is not Infallible F. The Question was Which was that Church A Friend of the Ladies would needs defend That not only the Roman but also the Greek Church was right B. § 4 When that Honourable Personage answered I was not by to hear But I presume he was so far from granting that only the Roman Church was right as that he did not grant it right and that he took on him no other defence of the poor Greek Church then was according to truth F. I told him That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that even his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost B. § 5 You are very bold with His Majesty to relate him upon Hear-say My intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majesty said But if he said it not you have been too credulous to believe and too sudden to report it Princes deserve and were wont to have more respect then so If His Majesty did say it there is Truth in the speech the Errour is yours only by mistaking what is meant by losing the Holy Ghost For a particular Church may be said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways or in two degrees 1 The one when it loses such special assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous Errours and sins and the temporal punishment which is due unto them And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost for they erred against him they sinned against God And for this or other sins they were delivered into another Babylonish Captivity under the Turk in which they yet are and from which God in his mercy deliver them But this is rather to be called an Errour circa Spiritum Sanctum about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an Errour against the Holy Ghost 2 The other is when it loses not only this assistance but all assistance ad hoc to this that they may remain any longer a true Church and so Corinth and Ephesus and divers other Churches have lost the Holy Ghost but in this sense the whole Greek Church lost not the Holy Ghost For they continue a true Church in the main substance to and at this day though Erroneous in this Point which you mention and perhaps in some other too F. The Ladies Friend not knowing what to answer called in the Bishop who sitting down first excused himself as one unprovided and not much studied in Controversies and desiring that in case he should fail yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of B. § 6 This is most true For I did indeed excuse my self and I had great reason so to do And my Reason being grounded upon Modesty for the most part there I leave it Yet this it may be fit others should know that I had no information where the other Conferences brake off no instruction at all what should be the ground of this third Conference nor the full time of four and twenty hours to bethink my self And this I take upon my Credit is most true whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Bran your daily work and came throughly furnished to the business and might so lead on the Controversie to what your self pleased and I was to follow as I could S. Augustine said once Scio me invalidum esse I know I am weak and yet he made good his Cause And so perhaps may I against you And in that I preferr'd the Cause before my particular Credit that which I did was with modesty and according to Reason For there is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon any one particular man And great reason that the personal defects of any man should press himself but not the Cause Neither did I enter upon this service out of any forwardness of my own but commanded to it by Supreme Authority F. It having an hundred better Scholars to maintain it then he To which I said there were a thousand better Scholars then I to maintain the Catholike Cause B. § 7 In this I had never so poor a Conceit of the Protestants Cause as to think that they had but an hundred better then my self to maintain it That which hath an hundred may have as many more as it pleases God to give and more then you And I shall ever be glad that the Church of England which at this time if my memory reflect not amiss I named may have far more able Defendants then my self I shall never envy them but rejoyce for her And I make no question but that if I had named a thousand you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the Catholike Cause as you call it And this confidence of yours hath ever been fuller of noise then proof But you proceed F. Then the Question about the Greek Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred B. § 8 Then I think the Question about the Greek Church was proposed But after you had with confidence enough not spared to say That what I would not acknowledge in this Cause you would wring and extort from me then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denied But every Errour denies not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ deny it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The Bishop said That the Errour was not in Point Fundamental B. § 9 Num. 1 I was not so peremptory My speech was That divers Learned men and some of your own were of Opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a Question not simply Fundamental I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous Errour in Divinity And sure it would have grated the Foundation if they had so denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as that they had made an inequality between the Persons But since their form of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a true Church for this though I confess them an erroneous Church in this particular Num. 2 Now that divers Learned men were of Opinion that à Filio and per Filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not Fundamental is evident The Master and his Scholars agree upon it The Greeks saith he confess the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. John 16. And since Non est aliud it is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and
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
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
God is uttered to men either immediately by God himself Father Son and Holy Ghost and so 't was to the Prophets and Apostles Or mediately either by Angels to whom God had spoken first and so the Law was given Gal. 3. and so also the Message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin S. Luke 1. or by the Prophets and Apostles and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church But their being written gave them no Authority at all in regard of themselves Written or Unwritten the Word was the same But it was written that it might be the better preserved and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church and the more faithfully in our Memories And you have been often enough told were truth and not the maintaining of a party the thing you seek for that if you will shew us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles we will acknowledge it to be Divine and Infallible So written or unwritten that shall not stumble us But then A. C. must not tell us at least not think we shall swallow it into our Belief That every thing which he says is the unwritten Word of God is so indeed Num. 8 I know Bellarmine hath written a whole Book De verbo Dei non scripto of the Word of God not written in which he handles the Controversie concerning Traditions And the Cunning is to make his weaker Readers believe that all that which He and his are pleased to call Traditions are by and by no less to be received and honoured than the unwritten Word of God ought to be Whereas 't is a thing of easie knowledge That the unwritten Word of God and Tradition are not Convertible Terms that is are not all one For there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church for ought appears And there are many Traditions affirmed at least to be such by the Church of Rome which were never warranted by any Unwritten Word of God Num. 9 First That there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church is manifest For when or where were the words which Christ spake to his Apostles during the forty days of his Conversing with them after his Resurrection first delivered over to the Church or what were the Unwritten Words he then spake If neither He nor His Apostles or Evangelists have delivered them to the Church the Church ought not to deliver them to her Children Or if she do tradere non traditions make a Tradition of that which was not delivered to her and by some of Them then She is unfaithful to God and doth not servare depositum faithfully keep that which is committed to her Trust. 1 Tim. 6. And her Sons which come to know it are not bound to obey her Tradition against the Word of their Father For wheresoever Christ holds his peace or that his words are not Registred I am of S. Augustines Opinion No man may dare without rashness say they were these or these So there were many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church and therefore never made Tradition And there are many Traditions which cannot be said to be the Unwritten Word of God For I believe a Learned Romanist that will weigh before he speaks will not easily say That to Anoint or use Spittle in Baptism or to use three Dippings in the use of that Sacrament or divers other like Traditions had their Rise from any Word of God unwritten Or if he be so hardy as to say so 't is gratis dictum and he will have enough to do to prove it So there may be an Unwritten Word of God which is no Tradition And there are many Traditions which are no Unwritten Word of God Therefore Tradition must be taken two ways Either as it is the Churches Act delivering or the Thing thereby delivered and then 't is Humane Authority or from it and unable infallibly to warrant Divine Faith or to be the Object of it Or else as it is the Unwritten Word of God and then where ever it can be made to appear so 't is of divine and infallible Authority no Question But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in this Particular He tells us We must know infallibly that the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and that this must be done by Unwritten Tradition but so as that this Tradition is the Word of God unwritten Now let him but prove that this or any Tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon is the Word of God though unwritten and the business is ended But A. C. must not think that because the Tradition of the Church tells me these Books are Verbum Dei Gods Word and that I do both honour and believe this Tradition That therefore this Tradition it self is Gods Word too and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this Belief in me Therefore for ought A. C. hath yet added we must on with our Inquiry after this great Business and most necessary Truth Num. 10 2. For the second way of proving That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it self only and by the witness that it can so give to it self I could never yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells us Such Books containing such and such Particulars are the Canon and Infallible Will and Word of God So if there were any such place that were no sufficient proof For a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness of that and again of that another and where ever it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the Whole And no created thing can alone give witness to it self and make it evident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Except those Principles only of Natural knowledge which appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding without any Discourse And yet they also to the weaker sort require Induction preceding Now this Inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same which cannot be Besides if this inward Light were so clear how could there have been any variety among the Ancient Believers touching the Authority of S. James and S. Jude's Epistles and the Apocalyps with other Books which were not received for divers years after the rest of the New Testament For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is And how could the Gospel of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas and other counterfeit pieces obtain so much credit with some as to be received
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
him in both all the rest of his life for this blessing thus bestowed on him Now thus far these dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a Sacrifice of Duty and a Sacrifice of Praise and a Sacrifice of Commemoration of Christ. Therefore according to the former Rule and here in truth too 't is safest for a man to believe the Commemorative the the Praising and the Performing Sacrifice and to offer them duely to God and leave the Church of Rome in this Particular to her Superstitions that I may say no more And would the Church of Rome stand to A. C's Rule and believe dissenting Parties where they agree were it but in this and that before of the Real presence it would work far toward the Peace of Christendom But the Truth is They pretend the Peace of Christendom but care no more for it than as it may uphold at least if not increase their own Greatness My fourth Instance shall be in the Sacrament of Baptism and the things required as necessary to make it effectual to the Receiver They in the common received Doctrine of the Church of Rome are three The Matter the Form and the Intention of the Priest to do that which the Church doth and intends he should do Now all other Divines as well ancient as modern and both the dissenting Churches also agree in the two former but many deny that the Intention of the Priest is necessary Will A. C. hold his Rule That 't is safest to believe in a controverted Point of Faith that which the dissenting Parties agree on or which the Adverse Part Confesses If he will not then why should he press that as a Rule to direct others which he will not be guided by himself And if he will then he must go professedly against the Councel of Trent which hath determined it as deside as a Point of Faith that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to make the Baptism true and valid Though in the History of that Councel 't is most apparent the Bishops and other Divines there could not tell what to answer to the Bishop of Minors a Neapolitane who declared his Judgement openly against it in the face of that Councel My fifth Instance is We say and can easily prove there are divers Errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal But I my self have heard some Jesuites confess that in the Liturgie of the Church of England there 's no positive Errour And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us They answered they could not do it Because though our Liturgie had in it nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service Now here let A. C. consider again Here is a plain Concession of the adverse Part And both agree there 's nothing in our Service but that which is holy and good What will the Jesuite or A. C. say to this If he forsake his ground then it is not safest in point of Divine Worship to joyn in Faith as the dissenting Parties agree or to stand to the Adversaries own Confession If he be so hardy as to maintain it then the English Liturgy is better and safer to worship God by than the Roman Mass. Which yet I presume A. C. will not confess Num. 8 In all these Instances the Matter so falling out of it self for the Argument enforces it not the thing is true but not therefore true because the dissenting Parties agree in it or because the adverse Part Confesses it Yet lest the Jesuite or A. C. for him farther to deceive the weak should infer that this Rule in so many Instances is true and false in none but that one concerning Baptism among the Donatists and therefore the Argument is true ut plerumque as for the most and that therefore 't is the safest way to believe that which dissenting Parties agree on I will lay down some other Particulars of as great Consequence as any can be in or about Christian Religion And if in them A. C. or any Jesuite dare say that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting Parties agree or as the adverse Party confesses I dare say he shall be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Insidel And First where the Question was betwixt the Orthodox and the Arrian whether the Son of God were consubstantial with the Father The Orthodox said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance The Arrian came within in a Letter of the Truth and said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like substance Now he that says he is of the same substance confesses he is of like substance and more that is Identity of Substance for Identity contains in it all Degrees of likeness and more But he that acknowledges and believes that He is of like nature and no more denies the Identity Therefore if this Rule be true That it is safest to believe that in which the dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part Confesses which A. C. makes such great vaunt of then 't is safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature with God the Father and be free from Belief that He is Consubstantial with him which yet is Concluded by the Councel of Nice as necessary to Salvation and the Contrary Condemned for Damnable Heresie Secondly in the Question about the Resurrection between the Orthodox and diverse â—ross Hereticks of old and the Anabaptists and Libertines of late For all or most of these dissenting Parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to a state of Grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers Passages of holy Scripture together with the Life of the Soul which they are content to say is Immortal But they utterly deny any Resurrection of the Body after Death So with them that Article of the Creed is gone Now then if any man will guide his Faith by this Rule of A. C. The Consent of dissenting Parties or the Confession of the Adverse Part he must deny the Resurrection of the Body from the Grave to Glory and believe none but that of the Soul from sin to Grace which the Adversaries Confess and in which the Dissenting Parties agree Thirdly in the great Dispute of all others about the Unity of the Godhead All dissenting Parties Jew Turk and Christian Among Christians Orthodox and Anti-Trinitarian of old And in these later times Orthodox and Socinian that Horrid and mighty Monster of all Heresies agree in this That there is but one God And I hope it is as necessary to believe one God our Father as one Church our Mother Now will A. C. say here 't is safest believing as the dissenting Parties agree or as the Adverse Parties Confess namely That there is but one God and so deny the Trinity and therewith the Son of God the Saviour of
6. v. 20. p. 44. 2 Tim. Cap. 1. v. 14. p. 44. c. 6. v. 16. p. 72. Hebr. Cap. 5. v. 12. p. 125. c. 9. v. 12. p. 199. c. 11. v. 6. p. 28 236. c. 11. v. 1. p. 56 68. c. 12. v. 9. p. 103. c. 13. v. 17. p. 168. S. James Cap. 1. v. 20. p. 99. 1 S. Peter Cap. 5. v. 3. p. 59. 2 S. Peter Cap. 1. v. 16. p. 73. 1 S. John Cap. 4. v. 2. p. 28. c. 2. v. 19. p. 105. S. Jude V. 3. p. 46. p. 218. Apocal. Cap. 12. v. 1. p. 136. FINIS a May 24. 1622. b One of these Biasses is an Aversion from all such Truth as fits not our Ends. And Aversus à Veritatis luce ab hoc luci Veritatis adversus fit c. S. Aug. l. 2. cont Adversarium Legis Prophet And 't is an easie Transition for a man that is Averse from to become adverse to the Truth c In the Epistle to the Reader a Ibid. c These words were in my former Epistle And A. C. checks at them in defence of the Jesuite and says That the Jesuite did not at all so much as in Speech and much less in Papers publish this or either of the other two Conferences with Dr. White till he was forc'd unto it by false reports given out to his private disgrace and the prejudice of the Catholike Cause Nor then did he spread Papers abroad but onely delivered a very few Copies to special friends and this not with an intent to calumniate the Bishop c. A. C. in his Preface before his Relation of this Conference Truly I knew of no Reports then given out to the prejudice of the Jesuit's either Person or Cause I was in a Corner of the Kingdom where I heard little But howsoever here 's a most plain Confession by A. C. of that which he struggles to deny He says he did not spread Papers What then What Why he did but deliver Copies Why but doth not he that delivers Copies for instance of a Libel spread it Yea but he delivered but a very few Copies Be it so I do not say how many he spread He confesses the Jesuite delivered some though very few And he that delivers any spreads it abroad For what can he tell when the Copies are once out of his power how many may copie them out and spread them farther Yea but he delivered them to special friends Be it so too The more special friends they were to him the less indifferent would they be to me perhaps my more special enemies Yea but all this was without an intent to calumniate me Well Be that so too But if I be calumniated thereby his intention will not help it And whether the Copies which he delivered have not in them Calumny against me I leave to the Indifferent Reader of this Discourse to judge Psal. 50. 19. 20. * S. Aug. S 〈…〉 63. De Diversis c. 10. He speaks of Christ disputing in the Temple with the Elders of the Jews And they heard Christ the Essential Word of the Father with admiration to astonishment yet believed him not S. Luk. 2. 47. And the Word then spake to thâ—â— by a means they thought not of namely per Fâ—lâ—um Deâ— in puero by the Son of God himself under the Vail of our human nature A. C. p. 67. * Preface to the Relation of this Conference by A. C. * And S. Aug. is very full against the use of Mala retid unlawful Nets And saith the Fishermen themselves have greatest cause to take heed of them S. Aug. L. de Fid Oper. c. 17. Rom. 3. 8. 1 Cor. 9. 16. Judg. 5. 23. Judg. 17. 6. Psal. 118. 12. * Apum Similitudine ardorem notat vesanum Non est enim in illis multum roboris sed mira Excandescentia Calv in Psal. 118. Revel 22. 12. * Gen. 15. 1. Rom. 8. 18. * There is no other difference between Us and Rome than betwixt a Church miserably Corrupted and happily purged c. Jos. Hall B. of Exon. In his Apologetical Advertisement to the Reader p. 192. Approved by Tho. Morton B. then of Cov. Lich. now of Dâ—resm in the Letters printed by the B. of Exâ—ter in this Treatise called The Recoâ—scileâ— p. 68. And D. Field in this Appen to the third part c. 2. where he cites Calv. to the saâ—â—t purpose L. 4. Inst. c. 2. â— 11. * S. Matth. 15. 14. Phil. 2. 21. * S. Aâ—g Epist. 48. S. Jud. 3. * 1 S. Pet. 3. 15. a 1 Cor. 10. 15. b Quis non sine ullo Magistro aut interprete ex se facilè cognoscat c. Novat de Trin. c. 23. Et loquitur de Mysterio Passionis Christs Dijudicare est Mensurare c. Unde Mens dicitur à Metiendo Tho. p. 1. q. 79. à 9. ad 4. To what end then is a Minde and an Understanding given a man if he may not apply it to measure Truth Et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. ab to quod considerat discernit Quia decernit inter verum salsum Damase l. 2. Fid. Orth. c. 22. And A. C. himself p. 41. denies not all Judgment to private men but says They are not so to rely absolutely upon their private judgment as to adventure Salvation upon it alone or chiefly which no man will deny A. C. p. 42. †Veritas vincat necesse est sive Negantem sive conâ—itentem c. S. Aug. Epist. 174. Occultari potest ad tempus veritas vinci non potest S. Aug. in Psal. 61. * L. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 4. §. 1. Romana particularis Ecclesia non potest errare in Fide * Ibid §. 2. †Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam Principalem c. Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos ad quos Persidia habere non potest accessum Cyprian L. 1. Epist. 3. * Bin. Concil Tom. 1. p. 152. Edit Paris 1636. Baron Annal. 253 254 255. * Rom. 1. 8. †Ego tibi istam scelestam Scelus linguam abscindam Plaut Amphit Ex hac enim parte pudor pugnat illinc petulantia c. Cic. Latuit plebeio tectus amictu Omnis Honos Nullos comitata est purpura fasces Lucan L. 2. †Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante c * Epist. 67. * For so S. Cyprian begins his Epistle to Cornelius Legi literas tuas frater c. And after Sed enim lectâ alia Epistolâ tuâ frater c. S. Cypr. L. 1. Epist. 3. * Stephanus Frater noster Haereticorum causam contra Christianos contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur Cypr. ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani Edit per Erasmum Basil p. 327. †Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura Ibid. p. 329. And it would be marked by the Jesuite and his A. C. that still it is Stephani fratris nostri and not Capitis or summi
again in the second Prayer or Thanksgiving after Consecration thus We give thee thanks for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us which have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Bloud of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ c. †Jo. Fox Martyrolog Tom. 2. London 1597. p. 943. ‖ Fox Ibid. * Cranmer apud Fox ibid. p. 1301. †I say Corporalitèr corporally for so Bellarmine hath it expresly Quod autem Corporalitèr propriè sâ—â—â—atur Sanguis Caro c. probâ—â—i potest omnibus Argumentis c. Bell. L. 1. de Eucharistic 12. § Sed tota And I must be bold to tell you more than That this is the Doctrine of the Ch. of Rome For I must tell you too that Bellarm. here contradicts himself For he that tells us here that it can be proved by many Arguments that we receive the Flesh and the Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist corporalitèr said as expresly before had he remembred it that though Christ be in this Blessed Sacrament verè realiter yet faith he non dicemus corporaliter i. e. co modo quo sâ—d naturâ existunt Corpora c. Bell. L. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. § Tertia Regula So Bell. here is in a notorious contradiction Or else it will follow plainly out of him that Christ in the Sacrament is existent one way received another which is a gross absurdity And that corporaliter was the Doctrine of the Ch. of Rome meant by Transubstantiation is farther plain in the book called The Institution of a Christian man set forth by the Bishops in Convocation in H. 8's time an 1534. c. Of the Sacrament of the Altar The words are Under the form figure of Bread Wine the very body and bloud of Christ is corporally really c. exhibited and received c. And Aquiâ—as expresseâ—â—â— thus Quia tamen substantia Corporis Christi realiter non dividitur à sua quantitate dimensiva ab aliis accidentibus indâ— est quòd ex vi realis Concomitantiae est in Sacramento totâ— quantitas dimensiva Corporiâ— Christi omnia accidentia ejus Tho. p. 3. q. 76. Ar. 4. c. * Apud Fox ibid. p. 1598. †Apud Fox ibid. 1703. ‖ Tantùm de modo quaestiö est c. Et â—acessat calumâ—ia auferri Christum à Coenâ suâ c. Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 17. § 31. Veritatem Dei in quâ acquiescere tutò licet sine controversia amplectar Pronunciat ille Carnem suam esse Animae meae cibum Sanguinem esse potum Talibus alimentis animam Illi meam pascendam oâ—â—â—â—o In S. Coena jubet me sub Symbolis Panis Vini Corpus Sanguinem suum sumere manducare biâ—ere Nihil dubito quin Ipse Verè porrigat ego recipiam Calv. ibid. § 32. Punct 5. A. C. p. 66. 3 Reg. 17. 4 Reg. 3. 3 Reg. 19. 18. 3 Reg. 13. 11. * Petilianus dixit Venite ad Ecclesiam populi aufugite Traditores ita Orthodoxos tum appellavit si cum iisdem perire non vultis Num ut facilè cognoâ—catis quòd ipsi sunt rei de fide nostra optimè judicant Ego illorum infectos baptizo Illi meos quod absit recipiunt baptizatos quae omâ—ino non â—acerent si in Baptismo nostro culpas aliquas agnovissent Videte ergo quod damus quam sanctum sit quod destruere metuit Sacrilegus Inimicus S. August respondet Sic approbamus in Haereticis Baptismum nox Haereticorum sed Christi sicut in Fornicasoribus Idololatris Veneficis c. approbamus Baptismum non eorm sed Christi Omnes enim isti inter quos Haeretici sunt sicut dicit Apostolus Regnum Dei non possidebunt c. â— August â— 2. cont Lit. Petiliani c. 108. * Galat. 5. 19 20 21. †Non ergo vestrum est quod destruert metuimus sed Christi quod in sacrilegis per se sanctum est S. August Ibid. A. C. p. 64 65. A. C. p. 66. * For though Prateolus will make Donatus and from him the Donatists to be gullty of an impious Heresie I doubt he means Arrianism though he name it not in making the Son of God less than the Father and the Holy Ghost less than the Son L 4. de Haeres Haer. 14. yet these things are most manifest out of S. Aug. concerning them who lived with them both in time and place and understood them and their Tenets far better than Prateolus could And first S. Aug. tells us concerning them Aryiani Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti diversas substantias esse dicunt Donatistae autem unam Trinitatis substantiam confitentur So they are no Arrians Secondly Si aliqui eorum minorem Filium esse dixerunt quà m Pater est ejusdâ—m tamen substantiae non â—â—gârunt But this is but si aliqâ—â— if any so 't was doubtful this too though Patreolus delivers it positively Thirdly Plurimi verâ— in iis â—oe se dicunt omnino credere de Patre Filiâ— Spiritâ— Sancto quod Catholica credit Ecclesia Nec â—â—sa cum illis vertitur Questio sed de sola Communione iâ—â—oeliciter litigant c. De sola Only about the Union with the Church Therefore they erred not in Fundamental Points of Faith And Lastly All that can farther be said against them is That some of them to win the Goths to them when they were powerful said Hoc se Credere quod illi Credunt Now the Goths for the most were Arrians But then faith S. Aug. they were but nâ—â—nulli some of them And of this some it was no more Certain than sicut andivimus as we have heard S. Aug. knew it not And then if it were true of some yet Majorum sâ—orum Authoritate convincuntur Quia nec Donatus ipse sic credidisse asseritur de cujus parte se esse gloriantur S. Aug. Epist. 50. Where Prateolus is again deceived for he says expresly that Donatus affirmed the Son to be less then the Father Impius ille asserebat c. But then indeed and which perchance deceived Patreolus beside Donatus the founder of this Heresie there was another Donatus who succeeded Majorinus at Carthâ—ge and he was guilty of the Heresie which Prateolus mentions Et extant scripta ejus ubi appareâ— aâ— S. Aug. confesses L 1. de Haeres Haer. 69. But then S. Aug. adds there also nec facilè in iis quisquam that scarce any of the Donatists did so much as know that this Donatus held that Opinion much less did they believe it themselves S. Aug. Ibid. †§. 21. N. 1 c. Punct 6. A. C. p. 66. * §. 35. N. 1 2. A. C. p. 66. * Iâ—gemuit totus Orbis Arrianum se esse miratus est S. Hâ—er advers Luciferian post medium To. 2. Arrianorum Venenum non â—am portiunculam quandam sed pâ—â—è