above a thousand years ago by many both National and Provincial Synods For the Councel at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemned Photinus and Sabellius And their Heresies were of high Nature against the Faith The Councel at Gangra about the same time condemned Eustathius for his condemning of Marriage as unlawful The first Councel at Carthage being a Provincial condemned Rebaptization much about the year 348. The Provincial Councel at Aquileia in the year 381. in which S. Ambrose was present condemned Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie The second Councel of Carthage handled and Decreed the Belief and Preaching of the Trinity And this a litte after the year 424. The Councel of Milevis in Africa in which S. Augustine was present condemned the whole Course of the Heresie of Pelagius that great and bewitching Heresie in the year 416. The second Councel at Orange a Provincial too handled the great Controversies about Grace and Free-will and set the Church right in them in the year 444. The third Councel at Toledo a National one in the year 589. determined many things against the Arrian Heresie about the very Prime Articles of Faith under fourteen several Anathema's The fourth Councel at Toledo did not only handle Matters of Faith for the Reformation of that People but even added also some things to the Creed which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds Nay the Bishops did not only practise this to Condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods and so Reform those several Places and the Church it self by parts But They did openly challenge this as their Right and Due and that without any leave asked of the Sea of Rome For in this Fourth Councel of Toledo They Decree That if there happen a Cause of Faith to be setled a General that is a National Synod of all Spain and Galicia shall be held thereon And this in the year 643. Where you see it was then Catholike Doctrine in all Spain that a National Synod might be a Competent Judge in a Cause of Faith And I would fain know what Article of the Faith doth more concern all Christians in general than that of Filióque And yet the Church of Rome her self made that Addition to the Creed without a General Councel as I have shewed already And if this were practised so often and in so many places why may not a National Councel of the Church of England do the like as She did For She cast off the Pope's Usurpation and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighth's time And by the Records in the Arch-bishops Office orderly kept and to be seen In the Reformation which came after our Princes had their parts and the Clergy theirs And to these Two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs That our Princes had their parts is manifest by their Calling together of the Bishops and others of the Clergy to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation And the Clergy did their part For being thus called together by Regal Power they met in the National Synod of sixty two And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by Acts of State and the Royal Assent In this Synod the Positive Truths which are delivered are more than the Polemicks So that a meer Calumny it is That we profess only a Negative Religion True it is and we must thank Rome for it our Confession must needs contain some Negatives For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored Nor can we admit Maimed Sacraments Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue And in a corrupt time or place 't is as necessary in Religion to deny falshood as to assert and vindicate Truth Indeed this later can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former an Affirmative Verity being ever included in the Negative to a Falshood As for any Error which might fall into this as any other Reformation if any such can be found then I say and 't is most true Reformation especially in Cases of Religion is so difficult a work and subject to so many Pretensions that 't is almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far or fall too short in some smaller things or other which in regard of the far greater benefit coming by the Reformation it self may well be passed over and born withal But if there have been any wilful and gross errors not so much in Opinion as in Fact Sacriledge too often pretending to reform Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them Num. 6 But now before I go off from this Point I must put you in remembrance too That I spake at that time and so must all that will speak of that Exigent of the General Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman Sea And this you understand well enough For in your very next words you call it the Roman Church Now I make no doubt but that as the Universal Catholike Church would have reform'd her self had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke so while she was for the most in these Western parts under that yoke the Church of Rome was if not the Only yet the Chief Hinderance of Reformation And then in this sense it is more than clear That if the Roman Church will neither Reform nor suffer Reformation it is lawful for any other Particular Church to Reform it self so long as it doth it peaceably and orderly and keeps it self to the Foundation and free from Sacriledge F. I asked Quo Judice did this appear to be so Which Question I asked as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own Cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Roman Church B. § 25 Num. 1 You do well to tell the reason now why you asked this Question For you did not discover it at the Conference if you had you might then have received your Answer It is most true No man in common equity ought to be suffered to be Accuser Witness and Judge in his own Cause But is there not as little reason and equity too that any man that is to be accused should be the Accused and yet Witness and Judge in his own Cause If the first may hold no man shall be Innocent and if the last none will be Nocent And what do we here with in their own Cause against the Roman Church Why Is it not your own too against the Protestant Church And if it be a Cause common to both as certain it is then neither Part alone may be Judge If neither alone may judge then either they must be judged by a Third which stands indifferent to both and
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-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
Thomas holds the first and Durand the later Then you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and proved it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himself and gives his reason because it is the common Opinion of the School Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther Dispute and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawful for them to say I conceive thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I deny it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The Bishop said That M. Rogers was but a private man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publike Authority be accounted onely a private man c. B. § 13 Num. 1 I said truth when I said M. Rogers was a private man And I take it you will not allow every speech of every 〈…〉 though allowed by Authority to have his Books Printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath been oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church yet I see you mean not to leave it And surely as Controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand But I have long thought it a kinde of descent into Hell to be conversant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seek to blinde the People or cast a mist before evident Truth lest it cause a final descent to that place of Torment But since you will hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers his Exposition or Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us And as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie over the whole Church Shall he have his power over the Catholike Church given him expresly in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he had fed to Confirm and in all these not to erre and fail in his Ministration And is the Catholike Church in and over which he is to do all these great things quite left out of the Scripture Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if he could so prescribe for what he now Claims Num. 2 But what if after all this M. Rogers there says no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge He descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And again Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this Article is M. Rogers We the Church of England or rather his and some others Judgment in the Church of England Num. 3 Now here A. C. will have somewhat again to say though God knows 't is to little purpose 'T is that the Jesuit urged M. Roger's Book because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers if he please But he ought not to say that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed First not because his Book was publikely allowed For many Books among them as well as among us have been Printed by publike Authority as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners and yet containing many things in them of Opinion only or private Judgment which yet is far from the avowed Positive Doctrine of the Church the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words or things controverted And this is more frequent among their School-men than among any of our Controversers as is well known Nor secondly because his Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England For suppose the worst and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title is his private Judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more than I should say every thing said by Thomas or Bonaventure is Angelical or Seraphical Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphical and the other Angetical Doctor And yet their works are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Num. 4 Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to express our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will go far to bring A. C. off whatsoever I shall say against him For first let me instance in any private man that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth he will say he know it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knows Secondly If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much yet he will answer 't is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it that is perhaps it is not the very Title of his Book But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question What Not in any matter Were not Vega and Soto two private men Is it not a matter subject to Question to great Question in these Days Whether a man may be certain of his being in the state of Salvation certitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth not Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the Councel of Trent And yet these two great Fryers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councel and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
truly that Being which it is in truth of Substance But this word Right is not so used but is referr'd more properly to perfection in Conditions And in this sense every thing that hath a true and real Being is not by and by Right in the Conditions of it A man that is most dishonest and unworthy the name a very Thief if you will is a True man in the verity of his Essence as he is a Creature endued with Reason for this none can steal from him nor he from himself but Death But he is not therefore a Right or an upright man And a Church that is exceeding corrupt both in Manners and Doctrine and so a dishonour to the Name is yet a True Church in the verity of Essence as a Church is a Company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are Baptized into his Name But yet it is not therefore a Right Church either in Doctrine or Manners It may be you meant cunningly to slip in this word Right that I might at unawares grant it Orthodox But I was not so to be caught For I know well that Orthodox Christians are keepers of integrity and followers of right things so St. Augustine of which the Church of Rome at this day is neither In this sense then no Right that is no Orthodox Church at Rome Num. 3 And yet no News it is that I granted the Roman Church to be a True Church For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me and the Truth cannot deny it For that Church which receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as á partial and imperfect Rule and both the Sà craments as Instrumental Causes and Seals of Grace though they add more and misuse these yet cannot but be a True Church in essence How it is in Manners and Doctrine I would you would look to it with a single eye For if Piety and a Peaceable mind be not joyned to a good understanding nothing can be known in these great things Num. 4 Here A. C. tells us That the Jesuite doth not say that the Lady asked this Question in this or any other precise form of words But saith the Jesuite is sure her desire was to know of me whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church And how was the Jesuite sure the Lady desired to hear this from me Why A. C. tells us that too For he adds That the Jesuite had particularly spoken with her before and wished her to insist upon that Point Where you may see and 't is fit the Clergy of England should consider with what cunning Adversaries they have to deal who can find a way to prepare their Disciples and instruct them before-hand upon what Poynts to insist that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences which should never come there And this once known I hope they will the better provide against it But A. C. goes on and tells us That certainly by my Answer the Ladies desire must needs be to hear from me not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church c. but whether I would grant that there is but one holy Catholike Church and whether the Roman Church that is not only that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it be not it About A Church and The Church I have said enough before and shall not repeat Nor is there any need I should For A. C. would have it The Church The One Holy Catholike Church But this cannot be granted take the Roman Church in what sense they please in City or Diocess or all that agree with it Yet howsoever before I leave this I must acquaint the Reader with a perfect Jesuitism In all the Primitive Times of the Church a Man or a Family or a National Church were accounted Right and Orthodox as they agreed with the Catholike Church But the Catholike was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Jesuites new School The One Holy Catholike Church must be measured by that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholike For so A. C. says expresly The Lady would know of me not whether that were the Catholike Church to which Rome agreed but whether that were not the Holy Cathotholike Church which agreed with Rome So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the Custody of the Roman not of the Catholike Church and a man cannot agree with the Catholike Church of Christ in this new Doctrine of A. C. unless he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all 's safe and he is as Orthodox as he need be Num. 5 But A. C. is yet troubled about the form of the Ladies Question And he will not have it That she desired to know whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church Though these be her words according to the Jesuites own setting down but he thinks the Question was Whether the Church of Rome was not the Right Church Not Be not but was not Was not That is was not once or in time past the Right Church before Luther and others made a breach from it Why truly A. C. needed not have troubled himself half so much about this For let him take his Choice It shall be all one to me whether the Question were asked by Be oâ— by Was For the Church of Rome neither is nor waâ— the Right Church as the Lady desired to hear A Particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong and then in some things right and in some things wrong But The Right Church or The Holy Catholike Church it never was nor ever can be And therefore was not such before Luther and Others either left it or were thrust from it A particular Church it was But then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither For the Church of Rome both was and was not a Right or Orthodox Church before Luther made a Breach from it For the word Anâ—e Before may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off or long before and then in the Prime times of it it was a most Right and Orthodox Church But it may look also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some Ages before that And then in those times Rome was a Corrupt and a tainted Church far from being Right And yet both these times Before Luther made his Breach So here A. C. should have been more distinct For the word Before includes the whole time before Luther in part of which time that Church of Rome was Right and in other part whereof it was wrong But A. C. adds yet That I suspected the Lady would iâ—ser if once that Church were Right what
C's words are very considerable For he charges the Protestants to be the Authors of the Schism for obstinate holding and teaching contrary Opinions To what I pray Why to the Roman Faith To the Roman Faith It was wont to be the Christian Faith to which contrary Opinions were so dangerous to the Maintainers But all 's Roman now with A. C. and the Jesuite And then to countenance the Business S. Bernard and S. Augustine are brought in whereas neither of them speak of the Roman and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholike nor the Roman but of a Particular Church or Congregation Or if he speak of the Catholike of the Roman certainly he doth not His words are Quae major superbia c. What greater pride than that one man should prefer his judgment before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world So A. C. out of Saint Bernard But Saint Bernard not so For these last words of all the Christian Churches in the world are not in Saint Bernard And whether Toti Congregationi imply more in that Place than a Particular Church is not very manifest Nay I think 't is plain that he speaks both of and to that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching And I believe A. C. will not easily find where tota Congregatio the whole Congregation is used in Saint Bernard or any other of the Fathers for the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And howsoever the meaning of S. Bernard be 't is one thing for a private man Judicium suum praeferre to prefer and so follow his private Judgment before the Whole Congregation which is indeed Lepra proprii Consilii as S. Bernard there calls it the proud Leprosie of the Private Spirit And quite another thing for an Intelligent man and in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholike Church And much more may a whole National Church nay the whole Body of the Protestants do it And for S. Augustine the Place alledged out of him is a known Place And he speaks indeed of the Whole Catholike Church And he says and he says it truly 'T is a part of most insolent madness for any Man to dispute whether that be to be done which is usually done in and through the whole Catholike Church of Christ Where first here 's not a word of the Roman Church but of that which is tota per Orbem all over the World Catholike which Rome never yet was Secondly A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith whereas S. Augustine speaks there expresly of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church and particularly about the Manner of Offering upon Maundy Thursday whether it be in the Morning or after Supper or both Thirdly 't is manifest by the words themselves that S. Augustine speaks of no Matter of Faith there Roman nor Catholike For Frequentat and Faciendum are for Things done and to be done not for Things believed or to be believed So here 's not One Word for the Roman Faith in either of these Places And after this I hope you will the less wonder at A. C's Boldness Lastly a right sober man may without the least Touch of Insolencie or Madness dispute a Business of Religion with the Roman either Church or Prelate as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor so it be with Modesty and for the finding out or Confirming of Truth free from Vanity and purposed Opposition against even a Particular Church But in any other way to dispute the Whole Catholike Church is just that which S. Augustine calls it Insolent Madness Num. 5 But now were it so that the Church of Rome were Orthodox in all things yet the Faith by the Jesuite's leave is not simply to be called the Roman but the Christian and the Catholike Faith And yet A. C. will not understand this but Roman and Catholike whether Church or Faith must be one and the same with him and therefore infers That there can be no just Cause to make a Schism or Division from the whole Church For the whole Church cannot universally erre in Doctrine of Faith That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true and 't is granted by drivers Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamental Doctrines And therefore 't is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schism from the whole Church But here 's the Jesuite's Cunning. The whole Church with him is the Roman and those parts of Christendom which subject themselves to the Roman Bishop All other parts of Christendom are in Heresie and Schism and what A. C. pleases Nay soft For another Church may separate from Rome if Rome will separate from Christ. And so far as it separates from Him and the Faith so far may another Church fever from it And this is all that the Learned Protestants do or can say And I am sure all that ever the Church of England hath either said or done And that the whole Church cannot erre in Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and Necessary to all mens Salvation besides the Authority of thoso Protestants most of them being of prime Rank seems to me to be clear by the Promise of Christ S. Matth. 16. That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Whereas most certain it is that the Gates of Hell prevail very far against it if the Whole Militant Church universally taken can Erre from or in the Foundation But then this Power of not Eâ—ring is not to be conceived as if it were in the Church primò per se Originally or by any power it hath of it self For the Church is constituted of Men and Humanum est errare all men can erre But this Power is in it partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ and partly by the Matter which it teacheth which is the unerring Word of God so plainly and manifestly delivered to her as that it is not possible she should universally fall from it or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to Salvation Besides it would be well weighed whether to believe or teach otherwise will not impeach the Article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholike Church which we profess we believe For the Holy Catholike Church there spoken of contains not only the whole Militant Church on earth but the whole Triumphant also in Heaven For so S. Augustine hath long since taught me Now if the whole Catholike Church in this large extent be Holy then certainly the whole Militant Church is Holy as well as the Triumphant though in a far lower degree in as much as all Sanctification all Holiness is imperfect in this life as well in Churches as in Men Holy then the whole Militant Church is For that which the Apostle speaks of Abraham is true of the Church which is a Body Collective made
that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Councel which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferencie to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens Num. 2 And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madness of the Protestants A. C. adds That the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may Accuse Witness Judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children How far forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the mean time though I cannot grant her to be either yet let 's suppose her to be both that A. C's Argument may have all the strength it can have Nor shall it force me as plausible as it seems to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shock of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would fain have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or took it upon him to be Accuser and Witness and Judge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Liberty to Judge between them For the great Philosopher tells us That the Chief Magistrate is Custos juris the Guardian and keeper of the Law and if of the Law then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him And even Tiberius himself in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take to himself he put him off thus No the Laws grow less where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or Witness than themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the loss of Education they punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are grown up and come to some full use of their own Reason the Apostles Rule is Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevail not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a son against unnatural Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over-Imperious Father And an express Law there was among the Jews Deut. 21. when Children were grown up and fell into great extremities that the Parents should then bring them to the Magistrate and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law the Scripture and suppose her a Mother yet there is or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are grown up if she forget all good Nature and turn Stepdame to them Num. 3 Well the Reason why the Jesuite asked the Question Quo Judice Who should be Judge He says was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Judges in their own Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he knew the Jesuites mind as well as himself as sure I think he doth That the Jesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the General Church as the Jesuite understood my meaning The Jesuite here took my meaning right For I confess I said there were Errors in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the General Church could not or would not Reform such it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves But then I added That the General Church not universally taken but in these Western parts fell into those Errors being swayed in these later Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome under whose Government it was for the most part forced And all men of understanding know how oft and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it in any Body Natural Politick or Ecclesiastical Num. 4 Yea but A. C. tells us That never any Competent Judge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power on Earth or in Hell it self can so far prevail against the General Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches And for proof of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. John 14. and 16. In this troublesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in general The Church of England is content to pass that over And though She tells us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in general She is modestly silent But since A. C. will needs have it That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith he should do well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to all mens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most Lear ned Protestants grant it But if he mean that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in general which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles is yet made a Point of Faith and may prove dangerous to the Salvation of some which believe it and practise after it as his words seem to import especially if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as Bellarm. says She may and yet not Erre Then perhaps it may be said and without any wrong to the Catholike Church that the Whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point of Divine Truth and of Faith Nay A. C. confesses expresly in his very next words That the Whole Church may
But as it is appliable to the whole Church Militant in all succeeding times so the Promise was made with a Limitation namely that the Blessed Spirit should abide with the Church for ever and lead it into all Truth but not simply into all Curious Truth no not in or about the Faith but into all Truth necessary to Salvation And against this Truth the Whole Catholike Church cannot erre keeping her self to the direction of the Scripture as Christ hath appointed her For in this very Place where the Promise is made That the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things 't is added that He shall bring all things to their remembrance What simply all things No But all things which Christ had told them S. John 14. So there is a Limitation put upon the words by Christ himself And if the Church will not erre it must not ravel Curiously into unnecessary Truths which are out of the Promise nor follow any other Guide than the Doctrine which Christ hath lest behind him to govern it For if it will come to the End it must keep in the Way And Christ who promised the Spirit should lead hath no where promised that it shall follow its Leader into all Truth and at least not Infallibly unless you will Limit as before So no one of these Places can make good A. C.'s Assertion That the whole Church cannot erre Generally in any 〈◊〉 Point of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Absolute Foundations she cannot in Deductions and superstructures she may Num. 6 Now to all that I have said concerning the Right which Particular Churches have to Reform themselves when the General Church cannot for Impediments or will not for Negligence which I have proved at large before All the Answer that A. C. gives is First Quo Judice Who shall be Judge And that shall be the Scripture and the Primitive Church And by the Rules of the one and to the Integrity of the other both in Faith and Manners any Particular Church may safely Reform it self Num. 7 Secondly That no Reformation in Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches In which Case also he saith Particular Churches may not take upon them to Judge and Condemn others of Errors in Faith Well how far forth Reformation even of Faith may be necessary in the General Church I have expressed already And for Particular Churches I do not say that they must take upon them to Judge or Condemn others of Error in Faith That which I say is They may Reform themselves Now I hope to Reform themselves and to Condemn others are two different Words unless it fall out so that by Reforming themselves they do by consequence Condemn any other that is guilty in that Point in which they Reform themselves and so far to Judge and Condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives religiously doth not by and by sit in Judgment and Condemn with his mouth all Prophane Livers But yet while he is silent his very Life condemns them And I hope in this way of Judicature A. C. dares not say 't is unlawful for a particular Church or man to Condemn another And 〈◊〉 whatsoever A. C. can say to the contrary there are divers Cases where Heresies are known and notorious in which it will be hard to say as he doth That one Particular Church must not Judge or Condemn another so far forth at 〈◊〉 as to 〈◊〉 and protest against the Heresie of it Num. 8 Thirdly If one Particular Church may not Judge or Condemn another what must then be done where Particulars need Reformation What Why then A. C. tells us That Particular Churches must in that Case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful sub Principality the Principality of an Apostolike Chair Or if you will the Apostolike Chair in relation to the West and South parts of the Church all the other four Apostolike Chairs being in the East Now this no man denies that understands the state and story of the Church And Calvin confesses it expresly Nor is the Word Principatus so great nor were the Bishops of those times so little as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and the Latine Fathers of this great and Learnedst Age of the Church made up of the fourth and fifth hundred years always understanding Principatus of their Spiritual Power and within the Limits of their several Jurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in S. Augustine That this Principality of the Apostolike Chair in the Church of Rome was then or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmine insinuates there and as A. C. would have it here And to prove that S. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any Power out of his own Limits which God knows were far short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the very same Epistle For afterwards saith S. Augustine when the pertinacie of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only they gave them leave to be beard by forein Bishops And after that he hath these words And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not usurp to himself this Judgment which was determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate And what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole Cause In which Passage there are very many things Observeable As first that the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly that if the Pope had come in without this Leave it had been an Usurpation Thirdly that when he did thus come in not by his own Proper Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Judges with him Fourthly that these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperor and his Power that which the Pope will least of all indure Lastly lest the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperor S. Aug. tells us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad Curam ejus to the Emperors Care and charge and that He is to give an Account to God for it And Melciades did sit and Judge the Business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastor of the whole Church say A. C. what he please Nor had he any Supremacie over the other Patriarchs And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument
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
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
first besides the silence of Impartial Antiquity divers of your Own confess it yea and prove it too by sundry Instances Num. 10 Secondly There is a great Question among the Learned both School-men and Controversers Whether the Pope coming to be an Heretick may be Deposed And 't is Learnedly disputed by Bellarmine The Opinions are different For the Canon-Law says expresly He may be judged and deposed by the Church in case of Heresie Joh. de Turrecremata is of Opinion That the Pope is to be deposed by the Church so soon as he becomes an Heretick though as yet not a manifest one Because he is already deprived by Divine Right And recites another opinion That the Pope cannot be deposed though he fall into secret or manifest Heresie Cajetan thinks that the Pope cannot be deposed but for a manifest Heresie and that then he is not deposed ipso facto but must be deposed by the Church Bellarmine's own Opinion is That if the Pope become a manifest Heretick he presently ceases to be Pope and Head of the Church and may then be Judged and punished by the Church Bellarmine hath disputed this very Learnedly and at large and I will not fill this Discourse with another mans Labours The use I shall make of it runs through all these Opinions and through all alike And truly the very Question it self supposes that A Pope may be an Heretick For if he cannot be an Heretick why do they question whether he can be Deposed for being One And if he can be one then whether he can be Deposed by the Church Before he be manifest or not till after or neither before nor after or which way they will it comes all to one for my purpose For I question not here his Deposition for his Heresie but his Heresie And I hope none of these Learned men nor any other dare deny but that if the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre For every Heresie is an Errour and more For 't is an Errour oft-times against the Errants knowledge but ever with the pertinacie of his Will Therefore out of all even your own Grounds If the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre grosly he can erre wilfully And he that can so Erre cannot be Infallible in his Judgement private or publike For if he can be an Heretick he can and doubtless will Judge for his Heresie if the Church let him alone And you your selves maintain his Deposition lawful to prevent this I verily believe Alb. Pighius foresaw this Blow And therefore he is of Opinion That the Pope cannot become an Heretick at all And though Bellarmine favour him so far as to say his Opinion is probable yet he is so honest as to adde that the Common opinion of Divines is against him Nay though he Labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the first from the Heresie of the Monothelites and says that Pope Adrian was deceived who thought him one yet He confesses That Pope Adrian the second with the Councel then held at Rome and the eighth General Synod did think that the Pope might be Judged in the Cause of Heresie And that the condition of the Church were most miserable if it should be constrained to acknowledge a Wolf manifestly raging for her Shepherd And here again I have a Question to ask Whether you believe the eighth General Councel or not If you believe it then you see the Pope can erre and so He not Infallible If you believe it not then in your Judgement that General Councel erres and so that not Infallible Num. 11 Thirdly It is altogether in vain and to no use that the Pope should be Infallible and that according to your own Principles Now God and Nature make nothing in vain Therefore either the Pope is not Infallible or at least God never made him so That the Infallibility of the Pope had he any in him is altogether vain and useless is manifest For if it be of any use 't is for the setling of Truth and Peace in the Church in all times of her Distraction But neither the Church nor any member of it can make any use of the Popes Infallibility that way Therefore it is of no use or benefit at all And this also is as manifest as the rest For before the Church or any particular man can make any use of this Infallibility to settle him and his Conscience he must either Know or Believe that the Pope is Infallible But a man can neither Know nor Believe it And first for Belief For if the Church or any Christian man can believe it he must believe it either by Divine or by Humane Faith Divine Faith cannot be had of it For as is before proved it hath no Ground in the written Word of God Nay to follow you closer it was never delivered by any Tradition of the Catholike Church And for Humane Faith no Rational man can possibly believe having no Word of God to over-rule his Understanding that he which is Fallible in the Means as your selves confess the Pope is can possibly be Infallible in the Conclusion And were it so that a Rational man could have Humane Faith of this Infallibility yet that neither is nor never can be sufficient to make the Pope Infallible No more than my strong Belief of another mans Honesty can make him an Honest man if he be not so Now secondly for Knowledge and that is altogether impossible too that either the Church or any Member of the Church should ever know that the Pope is Infallible And this I shall make evident also out of your own Principles For your Councel of Florence had told us That three things are necessary to every Sacrament the Matter the Form of the Sacrament and the Intention of the Priest which administers it that he intends to do as the Church doth Your Councel of Trent confirms it for the Intention of the Priest Upon this Ground be it Rock or Sand it is all one for you make it Rock and build upon it I shall raise this Battery against the Popes Infallibility First the Pope if he have any Infallibility at all he hath it as he is Bishop of Rome and S. Peter's Successour This is granted Secondly the Pope cannot be Bishop of Rome but he must be in holy Orders first And if any man be chosen that is not so the Election is void ipso facto propter errorem Personae for the errour of the Person This also is granted Thirdly He that is to be made Pope can never be in Holy Orders but by receiving them from One that hath Power to Ordain This is notoriously known So is it also that with you Order is a Sacrament properly so called And if so then the Pope when he did receive the Order of Deacon or Priesthood at the hands of the Bishop did also receive a Sacrament Upon these Grounds I raise my
Pilate disagreeing Parties enough yet agreed against Truth it self But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement And secondly by the two Instances before given For in the Instance between the Orthodox Church then and the Donatists this Proposition is most false For it was a Point of Faith so of Salvation that they were upon Namely the right use and administration of the Sacrament of Baptism And yet had it been safest to take up that way which the differing Parts agreed on or which the adverse Part Confessed men must needs have gone with the Donatists against the Church And this must fall out as oft as any Heretick will cunningly take that way against the Church which the Donatists did if this Principle shall go for currant But in the second Instance concerning the Eucharist a matter of Faith and so of Salvation too the same Proposition is most true And the Reason is because here the matter is true Namely The true and real participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacrament But in the former the matter was false Namely That Rebaptization was necessary after Baptism formally given by the Church So this Proposition In Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree in or which the Adversary confesses is you see both true and false as men have cunning to apply it and as the matter is about which it is Conversant And is therefore no Proposition able or fit to settle a Conclusion in any sober mans minde till the Matter contained under it be well scanned and examined And yet as much use as you would make of this Proposition to amaze the weak your selves dare not stand to it no not where the matter is undeniably true as shall appear in divers Particulars beside this of the Eucharist Num. 5 But before I add any other particular Instances I must tell you what A. C. says to the two former For he tells us These two are nothing like the present case Nothing That is strange indeed Why in the first of those Cases concerning the Donatists your Proposition is false And so far from being safest that it was no way safe for a man to take that way of Belief and so of Salvation which both parts agreed on And is this nothing Nay is not this full and home to the present case For the present case is this and no more That it is safest taking that way of Belief which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary Confesses And in the second of those Cases concerning the Eucharist your Proposition indeed is true not by the Truth which it hath seen in it self Metaphysically and in Abstract but onely in regard of the matter to which it is applied yet there you desert your own Proposition where it is true And is this nothing Nay is not this also full and home to the present case since it appears your Proposition is such as your selves dare not bide by either when it is true or when it is false For in the Case of Baptism administred by the Donatist the Proposition is false and you dare not bide by it for Truths sake And in the case of the Eucharist the Proposition is true and yet you dare not bide by it for the Church of Romes sake So that Church with you cannot erre and yet will not suffer you to maintain Truth which not to do is some degree of Errour and that no small one Num. 6 Well A. C. goes on and gives his Reasons why these two Instances are nothing like the present Case For in these Cases saith he there are annexed other Reasons of certainly known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie which we should inâ—ur by consenting to the Donatists denial of true Baptism among Catholikes and to the Protestants denial or doubting of the true substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in this Case of Resolving to live and die in the Catholike Romà ne Church there is confessedly no such peril of any damnable Heresie or Schism or any other sin Here I have many Particulars to observe upon A. C. and you shall have them as briefly as I can set them down And first I take A. C. at his word that in the case of the Donatist should it be followed there would be known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie by denying true Baptism to be in the Orthodox Church For by this you may see what a sound Proposition this is That where two Parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both Parties agree or which the Adversary confesses for here you may see by the case of the Donatist is confessed it may lead a man that will universally lean to it into known and damnable Schism and Heresie An excellent Guide I promise you this is it not Nor secondly are these though A. C. calls them so annexed Reasons For he calls them so but to blaunch the matter as if they fell upon the Proposition ab extra accidentally and from without Whereas they are not annexed or pinned on but flow naturally out of the Proposition it self For the Proposition would seem to be Metaphysical and is appliable indifferently to any Common Belief of dissenting Parties be the point in difference what it will Therefore if there be any thing Heretical Schismatical or any way evil in the Point this Proposition being neither Universally nor necessarily true must needs cast him that relies upon it upon all these Rocks of Heresie Schism or what ever else follows the matter of the Proposition Thirdly A. C. doth extremely ill to joyn these Cases of the Donatists for Baptism and the Protestant for the Eucharist together as he doth For this Proposition in the first concerning the Donatists leads a man as is confessed by himself into known and damnable Schism and Heresie but by A. C's good leave the later concerning the Protestants and the Eucharist nothing so For I hope A. C. dare not say That to believe the true substantial Presence of Christ is either known or damnable Schism or Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of Salvation as before is limited in the Romane Church Therefore they in that not guilty of either known or damnable Schism or Heresie though the Donâ—tists were of both Fourthly whereas he imposes upon the Protestants The denyal or doubting of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is a great deal more bold than true in that also For understand them right and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it For as for the Lutheranes as they are commonly called their very Opinion of Consubstantiation makes it known to the world that they neither deny nor doubt of his true and Real presence there And they are Protestants And for the
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
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
whereas I said the Lady would far more easily be able to answer for her coming to Church than for her leaving the Church of England To this A. C. excepts and says That I neither prove nor can prove that it is lawful for one perswaded especially as the Lady was to go to the Protestant Church There 's a great deal of Cunning and as much Malice in this passage but I shall easily pluck the Sting out of the Tail of this Wisp And first I have proved it already through this whole Discourse and therefore can prove it That the Church of England is an Orthodox Church And therefore with the same labour it is proved that men may lawfully go unto it and communicate with it for so a man not onely may but ought to do with an Orthodox Church And a Romanist may communicate with the Church of England without any Offence in the Nature of the Thing thereby incurred But if his Conscience through mis-information check at it he should do well in that Case rather to inform his Conscience than forsake any Orthodox Church whatsoever Secondly A. C. tells me plainly That I cannot prove that a man so perswaded as the Lady was may go to the Protestant Church that is That a Romane Catholike may not go to the Protestant Church Why I never went about to prove that a Romane Catholike being and continuing such might against his Conscience go to the Protestant Church For these words A man perswaded as the Lady is are A. C's words they are not mine Mine are not simply that the Lady might or that she might not but Comparative they are That she might more easily answer to God for coming to than for going from the Church of England And that is every way most true For in this doubtful time of hers when upon my Reasons given she went again to Church when yet soon after as you say at least she was sorry for it I say at this time she was in heart and resolution a Romano Catholike or she was not If she were not as it seems by her doubting she was not then fully resolved then my speech is most true that she might more easily answer God for coming to Service in the Church of England than for leaving it For a Protestant she had been and for ought I knew at the end of this Conference so she was and then 't was no sin in it self to come to an Orthodox Church nor no sin against her Conscience she continuing a Protestant for ought which then appeared to me But if she then were a Romane Catholike as the Jesuite and A. C. seem confident she was yet my speech is true too For then she might more easily answer God for coming to the Church of England which is Orthodox and leaving the Church of Rome which is Superstitious than by leaving the Church of England communicate with all the Superstitions of Rome Now the cunning and the malignity of A. C. lies in this He would fain have the world think that I am so Indifferent in Religion as that I did maintain the Lady being conscientiously perswaded of the Truth of the Romish Doctrine might yet against both her conscience and against open and avowed profession come to the Protestant Church Num. 3 Nevertheless in hope his cunning Malice would not be discovered against this his own sence that is and not mine he brings divers Reasons As first 't is not lawful for one affected as that Lady was that is for one that is resolved of the Truth of the Romane Church to go to the Church of England there and in that manner to serve and worship God Because saith A. C. that were to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world Truly I say the same thing with him And that therefore neither may a Protestant that is resolved in Conscience that the profession of the true Faith is in the Church of England go to the Romish Church there and in that manner to serve and worship God Neither need I give other Answer because A. C. urges this against his own fiction not my assertion Yet since he will so do I shall give a particular Answer to each of them And to this first Reason of his I say thus That to Believe Religion after one sort and to practise it after another and that in the main points of worship the Sacrament and Invocation is to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world And other then this I never taught nor ever said that which might infer the Contrary But A. C. give me leave to tell you your fellow Jesuite Azorius affirms this in express terms And what do you think can he prove it Nay not Azorius onely but other Priests and Jesuites here in England either teach some of their Proselytes or else some of them learn it without teaching That though they be perswaded as this Lady was that is though they be Romane Catholikes yet either to gain honour or save their purse they may go to the Protestant Church just as the Jesuite here says The Lady did out of frailty and fear to offend the King Therefore I pray A. C. if this be gross dissimulation both with God and the world speak to your fellows to leave perswading or practising of it and leave men in the profession of Religion to be as they seem or to seem and appear as they are Let 's have no Mask worn here A. C's second Reason why one so perswaded as that Lady was might not go to the Protestant Church is Because that were outwardly to profess a Religion in Conscience known to be false To this I answer first that if this Reason be true it concerns all men as well as those that be perswaded as the Lady was For no man may outwardly profess a Religion in conscience known to be false For with the heart man believeth to righteousness and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10. Now to his own salvation no man can confess a known false Religion Secondly if the Religion of the Protestants be in conscience a known false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too for their Religion is the same Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion And the difference is in certain gross corruptions to the very endangering of salvation which each side says the other is guilty of Thirdly the Reason given is most untrue for it may appear by all the former Discourse to any Indifferent Reader that Religion as it is professed in the Church of England is nearest of any Church now in being to the Primitive Church And therefore not a Religion known to be false And this I both do and can prove were not the deafness of the Asp upon the
boty by Divine and by Infallible Proof But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary not by Knowledge of such Principles as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no. I have said thus much upon this great Occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture And I have proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Jesuites for certainly this Question was Captiously asked it had been sufficient to have restored the Question thus How do you know the Testimony of the Church by which you say you know Scripture to be the Word of God to be Divine and Infallible If they prove it by Scripture as all of them do and as A. C. doth how do they know that Scripture to be Scripture It is but a Circular Assurance of theirs by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Scripture And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church That is upon the Matter the Churches Infallibility upon the Churches Infallibility But I labour for edification not for destruction And now by what I have here said I will weigh my Answer and his Exception taken against it F. The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed and needed not to be Proved B. § 17 Why but did I say That this Principle The Books of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no Proof at all to a Natural man Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith yea or perhaps to a Doubter or Weakling in the Faith Can you think me so weak It seems you do But sure I know there is a great deal of difference between Ethnicks that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are Born in the Church The first have a farther way about to this Principle The other in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it That the Books commonly called The Bible or Scripture are the Word of God And I dealt with you as with a Christian though in Errour while you call Catholike The Words before spoken by me were That the Scripture only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question between us and you is Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subject the Scripture is and must be supposed The Quaere between the Roman-Catholicks and the Church of England being only of the Praedicate the thing uttered of it Namely Whether it contain all Fundamentals of Faith all Necessaries for Salvation within it Now since the Question proposed in very form of Art proves not but supposes the Subject I think I gave a satisfying Answer That to you and me and in this Question Scripture was a Supposed Principle and needed no Proof And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent it is against all Art yea and Equity too in Reasoning to call for a proof of That here which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety to Question it it must be tried in a preceding Question and Dispute by it self Yet here not you only but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply against M. John White Wherein I plainly shewed that this Answer was not good and that no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point ◠§ 18 Num. 1 Indeed here you read out of a Book which you called your own a large Discourse upon this Argument But surely I so untied the knot of the Argument that I set you to your Book again For your self confess that against this you read what you had formerly written Well! what ere you read there certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to M. Hooker and my self that because we call it a Supposed or Presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysical Discourse to prove That that which is a Praecognitum fore-known in Science must be of such light that it must be known of and by it self alone and that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the Word of God Num. 2 I will not now enter again into that Discourse having said enough already how far the Beam which is very glorious especially in some parts of Scripture gives light to prove it self You see neither Hooker nor I nor the Church of England for ought I know leave the Scripture alone to manifest it self by the light which it hath in it self No but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun-shine then indeed we settle for our Direction yet not upon the first opening of the morning-light but upon the Sun it self Nor will I make needless enquiry how far and in what manner a Praecognitum or Supposed Principle in any Science may be proved in a Higher to which that is subordinate or accepted for a Prime Nor how it may in Divinity where Prae as well as Post-cognita things fore as well as after-known are matters and under the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly Nor whether a Praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests upon Divine Authority must needs have as much and equal Light to Natural Reason as Prime Principles have in Nature while they rest upon Reason Nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient Light because not equal Your own School grants That in us which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us there is less Light less Evidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge upon which there can be no doubt But I think the School will never grant That the Principles of Faith even this in Question have not sufficient Evidence And you ought not to do as you did without any Distinction or any Limitation deny a Praecognitum or Prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science in their Light and Evidence a thing in it self directly against Reason Num. 3 Well though I do none of this yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in again and tells me That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion between them that whether it be in Science or in Faith the Praecognitum or thing supposed as known must be prius cognitum
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
Spiritui sancto Nobis not used by any posteriour Councel 155. the first and later Councels differently assisted 156 166. whence they have their power and assistance 150 c. the prior may be amended by the posterior 158 c. what decrees of them are necessary to be believed 161. how they are held by the Romanists to be infallible 163. their decrees by Stapleton held to be the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 156. that they are not Prophetical in their conclusions 163 164. Of their necessity and frequency 128. that they may erre the whole Church not erring 168. their errours how to be amended 101. how made of no worth at all by the Romanists without the Pope 17â— Councels and Fathers how we are sure we have their true copies â—â—6 217. Conclusions of Councels how to be believed 226 their determinations not all of equal authority 234. by whom they were and ought to be called 140 141. against the Popes being above a general Councel 218 252. Conditions required to make a Councel lawful 142 143. Protestants invited to one upon doubtful and dangerous terms 92 Of the Councel of Florence and the Greeks their subscribing to it â—27 Councel of Constance her injurious proceeding against Husse c. 92 93. Becanus his defence of it confuted ibid. it s great errour touching Communion in one kinde 170 Councel of Nice the absence of the Western Bishops from it how recompenced 144 Councel of Africk in S. Cypriâ—ns time erred about Baptism by Hereticks 158 Councel of Trent how occasioned and what an one it was 99. not general nor legal and so null 140 143. compared with ancient Councels 26 27 142 143 c. the blinde pâ—rtinacy of the Fathers there 93. her dangerous and wilful errour concerning the intention of those that administer the Sacraments 179 180. claimed by Soâ—o and Vega for their contrary Tenets 32 of things there determined 24. there the Pope ought not to have sate as President 140 141. Bishops made of purpose to make a major part there 143. more Italian Bishops in it than of all Christendome beside ibid. its addition of twelve new Articles to the Creed 222 Creed that it is a Rule of faith 27. that it is wholly grounded on Scripture 29. some words added to it why and by whom 9. Iremâ—us his famous testimony of it 218 Athanasian Creed expounded and vindicated 210 223 S. Cyprian cleared 3 c. and 6 and righted 237 S. Cyril of Alexandria vindicated 8 9 D DEmonstrative reasons of greater force than any other humane proof 161. direct proof and demonstrative how they differ 35 Descent of Christ into Hall how hâ—ld by the Church of England and how by those of Rome 29 30 198 Dissent and difference in opinion what may stand with the peace of the Church 234 235 Disputations their use 82. when and how lawful for a private man to dispute with the whole Church â—4 publike disputations how safe or available 94 95. in what case to be admitted between the English and the Romish Clergy 94 Divinity that it hath a science above it and what 79. the Principles of it otherwise confirmed than those of any other Art 67 68 78 79 Donatus two of that name 196 Donatists compared with the Romanists 194 195 196 whether any of them living and dying so had possibility of salvation and which 195 196. whether they were guilty of Hâ—resie ibid. E EMperour whom the Jesuites would have to be 233 137 vid. Pope Epiphanius cleared and vindicated 121 122 Errours not fundamental to whom and in what case damnable 208 209 242. Errours of Councels vid. Councels Errours of the Romane Church wanting all proof from ancient Councels and Fathers 221 c. 250. what be the most dangerous of them 245. Errours of Papists to whom fundamental 217. vid. Church of Rome Eucharist a threefold Sacrifice in it 199 200. mutilated by the Romane Church 12 170 171. upon what hard terms the Bohemians were dispens'd with to have it in both kinds 198. the Papists tyed by their own grounds to believe of it as the Church of England doth 187 c. the Church of England and other Protestants believe Christs real presence in it 188 289 c. 191 192 193. Concoâ—itancy in it Thomas of Aquin's fiction confuted 198. Bellarmines notorious contradiction of Christs being in it corporally present 192 193. his new and intricate Doctrine touching Tran substantiation 213 214. of the unbloody Sacrifice and the bloody how they differ 199 200. the propitiatory and gratulatory Sacrifice how they differ 199 200 Expositions such only right as the thing expounded containeth 20 The Extravagants censured 139 F FAith how it is unchangable and yet hath been changed 7. what is certain by the certainty of it 25 26. not to be termeâ— the Romane but the Christian or Catholike Faith 88 c. the two Regular precepts of it 27. of its prime Principles and how they differ from the Articles of it 28. the last Resolution of it into what it should be 41 42 c. 57 65 66 215 223 224 c. Faith acquired faith in sus'd wherein either or both required 233. how few things are essential to the Faith 234 235. how its Principles differ from those of sciences 67. its foundation the Scripture 34. by it man brought to his last happiness 68 70 71. how by it the understanding is captivated 72. that it is an act produced by the will 48 68. the Principles of it have sufficient evidence of proof 77. It and Reason compared in their objects c. 164 c. a latitude in it in reference to different mens salvation 212 236. things of two sorts belonging to it 24. what by it to be believ'd explicitly what not 217 218. of the perfection and certainty of it 252. of things not necessary to salvation no infallible Faith can be among men 233. foundation of Faith how shaken 25. how fretted by those of Rome 59. the Catholike and now Romane Faith â—ot both one 220. Faith of Scripture to be Gods Word infused by the Holy Ghost 47 48. the true grounds of it 71 72 73 74. our Faith of it how it differs from that of those who wrote Scripture 70 71. Faith of Scripture that it hath all perfections necessary 73 74. how firm and invincible it is 74 75 Felicity what it is and that the soul of man is capable of it 72 Ferus his acknowledgment of the difference 'twixt the first Councels and the late ones 156 Fundamental what maketh a point to be such 19 20 22. that decrees of Councels are not such 87. what points be so and what not 17 18. 21 22 27 c. 217 218. not all of a like primeness 28. all Fundamentals held by the whole Church 18. Points not Fundamental how and to whom necessary to salvation 18 19. Firm and Fundamental how they differ 23 G GErson his ingenuity 99 Holy Ghost how said to be lost 14. his