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
of the Primitive Church The Text there is A Patriarchâ non datur Appellatio From a Patriarch there lies no Appeal No Appeal Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacie over the whole Church Therefore certainly not then received as Universal Pastor And S. Gregory himself speaking of Appeals and expresly citing the Laws themselves says plainly That the Patriarch is to put a final end to those Causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Archbishops but then he adds That where there is nor Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocess there they are to have recourse to the Sea Apostolike as being the Head of all Churches Where first this implies plainly That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his Judgment is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome Secondly 'T is as plain That in those Ancient times of the Church-Government Britain was never subject to the Sea of Rome For it was one of the Six Diocesses of the West Empire and had a Primate of its own Nay John Capgrave one of your own and Learned for those times and long before him William of Malmesbury tell us that Pope Urban the second at the Councel held at Barâ— in Apulia accounted my Worthy Predecessor S. Anselm as his own Compeer and said he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world So he then termed this Island Now the Britains having a Primate of their own which is greater than a Metropolitan yea a Patriarch if you will He could not be Appealed from to Rome by S. Gregorie's own Doctrine Thirdly it will be hard for any man to prove there were any Churches then in the World which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitane Fourthly if any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome For manifest it is that the Bishops which were Ordained in places without the Limits of the Roman Empire which places they commonly called Barbarous were all to be Ordained and therefore most probable to be governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople And for Rome's being the Head of all Churches I have said enough to that in divers parts of this Discourse Num. 11 And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of Africk I shall borrow another reason from the Practice of that Church why by Principatus S. Augustine neither did nor could mean any Principality of the Church or Bishop of Rome over the Whole Church of Christ. For as the Acts of Councels and Stories go the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melciades his temper set themselves to assert their own Liberties and held it out stoutly against Zozimus Boniface the first and Coelestine the first who were successively Popes of Rome At last it was concluded in the sixth Councel of Carthage wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops of which S. Augustine himself was one that they would not give way to such a manifest incroachment upon their Rights and Liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Coelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal Separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more than one hundred years Now that such a Separation there was of the African Church from Rome and a Reconciliation after stands upon the Credit and Authority of two publike Instruments extant both among the Ancient Councels The one is an Epistle from Boniface the Second in whose time the Reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the Separation instiganâ—e Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an Exemplar Precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessors which went against the Church of Rome Amongst which Eulalius must needs Curse S. Augustine And Pope Boniface accepting this Submission must acknowledge that S. Augustine and the rest of that Councel deserved this Curse and dyed under it as violating Rectae Fidei Regulam the Rule of the Right Faith so the Exemplar Precum begins by refusing the Popes Authority I will not deny but that there are divers Reasons given by the Learned Romanists and Reformed Writers for and against the Truth and Authority of both these Instruments But because this is too long to be examin'd here I will say but this and then make my use of it to my present purpose giving the Church of Rome free leave to acknowledge these Instruments to be true or false as they please That which I shall say is this These Instruments are let stand in all Editions of the Councels and Epistles Decretal As for Example in the Old Edition by Isidor Anno 1524. And in another Old Edition of them Printed Anno 1530. And in that which was published by P. Crabbe Anno 1538. And in the Edition of Valentinus Joverius Anno 1555. And in that by Surius Anno 1567. And in the Edition at Venice by Nicolinus Anno 1585. And in all of these without any Note or Censure upon them And they are in the Edition of Binius too Anno 1618. but there 's a Censure upon them to keep a quarter it may be with Baronius who was the first I think that ever quarrelled them and he doth it tartly And since Bellarmine follows the same way but more doubtfully This is that which I had to say And the Use which I shall make of these Instruments whether they be true or false is this They are either true or false that is of necessity If they be false then Boniface the Second and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious Forgers and that of Records of great Consequence concerning the Government and Peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that Sea and all this foolishly and to no purpose For if there were no such Separation as these Records mention of the African Churches from the Roman to what end should Boniface or any other counterfeit an Epistle of his own and a Submission of Eulalius On the other side if these Instruments be true as the sixth Councel of Carthage against all other Arguments makes me incline to believe they are in Substance at least though perhaps not in all Circumstances then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome That this Separation continued above one hundred years That the Church of Africk made this Separation in a National Councel of their own which had in it two hundred and seventeen Bishops That this Separation was made
have not I do not say now the Written Word of God for Warrant either in express Letter or necessary Sense and deduction as all unerring Councels have had and as all must have that will not eâ—â—e but not so much as Probable Testimony from it nay quite extra without the Scripture Nay secondly Is that Councel Legal where the Pope the Chief Person to be Reformed shall sit President in it and be Chief Judge in his own Cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humanein a place not free but in or too near his own Dominion To which all were not called that had Deliberative or Consultative Voice In which none had Suffrage but such as were sworn to the Pope and the Church of Rome and professed Enemies to all that called for â—eformation or a free Councel And the Pope himself to shew his Charity had declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were Condemned by the Councel I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no Lawful Councel and I think the Decrees of such a one are omni jure nulla and carry their Nullity with them through all Law Num. 2 Again Is that Councel General that hath none of the Eastern Churches Consent nor presence there Are all the Greeks so become Non Ecclesia no Church that they have no interest in General Councels It numbers indeed among the Subscribers six Greeks They might be so by Nation or by Title purposely given them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greek Church to the Councel Or is it to be accounted a General Councel that in many Sessions had scarce Ten Archbishops or Forty or Fifty Bishops present And for the West of Christendom nearer home it reckons one English S. Assaph But Cardinal Poole was there too And English indeed he was by Birth but not sent to that Councel by the King and Church of England but as one of the Popes Legates And so we finde him in the five first Sessions of that Councel And at the beginning of the Councel he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterbury he never went over to the Councel And can you prove that S. Assaph went thither by Authority There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greeks In all the Sessions under Paul the Third but two French-men and sometimes none as in the six under Julius the third when Henry II of France protested against that Councel And in the end it is well known how all the French which were then a good part held off till the Cardinal of Loraigne was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things upon good grounds and were most unworthily over-born Num. 2 To all this A. C. hath nothing to say but That it is not necessary to the Lawfulness and Generalness of a Councel that all Bishops of the World should be actually present subscribe or consent but that such Promulgation be made as iâ— morally sufficient to give notice that such a Councel is called and that all may come if they will and that a major part at least of those that are present give assent to the Decrees I will forget that it was but p. 59. in which A. C. speaks of all Pastors and those not onely summoned but gathered together And I will easily grant him that 't is not necessary that all Bishops in the Christian world be present and subscribe But sure 't is necessary to the Generalness of a Councel that some be there and authorized for all Particular Churches And to the freedom of a Councel that all that come may come safe And to the Lawfulness of a Councel that all may come uningaged and not fastened to a side before they sit down to argue or deliberate Nor is such a Promulgation as A. C. mentions sufficient but onely in case of Contumacy and that where they which are called and refuse to come have no just Cause for their not coming as too many had in the Case of Trent And were such a Promulgation sufficient for the Generalness of a Councel yet for the Freedom and the Lawfulness of it it were not F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councel of Nice The Bishop would not admit the Case to be like B. § 28 So indeed you said And not you alone It is the Common Objection made against all that admit not every latter Councel as fully as that Councel of Nice famous through all the Christian world In the mean time nor you nor they consider that the Case is not alike as I then told you If the Case be alike in all why do not you admit that which was held at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus as well as Nice If you say as yours do It was because the Pope approved them not That 's a true Cause but not adequate or full For it was because the Whole Church refused them with whom the Romane Prelate standing then entire in the Faith agreed and so for his Patriarchate refused those Councels But suppose it true that these Synods were not admitted because the Pope refused them yet this ground is gained That the Case is not alike for mens Assent to all Councels And if you look to have this granted That the Pope must confirm or the Councel's not lawful we have far more reason to look that this be not denied That Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or necessary sense or the Councel is not lawful For the Coâ—sent and Confirmation of Scripture is of far greater Authority to make the Councel Authentical and the Decisions of it de side than any Confirmation of the Pope can be Now of these two the Councel of Nice we are sure had the first the Rule of Scripture and you say it had the second the Pope's Confirmation The Councel of Trent we are able to prove had not the first and so we have no reason to respect the second And to what end do your Learned men maintain that a Councel may make a Conclusion de fide though it be simply ab extra out of all bound of Scripture but out of a Jealousie at least that this of Trent and some others have in their Determinations left both Letter and Sense of Scripture Shew this against the Councel of Nice and I will grant so much of the Case to be like But what will you say if Constantine required That things thus brought into Question should be answered and solved by Testimony out of Scripture And the Bishops of the Nicene Councel never refused that Rule And what will you say if they profess they depart not from it but are ready by many Testimontes of divine Scripture to demonstrate their Faith Is the Case then alike betwixt it and Trent Surely no. But you say that I pretended
something else for my not admitting the Case to be alike F. Pretending that the Pope made Bishops of purpose for his side But this the Bishop proved not B. § 29 Num. 11 No Nor had I reason to take on me to prove what I said not I know it will be expected I should prove what I say And it is hard to prove the purpose of the Pope's Heart For if it be proved that he made Bishops at that time that some of them were Titular onely and had no Livelihood to subsist but out of his Purse and so must hang their Judgement at the strings of it that some of these thus made were sent to the Councel and sure not without their Errand yet if the Pope will say he neither made nor sent them to over-rule the Holy Ghost at that Meeting or of purpose for his side as no question but it will be said who can prove it that is not a Surveyor of the heart But though the Pope's heart cannot be seen yet if these and the like Presumptions be true it is a great signe that Trent was too corrupt and factious a Meeting for the Holy Ghost to be at And sure the Case in this not alike at Nice Num. 2 That which I said was That Trent could be no Indifferent Councel to the Church the Pope having made himself a strong Party in it And this I proved though you be here not onely content to omit but plainly to deny the Proof For I proved it thus and you answered not That there were more Italian Bishops there then of all Christendom besides More Yea more than double And this I proved out of the Councel it self which you had in your hand in Decimo sexto but had no great heart to look it For where the number of Prelates is expressed that had Suffrage and Vote in that Councel the Italians are set down to be 187. and all the rest make but 83. So that there were more Italian Bishops by 104 than of all the rest of Christendom Sure the Pope did not mean to be over-reached in this Councel And whatsoever became of his Infallibility otherwise he might this way be sure to be Infallible in whatsoever he would have Determined And this without all doubt is all the Infallibility he hath So I proved this sufficiently I think For if it were not to be sure of a side give any satisfying Reason why such a potent Party of Italians more than double to the whole Christian world should be there Shew me the like for Nice and I will give it that the Case is alike between these two Councels Num. 3 Here Bellarmine comes in to help But sure it will not help you that he hath offered at as much against the Councel of Nice as I have urged against that at Trent For he tells us That in the Councel at Nice there were as few Bishops of the West present as were of the East at Trent but five in all Be it so Yet this will not make the Case alike between the two Councels First because I press not the disparity in number onely but with it the Pope's carriage to be sure of a Major part For it lay upon the Pope to make sure work at Trent both for himself and his Church But neither the Greek Church in general nor any Patriarch of the East had any private Interest to look to in the Councel at Nice Secondly because I press not so much against the Councel of Trent That there were so exceeding many Bishops of the West compared with those of the East for that must must needs be when a Councel is held in the West but that there were so many more Italians and Bishops obnoxious to the Popes power than of all Germany France Spain and all other Parts of the West besides Thirdly because both Bellarmine and A. C. seek to avoid the Dint of this Argument by comparing the Western with the Eastern Bishops and are content to say nothing about the Excessive number of Italians to others of the West That will receive a fuller Answer than any of the rest For though very few Western Bishops were at the Councel of Nice being so remote yet at the same time Pope Sylvester held a Councel at Rome in which He with 275 Bishops of the West confirmed the Nicene Creed and Anathematized all those which should dare to dissolve the Definition of that Holy and Great Councel Now let Bellarmine or A. C. or any else shew That when the Councel of Trent sate there was another Councel though never so privately in regard of their miserable Oppression which sate in Greece or any where in the East under any Patriarch or Christian Bishop which did confirm the Canons of the Councel of Trent and Anathematize them which admitted them not and I will confess they speak home to the Comparison between the Councels else a blinde man may see the difference and 't is a vast one Num. 4 But here A. C. makes account he hath found a better Reply to this and now tells us that neither French nor Spanish nor Schismatical Greeks did agree with Protestants in those Points which were defined in that Councel especially after it was confirmed by the Pope as appears by the Censure of Jeremias the Greek Patriarch Who agreed with the Protestants in the Points defined by that Councel as he speaks or rather to speak properly against the Points there defined I know not And for ought A. C. knows many might agree with them in heart that in such a Councel durst not open themselves And what knows A. C. how many might have been of their Opinion in the main before the Councel ended had they been admitted to a fair and a free Dispute And it may be too some Decrees would have been more favourable to them had not the care of the Popes Interest made them sowrer For else what mean these words Especially after it was confirmed by the Pope As for Jeremias 't is true his Censure is in many things against the Protestants But I finde not that that Censure of his is warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church Or that he gave the Protestants any hearing before he passed his Censure And at the most it is but the Censure of a Schismatick in A. C's own Judgement And for his flourish which follows That East and West would condemn Protestants for Hereticks I would he would forbear Prophesying till both parts might meet in a free General Councel that sought Christ more than themselves But I finde the Jesuite hath not done with me yet but addes F. In sine the B. wished That a Lawful General Councel were called to end Controversies The persons present said That the King was inclined thereunto and that therefore we Catholikes might do well to concur B. § 30 And what say you to my Wish You pretend great love to the Truth would you not have it found Can you or
of the principal Contents A AFricanes their opposing the Romane Church and separating from it 112. c. they are cursed and damned for it by Eulalius and this accepted by the Pope Ibid. S. Augustine involved in that curse 113 Ja. Almain against the Popes Infallibility 172. his absurd Tenet touching the belief of Scripture and the Church 53 Alphonsus à Castro his confession touching the Popes fallibility 173 his moderation touching heresie 17. his late Editions shrewdly purged 173 S. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury how esteemed of by Pope Urban the second 111 Apocrypha some Books received by the Trent-Fathers which are not by Sextus Senensis 218 Of Appeals to forreign Churches 110 111 112. no Appeal from Patriarchs or Metropolitans ib. Aristotle falsly charged to hold the mortality of the Soul 72 Arrians the large spreading of them 179. wherein they dissented from the Orthodox Christians 201 Assistance what promised by Christ to his Church what not 60 106 c. 151 c. what given to his Church and Pastors thereof 62 64 156 157 166 233 Assurance infallible even by humane proof 80 81 S. Augustine cleared 22 37 38 53 54 82 110 123 c. righted 89 158 159 229 his proofs of Scripture 65 The Author bis small time to prepare for this conference 15. his submission to the Church of England and the Church Catholike 150 151. the Rule of his faith 246. pride imputed to him and retorted upon the imputors 246 247 B BAptism of anointing use of spittle and three dippings in it 44. that of Infants how proved out of Scripture 36 37. acknowledged by some Romanists that it may be proved thence 37. the necessity of it 36. how proved by tradition and S. Augustine's minde therein 37 38. that by Hereticks Schismaticks and Sinners not theirs but Christs 195 S. Basil explained 59 Beatitude supreme how to be attained 73 Belief of some things necessary before they be known 51. Vid. Faith Bellarmine his cunning discovered and confuted 7 8 9 136 his dissent from Stapleton 26. and from Catharinus 32 his absurd and impious tenet touching belief of Scripture confuted 56 Berengarius his gross recantation 214 S. Bernard righted 88 89 Biel his true assertion touching things that be de Fide 252 Bishops their calling and authority over the Inferious Clergy 114 115. their places and precedencies ordered Ibid. the titles given them of old 110. all of the same merit and degree 131 Bodies representing and represented their power priviledges c. compared together 150 c. 171 Britanny of old not subject to the Sea of Rome 111 112. S. Gildas his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the conversion of it 203. and that testimony vindicated ibid. C CAlvin and Calvinists for the Real presence 191 c. 193 Campanella his late Eclogue 138 Campian his boldness 94 Canterbury the ancient place and power of the Archbishops thereof 111 112 Capellus his censure of Batonius 98 Certainty vid. Faith Certainty of Salvation vid. Salvation Christs descent into Hell vid. Descent Church whereon founded 8 9. wherein it differeth from a General Councel 18 no particular one infallible 3 4 58 59 c. not that of Rome 3 4 6 7 c. 11 12. Catholike Church which is it 203. c. her declarations what fundamental what not 20. how far they binde 20 21. her authority not divine 22. not in those things wherein she cannot erre 42. wherein she cannot universally erre 90 91 104 157. what can take holiness from her 91 92. in what points of faith she may erre 104 105. her errours corruptions how and by whom caused 126. what required of her that she may not erre 127. she in the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth in her 132 c. how she must be always visible 207. the invisible in the visible 90. of her double Root 240 241. what the opinion of the Ancients concerning it 237 238 c. 240. A Church and the Church how they differ 82 83 84 c. by what assistance of the Spirit the Church can be made infallible 58. the authority of the Primitive compared with that of the present Church 52 Church of Caesarea her title given by Gregory Naz. 110 Greek Church vid. G. Church of England a part of the Catholike 104 c. where her Doctrine is set down 32 33. her Motherly dealing with her Children ibid. her Articles and Canons maintained 33. of her positive and negative Articles 34 35. her purity 245. how safe to communicate with her 243. what Judges and Rules in things spiritual she hath and acknowledgeth 138. how she is wronged by the Romane 204. Salvation more certain in her than in the Romane 212 c. How one particular Church may judge another 108 c. mutual criminations of the Eastern and Western 116 A Church in Israel after her separation from Judah 97 Church of Rome wherein she hath erred 12 58. sometimes right not so now 85. though she be a true Church yet not Right or Orthodox 82 83. her want of charity 16 17. her determining of too many things the cause of many evils 30 33. her severity in cursing all other Christians 33 34. how fâ—â— she extendeth the authority of her testimony 41. her rash condemning of others 90 92. how she and how other Churches Apostolike 242. how corrupted in Doctrine and Manners 95 96. she not the Catholike Church 120 240 241. false titles given her 237. her belief how different from that of the ancient Church 213. other Churches as well as she called Matres and Originales Ecclesiae 237. A Church at Jerusalem Antioch and probably in England before one at Rome 103. Cardinal Peron his absurd tent that the Romane Church is the Catholike causally 104. vid. Errours Pope Rome Concomitancy in the Eucharist vid. Eucharist Conference the occasion of this 1 2 the Jesuites manner of dealing in this and in two former 311 Confessions Negative made by Churches in what case needful 101 Controversies that in them consent of parties is no proof of truth 188 190 198 c. Counsels their fallibility 150 158 162 163 c. 225. the infallibility they have is not exact but congruous infallibility 166. whence and where it is principally resident 166 172. none of the present Church absolutely infallible 59. confirmation of them by the Pope a Romane novelty 128. who may dispute against them who not 22 25. how inferiours may judge of their decrees 161. a general Councel the onely fit judge of the present Controversies 136 139. and how that to be qualified 99 101 127 145 146 c. the Bishop of Rome not always President in general Councels 140 141. what impediments have been and now are of calling and continuing them 129. what confirmation they need 127 128 147. what of them lawful what not 141 c. what obedience to be yielded to them erring 146 147 168 169 c. what 's the utmost they can do 20. the words Visum est
procession from the Son added to the Creed by the Romane Church 16 97. the Greek Church her errour touching this 14. what and how dangerous 16 God proof of the true one by testimony of the false ones 50 Government of the Church in what sense Monarchical in what Aristocratical 130 131 c. how a Monarchical not needful 138 S. Gregory Naz. vindicated 8 his humility and mildness 110 Pope Gregory VII the raiser of the Papacy to the height 135 136. his XXVII Conâ—lusions the Basis of the Papal greatness 118 Creek Church notwithstanding her errour still a true Church 16. and justified by some Romanists ibid. her hard usage by the Church of Rome 17. of her Bishops their subscription to the Councel of Florence 227 H HEresies what maketh them 20. the occasion of their first springing up 128. how and by whom began at Rome 10 11 Hereticks who and who not 105. none to be rashly condemned for such 17. that some may pertain to the Church 105. who they be that teach that faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept 92 93 S. Hierome explained 6 88. in what esteem he had Bishops 115 Hooker righted 56 57 158 I St. James believed to have been Successor of our Lord in the Principality of the Church 122 Idolaters their gods how put down by Christian Religion 50 51. Idolatry how maintained in the Church of Rome and with what evil consequents 181 c. Of Jeremias the Greek Patriarch 〈◊〉 Censâ—â—e 145 Jesuites◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of dealing in this Conference 211. their cunning in expounding the Fathers to their own purpose 7. their confidence 15. their arrogancy 111. their subtile malignity 244. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves infallibility 61. their desire of having one King 〈◊〉 one Pope 65 66. their late cunning argument to draw Protestants to them answered c. 194. their falsification of the Authors words 86 87. A perfect Jesuitism 84 Jews the ground of their belief of the old Testament 79 Images how worshipped by the Church of Rome 12. against adoration of them 181. Cassander his complaint of it 182. The flying from Image-worship should not make 〈◊〉 to run into prophaneness and irreverence against God 183 Infallible two acceptions of it 80 Infallible and Firm how they differ 127. the evils ensuing the opinion of the Churches and the Popes Infallibility 143 c. 170 175. what an Infallibilty of the Church Stapleton is forced to acknowledge 166 167 Vid. Councels and Pope and Church Innocent the third â—â—â— extolling the Pope above the Emperour 134 c. Against Invocation of Sainâ—t 181 Irenâ—â—â— vindicated 118 c. 249 250 251 Israel a Church after her separation from Judah 97 Judge who to be in controversies touching faith and manners 101 102 c. 108 253. what Judges of this kinde the Church hath 127 253. who to judge when a general Councel cannot be had 129. that no visible Judge can prevent or remedy all Heresie and Schism 130. A visible living Judge of all Controversies whether always necessary 130. c. wherein private men may judge and wherein not 2 149 160 K THe Keys to whom given and how 123 167 Kings Custodes utriúsque tabulae 134. not to be tyranniz'd over by the Pope 125. their supremacy in things spiritual 134. some Romanists for the deposing and killing of them 221 Knowledge of God how difficult 71 72. what Knowledge needful to breed faith 55 56. what degree of it is necessary to salvation hard to determine 212 236. the Apostles Knowledge how different from that of their hearers 69 L AGainst Limbus Patrum 198 213 Literae Communicatoriae what they were and of what use 132 Peter Lombard condemned of Heresie by the Pope 174 M MAldonate answered 147 Manichees their soul Heresie and what stumbled them 151 Manners Corruption in them no sufficient cause of separation 94 95 Martyrs of the Feasts made of old at their Oratories 182 Mass the English Liturgy better and safer than it 201. what manner of sacrifice it is made by them of Rome 200 Matrix and Radix in S. Cyprian not the Roman Church 238 240 Merits against their condignity 185 Miracles what proofs of Divine truth 48 69. not wrought by all the Writers of Scripture 69. what kind of assent is commonly given to them ibid. Multitude no sure mark of the truth 198 N NOvatians their original 3 10. Novatian how dealt with by Saint Cyprian 23 239 c. O OBedience of that which is due to the Church her Pastors 155 Occham his true Resolution touching that which maketh an Article of faith 254 Origen his Errours obtruded by Ruffinus 6. he the first Founder of Purgatory 227 231 P PApists their denying possibility of salvation to Protestants confuted and their reasons answered 185 186 187. of their going to Protestant Churches and joyning themselves to their Assemblies 244 Parents their power over their children 103 Parliaments what matters they treat of and decree 138 139 Pastors lawfully sent what assistance promised to them 61 62. their Embassie of what authority 64 Patriarchs all alike supream 111 112 116. no appeal from them 117 111 1â—2 People the unlearned of them saved by the simplicity of faith 105 Perfidia the different significations of it 4 5 6 S. Peter of Christs prayer for him 106 107 124 125. of his Primacy Preeminency and Power 121 c. 123 152. in what sense the Church is said to be built upon him 122. that he fell but not from the faith 123 124. whether he were universal Pastor 125. the highest power Ecclesiastical how given to him and how to the rest of the Apostles 109 110 247 248 Pope not infallible 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 58 59 124 147 253. how improbable and absurd it is to say he is so 174 175 c. he made more infallible by the Romanists than a general Councel 172. his infallibility held by some against Conscience 174 175. if he had any it were useless 177. how opposed by Alphonsus à Castro 172 173. the belief and knowledge of it both of them impossible 177. that he may erre and hath erred 136. that he may erre as Pope 174 175. prefer'd by some before a general Councel 172. not Monarch of the Church 132. he hath not a negative voice in Councels 253. made by some as infallible without as with a general Councel 172 173. his confirmation of general Councels of what avail 180. of his power in France and Spain 132 133 136. how much greater he is made by some than the Emperour 132 133 c. 137. his power slighted by some great Princes 132 133 136. whether he may be an Heretick and being one how to be dealt with 176. all his power prerogatives c. indirectly denied by Stapleton 30 Popes the fall of some of them and the consequents thereof 95 Of their Power and Principality 109 110 c. 253. their subjection to the Emperour 115 116. and how lost by the Emperor
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
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
Councel Decrees Now that Councel Decrees That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent or calling of the People or of any Secular Power And yet they can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councel fundamental in the Faith 'T is true I do not grant that the Decrees of this Councel are made by full Authority of the Church but they do both grant and maintain it And therefore 't is Argumentum ad hominem a good argument against them that a thing so defined may be firm for so this is and yet not fundamental for so this is not Num. 15 But A. C. tells us further That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis And as that Learned Father uses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applies it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maximes and A. C. will force it to every Determination of the Church Now Catholike Maximes which are properly fundamental are certain prime truths deposited with the Church and not so much determined by the Church as published and manifested and so made firm by her to us For so Vincentius expresly Where all that the Church doth is but ut hoc idem quod anteà that the same thing may be believed which was before believed but with more light and clearness and in that sense with more firmness then before Now in this sense give way to a Disputator errans every Cavilling Disputer to deny or quarrel at the Maximes of Christian Religion any one or any part of any one of them and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examine her own Decrees and to see that she keep Dogmata deposita the Principles of Faith unblemished and uncorrupted For if she do not so but that Novitia veteribus new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the Repository of Verity may be changed in lupanar errorum I am loath to English it By the Church then this may nay it ought to be done however every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much less obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita these deposited Principles But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church yet that may be done without shaking the foundation where the Determinations themselves belong but to the fabrick and not to the foundation For a whole frame of Building may be shaken and yet the foundation where it is well laid remain firm And therefore after all A. C. dares not say the foundation is shaken but only in a sort And then 't is as true that in a sort it is not shaken Num. 16 2 For the second part of his Argument A. C. must pardon me if I dissent from him For first All Determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation For some Determinations of the Church are made firm to us per chirographum Scripturae by the hand-writing of the Scripture and that 's Authentical indeed Some other Decisions yea and of the Church too are made or may be if Stapleton inform us right without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Writ But Bellarmine falls quite off in this and confesses in express terms That nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident consequence And if nothing can be certain but so then certainly no Determination of the Church it self if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these either express Word of God or evident consequence out of it So here 's little agreement in this great Point between Stapleton and Bellarmine Nor can this be shifted off as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God Written and Bellarmine of the Word of God Unwritten as he calls Tradition For Bollarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation And I hope A. C. will not tell us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputation there is quite beside the matter or else he must speak of the written Word and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned But to return If A. C. will he may but I cannot believe that a Definition of the Church which is made by the express Word of God and another which is made without so much as a probable Testimony of it or a clear Deduction from it are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation Nay I must say in this case that the one Determination is firm by Divine Revelation but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all but the Churches Authority only ◠Secondly I cannot believe neither That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the Power which it commits to General Councels lawfully called yet it is not always of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei that which is Dogmatical in the Faith For instance I think you dare not deny but the Councel of Trent was lawfully called and yet I am of Opinion that few even of your selves believe that the Councel of Trent hath the same fulness with the Councel of Nice in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness Thirdly suppose that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation and sufficiently applied by one and the sante full Authority yet it will not follow that they are all alike fundamental in the Faith For I hope A. C. himself will not say that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition then the Propositions of Canonical Scripture Now all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation but they are not all alike fundamental in the Faith For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter and S. Andrew
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-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
that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Councel which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferencie to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens Num. 2 And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madness of the Protestants A. C. adds That the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may Accuse Witness Judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children How far forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the mean time though I cannot grant her to be either yet let 's suppose her to be both that A. C's Argument may have all the strength it can have Nor shall it force me as plausible as it seems to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shock of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would fain have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or took it upon him to be Accuser and Witness and Judge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Liberty to Judge between them For the great Philosopher tells us That the Chief Magistrate is Custos juris the Guardian and keeper of the Law and if of the Law then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him And even Tiberius himself in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take to himself he put him off thus No the Laws grow less where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or Witness than themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the loss of Education they punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are grown up and come to some full use of their own Reason the Apostles Rule is Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevail not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a son against unnatural Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over-Imperious Father And an express Law there was among the Jews Deut. 21. when Children were grown up and fell into great extremities that the Parents should then bring them to the Magistrate and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law the Scripture and suppose her a Mother yet there is or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are grown up if she forget all good Nature and turn Stepdame to them Num. 3 Well the Reason why the Jesuite asked the Question Quo Judice Who should be Judge He says was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Judges in their own Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he knew the Jesuites mind as well as himself as sure I think he doth That the Jesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the General Church as the Jesuite understood my meaning The Jesuite here took my meaning right For I confess I said there were Errors in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the General Church could not or would not Reform such it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves But then I added That the General Church not universally taken but in these Western parts fell into those Errors being swayed in these later Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome under whose Government it was for the most part forced And all men of understanding know how oft and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it in any Body Natural Politick or Ecclesiastical Num. 4 Yea but A. C. tells us That never any Competent Judge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power on Earth or in Hell it self can so far prevail against the General Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches And for proof of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. John 14. and 16. In this troublesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in general The Church of England is content to pass that over And though She tells us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in general She is modestly silent But since A. C. will needs have it That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith he should do well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to all mens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most Lear ned Protestants grant it But if he mean that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in general which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles is yet made a Point of Faith and may prove dangerous to the Salvation of some which believe it and practise after it as his words seem to import especially if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as Bellarm. says She may and yet not Erre Then perhaps it may be said and without any wrong to the Catholike Church that the Whole Militant Church hath
for ought appears only because they at Rome were too ready to entertain Appeals from the Church of Africk as appears in the Case of Apiarius who then appealed thither That S. Augustine Eugenius Fulgentius and all those Bishops and other Martyrs which suffered in the Vandalike Persecution dyed in the time of this Separation That if this Separation were not just but a Schism then these Famous Fathers of the Church dyed for ought appears in Actual and unrepented Schism and out of the Church And if so then how comes S. Augustine to be and be accounted a Saint all over the Christian world and at Rome it self But if the Separation were just then is it far more lawfull for the Church of England by a National Councel to cast off the Popes Usurpation as She did then it was for the African Church to separate Because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome in Case of Appeals and two other Canons less material But the Church of England excepts besides this Grievance against many Corruptions in Doctrine belonging to the Faith with which Rome at that time of the African Separation was not tainted And I am out of all doubt that S. Augustine and those other Famous men in their generations durst not thus have separated from Rome had the Pope had that powerful Principality over the whole Church of Christ And that by Christs own Ordinance and Institution as A. C. pretends he had Num. 12 I told you a little before that the Popes grew under the Emperors till they had over-grown them And now lest A. C. should say I speak it without proof I will give you a brief touch of the Church-story in that behalf And that from the beginning of the Emperors becoming Christians to the time of Charles the Great which contains about five hundred years For so soon as the Emperors became Christian the Church which before was kept under by Persecutions began to be put in better Order For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferior Clergy that was a thing of known use and benefit for Preservation of Unity and Peace in the Church And so much S. Jerome tells us Though being none himself he was no great friend to Bishops And this was so setled in the minds of men from the very Infancie of the Christian Church as that it had not been to that time contradicted by any So that then there was no Controversie about the Calling all agreed upon that The only Difficulty was to accommodate the Places and Precedencies of Bishops among themselves for the very Necessity of Order and Government To do this the most equal and impartial way was That as the Church is in the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth in it as Optatus tells us So the Honors of the Church should follow the Honors of the State And so it was insinuated if not Ordered as appears by the Canons of the Councels of Chalcedon and Antioch And this was the very fountain of Papal Greatness the Pope having his Residence in the great Imperial City But Precedencie is one thing and Authority is another It was thought fit therefore though as S. Cyprian speaks Episcopatus unus est the Calling of a Bishop be one and the same that yet among Bishops there should be a certain Subordination and Subjection The Empire therefore being cast into several Divisions which they then called Diocesses every Diocess contained several Provinces every Province several Bishopricks The Chief of a Diocess in that larger sense was called 〈◊〉 and sometimes a Patriarch The Chief of a Province a Metropolitane Next the Bishops in their several Diocesses as we now use that word Among These there was effectual subjection respectively grounded upon Canon and Positive Law in their several Quarters But over them none at all All the Difference there was but Honorary not Authoritative If the Ambition of some particular persons did attempt now and then to break these Bounds it is no marvel For no Calling can sanctifie all that have it And Socrates tells us That in this way the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome advanced themselves to a great height 〈◊〉 even beyond the quality of Bishops Now upon view of Story it will appear that what advantage accrewed to Alexandria was gotten by the violence of Theophilus Patriarch there A man of exceeding great Learning and of no less violence and he made no little advantage out of this that the Empress Eâ—doxia used his help for the casting of S. Chrysostome out of Constantinople But the Roman Prelates grew by a steddy and constant watchfulness upon all Occasions to increase the Honour of that Sea Interposing and assuming to themselves to be Vindices Canonum as S. Gregory Nazian speaks Defenders and Restorers of the Canons of the Church which was a fair pretence and took extremely well But yet the World took notice of this their aim For in all Contestations between the East and the West which were nor small nor few the Western Bishops objected Levity to the Eastern And they again Arrogancie to the Bishops of the West as Bilius observes and upon very warrantable Testimonies For all this the Bishop of Rome continued in good Obedience to the Emperor enduring his Censures and Judgments And being chosen by the Clergy and People of Rome he accepted from the Emperor the Ratification of that choice Insomuch that about the year 579. when all Italy was on fire with the Lombards and Pelagius the Second constrained through the necessity of the times contrary to the Example of his Predecessors to enter upon the Popedom without the Emperors leave S. Gregory then a Deacon was shortly after sent on Embassie to excuse it About this time brake out the Ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople affecting to be Universal Bishop He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperor but sowerly opposed by Pelagius and S. Gregory Insomuch that S. Gregory says plainly That this Pride of his shews that the times of Antichrist were near So as yet and this was now upon the point of six hundred years after Christ there was no Universal Bishop No one Monarch over the whole Militant Church But Mauricius being deposed and murthered by Phocas Phocas conferred upon Boniface the Third that very honour which two of his Predecessors had declaimed against as Monstrous and Blasphemous if not Antichristian Where by the way either those two Popes Pelagius and S. Gregory erred in this weighty business about an Universal Bishop over the whole Church Or if they did not Erre Boniface and the rest which after him took it upon them were in their very Predecessors judgment Antichristian But to proceed As yet the right of Election or Ratification of the Pope continued in the Emperor But then the Lombards grew so great in Italy and the Empire was so infested with Saracens and such changes
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
of all doubt For if there be reason of doubting the one there 's as much reason of doubting the other since they stand both on the same foot The Validity of Christ's Prayer for Saint Peter Num. 17 Yea but Christ charged S. Peter to govern and feed his whole stock S. John 21. Nay soft T is but his Sheep and his Lambs and that every Apostle and every Apostles Successor hath charge to do S. Matth. 28. But over the whole Flock I find no one Apostle or Successor set And 't is a poor shift to say as A. C. doth That the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole Flock because both over Lambs and Sheep For in every Flock that is not of barren Weathers there are Lambs and Sheep that is weaker and stronger Christians not People and Pastors Subjects and Governors as A. C. expounds it to bring the Necks of Princes under Roman Pride And if Kings be meant yet then the command is Pasce feed them But Deponere or Occidere to depose or kill them is not Pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastoris that 's the Butchers not the Shepherds part If a a Sheep go astray never so far 't is not the Shepherds part to kill him at least if he do non pascit dum oâ—cidit he doth not certainly feed while he kills Num. 18 And for the Close That the Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole stock in such sort as that neither particular Man nor Church shall have just cause under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Separation from the whole Church By A. C's favour this is meer begging of the Question He says the Pope shall ever govern the whole Whole Church so as that there shall be no just Cause given of a Separation And that is the very Thing which the Protestants charge upon him Namely that he hath governed if not the Whole yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his Power so as that he hath given too just Cause of the present continued separation And as the Corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the Cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the Cause why the separation continues And farther I for my part am clear of Opinion that the Errors in the Doctrine of Faith which are charged upon the whole Church at least so much of the whole as in these parts of Europe hath been kept under the Roman Jurisdiction have had their Original and Continuance from this that so much of the Universal Church which indeed they account All hath forgotten her own Liberty and submitted to the Roman Church and Bishop and so is in a manner forced to embrace all the Corruptions which the Particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon it self And being now not able to free her self from the Roman Jurisdiction is made to continue also in all her Corruptions And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called for therein A. C. said well the Popes Administration can give no Cause to separate from that but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscal themselves the Whole Catholike Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence but in her Errors not in the Things which Constitute a Church but only in such Abuses and Corruptions as work toward the Dissolution of a Church F. I also asked who ought to judge in this Case The B. said a General Councel B. § 26 Num. 1 And surely What greater or surer Judgment you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted than a General Councel I do not see Nor do you doubt And A. C. grants it to be a most Competent Judge of all Controversies of Faith so that all Pastors be gathered together and in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost and make great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other Grounds of Faith And then Decree what is to be held for Divine Truth For then saith he 't is Firm and Infallible or else there is nothing firm upon earth As fair as this Passage seems and as freely as I have granted that a General Councel is the best Judge on Earth where the sense of Scripture is doubted yet even in this passage there are some things Considerable As first when shall the Church hope for such a General Councel in which all Pastors shall be gathered together there was never any such General Councel yet nor do I believe such can be had So that 's supposed in vain and you might have learn'd this of Bellarmine if you will not believe me Next saith he If all these Pastors pray unanimously for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost Why but if all Pastors cannot meet together all cannot pray together nor all search the Scriptures together nor all upon that Search Decree together So that is supposed in vain too Yea but Thirdly If all that meet do pray unanimously What then All that meet are not simply All. Nor doth the Holy Ghost come and give his Assistance upon every Prayer that is made unanimously though by very many Prelates or other Faithful People met together unless all other Requisites as well as Unanimity to make their prayer to be heard and granted be observed by them So that an Unanimous Prayer is not adequately supposed and therefore Concludes not But lastly how far a General Councel if all A. C's Conditions be observed is firm and Infallible that shall be more fully discussed at after In the mean time these two words Firm and Infallible are ill put together as Synonima's For there are some things most Infallible in themselves which yet could never get to be made firm among men And there are many things made firm by Law both in Churches and Kingdoms which yet are not Infallible in themselves So to draw all together to settle Controversies in the Church here is a Visible Judge and Infallible but not living And that is the Scripture pronouncing by the Church And there is a visible and a Living Judge but not Infallible and that is a General Councel lawfully called and so proceeding But I know no formal Confirmation of it needful though A. C. require it but only that after it is ended the Whole Church admit it be it never so tacitely Num. 2 In the next Place A. C. interposes new matter quite out of the Conference And first in case of Distractions and Disunion in the Church he would know what is to be done to Re-unite when a General Councel which is acknowledged a fit Judge cannot be had by reason of manifold impediments Or
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
'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
any Christian be offended that there should be a good end of Controversies Can you think of a better end than by a General Councel And if you have a most Gracious King inclined unto it as you say it was offered how can you acquit your selves if you do not consent Now here A. C. marvels what kinde of General Councel I would have and what Rules I would have observed in it which are morally like to be observed and make an end of Controversies better then their Catholike General Councels Truly I am not willing to leave A. C. unsatisfied in any thing Nor have I any meaning to trouble the Church with any New Devisings of mine Any General Councel shall satisfie me and I presume all good Christians that is lawfully called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same Conditions which General Councels observed in the Primitive Church which I am sure were Councels General and Catholike what ever yours be But I doubt that after all noise made about these Requisite Conditions A. C. and his Fellows will be found as much if not more defective in performance of the Conditions than in the Conditions themselves Well the Jesuite goes on for all this F. I asked the B. whether he thought a General Councel might erre He said it might B. § 31 I presume you do not expect I should enter into the Proof of this Controversie Whether a General Councel may erre in Determination or not Your self brought no Proof that it cannot and till that be brought my speech is good that it can and yet I hope to be found no Infringer of any Power given by Christ to his Church But it seems by that which follows you did by this Question Can a General Councel erre but seek to win ground for your other which follows F. If a General Councel may erre what nearer are we then said I to unity after a Councel hath determined Yes said he although it may erre yet we should be bound to hold with it till another come to reverse it B. § 32 Num. 1 Whether a General Councel may erre or not is a Question of great Consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church not onely without Remedy against an Errour once determined but also without sense that it may need a Remedy and so without care to seek it which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this day To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely to disrespect former Councels of the Church but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now Determine into which Errour some Opposers of the Church of Rome have fallen And upon this is grounded your Question Wherein are we nearer to unity if a Councel may erre But in relating my Answer to this you are not so candid for my words did not sound as yours seem to do That we should hold with the Councel erre or not erre till another came to reverse it As if Grounds of Faith might vary at the Racket and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them Num. 5 You forget again omit at least and with what minde you best know the Caution which I added For I said The Determination of a General Councel erring was to stand in force and to have External Obedience at the least yeelded to it till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the Contrary made the Errour appear and until thereupon another Councel of equal Authority did reverse it And indeed I might have returned upon you again If a General Councel not Confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Councel And you may answer Yes For although a General Councel may erre yet the Pope as Head of the Church cannot An excellent means of Unity to have all in the Church as the Pope will have it what ever Scripture say or the Church think And then I pray to what end a General Councel Will his Holiness be so holy as to confirm a General Councel if it determine against him And as for Bellarmines Reasons why a General Councel should be useful if not necessary though the Pope be Infallible they are so weak in part and in part so unworthy that I am sorry any necessity of a bad Cause should force so Learned a man to make use of them Num. 3 Here A. C. tels me The Caution mentioned as omitted makes my Answer worse then the Jesuite related it And that in two things First in that the Jesuite relates it thus Although it may erre but the Caution makes it as if it did actually erre Secondly in that the Jesuite relates That we are bound to hold it till another come to reverse it that is we not knowing whether it do erre or not but onely that it may erre But the Caution puts the Case so as if the Determination of a General Councel actually erring were not ipso jure invalid but must stand in force and have external Obedience yeelded to it till not onely moral Certainty but Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the Contrary make the errour appear And when it appears we must yeeld our Obedience till a Councel of equal Authority reverse it which perhaps will not be found in an whole Age. So either the Jesuite relates this speech truly or less disgracefully And A. C. thinks that upon better Judgement I will not allow this Caution Truly I shall not thank the Jesuite for any his kindness here And for the Caution I must and do acknowledge it mine even upon advisement and that whether it make my Answer worse or better And I think farther that the Jesuite hath no great Cause to thank A. C. for this Defence of his Relation Num. 4 First then the Jesuite so says A. C. doth in his Relation make it but a supposition That a General Councel may erre But the Caution expresses it as actually erring True But yet I hope this Expression makes no General Councel actually erre And then it comes all to one whether I suppose that such a Councel may erre or that it do erre And 't is fitter for clearing the Difficulties into which the Church falls in such a Case to suppose and more then a supposition it is not a General Councel actually erring then as only under a Possibility of Erring For the Church hath much more to do to vindicate it self from such an Errour actually being than from any the like Errour that might be Num. 5 Secondly A. C. thinks he hath got great advantage by the words of the Caution in that I say A General Councel erring is to stand in force and have external Obedience at least so far as it consists in silence Patience and forbearance yeelded to it till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration
to the Contrary make the Error appear and until thereupon another Councel of equal Authority did reverse it Well! I say it again But is there any one word of mine in the Caution that speaks of our knowing of this Errour Surely not one that 's A. C's Addition Now suppose a General Councel actually Erring in some Point of Divine Truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be known to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yeelded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental verity in which case a General Councel cannot easily erre I would have A. C. and all wise men Consider Whether External Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversies arise in the Church some end they must have or they 'll tear all in sunder And I am sure no wisdome can think that fit Why then say a General Councel Erre and an Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law it self invalid I would have it wisely considered again whether it be not fit to allow a General Councel that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts have Namely That there be a Declaration of the Invalidity of it's Decrees as well as of the Laws of other Courts before private men can take liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a declaration if the Councel stand not in force A. C. sets up Private Spirits to control General Councels which is the thing he so often and so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therefore it may seem very fiâ— and necessary for the Peace of Christondome that a General Councel thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appear as that another Councel of equal Authority reverse it For as for Moral Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith which alone are spoken of here And if another Councel of equal Authority cannot be gotten together in an Age that is such an Inconvenience as the Church must bear when it happens And far better is that inconvenience than this other that any Authority less than a General Councel should rescind the Decrees of it unless it erre manifestly and intolerably Or that the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this Errour neglect or refuse to call a Councel and examine it And there come in National or Provincial Councels to reform for themselves But no way must lye open to private men to Refuse obedience till the Councel be heard and weighed as well as that which they say against it yet with Bellarmines Exception still so the errour be not manifestly intolerable Nor is it fit for Private men in such great Cases as this upon which the whole peace of Christendome depends to argue thus The Error appears Therefore the Determination of the Councel is ipso â—ure invalid But this is far the safer way I say still when the Errour is neither Fundamental nor in it self manifest to argue thus The Determination is by equal Authority and that secundùm jus according to Law declared to be invalid Therefore the Errour apears And it is a more humble and conscientious way for any private man to suffer a Councel to go before him then for him to out-run the Councel But weak and Ignorant mens out-running both God and his Church is as bold a fault now on all sides as the daring of the Times hath made it Common As for that which I have added concerning the Possibility of a General Councels erring I shall go on with it without asking any farther leave of A. C. § 33 For upon this Occasion I shall not hold it amiss a little more at large to Consider the Poynt of General Councels How they may or may not erre And a little to look into the Romane and Protestant Opinion concerning them which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church and which is most preservative of Peace established or ablest to reduce perfect unity into the Church of Christ when that poor Ship hath her ribs dashed in sunder by the waves of Contention And this I will adventure to the World but only in the Nature of a Consideration and with submission to my Mother the Church of England and the Mother of us all the Universal Catholick Church of Christ As I do most humbly All whatsoever else is herein contained First then I Consider whether all the Power that an Occumenical Councel hath to Determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in that Determination it hath it not all from the Catholike Universal Body of the Church and Clergie in the Church whose Representative it is And it seems it hath For the Government of the Church being not Monarchical but as Christ is Head this Principle is inviolable in Nature Every Body Collective that represents receives power and priviledges from the Body which is represented else à Representation might have force without the thing it represents which cannot be So there is no Power in the Councel no Assistance to it but what is in and to the Church But yet then it may be Questioned whether the Representing Body hath all the Power Strength and Priviledge which the Represented hath And suppose it hath all the Legal power yet it hath not all the Natural either of strength or wisdom that the whole hath Now because the Representative hath power from the Whole and the Main Body can meet no other way therefore the Acts Laws and Decrees of the Representative be it Ecclesiastical or Civil are Binding in their Strength But they are not so certain and free from Errour as is that Wisdom which resides in the Whole For in Assemblies meerly Civil or Ecclesiastical all the able and sufficient men cannot be in the Body that Represents And it is as possible so many able and sufficient men for some particular business may be left out as that they which are in may miss or mis-apply that Reason and Ground upon which the Determination is principally to rest Here for want of a clear view of this ground the Representative Body erres whereas the Represented by vertue of those Members which saw and knew the ground may hold the Principle inviolated Secondly I Consider That since it is thus in Nature and in Civil Bodies if it be not so in Ecclesiastical too some reason must be given why For that Body also consists of men Those men neither all equal in their perfections of Knowledge and Judgement whether acquired by Industry or rooted in Nature or infused by God Not all equal nor any one of them perfect and absolute or freed from passion and humane infirmities Nor doth their meeting together make them Infallible in all things though the Act which is hammered out by many together
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
say Volumus Mandamus We Will and Command And thus the Apostles met together in simplicity and singleness seeking nothing but God and the salvation of men And what wonder if the Holy Ghost were present in such a Councel Nos alitèr But we meet otherwise in great pomp and seek our selves and promise our selves that we may do any thing out of the Plenitude of our Power And how can the Holy Ghost allow of such Meetings And if not allow or approve the Meetings then certainly not concur to make every thing Infallible that shall be concluded in them Num. 8 And for all the Places togehther weigh them with indifferency and either they speak of the Church including the Apostles as all of them do And then All grant the Uoyce of the Church is Gods Voyce Divine and Infallible Or else they are General unlimited and applyable to private Assemblies as well as General Councels which none grant to be Infallible but some mad Enthusiasts Or else they are limited not simply into All truth but All necessary to salvation in which I shall easily grant a General Councel cannot erre suffering it self to be led by this Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For Suppose these Places or any other did promise Assistance even to Infallibility yet they granted it not to every General Councel but to the Catholick Body of the Church it self and if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a General Councel but by Consequent as the Councel represents the Whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong unto it then it consents and cleaves to that upon which it is a consequent And therefore a General Councel hath not this Assistance but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to hear His word and determine by it And therefore if a General Councel will go out of the Churches way it may easily go without the Churches Truth Num. 1 Fourthly I Consider That All agree That the Church in General can never erre from the Faith necessary to Salvation No Persecution no Temptation no Gates of Hell whatsoever is meant by them can ever so prevail against it For all the Members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no union between them as Members and Christ the Head And no Union between Head and Members no Body and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That General Councels cannot erre And it seems strange to me the Fathers having to do with so many Hereticks and so many of them opposing Church-Authority that in the Condemnation of those Hereticks this Proposition even in terms A General Councel cannot erre should not be found in any one of them that I can yet see Now suppose it were true that no General Councel had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not have followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I have no time to descend into Particulars therefore to the General still S. Augustine puts a Difference between the Rules of Scripture and the Definitions of men This Difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogative That Prerogative is That whatsoever is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by National Councels and National Councels by Plenary or General And even Plenary Councels themselves may be amended the former by the later It seems it was no News with S. Augustine that a General Councel might erre and therefore inferiour to the Scripture which may neither be doubted nor disputed where it affirms And if it be so with the Desinition of a Councel too as Stapleton would have it That that may neither be doubted nor disputed Where is then the Scriptures Prerogative Num. 2 I know there is much shifting about this Place but it cannot be wrastled off Stapleton says first That S. Augustine speaks of the Rules of Manners and Discipline And this is Bellarmine's last Shift Both are out and Bellarmine in a Contradiction Bellarmine in a Contradiction For first he tells us General Councels cannot erre in Precepts of Manners and then to turn off S. Augustine in this Place he tells us That if S. Augustine doth not speak of matter of Fact but of Right and of universal Questions of Right then is he to be understood of Precepts of Manners not of Points of Faith Where he hath first run himself upon a Contradiction and then we have gained this ground upon him That either his Answer is nothing or else against his own state of the Question A General Councel can erre in Precepts of Manners So belike when Bellarmine is at a Shift A General Councel can and cannot erre in Precepts of Manners And both are out For the whole Dispute of S. Augustine is against the Errour of S. Cyprian followed by the Donatists which was an Errour in Faith Namely That true Baptism could not be given by Hereticks and such as were out of the Church And the Proof which Stapleton and Bellarmine draw out of the subsequent words When by any experiment of things that which was shut is opened is too weak For experiment there is not of Fact nor are the words Conclusum est as if it were of a Rule of Discipline concluded as Stapleton cites them but a farther experiment or proof of the Question in hand and pertaining to Faith which was then shut up and as S. Augustine after speaks wrapped up in cloudy darkness Num. 3 Next Stapleton will have it That if S. Augustine do speak of a Cause of Faith then his meaning is that later General Councels can mend that is explicate more perfectly that Faith which lay hid in the seed of Ancient Doctrine He makes instance That about the Divinity of Christ the Councel of Ephesus explicated the first of Nice Chalcedon both of them Constantinople Chalcedon And then concludes In all which things none of these Councels taught that which was erroneous An excellent Conclusion These Councels and These in this thing taught no Errour and were onely explained Therefore no Councel can erre in any matter of Faith or Therefore S. Augustine speaks not of an Emendation of Errour but of an Explanation of Sense whereas every eye sees neither of these can follow Num. 4 Now that S. Augustine meant plainly That even a Plenary Councel might erre and that often for that is his word and that in matter of Faith and might and ought
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
Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient Cause of Faith and in some sort the very formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians do do with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but sâ—o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church â— for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophecie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so
Nay make it appear that ever any Prophet in that which he delivered from God as infallible Truth was ever discursive at all in the Means Nay make it but probable in the ordinary course of Prophecie I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at God's absolute Power That that which is discursive in the Means can be Prophetick in the Conclusion you shall be my great Apollo for ever In the mean time I have learnt this from yours That all Prophecy is by Vision Inspiration c. that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophecie is an Illumination not always present but when the Word of the Lord came to them that was not by discourse And yet you say again That this Prophetick Infallibility of the Church is not gotten without study and Industry You should do well to tell us too why God would put his Church to study for the Spirit of Prophecie which never any Particular Prophet was put unto And whosoever shall studie for it shall not do it in vain since Prophecie is a Gift and can never be an acquired Habit. And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authority of General Councels dares not come at this Rock He prefers the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the Deliberations of Councels and so do we but I do not remember that ever he speaks out That the Conclusion is delivered by Prophecie or Revelation Sure he sounded the shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speak plainly would his bad Cause let him be constant Councels do deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neither have they nor do they write any immediate Revelations Num. 4 The second Reason why Stapleton will have it Prophetick in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be believed though it use Means yet it stands not upon Art or Means or Argument but the Revelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge This for the first Part That the Church uses the Means but follows them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the later Part That then our admitting the Decree of a Councel would be no Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge what great inconvenience is there if it be granted For I think it is undoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Believer that cannot prove and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing even this the very wisdom of the Church in her Doctrines ascribes Understanding to one sort of men and Belief to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him Num. 5 Now for farther satisfaction if not of you yet of others this may well be thought on Man lost by sin in the Integrity of his Nature and cannot have Light enough to see the way to Heaven but by Grace This Grace was first merited after given by Christ this Grace is first kindled by Faith by which if we agree not to some Supernatural Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply we can never see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it self clears the eye of Reason it never puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the very Catholike Church it self is reasonable as well as diffused every where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath been able either to convert or convince or at least stop the mouthes of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the very Point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamental Points of Faith without which there is no Salvation as they cannot be proved by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councel nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of these Prime Articles of Faith General Councels determine any thing as they have done in Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Councel should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the Learned by the Means and Proof by which that Deduction is vouched and made good And again the Conclusion of a Councel suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by Reason There I believe and assent in Faith But the same Conclusion if you give me ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by natural Reason against any Arrian in the world And if it be demonstrable I may know it and have an Habit of it And what inconvenience in this For he weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they have the Principle granted they are to rest upon the Definition onely and their Assent is meer Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration evident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconvenience in this Nay the necessity of Nature is such that these Principles once given the understanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would never have required a man to be able to give a Reason and an account of the hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or have lawful interest to give it when he knew it without prejudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meer Belief cannot stand together in the same Person in regard of the same thing by the same means yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact knowledge or in whom that must not meerly in points of Faith believe the Article or ground upon which they rest But when that is once believed it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them Num. 1 And now because you ask Wherein are we nearer to Unity by a Councel if a Councel may erre Besides the Answer given I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserve or reduce Christian Peace The Romane That a Councel cannot erre or the Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leave the Christian world to consider of it
as I do Num. 2 First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or any other there be promised to the present Church an absolute Infallibility Or whether such an Infallibility will not serve the turn as Stapleton after much wrigling is forced to acknowledge One not every way exact because it is enough if the Church do diligently insist upon that which was once received and there is not need of so great certainty to open and explicate that which lies hid in the seed of Faith sown and deduce from it as to seek out and teach that which was altogether unknown And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of Infallibility than the present Church which yet if it follow the Scripture is Infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of Certainty which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes five Prerogatives in Certainty of Truth that the Scripture hath above a Councel and at last Concludes That They may be said to be equally certain in Infallible Truth Num. 3 The next thing I Consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous Infallibility in the Church Is it not residing according to Power and Right of Authority in the whole Church always understanding the Church in this place pro Communitate Praelatorum for Church-Governours which have Votes in Councels and in a General Councel onely by Power deputed with Mandate to determine The Places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers upon them make me apt to believe this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receive the Keys of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church Now for this Particular suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Errour and suppose the Key rightly used Infallible in this yet this Infallibility is primely in the Church Docent in whose person not strictly in his own S. Peter received the Keys But here Stapleton lays cross my way again and would thrust me out of this Consideration He grants that S. Peter received these Keys indeed and in the Person of the Church but saith he that was because he was Primate of the Church And therefore the Church received the Keys finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himself and his Successors received the Keys in his own Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I keep on in my Consideration still For the Church here is taken pro Communitate Praelatorum for all the Prelates that is for the Church as 't is Docent and Regent as it Teaches and Governs For so onely it relates to a General Councel And so S. Augustine and Stapleton himself understand it in the places before alleadged Now in this sense S. Peter received the Keys formally for himself and his Successours at Rome but not for them onely but as he received them in the person of the whole Church Docent so he received them also in their Right as well as his own and for them all And in this sense S. Peter received the Keys in the person of the Church by Stapleton's good leave both Finally and Formally For I would have it considered also whether it be ever read in any Classick Author That to receive a thing in the person of another or sustaining the person of another is onely meant Finally to receive it that is to his good and not in his right I should think he that receives any thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and to his use but in his right too And that the formal right is not in the receiver onely but in him or them also whose person he sustains while he receives it I 'll take one of Stapleton's own Instances A Consul or prime Senator in an Aristocratical Government such as the Churches is Ministerially under Christ receives a Priviledge from the Senate and he receives it as Primarily and as Formally for them as for himself and in the Senates right as well as his own he being but a chief part and they the whole And this is S. Peter's Case in Relation to the whole Church Docent and Regent saving that his Place and Power was Perpetual and not Annual as the Consul 's was This Stumbling-block then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in this Notion by the hands of S. Peter received the Keys and all Power signified by them and transmitted them to their Successours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to use them but still in and by the same hands and perhaps to open and shut in some things Iufallibly when the Pope and a General Councel too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seek how to turn these Keys in their Wards Num. 4 The third Particular I Consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation and that this Power of not erring so is not communicable to a General Councel which represents it but that the Councel is subject to errour This supposition doth not onely preserve that which you desire in the Church an Infallibility but it meets with all inconveniences which usually have done and daily do perplex the Church And here is still a Remedy for all things For if Private Respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and favour of some parties if weakness of them which have the managing if any unfit mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrench the Councel the Whole Church upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another Body or Councel and to take order for what was amiss either practised or concluded So here is a means without any infringing any lawful Authority of the Church to preserve or reduce Unity and yet grant as I did and as the Church of England doth That a General Councel may erre And this course the Church heretofore took for she did call and represent her self in a new Councel and define against the Heretical Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is evident And in other Councels named by Bellarmine Now the Church is never more cunningly abused than when men out of this Truth that she may erre infer this Falshood that she is not to be Obeyed For it will never follow She may Erre Therefore She may not Govern For he that says Obey them which have the Rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls Heb. 13. commands Obedience and
expresly ascribes Rule to the Church And that is not onely a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to Control and Censure too where Errours or Crimes are against Points Fundamental or of great Consequence Else S. Paul would not have given the Rule for Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. Nor Christ himself have put the man that will not hear and obey the Church into the place and condition of an Ethnick and a Publican as he doth S. Mat. 18. And Solomon's Rule is general and he hath it twice My son forsake not the teaching or instruction of thy Mother Now this is either spoken and meant of a natural Mother And her Authority over her Children is confirmed Ecclus 3. And the fool will be upon him that despiseth her Prov. 15. Or 't is extended also to our Mystical and Spiritual Mother the Church And so the Geneva Note upon the Place expresses it And I cannot but incline to this Opinion Because the Blessings which accompany this Obedience are so many and great as that they are not like to be the fruits of Obedience to a Natural Mother onely as Solomon expresses them all Prov. 6. And in all this here 's no Exception of of the Mothers erring For Mater errans an erring Mother loses neither the right nor the power of a Mother by her errour And I marvel what Son should shew reverence or obedience if no Mother that hath erred might exact it 'T is true the Son is not to follow his Mothers errour or his Mother into errour But 't is true too 't is a grievous crime in a Son to cast off all obedience to his Mother because at some time or in some things she hath fallen into errour And howsoever this Consideration meets with this Inconvenience as well as the rest For suppose as I said in the whole Catholike Militant Church an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation And then though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may erre yet if the Grand-mother the whole Universal Church cannot in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of Disobedience taken from the possibility of the Churches erring are quite taken away Nor is this Mother less to be valued by her Children because in some smaller things Age had filled her face fuller of wrinkles For where 't is said that Christ makes to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. that is not understood of the Church Militant but of the Church Triumphant And to maintain the contrary is a Branch of the spreading Heresie of Pelagianism Nor is the Church on earth any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline than she is from Spots in Life and Conversation Num. 5 The next thing I Consider is Suppose a General Councel take it self to be infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prove not so but that an Errour in the Faith be concluded the same Erring Opinion that makes it think it self Infallible makes the Errour of it seem irrevocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleep by the opinion of Infallibility is left open to all mauner of Distractions as it appears at this day And that a Councel may erre besides all other Instances which are not few appears by that Errour of the Councel of Constance And one Instance is enough to overthrow a General be it a Councel Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To break Christs Institution is a Damnable Errour and so confessed by Stapleton The Councel is bold and defines peremptorily That to Communicate in both kindes is not necessary with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider now with me Is this an Errour or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say 't is not because to receive under both kindes is not by Divine Right No No sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had been more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Form as a Precept Therefore speak out and deny it to be Christs Institution or else grant with Stapleton It is a damnable Errour to go against it If you can prove that Christs Institution is not as binding to us as a Precept which you shall never be able take the Precept with it Drink ye All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can never make it other than it is A binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Device than this to save the Councel He saith It is a meer Calumny and that the Councel hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiving under both kindes but to the time of receiving it after Supper in which the Councel saith the Custome of the Church is to be observed Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foul Bellarmine is in this must appear by the words of the Councel which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gave it his Disciples after Supper under both kindes of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be Consecrated after Supper nor received but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kindes yet this Custom that it should be received by Lay-men onely under the kinde of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an unlawful Custom of Receiving under one kinde is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driven out as Hereticks Now where is here any slander of the Councel The words are plain and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiving under both kindes as against Receiving after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councel couple both together in this Reference for it follows Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitive Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councel may be an Heretick for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kinde may not be refused but Christs Institution under Both kindes may And yet this Councel did not erre No take heed of it Num. 6 But your Opinion is more Unreasonable than this for consider any Body Collective be it more or less Universal whensoever it assembles it self did it ever give more power to the Representing Body of it than binding power upon all particulars and it self And did it ever give this power otherwise than with this Reservation in Nature
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
first besides the silence of Impartial Antiquity divers of your Own confess it yea and prove it too by sundry Instances Num. 10 Secondly There is a great Question among the Learned both School-men and Controversers Whether the Pope coming to be an Heretick may be Deposed And 't is Learnedly disputed by Bellarmine The Opinions are different For the Canon-Law says expresly He may be judged and deposed by the Church in case of Heresie Joh. de Turrecremata is of Opinion That the Pope is to be deposed by the Church so soon as he becomes an Heretick though as yet not a manifest one Because he is already deprived by Divine Right And recites another opinion That the Pope cannot be deposed though he fall into secret or manifest Heresie Cajetan thinks that the Pope cannot be deposed but for a manifest Heresie and that then he is not deposed ipso facto but must be deposed by the Church Bellarmine's own Opinion is That if the Pope become a manifest Heretick he presently ceases to be Pope and Head of the Church and may then be Judged and punished by the Church Bellarmine hath disputed this very Learnedly and at large and I will not fill this Discourse with another mans Labours The use I shall make of it runs through all these Opinions and through all alike And truly the very Question it self supposes that A Pope may be an Heretick For if he cannot be an Heretick why do they question whether he can be Deposed for being One And if he can be one then whether he can be Deposed by the Church Before he be manifest or not till after or neither before nor after or which way they will it comes all to one for my purpose For I question not here his Deposition for his Heresie but his Heresie And I hope none of these Learned men nor any other dare deny but that if the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre For every Heresie is an Errour and more For 't is an Errour oft-times against the Errants knowledge but ever with the pertinacie of his Will Therefore out of all even your own Grounds If the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre grosly he can erre wilfully And he that can so Erre cannot be Infallible in his Judgement private or publike For if he can be an Heretick he can and doubtless will Judge for his Heresie if the Church let him alone And you your selves maintain his Deposition lawful to prevent this I verily believe Alb. Pighius foresaw this Blow And therefore he is of Opinion That the Pope cannot become an Heretick at all And though Bellarmine favour him so far as to say his Opinion is probable yet he is so honest as to adde that the Common opinion of Divines is against him Nay though he Labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the first from the Heresie of the Monothelites and says that Pope Adrian was deceived who thought him one yet He confesses That Pope Adrian the second with the Councel then held at Rome and the eighth General Synod did think that the Pope might be Judged in the Cause of Heresie And that the condition of the Church were most miserable if it should be constrained to acknowledge a Wolf manifestly raging for her Shepherd And here again I have a Question to ask Whether you believe the eighth General Councel or not If you believe it then you see the Pope can erre and so He not Infallible If you believe it not then in your Judgement that General Councel erres and so that not Infallible Num. 11 Thirdly It is altogether in vain and to no use that the Pope should be Infallible and that according to your own Principles Now God and Nature make nothing in vain Therefore either the Pope is not Infallible or at least God never made him so That the Infallibility of the Pope had he any in him is altogether vain and useless is manifest For if it be of any use 't is for the setling of Truth and Peace in the Church in all times of her Distraction But neither the Church nor any member of it can make any use of the Popes Infallibility that way Therefore it is of no use or benefit at all And this also is as manifest as the rest For before the Church or any particular man can make any use of this Infallibility to settle him and his Conscience he must either Know or Believe that the Pope is Infallible But a man can neither Know nor Believe it And first for Belief For if the Church or any Christian man can believe it he must believe it either by Divine or by Humane Faith Divine Faith cannot be had of it For as is before proved it hath no Ground in the written Word of God Nay to follow you closer it was never delivered by any Tradition of the Catholike Church And for Humane Faith no Rational man can possibly believe having no Word of God to over-rule his Understanding that he which is Fallible in the Means as your selves confess the Pope is can possibly be Infallible in the Conclusion And were it so that a Rational man could have Humane Faith of this Infallibility yet that neither is nor never can be sufficient to make the Pope Infallible No more than my strong Belief of another mans Honesty can make him an Honest man if he be not so Now secondly for Knowledge and that is altogether impossible too that either the Church or any Member of the Church should ever know that the Pope is Infallible And this I shall make evident also out of your own Principles For your Councel of Florence had told us That three things are necessary to every Sacrament the Matter the Form of the Sacrament and the Intention of the Priest which administers it that he intends to do as the Church doth Your Councel of Trent confirms it for the Intention of the Priest Upon this Ground be it Rock or Sand it is all one for you make it Rock and build upon it I shall raise this Battery against the Popes Infallibility First the Pope if he have any Infallibility at all he hath it as he is Bishop of Rome and S. Peter's Successour This is granted Secondly the Pope cannot be Bishop of Rome but he must be in holy Orders first And if any man be chosen that is not so the Election is void ipso facto propter errorem Personae for the errour of the Person This also is granted Thirdly He that is to be made Pope can never be in Holy Orders but by receiving them from One that hath Power to Ordain This is notoriously known So is it also that with you Order is a Sacrament properly so called And if so then the Pope when he did receive the Order of Deacon or Priesthood at the hands of the Bishop did also receive a Sacrament Upon these Grounds I raise my
Argument thus Neither the Church nor any Member of the Church can know that this Pope which now sits or any other that hath been or shall be is Infallible For he is not Infallible unless he be Pope and he is not Pope unless he be in Holy Orders And he cannot be so unless he have received those Holy Orders and that from one that had Power to Ordain And those Holy Orders in your Doctrine are a Sacrament And a Sacrament is not perfectly given if he that Administers it have not intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia an intention to do that which the Church doth by Sacraments Now who can possibly tell that the Bishop which gave the Pope Orders was first a man qualified to give them and secondly so devoutly set upon his Work that he had at the instant of giving them an Intention and purpose to do therein as the Church doth Surely none but that Bishop himself And his testimony of himself and his own Act such especially as if faulty he would be loth to Confess can neither give Knowledge nor Belief sufficient that the Pope according to this Canon is in Holy Orders So upon the Whole matter let the Romanists take which they will I will give them free Choice either this Canon of the Councel of Trent is false Divinity and there is no such Intention necessary to the Essence and Being of a Sacrament Or if it be true it is impossible for any man to know and for any advised man to Believe That the Pope is Infallible in his Judicial Sentences in things belonging to the Faith And so here again a General Councel at least such a one as that of Trent is can Erre or the Pope is not Infallible Num. 12 But this is an Argument ad Hominem good against your Party onely which maintain this Councel But the plain Truth is Both are Errours For neither is the Bishop of Rome Infallible in his Judicials about the Faith Nor is this Intention of either Bishop or Priest of Absolute Necessity to the Essence of a Sacrament so as to make void the gracious Institution of Christ in case by any Tentation the Priests Thoughts should wander from his Work at the instant of using the Essentials of a Sacrament or have in him an Actual Intention to scorn the Church And you may remember if you please that a Neapolitan Bishop then present at Trent disputed this Case very Learnedly and made it most evident that this Opinion cannot be defended but that it must open a way for any unworthy Priest to make infinite Nullities in Administration of the Sacraments And his Arguments were of such strength ut caeteros Theologos dederint in stuporem as amazed the other Divines which were present And concluded That no Internal Intention was required in the Minister of a Sacrament but that Intention which did appear Opere externo in the Work it self performed by him And that if he had unworthily any wandring thoughts nay more any contrary Intention within him yet it neither did nor could hinder the blessed effect of any Sacrament And most certain it is if this be not true besides all other Inconveniences which are many no man can secure himself upon any Doubt or trouble in his Conscience that he hath truly and really been made partaker of any Sacrament whatsoever No not of Baptism and so by Consequence be left in doubt whether he be a Christian or no even after he is Baptized Whereas 't is most impossible That Christ should so order his Sacraments and so leave them to his Church as that poor Believers in his Name by any unworthiness of any of his Priests should not be able to know whether they have received His Sacraments or not even while they have received them And yet for all this such great lovers of Truth and such careful Pastors over the Flock of Christ were these Trent-Fathers that they regarded none of this but went on in the usual track and made their Decree for the Internal Intention and purpose of the Priest and that the Sacrament was invalid without it Num. 13 Nay one Argument more there is and from your own Grounds too that makes it more than manifest That the Pope can erre not Personally onely but Judicially also and so teach false Doctrine to the Church which Bellarmine tells us No Pope hath done or can do And a Maxime it is with you That a General Councel can erre if it be confirmed by the Pope But if it be confirmed then it cannot erre Where first this is very improper Language For I hope no Councel is confirmed till it be finished And when 't is finished even before the Popes confirmation be put to it either it hath Erred or not Erred If it have Erred the Pope ought not to confirm it and if he do 't is a void act For no power can make Falshood Truth If it have not Erred then it was True before the Pope confirmed it So his Confirmation addes nothing but his own Assent Therefore his confirmation of a General Councel as you will needs call it is at the most Signum non Causa a Signe and that such as may fail but no Cause of the Councels not Erring But then secondly if a General Councel Confirmed as you would have it by the Pope have Erred and so can Erre then certainly the Pope can Erre Judicially For he never gives a more solemn Sentence for Truth than when he decrees any thing in a General Councel Therefore if he have Erred and can Erre there then certainly he can Erre in his Definitive Sentence about the Faith and is not Infallible Now that he hath Erred and therefore can Erre in a General Councel confirmed in which he takes upon him to teach all Christendom is most clear and evident For the Pope teaches in and by the Councel of Lateran Confirmed by Innocent the third Christ is present in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation And in and by the Councel of Constance the Administration of the Blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kinde notwithstanding Christs Institution of it in both kindes for all And in and by the Councel of Trent Invocation of Saints and Adoration of Images to the great Scandal of Christianity and as great hazard of the Weak Now that these Particulars among Many are Errours in Divinity and about the Faith is manifest both by Scripture the Judgement of the Primitive Church For Transubstantiation first That never was heard of in the Primitive Church nor till the Councel of Lateran nor can it be proved out of Scripture and taken properly cannot stand with the Grounds of Christian Religion As for Communion in one kinde Christs Institution is clear against that And not onely the Primitive Church but the Whole Church of Christ kept it so till within less than four hundred years For Aquinas confesses it was so in use even to
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
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
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
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
at Credimus we believe eternal Punishment but he goes no farther than Arbitramur we think there is a Purging So with him it was Arbitrary And therefore sure no Matter of Faith then And again he saith That some Christians may be saved post poenas after some punishments indured but he neither tells us Where nor When. S. Basil names indeed Purgatory fire but he relates as uncertainly to that in 1 Cor. 3. as S. Ambrose doth As for Paulinus he speaks for Prayer for the dead but not a word of Purgatory And the Place in S. Gregory Nazianzen is far from a manifest Place For he speaks there of Baptism by fire which is no usual phrase to signifie Purgatory But yet say that here he doth there 's a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fortassis a peradventure in the words which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out And if it be a Peradventure ye shall then be Baptized with fire why then 't is at a Peradventure too that ye shall not Now such Casual stuff as this peradventure you shall and peradventure you shall not is no Expression for things which are valued to be de side and to be believed as Matters of Faith Bellarmine goes on with Lactantius but with no better success For he says indeed That some men perstringentur igne shall be sharply touched by fire But he speaks of such quorum peccata praevaluerunt whose sins have prevailed And they in Bellarmine's Doctrine are for Hell not Purgatory As for S. Hilary he will not come home neither 'T is true he speaks of a Fine too and one that must be indured but he tells us 't is a punishment expiandae à peccatis animae to purge the soul from sins Now this will not serve Bellarmine's turn For they of Rome teach That the sins are forgiven here and that the Temporal Punishment onely remains to be satisfied in Purgatory And what need is there then of purging of sins Lest there should not be Fathers enough he reckons in Boetius too But he though not long before a Convert yet was so well seen in this Point that he goes no farther than Puto I think that after death some souls are exercised purgatoriâ clementiâ with a Purgative Clemency But Puto I think 't is so is no expression for Matter of Faith The two pregnant Authorities which seem to come home are those of Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret But for Theodoret in Scholiis Graecis which is the Place Bellarmine quotes I can finde no such Thing And manifest it is Bellarmine himself took it but upon trust And for S. Gregory Nyssen 't is true some places in him seem plain But then they are made so doubtful by other Places in him that I dare not say simply and roundly what his Judgment was For he says Men must be purged from Perturbations and either by Prayers and Philosophy or the study of Wisdome or by the furnace of Purgatory-fire after this life And again That a man cannot be partaker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine nature unless the Purging-fire doth take away the stains that are in his Soul And again That after this life a Purgatory-fire takes away the blots and propensity to evil And I deny not divers other like places are in him But first this is quite another thing from the Roman Purgatory For S. Gregory tells us here that the Purgatory he means purges Perturbations and stains and blots and propensity to evil Whereas the Purgatory which Rome now teaches purges not sin but is only satisfactory by way of punishment for sins already forgiven but for which satisfaction was not made before their Death Secondly S. Gregory Nyssen himself seems not obscurely to relate to some other Fire For he says expresly That the soul is to be punished till the Vitiosity of it be consumed Purgatorio igne So the Translation renders it but in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a fire that sleeps not which for ought appears may be understood of a Fire that is eternal whereas the fire assigned to Purgatory shall cease Besides S. Gregory says plainly The Soul cannot suffer by sire but in the Body and the Body cannot be with it till the Resurrection Therefore he must needs speak of a fire after the Resurrection which must be either the Fire of the General Conflagration or Hell Purgatory he cannot mean Where according to the Romish Tenet the Soul suffers without the Body The truth is Divers of the Ancient especially Greeks which were a little too much acquainted with Plato's School philosophized and disputed upon this and some other Points with much Obscurity and as little Certainty So upon the whole matter in the fourth and fifth hundred year you see here 's none that constantly and perspicuously affirm it And as for S. Augustine he said and unsaid it and at the last left it doubtful which had it then been received as a Point of Faith he durst not have done Indeed then in S. Gregory the Great 's time in the beginning of the sixth Age Purgatory was grown to some perfection For S. Gregory himself is at Scio 't was but at Puto a little before I know that some shall be Expiated in Purgatory flames And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that follow For after this time Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffered to Cool again And in the after Ages more were frighted than led by proof into the Belief of it Num. 17 Now by this we see also That it could not be a Tradition For then we might have traced it by the smoke to the Apostles times Indeed Bellarmine would have it such a Tradition For he tells us out of S. Augustine That that is rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority which the whole Church holds and hath ever held and yet is not Instituted by any Councel And he adds That Purgatory is such a Tradition so Constantly held in the whole Church Greek and Latine And that we do not finde any beginning of this Belief Where I shall take the boldness to Observe these three things First that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not held ever in the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And this appears by the proofs of Bellarmine himself produced and I have before examined For there 't is manifest that scarce two Fathers directly affirm the belief of Purgatory for full six hundred years after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no Matter of Faith nor to be believed as descending from Apostolical Authority by S. Augustine's Rule Secondly that we can finde a beginning of this Doctrine and a Beginner too namely Origen And neither Bellarmine nor any other is able to shew any one Father of the Church that said it before him Therefore Purgatory is not to be believed as a Doctrine delivered
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
defining any one Divine Truth how can we be Infallibly certain of any other Truth defined by it For if it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all 'T is most true if such a Councel may erre in one it may in another and another and so in all of like nature I say in all of like nature And A. C. may remember he expressed himself a little before to speak of the Defining of such Divine Truths as are not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed of all sorts of men Now there is there can be no necessity of an Infallible certainty in the whole Catholike Church and much less in a General Councel of thing not absolutely necessary in themselves For Christ did not intend to leave an Infallibe certainty in his Church to satisfie either Contentious or Curious or Presumptuous Spirits And therefore in things not Fundamental not Necessary 't is no matter if Councels erre in one and another and a third the whole Church having power and means enough to see that no Councel erre in Necessary things and this is certainty enough for the Church to have or for Christians to expect especially since the Foundation is so strongly and so plainly laid down in Scripture and the Creed that a modest man might justly wonder why any man should run to any later Councel at least for any Infallible certainty Num. 22 Yet A. C. hath more Questions to ask and his next is How we can according to the ordinary Course be Infallibly assured that it erres in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same Authority defines both to be Divine Truth A. C. taking here upon him to defend M. Fisher the Jesuite could not but see what I had formerly written concerning this difficult Question about General Councels And to all that being large he replied little or nothing Now when he thinks that may be forgotten or as if he did not at all lye in his way he here turns Questionist to disturb that business and indeed the Church as much as he can But to this Question also I answer again If any General Councel do now erre either it erres in things absolutely necessary to Salvation or in things not necessary If it erre in things Necessary we can be infallibly assured by the Scripture the Creeds the four first Councels and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in another If it be in non necessariis in things not necessary 't is not requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance As for that which follows it is notoriously both cunning and false 'T is false to suppose that a General Councel defining two things for Divine Truths and erring in one but not erring in another doth define both equally by one and the same Authority And 't is cunning because these words by the same Authority are equivocal and must be distinguished that the Truth which A. C. would hide may appear Thus then suppose a General Councel erring in one point and not in another it doth define both and equally by the same delegated Authority which that Councel hath received from the Catholike Church But it doth not define both and much less equally by the same Authority of the Scripture which must be the Councels Rule as well as private mens no nor by the same Authority of the whole Catholike Church who did not intentionally give them equal power to define Truth and errour for Truth And I hope A. C. dares not say the Scripture according to which all Councels that will uphold Divine Truth must Determine doth equally give either ground or power to define Errour and Truth Num. 23 To his former Questions A. C. adds That if we leave this to be examined by any private man this examination not being Infallible had need to be examined by another and this by another without end or ever coming to Infallible certainty necessarily required in that one faith which is necessary to salvation and to that peace and unity which ought to be in the Church Will this inculcating the same thing never be left I told the Jesuite before that I give no way to any private man to be Judge of a General Councel And there also I shewed the way how an erring Councel might be rectified and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored without lifting any private spirit above a Councel and without this process in Infinitum which A. C. so much urges and which is so much declined in all Sciences For as the understanding of a man must always have somewhat to rest upon so must his Faith But a private man first for his own satisfaction and after for the Churches if he have just cause may consider of and examine by the Judgment of discretion though not of power even the Definitions of a General Councel But A. C. concludes well That an Infallible certainty is necessary for that one Faith which is necessary to salvation And of that as I expressed before a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds and the four first General Councels to which for things Necessary and Fundamental in the Faith we need no assistance from other General Councels And some of your own very honest and very Learned were of the same Opinion with me And for the peace and unity of the Church in things absolutely necessary we have the same infallible direction that we have for Faith But in Things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also if about them Christian men do differ 't is no more than they have done more or less in all Ages of the Church and they may differ and yet preserve the One necessary Faith and Charity too entire if they be so well minded I confess it were heartily to be wished that in these things also men might be all of one mind and one judgment to which the Apostle exhorts 1 Cor. 1. But this cannot be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailties which here hang thick and close about her The want both of Unity and Peace proceeding too often even where Religion is pretended from Men and their Humours rather than from Things and Errours to be found in them Num. 24 And so A. C. tells me That it is not therefore as I would perswade the fault of Councels Definitions but the pride of such as will prefer and not submit their private Judgments that lost and continues the loss of peace and unity of the Church and the want of certainty in that one afore-said soul-saving Faith Once again I am bold to tell A. C. there is no want of certainty most infallible certainty of That one soul-saving Faith And if for other opinions which flutter about it there be a difference a dangerous difference as at this day there is yet
ears of seduced Christians in all humane and divided parties whatsoever Num. 4 After these Reasons thus given by him A. C. tells me That I neither do nor can prove any superstition or errour to be in the Romane Religion What none at all Now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome wore so happy and the whole Catholike Church thereby blessed with Truth and Peace For I am confident such Truth as that would soon either Command Peace or confound Peace-Breakers But is there no Superstition in Adoration of Images None in Invocation of Saints None in Adoration of the Sacrament Is there no errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giving it but in one kinde None about Purgatory About Common Prayer in an unknown tongue none These and many more are in the Romane Religion if you will needs call it so And 't is no hard work to prove every of these to be Errour or Superstition or both But if A. C. think so meanly of me that though this be no hard work in it self yet that I such is my weakness cannot prove it I shall leave him to enjoy that opinion of me or what ever else he shall be pleased to entertain and am far better content with this his opinion of my weakness than with that which follows of my pride for he adds That I cannot prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion but by presuming with intolerable pride to make my self or some of my fellows to be Judge of Controversies and by taking Authority to censure all to be Superstition and Errour too which sutes not with my fancy although it be generally held or practised by the Universal Church Which saith he in S. Augustine's judgment is most insolent madness What not prove any Superstition any Errour at Rome but by Pride and that Intolerable Truly I would to God A. C. saw my heart and all the Pride that lodges therein But wherein doth this Pride appear that he censures me so deeply Why first in this That I cannot prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion unless I make my self or some of my fellows Judge of Controversies Indeed if I took this upon me I were guilty of great Pride But A. C. knows well that before in this Conference which he undertakes to Answer I am so far from making my self or any of my fellows Judge of Controversies that I absolutely make a lawful and free General Councel Judge of Controversies by and according to the Scriptures And this I learned from S. Augustine with this That ever the Scripture is to have the prerogative above the Councel Nay A. C. should remember here that he himself taxes me for giving too much power to a General Councel and binding men to a strict Obedience to it even in Case of Errour And therefore sure most innocent I am of the most intolerable pride which he is pleased to charge upon me and he of all men most unfit to charge it Secondly A. C. will have my pride appear in this that I take Authority to censure all for Errour and Superstition which sutes not with my own fancy But how can this possible be since I submit my judgment in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and upon new and necessary doubts to the judgment of a lawful and free General Councel And this I do from my very heart and do abhor in matters of Religion that my own or any private mans fancy should take any place and least of all against things generally held or practised by the Universal Church which to oppose in such things is certainly as S. Augustine calls it Insolentissimae insaniae an Attempt of most insolent madness But those things which the Church of England charges upon the Roman Party to be superstitious and erroneous are not held or practised in or by the Universal Church generally either for time or place And now I would have A. C. consider how justly all this may be turned upon himself For he hath nothing to pretend that there are not gross Superstitions and Errours in the Romane Perswasion unless by intolerable pride he will make himself and his Party Judge of Controversies as in effect he doth for he will be judged by none but the Pope and a Councel of his ordering or unless he will take Authority to free from Superstition and Errour whatsoever sutes with his fancy though it be even Superstition it self and run cross to what hath been generally held in the Catholike Church of Christ Yea though to do so be in S. Augustine's judgment most insolent madness And A. C. spake in this most properly when he called it taking of Authority For the Bishop and Church of Rome have in this particular of judging Controversies indeed taken that Authority to themselves which neither Christ nor his Church Catholike did ever give them Here the Conference ended with this Conclusion Num. 5 And as I hope God hath given that Lady mercy so I heartily pray that he will be pleased to give all of you a Light of his Truth and a Love to it that you may no longer be made Instruments of the Pope's boundless Ambition and this most unchristian brain-sick device That in all Controversies of the Faith he is Infallible and that by way of Inspiration and Prophecy in the Conclusion which he gives To the due Consideration of which and God's mercy in Christ I leave you Num. 6 To this Conclusion of the Conference between me and the Jesuite A. C. says not much But that which he doth say is either the self same which he hath said already or else is quite mistaken in the business That which he hath said already is this That in matters of Faith we are to submit our judgments to such Doctors and Pastors as by Visible Continual Succession without change brought the Faith down from Christ and his Apostles to these our days and shall so carry it to the end of the world And that this Succession is not found in any other Church differing in Doctrine from the Romane Church Now to this I have given a full Answer already and therefore will not trouble the Reader with needless and troublesome repetition Then he brings certain places of Scripture to prove the Pope's Infallibility But to all these places I have likewise answered before And therefore A. C. needed not to repeat them again as if they had been unanswerable Num. 7 One Place of Scripture onely A. C. had not urged before either for proof of this Continued Visible Succession or for the Pope's Infallibility Nor doth A. C. distinctly set down by which of the two he will prove it The Place is Ephes. 4. Christ ascending gave some to be Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors Teachers c. for the
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
117. and how recovered 118. primacy of order granted them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions but no Principality of power from Christ 109 110. some of them opposed by the African Church 112. some of them Hereticks 124. some Apostates 173. some false Prophets 174. how unfit Judges of Controversies 162 163 254. the lâ—wd lives of many of them 172. Pope Liberius his clear testimony against the Popes Infallibility 173 Prayer what requisite that it may be heard 127 154 155. Prayer for the dead that it presupposeth not Purgatory 162 Preachers how their Preaching to be esteemed of 64. none since the Apostles infallible 232 Precisians their opposition to lawful Ceremonies occasioned by the Romanists 183. that there be of them in the Romane Church no less then in the Protestant 87. their agreement in many things 64 Princes the moderation and equiquity of all that are good 103 the power of Soveraign Princes in matters Ecclesiastical 111. all of the Clergy subject to them 134 Prophecy the spirit of it not to be attained by study 163 164 Protestants why so called 87 of their departing from the errours of the Roman Church 86 87. On what terms invited by Rome to a general Councel 92 93 their charitable grant of possibility of salvation in the Romane Church met with uncharitableness by the Roman party 184 185. they that deny possibility of salvation to them confuted 186 187. their Faith sufficient to salvation 212 Purgatory not thought on by any Father within the three first hundred years 227. not presupposed by Prayer for the dead ibid. Origen the first Founder of it 226 230. proofs of it examined ibid. the Purgatories mentioned by the Fathers different from that believ'd by Rome 228 229. the Fathers alledg'd for it cleared 227 c. the Papists their Blasphemous assertion touching the necessity of believing it 231. Bellarmines contradiction touching the beginning of it ibid. R REason not excluded or blemished by grace 48 49. the chief use of it 51. what place it hath in the proof of divine supernatural truths 39 48. how high it can go in proving the truth of Christian Religion 49 165 Reformation in what case it 's lawful for a particular Church to Reform her self 96 c. and to publish any thing that 's Catholike in faith or manners 97 108. Examples of it 99 100. Reformation by Protestants how to be judged of 99 faults incident to Reformation and Reformers of Religion 101. who the chief hinderers of a general Reformation 101. Reformation of the Church of England justified 114. the manner of it 100 101. what places Princes have in the Reformation of the Church ibid. Christian Religion how the truth of it proved by the Ancients 49. the propagation of it and the firmness where it 's once received 50 51. the evil of believing it in one sort and practising it in another 243 244. yet this taught by some Jesuites and Romish Priests ibid. one Christian Religion of Protestants and Romanists though they differ in it 245. private mens opinions in Religion not to be esteemed the Churches 20. Religion as it is professed in the Church of England nearest of any Church now being to the Primitive Church 245. Resurrection what believed by all Christians what by some Hereticks denied 201 202 Private Revelation in what case to be admitted 49 Divine Revelation the necessity of it 73 B. Rhenanus purged on behalf of Rome 239 B. Ridley his full confession of the Real Presence 193. his conviction of Archbishop Cranmers judgment touching it 192 Romanes who truly such and their true priviledge 4. Rome her praeter and super-structures in the â—aith 7. 8. She and Spain compared in their two Monarchies 137. Heresies both begun and maintained in her 9. 10. wherein she hath erred 12. whether impossible for the Apostolike Sea to be removed thence 12 13. that she may Apostatize 13. her definitions of things not necessary 21. She the chief hinderance of a general Reformation 110. of her pretended Soveraignty and the bad effects of it 102 103 c. what Principality and Power She hath and whence 109 110 114 c. 120. She not the head of the Church nor did all Churches depend on her 111 112 119. that she hath kept nor faith nor unity inviolated 253. whether all Christians be bound to agree with her in faith 119. and in what case they are so 120. the ancient bounds of her jurisdiction 120. possibility of Salvation in her and to whom 118 105 c. the danger of living and dying in her Communion 193 195 196 197. her rigour and cruelty beyond that of Schismatical Israel 194. her fundamental errours of what nature 208. the Catholike Church her Head and Root not she of it 240 c. Roman Sea in what case a particular Church may make Canons with out consulting it 98 99 c. 109. Romanists their cunning dealing with their Converts in fieri 83. of their calling for a free hearing 94 95. their agreement with the Donatists in contracting the Church to their side 188 189. their danger in different respects lesser or greater than that of the Donatists 196 Ruffinus his pernicious cunning 6 his dissent from the Romane Church 10. branded by the Pope with Heresie 11. his words explained 8 9 10 S SAcraments against the necessity of his intention who administers them 178 179 c. 200 213 Sacriledge and Schism usually go together 101 Saints against the Invocation of them 181. they are made by Bellarmine to be Numina and in some sort our Redeemers ibid. Salvation controversies amongst the Romanists about the certainty of it 32 Schism the heinousness of it 95 who the cause of it at this day 86 88 126. the continuance of it whence 94 Schismatical Church to live in one and to communicate in the Schism how different 194. the Protestants their leaving Rome no Schism 126. of the Schism of Israel and those that lived there in the time of it 97 194 Science supream what 78 Scotus righted 20 Scripture that it was received and hath continued uncorrupt 79 what books make up the Canon of it 11. all parts of it alike firm not alike fundamental 27. that it is the Word of God is a prime principle of faith 28 c. 75 76 80 the sufficiency of it 34 75 76 c. 81. how known to be Gods Word 38 c. Of the Circular probation of Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture 38 75 the different ways of proving it 39. it is a higher proof than the Churches Tradition 40. the testimony proving it must be Divine and Infallible 43 45 47 whether it can be known to be Gods Word by its own light 45 46. and that the Roman Church by her own Tenet ought so to hold 46. what the chief and what the first inducement to the credibility of it 53 54 57 65 66 68. the Divine light thereof and what light the natural man sees in it 53 54. Confirmation by
Pelagianorum imminet in hoc Coetu sanctissimo primisus tractentur c. Aurel Carthaginensis in Praefat. Conc. Milivit apud Caranzam †Conc. Aurausican 2. Can. 1 2 c. ‖ Conc. Tolet. 3. * Quae omnia in aliis Symbolis explicitè tradit a non sunt Concil Tolet. 4. Can. 1. †Statuimus ut saltem semel in Anno à Nobis Concilium celebretur it à tamen ut si Fidei Causa est aut quaelibet alia Ecclesiae communis Generalis Hispaniae Galléciae Synodus celebretur c. Concil Tolet. 4. Can. 3. ‖ â— 24. Nu. 2. * The Institution of a Christian man Printed An. 1534. †In Synodo Londinensi Sess. 8. Die Veneris 29 Januarii Aâ— 1562. ‖ And so in the Reformation under Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. and under Josia 4 Reg. 23. And in the time of Reccaredus King of Spain the Reformation there proceeded thus Quùm gloriosissimus Princeps omnes Regiminis sui Pontifices in unum convenire mandâsset c. Concil Tolet. 3. Can. 1. Can convenissemus Sacerdotes Domini apud urbem Toletanum ut Regiis imperi is atque jussis commoniti c. Concil Tolet. 4. in princ apud â—araâ—zam And both these Synods did treat of Matters of Faith * Quisquis occasione hujus Legis quam Reges terrae Christo servientes ad emendandam vestram impietatem promulgaverunt res proprias vestras cupidè appetit displicet nobis Quisquis donique ipsas res pauperum vel Basilicas Congregationum c. non per Justietam sed per Avaritiam tenet displicet nobis S. Aug. Epist. 48. versus finem * And this a Particular Church may do but not a Schism For a Schism can never be peaceable nor orderly and seldom free from Sacriledge Out of which respects it may be as well as for the grievousness of the Crime S. Aug. calls it Sacrilegium Schismatis L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 8. For usually they go together * â— 21. Nu. 9. A. C. p. 58. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. Eth. c. 6. †Minni Jurâ— quoties gliscat Potestas nec utendum Imperio â—â—i Legibus agi possit Tacit. L. 3. Annal. ‖ Heb. 12. 9. * God used Samuel as a Messenger against â—li for his over-much indulgence to his sons 1 Sam. 3. 13. And yet Samuel himself committed the very same fault concerning his own sons 1 Sam. 8. 3. 5. And this Indulgence occasioned the Change of the Civil Government as the former was the loss of the Priesthood †Colos. 3. 21. ‖ Crimini ei tribunus inter caetera dabat quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mallius probri compertum extorrem urbe domo penatibus soro luâ—e congressu aequalium prohibitum in opus servile prope in carcerem atque in ergastulum dederit Liv. dec 1. l. 7. * Deut. 21. 19. A. C. p. 57. A. C. p. 57. * Art 19. †Si demus errare non posse Ecclesiam in rebus ad salutem necessariis hic sensus noster est Ideo hoc esse quia abdicarâ omni suâ sapientiâ a Spiritu Sancto doceri se per Verbum Dei patitur Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 8. S. 13. And this also is our sense Vide sup S. 21. Nu. 5. * Nostra sententia est Ecclesiam absolutè non posse errart nec in rebus absolutè necessariie nec in aliis quae credenda vel facienda nobis proponit sive babeantur expressè in Scripturis sive non Bellar. L. 3. de Eccl. Mil. c. 14 §. 5. A. C. p. 58. S. Joh. 16. 13. * §. 21. N. 5. A. C. p. 57. A. C. p. 57. A. C. p. 53. A. C. p. 58 73. * Stapl Relect. praef ad Lectorem †Bellar. â— 2. de Concil c. 2. S. Mat. 16. 18. * Puguare potest Expugnari non potest S. Aug. L. de Symb. ad Catecum c. 6. †Bellar. L. 3. de Eccl. Milit. c. 13. §. 1. c. S Mat. 28. 21. * S. Hil. in Psal. 124. Prosp. L. 2. de vocat Gent. c. 2. Leo Ser. 2. de Resur Dom. c. 3. Ep. 31. Isidor in Jos. 1◠†In omnibus que Ministris suis commisit exequenda S. Leo Epist. 91. c. 2. S. Luk. 22. 32. * Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pâ—nt c. 3. S. Est igitur tertia He understood the place of both S. Peter and his Successors †Que Expositio falsa est Primò quia c. Bell. ibid. §. 2. And he says 't is false because the Parisians expounded it of the Church only Volunt enim pro sold Ecclesiâ— esse eratum Ibid. §. 1. A. C. p. 57. S. John 14. 16 17. S. Joh. 16. 13. †Field L 4. de Eccles. c. 2. free from all error and ignorance of Divine things ‖ And Theodoret proceeds father and says Neque divini Prophetae neque mirabiles Apostoli omnia praesciverunt Quaecunque enim expediebant ea illis significavit gratid Spiritûs Theod. in 1 Tim. 3. v. 14 15. S. Joh. 14. 26. * §. 21. Nu. 5. * §. 24. Nu. 1 2 c. †Si de 〈…〉 set nonne oporteret in 〈◊〉 recurâ—ere Ecclesias Traditionis c. 〈◊〉 L. â— advers Haeres c. 4. A. C. p. â—7 â— A. C. p. 58. * §. 25. Nu. 4. A. C. p. 58. A. C. p. 58. * Quia Opinio invalâ—it â—undatam esse hanc Ecclesiam â— S. Petro â—taque in Occidente Sedes Apostolica Honâ—ris causâ— voâ—abatur Calv. L. 4. c. 6. §. 16. †Princeps Ecclesiae S. Hilar. l. 8. de Trin. Prin. And he speaks of a Bishop in generâ—â— Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 17. Ascribuntur Episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imperium Thronus Principatus ad regimen 〈◊〉 Et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hujusâ—odi Impâ—rium And he also speaks of a Bishop Greg. Nazianz. Grat. 20. Nor were these any Titles of pride in Bishops then For S. Greg. Nazianz. who challenges these Titles to himself Orat. 17. was so devout so mild and so humble that rather than the Peace of the Church should be broken he freely resigned the Great Patriarchate of Constantinople and retired and this in the First Councel of Constantinople and the Second General ‖ 〈◊〉 ad â—ratres Collegâ—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiarum Episcopos c. S. Aug. Ep. 16â— * An fortâ— non debâ—it Romanâ— Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurparâ— judicium quod ab Afris 〈◊〉 ubi Priâ—as Tigisitanus prâ—sedit fuerit terminatum Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit Rogatus quippâ— Imperator Judices â—isâ—t 〈◊〉 qui cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dâ— totâ— ill◠〈◊〉 quod jusâ—â—â— viderâ—tur 〈◊〉 c. S. Aug. Ibid. * Ad cujus Curam de quâ rationem Deo râ—dditâ—rus est res illa maximè pertinebat S. Aug. Epist. 162. †Nam contra horum Antistitum de Patriarchis loquitur Sententias non esse locum Appellationâ—â— Majoribus nostris constitutum est Coâ— L. 1.
being â—ed by the Church But from being spoiled of their Kingdoms by any Church-men that they are A. C. p. 58. A. C. p. 58. A. C. p. 59. * Si omnes nullum fuit hactenus Concilium Generale neque etiam videtur deinceps futurum Bellarm. 1. de Conc. cap. 17. §. 1. †§. 33. Consiâ— 1. ‖ And this was thought a sufficient Judge too when Christians were as humble as Learned I am sure Optatus thought so Querendi sunt Judices Si Christiani de utraque parte dari non possunt qâ—ia â—â—â—liis veritas impeditur De foris quâ—rendus est Judex Si Paganus non potest nosse Christiana Secreta Si Judaeus inimicus est Christiani Baptismatis Ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reperiri Judicium De Coelo quaerendus est Judex Sed ut quid pulsamus ad Coelum quâ—m habemus hic in Evangelio Testamentum inquam quia hoc loco recte possunt terrena coelestibus comparari tale est quod quivis hominum habens numerosos filios his quamdiu pater praesens est ipse imperat singulis non est adhuc necessarium Testamentum Sic Christus quamdiu praesens in terris fuit quamvis nec modo desit pro tempore quicquid necessarium erat Apostolis Imperavit Sed quomodo terrenus Pater dum se in consinio senserit mortis timens ne post mortem suam ruptâ pace litigent fratres adhibitis Testibus Voluntatem suam de Pectore morituro transfert in Tabulas diu duraturas Et si fuerit inter fratres contentio nata non itur ad Tumulum sed qâ—â—ritur Testamentum qui Tumulo quiescit tacitus de Tabulis loquitur Vivus cujus est Testamentum in Coelo est Ergo voluntas ejus velut in Testamento sic in Evangelio inquiratur Opt. l. 5. adv Parm. This pregnant Place of Optatus That the Scripture is the Judge of Divine Truth when ever it is questioned though Baldwin dare not deny both yet he would fain slide by it and by a parallel place as full in S. Augin Psal. 21. Expositionâ— 2. with this shift that S. Augustine in another place had rather use the Testimony of Tradition that is the Testimony Nuncupativi potiùs quà m Scripti Testamenti of the Nuncupative tather than the Written Will of Christ. Baldwin in Optat. L. 5. But this is a meer shift First because it is Petitio principii the meer begging of the Question For we deny any Testament of Christ but that which is written And A. C. cannot shew it in any one Father of the Church that Christ ever left behim a Nuncupative obligatory Will Secondly because nothing is more plain in these two Fathers Optatus and S. Augustine than that both of them appeal to the Written Will and make that the Judge without any Exception when a matter of Faith comes in Question In Optat. the words are Habemus in Eâ—â—ngelio we have it in the Gospel And in Evangelio inquiratur Let it be inquired in the Gospel And Christ put it in tabulas diu duraturas into Written and lasting Instruments In S. Augustine the words are Our Father did not dye intestate c. And Tabulâ— aperiantur Let his Will his written Instruments be opened And Legantur Verba mortui Let the words of him that dyed be read And again Aperi Legamus Open the Will and let us read And Legamus quid litigamus Why do we strive Let 's read the Will And again Aperi Testamentum lege Open the Will read All which Passages are most express and full for his Written Will and not for any Nuncupative Will as Baldwin would put upon us And Hart who takes the same way with Baldwin is not able to make it out as appears by Dr. Reynolds in his Conference with Hart c. 8. divis 1. p. 396 c. * §. 28. Num. 1. And so plainly S. Augustine speaking of S. Cyprians Error about Rebaptization c. says Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarii Concilii sententia quid in hac â—e sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae Consensio confirmasset Visum est ei cum c. L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donatist â— 18. So here is first Sententia Conciâ—i And then the Confirmation of it is totius Ecclesiae Consensio the Consent of the whole Church yeelding unto it And so Gerson Concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu c. In Declaratione Veritatum quae credendae sunt c. §. 4. For this that the Pope must confirm it or else the General Councel is invalid is one of the Roman Novelties For this cannot be shewed in any Antiquity void of just Exception The truth is the Pope as other Patriarchs and great Bishops used to do did give his assent to such Councels as he approved But that is no Corroboration of the Councel as if it were invalid without it but a Declaration of his consenting with the rest §. 33. Consid. 4 Num. 6. A. C. p. 59 60. †Christianâ—tas in diversas Haereses scâ—ssa est quia non erat licentia Episcopis in unum convenire persecutione saeviente usque ad tempora Constantini c. Isidor praefat in Concil Edit Venet. 1585. ‖ Prequens Generalium Conciliorum celebratio est praecipua cultura Agri Dominici c. Et illorum neglectus Errores Haereses Schismata disseminat Hec praeteritorum temporum recordatio praesentium consideratio ante oculos nostros ponunt Itaque sancimus ut à modò Concilia Generalia celebrentur ita quod Primum à fine hujus Concilii in quinquennium immediatè sequens Secundum verò à fine illius in septenâ—ium deiâ—ceps de decennio in decennium perpetuò celebrantur c. Concil Constant. Sess. 39. Et apud Gerson Tom. 1. p. 230. Et Pet. de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis libâ—llum obtulit in Concil Constant. de Reformatione Ecclesiâ— contra â—â—inionem eorum qui putarunt Concilia Generalia minus necessaria esse quia Omnia benè à Patribus nostris ordinata sâ—â—t c. In fascic Rerum expetendarum sol 28. Et Schismatibus debet Ecclesia citò per Concilia Generalia provideri ut in Primitiva Ecclesia docuerunt Apostoli ut Act. 6. Act. 15. Ibid. fol. 204. A. * In Concil Ariminensi multis paâ—corum fraude deceptis c. S. Aug L. 3. contra Maximinum ◠〈◊〉 NUM 3 * Non per difficiles nos Deus ad Beatam vitam Quaestiones vocat c. In absoluto nobis facili est aeterâ—itas Jesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum Credere Ipsum esse Dominum confiteri c. S. Hilar. L. 10. de Trin. ad finem †Cyprianus Collegae ipsiâ—â— credentes Haereticos Schismaticos Baptismum non habere sint Baptismo reâ—â—â—tis c. iis tamen communicare quam separari ab â—nitate maluerunt S. Aug. â— 2 de Baptis contra Donatist c. 6. Et bi non
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
Orbem totum contaminaverat adeo â—t propè cunctis Latini Sermonis Episcopâ—â— partim vi partim fraude deceptis caligo quaedam mentibus offunderetur c. Vin. Lir. cont Haeres c. 6. Ecclesia non Parietibus consistit sed in Dogmatum veritate Ecclesia ibi est ubi fides vera est Caeterùm ante annos quindecim aut viginti Parietes omnes hic Ecclesiarum Haeretici de Arrianis aliis Haereticis loquitur possidebant c. Ecclesia autem illic erat ubi fides vera erat S. Hier. in Psal. 133. Constantius Tantane Orbis terrae pars Liberi in te residet ut tu solus homini Impio de Athanasio loquitur subsidio veniâ—â— paceâ— Orbis ac Mundi totius dirimere auâ—â—as Liberius Esto quod ego solus sim non tamen propterea Causa fidei fit inferior nam olim tres solum erant reperti qui Regis mandato resisterent c. Theod. L 2. Hist. Eccles. c. 16. Dialogo inter Constant. Imp. Liberium Paâ—am So that Pope did not think Maltitade any great note of the true Church ubi sunt c. qui Ecclesiam multitudiâ—e definiunt parvum grâ—gem aspernantur c. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. prin Nay the Arrians were grown to that boldness that they Objected to the Catholicks of that time Paucitatem the thinness of their number Greg. Naz. Carm. de vita sua p. 24. Edit Paris 1611. Quum ejecti tamâ—â— essent de Civitatibuâ— jaâ—â—abaâ—t in desertis suis Synagogis illud Multi vocati pauci electi Socr. L. 1. Hist. Eccl. c. 10. †Error Origenis Tertullianâ— magna fuit in Ecclesia Dâ—â— Populi tentatio Vin. Lir. cont Haer. c. 23 24. A. C. p. 66. ‖ §. 35. N. 4. Punct 1. * Sequuntur enâ—m Thom. p. 3. q. 52. Ar. 2. c. Verba ejus sunt Animâ— Christi per suam essentiam descendit solum ad locum Inferni in quo justi detinebantur c. Ezec. 13. 10. Punct 2. †Basiliensâ— Concâ—lium concessit Bohemis utriusque specâ—â—i usum modâ— faterentur id sibi concedi ab Ecclesia non autem ad hoc teneri Divino jâ—râ— Bel. L. 1. de Sacrament in genere c. 2. §. 2. ‖ Tho. p. 3. q. 76. A. 2. c. alibi passim Punct 3. * Christ by his own Bloud entred once into the Holy place and obtained eternal Redemption for us Heb. 9. 12. And this was done by way of Sacrifice by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once made Heb. 10. 10. Christ gave himself for us to be an Offering and a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God Eph. 5. 2. Out of which place the School infers Passionem Christi verum Sacrificium fuisse Tho. p. 3. q. 48. Art 3. c. Christ did suffer death upon the Cross for our Redemption and made there by his one Oblation of himself once offered a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole World Eccles. Angl. in Canone Consecrationis Eâ—cbar †And Christ did Institute and in his holy Gospel Command us to continue a Perpetual Memory of that his precious Death until his Coming again Eccles. Angl. ibid. ‖ Sacramentum bâ—c est Commemoratiâ—um Dominice Passionis quae fuit verum Sacrificium sic Nominatur Sacrificium Tho. p. 3. q. 73. A. 4. C. Christ being Offer'd up once for all in his own proper Person is yet said to be Offer'd up c. in the Celebration of the Sacrament Because his Oblation once for ever made is thereby Represented Lambert in Fox his Martyrolog Vol. 2. â—dit â—ond 1579. p. 1033. Et postea 'T is a Memorial or Representation thereof Ibid. The Master of the Sentences judged truly in this Point saying That which is Offer'd and Consecrated of the Priest is called a Sacrifice and Oblation because it is a Memory and Representation of the true Sacrifice and holy Oblation made on the Altar of the Cross. Archb. Cranmâ—r in his Answer to Bishop Gardner concerning the most holy Sacrament L. 5. p. 377. And again this shortly is the minde of Lombardus That the thing which is done at Gods Board is a Sacrifice and so is that also which was made upon the Cross but not after one manner of understanding For this was the Thing indeed and that is the Commemoration of the thing Ibid. So likewiâ—e Bishop Jewel acknowledgeth incruentum â—atioâ—abilâ— Sacrificium spoken of by Euseb. de Demonstrat Evang â— 1. Jewels Reply against Harding Art 7. Divis. 9. Again the ministration of the holy Communion is sometimes of the Ancient Fathers called an Unbloâ—dy Sacrifice not in respect of any Corporal or Fleshly presence that is imagined to be there without bloudshedding but for that it representeth and reporteth to our mindes that one and everlasting Sacrifice that Christ made in his Body upon the Cross. This Bishop Jewel disliketh not in his Answer to Harding Art 17. Divis. 14. Patres Câ—nam Dominicam duplici de causa vocaruâ—t Sacrificium incruentum Tum quoâ—â—â—t Imago soleâ—â—is repraesentatio illius Sacrificii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod Christus cum sanguinis effusione obtulit in Cruce Tum quod sit etiam Eucharisticum Sacrificium id est Sacrificium Laudis gratiâ—rum actionis cùm pro beneficâ—is omnibus tùm pro redemptione imprimis per Christi mortâ—m peractâ Zanch. in 2 Praecept Decal T. 4. p. 459. And D. Fulk also acknowledges a Sacrifice in the Eucharist In S. Matth. 26. 26. Non dissimulaverint Christiani iâ— Coena Domini sive â—t ipsâ— loquâ—bantur in Sacrificio Altaris peculiari qâ—odam modo praesentem se venerari Deum Christiaâ—orâ—m sed que esset forma ejus Sacrificii quod per Symbolâ— Panis Vini peragitur â—â—c Vâ—teres prae se non â—erebant Isa. Casaub. Exeâ—cit 16. ad Annal. Baron §. 43 p. 560. * In the Liturgie of the Church of England we pray to God immediately after the reception of the Sacrament That he would be pleased to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving c. And Heb. 13. 15. The Sacrifice Propitiatory was made by Christ himself onely but the Sacrifice Commemorative and Gratulatory is made by the Priest and the People Archbishop Cranmer in his Answer to Bishop Gardner L. 5. p. 377. †I beseech you Brethren by the mercies of God that you give up your Bodies a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God Rom. 12. 1. We ofâ—er and present unto thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and living Sacrifice unto thee So the Church of England in the Prayer after the receiving of the Blessed Sacrament Punct 4. * Concil Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 11. ‖ Hist. Concil Trid. L. 2. p. 277 Edit Lat. Leyda 1622. Punct 5. Punct 1. A. C. p. 64 65. * Concil Nicen. Fides vel Symbolum in fine Concil Punct 2. †Saturninus Basilides Carpocrates Cerinthus
Valentinus Cerdon Appelles c. Tertull. de praescript advers Haerâ—t c. 46 48 49 51 c. * Libertini rident â—â—em omnem quam de Resurrectione habemus idque jam nobis evenâ—sse dicunt quod adhuc expectamus c. ut Homo sciat Animam suam Spiritum 〈◊〉 esse perpetuâ— viventem in Coelis c. Calv. instructione advers Libertinos c. 22. prinâ— Sunt etiam hodie Libertini qui eam irrident Resurrectionem quae tractatur in Scripturis tantùm ad Animas referunt Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. Class 3. Ca. 15. Nu. 4. Punct 3. Punct 4. †Hebr. 11. 37. Cyrillus Alexandrinus malè audivit quod Ammonium Martyrem appellavit quem constitit teâ—eritatis poenas dedisse non Necessitate negandi Christi in tormentis esse mortuum Socr. Hist. Eccl. L. 7. c. 14. b Optatus L. 4. Cont. Parmen c Tertul. L. de Praescrip c. 48. d Tertul. Ibid. e Tertul. L. de Carne Christi c. 14. f Si ad Jesu Christi respicias Essentiam atque Naturam non nisi Hominem eum fuisse constantèr affirmamus Volkelius Lib. 3. de Religione Christianâ cap. 1. * §. 35. Nu. 2. fine †Extra Ecclesiam neminem Vivificat Spiritus Sanctus S. Aug. Epist. 50. ad finem Field L. 1. de Eccles. c. 13. una est Fidelium Universalis Ecclesia extra quam nullus salvatur Conc. Lateran Can. 1. And yet even there there 's no mention of the Roman Church ‖ And so doth A. C. too Out of the Catholike Roman Church there is no Possibility of Salvation A. C. p. 65. * And Daughter Sion was Gods own phrase of old of the Church Isa. 1. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hyppol Orat. de Consum mundi Et omnis Ecclesia Virgo appellata est S. Aug. Tr. 13. in S. Joh. †For Christ was to be preached to all Nations but that Preaching was to begin at Jerusalem S. Luc. 24. 47. according to the Prophesie Mic. 4. 2. And the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch Acts 11. 26. And therefore there was a Church there before ever S. Peter came thence to settle One at Rome Nor is it an Opinion destitute either of Authority or Probability That the Faith of Christ was preached and the Sacraments administred here in England before any settlement of a Church in Rome For S. Gildas the Ancientest monument we have and whom the Romanists themselves reverence says expresly That the Religion of Christ was received in Brittany Tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris c. In the latter time of Tiberius Caesar. Gildas de excid Brit. whereas S. Peter kept in Jewry long after Tiberius his death Therefore the first Conversion of this Island to the Faith was not by S. Peter Nor from Rome which was then a Church Against this Rich. Broughton in his Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain Centur. 1. C. 8. §. 4. says expresly That the Protestants do freely acknowledge that this Clause of the time of Tiberius tempore summo Tiberii Caesaris is wanting in other Copies of that holy Writer and namely in that which was set forth by Pol. Virgil and others Whereas first these words are express in a most fair and ancient Manuscript of Gildas to be seen in Sir Rob. Cotton's Study if any doubt it Secondly these words are as express in the printed Edition of Gildas by Polyd. Virg. which Edition was printed at London An. 1525. and was never reprinted since Thridly these words are as express in the Edition of Gildas by Jo. Joselin printed at London also An. 1568. And this falshood of Broughton is so much the more foul because he boasts Praefat. to his Reader fine That he hath seen and diligently perused the most and best Monuments and Antiquities extant c. For if he did not see and peruse these he is vainly false to say it if he did see them he is most maliciously false to belie them And Lastly whereas he says The Protestants themselves confess so much I must believe he is as false in this as in the former till he name the Protestants to me which do confess it And when he doth he shall gain but this from me That those Protestants which confessed it were mistaken For the thing is mistaken * Return of Untruths upon M. Jewel Art 4. Untruth 105. †For I am sure there is a Roman Church that is but a Particular Bâ—llarm L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. And then you must either shew me another Roman Church which is The Catholike Or you must shew how One and the same Roman Church is in different Respects or Relations A Particular and yet The Catholike Which is not yet done And I do not say A Particular and yet A Catholike But A Particular and yet The Catholike Church For so you speak For that which Card. Peron hath That the Roman Church is the Catholike Causally because it insuses Universality into all the whole Body of the Catholike Church can I think satisfie no man that reads it That a Particular should insuse Universality into an Universal Peron L. 4. of his Reply c. 9. * Rom. 14. 4. * Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed Credendi simplicitas tutissiniâ—â— fâ—tiâ— S. Aug. Cont. Fund c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 21. Omission of Inquiry many times saves the people †Hereticks in respect of the Profession of sundry Divine Verities which they still retain in common with right Believers c. do still pertain to the Church Field L. 1. de Eccles. c. 14. Potest aliquis Ecclesia membrum esse secundum quid qui tamen simpliciter non est Haereticus recedens à Fide non dimittitur ut Paganiâ—â— sed propter Baptismi Characterem punitur ut transfuga Excommunicationis gladio spiritualitèr occiditur Stapl. Controv. 1. q. 2. A. 3. Notabil 3. The Apostle pronounces some gone out S. Joh. 2. 19. from the fellowship of sound Believers when as yet the Christian Religion they had not utterly cast off In like sense and meaning throughout all Ages Hereticks have justly been hated as branches cut off from the true Vine yet only so far forth cut off as the Heresies have extended For both Heresie and many other Crimes which wholly sever from God do sever from the Church of God but in part only Hooker L. 5. Eccles. Pol. § 68. ‖ Ipsis Magistris pereuatibus nisi fortè ante mortem resipuerint Luth. de Serv. Arbit Hâ—resiarche plâ—s peccant quà m alii qui Heresin aliquam secuti Supplem Tho. q. 99. A. 4. c. * Si mihi videretur uâ—â—s idem Haereticus Haereticis credens homo c. S. Aug. L. 1. de util Cred. c. 1. Et Epist 162. ad Donatist Episc. †S. Mat. 18. 17. Qui oppugnaut Regulam Veritatis S. Aug L. de Haeresibus versus sinem ‖ Cypriaâ—us Reatus Martyr S. Aug. L. 1. de Bapt. cont Doâ—at c. 18.
Hanc nulli loco affigit B Rhenanus Annot. in Argumento Tert. de praescript c. Nullâ— loco Therefore not at Rome But these words Hanc nulli loco affiâ—it deleantâ—r says the Spanish Inquisition upon Râ—enâ—â—â—s printed at Madrid An. 1â—84 * Gâ—â—g Naziaâ— says the Church of Câ—saria was Mater propè omnium Ecclesiarum Epist. 18. †Pamel â—â— Tertul dâ— praescript advâ—s Haeres c. 21. Nu. 129. ‖ Ut quasi Radix Fundamentum Ecclesia tolleretur si in 〈◊〉 locâ— Idola 〈◊〉 in quibus Christus â—atuâ— est c. S. Paul â—us Epist 11 ad Sevâ—rum * Hareses omnis de illâ exiâ—runt tanquam sarâ—â—â—ta â—nutilia de Vite prâ—cisa Ipsa autem maâ—â—t in Radicâ— sud c. S. Aug. de Symb. ad 〈◊〉 L. 1. â— 6. †Pars Donati non considerat se praecisam esse à Radice Orientalium Ecclesiarum c. §. Aug. Ep. 170. pâ—in * Not as Bellarmine would have it with a Hinc dicitur Apostolica quia in eâ Successio Episcoporum ab Apostolis deducta est usque ad nos Bellar. â— 4. de notis Eccl. c. 8. §. 1. For by this Reason neither Jerusalem nor Antioch were in their times Apostolike Churches Because Succession of Bishops hath not succeeded in them to this day De Collegis agebatur qui possent c. Judicio Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum causam suam integram reservare S. Aug. Epist. 162. Jo. de Turrecrem enumerat sex Verbi hujus significationes Quarum prima est Apostolica dicitur quia in Apostolis c. initiata est Hos enim instituit quaâ—i fundamentum Ecclesiae c. Jo. de Turrecr â— 1 Summae c. 18. Et quia Originem sumpsit ab Apostolis c. Ibid. ubi dicit etiam S. Patres appossuisse hanc Vocem Apostolicam in Symbolo suo supra symbolum Apostolorum ibid. †Ecclesiae Apostolicae ut Smyrnaeorum reliquae ab Apostolis fundatae Tertul. de praescrip advers Haeret. c 32. Percurrae Ecclesias Apostolicas c. Habes Corinthum Philippos Thessalonicenses Ephesum Roman ibid. c. 32 Et Pamelius inumerat Hierosolymitanam Antiâ—ebenam Corinthiam Philippensem Ephesinam Romanam Pamel ib. c. 21. Num. 129. And it may be observed that so long ago Tertullian and so lately Pamelius should should reckon Rome last Quin aliae Ecclesiae quae ab his Apostolicae etiam deputantur at soboles Ecclesiarum Apostolicarum c. Tertul. ib. c. 20. A. C. p. 73. â— C. p. â—3 * Quintò quaeritur Aâ— ubi Catholici unâ— cum Haereticis versantur litiâ—um sit Catholico adire Templa ad quâ— Heretici 〈…〉 eorum interessâ— Conventibus c. Respondeo Si râ—i Naturam spectemus non est per se malum sed suâ natur â indifferens c. Et postea Si Princeps bâ—resâ— laborâ—t â—ubeat subditos Catholicos sub pâ—nâ— Mortis vel Conâ—â—scationis boâ—â—rum frequentare Templa Haereticâ—rum quid tum faciendum P Respondeâ— â—â—â—â—beâ—t tantum ut omnes Mandato suo obedient liâ—â—tum est Catholicis facere Quiâ— prâ—stant solum Obedientiae officium Sin jubâ—at ut â—o Symbolo simul Religionâ—m Hâ—reticam profiteantur parâ—râ— non debent Quâ—res itâ—rum An liâ—tat Catholico obâ—dire â—â—dâ— publick â—sseveret sâ— id â—â—â—â—cere solâ—â— ut Principi suo obediat non ut sectam â—â—â—â—ticam proâ—â—â—â—atur Respondeo Quidam id liâ—â—râ— arbitrantur 〈◊〉 bonâ— ejus publicâ—â—tur vel Vita â—ripiatur Quod sanâ— proâ—abiliter dici videtur Azorius Instit. Moral p. 1. L. 8. c. 27. p. 1299. â—â—it Paris 1616. A. C. p. 73. Rom. 10. 10. Psal. 58. 4. A. C. p. 73. * I would A. C. would call it the Roman Perswasiâ—on as some understanding Romanists do †For though I spare their Names yet can I not agree in judgment with him that says in Print God be praised for th 〈…〉 isagreement in Religion Nor in Devotion with him that prayed in the Pulpit That God would tear the Rent of Religion wider But of S. Greg. Nâ—â— opinion I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non stâ—dâ—muâ— paci in detrimentum virâ— Doctrinâ— ut facilitâ—â—â—s Mansuetudinis famam colligamus Et rursum Paâ—â—m colimus legitiâ—â— pugnantes c. Orat. 32. A. C. p. 73. * § 33. §. 26. Nu. 1. 11. †Praepâ—nitur Scripturae c. S. Aug. L. 2. de Bapt. cont Donat c. 3. ‖ §. 32. Nu. â— A. C. p. 63. A. C. p. â—3 * S. Aug. Epâ—â—â— 118. c. 5. * §. 33. Nu. 6. A. C. p. 73. * §. 37. N. 3. 4. †§. 2â— Nu. â— A. C. p. 73. * Ephes 4 〈◊〉 * Pontificatus Summus disertâ— positus est ab Apostolo in illis verbis Eph. 4. 11. in illis clarioribus 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ipse posuit in Ecclesia primùm Apostolos c. Bellar. L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 1. § Respondeo Pontificatum And he gives an excellent reason for it Siquidem Jumma potestas Ecclesiastica non solum data est Petro sed etiam aliis Apostolis Ibid. So belike by this reason the Apostle doth clearly express the Poptâ—â—â—â— because all the rest of the Apostles had as much Ecclesiastioâ—l Poweâ— as S. Peter had But then Bellarmine would salve it up with this That â—â—â—s Power is given Petro 〈◊〉 Ordinario Pastori cui succederetur aliis verò tanquam Delegatis quibus non succederetur Ibid. But this si meer Begging of the Question and will never be granted unto him And in the mean time we have his absolute Confession for the other That the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power was not in S. Peter alâ—ae but in all the Apostles †Ephes. 4. 13. A. C. p. 73. * And so also Bellarm. Sexta nota est Conspiratio in Doctrinâ cum Ecclesiâ Antiqua L. 4. de Noti 〈…〉 Eccles. c. 9. §. 1 * Vin. Lir. cont Haer. c. 4. †Hâc Ordinatione Successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiá Traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos Et est plenissima haec Ostensio Unam tandem Vivificatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesià ab Apostolis usque nuac fit conservata tradita in veritate Iren L. 3. Advers Haer. c. 3. ‖ Per hanc Successionem confundi omnes Haereticos Bellar L. â— de Notis Eccles. c. 8. § 1. There 's no such word found in Irenaeus as per hanc Successionem or Hâc Successione in the Church of Rome onely which is Bellarmine's sence But by Succession in general in other Churches as well as in Rome * Testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asiâ Ecclesia Omnes qui usque adhuc Successerunt Polycarpo Iren. L. 3. advers Haeres c. 3. Constat omnem Doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis Matricibus Originalibus Fidei conspiret Veritati deputandam Tertul. de praescript advers Haeretic c. 21. Ecclesia posteriores non minùs Apostolicae deputantur pro