Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
so much as one miracle Hast thâ—u by thy prayers raised up the dead or r stâ—red them thaâ— have been sick of fâ—aâ—ers If thou wert of any worth thâ—u wouldst do some miracle Answer and say 't is writâ—â—n thou shâ—lt not tempt the Lord thy God I will not therefore tempt God as if I belonged to God if I did a miracle or did not belong to him if I did it not This is our answer when you demand of us miracles as evidences of the Spirits favour 2. You say The Spirit in us induceth to ill it perswading a disloyal deâ—ection fr m the Lords prayer the Commandments and church This is a most grosse and impudent slander we neither teach nor practise defection from the Lords Prayer the Commandments or that faith which the Apostles preached and the primitive Christians received from them We reverence and use the Lords Prayer as the most exact and perfect pattern of Prayer We insert it in our Catechisms teach it our children earnestly seek after those blessings it contains we have honourable and precious thoughts of it as of whatsoever Jesus Christ delivered to us We receive the Commandments as the rule of our obedience the guid of our way and as the Lord enables us do conform our selves thereto The like we say of the Church We reject no Doctrines that we know to be Apostolical Its our cleaving to the Apostolical Church which makes us to be hated of Papists What Creeds the ancient Churches of Christ have received we freely own and beleeve all things written therein though we ingeniously professe our dislike and rejection of your late coyned articles as not being received by former Churches Finally the Spirit that is in us doth not induce us to any ill we have indeed corruption in us which induceth us to ill but we pray and strive against it I dare affirm it and disprove it if you can that our reformed Ministry is as holy if not more than your Priesthood our people that receive the truth into their hearts walk as closely with God and as free from sin as most of your Catholiques yea its observable that the more free any parts are from popery and papists the more zealous and religious they are and more carefull sanctifiers of the Lords day Since it pleased God to set me in the place where I now live which is in the midst of Papists and popish persons I have given my self to observe their waies and I find the best of them notorious profaners of the Lords day spending it either in drinking or walking about from house to house or sporting and if they have Protestant servants imploying them about their worldly businesses as much as on any other day But Sir I may say of your self and such like as Hiero. of some Qâ—um bona imitari non queant c. Hierom. When they cannot imitate the good is in us which they can only do they envie us in this think themselves verie learned that they can detract from us You cannot imitate therefore enuy it s one peice of Jesuitical learning to slander What you bring those names of our Authors in your margent for I know not I am sure were they alive they would accuse you of slandring them 3. You say This Spirit in us prompteth things contrarie and inconsistent each with other Ans The Spirit in us is the Spirit of truth and leads us into truth not universally and infallibly as if we knew all truth and erred in nothing for it s not given fully and perfectly though there be light in us yet it s not without darkness if it were we should be Angels rather than men comprehensors rather then travellers This spirit keeps us from the destructivenesse of error not from error yet I say the confessions of the reformed Churches are most harmonious our Churches teach not things contrary nor inconsistent each with othea though particular men in our Churches may dissent in some points as in all Churches 3. In your last section you bring in and answer two Arguments formed as I suppose upon the anvile of your own brain 1. God is no accepter of persons his Spirit being free may breath on whom he pleaseth To this you answer This is out of the matter in hand here being no dispute of Gods power what he may do but of his will what he doth Reply When I know whose argument this is and see the form of it I shall vindicate it from your answer if I like it at present I shall shall only desire you to remember your answer when you come to the point of transubstantiation 2. Arg and Answ their other ground for insâ—iration upon the assurance of Consciencâ— St. Paul and St. Augustine convinced long since of weaknesse and coufinage Reply This argument came out of the same mint with the other for which of us lay any claim to inspiration 2. 'T is true we say that the Spirit bears witnesse with our spirits that we are the Children of God and doth not the Apostle say so Rom. 8.16 Your Rhemists confesse that by this testimony the Children of God have an attestation of his favour towards them 3. Whereas you object the example of St. Paul and Austin pray tell me can conscience never tell true because sometimes it erred there is an erring conscience is there therefore no rightly informed conscience You make notable inferences 4. May not conscience mistake in its judgment about works as to their goodnesse or badness nay was it not about works that St. Paul and Augustines conscience did erre you acknowledg it was the one persecuted the Church the other the Truth Why should not the Spirit when by conscience it testifies of it self be regarded as when it testifies of works You say conscience can have no greater certainty then the understanding that gaue it being and the understanding often misseth I grant that the understanding of it self is errable and subject to mistakes but being guided by the spirit its certain and so is conscience The Apostle saith We know thâ—t we dwâ—ll in him and he in us 1 John 4.13 because he hath given us of his Sprit and we see and do testifie c. Upon which words your Glosse saith Per hoc c. Hereby we prove that he hath given us of his holy Spirit because we see that is through the Spirit of inspiration by faith we know and by the testifying spirit do we witness c. CHAP. IX Of the Spiritists rule of Faith YOu begin with a distinction about the rule of faith which you say may be considered in it self or in r spect of us In it self its Gods reveal d truth in respect of us it s the same truth expressed to us Thus far say you Catholiques and Sâ—iritists agree their difference iâ— about the expression Answ 1. I conceive your distinction is vain and can hardly beleeve that Spiritists agree with you thus far For 1. I conceive the
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
it is first to be regarded But you reply to this p. 67. As Scripture so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown but for the Churches information Answ This hath been formerly confuted Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self then men can give to it The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fathers or Popes the same may be said of the truth contained in it When the error of administring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes I 'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point and yet there were means of finding out the truth else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church and therefore must be more mafest than the Church But you prove it thus The knowledge faith requires must be supernaturally certain and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts pâ—culiar assistance which is onely warranted to the Church and not to every private reading and reasoning Answ If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain and their writings we ground our faith upon but this assistance is not now given to any You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance how this is warranted not onely to the Church but to private Christians For first Christ promiseth it to them Jer. 31.34 and assures them God will give it them if they ask Luke 11.13 2. Christ invites them to seek it Apoc. 3.18 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it 1 John 2.27 The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable they forsooth and none else have the peculiar assistance of Gods spirit to enlighten them Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pastor that Popish Priests may be the onely teachers But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence and therefore to evade it in stead of saying Not to provide persons you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests as private Christians if those do ever reade and reason in private I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning No more as I said is he given to every or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra he 's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession and he 's not alwayes in his chair But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth this is clearly promised Psal 25.9.12.14 upon our asking of him James 1.5 If any man want wisedom Spiritum illuminatorem saith the gloss Let him ask it of God c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law so should private Christians do through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not the vail is upon their eyes but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail 2. You prove it by S. Paul S. Paul is plain Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and dispensers of Gods mysteries 1 Cor. 4. Answ The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood but I know not how they make for you they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spirit much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it All that they prove is this that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilifie Paul or any but account of them according to their calling as Christs servants and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience saying Experience confirms no less in Seperatists who laying aside the Church and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings have vented as many absurd and extravagant impieties as they had base and exorbitant passions p. 68. A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings without having respect to the Spirit of God it 's no wonder if they err Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture Flesh and blood reveals it not to us but the Spirit Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit and this was the cause of their erring 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary whereby the sense of Scripture might appear and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture as that which you say contains part of Gods Will but he dares not venture upon it himself and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition now he knows not where to meet with it I pray Sir could you direct him where he might find it The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors and somtimes they deserve not to be received Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be as that Text of James some understand it of Extream Unction others deny that Extream Unction can be proved by it and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture and when they do it their Expositions are oft irrational as that of Rom. 8.6 by Lyricus and seldom obvious In this case either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church which can be no other then the Spirit of God by which we are enabled to judg which is the true sense of Scripture Vid Can. loc Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture because it dissents from Ancient Fathers for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their sences but to Scripture it self Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in as subservient thereunto 3. Those who have cried up the Church as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
as well as Rome and it s your task to prove not onely that the Pope but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personall succession from the Apostles But 2. Rome is not now able to shew a personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she was able as were also the Churches of Smyrna Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spain in France Iren. adv haeres l. 1. c. 3. in the East Countreyes in Egypt in Lybia in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them but she is now unable unable to shew either succession of persons or doctrine as I shall demonstrate by these following particulars 1. As to personal succession though she have a bed-role of names of Popes yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina the Popes Library keeper Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser 30. Now I find her constitutions the one made by Julius the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Popes Election declaring him to be no Pope and that no one ought to account him Pope and further that without any further declararation he be devested of all his dignities and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedience to his commands and the other constitution declares him excommunicate as Antichrist and an invader and destroyer of Christianity See both of these in Azorius's Morals Azo instuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5. The like decree was made by Nicholas 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by Caranza wherein such a one is declared to be a thief and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud Nay it s evident that many of her Popes came in this way I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza for many of them he tells us that Christopher 1. And Boniface 7. got the Popedome malis artibus by fraud and cousinage others of them have come in by force Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or peoples consent Sylvester the third saith he was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult Clement 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third Iohn 13. took himself the Popedom through the assistance of his Father Leo the 8. was ordained by the Clergy but Otho the Emperour forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface Saint Iohn 18. did usurp the Chair whilest Gregory the fifth lived So common was this way of coming to the Popedom that the Author tells us that course became so common that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair Baronius acknowledgeth that men were thrust into Peters Seat by their potent Harlots false Popes c. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second An. 912. meets with such as these for able entry nullifies the Popes right according to the former constitutions and makes him Antichrist 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresie I have shewed the contrary yet the constitution of Julius takes hold of Heretiques as of simoniacal Popes 4. She cannot shew that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair there was no trial of the Popes humanity and that was occasioned by an Harlot gotten into the Popeal Seat Yet it s asserted and that truly that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity 5. She cannot shew the order of her Popes It s not known where to place Clemens and for Boniface 6. Caranza saith its a great controversie amongst writers at what time he sate in Peters Chair Now this is inconsistent with the evident demonstration of Popeish succession 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause 7. She cannot deny but there have been many Popes at the same time and each had their parties joyning with them Caranza confesseth that about the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years There was three others at the same time with him viz. John 24. Benedict 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance This may suffice to allay the Popeish brag of personal succession and therefore I come to the next particular viz. Doctrinal succession 2. Then as to Doctrinal succession Rome is not able to shew Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles There are two things concern her to prove as to this 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now both which are too difficult for Popish heads Let any man reade but the Articles of Faith in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3.20.28 impossibility of perfect personall obedience c. 8. 3. 3. 9. and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious c. 8. 18. That Prayer is onely to be made to the object of Faith which is God c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off as the Jews are c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civill Magistrate rendring honour tribute c. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning c. 15. 4. Lastly that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink c. 14. 17. nor of days ' Verse 5. 6. Again let Papists shew us so much as one Father that beleeved and propounded the late Articles of Pius's Creed as necessary to be beleeved in every age and then we shall beleeve succession of Doctrine till then we shall suspend our faith or belief of it 5. Your last part is without the least interruption c. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said and therefore I shall refer it to the judgment of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argument 2. Argument That company composeth and maketh up the truh Catholique Church which doth acknowledge and imbrace a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Cathâ—lique Church Answ 1. To your Major 1. It s obscure and doubtful what you mean by Power as distinct from the
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
All Papists If you have are mens judgments and thoughts visible to the eye Or did they all write their judgments and give you them that your eye might see them But I shall confute this hereafter 2. Why do you vary your phrase for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledgiâ—g the Church for the rule of belief And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church There is a great difference betwixt these A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause he may not square his belief to the Church Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of belief yet it s hard to find one that doth not in some point or other differ from the Church I have found many that in some points dissent from her Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification but wrote one against the other of those subjects So that though both of them might acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet they could not both square their belief to the Church unlesse she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures and shew that they are the rule of faith for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures and were unanimous It s mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies or building their faith upon changable and unstable men that makes dissentions and jarring The Word of God being always the same there cannot be dissention where is conformity to it 2. You give a reason hereof saying Of which no other reason can be given but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain other rules subject to uncertainty and change Answ 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain is it in regard of existence I grant it of the Catholique but deny it of your Roman Church God had a Church before there was a Roman Church and when Babylon the great is fallen there will be the Church still I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue there is much in Scripture to perswade the contrary Or 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth but this way it hath not been always constant Time was when it was Arian under Liberius and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years Time was when the Bible of Clemeâ—t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are Again Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not would not or durst not manifest the truth Where was then its certainty The question about the efficâ—cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair forsooth and after many years disputation in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficulties in determination wherewith it came thither Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations Your decrees concerni g the virgins impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty 2. It s fâ—lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change The Scriptures are more certain and unchangable than your Church they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take heâ—d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say True it is that Scripture in itsel that iâ— as it is the Word of God dictatâ—d bâ— the Holâ—-Ghost is certain and infallible but to us 2 Tim. 3. to wiâ— as it is liable to this and to oth rs privâ—te interpretation it is as uncertain and â—allible as man witnesse the many contrary interprâ—tations c. Answ 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe but even to us and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians 2 Pet. 1. saith We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us Prov. 8.9 All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth they are plain obvious Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal 19.7 The testimony of the Lord is SVRE making wise the simple Psalm 1â—9 130 The en rance â—f thy Word giveth liâ—ht it giveth undâ—rstanding unâ—o the simple 2. Th u h particular men may makâ— wrâ—ng interpre ations of some placâ—s yâ—t thâ—s is when they use not that diligence and those means that they ought to use as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures comparing like places considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned bringing all to the rule of faith i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded Tertul. l. de veland virgin or if you will the Apostles Creed which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith And your selves grant that the virtual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture be said of your Popes Decretals Councils Canons c. may not these have wrong interpretations No doubt but they may witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation are more clear than your Decrees and Canons Lastly I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For I find nothing for you in that Chapter but rather against you Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Churches Canons Here is faith in Jesus Christ not in the Church The Scriptures as I said or ignorant of such expressions CHAP. VIII Of the Spirit of Spiritists WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew that in the language of the beast they are the same It s strange you bring not in Scripturists and Christians they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE but why do you use these names Is it
have nothing to do with the causes of men in their Provinces nor receive any such to communion as they did excommunicate yea Saint Cyprian and a company of Bishops with him did dye out of the communion of the Church of Rome Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. for any thing appear to the contrary yet they were true Bishops and their Churches true Churches Yea further supposing Communion had then been necessary it is not so now the corruption of your Church being greater then it was in Cyprians time so that Gods command doth take place with us 1 Tim. 6.3 5. 2 Cor. 6.14 15 c. Apoc. 18.4 and the example of the Apostles Acts 19.8.9 3. Protestants have Communion with the Catholique Church viz. that Church which hath ever since our Saviour maintained the Doctrine of the Gospel our fellowship is with the Apostles and primitive Churches whose Doctrine we receive and profess yea so far as there is any remainder of true Doctrine amongst you so far we have communion with you also 4. You deliver two palpable Lyes 1. That we glory to have our p wer from the Popiâ—h Church We look upon it not as our honor but as their misery who could not otherwise receive their power We account it our honour and glory in it that we are out of your Bethaven and that we have the ordinances of God within our selves 2. Lye that we confesse you to be a true Church We deny the Church of Rome to be a sound member of the true and Catholique Church We say you were once Bethel now Bethaven Rome was once a faithfull City but now become an harlot Her name is given her by God and acknowledged by us as belonging to her Apoc. 17.5 Mistery Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth 3ly You answer Pro estants derivation from Catholiques is not prooâ— for a personal succession of Bishops and Pastors agreeing in all points with Protâ—stants which ought to be the scope and aim of that derivation iâ— being not required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and h s Apostleâ— of men meerely sent but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England Reply 1. I thought personal succession had been the main with you it being proper to the true Church onely as Doctrine you say is not But I see now succession of Doctrine is the more principall succession So unstable are men maintaining errors 2. In derivation of succession it s not necessary that those we derive from agree in all points with us If it were I know where your succession from Peter would be you not being able to name one Bishop that for above 1000 years after Christ did agree in all points with you Sometimes the Bishops and Pastors of the Church who have the power of ordination may be corrupt holding some errors which the ordained may be free from either altogether or in some measure or if not when they are ordained yet afterwards Now what rational man can question the calling of those who are thus ordained 3. We can shew a derivation of succession though not without some interruption of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles professing the main points of the Doctrine of the Church of England I deny not but there might be differences in lesser points but these could not nullifie our claim to them nor make that they should not be called Protestants Your rule therefore is not a very good one that Doctrine being in Nature much like unto number the least addition or Diminution altering its kind and grounding a new denomination But supposing it good and true we may thence unanswerably infer that your Religion is not the same with the Religion of the Apostles or Primitive Christians nor yet with those who lived but a little while ago your Church making frequent additions to former Doctrines 4ly You answer Protestants could not be mingled amongst Catholiques inasmuch as there is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and Idols no concord with Christ and Belial 2 Cor. 6. The Ark of God and Dagon may not stand together 1 King 5. c Rep. 1. It s one thing to be amongst wicked men another thing to approve of them A good man may be in a corrupt Church in regard of presence who notwithstanding approves not of it When Israel was most corrupt and overspread with idolatry yet there were seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal Rom. 11.4 When our Saviour came the Jewish Church was very corrupt yet there were some few in it who groaning under the evils of it waited for the consolation of Israel The Prophet Isaiah speaks of a remnant that were left in the midst of a corrupt Church Isay 1.9 Yet none of these did approve of the corruptions but rather mourned for them Ezek. 9.4 If God had not his people in Babylon to what end doth he say come out of her my people Apoc. 18.4 God had a people in Babilon a people like corne among chaffe good fish amongst bad ones These till God gave an opportunity of delivering themselves did dwell with the daughter of Babilon Zech. 2.7 They had external communion but wanted inward affection to her they had no concord nor agreement with her in her grosser errors But you say It were a strange example if the Church should receive into her company lyers and innovators this would leave a stain upon her reputation make her sinceritie be suspected hâ—r Doctrine contemned and despised but she who is all fair Cant. 6. without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. is free from any such guilt Rep. 1. It s no strange thing that a true Church may have in it those who are erroneous It was thus with Rome Corinth Galatia Philippi and the Churches of Asia Rev. 2.14 15 20. There is no Church can claim exemption The Popish Church hath had those in it whom you call lyers and innovators and upon that score have come into your expurgatory judices 2. You assert that of the Church of Rome which never any but Novatus and his followers did attribute to the visible Church viz. to be all faire without spot or wrinkle a priviledge belonging to the Church as triumphant or but imperfectly agreeing to the true members only of the visible Church in this World and herein you shew your self to be none of that society of Christians who generally maintained professed that their commission and power was to preach and inculcate that the Church of God militant was not without mixture of bad p. 81. 2. You take that for granted which we constantly deny that your Romish Synagogue is the true Church and all fair and without spot or wrinkle c. and that Protestants are lyers and innovators which you are yet to prove 3. Yet granting both these for Argument sake I affirm that maintainers of false Doctrine may be in the Church without all that danger you talke of while they lye
invent different Doctrines and new heresies Seperation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judgment in them that seperate The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your argument go under the name of heretiques and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines To these arguments grounded on your assertions I will adde two more 1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church a note of the true Church this is Bellarmine's sixt note but it seemes Papists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not 2. The Doctrine say some of you in answer to us is the form of the true Church therefore In inferre it cannot agree to any false one the form being intrinsecall and proper to that which it doth inform not common to others as Rationality cannot be predicated of beasts so neither can Profession of the true Apostolicall Doctrine agree to a fals and unsound Church according to your judgements But you urge two things viz. 1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches and so not affording any determinate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth Answ 1. The question is not whether doctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth as you propound it but whether true Doctrine that is the doctrine of the Apostles clearly declaclared in the Scriptures and professed by Christians be a mark of the true Church we affirm it is 2. Though Doctrine in generall be divers yet true Apostolicall Doctrine is not divers but one and the same as there is one Lord one Spirit one Church so is there one faith which the Scripture reveals unto us 2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors as the means whereby it is conveyed to us therefore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle Answ 1. But that your memory is weak you might remember that we have been mentioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine What else is the subject of the four precedent shapes 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement you might find that when we say True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church we explain our selves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church and more necessary than Bishops and Pastors That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is alwayes true but Pastors that succede them are not alwayes true Pastors but sometimes Wolves and therefore if you had not misled us we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy 2. You answer It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scriptures they professing a Doctrine clean contrarie and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formall tearms expressed Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory but I know you cannot do it your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scripture others not the Apostles Doctrine which you were to have proved not by consequence but expresly in plain and formall tearms Lastly some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully joyn But I will particularly examine your Instances 1 Inst Traditions 2 Thess 2. Hold the traditions whether it be by word or Epistle Answ 1. It s most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preaching or writings Tradition being then of a larger talent than now it is and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach was nothing but Scripture Act. 26.20.22 Especially see Act. 17.1 2 3 13. where you finde what Paul preached at Thessalonica even nothing but the Word of God contained in the Scriptures Annot. on Deutr. 4.2 Your Dowaists say unwritten traditions are contained implied included in the Scriptures such the Apostle preached 2. True and Apostolick traditions we willingly imbrace yea we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them That which Clemnitius saith is the judgement of Protestants Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce c. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth which their immediate successours received from them Exam. Concil trident p. 1. d. trad p. 68. and delivered to their Disciples but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to Scripture and we reject none of them but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture we receive and reverence So another saith if Papists will prove their Traditions by the ancient and Apostolick Church and the universall Church since even till our time we receive them and this is Apostolicall Tradition according to Hierom. for conclusion I appeal to Medina Medri l. 6. de sacr hom Continent c. 106. whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolicall Traditions of 84. Canons saith he gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apostles the Latine Church scarce observeth 6. or 8. 2 Inst Reall presence Joh. 6.51.55 56 57. Luk 22.19 Matth. 26.28 Ans This is a Jesuitical slander for protestants do not deny the Reall presence nor is the Controversie between the Papists and us about it Rivel sum Contr. Tan. 1. Tract 3. q. 18. Inst we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament as learned Rivet observes this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher who objecting that Protestants hold not a true or reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit is answered in these words His most excellent Majestie and all his orthodoxall people believe reall presence T is true we hold not a gross i. e. as the same Author explains it When the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signes and together with them conveyed into the mouth stomack and bodily parts but we maintain a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiving the externall signes by his naturall parts receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operative faith and this is most evident by that 6. of John 3. Inst Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun to the going down great is my name among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation Mal. 1. Answ 1. This Text is in none of the Apostles writings however being Scripture I answer 2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formall tearms expressed in it It s your fals reading that brings in the word sacrificing Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered Pagnin and Arias Montanus speake to the same purpose 3. It may be more
that obedience which is owing to a Master or Prince and for it the Master or Prince is pleased to promise a great reward with which the work bears no proportion this act cannot be said to be condignly meritorious of that reward no not by the promise but the Master or Prince is willing to bestow something on him and takes this occasion for it or gives it him in this way You conclude with saying Saint Paul deemed it no presumption to challenge at the hands of God a Crown of Justice for his good fighting well runing and constant keeping of the Faith 2. Tim. 4. Answ 1. Supposing this true sure you will not make it a pattern for Catholicks to whom you deny S. Pauls knowledge of their estates and good works 2. It s false that S. Paul doth challenge at Gods hands a Crown of Justice For his good fighting if your For be Propter i e. notes a proper efficient cause This excellent Preacher of Free-grace and salvation thereby unto others will not preach merits to himself and that at the point of death when the soul laies hold upon that which is the surest stay and this according to Bellarmine is the alone mercy of God 7. Objection THe seventh Objection is The Roman Church giveth the Communion under one kinde contrary to Christs institution Answ There is a great deal of difference betwixt Christs Institutions and his Commandements â—hese requiring both belief and observance those onely belief Reply 1. What may be the foundation of your distinction betwixt Institutions and Commandements I understand not Institutions so far as I am acquainted either with the signification of the word or its use are precepts whereby men are instructed and taught what is their dutie and thus they require both belief and observance When Justinian wrote books of Institutions I suppose he did not intend points for faith onely or principally but rules of practice yet he titles his Book Institutiones Juris being ignorant sure of your invented distinction When the Councell of Constance tells us of Christs Institution and Administration of the Sacrament under both kinds Pray Sir what do they mean by Institution as distinct from Administration If it be no more than Example as you express even now then those worthy Synodists tautologize in mentioning Administration and Institution both Christs Administration being the example or pattern of our Administration 2. Supposing Institution to be no more but example yet it will thus require more than belief even observance as Cyprian shews when he saith Si quâ—s de Antecessoribus nostris c. If any of our Predecessors either ignorantly or simply hath not observed and held this which the Lord by his example and authority hath taught us to do his simplicitie might be pardoned c. Christ by his example doth teach us to believe His Action is our Instruction Augustine therefore observes that examples in Scripture not sinful or of extraordinary and personal actions serve for exposition of precepts yea and contain precepts vertually in them nor is this any more then what rational men on both sides acknowledg that that which hath been inviolably observed from the beginning of the Church must be supposed to be a divine precept Now the Councel of Constance acknowledgeth our Saviors Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds the primitive Christians receiving it according to his Administration what reason then have we to doubt of divine precept 2. You further say Although Christs actions be good examples for us to imitate yet as such they impose not obligation upon imitation Christ fasted forty days and as many nights went into the desert to be tempted forbare marriage c. are all bound to doe the like none will say it Reply 1. If Christs actions be examples for us to imitate yea good examples then are we obliged to imitate them the reason is clear because the goodness of them as to our imitation doth arise from their conformity to the divine and Royal Law whereunto we are absolutely bound Nay further we are obliged by them as such to imitation The Holiness Mercy and Love of Christ are often urged as obliging us to those acts of holiness mercy and love Luke 3.36 John 13.15 1 Pet. 1.15 Gods holiness as therein he is an example to us doth oblige us to be holy yea the very examples of the Saints command our imitation there is a general precept pressing this Finally Brethren whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are pure whatsoever things are lovely whatsoever things are of good report iâ— there be any verâ—ue and if there be any rayse think on these things And it follows Those things which ye have both learned and received and heard and seen in me do c. Philip. 3.11.4.8 9. 2. The Actions of Christ which you mention concern not this place for you spake of such Actions of Christ as you said were good examples for us to imitate but these actions are not of that nature None ever said that all Christs actions are examples or command imitation Some Actions of his belong to him as Mediatour and are so Christs that they are incommunicable to others of this nature is his paying a price to justice reconciling the world subservient whereunto was his fasting forty days and his temptation in the desert his forbearing of marriage may thus far oblige that if God bestow on us the gift of forbearance we do forbear that thereby we may more undistractedly go about the service of God we are imployed about But now for this Action of administring the Sacrament it was not his personal action he did it as a Minister and the Apostles his Ministers according to his example did so administer it as he had done before them 3. A Doctor now yours Dr. Bane lost sheep c. 22. having apostatized from the truth once received and professed by him gives us two requisits to make an institution obligatory both of them fetcht from Jesuit Fishers Answer to King James his questions 1. That the end of the institution be necessary and that it be necessary for every particular person to endeavour the attaining thereof 2. That if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attain the end of an institution that also the wâ—ole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end According to these rules supposing them true the institution of the Supper under both kinds is obligatory For 1. The end of its institution is that they that partake of it may remember and shew forth the death of Christ as is evident both by the Evangelists and Apostles Now this and is necessary being both expresly commanded and also being a special means for strengthening our faith Yea further It s necessary for every particular Christian to endeavor the attaining hereof The Apostle Paul writes to the Saints and private Christians in Corinth and in them to all Christians and gives
still hereticks and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle To say there is no express command for the Cup therfore it cannot be sacriledge to take it away is false for it may be sacriledge to take away an holy thing though there be no express command for the thing You say there is no command for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so I am confident you cannot shew me an express command for the peoples eating the bread which you seem to grant in saying that in the primitive times the people sometimes received the cup not the bread which they durst not have done if there had been an express command for receiving the bread Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacriledg to take away from the people both bread and wine If it be not sacrilegious then it is evident your people stand at the Popes mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them If it be sacrilegious then it s as evident that sacriledge depends not absolutely on a particular command and that its truely sacrilegious to take away the cup from them 4. There is a Command for both Let a man examine himselfelf and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup 1 Cor. 11.28 v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was administred under both kinds This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me i. e. as Dionysius expounds it take this cup and drink of it So t is said He took the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it Mat. 26.27 You answer These words indeed Doe thâ—s in commemoration of me Drink ye all of this imply a Commandement but concerning onâ—ly Priests to whom as the pâ—wer of making so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper The Reason is because hereby as the words clearly bear he chiefly aâ—mes at a remembrance of his death and passion which including a separation of his soul from his body and of his blood from his flesh cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind Reply 1. Do the words onely imply a command are they not as express and full a command as can be 2. How may it appear that it concerns onely Priests that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper to them there are divers reasons to the contrary 1. If it concerned onely Priests then the people could not be able to produce any precept of Christ for their receiving at all because with this is joyned the command of eating the bread and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible 2. Christ you say in the words doth chiefly aim at a remembrance of his death and passion which cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kinde But the people are able to remember Christs death and passion as well as the Priests yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacrament and particularly by the Cup. Which benefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element as appears by the Evangelist Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin Supr It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests the precept therefore must also concern them 3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles Now they were not Massing Priests for first its the common opinion amongst you that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferd till after Christs resurrection when he sent them and breathed on them Joh. 20. He could not therefore give a command to Priests when there were no Priests with him 2. The twelve Apostles according to the Popish Schoolmen and others did represent Bishops not ordinary Priests who as Aquinas severall times affirms were the successours of the seventie Disciples 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve which is questionable it is most evident that they did represent believers and that the command concerned them Cassander shews this out of divers antient Authors viz. Paschasius Rathertus Chrysostome Theophylactus Cyprian Origen and Augustine Cass de sacr Com. sub utraque spec p. 1019. And certainly if it were not thus the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth and that in order to their practice they might have told him that it concern'd himself and such as he but not them You bolster up your selves much by your word Make to whom as the power of making c. hereby endeavouring to perswade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrificing hereby shut out the people froÌ„ the cup. But without any reason for if it could prove any thing it should seem rather to appropriate the use of the bread to the Priests then the Cup seeing they have Christned it an incruent sacrifice the wine after consecration being reall and true blood But I wonder seeing our criticall adversaries are so full of this word that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it Make this if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti that render the Greek Do this Sure they were convinced that this conceit was but worthy of private observation and therefore creeps in with the note onely but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say onely Take eat This is my body drink you all of it He gave it to them and they all drank of it S. Luke saith Do this not mentioning taking or eating or drinking of it S. Paul unites them in one saying Take Eat This do in remembrance of me So that to do this is to take and eat the bread and drink the wine according to Christs Institution which doth principally concern the people And this Dyonisius Carthusiensis doth propound as probable And its further observable that whereas S. Luke onely of all the Evangelists doth use the words Do this he onely useth it with reference to the bread which belongs say you to the people not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion The precept which you mention out of S. John Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood c. which you say extends to the Laitie I shall not much build upon because I conceive it s not spoken of the Sacramentall eating and drinking This onely I shall gather from it that Christ is perfect nourishment and that as his flesh is meat so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure
such as have the guiding and teaching of others deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is given then to the common people as also to Christians generally that which was not given to the obstinate Jewes which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance if it did much more would that place of St. John 1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 't is said The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things c. Prove such an exemption for private Christians and so lay a foundation for their infallibilitie which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome 2. It is most evident that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them and that of such things as were needful to be known See Mark 9.31.32 Luk. 9.45 Joh. 12.16 viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ c. 2. Aagainst Darkness you urge Matth. 6. but 't is Matth. 5.14 You are the light of the world Ans 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light that they have no darkness in them you are no better then a blasphemer for it 's said of God and cannot be spoken of any other God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Jâ—h 1.5 Aug. in Ps 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place compares the Church to the Moon which you know hath her dark spots though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared be altogether transparent and bright 3. They are called a light not so much in regard of their inward qualification Lyran. in Mat. 5.14 as of their office which is to instruct and direct others in their way as Gregory Burgensis and Cyranâ—s note 4. Learned Cameron conceives that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles which is probable because our Saviour speak to them as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge and thus it proves nothing for your present Church Lastly I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence But then why did you not bring in the next words Ro. 17.3 A City set on a Hill which would more directly with a little variation of number have pointed at your Holy Mother on her seven-headed Beast 3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever And Isa 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken To your former I answer it makes nothing for you for it 's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth to lead into truth and another thing to have it making us infallible I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth yet are not infallible Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error yet who would say they are infallible It 's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists to say That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men and to all good men to sanctification but to teach all truth and to preserve in truth and from error he is promised and performed only to the Church and the chief Governour and General Councils thereof The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place Joh. 17.17 saying Christ prayeth that the Apostles their Successors and all that shall be of their belief may be sanctified in truth i. e. may have the Spirit of truth and be freed from error The Spirit then may be had and yet inerrability be wanting to a person To your other Text It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts not of Proofs I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in I profess I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition 4. Against Weakness you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her To the former I answer 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of it is not the Roman but the Church of Ephesus where Timothy governed which by your own confessions might err 2. The words may be refer'd to what follows It 's not said expresly She is the Pillar c. as you abusively read it Cameron doth refer them to the next verse and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd Verba ista Columna c. sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus ratio 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca suspensa si legamus Domus Dei columna fundamentum veritatis sine controversia c. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista 2 Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem inchoâ—re à conjunctione 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis ut illud pronunciat columnam esse fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt Cameto shewing amongst other things that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith And hereunto the Apostle Paul who was well versed in the customes of the Jewish Rabbies being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude If we take it thus it 's not the Church but the truth it self especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses Thus Irenaeus saith That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church Iten advers haeres lib. 3. c. 1. init yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church if God remove his Word from a Church as from the Churches of Asia c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God and adhere to the Word of God others are not De compage domus they are not of the House Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose Aug. praefat in Ps 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints such whose names are