Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	ghost_n	son_n	4,633	5	6.0871	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15082	A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*	White, Francis, 1564?-1638.; Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Baylie, Richard, b. 1585 or 6, attributed name.; Cockson, Thomas, engraver.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641.	1624 (1624)	STC 25382; ESTC S122241	841,497	706

enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True

that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of reall worship to wit such as the Trident Councell expresly defineth for if such adoration of Images bee an Article of Faith and not onely a thing Adiaphorous but a necessarie dutie then the same must haue apparant ground in Diuine Reuelation but if it be neuer commanded or prescribed in the Old or New Testament nor was for sundrie ages affirmed by Orthodoxall Fathers to be an Apostolicall Tradition and yet the Trent Councell presumeth to make it diuine obliging all Christians vpon paine of damnation to the beliefe and practise thereof Protestants haue iust cause to condemne this doctrine and to refuse conformitie with Papists in the practise thereof Papists condemne those of heresie which refuse to worship Images where they haue power they burne them to Ashes They hold it lawfull to dethrone Kings and Princes from their royall dignitie for opposing this practise It must therefore be necessarie for them to demonstrate their Tenet by manifest Testimonies or Arguments taken from diuine Reuelation and not to triflle off the time in bequarrelling Iohn White concerning the meaning of the Trident Councell For it is apparant that the Councell intendeth to make that an Article of 〈◊〉 which hath no foundation in the rule of Faith and it yeeldeth libertie to the most grosse opinions which former Papists held concerning adoration of Images And it is sufficient for Protestants to manifest thus much IESVIT Nor is Maister Whites Argument good We worship Christ and his Image by the same Act but the worship of Christ is diuine honour Ergo The worship of the Image is diuine honour for this prooueth 〈◊〉 That the worship of the Image is diuine as referred to Christ not as referred vnto the Image Otherwise if Maister White should helpe to pull his fellow Ministers horse out of the mire 〈◊〉 thereunto out of Christian charitie and friendship one might by the like Argument prooue that he beareth Christian charitie towards horses for he relieueth the horse and pleasureth his friend by one and the same Act. The pleasuring of his friend is an Act of Christian charitie towards him Ergo The pulling the horse out of the mire is an Act of Christian charitie towards the horse A foolish Argument because that one Act is vertually twofold as referred to the man owner of the horse Christian charity as referred to the horse onely no charitie at all but a baser kind of loue and that for his friends sake The like is when wee kisse with our corporall lips the feet of the Image of Christ at the same time by deuout and reuerent imagination kissing his true feet represented by the Image we honour Christ and his Image by one and the same Physicall Act and that Act is diuine Worship though not diuine as referred to the Image but onely as referred vnto Christ. A thing so easily vnderstood by learned men as I meruaile Ministers vnderstand it not or will wrangle in a matter so cleare if they sincerely seeke truth ANSWER The Argument which you father vpon Maister Iohn White and whereunto you apply your flearing and myerie similitude is not extant in his Way to the Church pag. 400. So farre therefore as I can obserue you fight with your owne shaddow But if the Argument had beene propounded in this manner Many learned Papists to wit Aquinas and the Maior part of the Schoole adore the Artificiall Images of Christ as they are conioyned with the Samplar with the Act of Latria Therefore they adore some Images with Diuine worship I cannot perceiue that your nice distinctions of Physicall and vertuall acts diuine as referred to Christ not diuine as referred to the Image would haue beene sufficient to vindicate your Tenet from the mud of superstition for that which is worshipped with any act matorially or formally of Latria is worshipped with diuine honour at least in part or by accident But no degree of diuine honour can iustly be yeelded to any creature which is not substantially vnited to the Deitie or at least wise which is not by some diuine Ordinance accidentally vnited and made capable of such adoration But no artificiall Images are thus vnited and no diuine ordinance exalteth them to such a dignitie IESVIT And though the Ignorant vnderstand not the tearmes of Theologie by which Diuines declare the manner of honouring the Prototype and the Jmage both by one Act yet may they honour an Jmage as securely and with as little danger and erring as any that vnderstand them For as the Clowne who knowes no more of the nature of motion than that he is to set one foot before another doth mooue in the very same manner as Philosophers who 〈◊〉 that Action by tearmes most obscure of intrinsecall and extrinsecall beginning and ending and per vltimum non esse primum non 〈◊〉 So likewise a Catholicke that vnderstands no more of honouring Christ his Image than that he is by beholding the Jmage to remember Christ and with pious and affectuous imaginations to adore him doth honour our Sauiour and his Image by one and the same Act as truly verily and religiously as the greatest Diuine that can learnedly explicate the manner how that Adoration is performed as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image inwardly affectuously absolutely finally vnto Christ. ANSWER Although this Assertion is false and the Proofe thereof borrowed from a similie is impertinent for vulgar persons among you commit grosse Idolatrie in Image Worship as they which haue liued beyond Seas and some of your own part report neither is there the same reason of naturall motion and the exercise of religious actions yet because it serueth not to prooue the Assumption of your maine Sillogisme to wit Protestants cannot assigne any time when Image worship began c. I will not insist vpon the examination of it The latter branch of this Clause to wit Adoration is performed to Images as being done outwardly relatiuely and transitorily vnto the Image inwardly affectuously absolutely and finally vnto Christ is boldly affirmed but not confirmed by any Argument First how proue you by diuine reuelation and testimonie that adoration is to be performed according to your distinction of outwardly relatiuely and transitorily to Images And against such loose and voluntarie presumptions we say with S. Chrisostome Diuinae Scripturae testimonia sequamur neque feramus eos qui timerè quiduis blaterant we are to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testimonie of diuine Scripture and not to regard them which at rouers and without ground blatter out what they please Secondly if you adore Images outwardly relatiuely and transitorily then you make Images a partiall obiect of adoration but God himselfe who saith I will not giue my glorie to another to wit in whole or in part neither my praise to grauen Images Esa. 42.8 hath excluded Images from copartnership

intercessions to the Virgin Marie with diuine Prayers Hee affirmeth also that in Saint Augustines dayes Inuocation of Saints was not vsed in the common Seruice of the West Church And descending to the 600. yeeres he saith Inuocation of Saints among the Latines was not brought into the publicke Seruice and Letanies of the Church vntill the dayes of Pope Gregorie the first Lastly the forme and manner of Saintly Inuocation in the 600 yeere differed extreamely from that which was vsed by Papals in latter times and this is confirmed by Chemnitius setting downe verbatim many Collects and formes of deuotion vsed in latter dayes which were antiently vnheard of Secondly The Fathers which you cite in your Margine to prooue the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints and Martyrs to haue beene a matter of faith from the dayes of Constantine are Gregorie Nyssen St. Basil Theodorit St. Ambrose St. Hierom and St. Augustine but hauing perused the places I finde not that these Fathers either deliuered this Doctrine as matter of Catholicke Faith or affirme the Practise thereof to haue beene necessarie and vniuersall or that they spake of such Worship and Inuocation of Saints as is practised in the seruice of your Church But as places may bee noted in some Fathers touching inuocation of Saints deceased or which argue that they requested Saints to assist them with their Prayers at least in generall and so farre foorth as they had knowledge of their necessities So likewise other Sentences are found in their writings maintaining the sole Inuocation of God by Christ and condemning Inuocation of Angels and Saints deceased according to the manner now vsed in the Romane Church Theoderit vpon the Colossians cap. 2. condemneth worshipping and Inuocation of Angels St. Ambrose saith Tu solus Dominus inuocandus es c. Thou Lord onely art to bee inuocated St. Hierom Nullum inuocare id est in nos orando vocare nisi Deum debemus We ought to inuocate that is by Prayer to call into vs none but God And in another place Whatsoeuer I shall vtter seemeth dumbe because hee Nepotian being defunct heareth me not St. Augustine Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum Let not the worship of persons defunct be our Religion Saint Athanasius Nunguam quispiam precaretur aliquid accipere a Patre Angelis vel ab vllis rebus creatis No man would euer pray to receiue any 〈◊〉 from the Father and from the Angels or from any other creature Thirdly That which the Iesuit affirmeth concerning Aerius and Vigilantius is false for neither of these is ranked among Heretickes by Philastrius Epiphanius St. Augustine or by any of the antient Fathers because they denied Inuocation of Saints departed and Popish Prateolus himselfe maketh not this doctrine any of Aerius his errours and treating of Vigilantius he produceth onely Lindanus and Hosius two most partiall Pontificians affirming him to haue beene condemned of heresie for this cause Wherefore our Aduersarie prooueth himselfe a weake Antiquarie when he affirmeth that Aerius and Vigilantius were condemned of heresie because they denyed Inuocation of Saints deceased Fourthly The Magdeburgians which in the third Centurie obserue Non obscura vestigia c some not very obscure traces or footsteps in the writings of the Doctors of this age concerning Inuocation of Saints speake of the least degree and kind of Inuocation to wit Compellation and besides they probably suspect that suppositious Sentences haue beene inserted into the Bookes of antient Fathers Lastly Ireneus stileth the Virgin Marie The Aduocate of Euah not in regard of her Intercession for Euah and her children after her decease and departure out of the world but because of that which she performed in beleeuing and obeying the heauenly message which the Angel Gabriel brought vnto her Luke 1.38 for hereby she became a blessed Instrument of conceiuing and bearing Christ Iesus and by this obedience the blessed seed was brought into the world by her whereby the fall of Euah and her children was repaired And thus shee was the Aduocate or Comforter of Euah and her children by bearing Christ and not because she was inuocated as a Mediator after her death by Euahs children IESVIT Neither can Protestants denie this to haue beene the Doctrine of the Fathers but seeke to discredit them as if they had been various vncertaine contradictorious in this point But seeing Antiquitie that hath perused their workes now more than 1300 yeeres neuer noted such contradictions in them Christian wisedome and charitie will neuer be so persuaded of the Fathers by Protestants specially their Allegations being such as may easily be explicated so as they make nothing at all against this Catholicke Custome ANSVVER Protestants maintaine that inuocation of Saints can be no Article of Faith although it were manifest that some Fathers liuing since or before the daies of Constantine had beleeued or practised the same for euery Article of Christian Faith must be grounded vpon diuine Reuelation But all opinions of the Fathers are not diuine Reuelation and the holy Fathers do not challenge to themselues infallibilitie of iudgement neither do our Aduersaries yeeld the same vnto them Therefore a surer foundation must be laid to proue Adoration and Inuocation of Saints to be a necessarie duetie than a few scattered opinatiue sentences of Ecclesiasticall writers Neuerthelesse Protestants are able to giue satisfaction concerning the iudgement of Antiquitie in this point And we haue prooued that the eldest Fathers for those ages in which Egesippus saith The Church continued a Virgin taught no such Doctrine Secondly no generall Councel nor yet any particular Councell confirmed by a generall did euer authorise or decree inuocation of Saints as it is now maintained by Papals to haue beene a necessarie duetie or practise Thirdly there be sundrie Principles and other passages in the Bookes of the Fathers by which this doctrine may be confuted IESVIT For all they say in this kind is reduced to these fiue heads First That Saints are not inuocated by Faith as authors of the benefits we craue ANSWER Our Aduersarie hath collected fiue Expositions to elude such testimonies as we produce out of antiquitie First whereas many Fathers treading in the steps of holy Scripture affirme that religious prayer is a proper worship belonging to the sacred Trinitie and by this argument they conclude against the Arians and Macedonians that Christ Iesus and the holy Ghost are verie God because Christians beleeue in them and pray vnto them The Iesuit telleth vs that the Fathers intend only that we may not inuocate creatures by faith as authors of the benefits we craue But if this glosse or solution be sufficient then the Argument of the Fathers concludeth not against the Arians that Christ is God because he is inuocated for the Arian vsing the Iesuits distinction may replie That Christ is inuocated as a Mediator and as

〈◊〉 sinne after Baptisme are renewed by the vertue of Repentance Luc. 22. 62. But it is erroneous that there are two distinct kinds of Repentance one before and the other after Baptisme the one a Vertue onely the other both a Sacrament and a Vertue For where there is the same definition there is also the same thing in kind But Repentance before and after Baptisme hath the same definition and integrall parts to wit Contrition for sinnes committed Confession to God and if need require Confession to men according to the qualitie of the fault Amendment of Life and humble Supplication by Prayer of Faith for reconciliation with God and for remission of sinnes Matth. 3.6 Luc. 3.10 Act. 3. 19. cap. 8.22 cap. 26.20 Also the Grace and promise of Remission is made to Repentance before and after Baptisme Act. 3. 19. 5.31 8.22 Apoc. 2. 5. 16. And if Repentance before Baptisme is no Sacrament What causeth it to be such after Baptisme For no visible Element or signe is added neyther is any promise of a different kind from the former annexed And although the Apostles 1. Cor. 5.3 2. Cor. 2 3. c. cap. 7.8 and also the Primitiue Church vrged a stricter manner and degree of Humiliation vpon notorious Delinquents after Baptisme than before yet this Discipline changed not the kind or substance of Repentance but encreased onely the quantitie and measure thereof IESVIT Fourthly the Romane Church holds That God by Penance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof manie times appoint a Taske of temporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penaltie is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnesse of the sinnes committed and is that for which Penitents may and must satisfie And why may not the Penall Workes performed by the children of God beautified by so manyafore-named excellent Graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall Mulct and cancell the Debt of enduring transitorie paine I could bring Testimonies of the most antient Fathers in great number for the necessitie we haue of suffering these voluntarie afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne with the verie name of Satisfaction there being scarce anie antient Father that hath not taught both the thing and the word ANSWER When God pardons a sinner he doth it not by way of Exchange or Parcelling but remitteth all punishment of Malediction or pure Reuenge For that which is so forgiuen as that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe and throwne into the bottome of the Sea and which can no where be found and is blotted out of the Debt-Booke of the Almightie is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Primitiue Fathers teach such a remission of sinnes on Gods part to the Penitent Ezech. 18.22 Esa. 38. 17. ca. 43. 25. 44. 22. Mich. 7.19 Ier. 50.20 Heb. 8. 12. 10. 17. Col. 2. 14. Matth. 18.32 S. Augustine If God hath couered sinnes hee will not obserue hee will not thinke vpon them to punish them hee will not take knowledge but rather pardon Gregorie the Great Ignoscendo impunita relinquit By pardoning he leaueth them vnpunished Cassiodorus Remittere est debitum relaxare non causae alicuius interuentu sed pietatis intuitu To remit is to release the Debt not by entercourse of any cause on mans part but by aspect of Pietie Neuerthelesse after great and enormious offences committed by his people God doth chastise them with the Rod of Correction Psal. 89. 33. 1. Cor. 11. 31 32. And this Correction is a paine of Castigation Lament Ierem. 3.39 but not a punishment of Malediction Galath 3. 13. a worke of Gods Mercie rather than of his Iustice. The difference betweene Pontificians and vs in this Doctrine is That we beleeue a remainder of Temporall affliction after remission of the guilt of sinne in this life onely and that for chastisement erudition and probation They maintaine a remainder of temporall punishment after sinne remitted not onely in this present life but after the same in Purgatorie Further we beleeue That the affliction or paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayer of Faith exercise of Vertue Humiliation and Mortification be eyther remooued or else mitigated and conuerted to the encrease of grace and glorie in those which with patience and holinesse endure the same in this life But wee denie eyther that any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that in this life they can by Prayer Mortification or any good workes merit release of any Temporall Mulct or satisfie the Diuine Iustice for the least fault or guilt of any sinne on their owne behalfe much lesse for others And whereas the Iesuit affirmeth That he can produce Testimonies of the antient Fathers in great number both for our necessitie of suffering voluntarie afflictions and also for the efficacitie thereof to expiate sinne and to satisfie I answer First That the Fathers and holy Scriptures require workes of Humiliation and Mortification not as meritorious but onely as meanes and causes impetrant or deprecant to appease Gods wrath for sinne Secondly The Fathers vnderstand not the word Satisfaction strictly and in rigor for satisfaction of condignitie as Romists doe but improperly and largely to wit for satisfaction of deprecation congruitie or impetration And according to their acceptation and vse the word Satisfaction comprehendeth Contrition and Confession and not Sacramentall Satisfaction onely Also they require Satisfaction as a remedie against the guilt of Mortall sinne and not onely as a Purgatiue of Veniall sinne or as a remedie against Temporall paine onely But to the end the Reader may euidently perceiue the Popish fraud in peruerting the Sentences of the Fathers concerning Satisfaction I will in this place distinctly compare their Doctrine with the present Romish Tenet First It is consessed That many Fathers vse the word Satisfaction and require penitent Persons to performe the same to God and men Secondly Within the name of Satisfaction they include and comprehend contrition to God confession and amendment of life Thirdly they require satisfaction for the fault and eternall guilt of sinne and not onely for remoouall of temporall punishment Fourthly the word Satisfaction is taken in two notions First strictly for a iust and equall compensation of the iniurie committed against God which Schoolemen tearme Satisfaction of condignitie Secondly for an interpretatiue compensation as Durand tearmeth it grounded vpon Diuine fauour and acceptation and not vpon the compleat dignity of the action The Schoolemen tearme this latter satisfaction of 〈◊〉 and Impetration because God in his fauourable indulgence 〈◊〉 more on mans part as necessarie to

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things which are behind or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the afflictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ in my flesh 〈◊〉 his body which is the Church The first part of these words prooueth that S. Paul suffered for the Collossians But because he might suffer for the confirmation of their faith or as an example of patience or by way of persecution because he preached the Gospell to them and other Churches it cannot be concluded that hee suffered to make satisfaction for their sinnes Secondly The next words conclude not Satisfaction for Christs Afflictions and Passions are of two kinds Some Personall and in his owne flesh Some By Sympathie and compassion in his members The first are satisfactorie the second are exemplarie purgatiue probatiue or for the edifying of the Church S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not the first Esa. 63.3 for then Christs sufferings vpon the Crosse were imperfect but both S. Paul and all other iust persons which patiently beare affliction and indure the Crosse supply and accomplish that which is yet wanting in Christ as he is considered in a mysticall vnion to his Church Christ saith to Saul Act. 9.4 Saul Saul Why persecutest thou me and v. 5. I am Iesus whom thou persecutest S. Augustine and S. Gregorie say That Christ and the Church are one mysticall Body Therefore when the members suffer the head suffers and the afflictions of the members are the afflictions of Christ 2. Cor. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12. It is also remarkeable that not onely the Fathers but the maior part of Popish Doctors expound this Scripture in such sort that it serueth not at all to maintaine Papall Indulgences And Estius a moderne Pontifician saith That whereas 〈◊〉 of his part straine the Text of S. Paul to prooue Satisfactions and Indulgences himselfe is of mind that the said Doctrine cannot effectually be prooued by this place The other place 2. Cor. 12. 15. I wil verie gladly spend and be spent for you or as the Rhemists translate I most gladly will bestow and will my selfe moreouer be bestowed for your soules affoordeth no argument for Satisfactions and Pardons Caietan Estius Iustinian and other Popish expositors themselues deliuer the sence of this Text in manner following S. Paul manifesteth his paternall affection to the Corinthians saying I am readie not only as a Father to bestow all that I haue vpon you so farre am I from seeking any thing of yours but also to spend my life for you Now by what Art or Engine can Papists extort Pardons or Satisfactions out of this Text doth it follow that if Saint Paul be readie to spend himselfe life and state for the good of his flocke therefore there is a rich stocke and treasure of superabundant Passions and Satisfactions laid vp by S. Paul to bee spent by the Corinthians at their need Surely our Aduersarie intended rather to deride the world than to giue men satisfaction when he presented vs with such inconsequent stuffe But the Iesuit secondeth his former inference by a testimonie of Origen I answer Origen in the place obiected speaketh of purging sinne it selfe by the passions of Martyres and not of the temporall mulct or paine of sinne onely But the bloud of Martyres purgeth not sinne it selfe by way of condigne Satisfaction our Aduersaries being witnesses but at the vttermost by way of Deprecation now Deprecation and Satisfaction properly taken are of diuers natures The place of S. Augustine is strained against his meaning for this Father speaketh of all the members of Christ which suffer for their Masters cause But in our Aduersaries Tenet all that suffer for Christ haue not superabundant Satisfactions but onely some And this Father is so farre from maintaining workes of Supererogation as that he saith Pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus c. According to our small measure we pay that which we are obliged vnto and according to our power we cast in as it were the stint of our passions but they which pay a stint and render that whereunto of right they are obliged haue not superaboundant Passions or workes of Supererogation IESVIT This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant confessours in prison did release the penalties that sinners were inioined to performe to satisfie non onely the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall paine as appeareth by the testimonie of S. Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall paine was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyres vnto the poenitents that receiued indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For hee falling from the Church into the errours of Montanus whereof one was That for Christians sinning after Baptisme there was no remission of sinne refutes the Catholique custome of remitting penalties vnto sinners for the merits of Martyres speaking thus Let it suffice the Martirs that they haue cancelled and satisfied their owne sinnes Jt is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpon others that which as a great benefit was bestowed vpon him And speaking vnto the Martir saith Jf thou bee a sinner how can the oyle of thy lampe suffice both for thee and mee By which haereticall impugnation appeares that the Catholicke Doctrine then was that men might satisfie one for another and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martirs were applied for the Redemption of some others more remisse and negligent not from eternall but onely temporall punishment ANSWER You are an vnfaithfull Relatour of the practise of the Primitiue Church which was as followeth After foule and enormous knowne offences committed by Christians and especially after denying the Faith or Sacrificing to Idols offendours were put to a grieuous and long Penance It fell out sometimes that there was iust reason why the rigour of Penance should be mittigated either in respect of the kinde of duresse imposed or in regard of the length and continuance Which fauour the Bishops and Pastours of each Church not the Romane onely had authoritie by the Canons to grant as they saw iust cause This mitigation and relaxation of Penance was called by the name of Pardon and Indulgence and in the same there was no buying or selling no reference to Purgatorie Secondly Whereas you pretend that Popes Pardons were in vse in the Primitiue Church many of your owne part controll your impudencie to wit Durand Antonine Maior Roffensis Angelus de Clauasio Cassander And 〈◊〉 denyes That the Church hath any Treasurie 〈◊〉 of the merits of Christ and of the Saints The 〈◊〉 is maintained by Angelus de Clauasio

Church of which a Councell be it neuer so generall is a verie little part Yea and this verie Assistance is not so absolute nor in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine 2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the antient Church wee may vnderstand him present in Maiestie in Power in Aid and Assistance against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ which is the natiue sense as I take it And this promise was made to support their weakenesse As for his presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speakes of any infallible Assistance further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers referre their speech to the Church vniuersall not to anie Councell or Representatiue Bodie 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. 3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded which is the next place wee dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ layd his Apostles no question but vpon himselfe With these S. Peter was layd no man questions And in prime place of Order would his clayming Successors be content with that as appeares and diuerse Fathers witnesse by his particular designement Tu es Petrus But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of is not S. Peters person eyther onely or properly but the Faith which hee professed And to this beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come in with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it is not spoken of the not 〈◊〉 of the Church principally but of the not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and daungerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things euen de Fide of the Faith which yet are not necessarie to saluation Besides euen here againe the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councell at the least no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built that is vpon Christ. 4. The last place is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith The 〈◊〉 sense of which place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope or in his Chaire or in the Romane See or in a Generall Councell though the Pope be President I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it And Bellarmine himselfe besides some Popes in their owne Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsely alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place till he come downeto Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike and the other two are men of Yesterday compared with Antiquitie and liued when it was Gods great grace and our 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. Peters person is referred to the whole Church And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he euen to the denyall that it is meant of the Pope And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it And for all the places together weigh them with indifferencie and either they speake of the Church including the Apostles as all of them doe and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Diuine and Infallible or else they are generall vnlimitted and applyable to priuate Assemblies as well as Generall Councels which none graunt to be infallible but some mad Enthusiasts or else they are limitted not simply into All Truth but All necessarie to Saluation in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre if it suffer it selfe to be led by this 〈◊〉 of Truth in the Scripture and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe And if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent as the Councell represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong vnto it than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to heare his Word and determine by it And therefore if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way it may easily goe without the Churches Truth 4. Fourthly I consider That All agree That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation No Persecution no Temptation and no Gates of Hell whatsoeuer is meant by them can euer so preuaile against it For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no vnion betweene them as members and Christ the Head And no vnion betweene Head and members no Bodie and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That Generall Councels cannot erre And it seemes strange to me that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes and so many of them opposing Church Authoritie in their condemnation this Proposition euen in tearmes A Generall Councell cannot erre should be found in none of them that I can yet see Suppose it were true That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not haue followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I haue not time to descend into particulars therefore to the Generall still S. Augustine puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture and the definitions of men This difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogatiue That Prerogatiue is That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by