double divine authority 54 65 66. what measure of light is or can be required in it 55 56 as now set forth and printed of what authority it is 59 63 Scripture and Tradition confirm either other mutually not equally 63 The way of the Ancient Church of proving Scripture to be Gods Word 65. four proofs brought for it ibid. the seeming contradiction of Fathers touching Scripture and Tradition reconciled 66. belief of Scripture the true grounds of it 71 72 73. rules of finding the true sense of it 41. how rich a store-house it is 73 74. the writers of it what certainty we have who they were 69. proof of its Divine Authority to whom necessary 75 infallible assurance of that Authority by humane proof 8. that it is a Rule sufficient and infallible 129 130. three things observable in that Rule 129. its prerogative above general Councels 157. compared with Church-definitions 162. what assurance that we have the true sense of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. 215 216 c. some Books of Scripture anciently doubted of and some not Canonical received by some into the Canon 46 Separation Actual and Causal 92 93 for what one Church may lawfully Separate from another 90 94 95. Corruption in manners no sufficient cause of Separation 94 95. what Separation necessary 86 Sermons exalted to too great a height both by Jesuites and Precistans 64. their true worth and use ibid. Simanca his soul tenet concerning â—aith given to Hereticks 93 Sixtus Senensis his doubting of some of the Apocryphal Books received by the Councel of Trent 218 Socinianism the monster of Heresies 202 Archbishop of Spalato made to speak for Rome 231 Of the Private Spirit 46 47 161 Succession what a one a note of the Church 249 250 not to be found in Rome 251. Stapleton his inconstancy concerning it 250 T TEstimony of the Church whether Divine or Humane 39 The Testimony of it alone cannot make good the Infallibility of the Scripture 42 43 Theophilus of Alexandria his worth and his violent Spirit 115 Traditions what to be approved 29 30 34 43 44. Tradition and Scripture-proofs of the same things 38. is not a sufficient proof of Scripture 39 40. it and Gods unwritten Word not terms convertible 43 44. Tradition of the present Church what uses it hath 52 53 55 81. how it differeth from the Tradition of the Primitive Church 52 63. Tradition of the Church meer humane Authority 58. what Tradition the Fathers meant by saying we have the Scriptures by Tradition 66 67. Tradition Apostolical the necessity and use of it 66 67. Tradition how known before Scripture 77. what most likely to be a Tradition Apostolical 38 39. the danger of leaning too much upon Tradition 78. Against Transubstantiation 180 188 189 192 212. Suarez his plain confession that it is not of necessary belief 188. Cajetane and Alphonsus à Castro their opinion concerning it 221. Scandal taken by Averroes at the Doctrine of it 213. vid. Eucharist True and Right their difference 82 83 V VIctor Pope taxed by Irenaeus 118. Vincentius Lirinensis cleared 25 Union of Christendome how little regarded and how hindered by Rome 200 212 Unity the causes of the breaches thereof 235 c. Not that Unity in the Faith amongst the Romanists which they so much boast of 218 Universal Bishop a title condemned by S. Gregory yet usurped by his Successors 116 W WOrd of God that it may be written and unwritten 43. why written 44. uttered mediately or immediately 43. many of Gods unwritten Words not delivered to the Church 44 45 Vid. Scripture and Tradition Worth of men of what weight in proving truth 197 A Table of the places of Scripture which are explained or vindicated Genesis Cap. 1. vers 16. pag. 136. Deuteronomy Cap. 4. v. 2. p. 21. c. 13. v. 1 2 3. p. 69. c. 21. v. 19. 103. p. c. 17. v. 18. p. 135. 1 Samuel Chap. 3. v. 13. p. 103. c. 8. v. 3 5 ibid. 3 Kings Cap. 12. v. 27. p. 96. c. 13. v. 11. p. 194. c. 17. p. 193. c. 19. v. 18. p. 194. 4 Kings Cap. 3. p. 97 193. c. 23. p. 100. 135. 2 Chron. Cap. 29. v. 4. p. 100 135. Psalms Psal. 1. v. 2. p. 73. Proverbs Cap. 1. v. 8. c. 15. v. 20. c. 6. v. 20 22. p. 169 170. Isaiah Cap. 44. passim p. 71. c. 53. v. 1. p. 70. Jeremiah Cap. 2. v. 13. p. 219. c. 5. v. 31. p. 78. c. 20. v. 7. c. 38. v. 17. p. 70. S. Matthew Cap. 9. v. 12. p. 37. c. 12. v. 22 c. 16. v. 17. p. 50. c. 16. v. 18. p. 9 106. 123. 240. c. 16. v. 19. p. 47. c. 18. v. 18. p. 123. c. 18. v. 20. p. 152 154 c. 18. v. 17. p. 168 185. c. 22. v. 37 p. 236. c. 28. v. 19 20. p. 61 106. c. 28 v. 21. p. 106. c. 28. v. 29. p. 125. c. 28. v. 20. p. 151. c. 26. v. 27. p. 169. S. Mark Cap. 10. v. 14. p. 38. c. 13. v. 22. p. 69. S. Luke Cap. 10. v. 16. p. 61. c. 12. v. 48. p. 236. c. 22. v. 35. p. 30. c. 9. v. 23. p. 71. c. 22. v. 37. p. 100. c. 12. v. 32. p. 123 151. c. 24. v. 47. p. 104. S. John Cap. 5. v. 47. p. 79. c. 6. v. 70. p. 251. c. 9. v. 29. p. 79. c. 10. v. 4. p. 65. c. 10. v. 41. p. 70. c. 11. v. 42. p. 124. c. 14. v. 16. p. 62. 151. c. 14. v. 26. p. 107 151. c. 16 v. 13. p. 62 151. c. 16. v. 14. p. 151. c. 17. v. 3. p. 72. c. 19. v. 35. p. 69. c. 20. v. 22. p. 123. c. 21. v. 15. p. 30 125. c. 5. v. 31. p. 57. c. 2. v. 19. p. 105. Acts. Cap. 4. v. 12. p. 136. c. 6. v. 9. p. 82. c. 9. v. 29. c. 19. v. 17. p. 82. c. 11. v. 26. p. 103. c. 15. v. 28. p. 46 151 155 171. Romans Cap. 5. v. 15. p. 22. c. 1. v. 20. p. 29 72. c. 1. v. 8. p. 88. c. 1. v. 18. p. 222. c. 10. v. 10. p. 245. c. 10. v. 14 15. p. 231. c. 3. v. 4. p. 232. c. 11. v. 16. p. 91. c. 13. v. 1. p. 134 1 Corinth Cap. 1. v. 10. p. 235. c. 2. v. 11. p. 207. c. 3. v. 2. p. 125. c. 3. v. 11. p. 152. c. 2. v. 14. p. 48. c. 5. v. 5. p. 166. c. 11. v. 1. p. 61. c. 11. v. 23. p. 169. c. 11. v. 19. p. 235 236. c. 12. v. 3 4. p. 47. 12 10. p. 70. 12 28. p. 247. c. 13. v. 1. p. 134. Galath Cap. 3. v. 19. p. 43. Ephesians Cap. 2. v. 20. p. 152. c. 4. v. 11. p. 247. c. 4. v. 13. p. 248. c. 5. v. 2. p. 199. c. 5. v. 27. p. 169. 2 Thes. Cap. 2. p. 39. c. 2. v. 9. p. 70. c. 2. v. 15. p. 46. 1 Tim. Cap. 3. v. 15. p. 22. c.
four proofs all internal to the Scripture First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly That there hath been such performance of it Fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas à d muniendam Fidem for the Defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinens places Authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self And your own School confesses this was the way ever The Woman of Samaria is a known Resemblance but allowed by your selves For quotidiè daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman that is the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives c. But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe his word before the words of the Woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus the School taught then and thus the Gloss commented then And when men have tired themselves hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures even to this knowledge of them That they are the Word of God is the Tradition of the Church but when they are in They hear Christ himself immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithful And his sheep do not only hear but know his voice And then here 's no vicious Circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church and then round about the Church by the Scripture Only distinguish the Times and the Conditions of men and all is safe For a Beginner in the Faith or a Weakling or a Doubter about it begins at Tradition and proves Scripture by the Church But a man strong and grown up in the Faith and understandingly conversant in the Word of God proves the Church by the Scripture And then upon the matter we have a double Divine Testimonie altogether Infallible to confirm unto us That Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves who delivered immediately to the world the Word of Christ. The other the Scripture it self but after it hath received this Testimonie And into these we do and may safely Resolve our Faith As for the Tradition of after-Ages in and about which Miracles and Divine Power were not so evident we believë them by Gandavo's full Confession because they do not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certain Scripture And it appears by men in the middle Ages that these writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time Num. 33 And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seem to speak differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselves touching Scripture and Tradition And that as well in this Point to prove Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant Exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say We have the Scriptures by Tradition or the like either They mean the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it and there when it is known to be such we may resolve our Faith Or if they speak of the Present Church then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Scripture as by an according Means to the Prime Tradition But because it is not simply Divine we cannot resolve our Faith into it nor settle our Faith upon it till it resolve it self into the Prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers Nay can you or any of your Quarter shew any one Father of the Church Greek or Latine that ever said We are to resolve our Faith that Scripture is the Word God into the Tradition of the present Church And again when the Fathers say we are to rely upon Scripture only they are never to be understood with Exclusion of Tradition in what causes soever it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for all things but because it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if any man will presume upon his own strength and go single without the Church Num. 34 To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long Discourse to prove That Scripture is the Word of God I shall now in the Last place put all together that so the whole state of the Question may the better appear First then I shall desire the Reader to consider that every Rational Science requires some Principles quite without its own Limits which are not proved in that Science but presupposed Thus Rhetorick presupposes Grammar and Musick Arithmetick Therefore it is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles also which she proves not but presupposes And the chiefest of these is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority Secondly that there is a great deal of difference in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity and those of any other Art or Science whatsoever For the Principles of all other Sciences do finally resolve either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science or into those Principles which are per se nota known by their own light and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science And this is it which properly makes them Sciences because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration as forces Reason to yeeld unto them But the Principles of Divinity resolve not into the Grounds of Natural Reason For then there would be no room for Faith but all would be either Knowledge or Vision but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernatural And of this we have just so much light and no more than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture Thirdly That though the Evidence of these Supernatural Truths which Divinity teaches appears not so manifest as that of the Natural yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible than they For they proceed immediately from God that Heavenly Wisdom which being the fountain of ours must needs infinitely precede ours both in Nature and excellence He that teacheth man knowledge shall not be know Psal. 94. And therefore though we reach not the Order of their Deductions nor can in this life come to the vision of them
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
would fain through Master Roger's sides wound the Church of England as if she were unsetled in the Article of Christs Descent into Hell pag. 21. And he endeavours the same in this pag. 46. In the first he is very earnest to prove That the Schism was made by the Protestants pag. 23. And he is as earnest for it in this pag. 55. In the first he lays it for a Ground That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation from Faith or Church pag. 24. And the same Ground he lays in this pag. 55. In the first he will have it That the Holy Ghost gives continual and Infallible Assistance to the Church pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this pag. 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Erring of the Greek Church pag. 28. And as much makes he in this pag. 44. In the first he makes a great noyse about the place in St. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans c. pag. 18. and 24. And so doth he here also pag. 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe That he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sentence of S. Bernard 'T is intolerable Pride And that of S. Augustine 'T is insolent madness to oppose the Doctrine or Practice of the Catholike Church pag. 25. And twice he is at the same Art in this pag. 56. and 73. In the first he tells us That Calvin confesses That in the Reformation there was a Departure from the whole world pag. 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world and of no Voluntary but a forced Departure and wrote this to Melancthon to work Unity among the Reformers not any way to blast the Reformation Yet we must hear of it again in this pag. 56. But over and above the rest one Place with his own gloss upon it pleases him extreamly 'T is out of S. Athanasius his Creed That whosoever doth not hold it entire that is saith he in all Points and Inviolate that is saith he in the true unchanged and uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This he hath almost verbatim in the first page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader under the Name of W. I. and then agian the very same in this if not with some more disadvantage to himself page 70. And perhaps had I leasure to search after them more Points than these Now the Reasons which moved me to set down these Particulars thus distinctly are two The One that whereas the Jesuite affirms that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters and little or nothing about the main and great general Point of a Continual Infallible Visible Church in which that Lady required satisfaction and that therefore this third Conference was held It may hereby appear that the most material both Points and Proofs are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences though little be related of the second Conference by A. C. as appears in the Preface of the Publisher W. I. to the Reader So this tends to nothing but Ostentation and shew The Other is that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it It cannot but appear by this and their handling of other Points in Divinity that they labour indeed but no otherwise then like an Horse in a Mill round about in the same Circle no farther at night then at noon The same thing over and over again from Tu es Petrus to Pasce oves from thou art Peter to Do thou feed my Sheep And back again the same way F. The Lady asked Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith Upon my soul said the Bishop you may Upon my soul said I there is but one saving Faith and that is the Roman B. § 38 Num. 1 So it seems I was consident for the Faith professed in the Church of England else I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soul. And sure I had reason of this my Confidence For to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church To receive the four great General Councels so much magnified by Antiquity To believe all Points of Doctrine generally received as Fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are controverted between us I would fain see any one Point maintained by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the Foundation You have many dangerous Errours about the very Foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith But there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Yet this is true too That there is but one saving Faith But then every thing which you call De Fide of the Faith because some Councel or other hath defined it is not such a Breach from that One saving Faith as that he which expresly believes it not nay as that he which believes the Contrary is excluded from Salvation so his Disobedience therewhile offer no violence to the Peace of the Church nor the Charity which ought to be among Christians And Bellarmine is forced to grant this There are many things de Fide which are not absolutely necessary to salvation Therefore there is a Latitude in the Faith especially in reference to different mens salvation To set Bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Just thus far you must believe in every Particular or incur Damnation is no work for my Pen. These two things I am sure of One That your peremptory establishing of so many things that are remote Deductions from the Foundation to be believed as Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation hath with other Errours lost the Peace and Unity of the Church for which you will one day Answer And the other That you of Rome are gone farther from the Foundation of this One saving Faith than can ever be proved we of the Church of England have done Num. 2 But here A. C. bestirs himself finding that he is come upon the Point which is indeed most considerable And first he answers That it is not sufficient to beget a Confidence in this Case to say we believe the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the Ancient Primitive Church believed them c. Most true if we onely say and do not believe And let them which believe not while they say they do look to it on all sides for on all sides I doubt not but such there are But if we do say it
question but to make them ready against they understood it And as School-Masters make their Scholars conne their Grammar-Rules by heart that they may be ready for their use when they better understand them NUM â—0 * L. 1. cont Epis. 〈◊〉 c. ◠〈…〉 non credâ—râ—m E 〈…〉 â—isi me catholiâ—â— Ecclesiâ— commâ—veret Authoritâ—◠†Occham Diaâ— p. 1 L. â— c. 4. Intelligitur solum dâ— Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 â—uit â—â—â—pore Apostolorum ‖ Bâ—el lect 22. in C. Missâ— A tempore Christi Apostolorum c. And so doth S. Aug. take â—ccles 〈…〉 a Fâ—â—d * â— 16. Nâ— 6. * Sâ—ve Inâ—ideles â—ive in Fide Novitii Can. Loc. L. 2. c. 8. Neganti aut omninò neÌ„sciâ—â—ti Scripturam Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1. A. 3. †Quid si fateamur Fideles etiam Ecclesiae Authoritate commâ—ueri ut Scriptur as recipiant Non tamen inde sequitur â—oâ— hoc modo penitus persuaderi aut nullâ— aliâ— fortioréâ—ue ratione induci Quis antem Christianus est quem Ecclesia Christi commendans Scripturam Coristi non commâ—â—â—at Whitaker Dâ—sp de sacrâ Scripturâ Contrâ— 1. â— 3. â— 8. ubi citat locum â—anc S. Aug. ‖ Et 〈◊〉 Quibus â—â—â—emperaâ—â— dicentibus Credite Evangâ—â—io Therefore he speaks of himself when he did not believe * â—â—â—tum est quod teneâ—â—â— credere omnibus 〈…〉 in Sacro Canonâ— quia Ecclesia credit â—x ea ratione solum Ergo per prius magis tâ—â—â—â—uâ— Credere Ecclesiae quà m Evangâ—â—â—â— Aâ—tt 〈…〉 n. in 3 Dist. 24. Conclus 6. â—â—â— 6. And to make a shew of proof for this he â—alsifies S. August most notoriously and reads that known place not Niâ—◠〈◊〉 commoâ—â—râ—â— at all read it â—â—â— râ—mâ—elleret Pateâ— quiae dicit Augustinus Evangelio non Credereâ— nisi ad â—oâ— me compellâ—ret Ecclesiâ— Authoritas Ibid. And so also Gerson reads it in Declarat veritatum quâ— crâ—dendâ— sunt c. part 1. p. 414. §. 3. But in a most ancient Manuscript in Corp. Chr. Colledge Library in Cambridge the words are Nisi me commovâ—râ—t c. †Câ—â—â—n L. â— de Lâ—câ—â— c. 8. fol. 34. ◠§. 16. Num. 6. * Psal. 119 10â— Sâ—â—ctarum Scripturarum Lumen S. Aug. L. de verâ Relig. c. â— Quid 〈◊〉 Scripturum vanis umbris c. S. August â— dâ— Mâ—r. Eccl. Cathol â—35 * 1 Cor. 2. 14. †Orig. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. went this way yet was he a great deal nearer the prime Tradition than we are For being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith Dâ—â—oc â—ssigâ—abimus â—x ipsis Diviâ—is Scripturis quâ— nos compâ—â—â—â—tâ—r moâ—â—riâ—t c. ‖ Princip 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—m hîc credimus propter Dâ—â—m non Apostolâ—s c. Hâ—nr à â—and Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now if where the Apostoles themselves spake ultimate resolutio Fidei was in Deum not in ipsos per se much more shall it be in Deum than in prâ—sentem Ecclesiâ—â— and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their Successors made up into a Tradition * Calv. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum scriptis Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata â—uit â—â—icunque reperietur eâ— Doctrina c. * And where Hooker uses this very Argument as he doth L. 3. §. 8. his words are not If there be sufficient Light But if that Light be Evident †1 Cor. 2. 14. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 1. †§. 16. Nâ— 13. ‖ Heb. 11. 1. * 1 Cor. 13. 12. And A. C. confesies p. 52. That this very thing in Question may be known infallible when 't is known but obscurely Et Scotus in 3. Dist. 23. q. 1 fol. 41. B. Hoc modo facile est videre quomocò Fides est cum aenigmate obscuritate Quis Habitus Fidei non credit Articulum esse verum ex Evidentiâ— Objecti sed propter boc quod assentit veratitati infundentis Habitum in hoc revelantis Credibilia †Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. Credere ullas esse divinas Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem I will not break my Discourse to â—iâ—â—e this speech of Bellarmine it is bad enough in the best sense that favour it self can give it For if he mean by omninò that it is not altogether or simply necessary to believe there is Divine Scripture and a written Word of God that 's false that being granted which is among all Christians That there is a Scripture And God would never have given a Supernatural unnecessary thing And if he means by omninò that it is not in any wise necessary then it is sensibly false For the greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were made the Scripture very ncessary in all the Ages of the Church So it was necessary because it was given and given because God thought it necessary Besides upon Roman Grounds this I think will follow That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omninò necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omninò be the sense of the word what it can necessary to Salvation So Bellarmine is herein â—oul and unable to stand upon his own ground And he is the more partly because he avouches this Proposition for truth after the New Testament written And partly because he might have seen the state of this Proposition carefully examined by Gandavo and distinguished by times Sum. p. 1. A. 8. q. 4. sine * Lib. 1. §. 14. †Protest Apol. Tract 1. §. 10. N. 3. * L. 2. §. 4. †L. 2. §. 7. L. 3. §. 8. ‖ S. Joh. 5. 31. He speaks of himself as man S. Joh. 8. 13. * L. 2. §. 7. * L. 3. §. 8. A. C. p. 52. A. C. p. 52. A. C. p. 52. * S. Luke 16. 8. †1 S. Pet. 5. 3. ‖ S. Basil goes as far for Traditions as any For he says Parem vim habent ad pietatem L. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. But first he speaks of Apostolical Tradition not of the Tradition of the present Church Secondly the Learned take exceptions to this Book of S. Basil as corrupted Bp. Aâ—dr Opuse cont Peron p. 9. Thirdly S. Basil himself Ser. de Fido prosesses that he uses sometimes Agrapha sed ea solùm quae non sunt aliena à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiá So he makes the Scripture their Touch-stone or tryal And therefore must of Necessity make Scripture superior in as much as that which is able to try another is of greater force and superior Dignity in that use than the thing tried by it And Stapleton himself confesses Traditionem recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem nullo modo cum Scripturâ vel cum Traditionibus priùs à se explicatis comparandâ—m esse Stapleton Relect.
and without Choyce by which their most hated Adversaries climb'd up and could not crie up themselves and their Cause as they do but by them And Divines of all the rest might learn and teach this Wisdom if they would since they see all other Professions which help to bear down their Ceremonies keep up their own therewhile and that to the highest I have been too bold to detain Your Majesty so long But my Grief to see Christendom bleeding in Dissention and which is worse triumphing in her own Blood and most angry with them that would study her Peace hath thus transported me For truely it Cannot but grieve any man that hath Bowels to see All men seeking but as S. Paul foretold Phil. 2. their own things and not the things which are Jesus Christs Sua Their own surely For the Gospel of Christ hath nothing to do with them And to see Religion so much so Zealously pretended and called upon made but the Stalking-Horse to shoot at other Fowl upon which their Aym is set In the mean time as if all were Truth and Holiness it self no Salvation must be possible did it lye at their Mercy but in the Communion of the One and in the Conventicles of the Other As if either of these now were as the Donatists of old reputed themselves the only men in whom Christ at his coming to Judgment should find Faith No faith S. Augustine and so say I with him Da veniam non Credimus Pardon us I pray we cannot believe it The Catholike Church of Christ is neither Rome nor a Conventicle Out of that there 's no Salvation I easily Confess it But out of Rome there is and out of a Conventicle too Salvation i◠not shut up into such a narrow Conclave In this ensuing Discourse therefore I have endeavour'd to lay open those wider-Gates of the Catholike Church confined to no Age Time or Place Nor knowing any Bounds but That Faith which was once and but once for all deliver'd to the Saints S. Jude 3. And in my pursuit of this way I have searched after and deliver'd with a single heart that Truth which I profess In the publishing whereof I have obeyed Your Majesty discharg'd my Duty to my power to the Church of England Given account of the Hope that is in me And so testified to the world that Faith in which I have lived and by God's blessing and favour purpose to dye But till Death shall most unfainedly remain Your MAJESTIES Most faithful Subject And Most Humble and Obliged Servant W. CANT A RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN WILLIAM LAWD Then L. Bishop of S. DAVIDS afterwards Lord Arch-Bishop of CANTERBURY AND M. FISHER the JESUITE F. The occasion of this Conference was B. § 1 THe occasion of this Third Conference you should know sufficiently You were an Actor in it as well as in two other VVhether you have related the two former truly appears by D. White the late Reverend L. Bishop of Ely his Relation or Exposition of them I was present at none but this Third of which I here give the Church an Account But of this Third whether that were the Cause which you alledge I cannot tell You say F. It was observed That in the second Conference all the Speech was about particular matters little or none about a continual infallible visible Church which was the chief and only Point in which a certain Lady required satisfaction as having formerly setled in her minde That it was not for her or any other unlearned persons to take upon them to judge of particulars without depending upon the judgment of the True Church B. § 2 The Opinion of that Honourable Person in this was never opened to me And it is very fit the people should look to the Judgment of the Church before they be too busie with Particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authority denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgment especially in things familiar and evident which even ordinary Capacities may as easily understand as read And therefore some Particulars a Christian may judge without depending F. This Lady therefore having heard it granted in the first Conference That there must be a continual visible Company ever since Christ teaching unchanged Doctrine in all Fundamental Points that is Points necessary to Salvation desired to hear this confirmed and proof brought which was that continual infallible visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attain Salvation And therefore having appointed a time of Meeting between a B. and Me and thereupon having sent for the B. and Me before the B. came the Lady and a Friend of hers came first to the Room where I was and debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a continual visible Church as they had heard granted by D. VVhite and L. K. c. B. Num. 1 § 3 VVhat D. White and L. K. granted I heard not But I think both granted a continual and a visible Church neitherof them an Infallible at least in your sense And your self in this Relation speak distractedly For in these few lines from the beginning hither twice you adde Infallible between continual and visible and twice you leave it out But this concerns D. W. and he hath answered it Num. 2 Here A. C. steps in and says The Jesuite did not speak distractedly but most advisedly For saith he where he relates what D. VVhite or L. K. granted he leaves out the word Infallible because they granted it not But where he speaks of the Lady there he addes it because the Jesuite knew it was an Infallible Church which she sought to rely upon How far the Catholick Militant Church of Christ is Infallible is no Dispute for this place though you shall finde it after But sure the Jesuite did not speak most advisedly nor A. C. neither nor the Lady her self if she said she desired to relye upon an Infallible Church For an Infallible Church denotes a Particular Church in that it is set in opposition to some other Particular Church that is not Infallible Now I for my part do not know what that Lady desired to relye upon This I know if she desired such a Particular Church neither this Jesuite nor any other is able to shew it her No not Bellarmine himself though of very great ability to make good any Truth which he undertakes for the Church of Rome But no strength can uphold an Errour against Truth where Truth hath an able Defendant Now where Bellarmine sets himself purposely to make this good That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in matter of Faith Out of which it follows That there may be found a Particular Infallible Church you shall see what he is able to perform Num. 3 1 First then after he hath distinguished to express his meaning in what sense the
no more Num. 8 Now if any man shall say that in this Point of Rebaptization S. Cyprian himself was in the wrong Opinion and Pope Stephen in the right I easily grant that but yet that Errour of his takes not off his judgment what he thought of the Papal or Roman Infallibility in those times For though afterwards S. Cyprian's Opinion was condemned in a Councel at Rome under Cornelius and after that by Pope Stephen and after both in the first Councel of Carthage yet no one word is there in that Councel which mentions this as an Errour That he thought Pope Stephen might Erre in the Faith while he proclaimed he did so In which though the particular Censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was erroneous for Stephen erred not in that yet the General which results from it namely that for all his being in the Popedom he might erre is most true Num. 9 2 The second Father which Bellarmine cites is Saint Jerome His words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such Praestigia's Deceits and Delusions into it though an Angel should preach it otherwise then it was preach'd at first and being armed and fenced by S. Paul's Authority cannot be changed Where first I will not doubt but that S. Jerome speaks here of Faith for the Praestigiae here mentioned are afterwards more plainly expressed for he tells us after That the Bishop of Rome had sent Letters into the East and charged Heresie upon Ruffinus And farther that Origen's Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were translated by him and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome that by his means they might loose the verity of the Faith which they had learned from the Apostle Therefore the Praestigiae before-mentioned were the cunning illusions of Ruffinus putting Origen's Book under the Martyr Pamphilus his name that so he might bring in Heresie the more cunningly under a name of Credit and the more easily pervert the peoples Faith So of the Faith he speaks And secondly I shall as easily confess that S. Jerom's speech is most true but I cannot admit the Cardinal's sense of it for he imposes upon the word Fides For by Romana Fides the Roman Faith he will understand the particular Church of Rome which is as much as to say Romanos Fideles the Faithful of that Church And that no wily delusions or cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them Now hereupon I return to that of S. Cyprian If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos why may not Perfidia before signife Perfidos Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers as Terms Opposite And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably So with these great Masters with whom 't is almost grown to be Quod volumus rectum est what we please shall be the Authors meaning Perfidia must signifie absolutely Errour in Faith Misbelief but Fides must relate to the Persons and signifie the Faithful of the Roman Church And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deal of Reason For Romana Fides the Roman Faith as it was commended by the Apostle of which S. Jerome speaks is one thing and the Particular Roman Church of which the Cardinal speaks is another The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias wily delusions into it if it did it could not be the whole and undefiled Faith of Christ which they learned from the Apostle and which is so fenced by Apostolical Authority as that it cannot be changed though an Angel should preach the contrary But the Particular Church of Rome hath admitted Praestigias divers crafty Conveyances into the Faith and is not fenced as the Faith it self is And therefore though an Angel cannot contrary that yet the bad Angel hath sowed Tares in this By which means Romana Fides though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed yet it is not the same for the sense of it nor for the super and praeter-structures built upon it or joyned unto it So the Roman Faith that is the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romans and after commended in them was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other then that One and this one can never be changed in or from it self by Angel or Devil But in mens hearts it may receive a change and in particular Churches it may receive a change and in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change And ye see S. Hierome himself confesses that the Pope himself was afraid ne perderent lest by this Art of Ruffinus the people might lose the verity of the Faith Now that which can be lost can be changed For usually Habits begin to alter before they be quite lost And that which may be lost among the People may be lost among the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy too if they look not to it as it seems they after did not at Rome though then they did Nay at this time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Book and all the Errours in it coming under the name of Pamphilus And so S. Hierome himself expresly and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine For he desires Ruffinus to change the Title of the Book that Errour may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus and so to free from danger the Roman Simplicity Where by the way Roman unerring Power now challenged and Roman Simplicity then feared agree not very well together 3 The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is S. Gregory Nazianzen And his words are That Ancient Rome from of old hath the right Faith and always holds it as becomes the City which is Governess over the whole World to have an entire Faith in and concerning God Now certainly it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire And having the Government of a great part of the World then in her power it became her so much the more as her Example thereby was the greater And in S. Gregory Nazianzen's time Rome did certainly hold both rectam integram Fidem the right and the whole entire Faith of Christ. But there is nor Promise nor Prophecie in S. Gregory that Rome shall ever so do For his words are plain decet semper it becomes that great City always to have and to hold too integram Fidem the entire Faith But at the other semper 't is retinet that City from of old holds the right Faith yet But he saith not retinebit semper that the City of Rome shall retain it ever no more then it shall ever retain the Empire of the World Now it must be assur'd that it shall ever hold the entire Faith of Christ before we can be assured that that particular Church can never Erre or be Infallible Num. 11 Besides these the Cardinal names
Cyrillus and Ruffinus but he neither tells us where nor cites their words Yet I think I have found the most pregnant place in S. Cyril and that makes clearly against him For I finde expresly these three things First That the Church is Inexpugnable and that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it but that it shall in perpetuum manere remain for ever And this all Protestants grant But this That it shall not fall away doth not secure it from all kinds of Errour Secondly Bellarmine quotes S. Cyril for the particular Roman Church and S. Cyril speaks not of the Roman at all but of the Church of Christ that is the Catholike Church Thirdly that the Foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath is placed not in or upon the Person much less the Successor of S. Peter but upon the Faith which by God's Spirit in him he so firmly professed which is the common received Opinion both of the Ancient Fathers and the Protestants Upon this Rock that is upon this Faith will I build my Church S. Matth. 16. So here 's all the good he hath gotten by S. Cyril unless he can cite some other place of S. Cyril which I believe he cannot Num. 12 And for Ruffinus the place which Bellarmine aims at is in his Exposition upon the Creed and is quoted in part the Chapter before But when all his words shall be laid together they will make no more for Bellarmine and his Cause then the former places have done Ruffinus his words then run thus Before I come to the words of the Creed this I think sit to warn you of that in divers Churches some things are found added to the words of the Creed But in the Church of the City of Rome this is not found done And as I think it is for that no Heresie did take its rise or beginning there And for that the Old Custom is there observed namely that they which are to receive the grace of Baptism do publickly repeat the Creed in the hearing of the people who would not admit such Additions But in other places as far as I can understand by reason of some Hereticks some things were added but such as were to exclude the sense of their Novel Doctrine Now these words make little for Bellarmine who cites them and much against Ruffinus that uttered them They make little for Bellarmine First because suppose Ruffinus his speech to be true yet this will never follow In Ruffinus his time no Heresie had taken its beginning at Rome therefore no Heresie hath had rooting there so many hundred years since Secondly Bellarmine takes upon him there to prove That the particular Church of Rome cannot Erre Now neither can this be concluded out of Ruffinus his words First because as I said before to argue from Non sumpsit to Ergo sumere non potest No Heresie hath yet begun there therefore none can begin there or spring thence is an Argument drawn ab Actu ad Potentiam negative from the Act to the Power of Being which every Novice in Learning can tell proceeds not Negatively And common reason tells every man 't is no consequence to say Such a thing is not or hath not been therefore it cannot be Secondly because though it were true that no Heresie at all did ever take its beginning at Rome yet that can never prove that the particular Church of Rome can never Erre which is the thing in Question For suppose that no Heresie did ever begin there yet if any that began elsewhere were admitted into that Church it is as full a proof that that Church can Erre as if the Heresie had been hatched in that Nest. For that Church erres which admits an Heresie in it as well as that which broaches it Now Ruffinus says no more of the Roman Church then non sumpsit exordium no Heresie took its beginning there but that denies not but that some Heretical Taint might get in there And 't is more then manifest that the most famous Heresies in their several times made their abode even at Rome And 't is observable too that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus his words then these In Ecclesia Urbis Romae neque Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium mos ibi servatur antiquus as if this were an entire speech whereas it comes in but as a Reason given of the speech precedent and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great Observer of the Customs of the Church whereas he speaks but of one particular Custom of reciting the Creed before Baptism But after all this I pray did no Heresie ever begin at Rome Where did Novatianism begin At Rome sure For Baronius Pamelius and Petavius do all dispute the point whether that Sect was denominated from Novatianus the Roman Priest or Novatus the African Bishop and they conclude for Novatian He then that gave that Name is in all right the Founder and Rome the Nest of that Heresie and there it continued with a Succession of Bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine which is near upon two hundred years Nay could Ruffinus himself be ignorant that some Heresie began at Rome No sure For in this I must challenge him either for his weak memory or his wilful errour For Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius his History but had been at the pains to translate him Now Eusebius says plainly that some Hereticks spread their venom in Asia some in Phrygia and others grew at Rome and Florinus was the Ring-leader of them And more clearly after Irenaeus saith he directed divers Epistles against this Florinus and his Fellow Blastus and condemns them of such Heresies as threw them and their Followers into great Impiety c. Those at Rome corrupting the sound Doctrine of the Church Therefore most manifest it is that some Heresie had its rise and beginning at Rome But to leave this slip of Ruffinus most evident it is that Ruffinus neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome Infallible for if he had esteemed so of it he would not have dissented from it in so main a Point as is the Canon of the Scripture as he plainly doth For reckoning up the Canonical Books he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon then heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a main Point of Faith the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible for if she were right in her reckoning then she is wrong now and if she be right now she was wrong then and if she do not reckon more now then she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer then she and so dissents from her which doubtless he durst not have done had he thought her
Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
ordinarily have Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receive it And in the next place where he speaks so sensibly That Scripture cannot bear witness to it self nor one part of it to another that is grounded upon Nature which admits no created thing to be witness to it self and is acknowledged by our Saviour If I bear witness to my self my witness is not true that is is not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proof nay many other proofs to usher it and lead it in then no Question it can both prove and approve it self His words are So that unless besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another Proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition which no man that hath his brains about him denies In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding up all that Hooker says in these words This other means to assure us besides Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church he wrinkles that Worthy Author desperately and shrinks up his meaning For in the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the Question between Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Belief The Authority of man that is the Name he gives to Tradition is the Koy which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I ask now When a man is entred and hath viewed a house and upon viewing likes it and upon liking resolves unchangeably to dwell there doth he set up his Resolution upon the Key that let him in No sure but upon the Goodness and Commodiousness which he sees in the House And this is all the difference that I know between us in this Point In which do you grant as you ought to do that we resolve our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and we will never deny that Tradition is the Key that lets us in In the latter place Hooker is as plain as constant to himself and Truth His words are The first outward Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our Labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason Here then again in his Judgment Tradition is the first Inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture And Resolution of Faith ever settles upon the Farthest Reason it can not upon the First Inducement So that the State of this Question is firm and yet plain enough to him that will not shut his eyes Num. 26 Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts himself in again and tells me That if I would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men in which sense the Authority of it as himself confesses is but Humane and Fallible c. But as the Tradition of a Company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense I might easily sinde it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Well I have considered The Tradition of the present Church both these ways And I find that A. C. confesses That in the first sense the Tradition of the Church is meer humane Authority and no more And therefore in this sense it may serve for an Introduction to this Belief but no more And in the second sense as it is not the Tradition of a Company of men only but of men assisted by Christ and His Spirit In this second sense I cannot finde that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove That this Company of men the Roman Prelates and their Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility to a Divine Infallibility in this or any other Principle which they teach For every Assistance of Christ and the Blessed Spirit is not enough to make the Authority of any Company of men Divine and infallible but such and so great an Assistance only as is purposely given to that effect Such an Assistance the Prophets under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New had but neither the High-Priest with his Clergy in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it And therefore though at the intreaty of A. C. I have considered this very well yet I cannot no not in this Assisted sense think the Tradition of the present Church Divine and Infallible or such Company of men to be worthy of Divine and infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Which I am sorry A. C. should affirm so boldly as he doth What That Company of men the Roman Bishop and his Clergy of Divine and Infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Good God! Whither will these men go Surely they are wise in their generation but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of Light S. Luk. 16. And could they put this home upon the world as they are gone far in it what might they not effect How might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendom contrary to S. Peters Rule whose Successors certainly in this they are not But I pray if this Company of men be infallibly assisted whence is it that this very Company have erred so dangerously as they have not only in some other things but even in this Particular by equaling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God Which is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it So belike he that hath but half an indifferent eye may see this Assisted Company have erred and yet we must wink in obedience and think them Infallible Num. 27 But A. C. would have me consider again That it is as easie to take the Tradition of the present Church in the two fore-named senses as the present Scriptures printed and approved by men of this Age. For in the first sense The very Scriptures saith he considered as printed and approved by men of this Age can be no more than of Humane Credit But in the second sense as printed and approved by men assisted by God's Spirit for true Copies of that which was first written then we may give Infallible Credit to them Well I
hindred it now to be Since that did not depart from the Protestant Church but the Protestant Church from it Truly I neither suspected the Inference would be made nor fear it when it is made For 't is no News that any Particular Church Roman as well as another may once have been Right and afterwards wrong and in far worse case And so it was in Rome after the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat S. Mat. 13. But whether these Tares were sowen while their Bishops slept or whether They themselves did not help to sow them is too large a Disquisition for this Place So though it were once Right yet the Tares which grow thick in it are the Cause why 't is not so now And then though that Church did not depart from the Protestants Church yet if it gave great and just Cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the Errors of it while it in some Particulars departed from the Truth of Christ it comes all to one for this Particular That the Roman Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing Superstition and Error F. Farther he confessed That Protestants had made a Rent and Division from it B. § 21 Num. 1 I confess I could here be heartily angry but that I have resolved in handling matters of Religion to leave all gall out of my Ink for I never granted that the Roman Church either is or was the right Church 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable Rent in the Church and I make no Question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and Redress of Abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the Cause of it is The Woe runs full out of the mouth of * Christ ever against him that gives the Offence not against him that takes it ever But you have by this carriage given me just cause never to treat with you or your like but before a Judge or a Jury Num. 2 But here A. C. tells me I had no cause to be angry either with the Jesuite or my self Not with the Jesuite for he writ down my words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the Passage and that I did say either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis either in these or equivalent words That the Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church What did the Jesuite set down my words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken and were they so few as these The Protestants did make the Schism and yet was his memory so short that he cannot tell whether I uttered this iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis Well I would A. C. and his Fellows would leave this Art of theirs and in Conferences which they are so ready to call for impose no more upon other men than they utter And you may observe too that after all this full Assertion that I spake this iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis A. C. concludes thus The Jesuite took special notice in fresh memory and is sure he related at least in sense just as it was uttered What 's this At least in sense just as it was uttered Do not these two Enterfeire and shew the Jesuite to be upon his shuffling pace For if it were just as it was uttered then it was in the very form of words too not in sense only And if it were but At least in sense then when A. C. hath made the most of it it was not just as 't was uttered Besides at least in sense doth not tell us in whose sense it was For if A. C. mean the Jesuite's sense of it he may make what sense he pleases of his own words but he must impose no sense of his upon my words But as he must leave my words to my self so when my words are uttered or written he must leave their sense either to me or to that genuine Construction which an Ingenuous Reader can make of them And what my words of Grant were I have before expressed and their sense too Num. 3 Not with my self That 's the next For A. C. says 'T is truth and that the world knows it that the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the name of Protestants by protesting against it No A. C. by your leave this is not truth neither and therefore I had reason to be angry with my self had I granted it For first the Protestants did not depart For departure is voluntary so was not theirs I say not theirs taking their whole Body and Cause together For that some among them were peevish and some ignorantly zealous is neither to be doubted nor is there danger in confessing it Your Body is not so perfect I wot well but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of Ours You must not suffer for these nor We for those nor should the Church of Christ for either Next the Protestants did not get that Name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her Errors and Superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome and our Protestation is ended and the Separation too Nor is Protestation it self such an unheard-of thing in the very heart of Religion For the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are called by your own School Visible Signs protesting the Faith Now if the Sacraments be Protestantia Signes Protesting why may not men also and without all offence be called Protestants since by receiving the true Sacraments and by refusing them which are corrupted they do but Protest the sincerity of their Faith against that Doctrinal Corruption which hath invaded the great Sacrament of the Eucharist and other Parts of Religion Especially since they are men which must protest their Faith by these visible Signs and Sacraments Num. 4 But A. C. goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the Cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by Excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and Practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is Pride and S. Augustine Madness So then in his Opinion First Excommunication on their Part was not the Prime Cause of this Division but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions Why but then in my Opinion That holding and teaching was not the Prime Cause neither but the Corruptions and Superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the Prime Cause was theirs still Secondly A.
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
hapned in all parts of the world as that neither for the present the Homage of the Pope was useful to the Emperor nor the Protection of the Emperor available for the Pope By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself A thing which as it pleased him well enough So both he and his Successors made great Advantage by it For being grown to that Eminence by the Emperor and the greatness of that City and Place of his abode He found himself the more free the greater the tempest was that beat upon the other And then first He set himself to alionâ—te the hearts of the Italians from the Emperor Next he Opposed himself against him And about the year seven hundred and ten Pope Constantine the first did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperor in defence of Images As Onâ—phrius tells us After him Gregory the Second and the third took up his example and did the like by Leo Isaurus By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not Italy only but Rome too This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron And very fitly he meets with Charles Martel in France that famous warrior against the Saracens Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards This address seems very advisedly taken at least it proves very fortunate to them both For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy which had then stood two hundred and four years which was the Popes security And it brought the Crown of France into the House of Charles and shortly after the Western Empire And now began the Pope to be great indeed For by the Bounty of Pâ—pin Son of Charles that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope So that now of a Bishop he became a Temporal Prince But when Charles the Great had set up the Western Empire then he resumed the Ancient and Original Power of the Emperor to govern the Church to call Councels to order Papal Elections And this Power continued in his Posterity For this Right of the Emperor was in force and use in Gregory the Seventh's time Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth whom he afterward deposed And it might have continued longer if the succeeding Emperors had had abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own Right But the Pope keeping a strong Councel about him and meeting with some Weak Princes and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous Wars grew stronger till he got the better So this is enough to shew how the Popes climed up by the Emperors till they over-topped them which is all I said before and have now proved And this was about the year 1073. For the whole Popedom of Gregory the Seventh was begun and ended within the Reign of William the Conqueror Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success The Emperor sometimes plucking from the Pope and the Pope from the Emperor winning and losing ground as their Spirits Abilities Aids and Opportunities were till at the last the Pope setled himself upon the Grounds laid by Gregory the Seventh in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world Num. 13 Thirdly A. C. knowing 't is not enough to say this That the Pope is Pastor of the whole Church labors to prove it And first he tells us that Irenaeus intimates so much but he doth not tell us where And he is much scanted of Ancient Proof if Irenaeus stand alone Besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallicane Church and a very unlikely man to Captivate the Liberty of that Church under the more powerful Principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his Judgment touching that Principality than the Actions of his Life When Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow was not Irenaeus the Chief man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him The Supreme and Infallible Pastor of the Universal Church But the Place of Irenaeus which A. C. means I think is this where he uses these words indeed but short of A. C's sense of it To this Church he speaks of Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique round about should have recourse Should have recourse so A. C. translates it And what doth this avail him Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time That upon any Disference arising in the Faith Omnes undique Fideles all the Faithful or if you will all the Churches round about should have recourse that is resort to Rome being the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Principality than any other at that time in those parts of the world Well Will this exalt Rome to be the Head of the Church Universal What if the States and Policies of the world be much changed since and this Conveniencie of resorting to Rome be quite ceased Then is not Rome devested of her more powerful Principality But the meaning of A. C. is We must so have recourse to Rome as to submit our Faith to hers And then not only in Irenaeus his time but through all times reform Our selves by her Rule That is all the Faithful not undique round about but ubique every where must agree with Rome in point of Faith This he means and Rome may thank him for it But this Irenaeus saith not nor will his words bear it nor durst A. C. therefore construe him so but was content to smooth it over with this ambiguous phrase of having recourse to Rome Yet this is a place as much stood upon by them as any other in all Antiquity And should I grant them their own sense That all the faithful every where must agree with Rome which I may give but can never grant yet were not this saying any whit prejudicial to us now For first here 's a powerful Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome And that no man of Learning doubts but the Church of Rome had within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction and that was very large containing all the Provinces in the Diocess of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocess which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicarias There were ten of them The three Islands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firm land of Italy And this I take it is plain in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Niâ—â—ne Connecâ—â— as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the Bounds of
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
we may be the more certain that you think concerning the Faith as We do Ut ego etiam persuasus sim inhaesitantèr That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to Command me Now I would fain know if the Pope at that time were or did think himself Infallble how he should possibly be more certainly perswaded of any Truth belonging to the Faith by Athanasius his concurring in Judgement with him For nothing can make Infallibility more certain than it is At least not the concurring judgement of that is Fallible as S. Athanasius was Beside the Pope Complemented exceeding low that would submit his unerring Judgement to be commanded by Athanasius who he well knew could Erre Again in the Case of Easter which made too great a noise in the Church of old Very many men called for S. Ambrose his Judgement in that Point even after the Definition of the Church of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome And this I presume they would not have done had they then conceived either the Pope or his Church infallible And thus it continued down to Lyra's time For he says expresly That many Popes as well as other Inferiours have not onely erred but even quite Apostatized from the Faith And yet now nothing but Infallibility will serve their turns And sometimes they have not onely taken upon them to be Infallible in Cathedrâ in their Chair of Decision but also to Prophesie Infallibly out of the Scripture But Prophetical Scripture such as the Revelation is was too dangerous for men to meddle with which would be careful of their Credit in not Erring For it fell out in the time of Innocent the third and Honorius the the third as Aventine tells us That the then Popes assured the world that Destruction was at hand to Saracens Turks and Mahumetans which the Event shewed were notorious untruths And 't is remarkable which happened anno 1179. For then in a Councel held at Rome Pope Alexander the third Condemned Peter Lombard of Hereste And he lay under that Damnation for thirty and six years till Innocent the third restored him and condemned his Accusers Now Peter Lombard was then condemned for something which he had written about the humane Nature of our Saviour Christ. S◠here was a great Mysterie of the Faith in hand something about the Incarnation And the Pope was in Cathedrâ and that in a Councel of three hundred Archbishops and Bishops And in this Councel he condemned Peter Lombard and in him his Opinion about the Incarnation And therefore of necessity either Pope Alexander erred and that in Cathedrâ as Pope in Condemning him or Pope Innocentius in restoring him The truth is Pope Alexander had more of Alexander the Great than of S. Peter in him And being accustomed to Warlike Employments he understood not that which Peter Lombard had written about this Mystery And so He and his Learned Assistants condemned him unjustly Num. 8 And whereas you profess after That you hold nothing against your Conscience I must ever wonder much how that can be true since you hold this of the Pope's Infallibility especially as being Prophetical in the Conclusion If this be true why do you not lay all your strength together all of your whole Society and make this one Proposition evident For all Controversies about matters of Faith are ended and without any great trouble to the Christian World if you can but make this one Proposition good That the Pope is an Infallible Judge Till then this shame will follow you infallibly and eternally That you should make the Pope a meer man Principium Fidei a Principle or Author of Faith and make the mouth of him whom you call Christs Vicar sole Judge both of Christ's Word be it never so manifest and of his Church be she never so Learned and careful of his Truth And for Conclusion of this Point I would fain know since this had been so plain so easie a way either to prevent all Divisions about the Faith or to end all Controversies did they arise why this brief but most necessary Proposition The Bishop of Rome cannot erre in his Judicial Determinations concerning the Faith is not to be found either in letter or sense in any Scripture in any Councel or in any Father of the Church for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ For had this Proposition been true and then received in the Church how weak were all the Primitive Fathers to prescribe so many Rules and Cautions for avoidance of Heresie as Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis and others do and to endure such hard Conflicts as they did and with so many various Haereticks To see Christendom so rent and torn by some distempered Councels as that of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and others Nay to see the whole world almost become Arrian to the amazement of it self And yet all this time not so much as call in this Necessary Assistance of the Pope and let the world know That the Bishop of Rome was infallible that so in his Decision all Differences might cease For either the Fathers of the Church Greek as well as Latine knew this Proposition to be true That the Pope cannot Erre Judicially in matters belonging to the Faith or they knew it not If you say they knew it not you charge them with a base and unworthy Ignorance no ways like to over-cloud such and so many Learned men in a Matter so Necessary and of such infinite use to Christendom If you say they knew it and durst not deliver this Truth how can you charge them which durst die for Christ with such Cowardise towards his Church And if you say they knew it and with-held it from the Church you lay a most unjust Load upon those Charitable souls which loved Christ too well to imprison any Truth but likely to make or keep peace in his Church Catholike over the world But certainly as no Divine of Worth did then dream of any such Infallibility in Him so is it a meer Dream or worse of those Modern Divines who affirm it now And as S. Augustine sometimes spake of the Donatists and their absurd limiting the whole Christian Church to Africa onely so may I truely say of the Romanists confining all Christianity to the Romane Doctrine governed by the Pope's Infallibility I verily perswade my self That even the Jesuites themselves laugh at this And yet unless they say this which they cannot but blush while they say they have nothing at all to say But what 's this to us we envie no man If the Pope's Decision be infallible Legant Let them read it to us out of the Holy Scripture and we 'll believe it Num. 9 In the mean time take this with you That most certain it is That the Pope hath no Infallibility to attend his Cathedral Judgement in things belonging to the Faith For
for the Inference which you would draw out of it that 's answered at large already But than A. C. adds That I say but without any proof that the Romanists have many dangerous errours but that I neither tell them which they be nor why I think them dangerous but that I leave them to look to their own souls which he says they do and have no cause to doubt How much the Jesuite and A. C. have said in this Conference without any solid Proof I again submit to judgment as also what Proofs I have made If in this very place I have added none 't is because I had made proof enough of the self-same thing before Where lest he should want and call for Proof again I have plainly laid together some of the many Dangerous errours which are charged upon them So I tell you which at least some of which they be and their very naming will shew their danger And if I did remit you to look to your own souls I hope there was no offence in that if you do it and do it so that you have no cause to doubt And the reason why you doubt not A. C. tells us is Because you had no new device of your own or any other mens nor any thing contrary to Scripture but all most conformable to Scriptures interpreted by Union Consont of Fathers and Definitions of Councels Indeed if this were true you had little cause to doubt in point of your Belief But the truth is you do hold new Devices of your own which the Primitive Church was never acquainted with And some of those so far from being conformable as that they are little less than contradictory to Scripture In which particulars and divers others the Scriptures are not interpreted by Union or Consent of Fathers or Definitions of Councels unless perhaps by some late Councels packed of purpose to do that ill service I have given Instances enough before yet some you shall have here lest you should say again that I affirm without proof or Instance I pray then whose Device was Transubstantiation And whose Communion under one kinde And whose Deposition and Unthroning nay Killing of Princes and the like if they were not yours For I dare say and am able to prove there 's none of these but are rather contrary than conformable to Scripture Neither is A. C. or any Jesuite able to shew any Scripture interpreted by Union or Consent of Fathers of the Primitive Church to prove any one of these Nor any Definition of Ancient Councels but only Lateran for Transubstantiation and that of Constance for the Eucharist in one kinde which two are Modern at least far downward from the Primitive Church and have done more mischief to the Church by those their Determinations than will be cured I fear in many Generations So whatever A. C. thinks yet I had reason enough to leave the Jesuite to look to his own soul. Num. 11 But A. C. having as it seems little new matter is at the same again and over and over it must go That there is but one saving Faith That this one Faith was once the Romane And that I granted one might be saved in the Romane Faith To all which I have abundantly answered before Marry then he infers That he sees not how we can have our souls saved without we entirely hold this Faith being the Catholike Faith which S. Athanasius saith unless a man hold entirely he cannot be saved Now here again is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises and so the Inference fails For say there was a time in which the Catholike and the Romane Faith were one and such a time there was when the Romane Faith was Catholike and famous through the world Rom. 1. Yet it doth not follow since the Councel of Trent hath added a new Creed that this Romane Faith is now the Catholike For it hath added extranea things without the Foundation disputable if not false Conclusions to the Faith So that now a man may Believe the whole and entire Catholike Faith even as S. Athanasius requires and yet justly refuse for dross a great part of that which is now the Romane Faith And Athanasius himself as if he meant to arm the Catholike Faith against all corrupting Additions hath in the beginning of his Creed these words This is the Catholike Faith This and no other This and no Other then here follows And again at the end of his Creed This is the Catholike Faith This and no more than is here delivered always presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did and this is the largest of all Creeds So that if A. C. would wipe his eyes from the mist which rises about Tyber he might see how our souls may be saved believing the Catholike Faith and that entire without the Addition of Romane Leaven But if he cannot or I doubt will not see it 't is enough that by Gods grace we see it And therefore once more I leave him and his to look to their own souls Num. 12 After this A. C. is busie in unfolding the meaning of this great Father of the Church S. Athanasius And he tells us That he says in his Creed That without doubt every man shall perish that holds not the Catholike Faith entire that is saith A. C. in every Point of it and inviolate that is in the right sense and for the true formal reason of divine Revelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church proposing to us by her Pastors this Revelation Well we shall not differ much from A. C. in expounding the meaning of S. Athanasius yet some few things I shall here observe And first I agree that he which hopes for Salvation must believe the Catholike Faith whole and entire in every Point Next I agree that he must likewise hold it inviolate if to believe it in the right sense be to hold it inviolate But by A. C's leave the Believing of the Creed in the right sense is comprehended in the first branch The keeping of it whole and entire For no man can properly be said to believe the Whole Creed that believes not the Whole Sense as well as the Letter of it and as entirely But thirdly for the word inviolate 't is indeed used by him that translated Athanasius But the Father 's own words following the Common Edition are That he that will be saved must keep the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the sound and entire Faith And it cannot be a sound Faith unless the Sense be as whole and entire as the Letter of the Creed And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is compounded of the Privative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is reproach or infamy So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the holding of the entire
Faith in such holiness of life and conversation as is without all infamy and reproach That is as our English renders that Creed exceeding well Which Faith unless a man do keep whole and undefiled even with such a life as Monius himself shall not be able to carp at So Athanasius who certainly was passing able to express himself in his own Language in the beginning of that his Creed requires That we keep it entire without diminution and undesiled without blame And at the end that we believe it faithfully without wavering But inviolate is the mistaken word of the old Interpreter and with no great knowledge made use of by A. C. And then fourthly though this be true Divinity That he which hopes for Salvation must believe the Whole Creed and in the right sense too if he be able to comprehend it yet I take the true and first meaning of inviolate could Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have signified so not to be the holding of the true sense but not to offer violence oâ— a forced sence or meaning upon the Creed which every man doth not that yet believes it not in a true sence For not to believe the true sence of the Creed is one thing But 't is quite another to force a wrong sence upon it Fifthly a Reason would be given also why A. C. is so earnest for the whole Faith and bauks the word which goes with it which is holy or undesiled For Athanasius doth alike exclude from Salvation those which keep not the Catholike Faith holy as well as these which keep it not whole I doubt this was to spare many of his holy Fathers the Popes who were as far as any the very â—ewdâ—st among men without exception from keeping the Catholike Faith holy Sixthly I agree to the next part of his Exposition That a man that will be saved must believe the whole Creed for the true formal reason of divine Revelation For upon the Truth of God thus revealed by Himself 〈◊〉 the infallible certainty of the Christian Faith But I do not grant that this is within the compass of S. Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor of the word Inviolate But in that respect 't is a meer strain of A. C. And then lastly though the whole Catholike Church be sufficient in applying this to us and our Belief not our Understanding which A. C. is at again yet Infallible She is not in the proposal of this Revelation to us by every of her Pastors some whereof amongst you as well as others neglect or forget at least to feed Christ's sheep as Christ and his Church hath fed them Num. 13 But now that A. C. hath taught us as you see the meaning of S. Athanasius in the next place he tells us That if we did believe any one Article we finding the same formal Reason in all and applied sufficiently by the same means to all would easily believe all Why surely we do not believe any one Article onely but all the Articles of the Christian Faith And we believe them for the same formal Reason in all namely Because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his Word and by his Churches Ministration But so long as they do not believe all in this sort saith A. C. Look you He tells us we do not believe all when we profess we do Is this man become as God that he can better tell what we believe than we our selves Surely we do believe all and in that sort too Though I believe were S. Athanasius himself alive again and a plain man should come to him and tell him he believed his Creed in all and every particular he would admit him for a good Catholike Christian though he were not able to express to him the formal reason of that his belief Yea but saith A. C. while they will as all Hereticks do make choice of what they will and what they will not believe without relying upon the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church they cannot have that one saving Faith in any one Article Why but whatsoever Hereticks do we are not such nor do we so For they which believe all the Articles as once again I tell you we do make no choice And we do relie upon the Infallible Authority of the Word of God and the whole Catholike Church And therefore we both can have and have that one saving Faith which believes all the Articles entirely though we cannot believe that any particular Church is infallible Num. 14 And yet again A. C. will not thus be satisfied but on he goes and adds That although we believe the same truth which other good Catholikes do in some Articles yet not believing them for the same formal reason of Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by Infallible Church-Authority c. we cannot be said to have one and the same Infallible and Divine Faith which other good Catholike Christians have who believe the Articles for this formal Reason sufficiently made known to them not by their own fancy nor the fallible Authority of humane deductions but by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God If A. C. will still say the same thing I must still give the same answer First he confesses we believe the same Truth in some Articles I pray mark his phrase the same Truth in some Articles with other good Catholike Christians so far his Pen hath told Truth against his will for he doth not I wot well intend to call us Catholikes and yet his Pen being truer than himself hath let it fall For the word other cannot be so used as here it is but that we as well as they must be good Catholikes For he that shall say the old Romans were valiant as well as other men supposes the Romans to be valiant men And he that shall say The Protestants believe some Articles as well as other good Catholikes must in propriety of speech suppose them to be good Catholikes Secondly as we do believe those some Articles so do we believe them and all other Articles of Faith for the same formal reason and so applied as but just before I have expressed Nor do we believe any one Article of Faith by our own fancy or by fallible Authority of humane deductions but next to the Infallible Authority of God's Word we are guided by his Church But then A. C. steps into a Conclusion whither we cannot follow him For he says that the Article to be believed must be sufficiently made known unto us by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God that is of men Infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God as all lawfully called continued and confirmed General Councels are assisted That the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation I make no doubt For if it could the gates
necessary it is not that therefore or for prevention thereof there should be such a Certainty an Infallible Certainty in these things For he understood himself well that said Oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11. There must there will be Heresies And wheresoever that Necessity lies 't is out of doubt enough to prove that Christ never left such an Infallible Assurance as is able to prevent them Or such a Mastering Power in his Church as is able to over-awe them but they come with their Oportet about them and they rise and spring in all Ages very strangely But in particular for that which first caused and now continues the loss of Unity in the Church of Christ as I make no doubt but that the Pride of men is one Cause so yet can I not think that Pride is the adaequate and sole Cause thereof But in part Pride caused it and Pride on all sides Pride in some that would not at first nor will not since submit their private judgments where with good Conscience they may and ought And Pride in others that would not first nor will not yet mend manifest great and dangerous errours which with all good Conscience they ought to do But 't is not Pride not to submit to known and gross Errours And the Definitions of some Councels perhaps the Lateran Constance and Trent have been greater and more urgent Causes of breach of Unity than the Pride of men hath been which yet I shall never excuse where-ere it is Num. 25 How far this one soul-saving Faith extends A. C. tells me I have confessed it not a work for my Pen But he says it is to be learned from that One Holy Catholike Apostolike always Visible and Infallible Romane Church of which the Lady once doubting is now fully satisfied c. Indeed though A. C. sets this down with some scorn which I can easily pass over 't is true that thus I said There is a Latitude in Faith especially in reference to different mens Salvation But to set a Bound to this and strictly to define it Just thus far you must Believe in every particular or incur domnation is no work for my Pen. Thus I said and thus I say still For though the Foundation be one and the same in all yet a Latitude there is and a large one too when you come to Consider not the Foundation common to all but things necessary to many particular mens Salvation For to whomsoever God hath given more of him shall more be required S. Luc. 12. as well in Belief as in Obedience and Performance And the gifts of God both ordinary and extraordinary to particular men are so various as that for my part I hold it impossible for the ablest Pen that is to express it And in this respect I said it with Humility and Reason That to set these Bounds was no work for my Pen. Nor will I ever take upon me to express that Tenet or Opinion the denial of the Foundation onely excepted which may shut any Christian out of heaven And A. C. I believe you know very well to what a narrow Sâ—antling some Learned of your own side bring the very Foundation it self rather than they will lose any that lay hold on Christ the Son of God and Redeemer of the World And as Christ Epitomizes the whole Law of Obedrence into these two great Commandments The love of God and our Neighbour S. Mat. 22. So the Apostle Epitomizes the whole Law of Belief into these two great Assents That God is and That he is a rewarder of them that seek him Heb. 11. that seek him in Christ. And S. Peter was full of the Holy Ghost when he exprest it That there is no salvation to them that seek it in or by another Name Act. 4. Num. 26 But since this is no work for my Pen it seems A. C. will not say 't is a work for his But he tells us 'T is to be learned of the One Holy Catholike Apostolike always Visible and Infallible Romane Church ' Titles enough given to the Romane Church and I wish she deserv'd them all for then we should have peace But 't is far otherwise One she is as a particular Church but not The One. Holy she would be counted but the world may see if it will not blinde it self of what value Holiness is in that Court and Country Catholike she is not in any sense of the word for she is not the Universal and so not Catholike in extent Nor is she sound in Doctrine in things w ch come neer upon the Foundation too so not Catholike in Belief Nor is she the Prime Mother-Church of Christianity Jerusalem was that and so not Catholike as a Fountain or Original or as the Head or Root of the Catholike Num. 27 And because many Romanists object here though A. C. doth it not that S. Cyprian called the Romane Church The Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church of Christ I hope I shall have leave to explain that difficult place also First then S. Cyprian names not Rome That stands onely in the Margin and was placed there as his particular judgement led him that set out S. Cyprian Secondly the true Story of that Epistle and that which led S. Cyprian into this Expression was this Cornelius then chosen Pope expostulates with S. Cyprian That his Letters to Rome were directed onely to the Clergie there and not to Him and takes it ill as if S. Cyprian had thereby seemed to disapprove his Election S. Cyprian replies That by reason of the Schism mov'd then by Novation it was uncertain in Africk which of the Two had the more Canonical Right to the See of Rome and that therefore he nam'd him not But yet that during this uncertainty he exhorted all that sailed thither ut Ecclesiae Catholicae Radicem Matricem agnoscerent tenerent That in all their carriage they should acknowledge and so hold themselves unto the Unity of the Catholike Church which is the Root and Matrix of it and the onely way to avoid participation in the Schism And that this must be S. Cyprian's meaning I shall thus prove First because This could not be his meaning or Intention That the Sea of Rome was the Root or Matrix of the Catholike Church For if he had told them so he had left them in as great or greater difficulty than he found them For there was then an Open and an Apparent Schism in the Church of Rome Two Bishops Cornelius and Novation Two Congregations which respectively attended and observed them So that a perplexed Question must needs have divided their thoughts which of these Two had been that Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church Therefore had S. Cyprian meant to pronounce Rome the Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church he would never have done it at such a time when Rome it self was
in Schism Whereas in the other sense the Counsel is good and plain Namely that they should hold themselves to the Unity and Communion of the Catholike Church which is the Root of it And then necessarily they were to suspend their Communion there till they saw how the Catholike Church did incline to approve or disaprove the Election of the One or the Other And thus S. Cyprian frees himself to Cornelius from the very least Touch of Schism Secondly Because this sense comes home to Baronius For he affirms that S. Cyprian and his Colleagues the African Bishops did Communionem suspendere suspend their Communion until they heard by Caldonius Fortunatus whose the undoubted right was So it seems S. Cyprian gave that Counsel to these Travellers which himself followed For if Rome during the Schism and in so great uncertainty had yet been Radix Ecclesiae Catholicae Root of the Catholike Church of Christ I would fain know how S. Cyprian so great and famous an Assertor of the Churches Unity durst once so much as think of suspending Communion with her Thirdly Because this sense will be plain also by other Passages out of other Epistles of S. Cyprian For writing to Jubaianus an Africane Bishop against the Novatians who then infested those parts and durst Rebaptize Catholike Christians he saith thus But we who hold the Head and Root of One Church do know for certain and believe that nothing of this is lawful out of the Catholike Church And that of Baptism which is but One we are the Head where he himself was at first Baptized when he held the Ground and Verity of Divine Unity Now I conceive 't is all one or at least as Argumentative to all purposes to be Caput or Radix Baptismatis Head or Root of Baptism as Head or Root of the Church For there 's but One Baptism as well as but One Church and that is the entrance into this And S. Cyprian affirms and includes himself Nos esse Caput that we are the Head of Baptism Where yet I pray observe it he cannot by Nos We mean his own Person though if he did he were the more Opposite to Rome much less can he mean the Romane Church as it is a Particular and stands separate from others For then how could he say Nos esse Capâ—t that we are the Head Therefore he must needs mean the Unity and Society of the Church Catholike which the Novatians had then left and whereof he and his Church were still Members Besides most manifest it is that he calls that Church Caput Baptismatis the Head of Baptism where Novatian was Baptized they are his own words and probable it is that was Rome Because that Schismatick was a Roman Priest And yet for all this S. Cyprian says Noâ— esse Caput Baptismatis that we are the Head of Baptism though he were at Carthage By which it is plain That as Caput is parallel to Radix and Matrix So also that by Caput the head of Baptism he includes together with Rome all the other members of the Church Universal Again S. Cyprian writes to Cornelius and censures the Schismatical Carriage of the Novatians at Rome And tells him farther that he had sent Caldonius and Fortunatus to labour Peace in that Church that so they might be reduced to and composed in the Unity of the Catholike Church But because the Obstinate and inflexible pertinacy of the other Party had not onely refused Radicis Matris sinum the bosome of their Mother and embracings of their Root but the Schism increasing and growing raw to the worse hath set up a Bishop to it self c. Where 't is observable and I think plain That S. Cyprian employed his Legates not to bring the Catholike Church to the communion of Rome but Rome to the Catholike Church Or to bring the Novatians not onely to Communicate with Cornelius but with the Church Universal which was therefore Head and Root in S. Cyprian's judgment even to Rome it self as well as to all other Great Ancient or even Apostolical Churches And this is yet more plain by the sequel For when those his Legats had laboured to bring those Schismaticks to the Unitie of the Catholike Church yet he complains their Labour was lost And why Why because recusabant Radicis Matris sinum they refused the Bosome of the Root and the Mother Therefore it must needs be that in S. Cyprian's sense these two Unit as Catholicae Ecclesiae the unity of the Catholike Church And Radicis or Matricis Sinus or Complexâ—â— the Bosome or Embracing of the Root or the Mother are all one And then Radix and Matrix are not words by which he expresses the Roman Sea in particular but he denotes by them the Unity of the Church Catholike Fourthly Because Tertullian seems to me to agree in the same sense For saith he these so many and great Churches founded by the Apostles taken all of them together are that One Church from the Apostles out of which are All. So all are First and all Apostolike while they all allow and prove Unam Unitatem One Unity Nor can any possibly understand this of any Particular Church but subordinately As S. Gregory Nazianzen says the Church of Caesarea was Mater the Mother of almost all Churches which must needs be understood of some Neighbouring Churches not of the whole Catholike Church And where Pamelius speaks of Original and Mother-Churches he names six and others and Rome in the last place Therefore certainly no Particular Church can be the Root or Matrix of the Catholike But she is rooted in her own Unity down from the Apostles and no where else extra Deum And this is farther manifest by the Irreligious act of the Emperour Adrian For he intending to root out the Faith of Christ took this course He Consecrated Simulacrum Jovis the Image of Jupiter in the very place where Christ suffer'd and prophaned Bethlehem with the Temple of Adonis To this end that the Root as it were and the Foundation of the Church might be taken away if in those places Idols might be worshipped in which Christ himself was born and suffered c. By which it is most evident That either Jerusalem was the Root of the Catholike Church if any Particular Church were so Or rather that Adrian was deceived as being an Heathen he well might in that he thought the Universal Church had any particular or Local Root of its Being Or that he could destroy it all by laying it waste in any one place whatsoever And S. Augustine I think is full for this That the Catholike Church must have a Catholike Root or Matrix too For he tells us That all Herestes whatsoever went out de illâ out of the Catholike Church For de illâ there can be out of no other For all Heresies did not go out of any one Particular Church He goes on They were cut
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
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