them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
England are grounded upon Scripture we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant Belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councels held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine Therefore we desire not to be Judges in our own Cause And if any whom A. C. calls a Novellist can truly say and maintain this he will quickly prove himself no Novellist And for the Negative Articles they refute where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it Upon this Negative ground A. C. infers again That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it In which case he professes he would gladly know what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants And in Conclusion professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made unless we will acknowledge Authority of church-Church-Tradition necessary in this Case Num. 3 And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an Answer I will give it freely And first in the General I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition not expresly at least not evidently what means he If he speak of the Letter of the Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his Addition is vain If he speak of the Meaning of the Scripture then his Addition is cunning For many things are Expresly in Scripture which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there And what e're he mean my words are That our Negative Articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture without any Addition of Expresly or Evidently And he should have taken my words as I used them I lke nor Change nor Addition nor am I bound to either of A. C's making And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it For are there not many things in Good Logick concluded directly which yet are not concluded Demonstratively Surely there are For to be directly or indirectly concluded flows from the Mood or Form of the Syllogism To be demonstratively concluded flows from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths the Syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical because the Propositions are such If the Propositions be probable only though the Syllogism be made in the clearest Mood yet is the Conclusion no more The Inference or Consequence indeed is clear and necessary but the Consequent is but probable or topical as the Propositions were Now my words were only for a Direct Conclusion and no more though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution For Scripture here is the thing spoken of And Scripture being a Principle and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christians whereof no man desires any farther proof I would fain know why that which is plainly and apparently that is by direct Consequence proved out of Scripture is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity and if there can be none why did he add Demonstratively Num. 4 Next in particular I answer to the Instance which A. C. makes concerning the Baptism of Infants That it may be concluded directly and let A. C. judge whether not demonstratively out of Scripture both that Infants ought to be baptized and that Baptism is necessary to their Salvation And first that Baptism is necessary to the Salvation of Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which he hath bound us is express in S. John 3. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God So no Baptism no Entrance Nor can Infants creep in any other ordinary way And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ. And secondly That Infants ought to be baptized is first plain by Evident and Direct Consequence out of Scripture For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all Doubt the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left only to Extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ Secondly 't is very near an Expression in Scripture it self For when S. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Act. 2. he applies two comforts unto them Verse 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then Verse 39. he infers For the promise is made to you and to your children The Promise What Promise What Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your Children And therefore A. C. may finde it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture For some of his own Party Ferus and Salmeron could both find it there And so if it will do him any pleasure he hath my Answer which he saith he would be glad to know Num. 5 'T is true Bellarmine presses a main place out of S. Augustine and he urges it hard S. Augustine's words are The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolâ—cal Tradition The place is truly cited but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is For first 't is not denied That this is an Apostolical Tradition and therefore to be believed But secondly not therefore only Nor doth S. Augustine say so nor doth Bellarmine press it that way The truth is it would have been somewhat difficult to find the Collection out of Scripture only for the Baptism of Infants since they do not actually believe And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi that this Custom of the Church had not been to be believed had it not been an Apostolical Tradition But the Tradition being Apostolical led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture And this is not the least use of Tradition to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture though
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
four proofs all internal to the Scripture First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly That there hath been such performance of it Fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas à d muniendam Fidem for the Defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and church-Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinens places Authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self And your own School confesses this was the way ever The Woman of Samaria is a known Resemblance but allowed by your selves For quotidiè daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman that is the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives c. But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe his word before the words of the Woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus the School taught then and thus the Gloss commented then And when men have tired themselves hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures even to this knowledge of them That they are the Word of God is the Tradition of the Church but when they are in They hear Christ himself immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithful And his sheep do not only hear but know his voice And then here 's no vicious Circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church and then round about the Church by the Scripture Only distinguish the Times and the Conditions of men and all is safe For a Beginner in the Faith or a Weakling or a Doubter about it begins at Tradition and proves Scripture by the Church But a man strong and grown up in the Faith and understandingly conversant in the Word of God proves the Church by the Scripture And then upon the matter we have a double Divine Testimonie altogether Infallible to confirm unto us That Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves who delivered immediately to the world the Word of Christ. The other the Scripture it self but after it hath received this Testimonie And into these we do and may safely Resolve our Faith As for the Tradition of after-Ages in and about which Miracles and Divine Power were not so evident we believë them by Gandavo's full Confession because they do not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certain Scripture And it appears by men in the middle Ages that these writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time Num. 33 And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seem to speak differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselves touching Scripture and Tradition And that as well in this Point to prove Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant Exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say We have the Scriptures by Tradition or the like either They mean the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it and there when it is known to be such we may resolve our Faith Or if they speak of the Present Church then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Scripture as by an according Means to the Prime Tradition But because it is not simply Divine we cannot resolve our Faith into it nor settle our Faith upon it till it resolve it self into the Prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers Nay can you or any of your Quarter shew any one Father of the Church Greek or Latine that ever said We are to resolve our Faith that Scripture is the Word God into the Tradition of the present Church And again when the Fathers say we are to rely upon Scripture only they are never to be understood with Exclusion of Tradition in what causes soever it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for all things but because it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if any man will presume upon his own strength and go single without the Church Num. 34 To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long Discourse to prove That Scripture is the Word of God I shall now in the Last place put all together that so the whole state of the Question may the better appear First then I shall desire the Reader to consider that every Rational Science requires some Principles quite without its own Limits which are not proved in that Science but presupposed Thus Rhetorick presupposes Grammar and Musick Arithmetick Therefore it is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles also which she proves not but presupposes And the chiefest of these is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority Secondly that there is a great deal of difference in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity and those of any other Art or Science whatsoever For the Principles of all other Sciences do finally resolve either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science or into those Principles which are per se nota known by their own light and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science And this is it which properly makes them Sciences because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration as forces Reason to yeeld unto them But the Principles of Divinity resolve not into the Grounds of Natural Reason For then there would be no room for Faith but all would be either Knowledge or Vision but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernatural And of this we have just so much light and no more than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture Thirdly That though the Evidence of these Supernatural Truths which Divinity teaches appears not so manifest as that of the Natural yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible than they For they proceed immediately from God that Heavenly Wisdom which being the fountain of ours must needs infinitely precede ours both in Nature and excellence He that teacheth man knowledge shall not be know Psal. 94. And therefore though we reach not the Order of their Deductions nor can in this life come to the vision of them
by Apostolical Authority by Bellarmine's own rule For it hath a Beginning Thirdly I observe too that Bellarmine cannot well tell where to lay the foundation of Purgatory that it may be safe For first he labours to found it upon Scripture To that end he brings no fewer then ten places out of the Old Testament and nine out of the New to prove it And yet fearing lest these places be strained as indeed they are and so too weak to be laid under such a vast pile of Building as Purgatory is he flies to unwritten Tradition And by this Word of God unwritten he says 't is manifest that the Doctrine of Purgatory was delivered by the Apostles Sure if Nineteen places of Scripture cannot prove it I would be loth to flie to Tradition And if Recourse to Tradition be necessary then certainly those places of Scripture made not the proof they were brought for And once more how can Bellarmine say here That we finde not the Beginning hujus dogmatis of this Article when he had said before that he had found it in the Nineteen places of Scripture For if in these places he could not finde the beginning of the Doctrine of Purgatory he is false while he says he did And if he did finde it there then he is false here in saying we finde no beginning of it And for all his Brags of Omnes Veteres all the Ancient Greek and Latine do constantly teach Purgatory Yet Alphons à Castro deals honestly and plainly and tells us That the mention of Purgatory in Ancient Writers is ferè nulla almost none at all especially in the Greoks And he addes That hereupon Purgâ—tory 〈◊〉 not believed by the Graecians to this very day And what noâ— I pray after all this may I not so much as delâ—berately doubt of this because 't is now Defined and but now in a manner and thus No sure So A. C. tells you Doubt No For when you had fooled the Archbishop of Spalatâ— back to Rome there you either made him say or said it for him for in Print it is and under his Name That since 't is now defined by the Church a man is as much bound to believe there is a Purgatory as that there is a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead How far comes this short of Blasphemy to make the Trinity and Purgatory things alike and equally Credible Num. 18 Yea but A. C. will give you a Reason why no man may deliberately doubt much less deny any thing that is defined by a General Councel And his Reason is Because every such doubt and denyal is a breach from the one saving faith This is a very good reason if it be true But how appears it to be true How why it takes away saith A. C. Infallible credit from the Church and so the Divine Revelation not being sufficiently applied it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods providence breed Infallible Belief in us Why but deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny upon the grounds and in the manner aforesaid doth not take away Infallible credit from the whole Church but onely from the Definition of a General Councel some way or other misled And that in things not absolutely Necessary to all mens Salvation for of such things A. C. here speaks expresly Now to take away Infallible credit from some Definitions of General Councels in things not absolutely necessary to Salvation is no breach upon the one saving Faith which is necessary nor upon the Credit of the Catholike Church of Christ in things absolutely necessary for which onely it had Infallible assistance promised So that no breach being made upon the Faith nor no Credit which ever it had being taken from the Church the Divine Revelation may be and is as sufficiently applied as ever it was and in the ordinary course of Gods providence may breed as Infallible belief in things necessary to Salvation as ever it did Num. 19 But A. C. will prove his Reason before given and therefore he asks out of S. Paul Rom. 10 Now shall men believe unless they hear How shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they preach to wit Infallibly â—â—less they be senâ— that is from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit Here 's that which I have twice at least spoken to already namely That A. C. by this will make every Priest in the Church of Rome that hath Learning enough to preach and dissents not from that Church an Infallible Preacher which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever assume to himself nor the Church give him And yet the Fathers of the Primitive Church were sent and from God were assisted and by God and did sufficiently propose to men the Divine Revelation and did by it beget and breed up Faith saving Faith in the Souls of men Though no one among them since the Apostles was an Infallible Preacher And A. C. should have done very well here to have made it manifest That this Scripture How shall they preach to wit infallibly is so interpreted by Union Consent of Fathers and Definitions of Councels as he bragged before that they use to interpret Scripture For I do not finde How shall they preach to wit Infallibly to be the Comment of any one of the Fathers or any other approved Author And let him shew it if he can Num. 20 After this for I see the good man is troubled and forward and backward he goes he falls immediately upon this Question If a whole General Councel defining what is Divine Truth be not believed to be sent and assisted by Gods Spirit and consequently of Infallible Credit what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Well first A. C. hath very ill luck in fitting his Conclusion to his Premises and his Consequent to his Antecedent And so 't is here with him For a General Councel may be assisted by God's Spirit and in a great measure too and in a greater than any private man not inspired and yet not consequently be of Infallible credit for all assistance of God's Spirit reaches not up to Infallibility I hope the Antient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted by God's Spirit and in a plentiful measure too and yet A. C. himself will not say they were Infallible And secondly for the Question it self If a General Councel be not what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Truly I 'll make you a ready Answer No man Not the Pope himself No Let God and his Word be true and every man a Lyer Rom. 3. for so more or less every man will be found to be And this is neither dammage to the Church nor wrong to the person of any Num. 21 But then A. C. asks a shrewder Question than this If such a Councel lawfully called continued and confirmed may erre in
Thomas holds the first and Durand the later Then you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and proved it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himself and gives his reason because it is the common Opinion of the School Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther Dispute and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawful for them to say I conceive thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I deny it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The Bishop said That M. Rogers was but a private man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publike Authority be accounted onely a private man c. B. § 13 Num. 1 I said truth when I said M. Rogers was a private man And I take it you will not allow every speech of every 〈…〉 though allowed by Authority to have his Books Printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath been oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church yet I see you mean not to leave it And surely as Controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand But I have long thought it a kinde of descent into Hell to be conversant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seek to blinde the People or cast a mist before evident Truth lest it cause a final descent to that place of Torment But since you will hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers his Exposition or Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us And as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie over the whole Church Shall he have his power over the Catholike Church given him expresly in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he had fed to Confirm and in all these not to erre and fail in his Ministration And is the Catholike Church in and over which he is to do all these great things quite left out of the Scripture Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if he could so prescribe for what he now Claims Num. 2 But what if after all this M. Rogers there says no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge He descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And again Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this Article is M. Rogers We the Church of England or rather his and some others Judgment in the Church of England Num. 3 Now here A. C. will have somewhat again to say though God knows 't is to little purpose 'T is that the Jesuit urged M. Roger's Book because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers if he please But he ought not to say that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed First not because his Book was publikely allowed For many Books among them as well as among us have been Printed by publike Authority as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners and yet containing many things in them of Opinion only or private Judgment which yet is far from the avowed Positive Doctrine of the Church the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words or things controverted And this is more frequent among their School-men than among any of our Controversers as is well known Nor secondly because his Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England For suppose the worst and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title is his private Judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more than I should say every thing said by Thomas or Bonaventure is Angelical or Seraphical Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphical and the other Angetical Doctor And yet their works are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Num. 4 Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to express our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will go far to bring A. C. off whatsoever I shall say against him For first let me instance in any private man that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth he will say he know it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knows Secondly If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much yet he will answer 't is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it that is perhaps it is not the very Title of his Book But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question What Not in any matter Were not Vega and Soto two private men Is it not a matter subject to Question to great Question in these Days Whether a man may be certain of his being in the state of Salvation certitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth not Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the Councel of Trent And yet these two great Fryers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councel and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of
that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Councel which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferencie to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens Num. 2 And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madness of the Protestants A. C. adds That the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may Accuse Witness Judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children How far forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the mean time though I cannot grant her to be either yet let 's suppose her to be both that A. C's Argument may have all the strength it can have Nor shall it force me as plausible as it seems to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shock of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would fain have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or took it upon him to be Accuser and Witness and Judge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Liberty to Judge between them For the great Philosopher tells us That the Chief Magistrate is Custos juris the Guardian and keeper of the Law and if of the Law then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him And even Tiberius himself in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take to himself he put him off thus No the Laws grow less where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or Witness than themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the loss of Education they punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are grown up and come to some full use of their own Reason the Apostles Rule is Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevail not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a son against unnatural Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over-Imperious Father And an express Law there was among the Jews Deut. 21. when Children were grown up and fell into great extremities that the Parents should then bring them to the Magistrate and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law the Scripture and suppose her a Mother yet there is or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are grown up if she forget all good Nature and turn Stepdame to them Num. 3 Well the Reason why the Jesuite asked the Question Quo Judice Who should be Judge He says was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Judges in their own Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he knew the Jesuites mind as well as himself as sure I think he doth That the Jesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the General Church as the Jesuite understood my meaning The Jesuite here took my meaning right For I confess I said there were Errors in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the General Church could not or would not Reform such it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves But then I added That the General Church not universally taken but in these Western parts fell into those Errors being swayed in these later Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome under whose Government it was for the most part forced And all men of understanding know how oft and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it in any Body Natural Politick or Ecclesiastical Num. 4 Yea but A. C. tells us That never any Competent Judge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power on Earth or in Hell it self can so far prevail against the General Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches And for proof of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. John 14. and 16. In this troublesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in general The Church of England is content to pass that over And though She tells us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in general She is modestly silent But since A. C. will needs have it That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith he should do well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to all mens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most Lear ned Protestants grant it But if he mean that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in general which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles is yet made a Point of Faith and may prove dangerous to the Salvation of some which believe it and practise after it as his words seem to import especially if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as Bellarm. says She may and yet not Erre Then perhaps it may be said and without any wrong to the Catholike Church that the Whole Militant Church hath
if being called will not be of one mind Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this Case provided no Rule no Judge Infallibly to determine Controversies and to procure Unity and Certainty of Belief Indeed the Protestants admit no Infallible Means Rule or Judge but only Scripture which every man may interpret as he pleaseth and so all shall be uncertain Truly I must confess there are many Impediments to hinder the Calling of a General Councel You know in the Ancient Church there was hinderance enough and what hurt it wrought And afterward though it were long first there was provision made for frequent calling of Councels and yet no Age since saw them called according to that Provision in every Circumstance therefore Impediments there were enough or else some declined them wilfully though there were no Impediments Nor will I deny but that when they were called there were as many Practices to disturb or pervert the Councels And these Practices were able to keep many Councels from being all of one mind But if being called they will not be of one mind I cannot help that Though that very not agreeing is a shrewd sign that the other Spirit hath a party there against the Holy Ghost Now A. C. would know what is to be done for Re-uniting of a Church divided in Doctrine of the Faith when this Remedy by a General Councel cannot be had Sure Christ our Lord saith he hath provided some Rule some Judge in such and such like Cases to procure unity and certainty of Belief I believe so too for he hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture And that by the manifest Places in it which need no Dispute no External Judge is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief in Necessaries to Salvation And in Non necessariis in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation Num. 4 And therefore A. C. does not well to make that a Crime that the Protestants admit no Infallible Rule but the Scripture only Or as he I doubt not without some scorn terms it beside only Scripture For what need is there of another since this is most Infallible and the same which the Ancient Church of Christ admitted And if it were sufficient for the Antient Church to guide them and direct their Councels why should it be now held insufficient for us at least till a free General Councel may be had And it hath both the Conditions which Bellarmine requires to a Rule Namely that it be Certain and that it be Known For if it be not certain it is no Rule and if it be not known 't is no Rule to us Now the Romanists dare not deny but this Rule is Certain and that it is sufficiently Known in the manifest Places of it and such as are necessary to Salvation none of the Antients did ever deny so there 's an Infallible Rule Num. 5 Nor need there be such fear of a Private Spirit in these manifest things which being but read or heard teach themselves Indeed you Romanists had need of some other Judge and he a propitious one to crush the Pope's more powerful Principality out of Pasce oves feed my sheep And yet this must be the meaning if you will have it whether Gideon's fleece be wet or dry Judg. 6. that is whether there be dew enough in the Text to water that sense or no. But I pray when God hath left his Church this Infallible Rule what warrant have you to seek another You have shewed us none yet what e're you think you have And I hope A. C. cannot think it follows that Christ our Lord hath provided no Rule to determine necessary Controversies because he hath not provided the Rule which he would have Num. 6 Besides let there be such a living Judge as A. C. would have and let the Pope be he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all Times from Renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For Oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith And what will A. C. in this Case do Will he send Christ our Lord to provide another Rule than the Decision of the Bishop of Rome because he can neither make Unity nor Certainty of Belief And as 't is most apparent he cannot do it de facto so neither hath he power from Christ over the Whole Church to do it nay out of all doubt 't is not the least reason why de facto he hath so little success because de Jure he hath no power given But since A. C. requires another Judge besides the Scripture and in Cases when either the time is so difficult that a General Councel cannot be called or the Councel so set that they will not agree Let 's see how he proves it Num. 7 'T is thus every earthly Kingdom saith he when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all Occasions why doth he not add here And which being called will not always be of one mind as he did add it in Case of the Councel hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Unity in all Temporal Affairs And shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of the Holy-Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one Chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Unity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This is a very plausible Argument with the Many But the foundation of it is but a Similitude and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing And so I doubt it will prove here I 'le observe Particulars as they lie in order Num. 8 And first he will have the whole Militant Church for of that we speak a Kingdom But this is not certain For they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successors in an Aristocratical or rather a Mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one Body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very Expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the Places of Scripture and other Arguments brought by Bellarm. to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought it fitter to govern it Aristocratically by Divers
so to be amended in a later Councel I think will thus appear First his word is Emendari to be amended which properly supposes for errour and faultiness not Explanation And S. Augustine needed not to go to a word of such a forced sense nor sure would especially in a Disputation against Adversaries Next S. Augustine's Dispute is against S. Cyprian and the Councel held at Carthage about Baptism by Hereticks in which Point that National Councel erred as now all agree And S. Augustine's Deduction goes on Scripture cannot be other than right that is the Praerogative of it but Bishops may and be Reprehended for it if peradventure they erre from the Truth and that either by more Learned Bishops or by Provincial Councels Here Reprehension and that for deviation from the Truth is I hope Emendation properly and not Explanation onely Then Provincial Councels they must yeeld to General And to yeeld is not in case of Explanation onely Then it follows That even Plenary Councels themselves may be amended the former by the later still retaining that which went before If peradventure they erred or made deviation from the Truth And if this be not so I would fain know why in one and the same tenour of words in one and the same continuing Argument and Deduction of S. Augustine Reprehendi should be in proper sense and à veritate deviatum in proper sense and Cedere in proper sense and onely Emendari should not be proper but stand for an Explanation If you say the Reason is because the former words are applied to men and National Councels both which may erre but this last to General Councels which cannot erre This is most miserable Begging of the Principle and thing in Question Num. 5 Again S. Augustine concludes there That the General Councel preceding may be amended by General Councels that follow When that is known which lay hid before Not as Stapleton would have it Lay hid as in the seed of Ancient Doctrine onely and so needed nothing but explanation but hid in some darkness or ambiguity which led the former into errour and mistaking as appears For S. Augustine would have this amendment made without Sacrilegious Pride doubtless of insulting upon the former Councel that was to be amended and without swelling Arrogancy sure against the weakness in the former Councel and without contention of envie which uses to accompany mans frailty where his or his friends Errour is to be amended by the later Councel and in holy Humility in Catholike Peace in Christian Charity no question that a Schism be not made to tear the Church as here the Donatists did while one Councel goes to reform the lapse of another if any be Now to what end should this Learned Father be so zealous in this work this highest work that I know in the Church Reviewing and Surveying General Councels to keep off Pride and Arrogance and Envie and to keep all in Humility Peace and Charity if after all this noise he thought later Councels might do nothing but amend that is explain the former Num. 6 That Shift which Bellarmine addes to these two of Stapleton is poorest of all namely That S. Augustine speaks of unlawful Councels and it is no question but they may be amended as the second Ephesine was at Chalcedon For this Answer hath no Foundation but a peradventure Nor durst Bellarmine rest upon it And most manifest it is that S. Augustine speaks of Councels in general that they may erre and be amended in Doctrine of Faith and in case they be not amended that then they be condemned and rejected by the Church as this of Ephesus and divers others were And as for that meer Trick of the Popes Instruction Approbation or Confirmation to preserve it from Errour or ratifie it that it hath not erred the most ancient Church knew it not He had his Suffrage as other great Patriarchs had and his Vote was highly esteemed not onely for his Place but for worth too as Popes were then But that the Whole Councel depended upon him and his Confirmation was then unknown and I verily think at this day not Believed by the Wise and Learned of his Adherents Num. 1 Fifthly it must be considered If a General Councel may erre who shall judge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is less then a General Councel Why but this yet lays all open to uncertainties and makes way for a Whirlwind of a Private Spirit to ruffie the Church No neither of these First all is not open to uncertainties For General Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a Great and an Awful Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith keeping themselves to God's Rule and not attempting to make a New of their own and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them Nor doth it make way for the Whirlwind of a private Spirit For private Spirits are too giddy to rest upon Scripture and to heady and shallow to be acquainted with Demonstrative Arguments And it were happy for the Church if she might never be troubled with Private Spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotly objected against Hooker the Authour calls him a Wise Protestant yet turns thus upon him If a Councel must yeeld to a Demonstrative Proof Who shall judge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For every man that will kick against the Church will say the Scripture he urges is evident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leave all to the wildness of a Private Spirit Can any ingenuous man read this Passage in Hooker and dream of a Private Spirit For to the Question Who shall judge Hooker answers as if it had been then made An Argument necessary and Demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to think or say it is Demonstrative The Light then of a Demonstrative Argument is the Evidence which it self hath in it self to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a Quarrel be made Who shall decide it No Question but a General Councel not a Private Spirit first in the intent of the Authour for Hooker in all that Discourse makes the Sentence of the Councel binding and therefore that is made Judge not a Private Spirit And then for the Judge of the Argument it is as plain For if it be evident to any man then to so many Learned men as are in a Councel doubtless And if they cannot but assent it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave
edification of the Church Now if he do mean to prove the Pope's Infallibility by this place in his Pastoral Judgement Truly I do not see how this can possibly be collected thence Christ gave some to be Apostles for the Edification of his Church Therefore S. Peter and all his Successors are Infallible in their Pastoral Judgement And if he mean to prove the Continued Visible Succession which he saith is to be found in no Church but the Romane there 's a little more shew but to no more purpose A little more shew Because it is added Vers. 13. That the Apostles and Prophets c. shall continue at their work and that must needs be by Succession till we all meet in unity and perfection of Christ. But to no more purpose For 't is not said that they or their Successors should continue at this work in a personal uninterrupted Succession in any one Particular Church Romane or other Nor ever will A. C. be able to prove that such a Succession is necessary in any one particular place And if he could yet his own words tell us the Personal Succession is nothing if the Faith be not brought down without change from Christ and his Apostles to this day and so to the end of the world Now here 's a piece of Cunning too The Faith brought down unchanged For if A. C. mean by the Faith the Creed and that in Letter 't is true the Church of Rome hath received and brought down the Faith unchanged from Christ and his Apostles to these our days But then 't is apparently false That no Church differing from the Romane in Doctrine hath kept that Faith unchanged and that by a visible and continued Succession For the Greek Church differs from the Romane in Doctrine and yet hath so kept that Faith unchanged But if he mean by the Faith unchanged and yet brought down in a continual visible Succession not onely the Creed in Letter but in Sense too And not that onely but all the Doctrinal Points about the Faith which have been Determined in all such Councels as the present Church of Rome allows as most certainly he doth so mean and 't is the Controversie between us then 't is most certain and most apparent to any understanding man that reads Antiquity with an impartial eye that a Visible Continual Succession of Doctors and Pastors have not brought down the Faith in this sence from Christ and his Apostles to these days of ours in the Romane Church And that I might not be thought to say and not to prove I give instance And with this that if A. C. or any Jesuite can prove That by a Visible Continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist Or the Eucharist in one kinde Or Purgatory Or worship of Images Or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism Or the Power of the Pope over a General Councel Or his Infallibility with or without it Or his Power to depose Princes Or the publike Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other Points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause Beside for Succession in the general I shall say this 'T is a great happiness where it may be had Visible and Continued and a great Conquest over the Mutability of this present world But I do not finde any one of the Ancient Fathers that makes Local Personal Visible and Continued Succession a Necessary Signe or Mark of the true Church in any one place And where Vincentius Lirinensts calls for Antiquity Universality and Consent as great Notes of Truth he hath not one word of Succession And for that great place in Irenaeus where that Ancient Father reckons the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to Eleutherius who sate in his time and saith That this is a most full and ample proof or Ostension Vivificatricem Fidem that the Living and Life-giving Faith is from the Apostles to this day Conserved and delivered in Truth And of which place Bellarmine boasts so much Most manifest it is in the very same place that Irenaeus stood as much upon the Succession of the Churches then in Asia and of Smyrna though that no prime Apostolical Church where Polycarpus sate Bishop as of the Succession at Rome By which it is most manifest that it is not Personal Succession onely and that tyed to one Place that the Fathers meant but they taught that the Faith was delivered over by Succession in some places or other still to their present time And so doubtless shall be till Time be no more I say The Faith But not every Opinion true or false that in tract of time shall cleave to the Faith And to the Faith it self and all it's Fundamentals we can shew as good and full a Succession as you And we pretend no otherwise to it than you do save that We take in the Greeks which you do not Only we reject your gross Superstitions to which you can shew no Succession from the Apostles either at Rome or else-where much less any one uninterrupted And therefore he might have held his peace that says It is evident that the Roman Catholike Church only hath had a Constant and uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and Doctors and Tradition of Doctrine from Age to Age. For most evident it is That the Tradition of Doctrine hath received both Addition and Alteration since the first five hundred years in which Bellarmine confesses and B. Jewel maintains the Churches Doctrine was Apostolical Num. 8 And once more before I leave this Point Most evident it is That the Succession which the Fathers meant is not tyed to Place or Person but 't is tyed to the Verity of Doctrine For so Tertullian expresly Beside the order of Bishops running down in Succession from the beginning there is required Consanguinitas Doctrinae that the Doctrine be allyed in blood to that of Christ and his Apostles So that if the Doctrine be no kinnâ— to Christ all the Succession become strangers what nearness soever they pretend And Irenaeus speaks plainer than he We are to obey those Presbyters which together with the Succession of their Bishopricks have received Charisma Veritatis the gift of truth Now Stapleton being press'd hard with these two Authorities first Confesses expresly That Succession as it is a Note of the true Church is neither a Succession in place onely nor of Person onely but it must be of true and sound Doctrine also And had he stayed here no man could have said better But then he saw well he must quit his great Note of the Church-Succession That he durst not doe Therefore he begins to cast about how he may answer these Fathers and yet maintain Succession Secondly therefore he tells us That that which these Fathers say do nothing weaken Succession but that it shall still be a main Note of the true
sequentes quà m si Deam ipsam sequerentur ‖ S. Joh. 5. 47. * Hom. 57. in S. Joh. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †a S. Pet. 1. 19. ‖ S. Chrysost. ubi suprd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Tantâ hominum temporam consensione firmatum S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccles. Cath. c. 29. Ii Libri quoquo modo se habent sancti tamen Divinarum Rerum pleni propè totius generis humani Confessione diffamantur c. S. Aug. de util Cred. c. 7. L. 13. cont Faust. c. 15. †Super omnes omnium Gentium Liter as S. Aug. 11. de Civit. Dei c. 1. * Incertum esse non potest hos esse Libros Canonicos Wal. Doct. sid l. 2. a. 2. c. 20. †Canus Loc. l. 2. c. 8. facit Ecclesiam Causam sine qua non ‖ §. 16. * Inter omnes penè constat aut certè id quod satis est inter me illos cum quibus nunc agitur convenit hoc c. Sic in aliâ Causâ cont Manichaeos S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl Cath. c. 4. †Vin. Lir. cont Haeres c. 2. * Contra Epist. Fund c. 5. * Pamel in Summar Lib ... Videns Disputationibus nihil aut parâ—m profici †Acts 6. 9. ‖ Acts 9. 29. * Acts 19. 17. †Debilitatur generosa indoles conject a in argutias Sen. Ep. 48. ‖ Here A. C. hath nothing to say but that the Jesuite did not affirm That the Lady asked this Question in this or any other precise form No why the words preceding are the Jesuites own Therefore if these were not the Ladies words he wrongs her not I him * Integritatâ— custodes rect a sectantes De vera Relig. c. 5. †Hooker l. 3. §. 1. Junius l. de Ec. c. 17. Falluntur qui Ecclesiam negant quia Papatus in eâ est Reynold Thes. 5. Negat tantum esse Catholicam vel sanum ejus membrum Nay the very Separatists grant it Fr. Johnson in his Treatise called A Christian Plea Printed 1617. p. 123 c. ‖ Si tamen bono ingenio Pietas Paâ— quaedam mentis accedat fine quà de sanctis rebus nihil prorsus intelligi potest S. Aug. de Util. Cred. c. 18. A. C. p. 53. A. C. p. 54. * And after A. C. saith again p. 54. That the Lady did not ask the Question as if she meant to be satisfied with bearing what I said So belike they take Caution before-hand for that too That whatever we say unless we grant what they would have their Proselytes shall not be satisfied with it A. C. p. 54. * §. 20. N. 1. †And though Stapleton to magnifie the Church of Rome is pleased to say Apud vetâ—râ—s pro eodâ—m habita fuit Ecclesia Romana Ecclesia Catholica yet he is so modest as to give this Reason of it Quia ejus Communio â—rat evidentèr certiâ—â—â—â—â— cum toâ—d Catholied Relect. Con. 1. q. 5. A. 3 Lo The Communion of the Roman was then with the Catholike Church not of the Catholike with it And S. Cyprian imployed his Legates Caldonius and Fortunatus not to bring the Catholike Church to the Communion of Rome but Rome to the Catholike Church Elâ—borarâ—nt â—t ad Catholica Ecclessae unitatem sâ—issâ— Corporis membrâ— câ—â—pâ—â—erent c. Now the Members of this Rent and torn Body were they of Rome then in an open Schism between Corneliuâ— and Nâ—vatian S. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 10. A. C. p. 54. * Câ—m infiniti Abusus Schismata quoque Haereses per totum nunc Christianum Orbem invalescant Ecclesiam Dei legitimâ indigere Reformatione nemiâ—◠〈◊〉 â—ertum â—rit Peâ— de Aliâ—co Card. Camerâ— ceâ—â—iâ— L. de Refor Ecclesiae And if Schisms and Heresies did then invade the whole Christian world let A. C. consider how Rome sâ—aped free And I think Caâ—eracâ—â—sis was in this Prophetical For sixty years and more before Luther was born and so before the great troubles which have since fallen upon all Christendom he used these words in the Book which himself delivered up in the Councel of Constance Nisi celeriteâ— fiat Reformatio audeo dicere quod licet magna siâ—t quae videmus tamen in brevi incomparabiliter majora vidâ—bimus Et post istae â—onâ—â—rua tam â—â—rreâ—â—a majora alia audiâ—mus c. Camet l. de Refor Eccles. And it will hardly sink into any mans judgment that so great a man as Pet. â—s Aliacâ— was in that Church should speak thus if he did not see some Errors in the Doctrine of that Church as well as in Manners Nay Cassander though he lived and dyed in the Communion of the Church of Rome yet found fault with some of her Doctrines Consult Artiâ— 21 22. And Pope â—uliâ—â—â— the third Professed â—e Bononi◠〈◊〉 Sacramentorum Ecclesiae ministerium iâ—â—umerabiles Abusus irrepâ—isse Espencaeus in Tit. 1. and yet he was onâ— of the Bishops nay the chief Legat in the Councel of Trent †A. C. p. â—4 ‖ S. Mat. 13. 25. * For A. C. knows well what strange Doctrines are charged upon some Popes And all Bellarmines labour though great and full of Art is not able to wish them clean 〈◊〉 â— 4. de Râ—m Pont. c. 8 c. Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâ—ssâ— in Ecclesid Christi luâ—e claâ—â—â—s est Et proâ—â—tuâ—â—d â—aco Almain Opusâ— de Author Ecclesiae c. 10. And Cassander speaks it out more plainly Utiâ—am 〈◊〉 He speaks of the Bishops and Rectors in the Roman Church ◠〈◊〉 haec Informaâ—â—◠〈◊〉 essâ—â— non Ipsi â—arum Superstitionum Auctores essent vel certè 〈◊〉 iâ— Animi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—lâ—quand◠〈◊〉 caâ—sâ nutrirâ—â—â— Cassand Consultâ— Art 21. versus finem * Grave omniâ—â— crimen sâ—â— desensionem longinquam non requirit satis est enim negare sicut pro Ecclesiâ olim S. Aug. de â—til Cred. c. ◠◠†Hanc quae respectâ— hominum Ecclesia dicitur observare ejusque Communionem coâ—ere debemus Calv. Inst. 4. c. 1. â— 7. ‖ Rectâ—â—ciaâ— not â—eâ—issâ— reâ—â—dâ—udo â— vobis c. Lucif L. dâ— non coâ—â—â—nitudâ— cum â—aereticis He speaks of the Arrians and I shall not compare you with them nor give any Offence that way I shall only draw the general Argument from it thus If the Orthodox did well in departing from the Arrians then the Schism was to be imputed to the Arrians although the Orthodox did depart from them Otherwise if the Orthodox had been guilty of the Schism he could not have said Rectè scias nos fecisse recedeâ—do For it cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schism There may be therefore a necessary separation which yet incurs not the blame of Schism and that is when Doctrines are taught contrary to the Catholike Faith †S. Matth. 18. 7. A. C. â— 55 56. * A. C. p. 57. A. C. p. 55. A. C. p. 56. †Conventus fuit Ordinum Imperii