Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
not obvious to every eye there And that this is S. Augustine's meaning is manifest by himself who best knew it For when he had said as he doth That to baptize children is Antiqua fidei Regula the Ancient Rule of Faith and the constant Tenet of the Church yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also For when Pelagius urged That Infants needed not to be baptized because they had no Original Sin S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only but argues from the Text thus What need have Infants of Christ if they be not sick For the sound need not the Physitian S. Mat. 9. And again is not this said by Pelagins ut non accedaent ad Jesum That Infants may not come to their Saviour Sed clamat Jesus but Jesus cries out Suffer Little ones to come unto me S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvine Namely That all men acknowledge the Baptism of Infants to descend from Apostolical Tradition And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church Which he speaks not in regard of Tradition but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scripture over and above Tradition As for Tradition I have said enough for that and as much as A. C. where 't is truly Apostolical And yet if any thing will please him I will add this concerning this particular The Baptizing of Infants That the Church received this by Tradition from the Apostles By Tradition And what then May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition I hope A. C. will never say so For certainly in Doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolical as that which hath a root and a Foundation in Scripture For Apostles cannot write or deliver contrary but subordinate and subservient things F. I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are balieved to be Scripture yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be proved B. § 16 Num. 1 I did never love too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel and circle him so long between proving Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Devil find a means to dispute him into Infidelity and make him believe neither I hope this is no part of your meaning Yet I doubt this Question How do you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harm than you will be ever able to help by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted upon by you and is in it self a matter of such Consequence I will sift it a little farther Num. 2 Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Divinity have used divers means to prove it All have not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolve Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into only Tradition For only and no other proof are equal To prove the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God there are several Offers at divers proofs For first some fly to the Testimony and witness of the Church and her Tradition which constantly believes and unanimously delivers it Secondly some to the Light and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it self with other internal proofs which are observed in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoever Thirdly some to the Testimony of the Holy Ghost which clears up the light that is in Scripture and seals this Faith to the Souls of men that it is Gods Word Fourthly all that have not imbrutished themselves and sunk below their species and order of Nature give even Natural Reason leave to come in and make some proof and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments And this must be admitted if it be but for Pagans and Insidels who either consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. and that is done by this very evidence Num. 3 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church which is your way That taken and considered alone it is so far from being the only that it cannot be a sufficient Proof to believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God For that which is a full and sufficient proof is able of it self to settle the Soul of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to do this For it may be further asked Why we should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered We may believe Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded of you How that may appear And if this be demanded either you must say you have it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit you object to other men or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture as all of you do And that very offer to prove it out of Scripture is a sufcient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher Proof than the Churches Tradition which in your Grounds is or may be Questionable till you come thither Besides this is an Inviolable ground of Reason That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit than the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith The Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the Conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible than the Articles of the Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Resolved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony But this your Learned and wary men deny And therefore I hope your self dare not affirm Num. 4 Again if the Voyce of the Church saying the Books of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God be the formal Object of Faith upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my self then every man not only may but ought to resolve his Faith into the Voyce or Tradition of the Church for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formal Object of the Faith But nothing can be more evident than this That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church Therefore neither is that Testimony or Tradition alone the formal Object of Faith The Learned of your own part grant this Although in that Article of the Creed I believe the Catholike Church
you are bound in Charity to believe us unless you can prove the Contrary For I know no other proof to men of any Point of Faith but Confession of it and Subscription to it And for these particulars we have made the one and done the other So 't is no bare saying but you have all the proof that can be had or that ever any Church required For how far that Belief or any other sinks into a mans heart is for none to judge but God Num. 3 Next A. C. Answers That if to say this be a sufficient Cause of Considence he marvels why I make such difficulty to be Confident of the Salvation of Romane Catholikes who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants do Truly to say this is not a sufficient cause but to say and believe it is And to take off A. C's wonder why I make difficulty great difficulty of the salvation of Romane Catholikes who he says believe all this and in a far better manner than Protestants do I must be bold to tell him That Romanists are so far from believing this in a better manner than we do that under favour they believe not part of this at all And this is most manifest For the Romanists dare not believe but as the Romane Church believes And the Romane Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture and the Creeds in the sense in the which the Ancient Primitive Church received them For the Primitive Church never interpreted Christ's descent into Hell to be no lower than Limbus Patrum Nor did it acknowledge a Purgatory in a side-part of Hell Nor did it ever interpret away half the Sacrament from Christ's own Institution which to break Stapleton confesses expresly is a Damnable Errour Nor make the Intention of the Priest of the Essence of Baptism Nor believe Worship due to Images Nor dream of a Transubstantiation which the Learned of the Romane party dare not understand properly for a change of one substance into another for then they must grant that Christ's real and true Body is made of the Bread and the Bread changed into it which is properly Transubstantion Nor yet can they express it in a credible way as appears by Bellarmine's Struggle about it which yet in the end cannot be or be called Transubstantiation and is that which at this day is a scandal to both Jew and Gentile and the Church of God Num. 4 For all this A. C. goes on and tells us That they of Rome cannot be proved to depart from the Foundation so much as Protestants do So then We have at last a Confession here that they may be proved to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so far as the Protestants do I do not mean to Answer this and prove that the Romanists do depart as far or farther from the Foundation than the Protestants for then A. C. would take me at the same lift and say I granted a departure too Briefly therefore I have named here more Instances than one In some of which they have erred in the Foundation or very neer it But for the Church of England let A. C. instance if he can in any one Point in which She hath departed from the Foundation Well that A. C. will do For he says The Protestants erre against the Foundation by denying infallible Authority to a General Councel for that is in effect to deny Infallibility to the whole Catholike Church No there 's a great deal of difference between a General Councel and the whole Body of the Church Aud when a General Councel erres as the second of Ephesus did on t of that great Catholike Body another may be gathered as was then that of Chalcedon to do the Truth of Christ that right which belongs unto it Now if it were all one in effect to say a General Councel can erre and that the Whole Church can erre there were no Remedy left against a General Councel erring which is your Case now at Rome and which hath thrust the Church of Christ into more straits than any one thing besides But I know where you would be A General Councel is Infallible if it be confirmed by the Pope and the Pope he is Infallible else he could not make the Councel so And they which deny the Councels Infallibility deny the Pope's which confirms it And then indeed the Protestants depart a mighty way from this great Foundation of Faith the Popes Infallibility But God be thanked this is onely from the Foundation of the present Romane Faith as A. C. and the Jesuite call it not from any Foundation of the Christian Faith to which this Infallibility was ever a stranger Num. 5 From Answering A. C. falls to asking Questions I think he means to try whether he can win any thing upon me by the cunning way A multis Interrogationibus simul by asking many things at once to see if any one may make me slip into a Confession inconvenient And first he asks How Protestants admitting no Infallible Rule of Faith but Scripture onely can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire Scripture and Creed and the Four first General Councels and in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitive Church believed 'T is just as I said Here are many Questions in one and I might easily be caught would I answer in gross to them all together but I shall go more distinctly to work Well then I admit no ordinary Rule left in the Church of Divine and Infallible Verity and so of Faith but the Scripture And I believe the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church Then by all other credible Motives as is before expressed And last of all by the light which shines in the Scripture it self kindled in Believers by the Spirit of God Then I believe the entire Scripture Infallibly and by a Divine Infallibility am sure of my Object Then am I as sure of my Believing which is the Act of my Faith conversant about this Object For no man believes but he must needs know in himself whether he believes or no and wherein and how far he doubts Then I am Infallibly assured of my Creed the Tradition of the Church inducing and the Scripture confirming it And I believe both Scripture and Creed in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed them and am sure that I do so Believe them because I cross not in my Belief any thing delivered by the Primitive Church And this again I am sure of because I take the Belief of the Primitive Church as it is expressed and delivered by the Councels and Ancient Fathers of those times As for the Four Councels if A. C. ask how I have them that is their true and entire Copies I answer I have them from the Church-Tradition onely And that 's Assurance enough for this And so I am fully as sure as A. C.
is or can make me But if he ask how I know infallibly I believe them in their true and uncorrupted sense Then I answer There 's no man of knowledge but he can understand the plain and simple Decision expressed in the Canon of the Councel where 't is necessary to Salvation And for all other debates in the Councels or Decisions of it in things of less moment 't is not necessary that I or any man else have Infallible Assurance of them though I think 't is possible to attain even in these things as much Infallible Assurance of the uncorrupted sense of them as A. C. or any other Jesuites have Num. 6 A. C. asks again What Text of Scripture tells That Protestants now living do believe all this or that all this is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Writings of the Fathers and Councels which now are in the Protestants hands Good God! Whither will not a strong Bias carry even a learned Judgment Why what Consequence is there in this The Scripture now is the onely Ordinary Infallible Rule of Divine Faith Therefore the Protestants cannot believe all this before mentioned unless a particular Text of Scripture can be shewed for it Is it not made plain before how we believe Scripture to be Scripture and by Divine and Infallible Faith too and yet we can shew no particular Text for it Beside were a Text of Scripture necessary yet that is for the Object and the thing which we are to believe not for the Act of our believing which is meerly from God and in our selves and for which we cannot have any Warrant from or by Scripture more than that we ought to believe but not that we in our particular do believe The rest of the Question is far more inconsequent VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are in Protestants hands For first we have the same Bibles in our hands which the Romanists have in theirs Therefore either we are Infallibly sure of ours or they are not Infallibly sure of theirs For we have the same Book and delivered unto us by the same hands and all is expressed in ours that is in theirs Nor is it of moment in this Argument that we account more Apocryphal than they do For I will acknowledge every Fundamental point of Faith as proveable out of the Canon as we account it as if the Apocryphal were added unto it Secondly A. C. is here extreamly out of himself and his way For his Question is VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which we have All this All what Why before there is mention of the four General Councels and in this Question here 's mention of the Writings of the Fathers and the Councels And what will A. C. look that we must shew a Text of Scripture for all this and an express one too I thought and do so still 't is enough to ground Belief upon Necessary Consequence out of Scripture as well as upon express Text. And this I am sure of that neither I nor any man else is bound to believe any thing as Necessary to Salvation be it found in Councels or Fathers or where you will if it be Contrary to express Scripture or necessary Consequence from it And for the Copies of the Councels and Fathers which are in our hands they are the same that are in the hands of the Romanists and delivered to Posterity by Tradition of the Church which is abundantly sufficient to warrant that So we are as Infallibly sure of this as 't is possible for any of you to be Nay are we not more sure For we have used no Index Expurgatorius upon the Writings of the Fathers as you have done So that Posterity hereafter must thank us for true Copies both of Councels and Fathers and not you Num. 7 But A. C. goes on and asks still Whether Protestants be Infallibly sure that they rightly understand the sense of all which is expressed in their Books according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church and the Fathers which were present at the four first General Councels A. C. may ask everlastingly if he will ask the same over and over again For I pray wherein doth this differ from his Question save onely that here Scripture is not named For there the Question was of our Assurance of the Incorrupted sense And therefore thither I refer you for Answer with this That it is not required either of us or of them that there should be had an Infallible assurance that we rightly understand the sense of all that is expressed in our Books And I think I may believe without sin that there are many things expressed in these Books for they are theirs as well as ours which A. C. and his Fellows have not Infallible assurance that they rightly understand in the sense of the Primitive Church or the Fathers present in those Councels And if they say Yes they can because when a difficulty crosses them they believe them in the Churches sense Yet that dry shift will not serve For belief of them in the Churches sense is an Implicite Faith but it works nothing distinctly upon the understanding For by an Implioite Faith no man can be infallibly assured that he doth rightly understand the sense which is A. C's Question whatever perhaps he may rightly believe And an Implicite Faith and an Infallible understanding of the same thing under the same Considerations cannot possibly stand together in the same man at the same time Num. 8 A. C. hath not done asking yet But he would farther know Whether Protestants can be Infallibly sure that all and onely those points which Protestants account Fundamental and necessary to be expresly known by all were so accounted by the Primitive Church Truly Unity in the Faith is very Considerable in the Church And in this the Protestants agree and as Uniformly as you and have as Infallible Assurance as you can have of all points which they account Fundamental yea and of all which were so accounted by the Primitive Church And these are but the Creed and some few and those Immediate deductions from it And †Tertullian and Ruffinus upon the very Clause of the Catholike Church to decipher it make a recital onely of the Fundamental Points of Faith And for the first of these the Creed you see what the sense of the Primitive Church was by that Famous and known place of Irenaeus where after he had recited the Creed as the Epitome or Brief of the Faith he adds That none of the Governours of the Church be they never so potent to Express them selves can say alia ab his other things from these Nor none so weak in Expression as to diminish this Tradition For since the Faith is One and the same He that can say much of it says no more than he ought Nor doth he diminish it that can say but little And in
of the principal Contents A AFricanes their opposing the Romane Church and separating from it 112. c. they are cursed and damned for it by Eulalius and this accepted by the Pope Ibid. S. Augustine involved in that curse 113 Ja. Almain against the Popes Infallibility 172. his absurd Tenet touching the belief of Scripture and the Church 53 Alphonsus à Castro his confession touching the Popes fallibility 173 his moderation touching heresie 17. his late Editions shrewdly purged 173 S. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury how esteemed of by Pope Urban the second 111 Apocrypha some Books received by the Trent-Fathers which are not by Sextus Senensis 218 Of Appeals to forreign Churches 110 111 112. no Appeal from Patriarchs or Metropolitans ib. Aristotle falsly charged to hold the mortality of the Soul 72 Arrians the large spreading of them 179. wherein they dissented from the Orthodox Christians 201 Assistance what promised by Christ to his Church what not 60 106 c. 151 c. what given to his Church and Pastors thereof 62 64 156 157 166 233 Assurance infallible even by humane proof 80 81 S. Augustine cleared 22 37 38 53 54 82 110 123 c. righted 89 158 159 229 his proofs of Scripture 65 The Author bis small time to prepare for this conference 15. his submission to the Church of England and the Church Catholike 150 151. the Rule of his faith 246. pride imputed to him and retorted upon the imputors 246 247 B BAptism of anointing use of spittle and three dippings in it 44. that of Infants how proved out of Scripture 36 37. acknowledged by some Romanists that it may be proved thence 37. the necessity of it 36. how proved by tradition and S. Augustine's minde therein 37 38. that by Hereticks Schismaticks and Sinners not theirs but Christs 195 S. Basil explained 59 Beatitude supreme how to be attained 73 Belief of some things necessary before they be known 51. Vid. Faith Bellarmine his cunning discovered and confuted 7 8 9 136 his dissent from Stapleton 26. and from Catharinus 32 his absurd and impious tenet touching belief of Scripture confuted 56 Berengarius his gross recantation 214 S. Bernard righted 88 89 Biel his true assertion touching things that be de Fide 252 Bishops their calling and authority over the Inferious Clergy 114 115. their places and precedencies ordered Ibid. the titles given them of old 110. all of the same merit and degree 131 Bodies representing and represented their power priviledges c. compared together 150 c. 171 Britanny of old not subject to the Sea of Rome 111 112. S. Gildas his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the conversion of it 203. and that testimony vindicated ibid. C CAlvin and Calvinists for the Real presence 191 c. 193 Campanella his late Eclogue 138 Campian his boldness 94 Canterbury the ancient place and power of the Archbishops thereof 111 112 Capellus his censure of Batonius 98 Certainty vid. Faith Certainty of Salvation vid. Salvation Christs descent into Hell vid. Descent Church whereon founded 8 9. wherein it differeth from a General Councel 18 no particular one infallible 3 4 58 59 c. not that of Rome 3 4 6 7 c. 11 12. Catholike Church which is it 203. c. her declarations what fundamental what not 20. how far they binde 20 21. her authority not divine 22. not in those things wherein she cannot erre 42. wherein she cannot universally erre 90 91 104 157. what can take holiness from her 91 92. in what points of faith she may erre 104 105. her errours corruptions how and by whom caused 126. what required of her that she may not erre 127. she in the Common-wealth not the Common-wealth in her 132 c. how she must be always visible 207. the invisible in the visible 90. of her double Root 240 241. what the opinion of the Ancients concerning it 237 238 c. 240. A Church and the Church how they differ 82 83 84 c. by what assistance of the Spirit the Church can be made infallible 58. the authority of the Primitive compared with that of the present Church 52 Church of Caesarea her title given by Gregory Naz. 110 Greek Church vid. G. Church of England a part of the Catholike 104 c. where her Doctrine is set down 32 33. her Motherly dealing with her Children ibid. her Articles and Canons maintained 33. of her positive and negative Articles 34 35. her purity 245. how safe to communicate with her 243. what Judges and Rules in things spiritual she hath and acknowledgeth 138. how she is wronged by the Romane 204. Salvation more certain in her than in the Romane 212 c. How one particular Church may judge another 108 c. mutual criminations of the Eastern and Western 116 A Church in Israel after her separation from Judah 97 Church of Rome wherein she hath erred 12 58. sometimes right not so now 85. though she be a true Church yet not Right or Orthodox 82 83. her want of charity 16 17. her determining of too many things the cause of many evils 30 33. her severity in cursing all other Christians 33 34. how fâ—â— she extendeth the authority of her testimony 41. her rash condemning of others 90 92. how she and how other Churches Apostolike 242. how corrupted in Doctrine and Manners 95 96. she not the Catholike Church 120 240 241. false titles given her 237. her belief how different from that of the ancient Church 213. other Churches as well as she called Matres and Originales Ecclesiae 237. A Church at Jerusalem Antioch and probably in England before one at Rome 103. Cardinal Peron his absurd tent that the Romane Church is the Catholike causally 104. vid. Errours Pope Rome Concomitancy in the Eucharist vid. Eucharist Conference the occasion of this 1 2 the Jesuites manner of dealing in this and in two former 311 Confessions Negative made by Churches in what case needful 101 Controversies that in them consent of parties is no proof of truth 188 190 198 c. Counsels their fallibility 150 158 162 163 c. 225. the infallibility they have is not exact but congruous infallibility 166. whence and where it is principally resident 166 172. none of the present Church absolutely infallible 59. confirmation of them by the Pope a Romane novelty 128. who may dispute against them who not 22 25. how inferiours may judge of their decrees 161. a general Councel the onely fit judge of the present Controversies 136 139. and how that to be qualified 99 101 127 145 146 c. the Bishop of Rome not always President in general Councels 140 141. what impediments have been and now are of calling and continuing them 129. what confirmation they need 127 128 147. what of them lawful what not 141 c. what obedience to be yielded to them erring 146 147 168 169 c. what 's the utmost they can do 20. the words Visum est
contaminabant Cyprianum Ibid. sine * Recensuit cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona Euseb. L. 5. Hist. c. 20. De Irenaeo Regula Principalis de quâ— Paracletus agnitus Tert. de Monogam c. 2. And this is true though the Author spake it when he was Lapsed Ipsas Scripturas apprimè tenens S. Hieron ad Marcellum adversus Montanum Tom. 2. Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eâdem sacilitate non contemnitur quâ probatur S. Hieron in S. Matth. 23. Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae vitium vel respuâ—re aliquid corum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est S. Basil. Serm. de Fide Tom. 2. p. 154. Edit Basileae 1565. Contra insurgentes Hereses sâ—pe pugnavi Agraphis verum non alienis à piâ secunâ—â—â— Scripturam sententiâ Ibid p. 153. And before Basil Tertul. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem c. si non est scriptum timeat Hermogenes 〈◊〉 illud adjicientibus vel detrabeatibus destinatum Tertul advers Hermog c. 22. And Paulinus plainly calls it Regulam Directionis Epist. 23. De â—â—c Regulâ— tria observanda sunt 1. Regula est sed à tempore quo scripta 2. Regula est sed per Ecclesiam applicanda non per privatum Spiritum 3. Regula est mensurat omnia quae continet continet autem omnia necessaria ad salutem vel mediatè vel immediatè Et hoc tertium habet Biel. â—â— 3. D. 25. q. â—â—icâ— â—onclus 4. M. And this is all we say Hook L. 5. Eccles. Pol. §. 22. †Regula Catholicae fidei debet esse certa nota Si certa non sit non erit Regula Si nota non sit non erit Regula nobis Bellar. L. 1. de Verbo Dei c. 2. §. 5. Sed nihil est vel certius vel noâ—â—â—s Sacrâ Scripturâ— Bellarm ibid. §. 6. Therefore the Holy Scripture is the Rule of Catholike Faith both in it self and to us also For in things simply necessary to Salvation it is abundantly known and manifest as §. 16. Nu. 5. ‖ Convenit inter nos omnes omninò Haereticos Verbum Dei esse Regulam sidei ex quâ de Dâ—gâ—natibus judicandum sit Bellarm. Praefat. Tom. 1. fine And although there perhaps he includes Traditions yet that was never proved yet Neither indeed can he include Traditions For he speaks of that Word of God upon which all Hereticks consent But concerning Traditions they all consent not That they are a Rule of Faith Therefore he speaks not of them Judg. 6. * For so he affirms p. 58. 1 Cor. 11. 19. A. C. p. 60. * Quâ— subtilissiâ—â— de hoc disputari possunt ità ut non similitudinibus quae plerunque fallunt sed rebus ipsis satisfiat c. S. August L. de Quant Animae cap. 32. Whereupon the Logicians tell us rightly that this is a Fallacie unless it be taken reduplicativè i. e. de similibus qua similia sunt And hence Aristotle himself 2 sop Loc. 32. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rursum in Similibus si similitèr se habent * When Gerson writ his Tract De Auseribilitate Papae sure he thought the Church might continue in a very good Being without a Monarchical Head Therefore in his Judgment the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ Monarchical Gerson par 1. pag. 154. When S. Hierome wrote thus Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est Sacerdotil S. Hieron Epist. ad Evagrium doubtless he thought not of the Roman Bishops Monarchy For what Bishop is of the same Merir or of the same Degree in the Priesthood with the Pope as things are now carried at Rome Affirmaâ—â—ls etiam Patribus Graecis Latinis ignotas esse voces de Petro aut Papa Monarcha Monarchia Nam quod in superioribus observabamus reperiri eas dictiones positas pro Episcopo Episcopatu nihil hoc ad rem sacit Isa Casaub. Exercitatione 15. ad Annales Eccles. Baron §. 12. p. 378. §. 11. p. 360. disertè asserit probat Ecclesie Regimen Aristocraticum fuisse †Bellar. L. 2. de Concil c. 16. §. 1 2 3. ‖ S. Greg. L. 9. Epist. 58. L. 12. Epist 15. * S. Greg. L. 9. Epist. 61. * â—â—â—lar L. â— de Eccles. ◠◠§ Nostrâ— aâ—â—â—â—â— * Non enim Respublica est in Ecclesiâ sed Ecclesia in Republicâ— â— ciâ—â— Imperis R 〈…〉 Optat L. â— a Concil Antioch â— 9. p. 507. b Concil 〈◊〉 1. â— â— Antioch â— 12. c Concil Nic. 1. â— 4. Antioch Can. 9. d Concil Antioch â— 14. e Sed praepâ—â—itur Scriptura S. Aug. L. â— de Baptiâ—â—â—â— Donat. c. 3. f Nam cum Statutum siâ— omnibus nobis c. singulis Pastoribus portio gregis c. S. Cypr. L. 1. Ep. 3. g Bellar. L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 8. L. 2. de Concil c. 16. h Bellar. L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. i A. C. p. 64 65. * Licèt sit Expediens quòd uni Populo partiali fideli praesit unus Episcopus non expedit tamen quod toti populo fideli praesit unus solus Tum quia omnia Negotia unius populi partialis potest sustineve unus solus Nullus autem unus potest â—â—stiâ—ere omnia Negotia etiam majora omnium Christianorum Tum quia minus malum est ut populus partialis parvus inficiatur ab uno Episcopo quà m ut totus vel ferè totus populus Christianus inficiatur ab uno Capite quod omnibus praefit Ockam L. 2. Dial. Tract 1. p. 3. c. 30. ad 8. And besides this of Ockam To that Common Argument That Monarchieal Government is the best and therefore undoubtedly that which Christ instituted for his Church 't is sufficient to Answer That a Monarchy is the best form of Government in one City or Country Arist. L. 8. Moral c. 10. But it follows not That it is the best in respect of the whole world where the Parts are to remote and the dispositions of men so various And therefore Bellarm. himself confesses Monarchiam Aristocratiae Democratiae admiâ—â—tam utiliorem esse in hác vitâ quam simplex Monarchia â— â— L. 1. de Rom. Pout c. 3. §. 1. * In the first Gloss ascribed to Isidore in Gen. 1. 16. 't is Per Solem intelligitur Regnum per Lunam Sacerdotium But Innoceuâ— the Third almost six hundred years after Isidore's death perverts both Text and Gloss. Thus Ad firmamentum Coeli â— â— Universalis Ecclesiae fecit Deus duo magna Iâ—miâ—aria hoc est duas instituit Potestates Pontificalem Regalem c. Ut quanta inter Soleâ— Lunam tanta inter Pountifices Reges differentia cognoscatur Epist. ad Imperat. Constantinopolitanum Decret L. 1. de Majoritate
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
till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the natural man sees some Light of Moral counsel and instruction in Scripture as well as Believers But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light and cannot distinguish between the Sun and twelve to the Pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it have cleared his understanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first Moral Motive to Belief But the Belief it self That the Scripture is the Word of God rests upon the Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed all that which the Church gave in Testimony as will after appear And as in the Voyce of the Primitive and Apostolical Church there was simply Divine Authority delivering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul the Voyce of God i◠plainly heard in Scripture it self And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it And the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace Num. 22 The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish For first you pretend we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture No we do not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and we go to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here we differ we use the Tradition of the present Church as the first Motive not as the Last Resolution of our Faith We Resolve only into Prime Tradition Apostolical and Scripture it self Num. 23 Secondly you pretend we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolical Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods unwritten Word and Divine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Divine Authority Well I Suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Divine but by the present Church yet it doth not follow that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Authority because Divine Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove it For suppose I had not nor could have full assurance of Apostolical Tradition Divine yet the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to move any reasonable man that it is fit he should read the Scripture and esteem very reverently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of Doubt That Scripture is the Word of God Infallible and Divine Num. 24 Thirdly you pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known Lumine suo by the Light and Testimony which it hath in and gives to it self Against this you give reason for your selves and proof from us Your Reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it self then every man that can and doth but read it may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God which we see by daily experience men neither do nor can First it is not absolutely nor universally true There is sufficient Light therefore every man may see it Blinde men are men and cannot see it and sensual men in the Apostles judgment are such Nor may we deny and put out this Light as insufficient because blind eyes cannot and perverse eyes will not see it no more than we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sick cannot eat it Next we do not say That there is such a full light in Scripture as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in Prime Principles Every whole is greater than a Part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carry a natural Light with them and evident for the Terms are no sooner understood then the Principles themselves are fully known to the convincing of mans understanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light we do neither say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man do let him answer for himself The Question is only of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other Principle is an Evidence as well as Knowledge and the Belief is firmer than any Knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine Authority which cannot deceive whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in Deductions from Principles But the Evidence is not so clear For it is of things not seen in regard of the Object and in regard of the Subject that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glass or dark speaking Now God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the Soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church unless you be of Bellarmine's Opinion That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures is not omninò necessary to Salvation Num. 25 The Authority which you pretend against this is out of Hooker Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seem well read tell us That Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his Word for if any one Book of Scripture did give Testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authority of Gods Church Certainly Hooker gives a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelity and integrity in citing him For in the first place Hooker's speech is Scripture it self cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it self can It must needs
ordinarily have Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receive it And in the next place where he speaks so sensibly That Scripture cannot bear witness to it self nor one part of it to another that is grounded upon Nature which admits no created thing to be witness to it self and is acknowledged by our Saviour If I bear witness to my self my witness is not true that is is not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proof nay many other proofs to usher it and lead it in then no Question it can both prove and approve it self His words are So that unless besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another Proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition which no man that hath his brains about him denies In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding up all that Hooker says in these words This other means to assure us besides Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church he wrinkles that Worthy Author desperately and shrinks up his meaning For in the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the Question between Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Belief The Authority of man that is the Name he gives to Tradition is the Koy which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I ask now When a man is entred and hath viewed a house and upon viewing likes it and upon liking resolves unchangeably to dwell there doth he set up his Resolution upon the Key that let him in No sure but upon the Goodness and Commodiousness which he sees in the House And this is all the difference that I know between us in this Point In which do you grant as you ought to do that we resolve our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and we will never deny that Tradition is the Key that lets us in In the latter place Hooker is as plain as constant to himself and Truth His words are The first outward Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our Labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason Here then again in his Judgment Tradition is the first Inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture And Resolution of Faith ever settles upon the Farthest Reason it can not upon the First Inducement So that the State of this Question is firm and yet plain enough to him that will not shut his eyes Num. 26 Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts himself in again and tells me That if I would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men in which sense the Authority of it as himself confesses is but Humane and Fallible c. But as the Tradition of a Company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense I might easily sinde it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Well I have considered The Tradition of the present Church both these ways And I find that A. C. confesses That in the first sense the Tradition of the Church is meer humane Authority and no more And therefore in this sense it may serve for an Introduction to this Belief but no more And in the second sense as it is not the Tradition of a Company of men only but of men assisted by Christ and His Spirit In this second sense I cannot finde that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove That this Company of men the Roman Prelates and their Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility to a Divine Infallibility in this or any other Principle which they teach For every Assistance of Christ and the Blessed Spirit is not enough to make the Authority of any Company of men Divine and infallible but such and so great an Assistance only as is purposely given to that effect Such an Assistance the Prophets under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New had but neither the High-Priest with his Clergy in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it And therefore though at the intreaty of A. C. I have considered this very well yet I cannot no not in this Assisted sense think the Tradition of the present Church Divine and Infallible or such Company of men to be worthy of Divine and infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Which I am sorry A. C. should affirm so boldly as he doth What That Company of men the Roman Bishop and his Clergy of Divine and Infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Good God! Whither will these men go Surely they are wise in their generation but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of Light S. Luk. 16. And could they put this home upon the world as they are gone far in it what might they not effect How might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendom contrary to S. Peters Rule whose Successors certainly in this they are not But I pray if this Company of men be infallibly assisted whence is it that this very Company have erred so dangerously as they have not only in some other things but even in this Particular by equaling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God Which is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it So belike he that hath but half an indifferent eye may see this Assisted Company have erred and yet we must wink in obedience and think them Infallible Num. 27 But A. C. would have me consider again That it is as easie to take the Tradition of the present Church in the two fore-named senses as the present Scriptures printed and approved by men of this Age. For in the first sense The very Scriptures saith he considered as printed and approved by men of this Age can be no more than of Humane Credit But in the second sense as printed and approved by men assisted by God's Spirit for true Copies of that which was first written then we may give Infallible Credit to them Well I
to the Apostles only for the setling of them in all Truth And yet not simply all For there are some Truths saith Saint Augustine which no mans Soul can comprehend in this life Not simply all But all those Truths quae non poterant portare which they were not able to bear when He Conversed with them Not simply all but all that was necessary for the Founding propagating establishing and Confirming the Christian Church But if any man take the boldness to inlarge this Promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles themselves that will fall out which Saint Augustine hath in a manner prophecied Every Heretick will shelter himself and his Vanities under this Colour of Infallible Verity Num. 30 I told you a little before that A. C. his Pen was troubled and failed him Therefore I will help to make out his Inference for him that his Cause may have all the strength it can And as I conceive this is that he would have The Tradition of the present Church is as able to work in us Divine and Infallible Faith That the Scripture is the Word of God As that the Bible or Books of Scripture now printed and in use is a true Copy of that which was first written by the Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and delivered to the Church 'T is most true the Tradition of the present Church is alike operative and powerful in and over both these works but neither Divine nor Infallible in either But as it is the first moral Inducement to perswade that Scripture is the Word of God so is it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have is a true Copy of that which was first written But then as in the former so in this latter for the true Copy The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest upon the naked Tradition of the present Church but must by and with it go higher to other Helps and Assurances Where I hope A. C. will confess we have greater helps to discover the truth or falshood of a Copy than we have means to look into a Tradition Or especially to sift out this Truth That it was a Divine and Infallible Revelation by which the Originals of Scripture were first written That being far more the Subject of this Inquiry than the Copy which according to Art and Science may be examined by former preceding Copies close up to the very Apostles times Num. 31 But A. C. hath not done yet For in the last place he tells us That Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other And truly for my part I shall easily grant him this so he will grant me this other Namely That though they do mutually yet they do not equally confirm the Authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the Authority of Church-Traditions truly so called But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the Authority of the Scripture And this is manifest by A. C.'s own Similitude For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and His Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seal confirm the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seal and hand But the Embassadors word of mouth confirms His Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they called Letters of Credence if they give not him more Credit than he can give them But that which follows I cannot approve to wit That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospel are Gods Legats and the Scriptures Gods Letters which he hath appointed his Legates to deliver and expound So far 't is well but here 's the sting That these Letters do warrant that the People may hear and give Credit to these Legates of Christ as to Christ the King himself Soft this is too high a great deal No Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King himself Nor was any Priest never so lawfully sent ever of that Authority that Christ himself No sure For ye call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so I am saith our Saviour S. John 13. And certainly this did not suddenly drop out of A. C's Pen. For he told us once before That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition that is the lawfully sent Preachers of the Church are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Why but is it possible these men should go thus far to defend an Error be it never so dear unto them They as Christ Divine and Infallible Authority in them Sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith I have often heard some wise men say That the Jesuite in the Church of Rome and the Precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in many things though they would seem most to differ And surely this is one For both of them differ extremely about Tradition The one in magnifying it and exalting it into Divine Authority the other vilifying and depressing it almost beneath Humane And yet even in these different ways both agree in this Consequent That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Nay are the very word of God So A. C. expresly And no less then so have some accounted of their own factious words to say no more than as the Word of God I ever took Sermons and so do still to be most necessary Expositions and Applications of Holy Scripture and a great ordinary means of saving knowledge But I cannot think them or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible The Ancient Fathers of the Church preached far beyond any of these of either faction And yet no one of them durst think himself Infallible much less that whatsoever he preached was the Word of God And it may be Observed too That no men are more apt to say That all the Fathers were but Men and might Erre than they that think their own preachings are Infallible Num. 32 The next thing after this large Interpretation of A. C. which I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God which I here use is the same which the Ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other Arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self This way the Church went in S. Augustine's Time He was no enemy to Church-Tradition yet when he would prove that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the All-sufficient way and gives
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
yet we yeeld as full and firm Assent not only to the Articles but to all the Things rightly deduced from them as we do to the most evident Principles of Natural Reason This Assent is called Faith And Faith being of things not seen Heb. 11. would quite lose its honour nay it self if it met with sufficient Grounds in Natural Reason whereon to stay it self For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Understanding and the Will inclines the Understanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof Not but that there is most full proof of them but because the main Grounds which prove them are concealed from our view and folded up in the unrevealed Counsel of God God in Christ resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness by Faith and not by knowledge that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open And certain it is that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither while they will believe no more than they can clearly know In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left and have these things hid from them S. Matth. 11. Fourthly That the Credit of the Scripture the Book in which the Principles of Faith are written as of other writings also depends not upon the subservient Inducing Cause that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author which leader here is the Church but upon the Author himself and the Opinion we have of his sufficiencie which here is the Holy Spirit of God whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were And therefore the Mysteries of Divinity contained in this Book As the Incarnation of our Saviour The Resurrection of the dead and the like cannot finally be resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church who is but a subservient Cause to lead to the knowledge of the Author but into the Wisdom and Sufficiencie of the Author who being Omnipotent and Omniscient must needs be Infallible Fifthly That the Assurance we have of the Pen-men of the Scriptures the Holy Prophets and Apostles is as great as any can be had of any Humane Authors of like Antiquity For it is morally as evident to any Pagan that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their Names as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs But that the Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them and that they are the very Word of God expressed by them this hath ever been a matter of Faith in the Church and was so even while the Apostles themselves lived and was never a matter of Evidence and Knowledge at least as Knowledge is opposed to Faith Nor could it at any time then be more Demonstratively proved than now I say not scientifice not Demonstratively For were the Apostles living and should they tell us that they spake and writ the very Oracles of God yet this were but their own Testimony of themselves and so not alone able to enforce Belief on others And for their Miracles though they were very Great Inducements of Belief yet were neither they Evident and Convincing Proofs alone and of themselves Both because There may be counterfeit Miracles And because true ones are neither Infallible nor Inseparable Marks of Truth in Doctrine Not Infallible For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Deut. 13. Not proper and Inseparable For all which wrote by Inspiration did not confirm their Doctrine by Miracles For we do not find that David or Solomon with some other of the Prophets did any neither were any wrought by S. John the Baptist S. Joh. 10. So as Credible Signs they were and are still of as much force to us as 't is possible for things on the credit of Relation to be For the Witnesses are many and such as spent their lives in making good the Truth which they saw But that the Workers of them were Divinely and Infallibly inspired in that which they Preacht and Writ was still to the Hearers a matter of Faith and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Days than to us now For had that been Demonstrated or been clear as Prime Principles are in its own light both they and we had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge not by Faith But this is most apparent was not For had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstratively or Intuitively by Discourse or Vision appear as clear to their Auditors as to themselves it did that whatsoever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth all men which had the true use of Reason must have been forced to yeeld to their Doctrine Esay could never have been at Domine quis Lord who hath believed our Report Esay 53. Nor Jeremy at Domine factus sum Lord I am in derision daily Jer. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him as some of them did Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himself had in the Assurance which God gave of it in and by the Resurrection of Christ vers 31. But the way of Knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for mans Salvation For Man having sinned by Pride God thought fittest to humble him at the very root of the Tree of Knowledge and make him deny his understanding and submit to Faith or hazard his happiness The Credible Object all the while that is the Mysteries of Religion and the Scripture which contains them is Divine and Infallible and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation But we and all our Forefathers the Hearers and Readers of them have neither knowledge nor vision of the Prime Principles in or about them but Faith only And the Revelation which was clear to them is not so to us nor therefore the Prime Tradition it self delivered by them Sixthly That hence it may be gathered that the Assent which we yeeld to this main Principle of Divinity That the Scripture is the Word of God is grounded upon no Compelling or Demonstrative Ratiocination but relies upon the strength of Faith more than any other Principle whatsoever For all other necessary Points of Divinity may by undeniable Discourse be inferred out of Scripture it self once admitted but this concerning the Authority of Scripture not possibly But must either be proved by Revelation which is not now to be expected Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it self like the Principles of natural knowledge which Reason alone will never Grant Or by Tradition of the Church both Prime and Present with all other Rational Helps preceding or accompanying the internal Light in Scripture it self which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe yet Light enough it gives not to be a convincing Reason and proof for
first known and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith or Knowledge to be known before it But the Scripture saith he needs Tradition to go before it and introduce the knowledge of it Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a Praecognitum and a thing fore-known Truly I am sorry to see in a man very learned such wilful mistakes For A. C. cannot but perceive by that which I have clearly laid down before That I intended not to speak precisely of a Praecognitum in this Argument But when I said Scriptures were Principles to be supposed I did not I could not intend they were prius cognitae known before Tradition since I confess every where That Tradition introduces the knowledge of them But my meaning is plain That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed before you can dispute this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation Before which Question it must necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides That the Scriptures are the Word of God For if they be not 't is instantly out of all Question that They cannot include all Necessaries to Salvation So 't is a Praecognitum not to Tradition as A. C. would cunningly put upon the Cause but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiencie And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question and proveable in a Superior Science I think I shall go very near to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confess it too Num. 4 And now having told A. C. this I must secondly follow him a little farther For I would fain make it appear as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case And it is the common fault of them all For when the Protestants answer to this Argument which as I have shew'd can properly have no place in the Question between us about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum a thing fore-known as also I do were neither ignorant nor forgetful That things presupposed as already known in a Science are of two sorts For either they are plain and fully manifest in their own Light or they are proved and granted already some former knowledge having made them Evident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God we cannot say is clear and fully manifest to all men simply and in self-Light for the Reasons before given Yet we say after Tradition hath been our Introduction the Soul that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason may discern Light sufficient to resolve our Faith that the Sun is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply evident in it self is presumed to be taught us otherwise And if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theology is subordinate Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence That Divinity can have no Science above it But your own School teaches me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Divinity in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are known by the light of a Superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the Blessed in Heaven In this Superior Science This Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than evident in full light This Superior Science delivered this Principle in full revealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles This Infâ—llible Light of this Principle made their Authority derivatively Divine By the same Divine Authority they wrote and delivered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture and that uncorrupt though not in the same clearness of Light which they had And yet since no sufficient Reason hath or can be given that in any Substantial thing it hath been Corrupted it remains firm at this day and that proved in the most Supreme Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God So my Answer is good even in strictness That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute Num. 5 Besides the Jews never had nor can have any other Proof That the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New For theirs was delivered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was delivered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authority For so the Jews argue themselves S. Joh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himself And our Saviour seems to infer as much S. Joh. 5. where he expostulates with the Jews thus If you believe not Moses his Writings how should you believe Me Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set down First by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know why By whose witness do you know By the Testimony of our Ancestors But he speaks not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimony was Divine into which namely their Writings the Jews did resolve their Faith And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too And therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And yet though the Jews entred this way to their Belief of the Scripture they do not say Audivimus We have heard that God spake to Moses but We know it So they Resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition And I would willingly learn of you if you can shew it me where ever any one Jew disputing with another about their Law did put the other to prove that the Old Testament was the Word of God But they still supposed it And when others put them to their Proof this way they went And yet you say F. That no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point B. § 19 Num. 1 I think I have shewed that my Answer is good and that no other Answer need be made If there were need I make no Question but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten I say to assure us and you express no more If you had said to assure us by Divine Faith your Argument had been the stronger But if you speak of Assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Insidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane Proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe That such a City
truly that Being which it is in truth of Substance But this word Right is not so used but is referr'd more properly to perfection in Conditions And in this sense every thing that hath a true and real Being is not by and by Right in the Conditions of it A man that is most dishonest and unworthy the name a very Thief if you will is a True man in the verity of his Essence as he is a Creature endued with Reason for this none can steal from him nor he from himself but Death But he is not therefore a Right or an upright man And a Church that is exceeding corrupt both in Manners and Doctrine and so a dishonour to the Name is yet a True Church in the verity of Essence as a Church is a Company of men which profess the Faith of Christ and are Baptized into his Name But yet it is not therefore a Right Church either in Doctrine or Manners It may be you meant cunningly to slip in this word Right that I might at unawares grant it Orthodox But I was not so to be caught For I know well that Orthodox Christians are keepers of integrity and followers of right things so St. Augustine of which the Church of Rome at this day is neither In this sense then no Right that is no Orthodox Church at Rome Num. 3 And yet no News it is that I granted the Roman Church to be a True Church For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me and the Truth cannot deny it For that Church which receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as á partial and imperfect Rule and both the Sà craments as Instrumental Causes and Seals of Grace though they add more and misuse these yet cannot but be a True Church in essence How it is in Manners and Doctrine I would you would look to it with a single eye For if Piety and a Peaceable mind be not joyned to a good understanding nothing can be known in these great things Num. 4 Here A. C. tells us That the Jesuite doth not say that the Lady asked this Question in this or any other precise form of words But saith the Jesuite is sure her desire was to know of me whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church And how was the Jesuite sure the Lady desired to hear this from me Why A. C. tells us that too For he adds That the Jesuite had particularly spoken with her before and wished her to insist upon that Point Where you may see and 't is fit the Clergy of England should consider with what cunning Adversaries they have to deal who can find a way to prepare their Disciples and instruct them before-hand upon what Poynts to insist that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences which should never come there And this once known I hope they will the better provide against it But A. C. goes on and tells us That certainly by my Answer the Ladies desire must needs be to hear from me not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church c. but whether I would grant that there is but one holy Catholike Church and whether the Roman Church that is not only that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it be not it About A Church and The Church I have said enough before and shall not repeat Nor is there any need I should For A. C. would have it The Church The One Holy Catholike Church But this cannot be granted take the Roman Church in what sense they please in City or Diocess or all that agree with it Yet howsoever before I leave this I must acquaint the Reader with a perfect Jesuitism In all the Primitive Times of the Church a Man or a Family or a National Church were accounted Right and Orthodox as they agreed with the Catholike Church But the Catholike was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Jesuites new School The One Holy Catholike Church must be measured by that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholike For so A. C. says expresly The Lady would know of me not whether that were the Catholike Church to which Rome agreed but whether that were not the Holy Cathotholike Church which agreed with Rome So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the Custody of the Roman not of the Catholike Church and a man cannot agree with the Catholike Church of Christ in this new Doctrine of A. C. unless he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all 's safe and he is as Orthodox as he need be Num. 5 But A. C. is yet troubled about the form of the Ladies Question And he will not have it That she desired to know whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church Though these be her words according to the Jesuites own setting down but he thinks the Question was Whether the Church of Rome was not the Right Church Not Be not but was not Was not That is was not once or in time past the Right Church before Luther and others made a breach from it Why truly A. C. needed not have troubled himself half so much about this For let him take his Choice It shall be all one to me whether the Question were asked by Be oâ— by Was For the Church of Rome neither is nor waâ— the Right Church as the Lady desired to hear A Particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong and then in some things right and in some things wrong But The Right Church or The Holy Catholike Church it never was nor ever can be And therefore was not such before Luther and Others either left it or were thrust from it A particular Church it was But then A. C. is not distinct enough here neither For the Church of Rome both was and was not a Right or Orthodox Church before Luther made a Breach from it For the word Anâ—e Before may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off or long before and then in the Prime times of it it was a most Right and Orthodox Church But it may look also nearer home and upon the immediate times before Luther or some Ages before that And then in those times Rome was a Corrupt and a tainted Church far from being Right And yet both these times Before Luther made his Breach So here A. C. should have been more distinct For the word Before includes the whole time before Luther in part of which time that Church of Rome was Right and in other part whereof it was wrong But A. C. adds yet That I suspected the Lady would iâ—ser if once that Church were Right what
But as it is appliable to the whole Church Militant in all succeeding times so the Promise was made with a Limitation namely that the Blessed Spirit should abide with the Church for ever and lead it into all Truth but not simply into all Curious Truth no not in or about the Faith but into all Truth necessary to Salvation And against this Truth the Whole Catholike Church cannot erre keeping her self to the direction of the Scripture as Christ hath appointed her For in this very Place where the Promise is made That the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things 't is added that He shall bring all things to their remembrance What simply all things No But all things which Christ had told them S. John 14. So there is a Limitation put upon the words by Christ himself And if the Church will not erre it must not ravel Curiously into unnecessary Truths which are out of the Promise nor follow any other Guide than the Doctrine which Christ hath lest behind him to govern it For if it will come to the End it must keep in the Way And Christ who promised the Spirit should lead hath no where promised that it shall follow its Leader into all Truth and at least not Infallibly unless you will Limit as before So no one of these Places can make good A. C.'s Assertion That the whole Church cannot erre Generally in any 〈◊〉 Point of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Absolute Foundations she cannot in Deductions and superstructures she may Num. 6 Now to all that I have said concerning the Right which Particular Churches have to Reform themselves when the General Church cannot for Impediments or will not for Negligence which I have proved at large before All the Answer that A. C. gives is First Quo Judice Who shall be Judge And that shall be the Scripture and the Primitive Church And by the Rules of the one and to the Integrity of the other both in Faith and Manners any Particular Church may safely Reform it self Num. 7 Secondly That no Reformation in Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches In which Case also he saith Particular Churches may not take upon them to Judge and Condemn others of Errors in Faith Well how far forth Reformation even of Faith may be necessary in the General Church I have expressed already And for Particular Churches I do not say that they must take upon them to Judge or Condemn others of Error in Faith That which I say is They may Reform themselves Now I hope to Reform themselves and to Condemn others are two different Words unless it fall out so that by Reforming themselves they do by consequence Condemn any other that is guilty in that Point in which they Reform themselves and so far to Judge and Condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives religiously doth not by and by sit in Judgment and Condemn with his mouth all Prophane Livers But yet while he is silent his very Life condemns them And I hope in this way of Judicature A. C. dares not say 't is unlawful for a particular Church or man to Condemn another And 〈◊〉 whatsoever A. C. can say to the contrary there are divers Cases where Heresies are known and notorious in which it will be hard to say as he doth That one Particular Church must not Judge or Condemn another so far forth at 〈◊〉 as to 〈◊〉 and protest against the Heresie of it Num. 8 Thirdly If one Particular Church may not Judge or Condemn another what must then be done where Particulars need Reformation What Why then A. C. tells us That Particular Churches must in that Case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful sub Principality the Principality of an Apostolike Chair Or if you will the Apostolike Chair in relation to the West and South parts of the Church all the other four Apostolike Chairs being in the East Now this no man denies that understands the state and story of the Church And Calvin confesses it expresly Nor is the Word Principatus so great nor were the Bishops of those times so little as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and the Latine Fathers of this great and Learnedst Age of the Church made up of the fourth and fifth hundred years always understanding Principatus of their Spiritual Power and within the Limits of their several Jurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in S. Augustine That this Principality of the Apostolike Chair in the Church of Rome was then or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmine insinuates there and as A. C. would have it here And to prove that S. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any Power out of his own Limits which God knows were far short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the very same Epistle For afterwards saith S. Augustine when the pertinacie of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only they gave them leave to be beard by forein Bishops And after that he hath these words And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not usurp to himself this Judgment which was determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate And what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole Cause In which Passage there are very many things Observeable As first that the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly that if the Pope had come in without this Leave it had been an Usurpation Thirdly that when he did thus come in not by his own Proper Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Judges with him Fourthly that these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperor and his Power that which the Pope will least of all indure Lastly lest the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperor S. Aug. tells us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad Curam ejus to the Emperors Care and charge and that He is to give an Account to God for it And Melciades did sit and Judge the Business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastor of the whole Church say A. C. what he please Nor had he any Supremacie over the other Patriarchs And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument
have not I do not say now the Written Word of God for Warrant either in express Letter or necessary Sense and deduction as all unerring Councels have had and as all must have that will not eâ—â—e but not so much as Probable Testimony from it nay quite extra without the Scripture Nay secondly Is that Councel Legal where the Pope the Chief Person to be Reformed shall sit President in it and be Chief Judge in his own Cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humanein a place not free but in or too near his own Dominion To which all were not called that had Deliberative or Consultative Voice In which none had Suffrage but such as were sworn to the Pope and the Church of Rome and professed Enemies to all that called for â—eformation or a free Councel And the Pope himself to shew his Charity had declared and pronounced the Appellants Hereticks before they were Condemned by the Councel I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no Lawful Councel and I think the Decrees of such a one are omni jure nulla and carry their Nullity with them through all Law Num. 2 Again Is that Councel General that hath none of the Eastern Churches Consent nor presence there Are all the Greeks so become Non Ecclesia no Church that they have no interest in General Councels It numbers indeed among the Subscribers six Greeks They might be so by Nation or by Title purposely given them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greek Church to the Councel Or is it to be accounted a General Councel that in many Sessions had scarce Ten Archbishops or Forty or Fifty Bishops present And for the West of Christendom nearer home it reckons one English S. Assaph But Cardinal Poole was there too And English indeed he was by Birth but not sent to that Councel by the King and Church of England but as one of the Popes Legates And so we finde him in the five first Sessions of that Councel And at the beginning of the Councel he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterbury he never went over to the Councel And can you prove that S. Assaph went thither by Authority There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greeks In all the Sessions under Paul the Third but two French-men and sometimes none as in the six under Julius the third when Henry II of France protested against that Councel And in the end it is well known how all the French which were then a good part held off till the Cardinal of Loraigne was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things upon good grounds and were most unworthily over-born Num. 2 To all this A. C. hath nothing to say but That it is not necessary to the Lawfulness and Generalness of a Councel that all Bishops of the World should be actually present subscribe or consent but that such Promulgation be made as iâ— morally sufficient to give notice that such a Councel is called and that all may come if they will and that a major part at least of those that are present give assent to the Decrees I will forget that it was but p. 59. in which A. C. speaks of all Pastors and those not onely summoned but gathered together And I will easily grant him that 't is not necessary that all Bishops in the Christian world be present and subscribe But sure 't is necessary to the Generalness of a Councel that some be there and authorized for all Particular Churches And to the freedom of a Councel that all that come may come safe And to the Lawfulness of a Councel that all may come uningaged and not fastened to a side before they sit down to argue or deliberate Nor is such a Promulgation as A. C. mentions sufficient but onely in case of Contumacy and that where they which are called and refuse to come have no just Cause for their not coming as too many had in the Case of Trent And were such a Promulgation sufficient for the Generalness of a Councel yet for the Freedom and the Lawfulness of it it were not F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councel of Nice The Bishop would not admit the Case to be like B. § 28 So indeed you said And not you alone It is the Common Objection made against all that admit not every latter Councel as fully as that Councel of Nice famous through all the Christian world In the mean time nor you nor they consider that the Case is not alike as I then told you If the Case be alike in all why do not you admit that which was held at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus as well as Nice If you say as yours do It was because the Pope approved them not That 's a true Cause but not adequate or full For it was because the Whole Church refused them with whom the Romane Prelate standing then entire in the Faith agreed and so for his Patriarchate refused those Councels But suppose it true that these Synods were not admitted because the Pope refused them yet this ground is gained That the Case is not alike for mens Assent to all Councels And if you look to have this granted That the Pope must confirm or the Councel's not lawful we have far more reason to look that this be not denied That Scripture must not be departed from in Letter or necessary sense or the Councel is not lawful For the Coâ—sent and Confirmation of Scripture is of far greater Authority to make the Councel Authentical and the Decisions of it de side than any Confirmation of the Pope can be Now of these two the Councel of Nice we are sure had the first the Rule of Scripture and you say it had the second the Pope's Confirmation The Councel of Trent we are able to prove had not the first and so we have no reason to respect the second And to what end do your Learned men maintain that a Councel may make a Conclusion de fide though it be simply ab extra out of all bound of Scripture but out of a Jealousie at least that this of Trent and some others have in their Determinations left both Letter and Sense of Scripture Shew this against the Councel of Nice and I will grant so much of the Case to be like But what will you say if Constantine required That things thus brought into Question should be answered and solved by Testimony out of Scripture And the Bishops of the Nicene Councel never refused that Rule And what will you say if they profess they depart not from it but are ready by many Testimontes of divine Scripture to demonstrate their Faith Is the Case then alike betwixt it and Trent Surely no. But you say that I pretended
as I do Num. 2 First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or any other there be promised to the present Church an absolute Infallibility Or whether such an Infallibility will not serve the turn as Stapleton after much wrigling is forced to acknowledge One not every way exact because it is enough if the Church do diligently insist upon that which was once received and there is not need of so great certainty to open and explicate that which lies hid in the seed of Faith sown and deduce from it as to seek out and teach that which was altogether unknown And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of Infallibility than the present Church which yet if it follow the Scripture is Infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of Certainty which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes five Prerogatives in Certainty of Truth that the Scripture hath above a Councel and at last Concludes That They may be said to be equally certain in Infallible Truth Num. 3 The next thing I Consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous Infallibility in the Church Is it not residing according to Power and Right of Authority in the whole Church always understanding the Church in this place pro Communitate Praelatorum for Church-Governours which have Votes in Councels and in a General Councel onely by Power deputed with Mandate to determine The Places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers upon them make me apt to believe this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receive the Keys of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church Now for this Particular suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Errour and suppose the Key rightly used Infallible in this yet this Infallibility is primely in the Church Docent in whose person not strictly in his own S. Peter received the Keys But here Stapleton lays cross my way again and would thrust me out of this Consideration He grants that S. Peter received these Keys indeed and in the Person of the Church but saith he that was because he was Primate of the Church And therefore the Church received the Keys finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himself and his Successors received the Keys in his own Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I keep on in my Consideration still For the Church here is taken pro Communitate Praelatorum for all the Prelates that is for the Church as 't is Docent and Regent as it Teaches and Governs For so onely it relates to a General Councel And so S. Augustine and Stapleton himself understand it in the places before alleadged Now in this sense S. Peter received the Keys formally for himself and his Successours at Rome but not for them onely but as he received them in the person of the whole Church Docent so he received them also in their Right as well as his own and for them all And in this sense S. Peter received the Keys in the person of the Church by Stapleton's good leave both Finally and Formally For I would have it considered also whether it be ever read in any Classick Author That to receive a thing in the person of another or sustaining the person of another is onely meant Finally to receive it that is to his good and not in his right I should think he that receives any thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and to his use but in his right too And that the formal right is not in the receiver onely but in him or them also whose person he sustains while he receives it I 'll take one of Stapleton's own Instances A Consul or prime Senator in an Aristocratical Government such as the Churches is Ministerially under Christ receives a Priviledge from the Senate and he receives it as Primarily and as Formally for them as for himself and in the Senates right as well as his own he being but a chief part and they the whole And this is S. Peter's Case in Relation to the whole Church Docent and Regent saving that his Place and Power was Perpetual and not Annual as the Consul 's was This Stumbling-block then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in this Notion by the hands of S. Peter received the Keys and all Power signified by them and transmitted them to their Successours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to use them but still in and by the same hands and perhaps to open and shut in some things Iufallibly when the Pope and a General Councel too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seek how to turn these Keys in their Wards Num. 4 The third Particular I Consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation and that this Power of not erring so is not communicable to a General Councel which represents it but that the Councel is subject to errour This supposition doth not onely preserve that which you desire in the Church an Infallibility but it meets with all inconveniences which usually have done and daily do perplex the Church And here is still a Remedy for all things For if Private Respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and favour of some parties if weakness of them which have the managing if any unfit mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrench the Councel the Whole Church upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another Body or Councel and to take order for what was amiss either practised or concluded So here is a means without any infringing any lawful Authority of the Church to preserve or reduce Unity and yet grant as I did and as the Church of England doth That a General Councel may erre And this course the Church heretofore took for she did call and represent her self in a new Councel and define against the Heretical Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is evident And in other Councels named by Bellarmine Now the Church is never more cunningly abused than when men out of this Truth that she may erre infer this Falshood that she is not to be Obeyed For it will never follow She may Erre Therefore She may not Govern For he that says Obey them which have the Rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls Heb. 13. commands Obedience and
this the Protestants all agree And for the second the immediate Deductions they are not formally Fundamental for all men but for such as are able to make or understand them And for others 't is enough if they do not obstinately or Schismatically refuse them after they are once revealed Indeed you account many things Fundamental which were never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church such as are all the Decrees of General Councels which may be all true but can never be all Fundamental in the Faith For it is not in the power of the whole Church much less of a General Councel to make any thing Fundamental in the Faith that is not contained in the Letter or sense of that common Faith which was once given and but once for all to the Saints S. Jude 3. But if it be A. C's meaning to call for an Infallible Assurance of all such Points of Faith as are Decreed by General Councels Then I must be bold to tell him All those Decrees are not necessary to all mens salyation Neither do the Romanisis themselves agree in all such determined Points of Faith Be they determined by Councels or by Popes For Instance After those Books which we account Apocryphal were defined to be Canonical and an Anathema pronounced in the Case Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them And after Pope Leo the tenth had defined the Pope to be above a General Councel yet many Roman Cathalikes defend the Contrary And so do all the Sorbâ—nists at this very day Therefore if these be Fundamental in the Faith the Romanists differ one from another in the Faith nay in the Fundamentals of the Faith And therefore cannot have Infallible Assurance of them Nor is there that Unity in the Faith amongst them which they so much and so often boast of For what Scripture is Canonical is a great point of Faith And I believe they will not now Confess That the Popes power over a General Councel is a small one And so let A. C. look to his own Infallible Assurance of Fundamentals in the Faith for ours God be thanked is well And since he is pleased to call for a particular Text of Scripture to prove all and every thing of this nature which is ridiculous in it self and unreasonable to demand as hath been shewed yet when he shall be pleased to bring forth but a particular known Tradition to prove all and every thing of this on their side it will then be perhaps time for him to call for and for us to give farther Answer about particular Texts of Scripture Num. 9 After all this Ouestioning A. C. infers That I had need seek out some other Infallible Rule and means by which I may know these things infallibly or else that I have no reason to be so confident as to adventure my soul that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith How weak this Inference is will easily appear by that which I have already said to the premises And yet I have somewhat left to say to this Inference also And first I have lived and shall God willing die in the Faith of Christ as it was professed in the Ancient Primitive Church as it was professed in the present Church of England And for the Rule which governs me herein if I cannot be confident for my soul upon the Scripture and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it I will be confident upon no other And secondly I have all the reason in the world to be confident upon this Rule for this can never deceive me Another that very other which A. C. proposes namely the Faith of the Roman Church may Therefore with A. C's leave I will venture my salvation upon the Rule aforesaid and not trouble my self to seek another of mans making to the forsaking and weakening of this which God hath given me For I know they Committed two Evils which forsook the Fountain of Living Waters to hew out to themselves Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no Water Jer. 2. For here 's the Evil of Desertion of that which was Right and the Evil of a bad Choice of that which is hew'd out with much pains and care and is after Useless and Unprofitable But then Thirdly I finde that a Romanist may make use of an Implicite Faith at his pleasure but a Protestant must know all these things Infallibly that 's A. C's word Know these things Why but is it not enough to believe them Now God forbid it should Else what shall become of Millions of poor Christians in the world which cannot know all these things much less know them Infallibly Well I would not have A. C. weaken the Belief of poor Christians in this fashion But for things that may be known as well as believed nor I nor any other shall need forsake the Scripture to seek another Rule to direct either our Conscience or our Confidence Num. 10 In the next place A. C. observes That the Jesuite was as confident for his part with this difference that he had sufficient reason of his Confidence but I had not for mine This is said with the Confidence of a Jesuite but as yet but said Therefore he goes on and tells us That the Jesuite had reason of his Confidence out of express Scriptures and Fathers and the Infallible Authority of the Church Now truly Express Scriptures with A. C's patience he hath not named one that is express nor can he And the few Scriptures which he hath alledged I have Answered and so have others As for Fathers he hath named very few and with what success I leave to the Readers judgment And for the Authority of the Catholike Church I hold it as Infallible as he and upon better Grounds but not so of a General Councel which he here means as appears after And for my part I must yet think and I doubt A. C. will not be able to disprove it that express Scripture and Fathers and the Authority of the Church will rather be found proofs to warrant my Confidence than his Yea but A. C. saith That I did not then taxe the Jesuite with any rashness It may be so Nor did he me So there we parted even Yea but he saith again that I acknowledge there is but one saving Faith and that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith which was all the Jesuite took upon his soul. Why but if this be all I will confess it again The first That there is but one faith I confess with S. Paul Ephes. 4. And the other that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith or Church I confess with that charity which S. Paul teacheth me Namely to leave all men especially the weaker both sex and sort which hold the Foundation to stand or fall to their own Master Rom. 14. And this is no mistaken charity As
117. and how recovered 118. primacy of order granted them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions but no Principality of power from Christ 109 110. some of them opposed by the African Church 112. some of them Hereticks 124. some Apostates 173. some false Prophets 174. how unfit Judges of Controversies 162 163 254. the lâ—wd lives of many of them 172. Pope Liberius his clear testimony against the Popes Infallibility 173 Prayer what requisite that it may be heard 127 154 155. Prayer for the dead that it presupposeth not Purgatory 162 Preachers how their Preaching to be esteemed of 64. none since the Apostles infallible 232 Precisians their opposition to lawful Ceremonies occasioned by the Romanists 183. that there be of them in the Romane Church no less then in the Protestant 87. their agreement in many things 64 Princes the moderation and equiquity of all that are good 103 the power of Soveraign Princes in matters Ecclesiastical 111. all of the Clergy subject to them 134 Prophecy the spirit of it not to be attained by study 163 164 Protestants why so called 87 of their departing from the errours of the Roman Church 86 87. On what terms invited by Rome to a general Councel 92 93 their charitable grant of possibility of salvation in the Romane Church met with uncharitableness by the Roman party 184 185. they that deny possibility of salvation to them confuted 186 187. their Faith sufficient to salvation 212 Purgatory not thought on by any Father within the three first hundred years 227. not presupposed by Prayer for the dead ibid. Origen the first Founder of it 226 230. proofs of it examined ibid. the Purgatories mentioned by the Fathers different from that believ'd by Rome 228 229. the Fathers alledg'd for it cleared 227 c. the Papists their Blasphemous assertion touching the necessity of believing it 231. Bellarmines contradiction touching the beginning of it ibid. R REason not excluded or blemished by grace 48 49. the chief use of it 51. what place it hath in the proof of divine supernatural truths 39 48. how high it can go in proving the truth of Christian Religion 49 165 Reformation in what case it 's lawful for a particular Church to Reform her self 96 c. and to publish any thing that 's Catholike in faith or manners 97 108. Examples of it 99 100. Reformation by Protestants how to be judged of 99 faults incident to Reformation and Reformers of Religion 101. who the chief hinderers of a general Reformation 101. Reformation of the Church of England justified 114. the manner of it 100 101. what places Princes have in the Reformation of the Church ibid. Christian Religion how the truth of it proved by the Ancients 49. the propagation of it and the firmness where it 's once received 50 51. the evil of believing it in one sort and practising it in another 243 244. yet this taught by some Jesuites and Romish Priests ibid. one Christian Religion of Protestants and Romanists though they differ in it 245. private mens opinions in Religion not to be esteemed the Churches 20. Religion as it is professed in the Church of England nearest of any Church now being to the Primitive Church 245. Resurrection what believed by all Christians what by some Hereticks denied 201 202 Private Revelation in what case to be admitted 49 Divine Revelation the necessity of it 73 B. Rhenanus purged on behalf of Rome 239 B. Ridley his full confession of the Real Presence 193. his conviction of Archbishop Cranmers judgment touching it 192 Romanes who truly such and their true priviledge 4. Rome her praeter and super-structures in the â—aith 7. 8. She and Spain compared in their two Monarchies 137. Heresies both begun and maintained in her 9. 10. wherein she hath erred 12. whether impossible for the Apostolike Sea to be removed thence 12 13. that she may Apostatize 13. her definitions of things not necessary 21. She the chief hinderance of a general Reformation 110. of her pretended Soveraignty and the bad effects of it 102 103 c. what Principality and Power She hath and whence 109 110 114 c. 120. She not the head of the Church nor did all Churches depend on her 111 112 119. that she hath kept nor faith nor unity inviolated 253. whether all Christians be bound to agree with her in faith 119. and in what case they are so 120. the ancient bounds of her jurisdiction 120. possibility of Salvation in her and to whom 118 105 c. the danger of living and dying in her Communion 193 195 196 197. her rigour and cruelty beyond that of Schismatical Israel 194. her fundamental errours of what nature 208. the Catholike Church her Head and Root not she of it 240 c. Roman Sea in what case a particular Church may make Canons with out consulting it 98 99 c. 109. Romanists their cunning dealing with their Converts in fieri 83. of their calling for a free hearing 94 95. their agreement with the Donatists in contracting the Church to their side 188 189. their danger in different respects lesser or greater than that of the Donatists 196 Ruffinus his pernicious cunning 6 his dissent from the Romane Church 10. branded by the Pope with Heresie 11. his words explained 8 9 10 S SAcraments against the necessity of his intention who administers them 178 179 c. 200 213 Sacriledge and Schism usually go together 101 Saints against the Invocation of them 181. they are made by Bellarmine to be Numina and in some sort our Redeemers ibid. Salvation controversies amongst the Romanists about the certainty of it 32 Schism the heinousness of it 95 who the cause of it at this day 86 88 126. the continuance of it whence 94 Schismatical Church to live in one and to communicate in the Schism how different 194. the Protestants their leaving Rome no Schism 126. of the Schism of Israel and those that lived there in the time of it 97 194 Science supream what 78 Scotus righted 20 Scripture that it was received and hath continued uncorrupt 79 what books make up the Canon of it 11. all parts of it alike firm not alike fundamental 27. that it is the Word of God is a prime principle of faith 28 c. 75 76 80 the sufficiency of it 34 75 76 c. 81. how known to be Gods Word 38 c. Of the Circular probation of Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture 38 75 the different ways of proving it 39. it is a higher proof than the Churches Tradition 40. the testimony proving it must be Divine and Infallible 43 45 47 whether it can be known to be Gods Word by its own light 45 46. and that the Roman Church by her own Tenet ought so to hold 46. what the chief and what the first inducement to the credibility of it 53 54 57 65 66 68. the Divine light thereof and what light the natural man sees in it 53 54. Confirmation by
the Son then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Son in this they seem to agree with us in eandem Fidei sententiam upon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the Sentence of Faith is the same penitus eadem even altogether the same Can the Point be Fundamental You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so deny them Salvation which cannot be had out of the true Church but I for my part dare not so do And Rome in this particular should be more moderate if it be but because this Article Filioque was added to the Creed by her self And 't is hard to adde and Anathematize too Num. 3 It ought to be no easie thing to condemn a man of Heresie in foundation of faith much less a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greek especially so as to make them no Church Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keys at his own Girdle And it is good counsel which Alphonsus a Castro one of your own gives Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselves to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that separates from the Church simply and not in part only I must needs profess that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Cross is heavy already had been more plainly and moderately dealt withal though they think a diverse thing from us then they have been by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forc'd F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against D. White concerning Points Fundamental B. § 10 Num. 1 Hereupon it is true that you read a large Discourse out of a Book printed which you said was yours the particulars all of them at the least I do not now remember nor did I then approve But if they be such as were formerly brought against Doctor White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine which Sentence I do not at all remember was so much as named in the Conference much less was it stood upon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But now you tell us of a great Proof made out of this place For these words of yours contain two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental The other That this is proved out of this place of S. Augustine Num. 2 1 For the first That all Points defined by the Church are fundamental It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her Greatness to blast every Opposer she had with the Name of Heretick or Schismatick for this served to shrivel the Credit of the persons And the persons once brought into contempt and ignominy all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of Creditable Persons to back and support it To make this proceeding good in these later years this course it seems was taken The School that must maintain and so they do That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leave the wise and active Heads to take order that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them Num. 3 But since these men distinguish not nor you between the Church in general and a General Councel which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith though I be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by Lawful General and consenting Authority though I give as much as can justly be given to the Definitions of Councels truly General Nay suppose I should grant which I do not That General Councels cannot erre yet this cannot down with mé That all Points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it self for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the Souls of men rest upon a shaking foundation No If it be a true foundation it must be common to all and firm under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are fundamental And Irenaeus lays this for a ground That the whole Church howsoever dispersed in place speaks this with one mouth He which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speak utters no more then this and less then this the most simple doth not utter Therefore the Creed of which he speaks is a common is a constant Foundation And an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which have the use of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church utter this Num. 4 Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right move far from the foundation without which Deductions explicitly believed many millions of Christians go to Heaven and cannot therefore be fundamental in the Faith True Deductions from the Article may require necessary belief in them which are able and do go along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion But I do not see either that the Learned do make them necessary to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be fundamental and yet to some mens Salvation they are necessary Num. 5 Besides that which is fundamental in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be fundamental after the Church hath defined it it was fundamental before the Definition else it is moveable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immoveable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councel be it never so General can alter immoveable Verities no more then it can change immoveable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councel define any thing the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the Definition of the Church if it be not so in it self For if the Church had this power she might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selves deny For the Articles of the Faith cannot increase in substance but only in Explication And for this I 'le be judg'd by Bellarmine who disputing against Amb. Catharinus about the certainty of Faith tells us That Divine Faith hath not its certainty because 't is Catholike i. common to the whole Church but because it builds on the Authority of God who is Truth it self and
knowledge And this is it which makes the very entrance into Divinity inaccessible to those men who standing high in the Opinion of their own wisdom will believe nothing but that which is irrefragably proved from Rational Principles For as Christ requires a Denial of a mans self that he may be able to follow him S. Luke 9. So as great a part as any of this Denial of his Whole-self for so it must be is the denial of his Understanding and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisitor into the Secrets of Him that made it and the over-ruling the doubtfulness of it by the fervency of the Will. Seventhly That the knowledge of the Supreme Cause of all which is God is most remote and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with The Quod sit That there is a God blear-eyed Reason can see But the Quid sit what that God is is infinitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason He is a Light indeed but such as no mans Reason can come at for the Brightness 1 Tim. 6. If any thing therefore be attainable in this kind it must be by Revelation And that must be from Himself for none can Reveal but he that Comprehends And none doth or can comprehend God but Himself And when he doth Reveal yet he is no farther discernable than Himself pleases Now since Reason teaches that the Soul of man is immortal and capable of Felicity And since that Felicity consists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause which again is God himself And since Christ therein Confirms that Dictate that mans eternal Happiness is to know God and Him whom he hath sent S. Joh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Contemplation but some Revelation of Himself and of the way to Himself I say since all this is so It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man that the All-wise God should create man with a desire of Felicity and then leave him utterly destitute of all Instrumental Helps to make the Attainment possible since God and Nature do nothing but for an end And Help there can be none sufficient but by Revelation And once grant me that Revelation is necessary and then I will appeal to Reason it self and that shall prove abundantly one of these two That either there was never any such Revelation of this kind from the worlds beginning to this day And that will put the frustrà upon God in point of mans Felicitie Or that the Scriptures which we now embrace as the Word of God is that Revelation And that 's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism Prophaneness and Infidelity Last of all To prove that the Book of God which we honour as His Word is this necessary Revelation of God and his Truth which must and is alone able to lead us in the way to our eternal Blessedness or else the world hath none comes in a Cloud of witnesses Some for the Infidel and some for the Believer Some for the Weak in Faith and some for the Strong And some for all For then first comes in the Tradition of the Church the present Church so 't is no Heretical or Schismatical Belief Then the Testimony of former Ages so 't is no New Belief Then the consent of Times so 't is no Divided or partial Belief Then the Harmony of the Prophets and them fulfilled so 't is not a Devised but a forespoken Belief Then the success of the Doctrine contained in this Book so 't is not a Belief stifled in the Cradle but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could do against it And increased from weak and unlikely Beginnings to incredible Greatness Then the Constancie of this Truth so 't is no Moon-Belief For in the midst of the worlds Changes it hath preserved its Creed entire through many generations Then that there is nothing Carnal in the Doctrine so 't is a Chast Belief And all along it hath gained kept and exercised more power upon the minds of men both learned and unlearned in the increase of vertue and repression of vice than any Moral Philosophy or Legal Policie that ever was Then comes the inward Light and Excellencie of the Text it self and so 't is no dark or dazling Belief And 't is an Excellent Text For see the riches of Natural knowledge which are stored up there as well as Supernatural Consider how things quite above Reason consent with things Reasonable Weigh it well what Majesty lies there hid under Humility What Depth there is with a Perspicuity unimitable What Delight it works in the Soul that is devoutly exercised in it how the Sublimist wits find in it enough to amaze them while the ‖ simplest want not enough to direct them And then we shall not wonder if with the assistance of Gods Spirit who alone works Faith and Belief of the Scriptures and their Divine Authority as well as other Articles we grow up into a most Infallible Assurance such an Assurance as hath made many lay down their lives for this Truth such as that Though an Angel from Heaven should Preach unto us another Gospel we would not believe Him or it No though we should see as great and as many Miracles done over again to disswade us from it as were at first to win the world to it To which firmness of Assent by the Operation of Gods Spirit the Will confers as much or more strength than the Understanding Clearness the whole Assent being an Act of Faith and not of Knowledge And therefore the Question should not have been asked of me by F. How I knew But upon what Motives I did believe Scripture to be the word of God And I would have him take heed lest hunting too close after a way of Knowledge he lose the way of Faith and teach other men to lose it too So then the Way lies thus as far as it appears to me The Credit of Scripture to be Divine Resolves finally into that Faith which we have touching God Himself and in the same order For as that so this hath Three main Grounds to which all other are Reducible The first is the Tradition of the Church And this leads us to a Reverend perswasion of it The Second is The Light of Nature and this shews us how necessary such a Revealed Learning is and that no other way it can be had Nay more that all Proofs brought against any Point of Faith neither are nor can be Demonstrations but soluble Arguments The Third is The light of the Text it self in Conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts and sealing the full Assurance of the sufficiencie of all Three unto us And then and not before we are certain That the Scripture is the Word of God
there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Story can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Jews Enemies to Christ they bear witness to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimony for any Authority upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Unwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Belief when it is true and remains so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth cannot deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non subest falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured insallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falshood can come but by a Divine Testimony This Testimony is absolute in Scripture it self delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God and so sealed to our Souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motive is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Divine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our Faith but only as is before expressed Num. 2 And now to come close to the Particular The time was before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart that you and We were all of One Belief That belief was tainted in tract and corruption of times very deeply A Division was made yet so that both Parts held the Creed and other Common Principles of Belief Of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God For our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it Since this Division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this Principle Nay We have given it all honour and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie even to the containing of all things necessary to salvation with Satis superque enough and more than enough which your selves have not done do not And for begetting and setling a Belief of this Principle we go the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing Motive to embrace this Principle only we cannot go so far in this way as you to make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten For this is to go so far in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not only to receive us in but another after to let us out into more open and richer ground And we go a better way than you Because after we are moved and prepared and induced by Tradition we resolve our Faith into that Written Word and God delivering it in which we find materially though not in Terms the very Tradition that led us thither And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way because at the end we find the way proved And do what can be done you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the Present Church alone can give And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoveret Unless the Authority of the Church moved me but not alone but with other Motives else it were not commovere to move together And the other Motives are Resolvers though this be Leader Now since we go the same way with you so far as you go right and a better way than you where you go wrong we need not admit any other Word of God than we do And this ought to remain as a Presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture between you and us But you say that F. From this the Lady called us and desiring to hear Whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church The B. granted That it was B. § 20 Num. 1 One occasion which moved Tertullian to write his Book d◠Praescript adversus Haereticos was That he saw little or no Profit come by Disputations Sure the Ground was the same then and now It was not to deny that Disputation is an Opening of the Understanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirm that any such Disquisition is in and of it self unprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Jews and all Comers No sure it was some Abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one Abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth And so I find it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form or so answered There is a great deal of Difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you use but no man else that I know I am sure not I. Num. 2 For The Church may import in our Language The only true Church and perhaps as some of you seem to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike And this I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the Whole And this I never did nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right as you impose upon me For Ens and Verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is
of the Primitive Church The Text there is A Patriarchâ non datur Appellatio From a Patriarch there lies no Appeal No Appeal Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his own Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacie over the whole Church Therefore certainly not then received as Universal Pastor And S. Gregory himself speaking of Appeals and expresly citing the Laws themselves says plainly That the Patriarch is to put a final end to those Causes which come before him by Appeal from Bishops and Archbishops but then he adds That where there is nor Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocess there they are to have recourse to the Sea Apostolike as being the Head of all Churches Where first this implies plainly That if there be a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his Judgment is final and there ought to be no Appeal to Rome Secondly 'T is as plain That in those Ancient times of the Church-Government Britain was never subject to the Sea of Rome For it was one of the Six Diocesses of the West Empire and had a Primate of its own Nay John Capgrave one of your own and Learned for those times and long before him William of Malmesbury tell us that Pope Urban the second at the Councel held at Barâ— in Apulia accounted my Worthy Predecessor S. Anselm as his own Compeer and said he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world So he then termed this Island Now the Britains having a Primate of their own which is greater than a Metropolitan yea a Patriarch if you will He could not be Appealed from to Rome by S. Gregorie's own Doctrine Thirdly it will be hard for any man to prove there were any Churches then in the World which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitane Fourthly if any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome For manifest it is that the Bishops which were Ordained in places without the Limits of the Roman Empire which places they commonly called Barbarous were all to be Ordained and therefore most probable to be governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople And for Rome's being the Head of all Churches I have said enough to that in divers parts of this Discourse Num. 11 And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of Africk I shall borrow another reason from the Practice of that Church why by Principatus S. Augustine neither did nor could mean any Principality of the Church or Bishop of Rome over the Whole Church of Christ. For as the Acts of Councels and Stories go the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melciades his temper set themselves to assert their own Liberties and held it out stoutly against Zozimus Boniface the first and Coelestine the first who were successively Popes of Rome At last it was concluded in the sixth Councel of Carthage wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeen Bishops of which S. Augustine himself was one that they would not give way to such a manifest incroachment upon their Rights and Liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Coelestine to forbear sending his Officers amongst them lest he should seem to induce the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formal Separation from the Church of Rome and to have continued for the space of somewhat more than one hundred years Now that such a Separation there was of the African Church from Rome and a Reconciliation after stands upon the Credit and Authority of two publike Instruments extant both among the Ancient Councels The one is an Epistle from Boniface the Second in whose time the Reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage but the Separation instiganâ—e Diabolo by the Temptation of the Devil The other is an Exemplar Precum or Copy of the Petition of the same Eulalius in which he damns and curses all those his Predecessors which went against the Church of Rome Amongst which Eulalius must needs Curse S. Augustine And Pope Boniface accepting this Submission must acknowledge that S. Augustine and the rest of that Councel deserved this Curse and dyed under it as violating Rectae Fidei Regulam the Rule of the Right Faith so the Exemplar Precum begins by refusing the Popes Authority I will not deny but that there are divers Reasons given by the Learned Romanists and Reformed Writers for and against the Truth and Authority of both these Instruments But because this is too long to be examin'd here I will say but this and then make my use of it to my present purpose giving the Church of Rome free leave to acknowledge these Instruments to be true or false as they please That which I shall say is this These Instruments are let stand in all Editions of the Councels and Epistles Decretal As for Example in the Old Edition by Isidor Anno 1524. And in another Old Edition of them Printed Anno 1530. And in that which was published by P. Crabbe Anno 1538. And in the Edition of Valentinus Joverius Anno 1555. And in that by Surius Anno 1567. And in the Edition at Venice by Nicolinus Anno 1585. And in all of these without any Note or Censure upon them And they are in the Edition of Binius too Anno 1618. but there 's a Censure upon them to keep a quarter it may be with Baronius who was the first I think that ever quarrelled them and he doth it tartly And since Bellarmine follows the same way but more doubtfully This is that which I had to say And the Use which I shall make of these Instruments whether they be true or false is this They are either true or false that is of necessity If they be false then Boniface the Second and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious Forgers and that of Records of great Consequence concerning the Government and Peace of the whole Church of Christ and to the perpetual Infamy of that Sea and all this foolishly and to no purpose For if there were no such Separation as these Records mention of the African Churches from the Roman to what end should Boniface or any other counterfeit an Epistle of his own and a Submission of Eulalius On the other side if these Instruments be true as the sixth Councel of Carthage against all other Arguments makes me incline to believe they are in Substance at least though perhaps not in all Circumstances then 't is manifest that the Church of Africk separated from the Church of Rome That this Separation continued above one hundred years That the Church of Africk made this Separation in a National Councel of their own which had in it two hundred and seventeen Bishops That this Separation was made
hapned in all parts of the world as that neither for the present the Homage of the Pope was useful to the Emperor nor the Protection of the Emperor available for the Pope By this means the Bishop of Rome was left to play his own game by himself A thing which as it pleased him well enough So both he and his Successors made great Advantage by it For being grown to that Eminence by the Emperor and the greatness of that City and Place of his abode He found himself the more free the greater the tempest was that beat upon the other And then first He set himself to alionâ—te the hearts of the Italians from the Emperor Next he Opposed himself against him And about the year seven hundred and ten Pope Constantine the first did also first of all openly confront Philippicus the Emperor in defence of Images As Onâ—phrius tells us After him Gregory the Second and the third took up his example and did the like by Leo Isaurus By this time the Lombards began to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not Italy only but Rome too This drives the Pope to seek a new Patron And very fitly he meets with Charles Martel in France that famous warrior against the Saracens Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards This address seems very advisedly taken at least it proves very fortunate to them both For in short time it dissolved the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy which had then stood two hundred and four years which was the Popes security And it brought the Crown of France into the House of Charles and shortly after the Western Empire And now began the Pope to be great indeed For by the Bounty of Pâ—pin Son of Charles that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope So that now of a Bishop he became a Temporal Prince But when Charles the Great had set up the Western Empire then he resumed the Ancient and Original Power of the Emperor to govern the Church to call Councels to order Papal Elections And this Power continued in his Posterity For this Right of the Emperor was in force and use in Gregory the Seventh's time Who was confirmed in the Popedom by Henry the fourth whom he afterward deposed And it might have continued longer if the succeeding Emperors had had abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own Right But the Pope keeping a strong Councel about him and meeting with some Weak Princes and they oft-times distracted with great and dangerous Wars grew stronger till he got the better So this is enough to shew how the Popes climed up by the Emperors till they over-topped them which is all I said before and have now proved And this was about the year 1073. For the whole Popedom of Gregory the Seventh was begun and ended within the Reign of William the Conqueror Yet was it carried in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different success The Emperor sometimes plucking from the Pope and the Pope from the Emperor winning and losing ground as their Spirits Abilities Aids and Opportunities were till at the last the Pope setled himself upon the Grounds laid by Gregory the Seventh in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christian world Num. 13 Thirdly A. C. knowing 't is not enough to say this That the Pope is Pastor of the whole Church labors to prove it And first he tells us that Irenaeus intimates so much but he doth not tell us where And he is much scanted of Ancient Proof if Irenaeus stand alone Besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallicane Church and a very unlikely man to Captivate the Liberty of that Church under the more powerful Principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his Judgment touching that Principality than the Actions of his Life When Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow was not Irenaeus the Chief man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutiful thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to tax him of rashness and inconsiderateness whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him The Supreme and Infallible Pastor of the Universal Church But the Place of Irenaeus which A. C. means I think is this where he uses these words indeed but short of A. C's sense of it To this Church he speaks of Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique round about should have recourse Should have recourse so A. C. translates it And what doth this avail him Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time That upon any Disference arising in the Faith Omnes undique Fideles all the Faithful or if you will all the Churches round about should have recourse that is resort to Rome being the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Principality than any other at that time in those parts of the world Well Will this exalt Rome to be the Head of the Church Universal What if the States and Policies of the world be much changed since and this Conveniencie of resorting to Rome be quite ceased Then is not Rome devested of her more powerful Principality But the meaning of A. C. is We must so have recourse to Rome as to submit our Faith to hers And then not only in Irenaeus his time but through all times reform Our selves by her Rule That is all the Faithful not undique round about but ubique every where must agree with Rome in point of Faith This he means and Rome may thank him for it But this Irenaeus saith not nor will his words bear it nor durst A. C. therefore construe him so but was content to smooth it over with this ambiguous phrase of having recourse to Rome Yet this is a place as much stood upon by them as any other in all Antiquity And should I grant them their own sense That all the faithful every where must agree with Rome which I may give but can never grant yet were not this saying any whit prejudicial to us now For first here 's a powerful Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome And that no man of Learning doubts but the Church of Rome had within its own Patriarchate and Jurisdiction and that was very large containing all the Provinces in the Diocess of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocess which Provinces the Lawyers and others term Suburbicarias There were ten of them The three Islands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firm land of Italy And this I take it is plain in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Niâ—â—ne Connecâ—â— as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the Bounds of
that Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he says expresly That according to the old Custome the Roman Patriarchs Charge was confined within the Limits of the Suburbicarian Churches To avoid the force of this Testimony Cardinal Peron lays load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with Passion Ignorance and Rashness And one piece of his Ignorance is That he hath ill translated the Canon of the Councel of Nice Now be that as it may I neither do nor can approve his Translation of that Canon nor can it be easily proved that he purposely intended a Translation All that I urge is that Ruffinus living in that time and Place was very like well to know and understand the Limits and Bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived Secondly here 's That it had potentiorem a more powerful Principality than other Churches had And that the Protestants grant too and that not only because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus first in Order and Degree which some One must be to avoid Confusion But also because the Roman Sea had won a great deal of Credit and gained a great deal of Power to it self in Church-Affairs Because while the Greek yea and the African Churches too were turbulent and distracted with many and dangerous Opinions the Church of Rome all that while and a good while after Irenaeus too was more calm and constant to the Truth Thirdly here 's a Necessity say they required That every Church that is the faithful which are every where agree with that Church But what simply with that Church what ever it do or believe No nothing less For Irenaeus adds with that Church in quâ in which is conserved that Tradition which was delivered by the Apostles And God forbid but it should be necessary for all Churches and all the faithful to agree with that Ancient Apostolike Church in all those Things in which it keeps to the Doctrine and Discipline delivered by the Apostles In Iraeneus his time it kept these better than any other Church and by this in part obtained potentiorem Principalitatem a Greater power than other Churches but not over all other Churches And as they understand Irenaeus a Necessity lay upon all other Churches to agree with this but this Necessity was laid upon them by the Then Integrity of the Christian Faith there professed not by the Universality of the Roman Jurisdiction now challenged And let Rome reduce it self to the Observation of Tradition Apostolike to which it then held and I will say as Irenaeus did That it will be then necessary for every Church and for the Faithful every where to agree with it Lastly let me Observe too That Irenaeus made no doubt but that Rome might fall away from Apostolical Tradition as well as other Particular Churches of great Name have done For he does not say in quâ servanda semper erit sed in quâ servata est Not in which Church the Doctrine delivered from the Apostles shall ever be entirely kept That had been home indeed But in which by God's Grace and Mercy it was to that time of Irenaeus so kept and preserved So we have here in Irenaeus his Judgment the Church of Rome then Entire but not Infallible And endowed with a more powerful Principality than other Churches but not with an Universal Dominion over all other Churches which is the Thing in Question Num. 14 But to this place of Irenaeus A. C. joyns a Reason of his own For he tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successor and therefore to Him we must have recourse The Fathers I deny not ascribe very much to S. Peter But 't is to S. Peter in his own person And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them And yet did he never intend to give an Absolute Principality to Rome in S. Peter's right There is a Noted Place in that Father where his words are these For the Lord himself made S. Peter the first of the Apostles a firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it c. For in him the Faith is made firm every way who received the Key of Heaven c. For in him all the Questions and Subtilties of the Faith are sound This is a great Place at first sight too and deserves a Marginal Note to call young Readers eyes to view it And it hath this Note in the Old Latine Edition at Paris 1564. Petri Principatus Praestantia Peters Principality and Excellencie This Place as much shew as it makes for the Roman Principality I shall easily clear and yet do no wrong either to S. Peter or the Roman Church For most manifest it is That the Authority of S. Peter is urged here to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost And then follow the Elogies given to S. Peter the better to set off and make good that Authority As that he was Princeps Apostolorum the Prince of the Apostles and pronounced blessed by Christ because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Son so did he again the Godhead of the Holy Ghost After this Epiphanius calls Him solidam Petram a solid Rock upon which the Church of God was founded against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail And adds That the Faith was rooted and made firm in him every way in him who received the Key of Heaven And after this he gives the Reason of all Because in Him mark I pray 't is still in Him as he was blessed by that Revelation from God the Father S. Mathew 16. were found all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Nice-Cities and exactness of the Christian Faith For he professed the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And so Omni modo every Point of Faith was rooted in Him And this is the full meaning of that Learned Father in this passage Now therefore Building the Church upon Saint Peter in Epiphanius his sense is not as if He and his Successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever But it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Peter made And so He expresses himself elsewhere most plainly Saint Peter saith he who was made to us indeed a solid Rock firming the Faith of our Lord. On which Rock the Church is built juxta omnem modum every way First that he Confessed Christ to be the Son of the Living God and by and by he heard Upon this Rock of solid Faith I will build my Church And the same Confession he made of the Holy Ghost Thus was S. Peter a solid Rock upon which the Church was founded omni modo every way That is the Faith of the Church was ‖ confirmed by him in every Point But that S. Peter was any
say Volumus Mandamus We Will and Command And thus the Apostles met together in simplicity and singleness seeking nothing but God and the salvation of men And what wonder if the Holy Ghost were present in such a Councel Nos alitèr But we meet otherwise in great pomp and seek our selves and promise our selves that we may do any thing out of the Plenitude of our Power And how can the Holy Ghost allow of such Meetings And if not allow or approve the Meetings then certainly not concur to make every thing Infallible that shall be concluded in them Num. 8 And for all the Places togehther weigh them with indifferency and either they speak of the Church including the Apostles as all of them do And then All grant the Uoyce of the Church is Gods Voyce Divine and Infallible Or else they are General unlimited and applyable to private Assemblies as well as General Councels which none grant to be Infallible but some mad Enthusiasts Or else they are limited not simply into All truth but All necessary to salvation in which I shall easily grant a General Councel cannot erre suffering it self to be led by this Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For Suppose these Places or any other did promise Assistance even to Infallibility yet they granted it not to every General Councel but to the Catholick Body of the Church it self and if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a General Councel but by Consequent as the Councel represents the Whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong unto it then it consents and cleaves to that upon which it is a consequent And therefore a General Councel hath not this Assistance but as it keeps to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to hear His word and determine by it And therefore if a General Councel will go out of the Churches way it may easily go without the Churches Truth Num. 1 Fourthly I Consider That All agree That the Church in General can never erre from the Faith necessary to Salvation No Persecution no Temptation no Gates of Hell whatsoever is meant by them can ever so prevail against it For all the Members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no union between them as Members and Christ the Head And no Union between Head and Members no Body and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That General Councels cannot erre And it seems strange to me the Fathers having to do with so many Hereticks and so many of them opposing Church-Authority that in the Condemnation of those Hereticks this Proposition even in terms A General Councel cannot erre should not be found in any one of them that I can yet see Now suppose it were true that no General Councel had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not have followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I have no time to descend into Particulars therefore to the General still S. Augustine puts a Difference between the Rules of Scripture and the Definitions of men This Difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogative That Prerogative is That whatsoever is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by National Councels and National Councels by Plenary or General And even Plenary Councels themselves may be amended the former by the later It seems it was no News with S. Augustine that a General Councel might erre and therefore inferiour to the Scripture which may neither be doubted nor disputed where it affirms And if it be so with the Desinition of a Councel too as Stapleton would have it That that may neither be doubted nor disputed Where is then the Scriptures Prerogative Num. 2 I know there is much shifting about this Place but it cannot be wrastled off Stapleton says first That S. Augustine speaks of the Rules of Manners and Discipline And this is Bellarmine's last Shift Both are out and Bellarmine in a Contradiction Bellarmine in a Contradiction For first he tells us General Councels cannot erre in Precepts of Manners and then to turn off S. Augustine in this Place he tells us That if S. Augustine doth not speak of matter of Fact but of Right and of universal Questions of Right then is he to be understood of Precepts of Manners not of Points of Faith Where he hath first run himself upon a Contradiction and then we have gained this ground upon him That either his Answer is nothing or else against his own state of the Question A General Councel can erre in Precepts of Manners So belike when Bellarmine is at a Shift A General Councel can and cannot erre in Precepts of Manners And both are out For the whole Dispute of S. Augustine is against the Errour of S. Cyprian followed by the Donatists which was an Errour in Faith Namely That true Baptism could not be given by Hereticks and such as were out of the Church And the Proof which Stapleton and Bellarmine draw out of the subsequent words When by any experiment of things that which was shut is opened is too weak For experiment there is not of Fact nor are the words Conclusum est as if it were of a Rule of Discipline concluded as Stapleton cites them but a farther experiment or proof of the Question in hand and pertaining to Faith which was then shut up and as S. Augustine after speaks wrapped up in cloudy darkness Num. 3 Next Stapleton will have it That if S. Augustine do speak of a Cause of Faith then his meaning is that later General Councels can mend that is explicate more perfectly that Faith which lay hid in the seed of Ancient Doctrine He makes instance That about the Divinity of Christ the Councel of Ephesus explicated the first of Nice Chalcedon both of them Constantinople Chalcedon And then concludes In all which things none of these Councels taught that which was erroneous An excellent Conclusion These Councels and These in this thing taught no Errour and were onely explained Therefore no Councel can erre in any matter of Faith or Therefore S. Augustine speaks not of an Emendation of Errour but of an Explanation of Sense whereas every eye sees neither of these can follow Num. 4 Now that S. Augustine meant plainly That even a Plenary Councel might erre and that often for that is his word and that in matter of Faith and might and ought
That it would call again and reform yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance upon just cause made evident that this Representing Body had failed in Trust or Truth And this Power no Body Collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Councel or call it what you will that represents it Nay in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councel hath power to order settle and Define differences arisen concerning Faith This Power the Councel hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held have is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches power front God And this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a General Councel than that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars and it self but not binde the whole Church from calling again and in the After-calls upon just Cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just Cause For if the Councel be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approve the Councel and then the Definitions of it are Binding And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body a Lawful General Councel And certain it is no Power but her own may do it Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits For all Decisions in such a Councel are Binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councel shall remain the Supreme External Living Temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Onely the Whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendred to her to represent her self again in a new Councel and in it to order what was amiss Num. 7 Nay your Opinion is yet more unreasonable For you do not onely make the Definition of a General Councel but the Sentence of the Pope infallible nay more Infallible than it For any General Councel may erre with you if the Pope confirm it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body the Councel nor in the Whole Body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome Now I may ask you to what end such a trouble for a General Councel Or wherein are we nearer to Unity if the Pope confirm it not You answer though not in the Conference yet elsewhere That the Pope erres not especially giving Sentence in a General Councel And why especially Doth the Deliberation of a Councel help any thing to the Conclusion Surely not in your Opinion For you hold the Conclusion Prophetical the means fallible and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Prophetick Conclusion And just as the Councel is in Stapleton's Judgement for the Definition and the Proofs so is the Pope in the Judgement of Melch. Canus and them which followed him Prophetical in the Conclusion The Councel then is called but onely in effect to hear the Pope give his Sentence in more state Else what means this of Stapleton The Pope by a Councel joyned unto him acquires no new Power or Authority or Certainty in Judging no more than a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it than it is without them Or this of Bellarmine That the firmness and infallibility of a General Councel is onely from the Pope not partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel So belike the Presence is necessary not the Assistance Which opinion is the most groundless and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church And I am perswaded many Learned men among your selves scorn it at the very heart And I avow it I have heard some Learned and Judicious Romane Catholikes utterly condemn it And well they may For no man can affirm it but he shall make himself a scorn to all the Learned men of Christendom whose Judgements are not Captivated by Romane power And for my own part I am clear of Jacobus Almain's Opinion And a great wonder it is to me That they which affirm the Pope cannot erre do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirm it did not the daily Works of the Popes compel them to believe the Contrary For very many of them have led lives quite Contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross Impiety if their own Historians be true Take your choice of John the thirteenth about the year 966. Or of Sylvester the second about the year 999. Or John the eighteenth about the year 1003. Or Benedict the ninth about the year 1033. Or Boniface the eighth about the year 1294. Or Alexander the sixth about the year 1492. And yet these and their like must be Infallible in their Dictates and Conclusions of Faith Do your own believe it Surely no. For Alphonsus à Castro tells us plainly That he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to attribute this unto him that he can neither erre nor mistake in expounding the holy Scripture This comes home And therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd Purge For these words are Express in the Edition at Paris 1534. But they are not to be found in that at Colen 1539. Nor in that at Antwerp 1556. Nor in that at Paris 1571. Harding says indeed Alphonsus left it out of himself in the following Editions Well First Harding says this but proves it not so I may chuse whether I will believe him or no. Secondly be it so that he did that cannot help their Cause a whit For say he did mislike the sharpness of the Phrase or ought else in this speech yet he alter'd not his Judgement of the thing For in all these later Editions he speaks as home if not more than in the first and says Expresly That the Pope may erre not onely as a private person but as Pope And in difficult Cases he addes That the Pope ought to Consult Viros doctos men of Learning And this also was the Opinion of the Ancient Church of Christ concerning the Pope and his Infallibility For thus Liberius and he ◠Pope himself writes to Athanasius Brother Athanasius if you think in the presence of God and Christ as I do I pray subscribe this Confession which is thought to be the true Faith of the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church that
first besides the silence of Impartial Antiquity divers of your Own confess it yea and prove it too by sundry Instances Num. 10 Secondly There is a great Question among the Learned both School-men and Controversers Whether the Pope coming to be an Heretick may be Deposed And 't is Learnedly disputed by Bellarmine The Opinions are different For the Canon-Law says expresly He may be judged and deposed by the Church in case of Heresie Joh. de Turrecremata is of Opinion That the Pope is to be deposed by the Church so soon as he becomes an Heretick though as yet not a manifest one Because he is already deprived by Divine Right And recites another opinion That the Pope cannot be deposed though he fall into secret or manifest Heresie Cajetan thinks that the Pope cannot be deposed but for a manifest Heresie and that then he is not deposed ipso facto but must be deposed by the Church Bellarmine's own Opinion is That if the Pope become a manifest Heretick he presently ceases to be Pope and Head of the Church and may then be Judged and punished by the Church Bellarmine hath disputed this very Learnedly and at large and I will not fill this Discourse with another mans Labours The use I shall make of it runs through all these Opinions and through all alike And truly the very Question it self supposes that A Pope may be an Heretick For if he cannot be an Heretick why do they question whether he can be Deposed for being One And if he can be one then whether he can be Deposed by the Church Before he be manifest or not till after or neither before nor after or which way they will it comes all to one for my purpose For I question not here his Deposition for his Heresie but his Heresie And I hope none of these Learned men nor any other dare deny but that if the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre For every Heresie is an Errour and more For 't is an Errour oft-times against the Errants knowledge but ever with the pertinacie of his Will Therefore out of all even your own Grounds If the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre grosly he can erre wilfully And he that can so Erre cannot be Infallible in his Judgement private or publike For if he can be an Heretick he can and doubtless will Judge for his Heresie if the Church let him alone And you your selves maintain his Deposition lawful to prevent this I verily believe Alb. Pighius foresaw this Blow And therefore he is of Opinion That the Pope cannot become an Heretick at all And though Bellarmine favour him so far as to say his Opinion is probable yet he is so honest as to adde that the Common opinion of Divines is against him Nay though he Labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the first from the Heresie of the Monothelites and says that Pope Adrian was deceived who thought him one yet He confesses That Pope Adrian the second with the Councel then held at Rome and the eighth General Synod did think that the Pope might be Judged in the Cause of Heresie And that the condition of the Church were most miserable if it should be constrained to acknowledge a Wolf manifestly raging for her Shepherd And here again I have a Question to ask Whether you believe the eighth General Councel or not If you believe it then you see the Pope can erre and so He not Infallible If you believe it not then in your Judgement that General Councel erres and so that not Infallible Num. 11 Thirdly It is altogether in vain and to no use that the Pope should be Infallible and that according to your own Principles Now God and Nature make nothing in vain Therefore either the Pope is not Infallible or at least God never made him so That the Infallibility of the Pope had he any in him is altogether vain and useless is manifest For if it be of any use 't is for the setling of Truth and Peace in the Church in all times of her Distraction But neither the Church nor any member of it can make any use of the Popes Infallibility that way Therefore it is of no use or benefit at all And this also is as manifest as the rest For before the Church or any particular man can make any use of this Infallibility to settle him and his Conscience he must either Know or Believe that the Pope is Infallible But a man can neither Know nor Believe it And first for Belief For if the Church or any Christian man can believe it he must believe it either by Divine or by Humane Faith Divine Faith cannot be had of it For as is before proved it hath no Ground in the written Word of God Nay to follow you closer it was never delivered by any Tradition of the Catholike Church And for Humane Faith no Rational man can possibly believe having no Word of God to over-rule his Understanding that he which is Fallible in the Means as your selves confess the Pope is can possibly be Infallible in the Conclusion And were it so that a Rational man could have Humane Faith of this Infallibility yet that neither is nor never can be sufficient to make the Pope Infallible No more than my strong Belief of another mans Honesty can make him an Honest man if he be not so Now secondly for Knowledge and that is altogether impossible too that either the Church or any Member of the Church should ever know that the Pope is Infallible And this I shall make evident also out of your own Principles For your Councel of Florence had told us That three things are necessary to every Sacrament the Matter the Form of the Sacrament and the Intention of the Priest which administers it that he intends to do as the Church doth Your Councel of Trent confirms it for the Intention of the Priest Upon this Ground be it Rock or Sand it is all one for you make it Rock and build upon it I shall raise this Battery against the Popes Infallibility First the Pope if he have any Infallibility at all he hath it as he is Bishop of Rome and S. Peter's Successour This is granted Secondly the Pope cannot be Bishop of Rome but he must be in holy Orders first And if any man be chosen that is not so the Election is void ipso facto propter errorem Personae for the errour of the Person This also is granted Thirdly He that is to be made Pope can never be in Holy Orders but by receiving them from One that hath Power to Ordain This is notoriously known So is it also that with you Order is a Sacrament properly so called And if so then the Pope when he did receive the Order of Deacon or Priesthood at the hands of the Bishop did also receive a Sacrament Upon these Grounds I raise my
Pilate disagreeing Parties enough yet agreed against Truth it self But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement And secondly by the two Instances before given For in the Instance between the Orthodox Church then and the Donatists this Proposition is most false For it was a Point of Faith so of Salvation that they were upon Namely the right use and administration of the Sacrament of Baptism And yet had it been safest to take up that way which the differing Parts agreed on or which the adverse Part Confessed men must needs have gone with the Donatists against the Church And this must fall out as oft as any Heretick will cunningly take that way against the Church which the Donatists did if this Principle shall go for currant But in the second Instance concerning the Eucharist a matter of Faith and so of Salvation too the same Proposition is most true And the Reason is because here the matter is true Namely The true and real participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacrament But in the former the matter was false Namely That Rebaptization was necessary after Baptism formally given by the Church So this Proposition In Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree in or which the Adversary confesses is you see both true and false as men have cunning to apply it and as the matter is about which it is Conversant And is therefore no Proposition able or fit to settle a Conclusion in any sober mans minde till the Matter contained under it be well scanned and examined And yet as much use as you would make of this Proposition to amaze the weak your selves dare not stand to it no not where the matter is undeniably true as shall appear in divers Particulars beside this of the Eucharist Num. 5 But before I add any other particular Instances I must tell you what A. C. says to the two former For he tells us These two are nothing like the present case Nothing That is strange indeed Why in the first of those Cases concerning the Donatists your Proposition is false And so far from being safest that it was no way safe for a man to take that way of Belief and so of Salvation which both parts agreed on And is this nothing Nay is not this full and home to the present case For the present case is this and no more That it is safest taking that way of Belief which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary Confesses And in the second of those Cases concerning the Eucharist your Proposition indeed is true not by the Truth which it hath seen in it self Metaphysically and in Abstract but onely in regard of the matter to which it is applied yet there you desert your own Proposition where it is true And is this nothing Nay is not this also full and home to the present case since it appears your Proposition is such as your selves dare not bide by either when it is true or when it is false For in the Case of Baptism administred by the Donatist the Proposition is false and you dare not bide by it for Truths sake And in the case of the Eucharist the Proposition is true and yet you dare not bide by it for the Church of Romes sake So that Church with you cannot erre and yet will not suffer you to maintain Truth which not to do is some degree of Errour and that no small one Num. 6 Well A. C. goes on and gives his Reasons why these two Instances are nothing like the present Case For in these Cases saith he there are annexed other Reasons of certainly known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie which we should inâ—ur by consenting to the Donatists denial of true Baptism among Catholikes and to the Protestants denial or doubting of the true substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in this Case of Resolving to live and die in the Catholike Romà ne Church there is confessedly no such peril of any damnable Heresie or Schism or any other sin Here I have many Particulars to observe upon A. C. and you shall have them as briefly as I can set them down And first I take A. C. at his word that in the case of the Donatist should it be followed there would be known peril of damnable Schism and Heresie by denying true Baptism to be in the Orthodox Church For by this you may see what a sound Proposition this is That where two Parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both Parties agree or which the Adversary confesses for here you may see by the case of the Donatist is confessed it may lead a man that will universally lean to it into known and damnable Schism and Heresie An excellent Guide I promise you this is it not Nor secondly are these though A. C. calls them so annexed Reasons For he calls them so but to blaunch the matter as if they fell upon the Proposition ab extra accidentally and from without Whereas they are not annexed or pinned on but flow naturally out of the Proposition it self For the Proposition would seem to be Metaphysical and is appliable indifferently to any Common Belief of dissenting Parties be the point in difference what it will Therefore if there be any thing Heretical Schismatical or any way evil in the Point this Proposition being neither Universally nor necessarily true must needs cast him that relies upon it upon all these Rocks of Heresie Schism or what ever else follows the matter of the Proposition Thirdly A. C. doth extremely ill to joyn these Cases of the Donatists for Baptism and the Protestant for the Eucharist together as he doth For this Proposition in the first concerning the Donatists leads a man as is confessed by himself into known and damnable Schism and Heresie but by A. C's good leave the later concerning the Protestants and the Eucharist nothing so For I hope A. C. dare not say That to believe the true substantial Presence of Christ is either known or damnable Schism or Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of Salvation as before is limited in the Romane Church Therefore they in that not guilty of either known or damnable Schism or Heresie though the Donâ—tists were of both Fourthly whereas he imposes upon the Protestants The denyal or doubting of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is a great deal more bold than true in that also For understand them right and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it For as for the Lutheranes as they are commonly called their very Opinion of Consubstantiation makes it known to the world that they neither deny nor doubt of his true and Real presence there And they are Protestants And for the
him in both all the rest of his life for this blessing thus bestowed on him Now thus far these dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a Sacrifice of Duty and a Sacrifice of Praise and a Sacrifice of Commemoration of Christ. Therefore according to the former Rule and here in truth too 't is safest for a man to believe the Commemorative the the Praising and the Performing Sacrifice and to offer them duely to God and leave the Church of Rome in this Particular to her Superstitions that I may say no more And would the Church of Rome stand to A. C's Rule and believe dissenting Parties where they agree were it but in this and that before of the Real presence it would work far toward the Peace of Christendom But the Truth is They pretend the Peace of Christendom but care no more for it than as it may uphold at least if not increase their own Greatness My fourth Instance shall be in the Sacrament of Baptism and the things required as necessary to make it effectual to the Receiver They in the common received Doctrine of the Church of Rome are three The Matter the Form and the Intention of the Priest to do that which the Church doth and intends he should do Now all other Divines as well ancient as modern and both the dissenting Churches also agree in the two former but many deny that the Intention of the Priest is necessary Will A. C. hold his Rule That 't is safest to believe in a controverted Point of Faith that which the dissenting Parties agree on or which the Adverse Part Confesses If he will not then why should he press that as a Rule to direct others which he will not be guided by himself And if he will then he must go professedly against the Councel of Trent which hath determined it as deside as a Point of Faith that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to make the Baptism true and valid Though in the History of that Councel 't is most apparent the Bishops and other Divines there could not tell what to answer to the Bishop of Minors a Neapolitane who declared his Judgement openly against it in the face of that Councel My fifth Instance is We say and can easily prove there are divers Errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal But I my self have heard some Jesuites confess that in the Liturgie of the Church of England there 's no positive Errour And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us They answered they could not do it Because though our Liturgie had in it nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service Now here let A. C. consider again Here is a plain Concession of the adverse Part And both agree there 's nothing in our Service but that which is holy and good What will the Jesuite or A. C. say to this If he forsake his ground then it is not safest in point of Divine Worship to joyn in Faith as the dissenting Parties agree or to stand to the Adversaries own Confession If he be so hardy as to maintain it then the English Liturgy is better and safer to worship God by than the Roman Mass. Which yet I presume A. C. will not confess Num. 8 In all these Instances the Matter so falling out of it self for the Argument enforces it not the thing is true but not therefore true because the dissenting Parties agree in it or because the adverse Part Confesses it Yet lest the Jesuite or A. C. for him farther to deceive the weak should infer that this Rule in so many Instances is true and false in none but that one concerning Baptism among the Donatists and therefore the Argument is true ut plerumque as for the most and that therefore 't is the safest way to believe that which dissenting Parties agree on I will lay down some other Particulars of as great Consequence as any can be in or about Christian Religion And if in them A. C. or any Jesuite dare say that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting Parties agree or as the adverse Party confesses I dare say he shall be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Insidel And First where the Question was betwixt the Orthodox and the Arrian whether the Son of God were consubstantial with the Father The Orthodox said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance The Arrian came within in a Letter of the Truth and said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like substance Now he that says he is of the same substance confesses he is of like substance and more that is Identity of Substance for Identity contains in it all Degrees of likeness and more But he that acknowledges and believes that He is of like nature and no more denies the Identity Therefore if this Rule be true That it is safest to believe that in which the dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part Confesses which A. C. makes such great vaunt of then 't is safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature with God the Father and be free from Belief that He is Consubstantial with him which yet is Concluded by the Councel of Nice as necessary to Salvation and the Contrary Condemned for Damnable Heresie Secondly in the Question about the Resurrection between the Orthodox and diverse â—ross Hereticks of old and the Anabaptists and Libertines of late For all or most of these dissenting Parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to a state of Grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers Passages of holy Scripture together with the Life of the Soul which they are content to say is Immortal But they utterly deny any Resurrection of the Body after Death So with them that Article of the Creed is gone Now then if any man will guide his Faith by this Rule of A. C. The Consent of dissenting Parties or the Confession of the Adverse Part he must deny the Resurrection of the Body from the Grave to Glory and believe none but that of the Soul from sin to Grace which the Adversaries Confess and in which the Dissenting Parties agree Thirdly in the great Dispute of all others about the Unity of the Godhead All dissenting Parties Jew Turk and Christian Among Christians Orthodox and Anti-Trinitarian of old And in these later times Orthodox and Socinian that Horrid and mighty Monster of all Heresies agree in this That there is but one God And I hope it is as necessary to believe one God our Father as one Church our Mother Now will A. C. say here 't is safest believing as the dissenting Parties agree or as the Adverse Parties Confess namely That there is but one God and so deny the Trinity and therewith the Son of God the Saviour of
the world Fourthly in a Point as Fundamental in the Faith as this Namely whether Christ be true and very God For which very Point most of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church laid down their lives The dissenting Parties here were the Orthodox Believers who affirm He is both God and Man for so our Creed teaches us And all those Hereticks which affirm Christ to be Man but deny him to be God as the Arrians and Carpocratians and Cerinthus and Hebion with others and at this day the Socinians These dissenting Parties agree fully and clearly That Christ is Man Well then Dare A. C. stick to his Rule here and say 't is safest for a Christian in this great Point of Faith to govern his Belief by the Consent of these dissenting Parties or the Confession and acknowledgment of the Adverse Party and so settle his Belief that Christ is a meer Man and not God I hope he dares not So then this Rule To Resolve a mans Faith into that in which the Dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part confesses is as often false as true And false in as Great if not Greater Matters than those in which it is true And where 't is true A. C. and his fellows dare not govern themselves by it the Church of Rome condemning those things which that Rule proves And yet while they talk of Certainty nay of Infallibility less will not serve their turns they are driven to make use of such poor shifts as these which have no certainty at all of Truth in them but infer falshood and Truth alike And yet for this also men will be so weak or so wilful as to be seduced by them Num. 9 I told you before That the force of the preceding Argument lies upon two things The one expressed and that 's past the other upon the Bye which comes now to be handled And that is your continual poor Out-cry against us That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church Sure if I thought I were out I would get in as fast as I could For we confess as well as you That Out of the Catholike Church of Christ there is no Salvation But what do you mean by Out of the Church Sure out of the Roman Church Why but the Roman Church and the Church of England are but two distinct Members of that Catholike Church which is spread over the face of the Earth Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwels but Rome it self as well as other particular Churches dwels in this great Universal House unless you will shut up the Church in Rome as the Donatists did in Africk I come a little lower Rome and other National Churches are in this Universal Catholike House as so many Daughters to whom under Christ the care of the Houshold is committed by God the Father and the Catholike Church the Mother of all Christians Rome as an Elder Sister but not the Eldest neither had a great Care committed unto her in and from the prime times of the Church and to her Bishop in her but at this time to let pass many brawls that have formerly been in the House England and some other Sisters of hers are fallen out in the Family What then Will the Father and the Mother God and the Church cast one Childe out because another is angry with it Or when did Christ give that power to an Elder Sister that She and her Steward the Bishop there should thrust out what Childe she pleased Especially when she her self is justly accused to have given the Offence that is taken in the House Or will not both Father and Mother be sharper to Her for this unjust and unnatural usage of her younger Sisters but their dear Children Nay is it not the next way to make them turn her out of doors that is so unnatural to the rest It is well for all Christian Men and Churches that the Father and Mother of them are not so curst as some would have them And Salvation need not be feared of any dutiful Childe nor Outing from the Church because this Elder Sisters faults are discovered in the House and she grown froward for it against them that complained But as Children cry when they are waked out of sleep so do you and wrangle with all that come neer you And Stapleton confesses That ye were in a dead sleep and over-much rest when the Protestants stole upon you Now if you can prove that Rome is properly The Catholick Church it self as you commonly call it speak out and prove it In the mean time you may Mark this too if you will and it seems you do for here you forget not what the Bishop said to you F. The Lady which doubted said the Bishop to me may be better saved in it than you B. § 36 I said so indeed Mark that too Where yet by the way these words Than you do not suppose Person only For I will Judge no man that hath another Master to stand or fall to But they suppose Calling and Sufficiency in the Person Than you that is Than any man of your Calling and Knowledge of whom more is required And then no question of the truth of this speech That that person may better be saved that is easier than you than any man that knows so much of Truth and opposes against it as you and others of your Calling do How far you know Truth other men may judge by your Proofs and Causes of Knowledge but how far you oppose Truth known to you that is within and no man can know but God and your selves Howsoever where the Foundation is but held there for ordinary men it is not the vivacity of Understanding but the simplicity of Believing that makes them safe For S. Augustine speaks there of men in the Church and no man can be said simply to be Out of the Visible Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation And as it is the simplicity of Believing that makes them safe yea safest so is it sometimes A quickness of Understanding that loving it self and some by-respects too well makes men take up an unsafe way about the Faith So that there 's no Question but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders unless they repented before death were lost And S. Augustine's Rule will be true That in all Corruptions of the Church there will ever be a difference between an Heretick and a plain well-meaning man that is misled and believes an Heretick Yet here let me adde this for fuller Expression This must be understood of such Leaders and Hereticks as refuse to hear the Churches Instruction or to use all the means they can to come to the knowledge of the Truth For else if they do this Erre they may but Hereticks they are not as is most manifest in S. Cyprian's
Spiritui sancto Nobis not used by any posteriour Councel 155. the first and later Councels differently assisted 156 166. whence they have their power and assistance 150 c. the prior may be amended by the posterior 158 c. what decrees of them are necessary to be believed 161. how they are held by the Romanists to be infallible 163. their decrees by Stapleton held to be the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 156. that they are not Prophetical in their conclusions 163 164. Of their necessity and frequency 128. that they may erre the whole Church not erring 168. their errours how to be amended 101. how made of no worth at all by the Romanists without the Pope 17â— Councels and Fathers how we are sure we have their true copies â—â—6 217. Conclusions of Councels how to be believed 226 their determinations not all of equal authority 234. by whom they were and ought to be called 140 141. against the Popes being above a general Councel 218 252. Conditions required to make a Councel lawful 142 143. Protestants invited to one upon doubtful and dangerous terms 92 Of the Councel of Florence and the Greeks their subscribing to it â—27 Councel of Constance her injurious proceeding against Husse c. 92 93. Becanus his defence of it confuted ibid. it s great errour touching Communion in one kinde 170 Councel of Nice the absence of the Western Bishops from it how recompenced 144 Councel of Africk in S. Cypriâ—ns time erred about Baptism by Hereticks 158 Councel of Trent how occasioned and what an one it was 99. not general nor legal and so null 140 143. compared with ancient Councels 26 27 142 143 c. the blinde pâ—rtinacy of the Fathers there 93. her dangerous and wilful errour concerning the intention of those that administer the Sacraments 179 180. claimed by Soâ—o and Vega for their contrary Tenets 32 of things there determined 24. there the Pope ought not to have sate as President 140 141. Bishops made of purpose to make a major part there 143. more Italian Bishops in it than of all Christendome beside ibid. its addition of twelve new Articles to the Creed 222 Creed that it is a Rule of faith 27. that it is wholly grounded on Scripture 29. some words added to it why and by whom 9. Iremâ—us his famous testimony of it 218 Athanasian Creed expounded and vindicated 210 223 S. Cyprian cleared 3 c. and 6 and righted 237 S. Cyril of Alexandria vindicated 8 9 D DEmonstrative reasons of greater force than any other humane proof 161. direct proof and demonstrative how they differ 35 Descent of Christ into Hall how hâ—ld by the Church of England and how by those of Rome 29 30 198 Dissent and difference in opinion what may stand with the peace of the Church 234 235 Disputations their use 82. when and how lawful for a private man to dispute with the whole Church â—4 publike disputations how safe or available 94 95. in what case to be admitted between the English and the Romish Clergy 94 Divinity that it hath a science above it and what 79. the Principles of it otherwise confirmed than those of any other Art 67 68 78 79 Donatus two of that name 196 Donatists compared with the Romanists 194 195 196 whether any of them living and dying so had possibility of salvation and which 195 196. whether they were guilty of Hâ—resie ibid. E EMperour whom the Jesuites would have to be 233 137 vid. Pope Epiphanius cleared and vindicated 121 122 Errours not fundamental to whom and in what case damnable 208 209 242. Errours of Councels vid. Councels Errours of the Romane Church wanting all proof from ancient Councels and Fathers 221 c. 250. what be the most dangerous of them 245. Errours of Papists to whom fundamental 217. vid. Church of Rome Eucharist a threefold Sacrifice in it 199 200. mutilated by the Romane Church 12 170 171. upon what hard terms the Bohemians were dispens'd with to have it in both kinds 198. the Papists tyed by their own grounds to believe of it as the Church of England doth 187 c. the Church of England and other Protestants believe Christs real presence in it 188 289 c. 191 192 193. Concoâ—itancy in it Thomas of Aquin's fiction confuted 198. Bellarmines notorious contradiction of Christs being in it corporally present 192 193. his new and intricate Doctrine touching Tran substantiation 213 214. of the unbloody Sacrifice and the bloody how they differ 199 200. the propitiatory and gratulatory Sacrifice how they differ 199 200 Expositions such only right as the thing expounded containeth 20 The Extravagants censured 139 F FAith how it is unchangable and yet hath been changed 7. what is certain by the certainty of it 25 26. not to be termeâ— the Romane but the Christian or Catholike Faith 88 c. the two Regular precepts of it 27. of its prime Principles and how they differ from the Articles of it 28. the last Resolution of it into what it should be 41 42 c. 57 65 66 215 223 224 c. Faith acquired faith in sus'd wherein either or both required 233. how few things are essential to the Faith 234 235. how its Principles differ from those of sciences 67. its foundation the Scripture 34. by it man brought to his last happiness 68 70 71. how by it the understanding is captivated 72. that it is an act produced by the will 48 68. the Principles of it have sufficient evidence of proof 77. It and Reason compared in their objects c. 164 c. a latitude in it in reference to different mens salvation 212 236. things of two sorts belonging to it 24. what by it to be believ'd explicitly what not 217 218. of the perfection and certainty of it 252. of things not necessary to salvation no infallible Faith can be among men 233. foundation of Faith how shaken 25. how fretted by those of Rome 59. the Catholike and now Romane Faith â—ot both one 220. Faith of Scripture to be Gods Word infused by the Holy Ghost 47 48. the true grounds of it 71 72 73 74. our Faith of it how it differs from that of those who wrote Scripture 70 71. Faith of Scripture that it hath all perfections necessary 73 74. how firm and invincible it is 74 75 Felicity what it is and that the soul of man is capable of it 72 Ferus his acknowledgment of the difference 'twixt the first Councels and the late ones 156 Fundamental what maketh a point to be such 19 20 22. that decrees of Councels are not such 87. what points be so and what not 17 18. 21 22 27 c. 217 218. not all of a like primeness 28. all Fundamentals held by the whole Church 18. Points not Fundamental how and to whom necessary to salvation 18 19. Firm and Fundamental how they differ 23 G GErson his ingenuity 99 Holy Ghost how said to be lost 14. his
boty by Divine and by Infallible Proof But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary not by Knowledge of such Principles as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no. I have said thus much upon this great Occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture And I have proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Jesuites for certainly this Question was Captiously asked it had been sufficient to have restored the Question thus How do you know the Testimony of the Church by which you say you know Scripture to be the Word of God to be Divine and Infallible If they prove it by Scripture as all of them do and as A. C. doth how do they know that Scripture to be Scripture It is but a Circular Assurance of theirs by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Scripture And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church That is upon the Matter the Churches Infallibility upon the Churches Infallibility But I labour for edification not for destruction And now by what I have here said I will weigh my Answer and his Exception taken against it F. The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed and needed not to be Proved B. § 17 Why but did I say That this Principle The Books of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no Proof at all to a Natural man Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith yea or perhaps to a Doubter or Weakling in the Faith Can you think me so weak It seems you do But sure I know there is a great deal of difference between Ethnicks that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are Born in the Church The first have a farther way about to this Principle The other in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it That the Books commonly called The Bible or Scripture are the Word of God And I dealt with you as with a Christian though in Errour while you call Catholike The Words before spoken by me were That the Scripture only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question between us and you is Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subject the Scripture is and must be supposed The Quaere between the Roman-Catholicks and the Church of England being only of the Praedicate the thing uttered of it Namely Whether it contain all Fundamentals of Faith all Necessaries for Salvation within it Now since the Question proposed in very form of Art proves not but supposes the Subject I think I gave a satisfying Answer That to you and me and in this Question Scripture was a Supposed Principle and needed no Proof And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent it is against all Art yea and Equity too in Reasoning to call for a proof of That here which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety to Question it it must be tried in a preceding Question and Dispute by it self Yet here not you only but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply against M. John White Wherein I plainly shewed that this Answer was not good and that no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point ◠§ 18 Num. 1 Indeed here you read out of a Book which you called your own a large Discourse upon this Argument But surely I so untied the knot of the Argument that I set you to your Book again For your self confess that against this you read what you had formerly written Well! what ere you read there certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to M. Hooker and my self that because we call it a Supposed or Presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysical Discourse to prove That that which is a Praecognitum fore-known in Science must be of such light that it must be known of and by it self alone and that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the Word of God Num. 2 I will not now enter again into that Discourse having said enough already how far the Beam which is very glorious especially in some parts of Scripture gives light to prove it self You see neither Hooker nor I nor the Church of England for ought I know leave the Scripture alone to manifest it self by the light which it hath in it self No but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun-shine then indeed we settle for our Direction yet not upon the first opening of the morning-light but upon the Sun it self Nor will I make needless enquiry how far and in what manner a Praecognitum or Supposed Principle in any Science may be proved in a Higher to which that is subordinate or accepted for a Prime Nor how it may in Divinity where Prae as well as Post-cognita things fore as well as after-known are matters and under the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly Nor whether a Praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests upon Divine Authority must needs have as much and equal Light to Natural Reason as Prime Principles have in Nature while they rest upon Reason Nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient Light because not equal Your own School grants That in us which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us there is less Light less Evidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge upon which there can be no doubt But I think the School will never grant That the Principles of Faith even this in Question have not sufficient Evidence And you ought not to do as you did without any Distinction or any Limitation deny a Praecognitum or Prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science in their Light and Evidence a thing in it self directly against Reason Num. 3 Well though I do none of this yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in again and tells me That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion between them that whether it be in Science or in Faith the Praecognitum or thing supposed as known must be prius cognitum