say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were that first made the separation But then A. C must not understand me of Actuall only but of Causall separation For as I said * §. 21. Nu. 1. before the Schisme is theirs whose the Cause of it is And he makes the Separation that gives the first just Cause of it not he that makes an Actuall Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A C. cannot deny it for he sayes 't is most true Neither can he deny it in this A. C. p. 56. sense in which I have expressed it For his very Assertion against us though false is in these Termes That we gave the first Cause Therefore he must meane it of Causall not of Actuall Separation only But then A. C. goes on and tells us That after this Breach was made yet the Church of Rome was so kinde A. C. p. 57. and carefull to seeke the Protestants that She invited them publikely with safe conduct to Rome to a Generall Councell freely to speak what they could for themselves Indeed I thinke the Church of Rome did carefully seeke the Protestants But I doubt it was to bring them within their Net And she invited them to Rome A very safe place if you marke it for them to come to Iust as the Lion in the a Olim quod vulpes aegroto cauta Leoni Respondit referam Quia me vestigia terrent Omnia te adversum spectantia nulla retrorsùm Apologue invited the Fox to his own Den. Horat. L. 1. Ep. 1. ex Aesop. Yea but there was safe Conduct offered too Yes Conduct perhaps but not safe or safe perhaps for going thither but none for coÌ„ming thence Vestigia nulla retrorsùm Yea but it should have been to a Generall Councell Perhaps so But was the Conduct safe that was given for comming to a Councell which they cal Generall to some others before them No sure b Though I cannot justifie all which these two men said yet safe Conduct being given that Publike Faith ought not to have beene violated Iohn Hus and Jerome of Prage burnt for all their safe conduct And so long as c Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici debere Haereticis servari fidem sive salvus conductus concedatur Iure communi sive speciali Bec. Dis. Theol. de Fide Haereticis servandâ c. 12. §. 5. But for al this Brag of Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici Becanus shuffles pitifully to defend the Councell of Constance For thus he argues Fides non est violata Hussio Non à Patribus Illi enim fidem non dederunt Non ab Imperatore Sigismundo Ille enim dedit fidem sed non violavit Ibid. §. 7. But all men know that the Emperor was used by the Fathers at Constance to bring Husse thither Sigismundus Hussum Constantiam vocat missis Literis publicâ fide cavet mense Octob. Ann. 1414. c. Edit in 160. Et etiamsi Primò graviter tulit Hussi in carcerationem tamen cum dicerent Fidem Haereticis non esse servandam non modo remisit Offensionem sed primus accrbè in eum pronunciav it Ibid. This is a mockery And Becanus his Argument is easily returned upon himselfe For if the Fathers did it in cunning that the Emperor should give safe conduct which themselves meant not to keepe then they broke faith And if the Emperor knew they would not keepe it then he himselfe broke faith in giving a safe conduct which he knew to be invalid And as easie it is to answer what Becanus addes to save that Councels Act could I stay upon it Fides Haereticis data servanda non est sicut nec Tyrannis Piratis câ—…teris publicis praedonibus c. Simanca Jnstit Tit. 46. §. 51. And although Becanus in the place above cited §. 13. confidently denyes that the Fathers at Constance decreed No faith to be kept with Hereticks and cites the words of the Councell Sess. 19. yet there the very words themselves have it thus Posse Concilium cos punire c. etiamsi de salvo conductu consisi ad locum venâ—…rint Judicii c. And much more plainly Simanca Just. Tit. 46. §. 52. Iureigitur Haeretici quidam gravissimo Concilii Constantiensis Judicio legitimâ flammâ concremati sunt quamvis promiâ—…sa illis securitas fuisset So they are not onely Protestants which charge the Councell of Constance with this Nor can Becanus say as â—…e doth Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici sidem Hareticis servandam esse For Simanca denyes it And hee quotes others for it which A. C. would be loth should not be accounted Catholikes But how faithfully Simanca sayes the one or Becanus the other let them take it betweene them and the Reader be judge In the meane time the very Title of the Canon of the Councell of Constance Sess. 19. is this Quodnon obstantibus salvis conductibus Jmperatoris Regum c. possit per Indicem competentem de Haeretica pâ—…te inquiri the IeIesuites write and maintaine That Faith given is not to be kept with Heretickes And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured as it hath hitherto done and no exception put in of force and violence A. C shall pardon us that we come not to Rome nor within the reach of Romane Power what freedome of Speech soever bee promised us For to what end Freedome of Speech on their part d For so much A. C. confesses p. 45. For if they should give way to the altering of one then why not of another and another and so of al And the Trent Fathers in a great point of Doctrine being amazed and not knowing what to answer to a Bishop of their owne yet were resolved not to part with their common error Certum tamen er at Doctrinam eam non probare sed quam antea didicissent firmitèr tenere c. Hist. Con. Trid. L. 2. p. 277. Edit Leyd 1612. since they are resolved to alter nothing And to what end Freedome of speech on our part if after speech hath beene free life shall not And yet for all this A. C. makes no doubt but that the Romane Church is so farre from being Cause of the continuance A. C. p. 57. of the Schisme or hinderance of the Re-union that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample safe Conduct if any hope might be given that the Protestants would sincerely seeke nothing but Truth and Peace Truly A. C. is very Resolute for the Romane Church yet how far he may undertake for it I cannot tell But for my part I am of the same Opinion for the continuing of the Schisme that I was for the making of it That is that it is ill very ill done of those whoever they be Papists or Protestants
that give just Cause to continue a Separation But for free-hearings or safe Conducts I have said enough till that Church doe not only say bnt doe otherwise And as for Truth and Peace they are in every mans mouth with you and with us But lay they but halfe so close to the hearts of men as they are common on their tongues it would soone be better with Christendome then at this day it is or is like to be And for the Protestants in generall I hope they seeke both Truth and Peace sincerely The Church of England I am sure doth and hath taught me to †Beseeching God to inspire continually the Vniversall Church with the Spirit of truth unity and concord c. In the Prayer for the Militant Church And in the third Collect on Good-friday pray for both as I most heartily doe But what Rome doth in this if the world will not see I will not Censure And for that which A. C. addes That such a free hearing is more then ever the English Catholikes could obtaine A. C. p. 57. though they have often offered and desired it and that but under the Princes word And that no Answer hath nor no good Answer can be given And he cites Campian for it How farre or how often this hath beene asked by the English Rommists I cannot tell nor what Answer hath beene given them But surely Campian was too bold and so is A. C. too to say * Campian praefat Rationsbut praefixà Honestum responsum nullum no good Answer can be given For this I thinke is a very good Answer That the Kings and the Church of England had no Reason to admit of a Publike Dispute with the English Romish Clergie till they shall be able to shew it under the Seale or Powers of Rome That that Church will submit to a Third who may be an Indifferent Iudge betweene us and them or to such a Generall Councell as is after * §. 26. Nu. 1. mentioned And this is an Honest and I thinke a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour And therefore the more publike the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schisme too F. Moreover he said he would ingenuously acknowledge That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departing from it B. I would I could say you did as ingenuously repeat § 22 as I did Confesse For I never said That Corruption of Manners was or was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departure How could I say this since I did not grant that they did Depart otherwise then is * §. 21. N. 6. before expressed There is difference between Departure and causelâ—…sse Thrusting from you For out of the Church is not in your Power God bee thanked to thrust us Think on that And so much I said expresly then That which I did ingenuously confesse was this That Corruption in Manners only is no sufficient Cause to make a Separation in the Church a Modò ea qùae ad CathedraÌ„ pertinent recta praecipiant S. Hier. Ep. 236. Nor is it It is a Truth agreed on by the Fathers and received by Divines of all sorts save by the Cathari to whom the Donatist and the Anabaptist after accorded And against whom b L. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 13. c. Ep. 48. A malis piscibus corde semper moribus seâ—…arantur c. Corporalem separationem in â—…tore maris hoc est in fine saculi expectant Calvin disputes it strongly And S. Augustine is plaine There are bad fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be ever a Separation in heart and in manners but a corporali 〈◊〉 must be expected at the Sea shore that is the end of the world And the best fish that are must not teare and breake the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously Confessed for you as by me For if Corruption in Manners were a just Cause of Actuall Separation of one Church from another in that Catholike Body of Christ the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any since as * Uix ullum peccatum solâ—… Haeresi exceptá câ—…gitari potest quo illa Sedes â—…urpiter maculata non fucrit maxime ab An 8â—…0 Relect Cont. 1. q. 5. Art 3. Stapleton grants there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man Heresie only excepted with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained especially from eight hundred yeares after Christ. And he need not except Haeresie into which a Biel in Can. Miss Lect. 23. Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And †Stel. in S. Luc. c 22 Almain in 3. Sent. d. 24. q. 1 fine Multae sunt Decretales haereticae c. And so they erred as Popes Stella and Almaine gâ—…ant it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars defection to looke to his Cure himselfe F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. This I spake indeed And can you prove that § 23 I spake not true in this But I added though here againe you are pleased to omit it That some of the errors of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation For it is not every light Eâ—…ror in Disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can bee a just Cause of Separation in that Admirable Body of Christ which is his * Eph. 1. 23. Church or of one Member of it from another For hee gave his Naturall Body to bee rent and torne upon the Crosse that his Mysticall Body might be One. And S. †S. Aug. Ep. 50. Et iterum Colum ba non sunt qui EcclesiaÌ„ dissipant Accipitres sunt Milvi sunt Non laniat Columba c. S. Aug. tract 5. in S. Iohn Augustine inferres upon it That â—…e is no way partaker of Divine Charity that is an enemie to this Vnity Now what Errors in Doctrine may give just Cause of Separation in this Body or the Parts of it one from another were it never so easie to determine as I thinke it is most difficult I would not venture to set it downe in particular least in these times of Discord I might bee thought to open a Doore for Schisme which surely I will never doe unlesse it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes The proofe whereof runnes through the Particular Points that are betweene us and so is too long for this Discourse Now here A. C. would faine have a Reason given him Why I did endeavour A. C. p. 55. to shew what Cause
then A. C. tels us That Particular Churches must in A. C. p. 58. that Case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerfull Principality and to †And after hee saith p. 58. that the Bishop of Rome is and ought to bee the Iudge of particular Churches in this Case her Bishop who is chiefe Pastour of the whole Church as being S. Peter's Successour to whom Christ promised the keyes S. Matth. 16. for whom he prayed that his Faith might not faile S. Luke 22. And whom he charged to seed and governe the whole Flocke S Iohn 21. And this A. C. tels us he shall never refuse to doe in such sort as that this neglect shall be a Iust Cause for any Particular Man or Church under Pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Schisme or Separation from the Whole Generall Church Well first you see where A. C. would have us If any Particular Churches differ in Points of Divine Truth they must not Iudge or Condemne each other saith he No take heed of that in any case That 's the Office of the Universall Church And yet he will have it That Rome which is but a Particular Church must and ought Iudge all other Particulars Secondly he tels us this is so Because the Church of Rome hath more Powerfull Principality then other Particular Churches and that her Bishop is Pastour of the Whole Church To this I answer that it is most true indeed the Church of Rome hath had and hath yet more Powerfull Principality then any other Particular Church But she hath not this Power from Christ. The Romane Patriarch by Ecclesiasticall Constitutions might perhaps have a Primacy of Order But for Principality of Power the Patriarchs were as even as equall as the a Summa Potestas Ecclesiastica non est data solum Petro sedetiam aliis Apostolis Omnes enim poterant dicere illud S. Pauli Solicitu la omnium Ecclesiarum c. 2. Cor. 11. 28. Bellar. L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. §. Respondâ—… Pontificatum Where then is the difference betweene S. Peter and the rest In this saith Bellarmin Ibid. Quta hec Potestas data est Petro ut Ordinario Pastori cui perpetuo succederetur Aliis verò tanquà m Delegatis quibus non succederetur This is handsomely said to men easie of beliefe But that the Highest Power Ecclesiasticall confessed to be given to the other Apostle as well as to S. Peter was given to S. Peter onely as to an Ordinary Pastour whose Successours should have the same Power which the Successours of the rest should not have can never bee prooved out of Scripture Nay I will give them their own Latitude it can never be proved by any Tradition of the whole Catholike Church And till it be proved Bellarmines handsome Expression cannot be believed by me For S. Cyprian hath told me long since that Episcopatus Vnus est for as much as belongs to the Calling as well as Apostolatus L. de simp. Praelato Apostles were before them The Truth is this more Powerfull Principality the Romane Bishops b §. 25. Nu. 12. got under the Emperours after they became Christian and they used the matter so that they grew big enough to oppose nay to depose the Emperours by the same power which they had given them And after this other Particular Churches especially here in the West submitted themselves to them for succour and Protections sake And this was one maine Cause which swelled Rome into this more Powerfull Principality and not any Right given by Christ to make that c Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. §. Augustmu Epistola Prelate Pastour of the whole Church I know Bellarmine makes much adoe about it and will needs fetch it out of d S. Aug. Epist. 162. In Romaná Ecclesiâ—… emper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatas S. Augustine who sayes indeed That in the Church of Rome there did alwaies flourish the Principality of an Apostolicke Chaire Or if you will the Apostolicke Chaire in relation to the West and South parts of the Church all the other foure Apostolicke Chaires being in the East Now this no man denies that understands the state and story of the Church And e Quia Opinio invaluit fundâ—…tam esse hanc Ecclesiam à S. Petâ—… Jtaque in Occidente Sedes Apostolica Honoris 〈◊〉 Calv. L. 4. c. 6. §. 16. 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 a Princeps Ecclesiae S. H. lar 18. de Trin. Prin. And he speakes of a Biâ—…hop in generall Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 17. Ascribuntur Episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imperium Thronus Principatus ad regimâ—…n Aâ—…imarum Et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hujusmodi Imperium And he also speaks of a Bishop Greg. Nazian Orat. 20. Nor were these any Titles of pride in Biâ—…hops then For S. Greg. Nazianz. who challenges these Titles to himselfe Orat. 17. was so devout so mild and so humble that rather then the Peace of the Church should be broken he freely resigned the Great Patriarchate of Constantinople and retired and this in the First Councell of Constantinople and the Second Generall Greeke and the Latine Fathers of this great and Learnedest Age of the Church made up of the fourth and fist hundred yeares alwaies understanding Principatus of their Spirituall Power and within the Limits of their severall Iurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in S. Augustine That this Principality of the Apostolike Chaire 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 Romane Bishop any Power out of his owne Limits which God knowes were farre short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the very same Epistle For afterwards saith S. Augustine when the pertinacy of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only b Pergant ad Fratres Collegas nostros transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos c. S. Aug. Ep 162. they gave them leave to be heard by forraigne Bishops And after that he hath these words c An fortè non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melciades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primas Tigisitanus praesedit fuerit terminaetum Quid quod nec ipse usurpâ—…vit Rogatus quippe Imperator Iudices misit Episcopos qui cum â—…o sederent de totâ illâ Causà quod justum videretur statuerent c. S. Aug. Ibid. And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of
Contrary to his Conscience Presupposing it granted that the Church of Rome erres only in not Fundamentals and such Errours not Damnable which is absolutely and clearly denyed by D. White To this A. C. sayes nothing but that D. VVhite did not give this Answer A. C. p. 67. at the Conference I was not present at the Conference betweene them so to that I can say nothing as a witnesse But I thinke all that knew D. White will believe his affirmation as soone as the Iesuites To say no more And whereas A. C. referres to the Relation of the Conference betweene D. White and M. Fisher A. C. p. 67. most true it is there * A. C. in his relation of that Conference p. 26. D. VVhite is charged to have made that Answer twise But all this rests upon the credit of A. C. only For †For so 't is said in the Title-page by A. C. he is said to have made that Relation too as well as this And against his Credit I must engage D. Whites who hath avowed another Answer as a §. 37. Nu. 1. NUM 8. before is set downe And since A. C. relates to that Conference which it seemes hee makes some good account of I shall here once for all take occasion to assure the Reader That most of the Points of Moment in that Conference with D. VVhite are repeated againe and againe and urged in this Conference or the Relation of A. C. and are here answered by me For instance In the Relation of the first Conference the Iesuite takes on him to prove 1 the Vnwritten VVord of God out of 2. Thes. 2. pag. 15. And so he doth in the Relation of this Conference with me pag. 50. In the first he stands upon it That the Protestants 2 upon their Principles cannot hold that all Fundamentall points of Faith are contained in the Creed pag. 19. And so he doth in this pag. 46. In the first he would faine through 3 M. Roger's sides wound the Church of England as if shee were unsetled in the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell pag 21 And he endeavours the same in this pag. 46. In the first he is very earnest to prove That the Schisme was made by the Protestants pag. 23. And he is as earnest for 4 it in this pag. 55. In the first he layes it for a Ground That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation 5 from Faith or Church pag. 24. And the same Ground he layes in this pag. 55. In the first he will have it That the 6 Holy Ghost gives continuall and Infallible Assistance to the Church pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this p 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Errig of the 7 Greeke Church page 28. And as much makes he in this page 44. In the first he makes a great noyse about the 8 place in S. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans c. page 18. and 24. And so doth hee here also page 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe That 9 he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sentence of S. Bernard 'T is intolerable Pride And that of S. Augustine 'T is insolent madnesse to oppose the Doctrine or Practice of the Catholike Church page 25. And twise he is at the same Art in this page 56. and. 73. In the first he 10 tels us That * Postquam discessionem a toto mundo facere coacti sumus Calv. Epist. 141. Calvin confesses That in the Reformation there was a Departure from the whole world page 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world and of no Uoluntary but a forced Departure and wrote this to Melancthon to worke Vnity among the Reformers not any way to blast the Reformation Yet we must heare of it againe in this page 56. But over and above the rest one Place with his owne glosse upon 11 it pleases him extremely 'T is out of S. Athanasius his Creed That whosoever doth not hold it entire that is saith he in all Points and Inviolate that is saith hee in the true unchanged and uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This he hath almost verbatim in the first page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader under the Name of VV. I. and then againe the very same in this if not with some more disadvantage to himselfe page 70. And perhaps had I leasure to search after them more Points then these Now the Reasons which mooved mee to set downe these Particulars thus distinctly are two The One that whereas the * In the begining of the Conference set out by A. C. Iesuite affirmes that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters and little or nothing about the maine and great generall Point of a Continuall Infallible Uisible Church in which that Lady required satisfaction and that therefore this third Conference was held It may hereby appeare that the most materiall both Points and Proofes are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences though little bee related of the second Conference by A. C. as appeares in the Preface of the Publisher VV. I. to the Reader So this tends to nothing but Ostentation and shew The Other is that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it It cannot but appeare by this and their handling of other Points in Divinity that they labour indeed but no otherwise then like an Horse in a Mill round about in the same Circle no farther at night then at noone The same thing over and over againe from Tu es Petrus to Pasce oves from thou art Peter to Do thou feed my Sheepe And backe againe the same way F. The Lady asked Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith Vpon my soule said the Bishop you may Vpon my soule said I there is but one saving Faith and that is the Romane B. So it seems I was confident for the Faith professed § 38 in the Church of England els I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soule And sure I had reason of this my Confidence For to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church To receive the foure great Generall Councels so much magnified by Antiquity To believe all Points of Doctrine generally received as Fundamentall in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soule upon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are contioverted betweene us I would faine see any one Point maintained by the Church of England that can be proved
the Protestants had to make that Rent or Division if I did not grant that they made it Why truly in this reasonable demand I will satisfie him I did it partly because I had granted in the generall that Corruption in Manners was no sufficient cause of Separation of one Particular Church from another and therefore it lay upon me at least to Name in generall what was And partly because he and his Partie will needes have it so that we did make the Separation And therefore though I did not grant it yet amisse I thought it could not be to Declare by way of Supposition that if the Protestants did at first Separate from the Church of Rome they had reason so to doe For A. C. himselfe confesses A. C. p. 56. That Error in Doctrine of the Faith is a just Cause of Separation so just as that no Cause is just but that Now had I leasure to descend into Particulars or will to make the Rent in the Church wider 't is no hard matter to proove that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith and dangerously too And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to Particulars A. C. his Importunity forcing me to it F. Which when the Generall Church would not Reforme it was lawfull for Particular Churches to Reforme themselves B. Is it then such a strange thing that a Particular § 24 Church may reforme it selfe if the Generall will not I had thought and do so still That in Point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawfull for the Church sinoe Christ to doe as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes This Church came to have a Separation upon a most ungodly Policie of a 3. Reg. 12. 27. Ieroboam's so that it never peeced together againe To a Common Councell to reforme all they would not come Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe when Israel would not joyne Sure it was or els the Prophet deceives me that sayes expresly b Hos. 4. 15. Though Israel transgresse yet let not Iudah sinne And S. Hierome c Super Haereticis prona intelligentia est S. Hier Ibid. expounds it of this very particular sinne of Heresie and Errour in Religion Nor can you say that d Non tamen cessavit Deus populum hunc arguere per Prophetas Nam ibi extiter unt Magni illi insignes Prophetae Elias Elizaeus c. S. Aug. L. 17. de Civit. Dei c. 22. Multi religiosè intra se Dei cultum habebant c. De quo numero eorumvè Posteris septem illa miâ—…ia fuisse statuo qui in Persecutione sub Achabo Deum sibi ab Idololatriâ immunes reservârunt nec genua ante Baal flexerunt Fran. Monceius L. 1. de Vit. Aureo c. 12. Israel from the time of the Separation was not a Church for there were true Prophets in it e 3. Reg. 17. sub Achabo Elias and f 4. Reg. 3. sub Iehoram filio Achabi Elizaeus and others and g 3. Reg. 19. 18. thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal And there was salvation for these which cannot be in the Ordinary way where there is no Church And God threatens h Hos. 9. 17. to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away in Non Ecclesiam into No-Church And they are expresly called the People of the Lord in i 4. Reg. 9. 6. Iehu's time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Iudah is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you doe for if that bee true you must grant that the Multitude and greater number is ours And where then is Multitude your numerous Note of the Church For the Ten Tribes were more then the two But you cannot plead it For certainly if any Calves be set up they are in Dan and in Bethel They are not ours Besides to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners is as lawfull for a Particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo Judice lies alike against both And yet I thinke it may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a Particular Church did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne If she erred in this Fact confesse her Errour if she erred not why may not another Particular Church doe as shee did A learned Schoole-man of yours saith she may †Non oportuit ad hac cos vocare quum Authoritas fuerit publicandi apud siaâ—… Romanam pracipuè cùm unicuique ctiam particulari Ecclesiaeliceat id quod Catholicum est promulgare Alb. Mag. in 1. Dist. 11. A. 9. The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree upon this Truth fince the Authority of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawfull for every particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he m anes Catholike as fore determined by the Church in generall for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell was not And how the Grecians were used in the after-Councell such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute But Catholike stands there for that which is so in the nature of it and Fundamentally Nor can you justly say That the Church of Rome did or might do this by the Pope's Authority over the Church For suppose he have that and that his Sentence be Infallible I say suppose both but I give neither yet neither his Authority nor his Infallibility can belong unto him as the particular Bishop of that Sea but as the * Non errare convenit Papa â—…t est Caput Bell. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. Ministeriall Head of the whole Church And you are all so Iodged in this that †L. 2. de Christo. c. 21. §. Quando autem So you cannot finde Record of your own Truths which are farre more likely to be kept but when Errours are crept in we must bee bound to tell the place and the time and I know not what of their Beginnings or els they are not Errours As if some Errours might not want a Record as well as some Truth Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the yeare when nor the Pope under whom this Addition was made A Particular Church then if you judge it by the Schoole of Rome or the Practice of Rome may publish any thing that is Catholike where the whole Church is silent and may therefore Reforme any thing that is not Catholike where the whole Church is negligent or will not But you are as jealous of the honour of Rome as a
of all doubt neither First because many Learned men have challenged many Popes for teaching Heresy and that 's against the true Faith And that which so many Learned Men have affirmed is not out of all doubt Or if it be why does Bellarmine take so much paines to confute and disproove them as †Bellar. L. 4. de Ro. Pont. c. 8. he doth Secondly because Christ obtained of his Father every thing that he prayed for if he prayed for it absolutely and not under a Condition Father I know thou hearest me alwayes S. Iohn 11. Now Christ here prayed absolutely for S. Peter Therefore whatsoever he S. Iohn 11. 42. asked for him was granted Therfore if Christ intended his Successors as well as himselfe his Prayer was granted for his Successors as well as for himselfe But then if Bellarmine will tell us absolutely as he doth * Donum hoc loco Petro impetratum etiam ad Successores pertinet Bel. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Quarto Donum hoc That the whole Gift obtained by this Prayer for S. Peter did belong to his Successors and then by and by after breake this Gift into two parts and call the first part into doubt whether it belongs to his Successors or no he cannot say the second part is out of all doubt For if there be reason of doubting the one there 's as much reason of doubting the other since they stand both on the same foot The Ualidity of Christ's Prayer for Saint Peter Yea but Christ charged S. Peter to governe and feede his whole flocke S. Iohn 21. Nay soft 'T is but his Sheepe S. Iohn 21. 15. and his Lambes and that every Apostle and every Apostles Successor hath charge to doc * Mat. 28. 29 S. Mat. 10. 17. The same power and charge is gâ—…en to them al. A. C. p. 58. S. Matth. 28. But over the whole Flocke 〈◊〉 find no one Apostle or Successor set And 't is a poore shift to say as A C doth That the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole Flocke because both over Lambes and Sheep For in every flock that is not of barren Weathers there are Lamâ—…s and Sheepe that is †And this seemes to me to allâ—…de to that of S. Paul 1 Corinth 3 2. and Heb. 5. 12. Some are sed with milke and some with stronger meat The Lambes with milke and the Sheepe with stronger meate But here A. C. followes Pope Hildebrand close who in the Case of the Emperor then asked this Question Quando Christus Ecclesiam suam Petro commisit dixit Pasce Oves meas excepitne Reges Plat. in vita Greg 7. And certainly Kings are not exempted from being fed by the Church But from being spoyled of their Kingdomes by any Church-men that they are weaker and stronger Christians not People and Pastors Subjects and Governouâ—…s as A. C. expounds it to bring the Necks of Princâ—…s under Romane Pride And if Kings bee meant yet then the command is Pasce feed them But Deponere or Occiure to depose or kill them is not Pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastori that 's the Butchers not the Shepheards part If a Sheep go astray never so far 't is not the Shepheards part to kill him at least if he doe non pascit dum occidit he doth not certainly feede while he killes And for the Close That the Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and governe the whole stock in such sort as A. C. p. 58. that neither particular Man nor Church shall 〈◊〉 just Cause under pâ—…etence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Sâ—…paration from the whole Church By A. C s. favour this is meere begging of the Question He sayes the Pope shall ever governe the Whole Church so as that there shall be no just Cause given of a Separation And that is the very Thing which the Protestants charge upon him Namely that he hath governed if notthe Whole yet so much of the Church as he hath beene able to bring under his Power so as that he hath given too just Cause of the present continued separation And as the Corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the Cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the Cause why the separation continues And further I for my part am cleare of Opinion that the Errours in the Doctrine of Faith which are charged upon the whole Church at least so much of the whole as in these parts of Europe hath beene kept under the Romane Iurisdiction have had their Originall and Continuance from this that so much of the Vniversall Church which indeed they account All hath forgotten her owne Liberty and submitted to the Romane Church and Bishop and so is in a manner forced to embrace all the Corruptions which the Particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon itself And being now not able to free her selfe from the Romane Iurisdiction is made to continue also in all her Corruptions And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the Generall Church properly so called for therein A. C. said well the Popes Administration can give no Cause to separate from that but A. C. p. 58. their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscall themselves the Whole Catholike Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence but in her Errours not in the Things which Constitute a Church but only in such Abuses and Corruptions as work toward the Dissolution of a Church F. I also asked who ought to judge in this Case The B. said a Generall Councell B. And surely What greater or surer Iudgement you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted § 26 then a Generall Councell I doe not see Nor doe you doubt And A. C. grants it to be a most Competent A. C. p. 59. Iudge of all Controversies of Faith so that all Pastors be gathered together and in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost and make great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other Grounds of Faith And then Decree what is to bee held for Divine Truth For then saith he 't is Firme and Insallible or els there is nothing firm upon earth As faire as this Passage seems and as freely as I have granted that a Generall Councell is the best Judge on earth where the sense of Scripture is doubted yet even in this passage there are some things Considerable As first when shall the Church hope for such a Generall Councell in which all Pastors shall be gathered together there was never any such Generall Councell yet nor doe I believe such can be had So that 's supposed in vaine and you might have learn'd this of *
others And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it unlesse both They and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an unalterable Rule by b Gal. 1. 8. man or Angell To all this A. C. sayes nothing save that I seeme not to admit of an infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit ex parte subjecti A. C. p. 52. without any infallible Reason and that sufficiently applied ex parte objecti which if I did admit would open a gap to all Enthusiasmes and dreames of fanaticall men Now for this yet I thank him For I do not onely seeme not to admit but I doe most clearely reject this phrensie in the words going before 4. The last way which gives c Utitur tamâ—… sacra Doctrina Ratione Humanâ non quidem ad probandum Fidem ipsam sed ad manifest andum aliqua alia quae traduntur in hac Doctrina Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 2. Passibus rationis novus homo tendit in Deum S. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 26. Passibus veruÌ„ est sed nec aequis nec solis Nam Invisibilia Dei altiori modo quantum ad plura pâ—…rcipitg Fides quà m Ratio naturalis ex Creaturis in Deum procedens Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. ad 3. Reason leave to come in and prove what it can may not justly be denied by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven nor believe this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is never placed but in a reasonable creature and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by †Animalis homo non percipit 1. Cor. 2. 14. Nature onely it cannot but never to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend Now the use of Reason is very generall and man do what he can is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will believe though after he once believes his Faith growes d Quia scientiae certitudinem habent ox naturali lumine Rationis humanae quae potest errare Theologia autem quae docet Objectum Notitiam Fidei sicut Fidem ipsam certitudinem habet ex lumine Divinae scientiae quae decipi non potest Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. c. Vt ipsà fide valentiores facti quod credimus intelligere mereamur S. Aug. cont Ep. Manichaei dictam Fundamentum c. 14. Hoc autem it a intelligendum est ut scientia certior sit Certitudine Evidentiae Fides verò certior Firmitate Adhaesionis Majus lumen in Scientia majus Robur in Fide Et hoc quia in Fide ad Fidem Actus imperatus Voluntatis concurrit Credere enim est Actus Intellectus Vero assentiontis productus ex Voluntatis Imperio Biel. in 3. Sent. d. 23. q. 2. A. 1. Unde Tho. Intellectus Credentis determinatur ad Unum non per Rationem sed per Voluntatem ideo Assensus hic accipitur pro Actu Intellectus secundum quod à Voluntate determinatur ad Vnum 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad 3. stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other can in this life In this Particular the Bookes called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to bee the Word of God and so infallible Verity to the least point of them Doth any man doubt this The world cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason whether it bee the Word of God or not To the same Weights hee brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it selfe all Testimonies within which seeme to beare witnesse to it and in all this there is no harme the danger is when a man will use no other Scale but Reason or preferre Reason before any other Scale For the Word of God and the Booke containing it refuse not to bee weighed by a Si vobis rationi veritati consentanca videntur in pretio habete c. de mysteriis Religionis Iustin. Mart. Apol. 2. Igitur si fuit dispositio Rationis c. Tertull. L de Carne Christi c. 18. Rationabile est credere Deum esse Autorem Scripturae Henr. a Gand. Sum To. 1. Ar. 9. q. 3. Reason But the Scale is not large enough to containe nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and full force of either Reason then can give no supernaturall ground into which a man may resolve his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Booke stands upon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equity and Iustice than any thing in the World which any Infidell or meere Naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himselfe The Ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures no Christians more and having to doe with Philosophers men very well seene in all the subtilties which Naturall Reason could teach or learne They were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to relie so much as They did upon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deale with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authority of the Booke of God by such Arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but thinke reasonable if they weighed them with indifferency For though I set the Mysteries of Faith above Reason which is their proper place yet I would have no man thinke They contradict Reason or the Principles thereof No sure For Reason by her own light can discover how firmely the Principles of Religion are true but all the Light shee hath will never bee able to finde them false Nor may any man thinke that the Principles of Religion even this That Scriptures are the Word of God are so indifferent to a Naturall eye that it may with as just cause leane to one part of the Contradiction as to the other For though this Truth That Scripture is the Word of God is not so Demonstratively evident a priori as to enforce Assent yet it is strengthen'd so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it selfe and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilfull and selfe-conceited that shall dare to suspect it Nay yet farther a Hook L. 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse viveret me interrogantem non aspernaretur c. S. Aug. de verá Relig. c. 3. Vide amus quatenus Ratio potest progredi á visibilibus ad invisibilia c. Ibid. c. 29. It is not altogether impossible to proove it even by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them deny some
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 Ante Before may looke 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 looke also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some Ages before that And then in those times * Câ—… infiniti Abusus Schismata quoque Haereses per totum nunc Christianum Orbem invalescant Ecclesiam Dei legitimâ indigere Reformatione nemini non apertum erit Pet. de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis L. de Refor Ecclesiae And if Schismeâ—… and Heresies did then invade the whole Christian world let A. C. consider how Rome scaped free And I thinke Cameracensis was in this Propheticall For sixty yeares and more before Luther was borne and so before the great troubles which have since fallen upon all Christendome he used these words in the Booke which himselfe delivered up in the Councell of Constance Nisi celeriter fiat Reformatio aâ—…deo dicere quod licet magna sint quae videmus tamen in brevi incomparabiliter majora videbimus Et post ista tonitrua tam horrenda majora alia audienâ—…s c. Cam. l. de Refor Eccle. And it will hardly sinke into any mans judgement that so great a man as Pet. de Aliaco was in that Church should speake thus if he did not see some errors in the Doctrine of that Church as well as in Manners Nay Cassander though he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Church of Rome yet found fault with some of her Doctrines Consulta Artic. 21. 22. And Pope Iulius the third Professed at Bononia in Sacramentorum Ecclesiae ministerium innumerabiles Abusus irrepsissâ—… Espenâ—…us in Tit. 1. and yet he was one of the Bishops nay the chiefe Legat in the Councell of Trent Rome was a Corrupt and a tainted Church farre from being Right And yet both these times Before Luther made his Breach So here A. C. should have beene 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. addes yet That I suspected the Lady would inferre if once that Church were Right what hindred it now to be Since that did not depart A. C. p. 54. from the Protestant Church but the Protestant Church from it Truly I neither suspected the Inference would be made nor feare it when it is made For 't is no Newes that any Particular Church Romane as well as another may once have beene Right and afterwards wrong and in farre worse case And so it vvas in Rome after the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat †S. Mat. 13. 25. S Mat. 13 But whether these Tares were sovven vvhile their Bishops slept or vvhether * For A. C. knowes well what strange Doctrines are charged upon some Popes And all Bellarmines labour though great and full of art is not able to wash them cleane Bellarm. L. 4. dâ—… Rom. Pont. c. 8. c. Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesia Christi luâ—…arius est Et probâ—…ur à laco Almain Opusc. de Autho. Ecclesiae c. 10. And Cassander speakes it out more plaâ—…ly Vâ—…inam Illi He speaks of the Biâ—…hops and Rectors in the Romane Church à quâ—…bus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…sset non Ipsi Superstâ—…num Auctores â—…sent â—…el 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Animis homâ—…um simpliâ—…um aliquando 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coâ—…sulta Art 21. 〈◊〉 finem They themselves did not helpe to sovv them is too large a Disquisition for this Place So though it were once Right yet the Tares which grow thick in it are the Cause why 't is not so now And then though that Church did not depart from the Protestants Church yet if it gave great and just Cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the Errours of it while it in some Particulars departed from the Truth of Christ it comes all to one for this Particular That the Romane Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing Superstition and Errour F. Farther he confessed That Protestants had made a Rent and Division from it B. I confesse I could here be heartily a Grave omninò crimen sed defensionem longinquam non requirit satis est enim negare sicâ—…t pro Ecclesiâ olim S. Aug. de Util. Cred. c. 5. angry but § 21 that I have resolved in handling matters of Religion to leave all gall out of my Ink For I never granted that the Romane Church either is or was the right Church 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable Rent in the Church and I make no Question but the best men doe most bemoane it b Hanc quae respectu hominum Ecclesia dicitur observare 〈◊〉 Communionem colere debemus Calv. Inst. 4. c. 1 nor is he a Christian that would not have Vnity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought §. 7. that the Protestants made this Rent The Cause of the Schisme is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and Redresse of Abuses For a c Rectè scias nos secisse recedendo à vobis c. Lucif L. de Non conveniendo cum Haereticis He speakes of the Arrians and I shall not compare you with them nor give any Offence that way I shall onely draw the generall argument from it thus If the Orthodoxe did well in departing from the Arrians then the Schisme was to be imputed to the Arrians although the Orthodoxe did depart from them Otherwise if the Orthodoxe had beene guilty of the Schisme he could not have said Rectè scias nos fecisse recedendo For it cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schisme There may be therefore a necessary separation which yet incurres not the blame of Schisme And that is when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholike Faith Schisme must needs be theirs whose the Cause of it is The Woe runs full out of the mouth of * S. Mat. 18. 7. Christ ever against him that gives the Offence not against him that takes it ever But you have by this carriage given me just cause never to treat with you or your like but before a Iudge or a Iurie But here A. C. tels me I had no cause to be angry either with the Jesuite or my selfe Not with the Iesuite A. C. p. 55 56. for he
suum praeferat tanquam ipse solus Spiritum Dei habeat S. Bern. Serm. 3. ae Resurr 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 implie more in that Place then a Particular Church is not very manifest Nay I thinke 't is plaine that hee speakes both of and to that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching And I believe A. C. will not easily finde where tota Congregatio the whole Congregation is used in S. 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 Iudicium suum praeferre to preferre and so follow his private Iudgement before the Whole Congregation which is indeed Lepra proprii Consilii as S. Bernard there cals 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 Nationall Church nay the whole Body of the Protestants doe it And for S Augustine the Place alledged out of him is a knowne Place And he speakes indeed of the Whole Catholike Church And he * Similiter etiam siquid horum tota per Orbem frequentat Ecclesia Nam hinc quin it a faciendum fit disput are Insolentissimae Insaniae est S. Aug. Epist. 118. c. 5. sayes and hee sayes it truly 'T is a part of most insolent madnesse for any Man to dispute whether that bee to bee done which is usually done in and thorough the whole Catholike Church of Christ. Where first here 's not a word of the Romane 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 A. C. p. 56. the Romane Faith whereas S. Augustine speakes there expresly of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church and a Quaeris quid per quintam Feriam ultime hebdom adis Quadragesimae fiers debet An offerendum sit manè c. S. Aug. Ibid. 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 speakes of no Matter of Faith there Romane nor Catholike For Frequentat and b And so Bellarmine most expresly But then he adds Universam Ecclesiam non posse errare non solùm in Credendo sed nec in Operando praesertim in Ritu Cultu Divino L 4. de Verb. Dei c. 9. §. 4 And if this be true what is it to Rome 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 Romane Faith in either of these Places And after this I hope you will the lesse wonder at A. C s. Boldnesse Lastly a right sober man may without the least Touch of Insolency or Madnesse dispute a Businesse of Religion with the Romane either Church or Prelate As all men know c Euseb. L. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 26 Et Socrat. L. 5. Hist. c. 22. Irenaeus did with Victor so it bee 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 cals it Insolent Madnesse But now were it so that the Church of Rome were Orthedoxe in all things yet the Faith by the Jesuite's leave is not simply to be called the Romane but the Christian and the Catholike Faith And yet A. C. will not understand A. C. p. 56. this but Roman and Catholike whether Church or Faith must be one and the same with him and therefore inferres That there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme 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 diverse †Quaestio est An Ecclesia totalis toteliter 〈◊〉 1. pro omnibus simul Electis dum sunt Membra Mâ—…tis Ecclesiae possint errare vel in totâ fiâ—…e vel in gravi aliquo fidei puncto Et respondemus simplicitèr 〈◊〉 esse impossibile Keckerm Syst. Theol. p. 387 Edit Hannoviae An. 1602. Calvinus caeteri Haeretici concedunt Ecclesiam absolutè non posse deficcre Sed dicunt intelligi debere de Ecclesia Inviâ—… Bellarm. L. 3. de Eccles Milit. c. 13. §. 1. But this Exception of Bellarmine's that the Protestants whom out of his Liberality he cals Hereticks speake of the Inâ—…isible Church is meerely frivolous For the Church of the Elect is in the Church of them that are Called and the Invisible Church in the Visible Therefore if the whole Church of the Elect cannot erre in Fundamentals the whole Visible Church in which the same Elect are cannot erre Now that the Invisible Church of the Elect is in the Visible is manifest out of S. Aug. Ipsa est Ecclesia quae intra sagenam Dominicam cum malis piscibus natat S. Aug. Epist. 48. Grana sunt inter illam palcam quando Area cum videretur tota palea putabatur S. Aug. in Psal. 121. And this is proved at large by Hooker L. 3. Eccles. Pol. §. 1. For els the Elect or Invisible Church is tyed to no duty of Christianity For all such Duties are required of the Church as 't is Visible and performed in the Church as 't is Visible And D r. Field speakes as plainly we hold it impossible that the Church should ever by Apostasie and Misbeliefe wholly depart from God c. So we hold that it never fals into Heresie So that Bellarmine is as much to be blamed for idle and needlesse busying himselfe to prove That the Visible Church never fals into Heresie which we most willingly grant Field L. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. Taking the Church for all the Beleevers now living and in things necessary to be knowne expresly Ibid. And Bellarmine himself adds Calvinus dicit hanc Propositionem Ecclesia non potest errare veram esse si intelligatur cum duplici restrictione Prima est si non proponat Dogmata extra Scripturam c. And indeed Calvin doth say so L. 4 Instit. c. 8. §. 13. Secunda est si intelligatur de solâ Ecclesiâ Universali non autem de Representativâ Bellar. L. 3. de Eccl. Milit c. 14. §. 2. And I hope it is as good and a better Restriction in Calvin To say the Catholike Church cannot erre if it keepe to the Scripture then for Bellarmine to say The particular Church of Rome cannot erre because of the Pope's residing there or the Pope cannot
erre if he keepe his chaire which yet he affirmes L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. 2. Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therefore 't is true also that there can bee no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church But here 's the Iesuite's Cunning. The whole Church with him is the Romane and those parts of Christendome which subject themselves to the Romane Bishop All other parts of Christendome are in Heresie and Schisme and what A. C. pleases Nay soft For another Church may separate from Rome if Rome will separate from Christ. And so farre as it separates from Him and the Faith so farre may another Church sever from it And thâ—…s is all that the Learned Protestants doe 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 Fundamentall and Necessary to all mens Saâ—…vation besides the Authority of these Protestants most of them being of prime ranke seemes to me to be cleare by the Promise of Christ S. Matth. 16 â—…hat the gates of Hell shall not prevaile S. Matth. 16. 18. against it Whereas most certaine it is that the Gates of Hell prevaile very farre against it if the Whole Militant Church universally taken can Erre from or in the Foundation But then this Power of not Erring is not to be conceived as if it were in the Church primò per se Originally or by any power it hath of it selfe 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 plainely 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 waighed whether to believe or teach otherwise will not impeach the Article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholike Church which we professe we believe For the Holy Catholike Church there spoken of containes not onely the whole Militant Church on earth but the whole Triumphant also in Heaven For so †Ecclesia hic tota accipiâ—…da est non solum ex parâ—…e quà pâ—…rinatur â—…terris c. vâ—…tiam ex illa parte quae in coelâ—… c. S. Aug. Eâ—…hir c 56. 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 * Nemo ex toto Sanctus Optat. L 7 contra Parmen Sanctification all Holinesse is imperfect in this life as well in Churches as in Men. Holy then the whole Militant Church is For that which the Apostle speakes of Abraham is true of the Church which is a Body Collective made up of the spirituall seed of Abraham Rom. 11. If the root be holy so are the branches Well then the whole Militant Church is Holy Rom. 11. 16. and so we believe Why but will it not follow then Thaâ—… the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in the Foundations of the Faith That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her Curiosity or other weaknesse carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule no doubt need be made But if She can erre either from the Foundation or in it She can be no longer Holy and that Article of the Creed is gone For if She can erre quite from the Foundation then She is nor Holy nor Church but becomes an Infidell Now this cannot be For †Dum Christus or at in Excelso Návicula id est Eâ—…clesia â—…tur fluctibus in profundo c sed quia Christus orat non potest mergi S. Aug. Serm 14 de Verb. Domi. c 2. Et Bâ—…llar L. 3 ac Eccle Milit c. 13. Praesidiâ—… Christi fulâ—…itur Ecclâ—…siae perpetuitas ut inter turbulentas aâ—…itationes formiâ—…abiles mâ—…tus c. salva tamâ—…n maneat Câ—… L. 2. Instit c. 15. §. 3. Ipsa Symboli 〈◊〉 admonemur perpetuam residâ—…re in Ecclesia Christi remission m Peccatorum Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 17. Now remission of sins cannot be perpetuall in the Church if the Church it selfe be 〈◊〉 perpetuall But the Church it selfe cannot be perpetuall if it fall away all Divine Ancient and Moderne Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostacy And if She Erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamentall Poynts of Faith then Shee may bee a Church of Christ still but not Holy but becomes Hereticall And most certain it is that no * Spiritus Sanctificationis non pâ—…ost inveniri in Haereticorum mentibus S. Hierom in Ierom. 10. Assemâ—…ly be it never so generall of such Hereticks is or can be Holy Other Errors that are of a meaner alay take not Holinesse from the Church but these that are dyed in graine cannot consist with Holinesse of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation And therefore if we will keepe up our Creed the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that Falsum may subesse Fidei Catholicae that falshood and that in a high degree in the very Article may be the Subject of the Catholike Faith which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme For we must still believe the Holy Catholike Church And if She be not still Holy then at that time when She is not so we believe a Falshood under the Article of the Catholike Faith Therefore a very dangerous thing it is to cry out in generall termes That the whole Catholike Militant Church can Erre and not limit nor distinguish in time that it can erre indeed for Ignorance it hath and Ignorance can Erre But Erre it cannot either by falling totally from the Foundation or by Hereticall Error in it For the Holinesse of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners taught and Commanded in the Doctrine of Faith Now in this Discourse A. C. thinkes he hath met with me For he tells me that I may not only safely grant A. C. p. 56. that Protestants made the Division that is nâ—…w in the Church but further also and that with a safe Confidence as one did was it not you saith he That it was ill done of those who did first made the Separation Truly I doe not now remember whether I said it or no. But because A. C. shall have full satisfaction from me and without any Tergiversation if I did not
Councell which shall be lawfully called and fairely and freely held with indifferency to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madnesse of the Protâ—…stants A. C. addes That A. C. p. 58. the Church of Rome is the Principall and Mother Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Iudges 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 Witnesse Iudge and if need be execute Iustice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evill Children How farre forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the meane 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 seemes to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shocke of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would faine have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or tooke it upon him to be Accuser and VVitnesse and Iudge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Libertie to Iudge betweene them For the great Philosopher tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. Eto c. 6. That the Chiefe 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 himselfe in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power then in wisdome he thought fit then to take to himselfe he put him off thus No †Minui Jura quoties gliscat Potestas nec utendum Imperio ubi Legibus agi possit Tacit. L. 3 Annal. the Lawes grow lesse where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for * Heb. 12. 9. Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or VVitnesse then themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that naturall affection will prevaile so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the losse of Education that they * God used Samuel as a Messenger against Eli for his overmuch indulgence to his sonnes 1 Sam. 3. 13. And yet Samuel himselfe committed the very same fault concerning his own sonnes 1 Sam. 8. 3. 5. And this Indulgence occasioned the Change of the Civill government as the former was the losse of the Priesthood punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are growne up and come to some full use of their owne Reason the Apostles Rule is †Coloss. 3. 21. Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevaile not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a sonne against a Crimini ci Tribunus inter eatera dabat quod filium juvenem nullius probri compertum extorrem urbe domo penatibus foro luce congressu aequalium prohibituÌ„ in opus servile propè in carcerem atque in ergastulum dederit Liv. dec 1. l. 7. unnaturall Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over Imperious Father And an expresse Law there was among the Iewes Deut. 21. when Children Deut. 21. 19. were growne 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 growne up if she forget all good Nature and turne Stepdame to them Well the Reason why the Iesuite asked the Question Quo Iudice Who should be Iudge He sayes was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Iudges in their owne Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he A. C. p. 57. knew the Iesuites minde as well as himselfe as sure I thinke he doth That the Iesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the Generall Church as the Iesuite understood my meaning The Iesuite here tooke my meaning right For I confesse I said there were Errours in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the Generall Church could not or would not Reforme such it was Lawfull for Particular Churches to Refâ—…rme themselves But then I added That the Generall Church not universally taken but in these Westerne parts fell into those Errours being swayed in these latter 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 Naturall Politick or Ecclesiasticall Yea but A. C. telles us That never any Competent Iudge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power A. G. p. 57. on Earth or in Hell it selfe can so farre prevaile against the Generall Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much lesse 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 needfull in the Generall Church but only in Particular Churches And for proofe of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. Iohn 14. and 16. In this trouâ—…lesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in generall The Church of England is content to passe that over And though * Art 19. She tels us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in generall 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 doe well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more then that the whole Vniversal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to altmens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know
the Romane Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not usurpe to himselfe this Iudgment which was determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate â—…nd what will you say if he did not usurpe this Power For the Emperour being desired sent Bishops Iudges 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 Romane 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 owne Proper Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Iudges with him Fourthly that these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperour and his Power that which the Pope will least of all indure Lastly least the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperour * Ad cujus Cuvanâ—…ds quâ rationem Deo redditurus est res illa maximè pertinebat S. Aug. Epist 162. S. Augustine tels us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad Curam ejus to the Emperours Care and charge and that He is to give an Account to God for it And Melciades did sit and Iudge the Businesse with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Romane Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church say A. C. what he please Nor had he any Supremacy over the other Patriarchs And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civill Law is proofe enough And that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church The Text there is †Nam contra horum Antistitum de Patriarchis loquitur Sententias non esse locum Appellationi à Majoribus nostris â—…itutum est â—…od L 1. Tit. 4. L. 29. ex â—…ditions Gothofredi Si non rata habuerit â—…traque Pars qua judicata sunt tunc Beatissimns Patriarcha Dioceseôs illius â—…ter eos audiat c. Nullâ parte ejus Sententiae contradicere valente Authen Coâ—…at 9. Tit. 15. C. 22. A Patriarchâ non datur Appellatio From a Patriarch there lies no Appeale No Appeale Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his owne Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacie over the whole Church Therefore certainely not then received as Universall Pastour And S. Gregory himselfe speaking of Appeales and expresly citing the Lawes themselves sayes plainly * Et ille scilicet Patriarcha secundum Canones Leges prâ—…bent finem And there hee cites the Novell its selfe S. Greg. L. 11. Judict 6. Epist. 54. That the Patriarch is to put a finall end to those Causes which come before him by Appeale from Bishops and Archbishops but then he adds a Si dictum fuâ—…it quòd nec Metropolitanum habeat nec Patriarcham dicendum est quòd à Sede Apostolicâ quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est causa andienda est c. S. Greg. Ibid. That where there is nor Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocesse there they are to have recourse to the Sea Apostolike as being the Head of all Churches Where first this implies plainely That if there bee a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his Iudgement is finall and there ought to be no Appeale to Rome Secondly 'T is as plaine That in those Ancient times of the Church-Government Britaine was never subject to the Sea of Rome For it was one of the b Notitia Provinciarum Occidentalium per Guidum Pancirolum l. 2. c. 48. Sixe Diocesses of the West Empire and had a Primate of its owne Nay c Hunc cunctis Liberalium Artium disciplinis eruditum pro Magistro teneamus quasi Comparem velut alterius Orbis Apostolicum Patriarcham c. Io. Capgravius de Vitis Sanctorum in vitâ S. Anselmi Et Guil. Malmesburiens de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum p. 223. Edit Francof 1601. Iohn Capgrave one of your owne and Learned for those times and long before him William of Malmesburie tell us That Pope Urbane the second at the Councell held at Bari in Apulia accounted my Worthy Predecessour S. Anselme as his owne Compeere and said he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world So he then termed this Iland Now the Britains having a Primate of their owne which is greater then a Metropolitan yea a d Ibi Cantuariae id est prima Sedes Archiepiscopi habetur qui est totius Anglia Primas Patriarcha Guil. Malmesburiensis in Prolog Lib. 1. de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum p. 195. Patriarch if you will He could not be Appealed from to Rome by S. Gregorie's owne Doctrine Thirdly it will be hard for any man to proove there were any Churches then in the World which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitane Fourthly if any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome For manifest it is that the Bishops which were Ordained in places without the Limits of the Romane Empire which places they commonly called * praterea qui sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Baâ—…barico Episcopi à Sanctissimo Throno Sanctissima Constantinopolitanae Ecclesia Ordinentur Codex Canonum Ecclesia universae Can. 206. And Iustellus proves it there at large that by in Barbarico in that Canon is meant In Solo Barbarorum Annot. Ibid. Barbarous were all to be Ordained and therefore most probable to be governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople And for Rome's being the Head of all Churches I have said enough to that in diverse parts of this Discourse And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of Africk I shall borrow another reason from the Practice of that Church why by Principatus S. Augustine neither did nor could meane any Principality of the Church or Bishop of Rome over the Whole Church of Christ. For as the Acts of Councels and Stories go the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melciades his temper set themselves to assert their owne Liberties and held it out stoutly against Zozimus Boniface the first and Caelestine the first who were successively Popes of Rome At last it was concluded in the sixt Councell of Carthage wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeene Bishops of which S. Augustine himselfe was one that they would not give way to such a manifest incroachment upon their Rights and Liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Coelestine to forbeare sending his Officers amongst them †Ne fâ—…mosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videatur inducere c. Epist Conc. Afric ad Papam Coelestinum primum Apud Nicolin To. 1. Concil p. 844. least he should seeme to induce the swelling pride of the world into
speake contrary to himselfe in a Point of this moment Next since A. C. speeds no better with Irenaeus he will have it out of Scripture And he still tels us the A. C. p. 58. Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successour Well Suppose that What then What Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter's c Bellar. L. 1. de Ro. Pont. c. 9. §. Respondeo Pontificatum Prerogatives which are Ordinary and belonged to him as a Bishop though not in the Extraordinary which belonged to him as an Apostle For that 's it which you all say d §. 25. Nu. 10. but no man proves If this be so yet then I must tell A. C. S. Peter in his Ordinary Power was never made Pastour of the whole Church Nay in his Extraordinary he had no e Bellar. Ibid. more powerfull Principality then the other Apostles had A a The Fathers gave three Prerogatives to S. Peter Of Authority Of Primacy And of Principality But not of Supremacy of Power Raynold cont Hart. c. 5. Divis. 3. And he proves it at large Primacy of Order was never denied Him by the Protestants And an Vniversall Supremacy of Power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians Yea but Christ promised the keyes to S. Peter b S. Mat. 16 18. S. Mat. 16. True but so did he to all the rest of the Apostles c S. Mat. 18. 18. S. Ioh. 20. 22. S. Mat. 18. and S. Ioh. 20. And to their Successours as much as to His. So 't is Tibi Illis not Tibi non Illis I give the Keyes to thee and them not to thee to exclude them Vnlesse any man will thinke Heaven Gates so easie that they might open and shut them without the Keyes And S. Augustine d Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est non sacit hoc Ecclesia c. S. Aug. Tract 50. in S. Ioh. is plaine If this were said onely to S. Peter then the Church hath no power to doe it which God forbid The Keyes therefore were given to S. Peter and the rest in a Figure of the Church to whose power and for whose use They were given But there 's not one Key in all that Bunch that can let in S. Peter ' Successour to a more powerfull Principality universall the the Successors of the other Apostles had Yea but Christ prayed That S. Peteâ—… Faith might A. C. p. 58. not faile e S. Luk. 22. 32. S. Luke 22. That 's true And â—…n that sense that Christ prayed S. Peter's Faith faileâ—… not That is in Application to his person for his Perseverance in the Faith as f Deum dare ut in fide perseveretur S. Prosper L. 1. de Vocat Gent. c. 24. S. Prosper applies it Which Perseverance yet he must owe and acknowledge to the grace of Christ's Prayer for him not to the power and ability of his owne Free-Will as g Rogavi ut non deficeret c. Et certè juxta vos in Apostoli erat positum potestate si voluisset ut non deficeret fides ejus c. S. Hieron L. 2. adversus Pelagianos S. Ierome tels us h Aliquid speciale Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Secundo quia sine Bellarmine likes not this Because saith he Christ here obtained soâ—…e speciall Priviledge for S. Peter whereas Perseverance in Grace is a Gift common to all the Elect. And he is so farre right And the Speciall Grace which this Prayer of Christ obtained for S. Peter was That he should not fall into a finall Apostacy no not when Sathan had sisted him to the branne that he fell most horribly even into a threefold Denyall of his Master and that with a Curse And to recover this and Persevere was aliquid speciale I trow if any thing ever were But this will not down with Bellarmine No The a Vt nec ipse ut Pontifex doceret unquam aliquid contra fidem sive ut in Sede ejus inveniretur qui doceret Bellar. L. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Alterum Privilegium est Aliquid speciale the speciall Thing here obtained was saith he That neither S. Peter himselfe nor any other that should sit in his Seat should ever teach any thing contrary to the true Faith That S. Peter after his recovery should preach nothing either as Apostle or Bishop contrary to the Faith will easily be granted him But that none of his Successors should doe it but be all Infallible that certainly never came within the Compasse of Rogavi pro te Petre I have prayed for thee Peter And Bellarmines Proofe of this is his just Confutation For he prooves this Exposition of that Text only by the Testimony of seven Popes in their owne Cause And then takes a leape to Theophylact who sayes nothing to the purpose So that upon the matter Bellarmine confesses there is not one Father of the Church disinteressed in the Cause that understands this Text as Bellarmiue doth till you come downe to Theophylact. So the Popes Infallibility appeared to no body but the Popes themselves for above a Thousand yeares after Christ. For so long it was before * Theophylactus floruit circa An. Dom. 1072. Theophylact lived And the spite of it is Theophylact could not see it neither For the most that Bellarmine makes him say is but this †Quia 〈◊〉 habco Principem disâ—…ipuloruÌ„ confirma caeteros Hoc enim decet Te qui post me Ecclesia Petraes Fundamentum Bellar. L. 4. De Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Praeter hos Ex Theophyl in 21. S Luc. Because I account thee as chiefe of my Disciples confirme the rest for this becomes Thee which art to be a Rock and Foundation of the Church after me For this is â—…ersonall too and of S. Peter and that as he was an Apostle For otherwise then as an Apostle he was not a Rocke or Foundatiâ—…n of the Church no not in a Secondary sense The speciall priviledge therefore which Christ prayed for was personall to S. Peter and is that which before I mentioned And Bellarmine himselfe sayes That Christ †Impetravit c. ibid. §. Est igitur tertia obtained by this Prayer two Priviledges especiall ones for S. Peter The one That he should never quite fall from the true Faith how strongly soever he were tempted The other That there should never be found any sitting in his Seate that should teach against it Now for the first of these * Ex quibus pri vilegiis primum fortasse non manavit ad posteros at secundum sine dubio manavit ad Posteros sive Successores Bellar. Ibid. §. Alterum Privilegium Bellarmine doubts it did not flow over to his Successors Why then 't is true which I here say That this was Personall to S. Peter But the second he sayes Out of all doubt passed over to his Successors Nay that 's not out
Reformation or a free Councell And the * Leo 10. Bull. Inn. 8. 1520. Pope himselfe to shew his Charity had declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were Condemned by the Councell I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no Lawfull Councell and I thinke the Decrees of such a one are omni jure nulla and carry their Nullity with them through all Law Againe is that Councell Generall that hath none of the Easterne Churches Consent nor presence there Are all the Greekes so become Non Ecclesia no Church that they have no Interest in Generall Councels Iâ—… numbers indeed among the Subscribers sixe Greekes They might be so by Nation or by Title purposely given them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greeke Church to the Councell Or is it to be accounted a Generall Councell that in many Sessions had scarce Ten Archbishops or Forty or Fifty Bishops present And for the West of Christendome nearer home it reckons one English S. Assaph But Cardinall Poole was there too And Fnglish indeed he was by birth but not sent to that Councell by the King and Church of England but as one of the †Concil Trid. Sess. 5. Popes Legates And so we finde him in the fift Session of that Councell but neither before nor after And at the beginning of the Councell he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterburie he never went over to the Councell And can you prove that S. Assaph went thither by Authority There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth then the Greekes In all the Sessions under Paul the third but two French-men and sometimes none as in the sixt under Iulius the third when Henr. 2. of France protested against that Councell And in the end it is well known how all the French which were then a good part held off till the Cardinall of Loraigne was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things upon good Grounds and were most unworthily over-borne To all this A. C. hath nothing to say but That it is not Necessary to the Lawfulnesse and Generalnesse of a A. C. p. 61. Councell that all Bishops of the World should be actually present subscribe or consent but that such Promulgation be made as is morally sufficient to give notice that such a Councell is called and that all may come if they will and that a Major part at least of those that are present give assent to the Decrees I will forget that it was but p. 59. in which A. C. p. 59. A. C. speakes of all Pastours and those not onely summoned but gathered together And I will easily grant him that 't is not necessary that all Bishops in the Christian world be present and subscribe But sure 't is necessary to the Generalnesse of a Councell that some be †Ut aliqui mittantur advcniant conveniant c. Bellar L. 1. de Concil c. 17. §. Quarta ut saltem there and authorized for all Particular Churches And to the freedome of a Councell that all that come may come safe And to the Lawfulnesse of a Councell that all may come uningaged and not fastened to a fide before they sit downe to argue or deliberate Nor is such a Promulgation as A. C. mentions sufficient but onely in Case of Contumacy and that where they which are called and refuse to come have no just Cause for their not comming as too many had in the Case of Trent And were such a Promulgation sufficient for the Generalnesse of a Councell yet for the Freedome and the Lawfulnesse of it it were not F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councell of Nice The B. would not admit the Case to be like B. So indeed you said And not you alone It is § 28 the Common Objection made against all that admit not every latter Councell as fully as that Councell of Nice famous through all the Christian world In the meane time nor you nor they consider that the Case is not alike as I then told you If the Case be alike in all why doe not you admit that which was held at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus as well as Nice If you say as yours doe It was because the Pope approved them not That 's a true Cause but not Adequate or full For it was because the Whole Church refused them * §. 26. N. 1. with whom the Romane Prelate standing then entire in the Faith agreed and so for his Patriarchate refused those Councels But suppose it 〈◊〉 that these Syâ—…s were not admitted because the Pope refused them yet this ground is gamed That the Câ—…e is not alike for mens Assent to all Councells And if you looke to have this granted That the Pope must coâ—…me or the Councel's not lawfull we have farre more reason to looke that this be not denied Thâ—…t Scripture must not be departed from in a Here A. C. tels us that the 〈◊〉 thought so of the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Namely that they departed from 〈◊〉 and Sense of Scripture They said to â—…deed But the Testimony of the whole Clutch both then and sinâ—… went wâ—… the Councell against the Arrian So is it not â—…ere against the Protestant â—…or I râ—…t For they offer to be tâ—…ed by that very Councell of Nice and all the 〈◊〉 Councells and Fathers of the Châ—… within the first foure hundred yeares and somewhat farther letter or necessary sense or the Councell is not lawfull For the Consent and Confirmation of Scripture is of farre greater Authority to make the Councell Authenticall and the Decisions of it de fide then any Confirmation of the Pope can bee Now of these two the Councell of Nâ—…e we are sure had the first the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and you say it had the second the 〈◊〉 Confirmation The Councell of Trent we are able to prove had not the first and so we have no reason to respect the second And to what end do your Learâ—… Men maintaine that a Councell may make a Conclusion de sâ—…e though it be simply b So Staplâ—… often but the Fathers quite otherwise 〈◊〉 extra Evangeliâ—…m sâ—…nt 〈◊〉 sâ—…am Hâ—… L. 2. 〈◊〉 Câ—… extra out of aâ—…l â—…nd oâ—… Scrâ—…ure but out of a Iealousie at least that this of Trent and some others have in their Determinâ—…s left both â—…ter and Sense of Scripture Shew this against the Councell of Nice and I will grant so much of the Case to be like But what will you say if c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 2. 〈◊〉 Syâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niâ—…linum Constâ—… required That 〈◊〉 thus brought into Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 by Testimony out of Scripture And the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Councell never refused that â—…e And what will you say if they professe they depart not from it 〈◊〉
Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gave it his Disciples after Supper under both kindes of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be Consecrated after Supper nor received but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithfull under both kindes yet this Custome that it should be received by Lay-men only under the kinde of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an unlawfull Custome of Receiving under one kinde is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driven out as Heretiks Now where is here any slander of the Councel The words are plaine and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it hath as much force against Receiving under both kindes as against receiving after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councell couple both together in this Reference for it followes Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitive Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell may be an Heretike for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kinde may not be refused but Christs Institution under Both kindes may And yet this Councell did not erre No take heede of it But your opinion is more Vnreasonable then this for consider any Body Collective be it more or lesse Vniversal whensoever it assembles it selfe did it ever give more power to the Representing Body of it then binding power upon all particulars and it self And did it ever give this power otherwise then with this Reservation in Nature That it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance upon just cause made evident that this Representing Body had failed in Trust or Truth And this Power no Body Collective Ecclesiasticall or Civill can put out of it selfe or give away to a Parliament or Councell or call it what you will that represents it Nay in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councell hath power to order settle and Define differences arisen concerning Faith This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up in the Church from the * Act. 15. In Novo Testamento Exemplum celebrationis Conciliorum ab Apostolis habemâ—… c. Ioh. de Turrecremata Sum. de Eccl. L 3. c. 2. Et firâ—…it as Conciliorum nititur Exemplo primi Concilii Staple Relect. Contr. 6. q. 3. A. 4. Ad 3 um Apostles Example So that to hold Councells to this end is apparent Apostolicall Tradition written but the Power which Councells so held have is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches power from God And †This is more reasonable a great deale then that of Bellarmine 2. de Conc. c. 18. Pontificem non posse se subjicere seâ—…tentiae coactivae Conciliorum this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a Generall Councel then that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars and it self but not binde the whole Church from calling againe and in the After-Calls upon just cause to order yea and if neede be to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just cause For if the Councel be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approve the Councell and then the Definitions of it are Binding And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body a Lawfull Generall Councell And certaine it is no Power but her owne may doe it Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits For all Decisions in such a Councell are binding And because the Whole Church can meete no other way the Councell shall remaine the Supreme Externall Living Temporary Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controversies Only the whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendred to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell and in it to order what was amisse Nay your Opinion is yet more unreasonable For you doe not only make the Definition of a Generall Councell but the Sentence of the Pope infallible nay more infallible then it a Bellar. L. 2. de Conciliis c. 16. 17. For any Generall Councell may erre with you if the Pope confirme it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body the Councell nor in the Whole Body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome Now I may aske you to what end such a trouble for a Generall Councell Or wherin are we neerer to Vnity if the Pope confirme it not You answer though not in the Conference yet elsewhere That the Pope erres not especially giving Sentence in a Generall Councell And why especially Doth the Deliberation of a Councell helpe any thing to the Conclusion Surely not in your Opinion For you hold the Conclusion Propheticall the Meanes fallible and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Prophetik Conclusion And just as the Councel is in Stapletons Iudgment for the Definition and the Proofes so is the Pope in the Iudgment of b Canus lib. 6. de Lotis cap. 8. §. Et quidem in Pontifiees summi in Conclusione errare nequeunt Rationes autem c. Melch. Canus and them which followed him Propheticall in the Conclusion The Councell then is called but only in effect to heare the Pope give his Sentence in more state Els what meanes this of †Relect. Con. 6. q. 3. Art 5. ibid. Quia ad compescendo simportunos Haereticos Concilii Generalis Definitio illustrior est c. Et vulgo hominum magis satisfacit c. Stapleton The Pope by a Councell joyned unto him acquires no new Power or Authority or Certainty in judging no more then a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it then it is without them Or this of * 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3 §. At contra Nam Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem Conciliorum Legitimorum esse à Pontifice non partim a Pontifice partim à Cencilio Bellar. That all the firmenesse and infallibility of a Generall Councell is only from the Pope not partly from the Pope and partly from the Councell So belike the Presence is necessary not the Assistance Which opinion is the most groundlesse and worthlesse that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church And I am perswaded many Learned Men among your selves scorne it at the very heart And I avow it I have heard some Learned and Iudicious Romane
in another and another and so in all of like nature I say in all of like nature And A. C. may remember he expressed himselfe a little before to A. C. p. 71. speake of the Defining of such Divine Truths as are not absolutely necessary to be expresly knowne and actually believed of all sorts of men Now there is there can be no necessity of an Infallible certainty in the whole Catholike Church and much lesse in a Generall Councell of things not * §. 21. N. 5. absolutely necessary in themselves For Christ did not intend to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church to satisfie either Contentious or Curious or Presumptuous Spirits And therefore in things not Fundamentall not Necessary 't is no matter if Councels erre in one and another and a third the whole Church having power and meanes enough to see that no Councell erre in Necessary things and this is certainty enough for the Church to have or for Christians to expect especially since the Foundation is so strongly and so plainely laid downe in Scripture and the Creed that a modest man might justly wonder why any man should run to any later Councell at least for any Infallible certainty Yet A. C. hath more Questions to aske and his next is How we can according to the ordinary Course be A. C. p. 72. Infallibly assured that it erres in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same Authority defines both to be Divine Truth A. C. taking here upon him to defend M. Fisher the Jesuite could not but see what I had formerly written concerning this difficult Question about Generall Councels And to all that being large he replied little or nothing Now when he thinks that may be forgotten or as if it did not at all lie in his way he here turnes Questionist to disturbe that businesse and indeed the Church as much as he can But to this Question also I answer againe If any Generall-Councell doe now erre either it erres in things absolutely necessary to Salvation or in things not necessary If it erre in things Necessary we can be infallibly assured by the Scripture the Creeds the foure first Councels and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in another If it be in non necessariis in things not necessary 't is not requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance As for that which followes it is notoriously both cunning and false 'T is false to suppose that a Generall Councell defining two things for Divine Truths and erring in one but not erring in another doth define both equally by one and the same Authority And 't is cunning because these words by the same Authority are equivocall and must be distinguished that the Truth which A. C. would hide may appeare Thus then suppose a Generall Councell erring in one point and not in another it doth define both and equally by the same delegated Authority which that Councell hath received from the Catholike Church But it doth not define both and much lesse equally by the same Authority of the Scripture which must be the Councels Rule as well as private mens no nor by the same Authority of the whole Catholike Church who did not intentionally give them equall power to define Truth and errour for Truth And I hope A C. dares not say the Scripture according to which all Councels that will uphold Divine Truth must Determine doth equally give either ground or power to define Errour and Truth To his former Questions A. C. adds That if we leave this to be examined by any private man this examination not being Infallible had need to be examined by another A. C p. 72. and this by another without end or ever comming to Infallible certainty necessarily required in that one faith which is necessary to salvation and to that peace and unity which ought to be in the Church Will this inculcating the same thing never be left I told the lesuite a §. 32. N. 5. §. 33. Consid. 7. Nu. 4. before that I give no way to any private man to be Iudge of a Generall Councell And there also I shewed the way how an erring Councell might be rectified and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored without lifting any private spirit above a Councell and without this processe in Infinitum which A. C. so much urges and which is so much declined in all b Arist. 1. Post Tex 6 4. Metaph T. 14. Sciences For as the understanding of a man must alwaies have somewhat to rest upon so must his Faith But a c §. 38 Nu. 〈◊〉 private man first for his owne satisfaction and after for the Churches if he have just cause may consider of and examine by the a Hic non loquimur de Decisione seu Determinatione Doctrinali quae ad unumquemque virum peritum spectare dignoscitur sed de Authoritativâ Iudiciali c la. Almain L. de Author Eccl. c. 10. princ Iudgement of discretion though not of power even the Definitions of a Generall Councell But A. C. concludes well That an Infallible certainty is necessary for that one Faith which is necessary to salvation And of that as I expressed b §. 38. Num. 1. before a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds and the foure first Generall Councels to which for things Necessary and Fundamentall in the Faith we need no assistance from other Generall Councels And some of your c Sunt qui nescio quà ducti ratione sentiunt non esse opus Generali Concilio De Constantiensi loquitur dicentes omnia bene à Patribus nostris Ordinata ac Constituta modò ab omnibus legitimè fideliter servarentur Fatemur equidem id ipsum esse verissimum Tamen cùm nihil fere servetur c. Pet. de Aliaco L. de reformat Eccles. fine So that after-Councels are rather to Decree for Observance then to make any new Determinations of the Faith owne very honest and very Learned were of the same Opinion with me And for the peace and unity of the Church in things absolutely necessary we have the same infallible direction that wee have for Faith But in Things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also if about them Christian men doe differ 't is no more then they have done more or lesse in all Ages of the Church and they may differ and yet preserve the d Non omnis Error in his qua fidei sunt est aut Infidelitas aut Haeresis Holkot in 1. Sent. q. 1. ad 4. K. One necessary Faith and e Scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere nec proposstum suum facilè mutare sed salvo inter Collegas pacis concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere Quâ in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem