogism which it frames is this In Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on But Papists and Protestants which are the differing Parties agree in this that there is salvation possible to be found in the Roman Church Therefore 't is safest for a man to be and continue in the Roman Church To the Minor Proposition then I observe this only that though many Learned Protestants grant this all do not And then that Proposition is not Universally true nor able to sustain the Conclusion For they do not in this all agree nay I doubt not but there are some Protestants which can and do as stifly and as churlishly deny them Salvation as they do us And A. C. should do well to consider whether they do it not upon as good reason at least But for the Major Proposition Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary confesses or the Differing Parties agree on I say that is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare Contingent Proposition and being indefinitely taken may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied but being taken universally is false and not able to lead in the Conclusion Now that this Proposition In point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary confesses hath no strength in it self but is sometimes true and sometimes false as the Matter is about which it is conversant is most evident First by Reason Because Consent of disagreeing Parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and
Pilate disagreeing Parties enough yet agreed against Truth it self But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement And secondly by the two Instances before given For in the Instance between the Orthodox Church then and the Donatists this Proposition is most false For it was a Point of Faith so of Salvation that they were upon Namely the right use and administration of the Sacrament of Baptism And yet had it been safest to take up that way which the differing Parts agreed on or which the adverse Part Confessed men must needs have gone with the Donatists against the Church And this must fall out as oft as any Heretick will cunningly take that way against the Church which the Donatists did if this Principle shall go for currant But in the second Instance concerning the Eucharist a matter of Faith and so of Salvation too the same Proposition is most true And the Reason is because here the matter is true Namely The true and real participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacrament But in the former the matter was false Namely That Rebaptization was necessary after Baptism formally given by the Church So this Proposition In Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree in or which the Adversary confesses is you see both true and false as men have cunning to apply it and as the matter is about which it is Conversant And is therefore no Proposition able or fit to settle a Conclusion in any sober mans minde till the Matter contained under it be well scanned and examined And yet as much use as you would make of this Proposition to amaze the weak your selves dare not stand to it no not where the matter is undeniably true as shall appear in divers Particulars beside this of the Eucharist Num. 5 But before I add any other particular Instances I must tell you what A. C. says to the two former For he tells us These two are nothing like the present case Nothing That is strange indeed Why in the first of those Cases concerning the Donatists your Proposition is false And so far from being safest that it was no way safe for a man to take that way of Belief and so of Salvation which both parts agreed on And is this nothing Nay is not this full and home to the present case For the present case is this and no more That it is safest taking that way of Belief which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary Confesses And in the second of those Cases concerning the Eucharist your Proposition indeed is true not by the Truth which it hath seen in it self Metaphysically and in Abstract but onely in regard of the matter to which it is applied yet there you desert your own Proposition where it is true And is this nothing Nay is not this also full and home to the present case since it appears your Proposition is such as your selves dare not bide by either when it is true or when it is false For in the Case of Baptism administred by the Donatist the Proposition is false and you dare not bide by it for Truths sake And in the case of the Eucharist the Proposition is true and yet you dare not bide by it for the Church of Romes sake So that Church with you cannot erre and yet will not suffer you to maintain Truth which not to do is some degree of Errour and that no small one Num. 6 Well A. C. goes on and gives his Reasons why these two Instances are nothing like the present Case For in these Cases saith he there are annexed other Reasons of certainly known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie which we should inâ—ur by consenting to the Donatists denial of true Baptism among Catholikes and to the Protestants denial or doubting of the true substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in this Case of Resolving to live and die in the Catholike Romà ne Church there is confessedly no such peril of any damnable Heresie or Schism or any other sin Here I have many Particulars to observe upon A. C. and you shall have them as briefly as I can set them down And first I take A. C. at his word that in the case of the Donatist should it be followed there would be known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie by denying true Baptism to be in the Orthodox Church For by this you may see what a sound Proposition this is That where two Parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both Parties agree or which the Adversary confesses for here you may see by the case of the Donatist is confessed it may lead a man that will universally lean to it into known and damnable Schism and Heresie An excellent Guide I promise you this is it not Nor secondly are these though A. C. calls them so annexed Reasons For he calls them so but to blaunch the matter as if they fell upon the Proposition ab extra accidentally and from without Whereas they are not annexed or pinned on but flow naturally out of the Proposition it self For the Proposition would seem to be Metaphysical and is appliable indifferently to any Common Belief of dissenting Parties be the point in difference what it will Therefore if there be any thing Heretical Schismatical or any way evil in the Point this Proposition being neither Universally nor necessarily true must needs cast him that relies upon it upon all these Rocks of Heresie Schism or what ever else follows the matter of the Proposition Thirdly A. C. doth extremely ill to joyn these Cases of the Donatists for Baptism and the Protestant for the Eucharist together as he doth For this Proposition in the first concerning the Donatists leads a man as is confessed by himself into known and damnable Schism and Heresie but by A. C's good leave the later concerning the Protestants and the Eucharist nothing so For I hope A. C. dare not say That to believe the true substantial Presence of Christ is either known or damnable Schism or Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of Salvation as before is limited in the Romane Church Therefore they in that not guilty of either known or damnable Schism or Heresie though the Donâ—tists were of both Fourthly whereas he imposes upon the Protestants The denyal or doubting of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is a great deal more bold than true in that also For understand them right and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it For as for the Lutheranes as they are commonly called their very Opinion of Consubstantiation makes it known to the world that they neither deny nor doubt of his true and Real presence there And they are Protestants And for the
Calvinists if they might be rightly understood they also maintain a most true and Real presence though they cannot permit their Judgement to be Transubstantiated And they are Protestants too And this is so known a Truth that ‖ Bellarmine confesses it For he saith Protestants do often grant that the true and real Body of Christ is in the Eucharist But he addes That they never say so far as he hath read That it is there Truely and Really unless they speak of the Supper which shall be in Heaven Well first if they grant that the true and Real Body of Christ is in that Blessed Sacrament as Bellarmine confesses they do and 't is most true then A. C. is false who charges all the Protestants with denyal or doubtfulness in this Point And secondly Bellarmine himself also shews here his Ignorance or his Malice Ignorance if he knew it not Malice if he would not know it For the Calvinists at least they which follow Calvin himself do not onely believe that the true and real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist but that it is there and that we partake of it verè realitèr which are Calvins own words and yet Bellarmine boldly affirms that to his reading no one Protestant did ever affirm it And I for my part cannot believe but Bellarmine had read Calvin and very carefully he doth so frequently and so mainly Oppose him Nor can that Place by any Art be shifted or by any Violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist to any Supper in Heaven whatsoever But most manifest it is that Quod legerim for ought I have read will not serve Bellarmine to excuse him For he himself but in the very Chapter going before quotes four Places out of Calvin in which he says expresly That we receive in the Sacrament the Body and the Bloud of Christ Verè truly So Calvin says it four times and Bellarmine quotes the places and yet he says in the very next Chapter That never any Protestant said so to his Reading And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Bloud no Bloud as perhaps he can by Transubstantiation as well as Bread no Bread and Wine no Wine And the Church of England is Protestant too So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and then where 's any known or damnable Heresie here As for the Learned of those zealous men that died in this Cause in Q. Maries days they denied not the Real presence simply taken but as their Opposites forced Transubstantiation upon them as if that and the Real presence had been all one Whereas all the Ancient Christians ever believed the one and none but Modern and Superstitious Christians believe the other if they do believe it for I for my part doubt they do not And as for the Unlearned in those times and all times their zeal they holding the Foundation may eat out their Ignorances and leave them safe Now that the Learned Protestants in Queen Mary's days did not deny nay did maintain the Real presence will manifestly appear For when the Commissioners obtruded to Jo. Frith the Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament and that without all figure or similitude Jo. Frith acknowledges That the inward man doth as verily receive Christ's Body as the outward man receives the Sacrament with his Mouth And he addes That neither side ought to make it a necessary Article of Faith but leave it indifferent Nay Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainly and more home to it than Frith For if you understand saith he by this word really Reipsa that is in very deed and effectually so Christ by the grace and efficacie of his Passion is indeed and truly present c. But if by this word Really you understand Corporalitèr Corporally in his natural and Organical Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine 't is contrary to the Holy Word of God And so likewise Bishop Ridley Nay Bishop Ridley addes yet farther and speaks so fully to this Point as I think no man can adde to his Expression And 't is well if some Protestants except not against it Both you and I faith he agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Bloud of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead Onely we differ in modo in the way and manner of being We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the Manner of Being there I confess Christs natural Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit and Grace c. You make a grosser kinde of Being inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of Bread and Wine So far and more Bishop Ridley And Archbishop Cranmer confesses That he was indeed of another Opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius till Bishop Ridley convinced his Judgement setled him in this Point And for Calvin he comes no whit short of these against the Calumny of the Romanists on that behalf Now after all this with what face can A. C. say as he doth That Protestants deny or doubt of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament I cannot well tell or am unwilling to utter Fifthly whereas 't is added by A. C. That in this present case there is no peril of any damnable Heresie Schisme or any other Sin in resolving to live and die in the Roman Church That 's not so neither For he that lives in the Roman Church with such a Resolution is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty 〈…〉 is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her Corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her Damnable Opinions too in point of Misbelief though perhaps A. C. will not have them called Heresies unless they have been condemned in some General Councel And of all other sins also which the Doctrine and Misbelief of that Church leads him into And mark it I pray For 't is one thing to live in a Schismatical Church and not Communicate with it in the Schism or in any false Worship that attends it For so Elias lived among the Ten Tribes and was not Schismatical 3 Reg. 17. And after him Elizaeus 4 Reg. 3. But then neither of them either countenanced the Schism or worshipped the Calves in Dan or in Bethel And so also beside these Prophets did those Thousands live in
him in both all the rest of his life for this blessing thus bestowed on him Now thus far these dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a Sacrifice of Duty and a Sacrifice of Praise and a Sacrifice of Commemoration of Christ. Therefore according to the former Rule and here in truth too 't is safest for a man to believe the Commemorative the the Praising and the Performing Sacrifice and to offer them duely to God and leave the Church of Rome in this Particular to her Superstitions that I may say no more And would the Church of Rome stand to A. C's Rule and believe dissenting Parties where they agree were it but in this and that before of the Real presence it would work far toward the Peace of Christendom But the Truth is They pretend the Peace of Christendom but care no more for it than as it may uphold at least if not increase their own Greatness My fourth Instance shall be in the Sacrament of Baptism and the things required as necessary to make it effectual to the Receiver They in the common received Doctrine of the Church of Rome are three The Matter the Form and the Intention of the Priest to do that which the Church doth and intends he should do Now all other Divines as well ancient as modern and both the dissenting Churches also agree in the two former but many deny that the Intention of the Priest is necessary Will A. C. hold his Rule That 't is safest to believe in a controverted Point of Faith that which the dissenting Parties agree on or which the Adverse Part Confesses If he will not then why should he press that as a Rule to direct others which he will not be guided by himself And if he will then he must go professedly against the Councel of Trent which hath determined it as deside as a Point of Faith that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to make the Baptism true and valid Though in the History of that Councel 't is most apparent the Bishops and other Divines there could not tell what to answer to the Bishop of Minors a Neapolitane who declared his Judgement openly against it in the face of that Councel My fifth Instance is We say and can easily prove there are divers Errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal But I my self have heard some Jesuites confess that in the Liturgie of the Church of England there 's no positive Errour And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us They answered they could not do it Because though our Liturgie had in it nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service Now here let A. C. consider again Here is a plain Concession of the adverse Part And both agree there 's nothing in our Service but that which is holy and good What will the Jesuite or A. C. say to this If he forsake his ground then it is not safest in point of Divine Worship to joyn in Faith as the dissenting Parties agree or to stand to the Adversaries own Confession If he be so hardy as to maintain it then the English Liturgy is better and safer to worship God by than the Roman Mass. Which yet I presume A. C. will not confess Num. 8 In all these Instances the Matter so falling out of it self for the Argument enforces it not the thing is true but not therefore true because the dissenting Parties agree in it or because the adverse Part Confesses it Yet lest the Jesuite or A. C. for him farther to deceive the weak should infer that this Rule in so many Instances is true and false in none but that one concerning Baptism among the Donatists and therefore the Argument is true ut plerumque as for the most and that therefore 't is the safest way to believe that which dissenting Parties agree on I will lay down some other Particulars of as great Consequence as any can be in or about Christian Religion And if in them A. C. or any Jesuite dare say that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting Parties agree or as the adverse Party confesses I dare say he shall be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Insidel And First where the Question was betwixt the Orthodox and the Arrian whether the Son of God were consubstantial with the Father The Orthodox said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance The Arrian came within in a Letter of the Truth and said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like substance Now he that says he is of the same substance confesses he is of like substance and more that is Identity of Substance for Identity contains in it all Degrees of likeness and more But he that acknowledges and believes that He is of like nature and no more denies the Identity Therefore if this Rule be true That it is safest to believe that in which the dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part Confesses which A. C. makes such great vaunt of then 't is safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature with God the Father and be free from Belief that He is Consubstantial with him which yet is Concluded by the Councel of Nice as necessary to Salvation and the Contrary Condemned for Damnable Heresie Secondly in the Question about the Resurrection between the Orthodox and diverse â—ross Hereticks of old and the Anabaptists and Libertines of late For all or most of these dissenting Parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to a state of Grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers Passages of holy Scripture together with the Life of the Soul which they are content to say is Immortal But they utterly deny any Resurrection of the Body after Death So with them that Article of the Creed is gone Now then if any man will guide his Faith by this Rule of A. C. The Consent of dissenting Parties or the Confession of the Adverse Part he must deny the Resurrection of the Body from the Grave to Glory and believe none but that of the Soul from sin to Grace which the Adversaries Confess and in which the Dissenting Parties agree Thirdly in the great Dispute of all others about the Unity of the Godhead All dissenting Parties Jew Turk and Christian Among Christians Orthodox and Anti-Trinitarian of old And in these later times Orthodox and Socinian that Horrid and mighty Monster of all Heresies agree in this That there is but one God And I hope it is as necessary to believe one God our Father as one Church our Mother Now will A. C. say here 't is safest believing as the dissenting Parties agree or as the Adverse Parties Confess namely That there is but one God and so deny the Trinity and therewith the Son of God the Saviour of
the world Fourthly in a Point as Fundamental in the Faith as this Namely whether Christ be true and very God For which very Point most of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church laid down their lives The dissenting Parties here were the Orthodox Believers who affirm He is both God and Man for so our Creed teaches us And all those Hereticks which affirm Christ to be Man but deny him to be God as the Arrians and Carpocratians and Cerinthus and Hebion with others and at this day the Socinians These dissenting Parties agree fully and clearly That Christ is Man Well then Dare A. C. stick to his Rule here and say 't is safest for a Christian in this great Point of Faith to govern his Belief by the Consent of these dissenting Parties or the Confession and acknowledgment of the Adverse Party and so settle his Belief that Christ is a meer Man and not God I hope he dares not So then this Rule To Resolve a mans Faith into that in which the Dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part confesses is as often false as true And false in as Great if not Greater Matters than those in which it is true And where 't is true A. C. and his fellows dare not govern themselves by it the Church of Rome condemning those things which that Rule proves And yet while they talk of Certainty nay of Infallibility less will not serve their turns they are driven to make use of such poor shifts as these which have no certainty at all of Truth in them but infer falshood and Truth alike And yet for this also men will be so weak or so wilful as to be seduced by them Num. 9 I told you before That the force of the preceding Argument lies upon two things The one expressed and that 's past the other upon the Bye which comes now to be handled And that is your continual poor Out-cry against us That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church Sure if I thought I were out I would get in as fast as I could For we confess as well as you That Out of the Catholike Church of Christ there is no Salvation But what do you mean by Out of the Church Sure out of the Roman Church Why but the Roman Church and the Church of England are but two distinct Members of that Catholike Church which is spread over the face of the Earth Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwels but Rome it self as well as other particular Churches dwels in this great Universal House unless you will shut up the Church in Rome as the Donatists did in Africk I come a little lower Rome and other National Churches are in this Universal Catholike House as so many Daughters to whom under Christ the care of the Houshold is committed by God the Father and the Catholike Church the Mother of all Christians Rome as an Elder Sister but not the Eldest neither had a great Care committed unto her in and from the prime times of the Church and to her Bishop in her but at this time to let pass many brawls that have formerly been in the House England and some other Sisters of hers are fallen out in the Family What then Will the Father and the Mother God and the Church cast one Childe out because another is angry with it Or when did Christ give that power to an Elder Sister that She and her Steward the Bishop there should thrust out what Childe she pleased Especially when she her self is justly accused to have given the Offence that is taken in the House Or will not both Father and Mother be sharper to Her for this unjust and unnatural usage of her younger Sisters but their dear Children Nay is it not the next way to make them turn her out of doors that is so unnatural to the rest It is well for all Christian Men and Churches that the Father and Mother of them are not so curst as some would have them And Salvation need not be feared of any dutiful Childe nor Outing from the Church because this Elder Sisters faults are discovered in the House and she grown froward for it against them that complained But as Children cry when they are waked out of sleep so do you and wrangle with all that come neer you And Stapleton confesses That ye were in a dead sleep and over-much rest when the Protestants stole upon you Now if you can prove that Rome is properly The Catholick Church it self as you commonly call it speak out and prove it In the mean time you may Mark this too if you will and it seems you do for here you forget not what the Bishop said to you F. The Lady which doubted said the Bishop to me may be better saved in it than you B. § 36 I said so indeed Mark that too Where yet by the way these words Than you do not suppose Person only For I will Judge no man that hath another Master to stand or fall to But they suppose Calling and Sufficiency in the Person Than you that is Than any man of your Calling and Knowledge of whom more is required And then no question of the truth of this speech That that person may better be saved that is easier than you than any man that knows so much of Truth and opposes against it as you and others of your Calling do How far you know Truth other men may judge by your Proofs and Causes of Knowledge but how far you oppose Truth known to you that is within and no man can know but God and your selves Howsoever where the Foundation is but held there for ordinary men it is not the vivacity of Understanding but the simplicity of Believing that makes them safe For S. Augustine speaks there of men in the Church and no man can be said simply to be Out of the Visible Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation And as it is the simplicity of Believing that makes them safe yea safest so is it sometimes A quickness of Understanding that loving it self and some by-respects too well makes men take up an unsafe way about the Faith So that there 's no Question but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders unless they repented before death were lost And S. Augustine's Rule will be true That in all Corruptions of the Church there will ever be a difference between an Heretick and a plain well-meaning man that is misled and believes an Heretick Yet here let me adde this for fuller Expression This must be understood of such Leaders and Hereticks as refuse to hear the Churches Instruction or to use all the means they can to come to the knowledge of the Truth For else if they do this Erre they may but Hereticks they are not as is most manifest in S. Cyprian's
of these Premises he would infer For hence he tells us He gathered that D. White 's Opinion was That the Romane Church held and taught in all Ages unchanged Faith in all Fundamental points and did not in any Age erre in any Point Fundamental This is very well For A. C. confesses he did but gather that this was Doctor White 's Opinion And what if he gathered that which grew not there nor thence For suppose all the Premises true yet no Cartrope can draw this Conclusion out of them And then all A. C's labour 's lost For grant some one Church or other must still be Visible And grant that this Visible Church held all Fundamentals of the Faith in all Ages And grant again that D. White could not assigne any Church differing from the Romane that did this Yet this will not follow that therefore the Romane did it And that because there 's more in the Conclusion than in the Premises For A. C's Conclusion is That in D. White 's Opinion the Roman Church held and taught in all Ages unchanged Faith in all Fundamental points And so far perhaps the Conclusion may stand taking Fundamental points in their literal sense as they are expressed in Creeds and approved Councels But then he addes And did not in any Age erre in any Point Fundamental Now this can never follow out of the Premises before laid down For say some one Church or other may still be Visible And that Visible Church hold all Fundamental Points in all Ages And no man be able to name another Church different from the Church of Rome that hath done this yet it follows not therefore That the Church of Rome did not erre in any Age in any Point Fundamental For a Church may hold the Fundamental Point literally and as long as it stays there be without control and yet erre grosly dangerously nay damnably in the Exposition of it And this is the Church of Rome's Case For most true it is it hath in all Ages maintained the Faith unchanged in the Expression of the Articles themselves but it hath in the Exposition both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost the sense and the meaning of some of them So the Faith is in many things Changed both for Life and Belief and yet seems the same Now that which deceives the World is That because the Bark is the same men think this Old Decayed Tree is as Sound as it was at first and not Weather-beaten in any Age. But when they can make me believe that Painting is true Beauty I 'll believe too that Rome is not only sound but beautiful Num. 6 But A. C. goes on and tells us That hereupon the Jesuite asked whether Errours in Points not Fundamental were damnable And that D. White answered they were not unless they were held against Conscience 'T is true that Errour in Points not Fundamental is the more damnable the more it is held against Conscience But it is true too that Errour in Points not Fundamental may be damnable to some men though they hold it not against their Conscience As namely when they hold an Errour in some Dangerous Points which grate upon the Foundation and yet will neither seek the means to know the Truth nor accept and believe Truth when 't is known especially being men able to Judge which I fear is the case of too many at this day in the Roman Church Out of all which A. C. tells us The Jesuite collected that D. White 's Opinion was That the Roman Church held all Points Fundamental and only erred in Points not Fundamental which he accounted not damnable so long as he did not hold them against his Conscience And that thereupon he said D. White had secured him since he held no Faith different from the Roman nor contrary to his Conscience Here again we have but A. C's and the Jesuites Collection But if the Jesuite or A. C. will collect amiss who can help it Num. 7 I have spoken before in this very Paragraph to all the Passages of A. C. as supposing them true and set down what is to be answered to them in case they prove so But now 't is most apparent by Dr. White 's Answer set down before at large that he never said that the Church of Rome erred only in Points not Fundamental as A. C. would have it But that he said the contrary Namely that some errours of thy Church were Fundamental reductivè by a reducement if they which embraced them did pertinaciously adhere to them having sufficient means of information And again expresly That he did not say that none were damnable so long as they were not held against Conscience Now where is A. C's Collection For if a Jesuite or any other may collect Propositions which are not granted him nay contrary to those which are granted him he may infer what he please And he is much to blame that will not infer a strong Conclusion for himself that may frame his own Premises say his Adversary what he will And just so doth A. C. bring in his Conclusion to secure himself of salvation because he holds no Faith but the Romane nor that Contrary to his Conscience Presupposing it granted that the Church of Rome errs only in not Fundamentals and such Errours not Damnable which is absolutely and clearly denied by D. White To this A. C. says nothing but that D. White did not give this Answer at the Conference I was not present at the Conference between them so to that I can say nothing as a witness But I think all that knew D. White will believe his affirmation as soon as the Jesuites To say no more And whereas A. C. refers to the Relation of the Conference between D. White and M. Fisher most true it is there D. White is charged to have made that Answer twice But all this rests upon the credit of A. C. only For he is said to have made that Relation too as well as this And against his Credit I must engage D. Whites who hath avowed another Answer as before is set down Num. 8 And since A. C. relates to that Conference which it seems he makes some good account of I shall here once for all take occasion to assure the Reader That most of the Points of Moment in that Conference with D. White are repeated again and again and urged in this Conference or the Relation of A. C. and are here answered by me For Instance In the Relation of the first Conference the Jesuite takes on him to prove the Unwritten Word of God out of 2 Thes. 2. pag. 15. And so he doth in the Relation of this Conference with me pag. 50. In the first he stands upon it That the Protestants upon their Principles cannot hold That all Fundamental points of Faith are contained in the Creed pag. 19. And so he doth in this pag. 46. In the first he
for the Inference which you would draw out of it that 's answered at large already But than A. C. adds That I say but without any proof that the Romanists have many dangerous errours but that I neither tell them which they be nor why I think them dangerous but that I leave them to look to their own souls which he says they do and have no cause to doubt How much the Jesuite and A. C. have said in this Conference without any solid Proof I again submit to judgment as also what Proofs I have made If in this very place I have added none 't is because I had made proof enough of the self-same thing before Where lest he should want and call for Proof again I have plainly laid together some of the many Dangerous errours which are charged upon them So I tell you which at least some of which they be and their very naming will shew their danger And if I did remit you to look to your own souls I hope there was no offence in that if you do it and do it so that you have no cause to doubt And the reason why you doubt not A. C. tells us is Because you had no new device of your own or any other mens nor any thing contrary to Scripture but all most conformable to Scriptures interpreted by Union Consont of Fathers and Definitions of Councels Indeed if this were true you had little cause to doubt in point of your Belief But the truth is you do hold new Devices of your own which the Primitive Church was never acquainted with And some of those so far from being conformable as that they are little less than contradictory to Scripture In which particulars and divers others the Scriptures are not interpreted by Union or Consent of Fathers or Definitions of Councels unless perhaps by some late Councels packed of purpose to do that ill service I have given Instances enough before yet some you shall have here lest you should say again that I affirm without proof or Instance I pray then whose Device was Transubstantiation And whose Communion under one kinde And whose Deposition and Unthroning nay Killing of Princes and the like if they were not yours For I dare say and am able to prove there 's none of these but are rather contrary than conformable to Scripture Neither is A. C. or any Jesuite able to shew any Scripture interpreted by Union or Consent of Fathers of the Primitive Church to prove any one of these Nor any Definition of Ancient Councels but only Lateran for Transubstantiation and that of Constance for the Eucharist in one kinde which two are Modern at least far downward from the Primitive Church and have done more mischief to the Church by those their Determinations than will be cured I fear in many Generations So whatever A. C. thinks yet I had reason enough to leave the Jesuite to look to his own soul. Num. 11 But A. C. having as it seems little new matter is at the same again and over and over it must go That there is but one saving Faith That this one Faith was once the Romane And that I granted one might be saved in the Romane Faith To all which I have abundantly answered before Marry then he infers That he sees not how we can have our souls saved without we entirely hold this Faith being the Catholike Faith which S. Athanasius saith unless a man hold entirely he cannot be saved Now here again is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises and so the Inference fails For say there was a time in which the Catholike and the Romane Faith were one and such a time there was when the Romane Faith was Catholike and famous through the world Rom. 1. Yet it doth not follow since the Councel of Trent hath added a new Creed that this Romane Faith is now the Catholike For it hath added extranea things without the Foundation disputable if not false Conclusions to the Faith So that now a man may Believe the whole and entire Catholike Faith even as S. Athanasius requires and yet justly refuse for dross a great part of that which is now the Romane Faith And Athanasius himself as if he meant to arm the Catholike Faith against all corrupting Additions hath in the beginning of his Creed these words This is the Catholike Faith This and no other This and no Other then here follows And again at the end of his Creed This is the Catholike Faith This and no more than is here delivered always presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did and this is the largest of all Creeds So that if A. C. would wipe his eyes from the mist which rises about Tyber he might see how our souls may be saved believing the Catholike Faith and that entire without the Addition of Romane Leaven But if he cannot or I doubt will not see it 't is enough that by Gods grace we see it And therefore once more I leave him and his to look to their own souls Num. 12 After this A. C. is busie in unfolding the meaning of this great Father of the Church S. Athanasius And he tells us That he says in his Creed That without doubt every man shall perish that holds not the Catholike Faith entire that is saith A. C. in every Point of it and inviolate that is in the right sense and for the true formal reason of divine Revelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church proposing to us by her Pastors this Revelation Well we shall not differ much from A. C. in expounding the meaning of S. Athanasius yet some few things I shall here observe And first I agree that he which hopes for Salvation must believe the Catholike Faith whole and entire in every Point Next I agree that he must likewise hold it inviolate if to believe it in the right sense be to hold it inviolate But by A. C's leave the Believing of the Creed in the right sense is comprehended in the first branch The keeping of it whole and entire For no man can properly be said to believe the Whole Creed that believes not the Whole Sense as well as the Letter of it and as entirely But thirdly for the word inviolate 't is indeed used by him that translated Athanasius But the Father 's own words following the Common Edition are That he that will be saved must keep the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the sound and entire Faith And it cannot be a sound Faith unless the Sense be as whole and entire as the Letter of the Creed And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is compounded of the Privative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is reproach or infamy So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the holding of the entire
by Apostolical Authority by Bellarmine's own rule For it hath a Beginning Thirdly I observe too that Bellarmine cannot well tell where to lay the foundation of Purgatory that it may be safe For first he labours to found it upon Scripture To that end he brings no fewer then ten places out of the Old Testament and nine out of the New to prove it And yet fearing lest these places be strained as indeed they are and so too weak to be laid under such a vast pile of Building as Purgatory is he flies to unwritten Tradition And by this Word of God unwritten he says 't is manifest that the Doctrine of Purgatory was delivered by the Apostles Sure if Nineteen places of Scripture cannot prove it I would be loth to flie to Tradition And if Recourse to Tradition be necessary then certainly those places of Scripture made not the proof they were brought for And once more how can Bellarmine say here That we finde not the Beginning hujus dogmatis of this Article when he had said before that he had found it in the Nineteen places of Scripture For if in these places he could not finde the beginning of the Doctrine of Purgatory he is false while he says he did And if he did finde it there then he is false here in saying we finde no beginning of it And for all his Brags of Omnes Veteres all the Ancient Greek and Latine do constantly teach Purgatory Yet Alphons à Castro deals honestly and plainly and tells us That the mention of Purgatory in Ancient Writers is ferè nulla almost none at all especially in the Greoks And he addes That hereupon Purgâ—tory 〈◊〉 not believed by the Graecians to this very day And what noâ— I pray after all this may I not so much as delâ—berately doubt of this because 't is now Defined and but now in a manner and thus No sure So A. C. tells you Doubt No For when you had fooled the Archbishop of Spalatâ— back to Rome there you either made him say or said it for him for in Print it is and under his Name That since 't is now defined by the Church a man is as much bound to believe there is a Purgatory as that there is a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead How far comes this short of Blasphemy to make the Trinity and Purgatory things alike and equally Credible Num. 18 Yea but A. C. will give you a Reason why no man may deliberately doubt much less deny any thing that is defined by a General Councel And his Reason is Because every such doubt and denyal is a breach from the one saving faith This is a very good reason if it be true But how appears it to be true How why it takes away saith A. C. Infallible credit from the Church and so the Divine Revelation not being sufficiently applied it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods providence breed Infallible Belief in us Why but deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny upon the grounds and in the manner aforesaid doth not take away Infallible credit from the whole Church but onely from the Definition of a General Councel some way or other misled And that in things not absolutely Necessary to all mens Salvation for of such things A. C. here speaks expresly Now to take away Infallible credit from some Definitions of General Councels in things not absolutely necessary to Salvation is no breach upon the one saving Faith which is necessary nor upon the Credit of the Catholike Church of Christ in things absolutely necessary for which onely it had Infallible assistance promised So that no breach being made upon the Faith nor no Credit which ever it had being taken from the Church the Divine Revelation may be and is as sufficiently applied as ever it was and in the ordinary course of Gods providence may breed as Infallible belief in things necessary to Salvation as ever it did Num. 19 But A. C. will prove his Reason before given and therefore he asks out of S. Paul Rom. 10 Now shall men believe unless they hear How shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they preach to wit Infallibly â—â—less they be senâ— that is from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit Here 's that which I have twice at least spoken to already namely That A. C. by this will make every Priest in the Church of Rome that hath Learning enough to preach and dissents not from that Church an Infallible Preacher which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever assume to himself nor the Church give him And yet the Fathers of the Primitive Church were sent and from God were assisted and by God and did sufficiently propose to men the Divine Revelation and did by it beget and breed up Faith saving Faith in the Souls of men Though no one among them since the Apostles was an Infallible Preacher And A. C. should have done very well here to have made it manifest That this Scripture How shall they preach to wit infallibly is so interpreted by Union Consent of Fathers and Definitions of Councels as he bragged before that they use to interpret Scripture For I do not finde How shall they preach to wit Infallibly to be the Comment of any one of the Fathers or any other approved Author And let him shew it if he can Num. 20 After this for I see the good man is troubled and forward and backward he goes he falls immediately upon this Question If a whole General Councel defining what is Divine Truth be not believed to be sent and assisted by Gods Spirit and consequently of Infallible Credit what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Well first A. C. hath very ill luck in fitting his Conclusion to his Premises and his Consequent to his Antecedent And so 't is here with him For a General Councel may be assisted by God's Spirit and in a great measure too and in a greater than any private man not inspired and yet not consequently be of Infallible credit for all assistance of God's Spirit reaches not up to Infallibility I hope the Antient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted by God's Spirit and in a plentiful measure too and yet A. C. himself will not say they were Infallible And secondly for the Question it self If a General Councel be not what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Truly I 'll make you a ready Answer No man Not the Pope himself No Let God and his Word be true and every man a Lyer Rom. 3. for so more or less every man will be found to be And this is neither dammage to the Church nor wrong to the person of any Num. 21 But then A. C. asks a shrewder Question than this If such a Councel lawfully called continued and confirmed may erre in
necessary it is not that therefore or for prevention thereof there should be such a Certainty an Infallible Certainty in these things For he understood himself well that said Oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11. There must there will be Heresies And wheresoever that Necessity lies 't is out of doubt enough to prove that Christ never left such an Infallible Assurance as is able to prevent them Or such a Mastering Power in his Church as is able to over-awe them but they come with their Oportet about them and they rise and spring in all Ages very strangely But in particular for that which first caused and now continues the loss of Unity in the Church of Christ as I make no doubt but that the Pride of men is one Cause so yet can I not think that Pride is the adaequate and sole Cause thereof But in part Pride caused it and Pride on all sides Pride in some that would not at first nor will not since submit their private judgments where with good Conscience they may and ought And Pride in others that would not first nor will not yet mend manifest great and dangerous errours which with all good Conscience they ought to do But 't is not Pride not to submit to known and gross Errours And the Definitions of some Councels perhaps the Lateran Constance and Trent have been greater and more urgent Causes of breach of Unity than the Pride of men hath been which yet I shall never excuse where-ere it is Num. 25 How far this one soul-saving Faith extends A. C. tells me I have confessed it not a work for my Pen But he says it is to be learned from that One Holy Catholike Apostolike always Visible and Infallible Romane Church of which the Lady once doubting is now fully satisfied c. Indeed though A. C. sets this down with some scorn which I can easily pass over 't is true that thus I said There is a Latitude in Faith especially in reference to different mens Salvation But to set a Bound to this and strictly to define it Just thus far you must Believe in every particular or incur domnation is no work for my Pen. Thus I said and thus I say still For though the Foundation be one and the same in all yet a Latitude there is and a large one too when you come to Consider not the Foundation common to all but things necessary to many particular mens Salvation For to whomsoever God hath given more of him shall more be required S. Luc. 12. as well in Belief as in Obedience and Performance And the gifts of God both ordinary and extraordinary to particular men are so various as that for my part I hold it impossible for the ablest Pen that is to express it And in this respect I said it with Humility and Reason That to set these Bounds was no work for my Pen. Nor will I ever take upon me to express that Tenet or Opinion the denial of the Foundation onely excepted which may shut any Christian out of heaven And A. C. I believe you know very well to what a narrow Sâ—antling some Learned of your own side bring the very Foundation it self rather than they will lose any that lay hold on Christ the Son of God and Redeemer of the World And as Christ Epitomizes the whole Law of Obedrence into these two great Commandments The love of God and our Neighbour S. Mat. 22. So the Apostle Epitomizes the whole Law of Belief into these two great Assents That God is and That he is a rewarder of them that seek him Heb. 11. that seek him in Christ. And S. Peter was full of the Holy Ghost when he exprest it That there is no salvation to them that seek it in or by another Name Act. 4. Num. 26 But since this is no work for my Pen it seems A. C. will not say 't is a work for his But he tells us 'T is to be learned of the One Holy Catholike Apostolike always Visible and Infallible Romane Church ' Titles enough given to the Romane Church and I wish she deserv'd them all for then we should have peace But 't is far otherwise One she is as a particular Church but not The One. Holy she would be counted but the world may see if it will not blinde it self of what value Holiness is in that Court and Country Catholike she is not in any sense of the word for she is not the Universal and so not Catholike in extent Nor is she sound in Doctrine in things w ch come neer upon the Foundation too so not Catholike in Belief Nor is she the Prime Mother-Church of Christianity Jerusalem was that and so not Catholike as a Fountain or Original or as the Head or Root of the Catholike Num. 27 And because many Romanists object here though A. C. doth it not that S. Cyprian called the Romane Church The Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church of Christ I hope I shall have leave to explain that difficult place also First then S. Cyprian names not Rome That stands onely in the Margin and was placed there as his particular judgement led him that set out S. Cyprian Secondly the true Story of that Epistle and that which led S. Cyprian into this Expression was this Cornelius then chosen Pope expostulates with S. Cyprian That his Letters to Rome were directed onely to the Clergie there and not to Him and takes it ill as if S. Cyprian had thereby seemed to disapprove his Election S. Cyprian replies That by reason of the Schism mov'd then by Novation it was uncertain in Africk which of the Two had the more Canonical Right to the See of Rome and that therefore he nam'd him not But yet that during this uncertainty he exhorted all that sailed thither ut Ecclesiae Catholicae Radicem Matricem agnoscerent tenerent That in all their carriage they should acknowledge and so hold themselves unto the Unity of the Catholike Church which is the Root and Matrix of it and the onely way to avoid participation in the Schism And that this must be S. Cyprian's meaning I shall thus prove First because This could not be his meaning or Intention That the Sea of Rome was the Root or Matrix of the Catholike Church For if he had told them so he had left them in as great or greater difficulty than he found them For there was then an Open and an Apparent Schism in the Church of Rome Two Bishops Cornelius and Novation Two Congregations which respectively attended and observed them So that a perplexed Question must needs have divided their thoughts which of these Two had been that Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church Therefore had S. Cyprian meant to pronounce Rome the Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church he would never have done it at such a time when Rome it self was
whereas I said the Lady would far more easily be able to answer for her coming to Church than for her leaving the Church of England To this A. C. excepts and says That I neither prove nor can prove that it is lawful for one perswaded especially as the Lady was to go to the Protestant Church There 's a great deal of Cunning and as much Malice in this passage but I shall easily pluck the Sting out of the Tail of this Wisp And first I have proved it already through this whole Discourse and therefore can prove it That the Church of England is an Orthodox Church And therefore with the same labour it is proved that men may lawfully go unto it and communicate with it for so a man not onely may but ought to do with an Orthodox Church And a Romanist may communicate with the Church of England without any Offence in the Nature of the Thing thereby incurred But if his Conscience through mis-information check at it he should do well in that Case rather to inform his Conscience than forsake any Orthodox Church whatsoever Secondly A. C. tells me plainly That I cannot prove that a man so perswaded as the Lady was may go to the Protestant Church that is That a Romane Catholike may not go to the Protestant Church Why I never went about to prove that a Romane Catholike being and continuing such might against his Conscience go to the Protestant Church For these words A man perswaded as the Lady is are A. C's words they are not mine Mine are not simply that the Lady might or that she might not but Comparative they are That she might more easily answer to God for coming to than for going from the Church of England And that is every way most true For in this doubtful time of hers when upon my Reasons given she went again to Church when yet soon after as you say at least she was sorry for it I say at this time she was in heart and resolution a Romano Catholike or she was not If she were not as it seems by her doubting she was not then fully resolved then my speech is most true that she might more easily answer God for coming to Service in the Church of England than for leaving it For a Protestant she had been and for ought I knew at the end of this Conference so she was and then 't was no sin in it self to come to an Orthodox Church nor no sin against her Conscience she continuing a Protestant for ought which then appeared to me But if she then were a Romane Catholike as the Jesuite and A. C. seem confident she was yet my speech is true too For then she might more easily answer God for coming to the Church of England which is Orthodox and leaving the Church of Rome which is Superstitious than by leaving the Church of England communicate with all the Superstitions of Rome Now the cunning and the malignity of A. C. lies in this He would fain have the world think that I am so Indifferent in Religion as that I did maintain the Lady being conscientiously perswaded of the Truth of the Romish Doctrine might yet against both her conscience and against open and avowed profession come to the Protestant Church Num. 3 Nevertheless in hope his cunning Malice would not be discovered against this his own sence that is and not mine he brings divers Reasons As first 't is not lawful for one affected as that Lady was that is for one that is resolved of the Truth of the Romane Church to go to the Church of England there and in that manner to serve and worship God Because saith A. C. that were to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world Truly I say the same thing with him And that therefore neither may a Protestant that is resolved in Conscience that the profession of the true Faith is in the Church of England go to the Romish Church there and in that manner to serve and worship God Neither need I give other Answer because A. C. urges this against his own fiction not my assertion Yet since he will so do I shall give a particular Answer to each of them And to this first Reason of his I say thus That to Believe Religion after one sort and to practise it after another and that in the main points of worship the Sacrament and Invocation is to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world And other then this I never taught nor ever said that which might infer the Contrary But A. C. give me leave to tell you your fellow Jesuite Azorius affirms this in express terms And what do you think can he prove it Nay not Azorius onely but other Priests and Jesuites here in England either teach some of their Proselytes or else some of them learn it without teaching That though they be perswaded as this Lady was that is though they be Romane Catholikes yet either to gain honour or save their purse they may go to the Protestant Church just as the Jesuite here says The Lady did out of frailty and fear to offend the King Therefore I pray A. C. if this be gross dissimulation both with God and the world speak to your fellows to leave perswading or practising of it and leave men in the profession of Religion to be as they seem or to seem and appear as they are Let 's have no Mask worn here A. C's second Reason why one so perswaded as that Lady was might not go to the Protestant Church is Because that were outwardly to profess a Religion in Conscience known to be false To this I answer first that if this Reason be true it concerns all men as well as those that be perswaded as the Lady was For no man may outwardly profess a Religion in conscience known to be false For with the heart man believeth to righteousness and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10. Now to his own salvation no man can confess a known false Religion Secondly if the Religion of the Protestants be in conscience a known false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too for their Religion is the same Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion And the difference is in certain gross corruptions to the very endangering of salvation which each side says the other is guilty of Thirdly the Reason given is most untrue for it may appear by all the former Discourse to any Indifferent Reader that Religion as it is professed in the Church of England is nearest of any Church now in being to the Primitive Church And therefore not a Religion known to be false And this I both do and can prove were not the deafness of the Asp upon the
procession from the Son added to the Creed by the Romane Church 16 97. the Greek Church her errour touching this 14. what and how dangerous 16 God proof of the true one by testimony of the false ones 50 Government of the Church in what sense Monarchical in what Aristocratical 130 131 c. how a Monarchical not needful 138 S. Gregory Naz. vindicated 8 his humility and mildness 110 Pope Gregory VII the raiser of the Papacy to the height 135 136. his XXVII Conâ—lusions the Basis of the Papal greatness 118 Creek Church notwithstanding her errour still a true Church 16. and justified by some Romanists ibid. her hard usage by the Church of Rome 17. of her Bishops their subscription to the Councel of Florence 227 H HEresies what maketh them 20. the occasion of their first springing up 128. how and by whom began at Rome 10 11 Hereticks who and who not 105. none to be rashly condemned for such 17. that some may pertain to the Church 105. who they be that teach that faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept 92 93 S. Hierome explained 6 88. in what esteem he had Bishops 115 Hooker righted 56 57 158 I St. James believed to have been Successor of our Lord in the Principality of the Church 122 Idolaters their gods how put down by Christian Religion 50 51. Idolatry how maintained in the Church of Rome and with what evil consequents 181 c. Of Jeremias the Greek Patriarch 〈◊〉 Censâ—â—e 145 Jesuites◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of dealing in this Conference 211. their cunning in expounding the Fathers to their own purpose 7. their confidence 15. their arrogancy 111. their subtile malignity 244. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves infallibility 61. their desire of having one King 〈◊〉 one Pope 65 66. their late cunning argument to draw Protestants to them answered c. 194. their falsification of the Authors words 86 87. A perfect Jesuitism 84 Jews the ground of their belief of the old Testament 79 Images how worshipped by the Church of Rome 12. against adoration of them 181. Cassander his complaint of it 182. The flying from Image-worship should not make 〈◊〉 to run into prophaneness and irreverence against God 183 Infallible two acceptions of it 80 Infallible and Firm how they differ 127. the evils ensuing the opinion of the Churches and the Popes Infallibility 143 c. 170 175. what an Infallibilty of the Church Stapleton is forced to acknowledge 166 167 Vid. Councels and Pope and Church Innocent the third â—â—â— extolling the Pope above the Emperour 134 c. Against Invocation of Sainâ—t 181 Irenâ—â—â— vindicated 118 c. 249 250 251 Israel a Church after her separation from Judah 97 Judge who to be in controversies touching faith and manners 101 102 c. 108 253. what Judges of this kinde the Church hath 127 253. who to judge when a general Councel cannot be had 129. that no visible Judge can prevent or remedy all Heresie and Schism 130. A visible living Judge of all Controversies whether always necessary 130. c. wherein private men may judge and wherein not 2 149 160 K THe Keys to whom given and how 123 167 Kings Custodes utriúsque tabulae 134. not to be tyranniz'd over by the Pope 125. their supremacy in things spiritual 134. some Romanists for the deposing and killing of them 221 Knowledge of God how difficult 71 72. what Knowledge needful to breed faith 55 56. what degree of it is necessary to salvation hard to determine 212 236. the Apostles Knowledge how different from that of their hearers 69 L AGainst Limbus Patrum 198 213 Literae Communicatoriae what they were and of what use 132 Peter Lombard condemned of Heresie by the Pope 174 M MAldonate answered 147 Manichees their soul Heresie and what stumbled them 151 Manners Corruption in them no sufficient cause of separation 94 95 Martyrs of the Feasts made of old at their Oratories 182 Mass the English Liturgy better and safer than it 201. what manner of sacrifice it is made by them of Rome 200 Matrix and Radix in S. Cyprian not the Roman Church 238 240 Merits against their condignity 185 Miracles what proofs of Divine truth 48 69. not wrought by all the Writers of Scripture 69. what kind of assent is commonly given to them ibid. Multitude no sure mark of the truth 198 N NOvatians their original 3 10. Novatian how dealt with by Saint Cyprian 23 239 c. O OBedience of that which is due to the Church her Pastors 155 Occham his true Resolution touching that which maketh an Article of faith 254 Origen his Errours obtruded by Ruffinus 6. he the first Founder of Purgatory 227 231 P PApists their denying possibility of salvation to Protestants confuted and their reasons answered 185 186 187. of their going to Protestant Churches and joyning themselves to their Assemblies 244 Parents their power over their children 103 Parliaments what matters they treat of and decree 138 139 Pastors lawfully sent what assistance promised to them 61 62. their Embassie of what authority 64 Patriarchs all alike supream 111 112 116. no appeal from them 117 111 1â—2 People the unlearned of them saved by the simplicity of faith 105 Perfidia the different significations of it 4 5 6 S. Peter of Christs prayer for him 106 107 124 125. of his Primacy Preeminency and Power 121 c. 123 152. in what sense the Church is said to be built upon him 122. that he fell but not from the faith 123 124. whether he were universal Pastor 125. the highest power Ecclesiastical how given to him and how to the rest of the Apostles 109 110 247 248 Pope not infallible 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 58 59 124 147 253. how improbable and absurd it is to say he is so 174 175 c. he made more infallible by the Romanists than a general Councel 172. his infallibility held by some against Conscience 174 175. if he had any it were useless 177. how opposed by Alphonsus à Castro 172 173. the belief and knowledge of it both of them impossible 177. that he may erre and hath erred 136. that he may erre as Pope 174 175. prefer'd by some before a general Councel 172. not Monarch of the Church 132. he hath not a negative voice in Councels 253. made by some as infallible without as with a general Councel 172 173. his confirmation of general Councels of what avail 180. of his power in France and Spain 132 133 136. how much greater he is made by some than the Emperour 132 133 c. 137. his power slighted by some great Princes 132 133 136. whether he may be an Heretick and being one how to be dealt with 176. all his power prerogatives c. indirectly denied by Stapleton 30 Popes the fall of some of them and the consequents thereof 95 Of their Power and Principality 109 110 c. 253. their subjection to the Emperour 115 116. and how lost by the Emperor
Tit. 4. L. 29. ex editione Gothofredi Si non rata habuerit utraque Pars que Judicata sunt tunâ— Beatissimus Patriarcha Dioceseâ—s illius inter eos audiat c. Nulla parte ejus Sententiae contradiâ—ere valente Authen Collat. 9. Tit. 1â— C. 22. * Et ille scilicet Patriarcha secundum Canones Leges praebeat finem And there he cites the Novel its self S. Greg L. 11. Indict â— Epist. 54. †Si dictum fuerit quod nec Metropolitaâ—um habeat nec Patriarcham dicendum est quòd à Sede Apostolicà quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est causa aâ—dienda est c. S. Greg. Ibid. ‖ Notitia Provinciarum Occidentalium per Guidum Pancirolum l. 2. c. 48. * Hunc cunctis Liberalium Artium disciplinis eraditum pro Magistro tâ—â—eamus quasi Comparem velut alterius Orbis Apostolicâ—m Patriarcham c. Jo. Capgravius de Vitis Sanctorum in vitâ S. Anselmâ— Et Guil. Malmesburiens de Gestis Poâ—â—ificum Anglorum p. 223. Edit Francoâ— 1601. * Ibi Cantuaria id est prima Sedes Arcniepiscopi habetur qui est totius Angliae Primaâ— Patriarcha Guil. Malmesburiensis in Prolog Lib. 1. de Gestis Pontiâ—icum Anglorum p. 195. * Praeterea qui sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Barbarico Episcopi à Sanctissimâ— Throâ—o Sanctissiâ—â— Constantinopolitâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Ordinintur Codex Canonum Ecclesiae universae Can. 206. And Justellus proves it there at large that by in Barbarico in that Canon is meant in Solo Barbarorum Annot. Ibid. * Nâ—â—umosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videatur inducere c. Epist. Concil Asric ad Papam Coelestinum Primum Apud Nicolin Tom. 1. Concil p. 844. †Epist. Bonifacii 2. apud â—col Tom. 2. Concil p. 544. * Exemp Precum apud Nicolin Ibid. p. 525. †Baron Annal An. ad 49. Nu. 93 94. ‖ Valde mihi illae Epistolae suspectâ— sunt Bellar. L. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2◠§. Respondeo primùm Sed si fortè illae Epistolae verâ— sunt nihil enim affirmo c. Ibid. §. ult * And so the Councel of Carthage sent word to Pope Coelestint plainly that in admitting such Appeals he brake the Decrees of the Councel of Niâ—t Epist. Concil Africa ad Caelestinum c. 105. Apud Nicolin Tom. 1. Concil p. 844. †Planè ex Ecclesia Catholicae albo Expungâ—nda fuissent Sanctorum Africanorum Martyrum Agmâ—na qui in persecutione Vandalica pro Fide Catholica c. Baron An. 419. Num. 93. Et Binius In Notis ad Epist. Bonifacii 2. ad Eulalium * §. 24. Nu. 5. †Bel. l. 2. de Rom. Poâ—â— c. 25. §. 2. A. C. p. 58. * §. 25. Nu. 10. * Quod autem postea Unus electus est qui caeteris praeponâ—retur in Schismatis remedium factum est â—e unus quisque ad se traâ—â—â—s Christi Ecclesiam ruâ—peret Nam Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista Presbyteri semper unum exâ—se electum in excellentiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant c. S. Hieron in Epist. ad Evagrium So even according to S. Hierom Bishops had a very ancient and honourable descent in the Church from S. Mark the Evangelist And about the end of the same Epistle he acknowledges it Traditionem esse Apostolicam Nay more then so He affirms plainly That Ubi non est Sacerdos non est Ecclesia S. Hieron advers Luciferian And in that place most manifest it is that S. Jerom by Sacerdos means a Bishop For he speaks de Sacerdote qui potestatem habet Ordinandi which in S. Jeroms own Judgment no meer Priest had but a Bishop only S. Hier. Epist. ad Evagrium So even with him no Bishop and no Church †Non enim Resp. est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Repub. Optat. â— 3. ‖ Conc. Calced Can. 9. Actio 16. * S. Cyprian L. de Simp. Praelat * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive se 〈◊〉 esse Greg. Naz. Carâ— de vita sua p. 26. †Orientalibus levitas Occidentalibus arrogantia invicem objecta est Bilius Annâ—t in S. Gregor Naz. Vitam Num. 153. Quid opus est Occidentali supercitio ex 〈◊〉 Basil c. * Hec una suit causa quare Pelagius injuâ—â—â— Principis Pontifex creatus sit q 〈…〉 obsessam ab hoste urbem mitti quispiam non posset c. Postea itaque ad placandum Imperatorem Gregorius Diaconus c. Platina in vitâ Pelagiâ— 2. Onuph ibid. ‖ Onuph In Plat. in vita Boniâ— 3. * In hac ejus 〈◊〉 quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. â—8 †It may be they will say S. Gregory did not inveigh against the Thing but the Person That John of Constantinople should take that upon him which belonged to the Pope But it is manifest by S. Gregoâ—â—s own Text that he speaks against the Thing it self that neither the Bishop of Rome nor any other ought to take on him that 〈◊〉 Cura totius Ecclesiae Principatus S. Petro 〈◊〉 tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 76. Therefore neither is his Successor Universal Bishop Nuâ—quid ego hac in re propriam causam defendo â—â—â—quid specâ—alem injuriam Vindiâ—o non magis causam Omni 〈…〉 Dei Universalis Ecclesiae where â—e plainly denies that he speaks in his own Cause or in the Cause of his Sea Per Venâ—randam Chalcedonensem Synodum hoc Nomen Rom. Pontifici oblatum est sed nullus eorum unquam hoc 〈◊〉 Vocabulum assumpsit nec â—ti consensâ—â— ne dum privatum aliquid daretur Uni â—onore debito Sacerdotes privarentur Universi c. Where he plainly says the Roman Bishops rejected this Title Ibid. And yet for all this Pope Gregory the Seventh delivers it as one of his Dictates in a Councel held at Rome about the year 1â—76 Quod 〈◊〉 Romanus Pontifex jure dicatur Universalis Baron aâ— An. â—076 Num. 31 32. ‖ Absit à Cordibus Christianorum Nomen istud Blasphemiâ— S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 76. In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem pâ—rdere S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 83. * Vana tunc â—abebatur Cleri Populi Electio nisi aut Imperatores aut eorum Exarchi confirmassent Plat. in vita Severini 1. †Quum Theophylactus Exarchus Imperatoris Itali am peteret Milites Itali veriti ne quid mali ejus Adventus portenderet quod superioribus temporibus ferâ— magis cum Pontificibus quam cum Imperatoribus sensissent ingressurum Romam interficere constituerant And the Emperors own Governor was fain to be defended from the Emperors own Souldiers by the Popes power who had gotten Interest in them against their own Master Platina in vita Johan 6. Absimarus was then Emperor ‖ Primus omnium Rom. Pontificum Imperatori Grâ—â—o
Declarativa Articulorum Fidei Ibid. c. 57. ad 2. * §. 24. Nu. 1. †And shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath not provided c. A. C. p. 60. Where I cannot but commend either A. C. his Modesty that he doth not or his Cunning that he will not go so far as some have done before him though in these words Shall we think c. he goes too far Non videretur Dominus discretus fuisse ut cum reverentiâ ejus â—oquar nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia potest Fuit autem ejus Vicarius Petrus Et idem dicendum est de Successoribus Petri cum eadém absurdit as sequèretur si post mortem Petri Humanam Naturam à se creatam sine regimine Unius Personae reliquisset Extravagant Com. Tit. de Majoritate Obedientiâ c. Unam Sanctam In addition D. P. Bertrandi Edit Paris 1585. †Testâ—â—â—nio 〈◊〉 Stapl. â—otest Cont. 4. â— â— Aâ—â— 3. * â—â—â—◠◠◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that doubtless the Arriâ—â—â— also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that at Nice the Pope had 〈◊〉 to carry his Messages and that 〈◊〉 of them in his place saâ—e as President Why but first 't is manifest that Hosius was President at the Councel of Nice and not the Bishop of Rome either by himself or his Legates And so much Athanasius himself who was present and surely understood the Councel of Nice who presided there as well as A. C. tells us â— Hâ—sius bâ—e est Princeps Synodorâ—â— So belike He presided in other Councels as well as at Nice Hic formulam Fidei in Nicaena Synodo concepit And this the Arrians themselves confess to Constantius the Emperour then seduced to be theirs Apâ—â— S. Athanas. Epist. ad solitar â—itaâ—agentes But then secondly I do not except against the Popes sitting as President either at Nice or Trent For that no might do when called or chosen to it as well as any other Patriarch if you consider no more but his 〈◊〉 as President But at Nice the Cause was not his own but Christs against the Arrian wherâ—â—s a◠〈◊〉 it was â—â—erly his 〈◊〉 his own Supremacy and his Churches Corruptions against the Protestants And therefore 〈◊〉 not to sit President at the Trial of his own Cause though in other Causes he might sit as will as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for that of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 c. â—â—◠§. Tâ—â—tia câ—â—diâ—â—â— namely That 't is â—â—just 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â— the Romanâ— Prâ—latâ—is Right jus suum in calling General Countels and Presiding in them in possession of which â—ight be hath 〈◊〉 for 1500 years That 's but a bold Aâ—â—ertion of the Cardinaâ—â— by his â—â—â—ve For he gives us no proof of ie but his bare word Whereas the very Aâ—thentick Copies of the Councâ—ls published and princed by the Romanists themselves affirm clearly they were called by Emperors not by the Pope And that the Pope did not preside in all of them And I hope Bellarâ—â—â—â— will not expect we should take his â—â—â—e word against the Councels And most certain it is that even as Hosius Presided the Councel 〈◊〉 Nice and no way that as the Popes Legate so also in the second General Councel which was the first of 〈…〉 Nâ—ctarius Bishop of Constantiâ—â—ple Presided Concil Chalâ—ed Act. 6 p. 136. aâ—ud 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which was the first at Ephesus S. Câ—â—â—â— of Alexandria Presided And though Pope Câ—lâ—stiâ—â— was joyned with him yet he sent none out of the West to that Councel â—till many things were therein finished as appears aâ—â—â— Act. Coâ—cil Tom. 2. â— 16 17. In the fourth at Chalâ—â—â— the Legates of the Bishop of Rome had the Prâ—â—â— place In the fifth 〈◊〉 Bishop of Constantiâ—â—â—â— was President In the sixth and seventh the Legates of the Pope were president yet so as that almost all the duty of a Moderator or President was performed in the seventh by Tharasâ—us Bishop of Constantinople as appears manifestly in the Acts of that Councel And since these seven are all the General Councels which the Greeks and Latines joyntly acknowledge And that in these other Patriarchs and Bishops Presided as oâ—t at leaâ—â— as the Bishops of Rome What 's become of Bellarmine's Brag That the Pope hath been possest of this Right of Presiding in General Councels for the space of 1500 years ‖ Leo 10. â—â—ll Jun. 8. 1520. A. C. p. 61. A. C. p. 59. †Ut aliqui â—ittantur adveniant conveniant c Bell. â— 1. de Concil c. 17. â— Quarta â—â— saltem * §. 26. Nu. 1. †Here A. C. tells us that the Arrians thought so of the Councel of Nice p. 61. Namely that they departed from Letter and Sense of Scripture They said so indeed But the Testimony of the whole Church both then and since went with the Councel against the Arrian So is it not here against the Protestant for Trent For they offer to be tried by that very Councel of Nice and all the Ancient Councels and Fathers of the Church within the first four hundred years and somewhat farther * So Stapleton often but the Fathers quite otherwise Que â—xtra Evangelium sunt non desendam â—Hilar L. 2. ad Cohst †Literarum divinitùs inspiratarum testimoniis L. 2. in Syn. Nic. Tom. 1. per Nicolinum * Ib in Osiâ— sententiâ p. 517. Parati ex S. Spiritus arbitrio per plurima Divinarum Scripturarum testimonia demonstrare hac it a se babere ‖ Here A. C. is angry and says This was no Proof nor worthy of any Answer or looking into the Book for it First because 't is onely a Surmise of Adversaries who are apt to interpret to the worst Secondly because there might be more Italian Bishops there as bring â—earer yet without any factious Combination with the Pope As in the Greek Councels more Grecians were present A. C. p. 62. No proof or a weak one Let the Reader Judge that But why 〈◊〉 Proof Because a Surmise of Adversaries Is that a Surmise of Adversaries that is taken out of the Councel it self Is that Councel then become Regaum divisum and apt to interpret the worst of it self Yea but there were more Italian Bishops as being nearer Most true Nearer a great deal than the Greâ—ian Bishops But the Bishops of France and of some parts of Germany were almost as near as the Italians themselves And why then came no more of These that were near enough Well A. C. may say what he will But the Pope remembred well the Councels of Constance and Basâ—l and thought it wisdom to make sure work at Trent For in later times for their own fears no doubt the Bishops of Rome have been no great friends to General Councels especially Free oâ—es Multi suspicantur quod haec dissimâ—laverit Romana Curia Concilia â—â—â—i neglexerit ut possit ad sue voluntatis libitum plenius dominari Jura aliaruâ— Ecclesiarum liberius usurpare Quod non asserâ— esse
verum sed quia bujusmodi laborat infamia idâ—â— c. Pet. de Aliaco Carâ— Camâ—raâ—â—nsis L. de Reformat â—â—â—les in â—asciâ— rerum expeâ—end sol 204. A. †In Concilio Nicaeno primâ— ex Occidente solùm fuâ—unt duo Presbyteri missi ex Italiâ unus Episcopus ex Galliâ unus ex Hispaniâ unus ex Africâ Bellarm. L. 1. de Concil c. 17. § Antepenult * Omnes qui ausi fuerint dissolvere â—esinitionem Sancti Magâ—i Concilii quod apud Niâ—â—am congregatum est Anathematizamus Concil Rom. 3 sub Sylvestro Apud Binium p. 449. A. C. p. 62. A. C. p. 62â— * Ex iis Conciliis quae omnium consensu Generalia fuerunt qualia sunt quatuor prima Et ex consuetudine Ecclesiae colligimus quatuor Conditiones requiri sufficere Bellar. 1. de Concil c. 17. § 2. * § 33. Consid. 5. Num. 1 2. And the Reason of this is Because to have a General Councel deceived is not impossible But altogether impossible it is that Demonstrative Reason or Testimony Divine should deceive Hook L. 2. Eccl. Pol. § 7. †In which Case Maldonat puts in the shrewdest Argument Namely that this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies For to try whether any thing were Decreed according to the Word of God by one General Councel we should need another Councel and then another to try that and so in infinitum So our faith should never have where to settle and rest it self Maldon in S. Matth. 18 20. But to this I answer That the Ancient Church took this way as will afterward appear in S. Augustine Next there is no uncertainty at all For no General Councel lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless it so fall out that Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it But either of these are so clear and manifest that there need be no fear of proceeding in infinitum and leaving the Faith in uncertainty in necessaries to salvation And in curious Speculations it is no matter whether there be certainty or no with or without a Councel § 33. Consid. 5. Num. 1. 2. ‖ Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. § 3. c. A. C. p. 63 64. A. C. p. 63. * Synodum Generalem aliquoties errásse perceâ—iâ—â—s Wald. L. 2. de Doctriâ— Fidei Art 2. c. 19. § 1. A. C. p. 63. * It is not long since A. C. compared Councels to Parliaments it was but p. 60. And I hope a Parliament and the Acts of it must stand in force though something be mistaken in them or found burâ—sul till another Parliament of equal Authority reverse it and them For I presume you will not have any inferiour Authority to abrogate Acts of Parliament †§ 33. Consid 4. Num. 1. ‖ § 24. Num. â— * § 38. Nu. 15. †Non est inferioâ—um judicare an Superiores legitimè procedant necâ—e nisi manifestissâ—◠è consâ—ct intolerabilem Errorem committi Bel. L. 2. de Concil c. 8. § Alii dicunt Concilium Nisi manifestè constet Jacob. Almain in 3 sent D. 24. q. unicâ— fine Consid. 1. * Si Ecclesia Universitati non est data ulla Authoritas Ergo nequt Concilio Generali quatenus Ecclesiam Universalem repraesentat Bellarm. Lib. 2. de Concil c. 16. § Quòd si Ecclesia †Concilium Generale Ecclesiam repraesentans Ja. Almain in 3 Sent. D. 24. Q. unied Episcopi sunt Ecclesia repraesentativè ut nostri loquuntur Bellarm. Lib. 3. de Eccles. Milit. c. 14. § 3. ‖ § 26. Num. 8. * Omnis repraesentatio virtute minor est Re ipsâ vel Veritate cujus Repraesentatio est Colligitur apertè ex Thom. 1. 2. q. 101. A. 2. ad 2. †Posset enim contingere quòd Congregati in Concilio Generali essent pauci viles tam in re quà m in hominum reputatione respectu illorum qui ad illud Concilium Generale miniâ—è convenissent c. Ockam Dial. par 3. lib. 3. c. 13. Consid. 2. ‖ Ecclesia est unum Corpus mysticum per Similitudinem ad Naturale Durand 3. D. 14. Q. 2. N. 5. Biel. Lect. 23. in Can. Miss Consid. 3. * Omnem veritatem infallibiliter docendi c. Stapl. Relect Praes ad Lectorem a S. Joh. 16. 1â— b S. Joh. 14. 16 c S. Mat. 28. 20 d S. Mat. 16. 18 e S. Luk. 22. 32 f S. Mat. 18. 20. g Acts 15. 28. * Prosp. de vocat Gent. L. 1. c. 10. †Bellarm. 2. de Concil c. 8. § Respondeo quidam Where he saith â—bi Questio est de Facto non de Jure c. In ejusmodi Judicius Concilium errave posie non est dubium ‖ Dubium est aâ— illud docebit omnia S. Joh. 14. 26. referendum sit ad illud Quaecunque dixi vobis quasi non aliud doctuâ—um Spiritum Sanctum dicat quà m quod ipse anteâ— docuisset non repugâ—abo si quis itâ— velit interpretari c. Maldonat in S. Joh. 14. h S. Joh. 16. 14 i S. Joh. 14. 26 * Bellarm. 2. de Conc. c. 9. § Alteram Assistentia Sp. Sancti non est propter Concil sed â—niversâ—m Ecclesiam * S. Aug. Tr. 50. in S. Joh. Isidor 1. Sent. cap. 14. †S. Hilar. in Psal. 124. Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryphone Prosp. Epist. ad Demetriadem ‖ S. Hilar. in Psal. 124. Prosp. Lib. 2. de vocat Gent. cap. 2. Leo Serm. 2. de Resurrect Dom. cap. 3. Isidor in Jos. c. 21. * S. Cyril lib. 7. Dial. de Trin. Prosp. Epist. ad Demetriadem †S. Hilar. in Psal. 124. S. Cyril L. 7. Dial. de Tâ—in S. Aug. 6. de Gen. ad â—it c. 8. S. Leo Serm. 10. de Nat. Dom. c. 5. Isid. in Jos. c. 12. In all which places Vobiscum is either interpreted cum suis or Fidelibus or Universâ Ecclesiâ ‖ Hoc colligitur sed quaeritur non quid colligitur sed quid dicere voluit Maldonat in S. Mat. 28. * 1 Cor. 3. 11. †Ephes. 2. 20. ‖ S. Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph Qui suam firmavit Ecclesiam super Petram aedificatione spirituali S. Hilar. l. 6. de Tria Super hanc igitur Confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est Et paulò â—ost Haec Fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est S. Greg. Nyss. aâ— Trin. adversus Judaeos Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super Confessionem videliceâ— Christi S. Isid. Pelus Epist. l. 1. Epist. 235. Ut hac ratione certam omnibus Confessionem traderet quam ab â—o inspiratus Pernis tanquam Basin ac Fundamentum jecit super quod Dominus Ecclesiam suam extruâ—it S. Cyril Alexand. de Trin. l. 4 Petram opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quà m inconcussam firmissimam Discipuli fidem vocavit in quâ Ecclesia Christi it a fundata firmata esset ut non laberetur c. P. Theodor.
Providè in quibâ—â—dâ—m Ecclesiis observatur ut Populâ— Sanguis non detiâ— Thom. p. 3. q. 80. A. 12. c. So it was but in some Churches in his time Negare non possumuâ— etiam in Ecclesiâ Lâ—tinâ fuisse usum utriusque speciei usque ad Tempora S. Tâ—omâ— durasse Vasq. in â— Disput. 216. c. 3. â— 38. * Refecti cibo potâ—â— câ—lesti Deus â—oster Teâ—supplices exâ—ramuâ— c. In proprio Missarum de Sa 〈…〉 Jan. 15. Orat. post Communionem 〈◊〉 Jan. â—1 * Ad quod Sacâ—â—ficium suo loco ordine Homines Dei nomindâ—tur non tamen a Saâ—â—rdoâ—â— quâ— Saâ—râ—â—â—caâ— Invocantur S. Aug. L. 22. Civ Dei c. 10. †Bellarm. L. 1 de Sanctor Bedtitud c. 20. § Ad primum ergo locuÌ„ c. ‖ Sunt Redemptores nostri aliquo modo secun 〈…〉 aliquid Bellar. L. 1. de Indulgenâ— c. 4. Et Sanctos appellat Numina L. 2. de Imagin Sanctorum c. 20. § 3. Now if this word Numen signifie any thing else besides God himself or the power of God or the Oraole of God let Bellarmine shew it or A. C for him * Ut ejuâ— Meritis Precibus â— Geheâ—ne â—â—cendiis liberemur In proprio Missarum de Sanctis Decemb. 6. †Ut Aâ—borum Meritis aeternitatis Glorâ—am consequamâ—â— Ibid. Julii 6. ‖ Ejus intercedentibus Meritis ab Omnibus nos absolve peccatis Ibid. Julli 14. * In Optatus his time the Christians were much troubled upon but a false report That an Image was to be placed upon the Altar What would they have done if Adoration had been Commanded c. Et rectè dictum erat si tasem famam similis veritas sequeretur Optat. L. 3. ad finem †Sicut non licet cum Ethnicis Idola colere Becan L. de side Haeret. servunda c. 8. ‖ Coâ—â—iâ—git aliqâ—aâ—do Hâ—reticâ—s â—irâ—a plura errare quà m Gentiles ut Manichâ—os inquit Thomas Quòd nos possumus verè dicere â—e nostri temporis Sectariis qui culpabilâ—â—èr in pluribus videntur errare Valentia in 2. 2 â— Disp. 1. â— 1â— Punct 3. * Quod quidem à Christianis mâ—lioribus non â—it S Aug. L. 8. de Civ Dei c. 27. †Illa quasi Parâ—uâ—alia superstitioni Gentilium simillima Lud. Vives Ibid. ‖ Quod ergo mortuis litabatur utique Parentationi deputabatur quâ— species proinde Idololatriae est quoniam Idololatriâ— Parentationis â—â—t species Tert. L. de Speâ—â—acuâ—is c. 12. * Manifestus est quà m ut multis verbis explicari deâ—eat Imaginum simulachrorum Cultum nimium invaluisse affectioni seâ— potiùs superstitioni populi plus saâ—â—â— indultum esse it à ut ad summam adorationem quae vel à Paganis suis simulachris â—xbibert consutvit c. Cassand Consult Art 21. C. de Imagibibuâ— Where he names divers of your own â—s namely â—urantâ—s Minatensis Episcoâ—us John Billet Gerson Durand Holkot and Biel rejecting the Opinion of Thomas and other superstitions concerning Images Ibid. †Non quod Credatur â—nesse aliqua in iis Divinitas velutâ— olim fiebat à Gentibus Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret de Invocat ‖ Et â—â—dibus periculosi Erroris Occasiouem c. Ibid. * Et adâ—ò Gens affecta est trancis corrosis deformibus Imaginibus ut me teste quoâ—â—es Episcopi decentiores ponere jubent veteres suas petant plorantes c. Hieron Lamas Sâ—mma p. 3. c. 3 †Imagines Christi S. Matris â—jâ—â—s Sanctorum non sunt vâ—nerandâ— acsi in ipsis Imaginibus esset Divinit aâ— seeundùm quod sunt Materia Arte â—ffigiata non secundùm quod repraesentant Christum Sanctos c. Sic enim adorare vel petere aliquid ab iis esset Idololatria Lam. ibid. Quis ferat populum in Templum irruentem 〈◊〉 haram sues Certè non obsâ—â—t populo Câ—â—â—moniâ— sed prosunt si modus in â—is servetâ—r caveamusâ—è 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loco habeaatur hoc est nè precipuam pietatem in illis collocemus Rhen. Annot. in Tâ—rtul de Cor. â—â—il * Cave nè dum vâ—s alium notare Culpae ipse uoteris Calum 〈…〉 S. Hier. â— 3. advers Pelagianos A. C. p. 64. * Nos fatemur sub Papatu pluâ—imum esse boni imò omne bonum Christianum atque etiam illinc ad nos devenisse c. Luther contra Anabaptist citante Bellarmino L. 4. de Notis Eccles. c. 16. §. penult Et â—â—â—eld Appendicâ— par 3. c. 2. Et Jos. Hall Bishop of Exeter L. Of the Old Religion c. 1. Many holding Christ the Foundation aright and groaning under the burden of Popish trash c. by a general repentance and assured Faith in their Saviour did finde favour with the Lord. D. Gro. Abbot late Archbishop of Cant. Answer to Hill ad Ration 1. §. 30. For my part I dare not deny the possibility of their Salvation who have been the chiefest Instruments of ours c. Hooker in his Discourse of Justificat §. 17. In former times a man might hold the general Doctrine of those Churches wherein our Fathers lived and be saved And yet since the Councel of Trent some are found in it in such degree of Orthodoxy as we may well hope of their Salvation Field l. 3. Eccl. c 47. The Latine or Western Church subject to the Romish Tyranny was a true Church in which a saving profession of the Truth of Christ was found Jos. Hall Bishop of Exeter L. Of the Old Religion fine in his Advertisement to the Reader p. 202. Non pauci retinuerunt Christum Fundamentum c. Mornaeus Tract de Ecclesia c. 9. fine Inter sordes istas ista quae summo cum periculo expectetur salus non ipsorum Additamentis sed iis quae nobiscum habent communia Fundamentis est attribuenda Jo. Prideaux Lectione 9. fine Papa aliquam adhuc Religionis formam relinquit spem vitae aeternae non tollit c. Calv. Instruct. advers Libertinos c. 4. †Here A. C. gets another snatch and tells us That to grant a Possibility of Salvation in the Romane Church is the free Confession of an Adversary and therefore is of force against us and extorted by Truth But to say that salvation is more securely and easily to be bad in the Protestant Faith that 's but their partial Opinion in their own behalf and of no force especially with Romane Catholikes I easily believe this latter part That this as A. C. and the rest use the matter with their Proselytes shall be of little or no force with Romane Catholikes But it will behove them that it be of Force For let any indifferent man weigh the Necessary Requisites to Salvation and he shall finde this no partial Opinion but very plain and real Verity That the Protestant living according to his belief is upon the safer way to Heaven And as for my Confession let them enforce it as far as they