expresly ascribes Rule to the Church And that is not onely a Pastoral Power to teach and direct but a Praetorian also to Control and Censure too where Errours or Crimes are against Points Fundamental or of great Consequence Else S. Paul would not have given the Rule for Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. Nor Christ himself have put the man that will not hear and obey the Church into the place and condition of an Ethnick and a Publican as he doth S. Mat. 18. And Solomon's Rule is general and he hath it twice My son forsake not the teaching or instruction of thy Mother Now this is either spoken and meant of a natural Mother And her Authority over her Children is confirmed Ecclus 3. And the fool will be upon him that despiseth her Prov. 15. Or 't is extended also to our Mystical and Spiritual Mother the Church And so the Geneva Note upon the Place expresses it And I cannot but incline to this Opinion Because the Blessings which accompany this Obedience are so many and great as that they are not like to be the fruits of Obedience to a Natural Mother onely as Solomon expresses them all Prov. 6. And in all this here 's no Exception of of the Mothers erring For Mater errans an erring Mother loses neither the right nor the power of a Mother by her errour And I marvel what Son should shew reverence or obedience if no Mother that hath erred might exact it 'T is true the Son is not to follow his Mothers errour or his Mother into errour But 't is true too 't is a grievous crime in a Son to cast off all obedience to his Mother because at some time or in some things she hath fallen into errour And howsoever this Consideration meets with this Inconvenience as well as the rest For suppose as I said in the whole Catholike Militant Church an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation And then though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may erre yet if the Grand-mother the whole Universal Church cannot in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of Disobedience taken from the possibility of the Churches erring are quite taken away Nor is this Mother less to be valued by her Children because in some smaller things Age had filled her face fuller of wrinkles For where 't is said that Christ makes to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. that is not understood of the Church Militant but of the Church Triumphant And to maintain the contrary is a Branch of the spreading Heresie of Pelagianism Nor is the Church on earth any freer from wrinkles in Doctrine and Discipline than she is from Spots in Life and Conversation Num. 5 The next thing I Consider is Suppose a General Councel take it self to be infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prove not so but that an Errour in the Faith be concluded the same Erring Opinion that makes it think it self Infallible makes the Errour of it seem irrevocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleep by the opinion of Infallibility is left open to all mauner of Distractions as it appears at this day And that a Councel may erre besides all other Instances which are not few appears by that Errour of the Councel of Constance And one Instance is enough to overthrow a General be it a Councel Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To break Christs Institution is a Damnable Errour and so confessed by Stapleton The Councel is bold and defines peremptorily That to Communicate in both kindes is not necessary with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider now with me Is this an Errour or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say 't is not because to receive under both kindes is not by Divine Right No No sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had been more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Form as a Precept Therefore speak out and deny it to be Christs Institution or else grant with Stapleton It is a damnable Errour to go against it If you can prove that Christs Institution is not as binding to us as a Precept which you shall never be able take the Precept with it Drink ye All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can never make it other than it is A binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Device than this to save the Councel He saith It is a meer Calumny and that the Councel hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiving under both kindes but to the time of receiving it after Supper in which the Councel saith the Custome of the Church is to be observed Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foul Bellarmine is in this must appear by the words of the Councel which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gave it his Disciples after Supper under both kindes of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be Consecrated after Supper nor received but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kindes yet this Custom that it should be received by Lay-men onely under the kinde of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an unlawful Custom of Receiving under one kinde is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driven out as Hereticks Now where is here any slander of the Councel The words are plain and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiving under both kindes as against Receiving after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councel couple both together in this Reference for it follows Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitive Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councel may be an Heretick for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kinde may not be refused but Christs Institution under Both kindes may And yet this Councel did not erre No take heed of it Num. 6 But your Opinion is more Unreasonable than this for consider any Body Collective be it more or less Universal whensoever it assembles it self did it ever give more power to the Representing Body of it than binding power upon all particulars and it self And did it ever give this power otherwise than with this Reservation in Nature
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
Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in things which are de Fide of the Faith He tells us this Firmitude is because the Sea Apostolick is fixed there And this he saith is most true And for proof of it he brings three Fathers to justifie it 1 The first Saint Cyprian whose words are That the Romans are such as to whom Persidia cannot have access Now Persidia can hardly stand for Errour in Faith or for Misbelief but it properly signifies Malicious Falshood in matter of Trust and Action not Errour in Faith but in Fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church And why may it not here have this meaning in S. Cyprian Num. 4 For the Story there it is this In the Year 255 there was a Councel in Carthage in the Cause of two Schismaticks Felicissimus and Novatian about restoring of them to the Communion of the Church which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry Felicissimus would admit all even without Penance and Novatian would admit none no not after Penance The Fathers forty two in number went as the Truth led them between both Extremes To this Councel came Privatus a known Heretick but was not admitted because he was formerly Excommunicated and often condemned Hereupon he gathers his Complices together and chuses one Fortunatus who was formerly condemned as well as himself Bishop of Carthage and set him up against S. Cyprian This done Felicissimus and his Fellows haste to Rome with Letters Testimonial from their own Party and pretend that twenty five Bishops concurred with them and their desire was to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church and to have their new Bishop acknowledged Cornelius then Pope though their haste had now prevented S. Cyprian's Letters having formerly heard from him both of them and their Schism in Africk would neither hear them nor receive their Letters They grew insolent and furious the ordinary way that Schismaticks take Upon this Cornelius writes to S. Cyprian and S. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African Fugitives declares their Schism and wickedness at large and incourages Him and all Bishops to maintain the Ecclesiastical Discipline and Censures against any the boldest threatâ—ings of wicked Schismaticks This is the Story and in this is the Passage here urged by Bellarmine Now I would fain know why Perfidia all circumstances considered may not stand here in its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing which these men having practised at Carthage thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also but that he was wary enough not to be over-reach'd by busie Schismaticks Num. 5 2. Secondly Let it be granted that Perfidia doth signifie here Errour in Faith and Doctrine For I will not deny but that among the African Writers and especially S. Cyprian it is sometimes so us'd and therefore here perhaps But then this Priviledge of not erring dangerously in the Faith was not made over absolutely to the Romans that are such by Birth and dwelling only but to the Romans qua tales as they were such as those first were whose Faith was famous through the World and as long as they continued such which at that time it seems they did And so S. Cyprian's words seem to import eos esse Romanos that the Romans then under Pope Cornelius were such as the Apostle spake of and therefore to whom at that time or any time they still remaining such perfidious misbelief could not be welcom or rather indeed perfidious Misbelievers or Schismaticks could not be welcom For this very Phrase Perfidia non potest habere accessum directs us to understand the word in a Concrete sense Perfidiousness could not get access that is such perfidious persons Excommunicated out of other Churches were not likely to get access at Rome or to finde admittance into their Communion It is but a Metonymie of speech the Adjunct for the Subject a thing very usual in Elegant Authors and much more in later times as in S. Cyprian's when the Latine Language was grown rougher Now if it be thus understood I say in the Concrete then it is plain that S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibility of Errour but to brand his Adversaries with a Title due to their Merit calling them Perfidious that is such as had betrayed or perverted the Faith Neither can we loose by this Construction as will appear at after Num. 6 3. But thirdly When all is done what if it be no more then a Rhetorical excess of speech Perfidia non potest for non facile potest It cannot that is it cannot easily Or what if S. Cyprian do but Laudando praecipere by commending them to be such instruct them that such indeed they ought to be to whom Perfidiousness should not get access Men are very bountiful of their Complements sometimes Syneâ—ius writing to Theophilus of Alexandria begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I both will and a Divine Necessity lies upon me to esteem it a Law whatsoever that Throne meaning his of Alexandria shall determine Nay the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that signifies to determine like an Oracle or as in Gods stead Now I hope you will say this is not to be taken Dogmatically it is but the Epistolers Courtesie only And why not the like here For the haste which these Schismaticks made to Rome prevented S. Cyprian's Letters yet Cornelius very careful of both the Truth and Peace of the Church would neither hear them nor receive their Letters till he had written to S. Cyprian Now this Epistle is S. Cyprian's Answer to Cornelius in which he informs him of the whole truth and withal gives him thanks for refusing to hear these African Fugitives In which fair way of returning his thanks if he make an Honourable mention of the Romans and their Faith with a little dash of Rhetorick even to a Non potest for a Non facile potest 't is no great wonder Num. 7 But take which Answer you will of the three this is plain that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome For this is more then manifest by the Contestation which after happened between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen about the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Hereticks For he saith expresly That Pope Stephen did then not only maintain an Errour but the very Cause of Hereticks and that against Christians and the very Church of God And after this he chargeth him with Obstinacy and Presumption I hope this is plain enough to shew that S. Cyprian had no great Opinion of the Roman Infallibility Or if he had it when he writ to Cornelius certainly he had chang'd it when he wrote against Stephen But I think it was no change and that when he wrote to Cornelius it was Rhetorick and
no more Num. 8 Now if any man shall say that in this Point of Rebaptization S. Cyprian himself was in the wrong Opinion and Pope Stephen in the right I easily grant that but yet that Errour of his takes not off his judgment what he thought of the Papal or Roman Infallibility in those times For though afterwards S. Cyprian's Opinion was condemned in a Councel at Rome under Cornelius and after that by Pope Stephen and after both in the first Councel of Carthage yet no one word is there in that Councel which mentions this as an Errour That he thought Pope Stephen might Erre in the Faith while he proclaimed he did so In which though the particular Censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was erroneous for Stephen erred not in that yet the General which results from it namely that for all his being in the Popedom he might erre is most true Num. 9 2 The second Father which Bellarmine cites is Saint Jerome His words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such Praestigia's Deceits and Delusions into it though an Angel should preach it otherwise then it was preach'd at first and being armed and fenced by S. Paul's Authority cannot be changed Where first I will not doubt but that S. Jerome speaks here of Faith for the Praestigiae here mentioned are afterwards more plainly expressed for he tells us after That the Bishop of Rome had sent Letters into the East and charged Heresie upon Ruffinus And farther that Origen's Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were translated by him and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome that by his means they might loose the verity of the Faith which they had learned from the Apostle Therefore the Praestigiae before-mentioned were the cunning illusions of Ruffinus putting Origen's Book under the Martyr Pamphilus his name that so he might bring in Heresie the more cunningly under a name of Credit and the more easily pervert the peoples Faith So of the Faith he speaks And secondly I shall as easily confess that S. Jerom's speech is most true but I cannot admit the Cardinal's sense of it for he imposes upon the word Fides For by Romana Fides the Roman Faith he will understand the particular Church of Rome which is as much as to say Romanos Fideles the Faithful of that Church And that no wily delusions or cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them Now hereupon I return to that of S. Cyprian If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos why may not Perfidia before signife Perfidos Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers as Terms Opposite And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably So with these great Masters with whom 't is almost grown to be Quod volumus rectum est what we please shall be the Authors meaning Perfidia must signifie absolutely Errour in Faith Misbelief but Fides must relate to the Persons and signifie the Faithful of the Roman Church And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deal of Reason For Romana Fides the Roman Faith as it was commended by the Apostle of which S. Jerome speaks is one thing and the Particular Roman Church of which the Cardinal speaks is another The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias wily delusions into it if it did it could not be the whole and undefiled Faith of Christ which they learned from the Apostle and which is so fenced by Apostolical Authority as that it cannot be changed though an Angel should preach the contrary But the Particular Church of Rome hath admitted Praestigias divers crafty Conveyances into the Faith and is not fenced as the Faith it self is And therefore though an Angel cannot contrary that yet the bad Angel hath sowed Tares in this By which means Romana Fides though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed yet it is not the same for the sense of it nor for the super and praeter-structures built upon it or joyned unto it So the Roman Faith that is the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romans and after commended in them was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other then that One and this one can never be changed in or from it self by Angel or Devil But in mens hearts it may receive a change and in particular Churches it may receive a change and in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change And ye see S. Hierome himself confesses that the Pope himself was afraid ne perderent lest by this Art of Ruffinus the people might lose the verity of the Faith Now that which can be lost can be changed For usually Habits begin to alter before they be quite lost And that which may be lost among the People may be lost among the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy too if they look not to it as it seems they after did not at Rome though then they did Nay at this time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Book and all the Errours in it coming under the name of Pamphilus And so S. Hierome himself expresly and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine For he desires Ruffinus to change the Title of the Book that Errour may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus and so to free from danger the Roman Simplicity Where by the way Roman unerring Power now challenged and Roman Simplicity then feared agree not very well together 3 The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is S. Gregory Nazianzen And his words are That Ancient Rome from of old hath the right Faith and always holds it as becomes the City which is Governess over the whole World to have an entire Faith in and concerning God Now certainly it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire And having the Government of a great part of the World then in her power it became her so much the more as her Example thereby was the greater And in S. Gregory Nazianzen's time Rome did certainly hold both rectam integram Fidem the right and the whole entire Faith of Christ. But there is nor Promise nor Prophecie in S. Gregory that Rome shall ever so do For his words are plain decet semper it becomes that great City always to have and to hold too integram Fidem the entire Faith But at the other semper 't is retinet that City from of old holds the right Faith yet But he saith not retinebit semper that the City of Rome shall retain it ever no more then it shall ever retain the Empire of the World Now it must be assur'd that it shall ever hold the entire Faith of Christ before we can be assured that that particular Church can never Erre or be Infallible Num. 11 Besides these the Cardinal names
Councel Decrees Now that Councel Decrees That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent or calling of the People or of any Secular Power And yet they can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councel fundamental in the Faith 'T is true I do not grant that the Decrees of this Councel are made by full Authority of the Church but they do both grant and maintain it And therefore 't is Argumentum ad hominem a good argument against them that a thing so defined may be firm for so this is and yet not fundamental for so this is not Num. 15 But A. C. tells us further That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis And as that Learned Father uses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applies it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maximes and A. C. will force it to every Determination of the Church Now Catholike Maximes which are properly fundamental are certain prime truths deposited with the Church and not so much determined by the Church as published and manifested and so made firm by her to us For so Vincentius expresly Where all that the Church doth is but ut hoc idem quod anteà that the same thing may be believed which was before believed but with more light and clearness and in that sense with more firmness then before Now in this sense give way to a Disputator errans every Cavilling Disputer to deny or quarrel at the Maximes of Christian Religion any one or any part of any one of them and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examine her own Decrees and to see that she keep Dogmata deposita the Principles of Faith unblemished and uncorrupted For if she do not so but that Novitia veteribus new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the Repository of Verity may be changed in lupanar errorum I am loath to English it By the Church then this may nay it ought to be done however every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much less obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita these deposited Principles But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church yet that may be done without shaking the foundation where the Determinations themselves belong but to the fabrick and not to the foundation For a whole frame of Building may be shaken and yet the foundation where it is well laid remain firm And therefore after all A. C. dares not say the foundation is shaken but only in a sort And then 't is as true that in a sort it is not shaken Num. 16 2 For the second part of his Argument A. C. must pardon me if I dissent from him For first All Determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation For some Determinations of the Church are made firm to us per chirographum Scripturae by the hand-writing of the Scripture and that 's Authentical indeed Some other Decisions yea and of the Church too are made or may be if Stapleton inform us right without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Writ But Bellarmine falls quite off in this and confesses in express terms That nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident consequence And if nothing can be certain but so then certainly no Determination of the Church it self if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these either express Word of God or evident consequence out of it So here 's little agreement in this great Point between Stapleton and Bellarmine Nor can this be shifted off as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God Written and Bellarmine of the Word of God Unwritten as he calls Tradition For Bollarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation And I hope A. C. will not tell us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputation there is quite beside the matter or else he must speak of the written Word and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned But to return If A. C. will he may but I cannot believe that a Definition of the Church which is made by the express Word of God and another which is made without so much as a probable Testimony of it or a clear Deduction from it are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation Nay I must say in this case that the one Determination is firm by Divine Revelation but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all but the Churches Authority only ◠Secondly I cannot believe neither That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the Power which it commits to General Councels lawfully called yet it is not always of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei that which is Dogmatical in the Faith For instance I think you dare not deny but the Councel of Trent was lawfully called and yet I am of Opinion that few even of your selves believe that the Councel of Trent hath the same fulness with the Councel of Nice in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness Thirdly suppose that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation and sufficiently applied by one and the sante full Authority yet it will not follow that they are all alike fundamental in the Faith For I hope A. C. himself will not say that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition then the Propositions of Canonical Scripture Now all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation but they are not all alike fundamental in the Faith For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter and S. Andrew
and without Choyce by which their most hated Adversaries climb'd up and could not crie up themselves and their Cause as they do but by them And Divines of all the rest might learn and teach this Wisdom if they would since they see all other Professions which help to bear down their Ceremonies keep up their own therewhile and that to the highest I have been too bold to detain Your Majesty so long But my Grief to see Christendom bleeding in Dissention and which is worse triumphing in her own Blood and most angry with them that would study her Peace hath thus transported me For truely it Cannot but grieve any man that hath Bowels to see All men seeking but as S. Paul foretold Phil. 2. their own things and not the things which are Jesus Christs Sua Their own surely For the Gospel of Christ hath nothing to do with them And to see Religion so much so Zealously pretended and called upon made but the Stalking-Horse to shoot at other Fowl upon which their Aym is set In the mean time as if all were Truth and Holiness it self no Salvation must be possible did it lye at their Mercy but in the Communion of the One and in the Conventicles of the Other As if either of these now were as the Donatists of old reputed themselves the only men in whom Christ at his coming to Judgment should find Faith No faith S. Augustine and so say I with him Da veniam non Credimus Pardon us I pray we cannot believe it The Catholike Church of Christ is neither Rome nor a Conventicle Out of that there 's no Salvation I easily Confess it But out of Rome there is and out of a Conventicle too Salvation i◠not shut up into such a narrow Conclave In this ensuing Discourse therefore I have endeavour'd to lay open those wider-Gates of the Catholike Church confined to no Age Time or Place Nor knowing any Bounds but That Faith which was once and but once for all deliver'd to the Saints S. Jude 3. And in my pursuit of this way I have searched after and deliver'd with a single heart that Truth which I profess In the publishing whereof I have obeyed Your Majesty discharg'd my Duty to my power to the Church of England Given account of the Hope that is in me And so testified to the world that Faith in which I have lived and by God's blessing and favour purpose to dye But till Death shall most unfainedly remain Your MAJESTIES Most faithful Subject And Most Humble and Obliged Servant W. CANT A RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN WILLIAM LAWD Then L. Bishop of S. DAVIDS afterwards Lord Arch-Bishop of CANTERBURY AND M. FISHER the JESUITE F. The occasion of this Conference was B. § 1 THe occasion of this Third Conference you should know sufficiently You were an Actor in it as well as in two other VVhether you have related the two former truly appears by D. White the late Reverend L. Bishop of Ely his Relation or Exposition of them I was present at none but this Third of which I here give the Church an Account But of this Third whether that were the Cause which you alledge I cannot tell You say F. It was observed That in the second Conference all the Speech was about particular matters little or none about a continual infallible visible Church which was the chief and only Point in which a certain Lady required satisfaction as having formerly setled in her minde That it was not for her or any other unlearned persons to take upon them to judge of particulars without depending upon the judgment of the True Church B. § 2 The Opinion of that Honourable Person in this was never opened to me And it is very fit the people should look to the Judgment of the Church before they be too busie with Particulars But yet neither Scripture nor any good Authority denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgment especially in things familiar and evident which even ordinary Capacities may as easily understand as read And therefore some Particulars a Christian may judge without depending F. This Lady therefore having heard it granted in the first Conference That there must be a continual visible Company ever since Christ teaching unchanged Doctrine in all Fundamental Points that is Points necessary to Salvation desired to hear this confirmed and proof brought which was that continual infallible visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attain Salvation And therefore having appointed a time of Meeting between a B. and Me and thereupon having sent for the B. and Me before the B. came the Lady and a Friend of hers came first to the Room where I was and debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a continual visible Church as they had heard granted by D. VVhite and L. K. c. B. Num. 1 § 3 VVhat D. White and L. K. granted I heard not But I think both granted a continual and a visible Church neitherof them an Infallible at least in your sense And your self in this Relation speak distractedly For in these few lines from the beginning hither twice you adde Infallible between continual and visible and twice you leave it out But this concerns D. W. and he hath answered it Num. 2 Here A. C. steps in and says The Jesuite did not speak distractedly but most advisedly For saith he where he relates what D. VVhite or L. K. granted he leaves out the word Infallible because they granted it not But where he speaks of the Lady there he addes it because the Jesuite knew it was an Infallible Church which she sought to rely upon How far the Catholick Militant Church of Christ is Infallible is no Dispute for this place though you shall finde it after But sure the Jesuite did not speak most advisedly nor A. C. neither nor the Lady her self if she said she desired to relye upon an Infallible Church For an Infallible Church denotes a Particular Church in that it is set in opposition to some other Particular Church that is not Infallible Now I for my part do not know what that Lady desired to relye upon This I know if she desired such a Particular Church neither this Jesuite nor any other is able to shew it her No not Bellarmine himself though of very great ability to make good any Truth which he undertakes for the Church of Rome But no strength can uphold an Errour against Truth where Truth hath an able Defendant Now where Bellarmine sets himself purposely to make this good That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in matter of Faith Out of which it follows That there may be found a Particular Infallible Church you shall see what he is able to perform Num. 3 1 First then after he hath distinguished to express his meaning in what sense the
Cyrillus and Ruffinus but he neither tells us where nor cites their words Yet I think I have found the most pregnant place in S. Cyril and that makes clearly against him For I finde expresly these three things First That the Church is Inexpugnable and that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it but that it shall in perpetuum manere remain for ever And this all Protestants grant But this That it shall not fall away doth not secure it from all kinds of Errour Secondly Bellarmine quotes S. Cyril for the particular Roman Church and S. Cyril speaks not of the Roman at all but of the Church of Christ that is the Catholike Church Thirdly that the Foundation and firmness which the Church of Christ hath is placed not in or upon the Person much less the Successor of S. Peter but upon the Faith which by God's Spirit in him he so firmly professed which is the common received Opinion both of the Ancient Fathers and the Protestants Upon this Rock that is upon this Faith will I build my Church S. Matth. 16. So here 's all the good he hath gotten by S. Cyril unless he can cite some other place of S. Cyril which I believe he cannot Num. 12 And for Ruffinus the place which Bellarmine aims at is in his Exposition upon the Creed and is quoted in part the Chapter before But when all his words shall be laid together they will make no more for Bellarmine and his Cause then the former places have done Ruffinus his words then run thus Before I come to the words of the Creed this I think sit to warn you of that in divers Churches some things are found added to the words of the Creed But in the Church of the City of Rome this is not found done And as I think it is for that no Heresie did take its rise or beginning there And for that the Old Custom is there observed namely that they which are to receive the grace of Baptism do publickly repeat the Creed in the hearing of the people who would not admit such Additions But in other places as far as I can understand by reason of some Hereticks some things were added but such as were to exclude the sense of their Novel Doctrine Now these words make little for Bellarmine who cites them and much against Ruffinus that uttered them They make little for Bellarmine First because suppose Ruffinus his speech to be true yet this will never follow In Ruffinus his time no Heresie had taken its beginning at Rome therefore no Heresie hath had rooting there so many hundred years since Secondly Bellarmine takes upon him there to prove That the particular Church of Rome cannot Erre Now neither can this be concluded out of Ruffinus his words First because as I said before to argue from Non sumpsit to Ergo sumere non potest No Heresie hath yet begun there therefore none can begin there or spring thence is an Argument drawn ab Actu ad Potentiam negative from the Act to the Power of Being which every Novice in Learning can tell proceeds not Negatively And common reason tells every man 't is no consequence to say Such a thing is not or hath not been therefore it cannot be Secondly because though it were true that no Heresie at all did ever take its beginning at Rome yet that can never prove that the particular Church of Rome can never Erre which is the thing in Question For suppose that no Heresie did ever begin there yet if any that began elsewhere were admitted into that Church it is as full a proof that that Church can Erre as if the Heresie had been hatched in that Nest. For that Church erres which admits an Heresie in it as well as that which broaches it Now Ruffinus says no more of the Roman Church then non sumpsit exordium no Heresie took its beginning there but that denies not but that some Heretical Taint might get in there And 't is more then manifest that the most famous Heresies in their several times made their abode even at Rome And 't is observable too that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus his words then these In Ecclesia Urbis Romae neque Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium mos ibi servatur antiquus as if this were an entire speech whereas it comes in but as a Reason given of the speech precedent and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great Observer of the Customs of the Church whereas he speaks but of one particular Custom of reciting the Creed before Baptism But after all this I pray did no Heresie ever begin at Rome Where did Novatianism begin At Rome sure For Baronius Pamelius and Petavius do all dispute the point whether that Sect was denominated from Novatianus the Roman Priest or Novatus the African Bishop and they conclude for Novatian He then that gave that Name is in all right the Founder and Rome the Nest of that Heresie and there it continued with a Succession of Bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine which is near upon two hundred years Nay could Ruffinus himself be ignorant that some Heresie began at Rome No sure For in this I must challenge him either for his weak memory or his wilful errour For Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius his History but had been at the pains to translate him Now Eusebius says plainly that some Hereticks spread their venom in Asia some in Phrygia and others grew at Rome and Florinus was the Ring-leader of them And more clearly after Irenaeus saith he directed divers Epistles against this Florinus and his Fellow Blastus and condemns them of such Heresies as threw them and their Followers into great Impiety c. Those at Rome corrupting the sound Doctrine of the Church Therefore most manifest it is that some Heresie had its rise and beginning at Rome But to leave this slip of Ruffinus most evident it is that Ruffinus neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome Infallible for if he had esteemed so of it he would not have dissented from it in so main a Point as is the Canon of the Scripture as he plainly doth For reckoning up the Canonical Books he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was Infallible or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Books within the Canon then heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a main Point of Faith the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible for if she were right in her reckoning then she is wrong now and if she be right now she was wrong then and if she do not reckon more now then she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer then she and so dissents from her which doubtless he durst not have done had he thought her
judgment Infallible Yea and he sets this mark upon his Dissent besides That he reckons up the Books of the Canon just so and no otherwise then as he received them out of the Monuments of the Forefathers and out of which the Assertions of our Faith are to be taken Last of all had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome yet there is very little reason that the Pope and his Clergy should take any Benefit by it For S. Hierome tells us That when Ruffinus was angry with him for an Epistle which he writ not he plainly sent him to the Bishop of Rome and bid him exposiulate with him for the Contumely put upon him in that he received not his Exposition of the Faith which said he all Italy approved And in that he branded him also dum nesciret behinde his back with Heresie Now if the Pope which then was rejected this Exposition of the Creed made by Ruffinus and branded him besides with Heresie his Sentence against Ruffinus was just or unjust If unjust then the Pope erred about a matter of Faith and so neither he nor the Church of Rome Infallible If just then the Church of Rome labours to defend her self by his Pen which is judged Heretical by her self So whether it were just or unjust the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait when she must beg help of him whom she branded with Heresie and out of that Tract which she her self rejected and so uphold her Infall ibility by the judgment of a man who in her judgment had erred so foully Nor may she by any Law take benefit of a Testimony which her self hath defamed and protested against Num. 13 With these Bellarmine is pleased to name sâ—x or seven Popes which he saith are all of this Opinion But of Popes Opinions he saith That these Testimonies will be contemned by the Hereticks Good words I pray I know whom the Cardinal means by Hereticks very well But the best is his Call cannot make them so Nor shall I easily contemn seven Ancient Bishops of Rome concurring in Opinion if apparent Verity in the thing it self do not force me to dissent and in that case I shall do it without contempt too This only I will say That seven Popes concurring in Opinion shall have less weight with me in their own Cause then any other seven of the more Ancient Fathers Indeed could I swallow Bellarmine's Opinion That the Pope's Judgment is Infallible I would then submit without any more aâ—o But that will never down with me unless I live till I dote which I hope in God I shall not Num. 14 Other Proofs then these Bellarmine brings not to prove that the particular Church of Rome cannot erre in or from the Faith And of what force these are to sway any judgment I submit to all indifferent Readers And having thus examined Bellarmines Proofs That the particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith I now return to A. C. and the Jesuite and tell them that no Jesuite or any other is ever able to prove any particular Church Infallible Num. 15 But for the particular Church of Rome and the Pope with it erred it hath and therefore may erre Erred I say it hath in the Worship of Images and in altering Christ's Institution in the Blessed Sacrament by taking away the Cup from the People and divers other particulars as shall appear at after And as for the Ground which is presumed to secure this Church from Errour 't is very remarkable how the Learned Cardinal speaks in this Case For he tells us that this Proposition So long as S. Peter's Chair is at Rome that particular Church cannot erre in the Faith is verissima most true and yet in the very next words 't is Fortasse tam vera peradventure as true as the former that is That the Pope when he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the Faith cannot erre in any case What is that Proposition most true And yet is it but at a peradventure 't is as true as this Is it possible any thing should be absolutely most true and yet under a peradventure that it is but as true as another Truth But here without all Peradventure neither Proposition is true And then indeed Bellarmine may say without a Fortasse That this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre so long as the Sea Apostolike is there is as true as this The Pope cannot erre while he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the Faith For neither of them is true But he cannot say that either of them is verissima most true when neither of them hath Truth Num. 16 2 Secondly if the particular Church of Rome be Infallible and can neither erre in the Faith nor fall from it then it is because the Sea Apostolike cannot be transferred from Rome but must ever to the Consummation of the World remain there and keep that particular Church from erring Now to this what says Bellarmine What Why he tells us That it is a pious and most probable Opinion to think so And he reckons four Probabilities that it shall never be remov'd from Rome And I will not deny but some of them are fair Probabilities but yet they are but Probabilities and so unable to convince any man Why but then what if a man cannot think as Bellarmine doth but that inforced by the light of his Understanding he must think the quite contrary to this which Bellarmine thinks pious and so probable What then Why then Bellarmine himself tells you that the quite contrary Proposition to this namely That S. Peter's Chair may be severed from Rome and that then that particular Church may erre is neither Heretical nor manifestly Erroneous So then by Bellarmine's own Confession I am no Heretick nor in any manifest errour if I say as indeed I do and think it too that 't is possible for S. Peter's Chair to be carried from Rome and that then at least by his own Argument that Church may erre Num. 17 Now then upon the whole matter and to return to A. C. If that Lady desired to rely upon a particular Infallible Church 't is not to be found on earth Rome hath not that gift nor her Bishop neither And Bellarmine who I think was as able as any Champion that Church hath dares not say 't is either Heresie or a manifest errour to say That the Apostolike Sea may be removed thence and that Church not only erre in Faith but also fall quite away from it Now I for my part have not ignorance enough in me to believe that that Church which may Apostatize at some one time may not erre at another especially since both her erring and failing may arise from other Causes besides that which is mention'd by the Cardinal And if it may erre 't
is not Infallible F. The Question was Which was that Church A Friend of the Ladies would needs defend That not only the Roman but also the Greek Church was right B. § 4 When that Honourable Personage answered I was not by to hear But I presume he was so far from granting that only the Roman Church was right as that he did not grant it right and that he took on him no other defence of the poor Greek Church then was according to truth F. I told him That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that even his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost B. § 5 You are very bold with His Majesty to relate him upon Hear-say My intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majesty said But if he said it not you have been too credulous to believe and too sudden to report it Princes deserve and were wont to have more respect then so If His Majesty did say it there is Truth in the speech the Errour is yours only by mistaking what is meant by losing the Holy Ghost For a particular Church may be said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways or in two degrees 1 The one when it loses such special assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous Errours and sins and the temporal punishment which is due unto them And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost for they erred against him they sinned against God And for this or other sins they were delivered into another Babylonish Captivity under the Turk in which they yet are and from which God in his mercy deliver them But this is rather to be called an Errour circa Spiritum Sanctum about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an Errour against the Holy Ghost 2 The other is when it loses not only this assistance but all assistance ad hoc to this that they may remain any longer a true Church and so Corinth and Ephesus and divers other Churches have lost the Holy Ghost but in this sense the whole Greek Church lost not the Holy Ghost For they continue a true Church in the main substance to and at this day though Erroneous in this Point which you mention and perhaps in some other too F. The Ladies Friend not knowing what to answer called in the Bishop who sitting down first excused himself as one unprovided and not much studied in Controversies and desiring that in case he should fail yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of B. § 6 This is most true For I did indeed excuse my self and I had great reason so to do And my Reason being grounded upon Modesty for the most part there I leave it Yet this it may be fit others should know that I had no information where the other Conferences brake off no instruction at all what should be the ground of this third Conference nor the full time of four and twenty hours to bethink my self And this I take upon my Credit is most true whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Bran your daily work and came throughly furnished to the business and might so lead on the Controversie to what your self pleased and I was to follow as I could S. Augustine said once Scio me invalidum esse I know I am weak and yet he made good his Cause And so perhaps may I against you And in that I preferr'd the Cause before my particular Credit that which I did was with modesty and according to Reason For there is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon any one particular man And great reason that the personal defects of any man should press himself but not the Cause Neither did I enter upon this service out of any forwardness of my own but commanded to it by Supreme Authority F. It having an hundred better Scholars to maintain it then he To which I said there were a thousand better Scholars then I to maintain the Catholike Cause B. § 7 In this I had never so poor a Conceit of the Protestants Cause as to think that they had but an hundred better then my self to maintain it That which hath an hundred may have as many more as it pleases God to give and more then you And I shall ever be glad that the Church of England which at this time if my memory reflect not amiss I named may have far more able Defendants then my self I shall never envy them but rejoyce for her And I make no question but that if I had named a thousand you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the Catholike Cause as you call it And this confidence of yours hath ever been fuller of noise then proof But you proceed F. Then the Question about the Greek Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred B. § 8 Then I think the Question about the Greek Church was proposed But after you had with confidence enough not spared to say That what I would not acknowledge in this Cause you would wring and extort from me then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denied But every Errour denies not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ deny it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The Bishop said That the Errour was not in Point Fundamental B. § 9 Num. 1 I was not so peremptory My speech was That divers Learned men and some of your own were of Opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a Question not simply Fundamental I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous Errour in Divinity And sure it would have grated the Foundation if they had so denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as that they had made an inequality between the Persons But since their form of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a true Church for this though I confess them an erroneous Church in this particular Num. 2 Now that divers Learned men were of Opinion that à Filio and per Filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not Fundamental is evident The Master and his Scholars agree upon it The Greeks saith he confess the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. John 16. And since Non est aliud it is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and
Thomas holds the first and Durand the later Then you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and proved it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himself and gives his reason because it is the common Opinion of the School Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther Dispute and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawful for them to say I conceive thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I deny it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The Bishop said That M. Rogers was but a private man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publike Authority be accounted onely a private man c. B. § 13 Num. 1 I said truth when I said M. Rogers was a private man And I take it you will not allow every speech of every 〈…〉 though allowed by Authority to have his Books Printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath been oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church yet I see you mean not to leave it And surely as Controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand But I have long thought it a kinde of descent into Hell to be conversant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seek to blinde the People or cast a mist before evident Truth lest it cause a final descent to that place of Torment But since you will hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers his Exposition or Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us And as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie over the whole Church Shall he have his power over the Catholike Church given him expresly in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he had fed to Confirm and in all these not to erre and fail in his Ministration And is the Catholike Church in and over which he is to do all these great things quite left out of the Scripture Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if he could so prescribe for what he now Claims Num. 2 But what if after all this M. Rogers there says no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge He descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And again Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this Article is M. Rogers We the Church of England or rather his and some others Judgment in the Church of England Num. 3 Now here A. C. will have somewhat again to say though God knows 't is to little purpose 'T is that the Jesuit urged M. Roger's Book because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers if he please But he ought not to say that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed First not because his Book was publikely allowed For many Books among them as well as among us have been Printed by publike Authority as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners and yet containing many things in them of Opinion only or private Judgment which yet is far from the avowed Positive Doctrine of the Church the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words or things controverted And this is more frequent among their School-men than among any of our Controversers as is well known Nor secondly because his Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England For suppose the worst and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title is his private Judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more than I should say every thing said by Thomas or Bonaventure is Angelical or Seraphical Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphical and the other Angetical Doctor And yet their works are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Num. 4 Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to express our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will go far to bring A. C. off whatsoever I shall say against him For first let me instance in any private man that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth he will say he know it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knows Secondly If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much yet he will answer 't is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it that is perhaps it is not the very Title of his Book But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question What Not in any matter Were not Vega and Soto two private men Is it not a matter subject to Question to great Question in these Days Whether a man may be certain of his being in the state of Salvation certitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth not Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the Councel of Trent And yet these two great Fryers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councel and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of
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
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
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
hindred it now to be Since that did not depart from the Protestant Church but the Protestant Church from it Truly I neither suspected the Inference would be made nor fear it when it is made For 't is no News that any Particular Church Roman as well as another may once have been Right and afterwards wrong and in far worse case And so it was in Rome after the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat S. Mat. 13. But whether these Tares were sowen while their Bishops slept or whether They themselves did not help to sow them is too large a Disquisition for this Place So though it were once Right yet the Tares which grow thick in it are the Cause why 't is not so now And then though that Church did not depart from the Protestants Church yet if it gave great and just Cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the Errors of it while it in some Particulars departed from the Truth of Christ it comes all to one for this Particular That the Roman Church which was once right is now become wrong by embracing Superstition and Error F. Farther he confessed That Protestants had made a Rent and Division from it B. § 21 Num. 1 I confess I could here be heartily angry but that I have resolved in handling matters of Religion to leave all gall out of my Ink for I never granted that the Roman Church either is or was the right Church 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable Rent in the Church and I make no Question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and Redress of Abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the Cause of it is The Woe runs full out of the mouth of * Christ ever against him that gives the Offence not against him that takes it ever But you have by this carriage given me just cause never to treat with you or your like but before a Judge or a Jury Num. 2 But here A. C. tells me I had no cause to be angry either with the Jesuite or my self Not with the Jesuite for he writ down my words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the Passage and that I did say either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis either in these or equivalent words That the Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church What did the Jesuite set down my words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken and were they so few as these The Protestants did make the Schism and yet was his memory so short that he cannot tell whether I uttered this iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis Well I would A. C. and his Fellows would leave this Art of theirs and in Conferences which they are so ready to call for impose no more upon other men than they utter And you may observe too that after all this full Assertion that I spake this iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis A. C. concludes thus The Jesuite took special notice in fresh memory and is sure he related at least in sense just as it was uttered What 's this At least in sense just as it was uttered Do not these two Enterfeire and shew the Jesuite to be upon his shuffling pace For if it were just as it was uttered then it was in the very form of words too not in sense only And if it were but At least in sense then when A. C. hath made the most of it it was not just as 't was uttered Besides at least in sense doth not tell us in whose sense it was For if A. C. mean the Jesuite's sense of it he may make what sense he pleases of his own words but he must impose no sense of his upon my words But as he must leave my words to my self so when my words are uttered or written he must leave their sense either to me or to that genuine Construction which an Ingenuous Reader can make of them And what my words of Grant were I have before expressed and their sense too Num. 3 Not with my self That 's the next For A. C. says 'T is truth and that the world knows it that the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome and got the name of Protestants by protesting against it No A. C. by your leave this is not truth neither and therefore I had reason to be angry with my self had I granted it For first the Protestants did not depart For departure is voluntary so was not theirs I say not theirs taking their whole Body and Cause together For that some among them were peevish and some ignorantly zealous is neither to be doubted nor is there danger in confessing it Your Body is not so perfect I wot well but that many amongst you are as pettish and as ignorantly zealous as any of Ours You must not suffer for these nor We for those nor should the Church of Christ for either Next the Protestants did not get that Name by Protesting against the Church of Rome but by Protesting and that when nothing else would serve against her Errors and Superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome and our Protestation is ended and the Separation too Nor is Protestation it self such an unheard-of thing in the very heart of Religion For the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are called by your own School Visible Signs protesting the Faith Now if the Sacraments be Protestantia Signes Protesting why may not men also and without all offence be called Protestants since by receiving the true Sacraments and by refusing them which are corrupted they do but Protest the sincerity of their Faith against that Doctrinal Corruption which hath invaded the great Sacrament of the Eucharist and other Parts of Religion Especially since they are men which must protest their Faith by these visible Signs and Sacraments Num. 4 But A. C. goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the Cause of the Schism For saith he though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by Excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and Practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is Pride and S. Augustine Madness So then in his Opinion First Excommunication on their Part was not the Prime Cause of this Division but the holding and teaching of contrary Opinions Why but then in my Opinion That holding and teaching was not the Prime Cause neither but the Corruptions and Superstitions of Rome which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary So the Prime Cause was theirs still Secondly A.
up of the spiritual seed of Abraham Rom. 11. If the root be holy so are the branches Well then the whole Militant Church is Holy and so we believe Why but will it not follow then That the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in the Foundations of the Faith That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her Curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule no doubt need be made But if She can erre either from the Foundation or in it She can be no longer Holy and that Article of the Creed is gone For if she can erre quite from the Foundation then She is nor Holy nor Church but becomes an Infidel Now this cannot be For all Divines Ancient and Modern Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into general Apostacie And if She Erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then She may be a Church of Christ still but not Holy but becomes Heretical And most Certain it is that no Assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy Other Errors that are of a meaner alay take not Holiness from the Church but these that are dyed in grain cannot consist with Holiness of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation And therefore if we will keep up our Creed the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that Falsum may subesse Fidei Catholicae That falshood and that in a high degree in the very Article may be the Subject of the Catholike Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholike Church And if She be not still Holy then at that time when she is not so we believe a Falshood under the Article of the Catholike Faith Therefore a very dangerous thing it is to cry out in general terms That the whole Catholike Militant Church can Erre and not limit nor distinguish in time that it can erre indeed for Ignorance it hath and Ignorance can Erre But Erre it cannot either by falling totally from the Foundation or by Heretical Error in it For the Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners taught and Commanded in the Doctrine of Faith Num. 6 Now in this Discourse A. C. thinks he hath met with me For he tells me That I may not only safely grant that protestants made the Division that is now in the Church but further also and that with a safe Confidence as one did was it not you saith he That it was ill done of those who first made the Separation Truly I do not now remember whether I said it or no. But because A. C. shall have full satisfaction from me and without any Tergiversation if I did not say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who ere they were that first made the separation But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only but of Causal separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the Cause of it is And he makes the Separation that gives the first just Cause of it not he that makes an Actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says 't is most true Neither can he deny it in this sense in which I have expressed it for his very Assertion against us though false is in these Terms That we gave the first Cause Therefore he must mean it of Causal not of Actual Separation only Num. 7 But then A. C. goes on and tells us That after this Breach was made yet the Church of Rome was so kind and careful to seek the Protestants that She invited them publikely with Safe-conduct to Rome to a General Councel freely to speak what they could for themselves Indeed I think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants But I doubt it was to bring them within their Net And she invited them to Rome A very safe place if you mark it for them to come to just as the Lyon in the Apologue invited the Fox to his own Den. Yea but there was Safe-Conduct offered too Yes Conduct perhaps but not safe or safe perhaps for going thither but none for coming thence Vestigia nulla retrorsum Yea but it should have been to a General Councel Perhaps so But was the Conduct safe that was given for coming to a Councel which they call General to some others before them No sure John Hus and Jerome of Prage burnt for all their Safe-Conduct And so long as Jesuites write and maintain That Faith given is not to be kept with Hereticks And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured as it hath hitherto done and no exception put in of force and violence A. C. shall pardon us that we come not to Rome nor within the reach of Roman Power what freedom of Speech soever be promised us For to what end Freedom of Speech on their part since they are resolved to alter nothing And to what end Freedom of speech on our part if after speech hath been free life shall not Num. 8 And yet for all this A. C. makes no doubt but that the Romane Church is so far from being Cause of the continuance of the Schism or hinderance of the Re-union that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample Safe-Conduct if any hope might be given that the Protestants would sincerely seek nothing but Truth and Peace Truly A. C. is very Resolute for the Roman Church yet how far he may undertake for it I cannot tell But for my part I am of the same Opinion for the continuing of the Schism that I was for the making of it That is that it is ill very ill done of those whoever they be Papists or Protestants that give just Cause to continue a Separation But for free-hearings or Safe-Conducts I have said enough till that Church do not only say but do otherwise And as for Truth and Peace they are in every mans mouth with you and with us But lay they but half so close to the hearts of men as they are common on their tongues it would soon be better with Christendom than at this day it is or is like to be And for the Protestants in general I hope they seek both Truth and Peace sincerely The Church of England I am sure doth and hath taught me to pray for both as I most heartily do But what Rome doth in this if the world will not see I will not Censure Num. 9 And for that which A. C. adds That such a
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
of all doubt For if there be reason of doubting the one there 's as much reason of doubting the other since they stand both on the same foot The Validity of Christ's Prayer for Saint Peter Num. 17 Yea but Christ charged S. Peter to govern and feed his whole stock S. John 21. Nay soft T is but his Sheep and his Lambs and that every Apostle and every Apostles Successor hath charge to do S. Matth. 28. But over the whole Flock I find no one Apostle or Successor set And 't is a poor shift to say as A. C. doth That the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole Flock because both over Lambs and Sheep For in every Flock that is not of barren Weathers there are Lambs and Sheep that is weaker and stronger Christians not People and Pastors Subjects and Governors as A. C. expounds it to bring the Necks of Princes under Roman Pride And if Kings be meant yet then the command is Pasce feed them But Deponere or Occidere to depose or kill them is not Pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastoris that 's the Butchers not the Shepherds part If a a Sheep go astray never so far 't is not the Shepherds part to kill him at least if he do non pascit dum oâ—cidit he doth not certainly feed while he kills Num. 18 And for the Close That the Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole stock in such sort as that neither particular Man nor Church shall have just cause under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Separation from the whole Church By A. C's favour this is meer begging of the Question He says the Pope shall ever govern the whole Whole Church so as that there shall be no just Cause given of a Separation And that is the very Thing which the Protestants charge upon him Namely that he hath governed if not the Whole yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his Power so as that he hath given too just Cause of the present continued separation And as the Corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the Cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the Cause why the separation continues And farther I for my part am clear of Opinion that the Errors in the Doctrine of Faith which are charged upon the whole Church at least so much of the whole as in these parts of Europe hath been kept under the Roman Jurisdiction have had their Original and Continuance from this that so much of the Universal Church which indeed they account All hath forgotten her own Liberty and submitted to the Roman Church and Bishop and so is in a manner forced to embrace all the Corruptions which the Particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon it self And being now not able to free her self from the Roman Jurisdiction is made to continue also in all her Corruptions And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called for therein A. C. said well the Popes Administration can give no Cause to separate from that but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscal themselves the Whole Catholike Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence but in her Errors not in the Things which Constitute a Church but only in such Abuses and Corruptions as work toward the Dissolution of a Church F. I also asked who ought to judge in this Case The B. said a General Councel B. § 26 Num. 1 And surely What greater or surer Judgment you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted than a General Councel I do not see Nor do you doubt And A. C. grants it to be a most Competent Judge of all Controversies of Faith so that all Pastors be gathered together and in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost and make great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other Grounds of Faith And then Decree what is to be held for Divine Truth For then saith he 't is Firm and Infallible or else there is nothing firm upon earth As fair as this Passage seems and as freely as I have granted that a General Councel is the best Judge on Earth where the sense of Scripture is doubted yet even in this passage there are some things Considerable As first when shall the Church hope for such a General Councel in which all Pastors shall be gathered together there was never any such General Councel yet nor do I believe such can be had So that 's supposed in vain and you might have learn'd this of Bellarmine if you will not believe me Next saith he If all these Pastors pray unanimously for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost Why but if all Pastors cannot meet together all cannot pray together nor all search the Scriptures together nor all upon that Search Decree together So that is supposed in vain too Yea but Thirdly If all that meet do pray unanimously What then All that meet are not simply All. Nor doth the Holy Ghost come and give his Assistance upon every Prayer that is made unanimously though by very many Prelates or other Faithful People met together unless all other Requisites as well as Unanimity to make their prayer to be heard and granted be observed by them So that an Unanimous Prayer is not adequately supposed and therefore Concludes not But lastly how far a General Councel if all A. C's Conditions be observed is firm and Infallible that shall be more fully discussed at after In the mean time these two words Firm and Infallible are ill put together as Synonima's For there are some things most Infallible in themselves which yet could never get to be made firm among men And there are many things made firm by Law both in Churches and Kingdoms which yet are not Infallible in themselves So to draw all together to settle Controversies in the Church here is a Visible Judge and Infallible but not living And that is the Scripture pronouncing by the Church And there is a visible and a Living Judge but not Infallible and that is a General Councel lawfully called and so proceeding But I know no formal Confirmation of it needful though A. C. require it but only that after it is ended the Whole Church admit it be it never so tacitely Num. 2 In the next Place A. C. interposes new matter quite out of the Conference And first in case of Distractions and Disunion in the Church he would know what is to be done to Re-unite when a General Councel which is acknowledged a fit Judge cannot be had by reason of manifold impediments Or
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
Argument thus Neither the Church nor any Member of the Church can know that this Pope which now sits or any other that hath been or shall be is Infallible For he is not Infallible unless he be Pope and he is not Pope unless he be in Holy Orders And he cannot be so unless he have received those Holy Orders and that from one that had Power to Ordain And those Holy Orders in your Doctrine are a Sacrament And a Sacrament is not perfectly given if he that Administers it have not intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia an intention to do that which the Church doth by Sacraments Now who can possibly tell that the Bishop which gave the Pope Orders was first a man qualified to give them and secondly so devoutly set upon his Work that he had at the instant of giving them an Intention and purpose to do therein as the Church doth Surely none but that Bishop himself And his testimony of himself and his own Act such especially as if faulty he would be loth to Confess can neither give Knowledge nor Belief sufficient that the Pope according to this Canon is in Holy Orders So upon the Whole matter let the Romanists take which they will I will give them free Choice either this Canon of the Councel of Trent is false Divinity and there is no such Intention necessary to the Essence and Being of a Sacrament Or if it be true it is impossible for any man to know and for any advised man to Believe That the Pope is Infallible in his Judicial Sentences in things belonging to the Faith And so here again a General Councel at least such a one as that of Trent is can Erre or the Pope is not Infallible Num. 12 But this is an Argument ad Hominem good against your Party onely which maintain this Councel But the plain Truth is Both are Errours For neither is the Bishop of Rome Infallible in his Judicials about the Faith Nor is this Intention of either Bishop or Priest of Absolute Necessity to the Essence of a Sacrament so as to make void the gracious Institution of Christ in case by any Tentation the Priests Thoughts should wander from his Work at the instant of using the Essentials of a Sacrament or have in him an Actual Intention to scorn the Church And you may remember if you please that a Neapolitan Bishop then present at Trent disputed this Case very Learnedly and made it most evident that this Opinion cannot be defended but that it must open a way for any unworthy Priest to make infinite Nullities in Administration of the Sacraments And his Arguments were of such strength ut caeteros Theologos dederint in stuporem as amazed the other Divines which were present And concluded That no Internal Intention was required in the Minister of a Sacrament but that Intention which did appear Opere externo in the Work it self performed by him And that if he had unworthily any wandring thoughts nay more any contrary Intention within him yet it neither did nor could hinder the blessed effect of any Sacrament And most certain it is if this be not true besides all other Inconveniences which are many no man can secure himself upon any Doubt or trouble in his Conscience that he hath truly and really been made partaker of any Sacrament whatsoever No not of Baptism and so by Consequence be left in doubt whether he be a Christian or no even after he is Baptized Whereas 't is most impossible That Christ should so order his Sacraments and so leave them to his Church as that poor Believers in his Name by any unworthiness of any of his Priests should not be able to know whether they have received His Sacraments or not even while they have received them And yet for all this such great lovers of Truth and such careful Pastors over the Flock of Christ were these Trent-Fathers that they regarded none of this but went on in the usual track and made their Decree for the Internal Intention and purpose of the Priest and that the Sacrament was invalid without it Num. 13 Nay one Argument more there is and from your own Grounds too that makes it more than manifest That the Pope can erre not Personally onely but Judicially also and so teach false Doctrine to the Church which Bellarmine tells us No Pope hath done or can do And a Maxime it is with you That a General Councel can erre if it be confirmed by the Pope But if it be confirmed then it cannot erre Where first this is very improper Language For I hope no Councel is confirmed till it be finished And when 't is finished even before the Popes confirmation be put to it either it hath Erred or not Erred If it have Erred the Pope ought not to confirm it and if he do 't is a void act For no power can make Falshood Truth If it have not Erred then it was True before the Pope confirmed it So his Confirmation addes nothing but his own Assent Therefore his confirmation of a General Councel as you will needs call it is at the most Signum non Causa a Signe and that such as may fail but no Cause of the Councels not Erring But then secondly if a General Councel Confirmed as you would have it by the Pope have Erred and so can Erre then certainly the Pope can Erre Judicially For he never gives a more solemn Sentence for Truth than when he decrees any thing in a General Councel Therefore if he have Erred and can Erre there then certainly he can Erre in his Definitive Sentence about the Faith and is not Infallible Now that he hath Erred and therefore can Erre in a General Councel confirmed in which he takes upon him to teach all Christendom is most clear and evident For the Pope teaches in and by the Councel of Lateran Confirmed by Innocent the third Christ is present in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation And in and by the Councel of Constance the Administration of the Blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kinde notwithstanding Christs Institution of it in both kindes for all And in and by the Councel of Trent Invocation of Saints and Adoration of Images to the great Scandal of Christianity and as great hazard of the Weak Now that these Particulars among Many are Errours in Divinity and about the Faith is manifest both by Scripture the Judgement of the Primitive Church For Transubstantiation first That never was heard of in the Primitive Church nor till the Councel of Lateran nor can it be proved out of Scripture and taken properly cannot stand with the Grounds of Christian Religion As for Communion in one kinde Christs Institution is clear against that And not onely the Primitive Church but the Whole Church of Christ kept it so till within less than four hundred years For Aquinas confesses it was so in use even to
her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meer begging of the Question and then threatning upon it without all ground of Reason or Charity In the mean time let A. C. look to himself that in his false security he run not into the danger and loss of his own salvation while he would seem to take such care of ours But though this Argument prevails with the weak yet it is much stronger in the cunning than the true force of it For all Arguments are very moving that lay their ground upon the Adversaries Confession especially if it be confessed and avouched to be true But if you would speak truly and say Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withal that the Errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were utterly broken Besides the force of this Argument lies upon two things one directly Expressed the other but as upon the By. Num. 3 That which is expressed is We and our Adversaries consent that there is salvation to some in the Roman Church What would you have us as malicious at least as rash as your selves are to us and deny you so much as possibility of Salvation If we should we might make you in some things strain for a Proof But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ And therefore seek not to help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely do where you can come to work upon them And this was an old trick of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptism whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church or in the part of Donatus they exhorted all to be baptized among them Why Because both parts granted that Baptism was true among the Donatists which that peevish Sect most unjustly denied the sound part as S. Augustine delivers it I would ask now Had not the Orthodox true Baptism among them because the Donatists denied it injuriously Or should the Orthodox against Truth have denied Baptism among the Donatists either to cry quittance with them or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts granted But Mark this how far you run from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you deny salvation most unjustly to us from which you are farther off your selves Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why do not you believe with us in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most Blessed Sacrament the Worthy receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ truly and really and of all the Benefits of his Passion Your Roman Catholikes add a manner of this his Prefence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this Presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this Consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England than with the Roman or Lutheran Because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion Nay Suarez himself and he a very Learned Adversary what say you to this A. C doth Truth force this from him Confesses plainly That to Believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Salvation And yet he knew well the Church had determined it And Bellarmine after an intricate tedious and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Aductive Conversion A thing which neither Divinity nor Philosophy ever heard of till then is at last forced to come to this Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech illud tenendum eâ—t this is to be held that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantial but after a secret and ineffable manner and not like in all things to any natural Conversion whatsoever Now if he had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs real Presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no man could have spoke better And therefore if you will force the Argument always to make that the safest way of Salvation which differing Parties agree on why do you not yield to the force of the same Argument in the Belief of the Sacrament one of the most immediate means of Salvation where not onely the most but all agree And your own greatest Clarks cannot tell what to say to the Contrary Num. 4 I speak here for the force of the Argument which certainly in it self is nothing though by A. C. made of great account For he says 'T is a Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth Just as Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptism But in truth 't is nothing For the Syllogism which it frames is this In Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on But Papists and Protestants which are the differing Parties agree in this that there is salvation possible to be found in the Roman Church Therefore 't is safest for a man to be and continue in the Roman Church To the Minor Proposition then I observe this only that though many Learned Protestants grant this all do not And then that Proposition is not Universally true nor able to sustain the Conclusion For they do not in this all agree nay I doubt not but there are some Protestants which can and do as stifly and as churlishly deny them Salvation as they do us And A. C. should do well to consider whether they do it not upon as good reason at least But for the Major Proposition Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary confesses or the Differing Parties agree on I say that is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare Contingent Proposition and being indefinitely taken may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied but being taken universally is false and not able to lead in the Conclusion Now that this Proposition In point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary confesses hath no strength in it self but is sometimes true and sometimes false as the Matter is about which it is conversant is most evident First by Reason Because Consent of disagreeing Parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and
Calvinists if they might be rightly understood they also maintain a most true and Real presence though they cannot permit their Judgement to be Transubstantiated And they are Protestants too And this is so known a Truth that ‖ Bellarmine confesses it For he saith Protestants do often grant that the true and real Body of Christ is in the Eucharist But he addes That they never say so far as he hath read That it is there Truely and Really unless they speak of the Supper which shall be in Heaven Well first if they grant that the true and Real Body of Christ is in that Blessed Sacrament as Bellarmine confesses they do and 't is most true then A. C. is false who charges all the Protestants with denyal or doubtfulness in this Point And secondly Bellarmine himself also shews here his Ignorance or his Malice Ignorance if he knew it not Malice if he would not know it For the Calvinists at least they which follow Calvin himself do not onely believe that the true and real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist but that it is there and that we partake of it verè realitèr which are Calvins own words and yet Bellarmine boldly affirms that to his reading no one Protestant did ever affirm it And I for my part cannot believe but Bellarmine had read Calvin and very carefully he doth so frequently and so mainly Oppose him Nor can that Place by any Art be shifted or by any Violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist to any Supper in Heaven whatsoever But most manifest it is that Quod legerim for ought I have read will not serve Bellarmine to excuse him For he himself but in the very Chapter going before quotes four Places out of Calvin in which he says expresly That we receive in the Sacrament the Body and the Bloud of Christ Verè truly So Calvin says it four times and Bellarmine quotes the places and yet he says in the very next Chapter That never any Protestant said so to his Reading And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Bloud no Bloud as perhaps he can by Transubstantiation as well as Bread no Bread and Wine no Wine And the Church of England is Protestant too So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and then where 's any known or damnable Heresie here As for the Learned of those zealous men that died in this Cause in Q. Maries days they denied not the Real presence simply taken but as their Opposites forced Transubstantiation upon them as if that and the Real presence had been all one Whereas all the Ancient Christians ever believed the one and none but Modern and Superstitious Christians believe the other if they do believe it for I for my part doubt they do not And as for the Unlearned in those times and all times their zeal they holding the Foundation may eat out their Ignorances and leave them safe Now that the Learned Protestants in Queen Mary's days did not deny nay did maintain the Real presence will manifestly appear For when the Commissioners obtruded to Jo. Frith the Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament and that without all figure or similitude Jo. Frith acknowledges That the inward man doth as verily receive Christ's Body as the outward man receives the Sacrament with his Mouth And he addes That neither side ought to make it a necessary Article of Faith but leave it indifferent Nay Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainly and more home to it than Frith For if you understand saith he by this word really Reipsa that is in very deed and effectually so Christ by the grace and efficacie of his Passion is indeed and truly present c. But if by this word Really you understand Corporalitèr Corporally in his natural and Organical Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine 't is contrary to the Holy Word of God And so likewise Bishop Ridley Nay Bishop Ridley addes yet farther and speaks so fully to this Point as I think no man can adde to his Expression And 't is well if some Protestants except not against it Both you and I faith he agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Bloud of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead Onely we differ in modo in the way and manner of being We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the Manner of Being there I confess Christs natural Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit and Grace c. You make a grosser kinde of Being inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of Bread and Wine So far and more Bishop Ridley And Archbishop Cranmer confesses That he was indeed of another Opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius till Bishop Ridley convinced his Judgement setled him in this Point And for Calvin he comes no whit short of these against the Calumny of the Romanists on that behalf Now after all this with what face can A. C. say as he doth That Protestants deny or doubt of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament I cannot well tell or am unwilling to utter Fifthly whereas 't is added by A. C. That in this present case there is no peril of any damnable Heresie Schisme or any other Sin in resolving to live and die in the Roman Church That 's not so neither For he that lives in the Roman Church with such a Resolution is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty 〈…〉 is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her Corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her Damnable Opinions too in point of Misbelief though perhaps A. C. will not have them called Heresies unless they have been condemned in some General Councel And of all other sins also which the Doctrine and Misbelief of that Church leads him into And mark it I pray For 't is one thing to live in a Schismatical Church and not Communicate with it in the Schism or in any false Worship that attends it For so Elias lived among the Ten Tribes and was not Schismatical 3 Reg. 17. And after him Elizaeus 4 Reg. 3. But then neither of them either countenanced the Schism or worshipped the Calves in Dan or in Bethel And so also beside these Prophets did those Thousands live in
a Schismatical Church yet never bowed their knee to Baal 3. Reg. 19. But 't is quite another thing to live in a Schismatical Church and Communicate with it in the Schism and all the Superstitions and Corruptions which that Church teaches nay to live and die in them For certainly here no man can so live in a Schismatical Church but if he be of capacity enough and understand it he must needs be a Formal Schismatick or an Involved One if he understand it not And in this case the Church of Rome is either far worse or more cruel than the Church of Israel even under Ahab and Jezabel was The Synagogue indeed was corrupted a long time and in a great degree But I do not finde that this Doctrine You must sacrifice in the high places Or this You may not go and worship at the one Altar in Jerusalem was either taught by the Priests or maintained by the Prophets or enjoyned the people by the Sanedrim Nay can you shew me when any Jew living there devoutly according to the Law was ever punished for omitting the One of these or doing the Other But the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her Errours And erring hath yet decreed withal That she cannot erre And imposed upon Learned men disputed and improbable Opinions Transubstantiation Purgatory and Forbearance of the Cup in the blessed Eucharist even against the express Command of our Saviour and that for Articles of Faith And to keep off Disobedience what ever the Corruption be she hath bound up her Decrees upon pain of Excommunication and all that follows upon it Nay this is not enough unless the Fagot be kindled to light them the way This then may be enough for us to leave Rome though the old Prophet forsook not Israel 3. Reg. 13. And therefore in this present case there 's peril great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresie and other sin by living and dying in the Roman Faith tainted with so many superstitions as at this day it is and their Tyranny to boot So that here I may answer A. C. just as S. Augustine answered Petilian the Donatist in the fore-named case of Baptism For when Petilian pleaded the Concession of his Adversaries That Baptism as the Donatists administred it was good and lawful and thence inferred just as the Jesuite doth against me that it was better for men to joyn with his Congregation than with the Church S. Augustine answers We do indeed approve among Hereticks Baptism but so not as it is the Baptism of Hereticks but as it is the Baptism of Christ. Just as we approve the Baptism of Adulterers Idolaters Witches and yet not as 't is theirs but as 't is Christs Baptism For none of these for all their Baptism shall inherit the Kingdom of God And the Apostle reckons Hereticks among them Galat. 5. And again afterwards It is not therefore yours saith Saint Augustine which we fear to destroy but Christs which even among the Sacrilegious is of and in it self holy Now you shall see how full this comes to our Petilianist A. C. for he is one of the Contractors of the Church of Christ to Rome as the Donatists confined it to Asrick And he cries out That a Possibility of Salvation is a free Confession of the Adversaries and is of force against them and to be thought extorted from them by force of Truth it self I answer I do indeed for my part leaving other men free to their own judgment acknowledge a Possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Romish Church Nor do I fear to destroy quod ipsorum est that which is theirs but yet I dare not proceed so roughly as with theirs or for theirs to deny or weaken the Foundation which is Christs even among them and which is and remains holy even in the midst of their Superstitions And I am willing to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church and yet wish the Superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly and which would have all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a Possibility of Salvation for that which is Christs in them though they hazzard themselves extremely by keeping so close to that which is Superstition and in the Case of Images comes too near Idolatry Nor can A. C. shift this off by adding living and dying in the Romane Church For this living and dying in the Romane Church as is before expressed cannot take away the Possibility of Salvation from them which believe and repent of whatsoever is errour or sin in them be it sin known to them or be it not But then perhaps A. C. will reply that if this be so I must then maintain that a Donatist also living and dying in Schism might be saved To which I answer two ways First that a plain honest Donatist having as is confessed true Baptism and holding the Foundation as for ought I know the Donatists did and repenting of what ever was sin in him and would have repented of the Schism had it been known to him might be saved Secondly that in this Particular the Romanist and the Donatist differ much And that therefore it is not of necessary consequence that if a Romanist now upon the Conditions before expressed may be saved Therefore a Donatist heretofore might For in regard of the Schism the Donatist was in one respect worse and in greater danger of damnation than the Romanist now is And in another respect better and in less danger The Donatist was in greater danger of damnation if you consider the Schism it self then for they brake from the Orthodox Church without any cause given them And here it doth follow if the Romanist have a Possibility of Salvation therefore a Donatist hath But if you consider the Cause of the Schism now then the Donatist was in less danger of Damnation than the Romanist is Because the Church of Rome gave the first and the greatest cause of the Schism as is proved before And therefore here it doth not follow That if a Donatist have possibility of Salvation Therefore a Romanist hath For a lesser Offender may have that possibility of safety which a greater hath not And last of all whereas A. C. adds that confessedly there is no such Peril That 's a most loud untruth and an Ingenuous man would never have said it For in the same place where I grant a possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church I presently add that it is no
of these Premises he would infer For hence he tells us He gathered that D. White 's Opinion was That the Romane Church held and taught in all Ages unchanged Faith in all Fundamental points and did not in any Age erre in any Point Fundamental This is very well For A. C. confesses he did but gather that this was Doctor White 's Opinion And what if he gathered that which grew not there nor thence For suppose all the Premises true yet no Cartrope can draw this Conclusion out of them And then all A. C's labour 's lost For grant some one Church or other must still be Visible And grant that this Visible Church held all Fundamentals of the Faith in all Ages And grant again that D. White could not assigne any Church differing from the Romane that did this Yet this will not follow that therefore the Romane did it And that because there 's more in the Conclusion than in the Premises For A. C's Conclusion is That in D. White 's Opinion the Roman Church held and taught in all Ages unchanged Faith in all Fundamental points And so far perhaps the Conclusion may stand taking Fundamental points in their literal sense as they are expressed in Creeds and approved Councels But then he addes And did not in any Age erre in any Point Fundamental Now this can never follow out of the Premises before laid down For say some one Church or other may still be Visible And that Visible Church hold all Fundamental Points in all Ages And no man be able to name another Church different from the Church of Rome that hath done this yet it follows not therefore That the Church of Rome did not erre in any Age in any Point Fundamental For a Church may hold the Fundamental Point literally and as long as it stays there be without control and yet erre grosly dangerously nay damnably in the Exposition of it And this is the Church of Rome's Case For most true it is it hath in all Ages maintained the Faith unchanged in the Expression of the Articles themselves but it hath in the Exposition both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost the sense and the meaning of some of them So the Faith is in many things Changed both for Life and Belief and yet seems the same Now that which deceives the World is That because the Bark is the same men think this Old Decayed Tree is as Sound as it was at first and not Weather-beaten in any Age. But when they can make me believe that Painting is true Beauty I 'll believe too that Rome is not only sound but beautiful Num. 6 But A. C. goes on and tells us That hereupon the Jesuite asked whether Errours in Points not Fundamental were damnable And that D. White answered they were not unless they were held against Conscience 'T is true that Errour in Points not Fundamental is the more damnable the more it is held against Conscience But it is true too that Errour in Points not Fundamental may be damnable to some men though they hold it not against their Conscience As namely when they hold an Errour in some Dangerous Points which grate upon the Foundation and yet will neither seek the means to know the Truth nor accept and believe Truth when 't is known especially being men able to Judge which I fear is the case of too many at this day in the Roman Church Out of all which A. C. tells us The Jesuite collected that D. White 's Opinion was That the Roman Church held all Points Fundamental and only erred in Points not Fundamental which he accounted not damnable so long as he did not hold them against his Conscience And that thereupon he said D. White had secured him since he held no Faith different from the Roman nor contrary to his Conscience Here again we have but A. C's and the Jesuites Collection But if the Jesuite or A. C. will collect amiss who can help it Num. 7 I have spoken before in this very Paragraph to all the Passages of A. C. as supposing them true and set down what is to be answered to them in case they prove so But now 't is most apparent by Dr. White 's Answer set down before at large that he never said that the Church of Rome erred only in Points not Fundamental as A. C. would have it But that he said the contrary Namely that some errours of thy Church were Fundamental reductivè by a reducement if they which embraced them did pertinaciously adhere to them having sufficient means of information And again expresly That he did not say that none were damnable so long as they were not held against Conscience Now where is A. C's Collection For if a Jesuite or any other may collect Propositions which are not granted him nay contrary to those which are granted him he may infer what he please And he is much to blame that will not infer a strong Conclusion for himself that may frame his own Premises say his Adversary what he will And just so doth A. C. bring in his Conclusion to secure himself of salvation because he holds no Faith but the Romane nor that Contrary to his Conscience Presupposing it granted that the Church of Rome errs only in not Fundamentals and such Errours not Damnable which is absolutely and clearly denied by D. White To this A. C. says nothing but that D. White did not give this Answer at the Conference I was not present at the Conference between them so to that I can say nothing as a witness But I think all that knew D. White will believe his affirmation as soon as the Jesuites To say no more And whereas A. C. refers to the Relation of the Conference between D. White and M. Fisher most true it is there D. White is charged to have made that Answer twice But all this rests upon the credit of A. C. only For he is said to have made that Relation too as well as this And against his Credit I must engage D. Whites who hath avowed another Answer as before is set down Num. 8 And since A. C. relates to that Conference which it seems he makes some good account of I shall here once for all take occasion to assure the Reader That most of the Points of Moment in that Conference with D. White are repeated again and again and urged in this Conference or the Relation of A. C. and are here answered by me For Instance In the Relation of the first Conference the Jesuite takes on him to prove the Unwritten Word of God out of 2 Thes. 2. pag. 15. And so he doth in the Relation of this Conference with me pag. 50. In the first he stands upon it That the Protestants upon their Principles cannot hold That all Fundamental points of Faith are contained in the Creed pag. 19. And so he doth in this pag. 46. In the first he
defining any one Divine Truth how can we be Infallibly certain of any other Truth defined by it For if it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all 'T is most true if such a Councel may erre in one it may in another and another and so in all of like nature I say in all of like nature And A. C. may remember he expressed himself a little before to speak of the Defining of such Divine Truths as are not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed of all sorts of men Now there is there can be no necessity of an Infallible certainty in the whole Catholike Church and much less in a General Councel of thing not absolutely necessary in themselves For Christ did not intend to leave an Infallibe certainty in his Church to satisfie either Contentious or Curious or Presumptuous Spirits And therefore in things not Fundamental not Necessary 't is no matter if Councels erre in one and another and a third the whole Church having power and means enough to see that no Councel erre in Necessary things and this is certainty enough for the Church to have or for Christians to expect especially since the Foundation is so strongly and so plainly laid down in Scripture and the Creed that a modest man might justly wonder why any man should run to any later Councel at least for any Infallible certainty Num. 22 Yet A. C. hath more Questions to ask and his next is How we can according to the ordinary Course be Infallibly assured that it erres in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same Authority defines both to be Divine Truth A. C. taking here upon him to defend M. Fisher the Jesuite could not but see what I had formerly written concerning this difficult Question about General Councels And to all that being large he replied little or nothing Now when he thinks that may be forgotten or as if he did not at all lye in his way he here turns Questionist to disturb that business and indeed the Church as much as he can But to this Question also I answer again If any General Councel do now erre either it erres in things absolutely necessary to Salvation or in things not necessary If it erre in things Necessary we can be infallibly assured by the Scripture the Creeds the four first Councels and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in another If it be in non necessariis in things not necessary 't is not requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance As for that which follows it is notoriously both cunning and false 'T is false to suppose that a General Councel defining two things for Divine Truths and erring in one but not erring in another doth define both equally by one and the same Authority And 't is cunning because these words by the same Authority are equivocal and must be distinguished that the Truth which A. C. would hide may appear Thus then suppose a General Councel erring in one point and not in another it doth define both and equally by the same delegated Authority which that Councel hath received from the Catholike Church But it doth not define both and much less equally by the same Authority of the Scripture which must be the Councels Rule as well as private mens no nor by the same Authority of the whole Catholike Church who did not intentionally give them equal power to define Truth and errour for Truth And I hope A. C. dares not say the Scripture according to which all Councels that will uphold Divine Truth must Determine doth equally give either ground or power to define Errour and Truth Num. 23 To his former Questions A. C. adds That if we leave this to be examined by any private man this examination not being Infallible had need to be examined by another and this by another without end or ever coming to Infallible certainty necessarily required in that one faith which is necessary to salvation and to that peace and unity which ought to be in the Church Will this inculcating the same thing never be left I told the Jesuite before that I give no way to any private man to be Judge of a General Councel And there also I shewed the way how an erring Councel might be rectified and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored without lifting any private spirit above a Councel and without this process in Infinitum which A. C. so much urges and which is so much declined in all Sciences For as the understanding of a man must always have somewhat to rest upon so must his Faith But a private man first for his own satisfaction and after for the Churches if he have just cause may consider of and examine by the Judgment of discretion though not of power even the Definitions of a General Councel But A. C. concludes well That an Infallible certainty is necessary for that one Faith which is necessary to salvation And of that as I expressed before a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds and the four first General Councels to which for things Necessary and Fundamental in the Faith we need no assistance from other General Councels And some of your own very honest and very Learned were of the same Opinion with me And for the peace and unity of the Church in things absolutely necessary we have the same infallible direction that we have for Faith But in Things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also if about them Christian men do differ 't is no more than they have done more or less in all Ages of the Church and they may differ and yet preserve the One necessary Faith and Charity too entire if they be so well minded I confess it were heartily to be wished that in these things also men might be all of one mind and one judgment to which the Apostle exhorts 1 Cor. 1. But this cannot be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailties which here hang thick and close about her The want both of Unity and Peace proceeding too often even where Religion is pretended from Men and their Humours rather than from Things and Errours to be found in them Num. 24 And so A. C. tells me That it is not therefore as I would perswade the fault of Councels Definitions but the pride of such as will prefer and not submit their private Judgments that lost and continues the loss of peace and unity of the Church and the want of certainty in that one afore-said soul-saving Faith Once again I am bold to tell A. C. there is no want of certainty most infallible certainty of That one soul-saving Faith And if for other opinions which flutter about it there be a difference a dangerous difference as at this day there is yet
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
procession from the Son added to the Creed by the Romane Church 16 97. the Greek Church her errour touching this 14. what and how dangerous 16 God proof of the true one by testimony of the false ones 50 Government of the Church in what sense Monarchical in what Aristocratical 130 131 c. how a Monarchical not needful 138 S. Gregory Naz. vindicated 8 his humility and mildness 110 Pope Gregory VII the raiser of the Papacy to the height 135 136. his XXVII Conâ—lusions the Basis of the Papal greatness 118 Creek Church notwithstanding her errour still a true Church 16. and justified by some Romanists ibid. her hard usage by the Church of Rome 17. of her Bishops their subscription to the Councel of Florence 227 H HEresies what maketh them 20. the occasion of their first springing up 128. how and by whom began at Rome 10 11 Hereticks who and who not 105. none to be rashly condemned for such 17. that some may pertain to the Church 105. who they be that teach that faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept 92 93 S. Hierome explained 6 88. in what esteem he had Bishops 115 Hooker righted 56 57 158 I St. James believed to have been Successor of our Lord in the Principality of the Church 122 Idolaters their gods how put down by Christian Religion 50 51. Idolatry how maintained in the Church of Rome and with what evil consequents 181 c. Of Jeremias the Greek Patriarch 〈◊〉 Censâ—â—e 145 Jesuites◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of dealing in this Conference 211. their cunning in expounding the Fathers to their own purpose 7. their confidence 15. their arrogancy 111. their subtile malignity 244. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves infallibility 61. their desire of having one King 〈◊〉 one Pope 65 66. their late cunning argument to draw Protestants to them answered c. 194. their falsification of the Authors words 86 87. A perfect Jesuitism 84 Jews the ground of their belief of the old Testament 79 Images how worshipped by the Church of Rome 12. against adoration of them 181. Cassander his complaint of it 182. The flying from Image-worship should not make 〈◊〉 to run into prophaneness and irreverence against God 183 Infallible two acceptions of it 80 Infallible and Firm how they differ 127. the evils ensuing the opinion of the Churches and the Popes Infallibility 143 c. 170 175. what an Infallibilty of the Church Stapleton is forced to acknowledge 166 167 Vid. Councels and Pope and Church Innocent the third â—â—â— extolling the Pope above the Emperour 134 c. Against Invocation of Sainâ—t 181 Irenâ—â—â— vindicated 118 c. 249 250 251 Israel a Church after her separation from Judah 97 Judge who to be in controversies touching faith and manners 101 102 c. 108 253. what Judges of this kinde the Church hath 127 253. who to judge when a general Councel cannot be had 129. that no visible Judge can prevent or remedy all Heresie and Schism 130. A visible living Judge of all Controversies whether always necessary 130. c. wherein private men may judge and wherein not 2 149 160 K THe Keys to whom given and how 123 167 Kings Custodes utriúsque tabulae 134. not to be tyranniz'd over by the Pope 125. their supremacy in things spiritual 134. some Romanists for the deposing and killing of them 221 Knowledge of God how difficult 71 72. what Knowledge needful to breed faith 55 56. what degree of it is necessary to salvation hard to determine 212 236. the Apostles Knowledge how different from that of their hearers 69 L AGainst Limbus Patrum 198 213 Literae Communicatoriae what they were and of what use 132 Peter Lombard condemned of Heresie by the Pope 174 M MAldonate answered 147 Manichees their soul Heresie and what stumbled them 151 Manners Corruption in them no sufficient cause of separation 94 95 Martyrs of the Feasts made of old at their Oratories 182 Mass the English Liturgy better and safer than it 201. what manner of sacrifice it is made by them of Rome 200 Matrix and Radix in S. Cyprian not the Roman Church 238 240 Merits against their condignity 185 Miracles what proofs of Divine truth 48 69. not wrought by all the Writers of Scripture 69. what kind of assent is commonly given to them ibid. Multitude no sure mark of the truth 198 N NOvatians their original 3 10. Novatian how dealt with by Saint Cyprian 23 239 c. O OBedience of that which is due to the Church her Pastors 155 Occham his true Resolution touching that which maketh an Article of faith 254 Origen his Errours obtruded by Ruffinus 6. he the first Founder of Purgatory 227 231 P PApists their denying possibility of salvation to Protestants confuted and their reasons answered 185 186 187. of their going to Protestant Churches and joyning themselves to their Assemblies 244 Parents their power over their children 103 Parliaments what matters they treat of and decree 138 139 Pastors lawfully sent what assistance promised to them 61 62. their Embassie of what authority 64 Patriarchs all alike supream 111 112 116. no appeal from them 117 111 1â—2 People the unlearned of them saved by the simplicity of faith 105 Perfidia the different significations of it 4 5 6 S. Peter of Christs prayer for him 106 107 124 125. of his Primacy Preeminency and Power 121 c. 123 152. in what sense the Church is said to be built upon him 122. that he fell but not from the faith 123 124. whether he were universal Pastor 125. the highest power Ecclesiastical how given to him and how to the rest of the Apostles 109 110 247 248 Pope not infallible 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 58 59 124 147 253. how improbable and absurd it is to say he is so 174 175 c. he made more infallible by the Romanists than a general Councel 172. his infallibility held by some against Conscience 174 175. if he had any it were useless 177. how opposed by Alphonsus à Castro 172 173. the belief and knowledge of it both of them impossible 177. that he may erre and hath erred 136. that he may erre as Pope 174 175. prefer'd by some before a general Councel 172. not Monarch of the Church 132. he hath not a negative voice in Councels 253. made by some as infallible without as with a general Councel 172 173. his confirmation of general Councels of what avail 180. of his power in France and Spain 132 133 136. how much greater he is made by some than the Emperour 132 133 c. 137. his power slighted by some great Princes 132 133 136. whether he may be an Heretick and being one how to be dealt with 176. all his power prerogatives c. indirectly denied by Stapleton 30 Popes the fall of some of them and the consequents thereof 95 Of their Power and Principality 109 110 c. 253. their subjection to the Emperour 115 116. and how lost by the Emperor
Providè in quibâ—â—dâ—m Ecclesiis observatur ut Populâ— Sanguis non detiâ— Thom. p. 3. q. 80. A. 12. c. So it was but in some Churches in his time Negare non possumuâ— etiam in Ecclesiâ Lâ—tinâ fuisse usum utriusque speciei usque ad Tempora S. Tâ—omâ— durasse Vasq. in â— Disput. 216. c. 3. â— 38. * Refecti cibo potâ—â— câ—lesti Deus â—oster Teâ—supplices exâ—ramuâ— c. In proprio Missarum de Sa 〈…〉 Jan. 15. Orat. post Communionem 〈◊〉 Jan. â—1 * Ad quod Sacâ—â—ficium suo loco ordine Homines Dei nomindâ—tur non tamen a Saâ—â—rdoâ—â— quâ— Saâ—râ—â—â—caâ— Invocantur S. Aug. L. 22. Civ Dei c. 10. †Bellarm. L. 1 de Sanctor Bedtitud c. 20. § Ad primum ergo locuÌ„ c. ‖ Sunt Redemptores nostri aliquo modo secun 〈…〉 aliquid Bellar. L. 1. de Indulgenâ— c. 4. Et Sanctos appellat Numina L. 2. de Imagin Sanctorum c. 20. § 3. Now if this word Numen signifie any thing else besides God himself or the power of God or the Oraole of God let Bellarmine shew it or A. C for him * Ut ejuâ— Meritis Precibus â— Geheâ—ne â—â—cendiis liberemur In proprio Missarum de Sanctis Decemb. 6. †Ut Aâ—borum Meritis aeternitatis Glorâ—am consequamâ—â— Ibid. Julii 6. ‖ Ejus intercedentibus Meritis ab Omnibus nos absolve peccatis Ibid. Julli 14. * In Optatus his time the Christians were much troubled upon but a false report That an Image was to be placed upon the Altar What would they have done if Adoration had been Commanded c. Et rectè dictum erat si tasem famam similis veritas sequeretur Optat. L. 3. ad finem †Sicut non licet cum Ethnicis Idola colere Becan L. de side Haeret. servunda c. 8. ‖ Coâ—â—iâ—git aliqâ—aâ—do Hâ—reticâ—s â—irâ—a plura errare quà m Gentiles ut Manichâ—os inquit Thomas Quòd nos possumus verè dicere â—e nostri temporis Sectariis qui culpabilâ—â—èr in pluribus videntur errare Valentia in 2. 2 â— Disp. 1. â— 1â— Punct 3. * Quod quidem à Christianis mâ—lioribus non â—it S Aug. L. 8. de Civ Dei c. 27. †Illa quasi Parâ—uâ—alia superstitioni Gentilium simillima Lud. Vives Ibid. ‖ Quod ergo mortuis litabatur utique Parentationi deputabatur quâ— species proinde Idololatriae est quoniam Idololatriâ— Parentationis â—â—t species Tert. L. de Speâ—â—acuâ—is c. 12. * Manifestus est quà m ut multis verbis explicari deâ—eat Imaginum simulachrorum Cultum nimium invaluisse affectioni seâ— potiùs superstitioni populi plus saâ—â—â— indultum esse it à ut ad summam adorationem quae vel à Paganis suis simulachris â—xbibert consutvit c. Cassand Consult Art 21. C. de Imagibibuâ— Where he names divers of your own â—s namely â—urantâ—s Minatensis Episcoâ—us John Billet Gerson Durand Holkot and Biel rejecting the Opinion of Thomas and other superstitions concerning Images Ibid. †Non quod Credatur â—nesse aliqua in iis Divinitas velutâ— olim fiebat à Gentibus Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret de Invocat ‖ Et â—â—dibus periculosi Erroris Occasiouem c. Ibid. * Et adâ—ò Gens affecta est trancis corrosis deformibus Imaginibus ut me teste quoâ—â—es Episcopi decentiores ponere jubent veteres suas petant plorantes c. Hieron Lamas Sâ—mma p. 3. c. 3 †Imagines Christi S. Matris â—jâ—â—s Sanctorum non sunt vâ—nerandâ— acsi in ipsis Imaginibus esset Divinit aâ— seeundùm quod sunt Materia Arte â—ffigiata non secundùm quod repraesentant Christum Sanctos c. Sic enim adorare vel petere aliquid ab iis esset Idololatria Lam. ibid. Quis ferat populum in Templum irruentem 〈◊〉 haram sues Certè non obsâ—â—t populo Câ—â—â—moniâ— sed prosunt si modus in â—is servetâ—r caveamusâ—è 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loco habeaatur hoc est nè precipuam pietatem in illis collocemus Rhen. Annot. in Tâ—rtul de Cor. â—â—il * Cave nè dum vâ—s alium notare Culpae ipse uoteris Calum 〈…〉 S. Hier. â— 3. advers Pelagianos A. C. p. 64. * Nos fatemur sub Papatu pluâ—imum esse boni imò omne bonum Christianum atque etiam illinc ad nos devenisse c. Luther contra Anabaptist citante Bellarmino L. 4. de Notis Eccles. c. 16. §. penult Et â—â—â—eld Appendicâ— par 3. c. 2. Et Jos. Hall Bishop of Exeter L. Of the Old Religion c. 1. Many holding Christ the Foundation aright and groaning under the burden of Popish trash c. by a general repentance and assured Faith in their Saviour did finde favour with the Lord. D. Gro. Abbot late Archbishop of Cant. Answer to Hill ad Ration 1. §. 30. For my part I dare not deny the possibility of their Salvation who have been the chiefest Instruments of ours c. Hooker in his Discourse of Justificat §. 17. In former times a man might hold the general Doctrine of those Churches wherein our Fathers lived and be saved And yet since the Councel of Trent some are found in it in such degree of Orthodoxy as we may well hope of their Salvation Field l. 3. Eccl. c 47. The Latine or Western Church subject to the Romish Tyranny was a true Church in which a saving profession of the Truth of Christ was found Jos. Hall Bishop of Exeter L. Of the Old Religion fine in his Advertisement to the Reader p. 202. Non pauci retinuerunt Christum Fundamentum c. Mornaeus Tract de Ecclesia c. 9. fine Inter sordes istas ista quae summo cum periculo expectetur salus non ipsorum Additamentis sed iis quae nobiscum habent communia Fundamentis est attribuenda Jo. Prideaux Lectione 9. fine Papa aliquam adhuc Religionis formam relinquit spem vitae aeternae non tollit c. Calv. Instruct. advers Libertinos c. 4. †Here A. C. gets another snatch and tells us That to grant a Possibility of Salvation in the Romane Church is the free Confession of an Adversary and therefore is of force against us and extorted by Truth But to say that salvation is more securely and easily to be bad in the Protestant Faith that 's but their partial Opinion in their own behalf and of no force especially with Romane Catholikes I easily believe this latter part That this as A. C. and the rest use the matter with their Proselytes shall be of little or no force with Romane Catholikes But it will behove them that it be of Force For let any indifferent man weigh the Necessary Requisites to Salvation and he shall finde this no partial Opinion but very plain and real Verity That the Protestant living according to his belief is upon the safer way to Heaven And as for my Confession let them enforce it as far as they
Valentinus Cerdon Appelles c. Tertull. de praescript advers Haerâ—t c. 46 48 49 51 c. * Libertini rident â—â—em omnem quam de Resurrectione habemus idque jam nobis evenâ—sse dicunt quod adhuc expectamus c. ut Homo sciat Animam suam Spiritum 〈◊〉 esse perpetuâ— viventem in Coelis c. Calv. instructione advers Libertinos c. 22. prinâ— Sunt etiam hodie Libertini qui eam irrident Resurrectionem quae tractatur in Scripturis tantùm ad Animas referunt Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. Class 3. Ca. 15. Nu. 4. Punct 3. Punct 4. †Hebr. 11. 37. Cyrillus Alexandrinus malè audivit quod Ammonium Martyrem appellavit quem constitit teâ—eritatis poenas dedisse non Necessitate negandi Christi in tormentis esse mortuum Socr. Hist. Eccl. L. 7. c. 14. b Optatus L. 4. Cont. Parmen c Tertul. L. de Praescrip c. 48. d Tertul. Ibid. e Tertul. L. de Carne Christi c. 14. f Si ad Jesu Christi respicias Essentiam atque Naturam non nisi Hominem eum fuisse constantèr affirmamus Volkelius Lib. 3. de Religione Christianâ cap. 1. * §. 35. Nu. 2. fine †Extra Ecclesiam neminem Vivificat Spiritus Sanctus S. Aug. Epist. 50. ad finem Field L. 1. de Eccles. c. 13. una est Fidelium Universalis Ecclesia extra quam nullus salvatur Conc. Lateran Can. 1. And yet even there there 's no mention of the Roman Church ‖ And so doth A. C. too Out of the Catholike Roman Church there is no Possibility of Salvation A. C. p. 65. * And Daughter Sion was Gods own phrase of old of the Church Isa. 1. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hyppol Orat. de Consum mundi Et omnis Ecclesia Virgo appellata est S. Aug. Tr. 13. in S. Joh. †For Christ was to be preached to all Nations but that Preaching was to begin at Jerusalem S. Luc. 24. 47. according to the Prophesie Mic. 4. 2. And the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch Acts 11. 26. And therefore there was a Church there before ever S. Peter came thence to settle One at Rome Nor is it an Opinion destitute either of Authority or Probability That the Faith of Christ was preached and the Sacraments administred here in England before any settlement of a Church in Rome For S. Gildas the Ancientest monument we have and whom the Romanists themselves reverence says expresly That the Religion of Christ was received in Brittany Tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris c. In the latter time of Tiberius Caesar. Gildas de excid Brit. whereas S. Peter kept in Jewry long after Tiberius his death Therefore the first Conversion of this Island to the Faith was not by S. Peter Nor from Rome which was then a Church Against this Rich. Broughton in his Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain Centur. 1. C. 8. §. 4. says expresly That the Protestants do freely acknowledge that this Clause of the time of Tiberius tempore summo Tiberii Caesaris is wanting in other Copies of that holy Writer and namely in that which was set forth by Pol. Virgil and others Whereas first these words are express in a most fair and ancient Manuscript of Gildas to be seen in Sir Rob. Cotton's Study if any doubt it Secondly these words are as express in the printed Edition of Gildas by Polyd. Virg. which Edition was printed at London An. 1525. and was never reprinted since Thridly these words are as express in the Edition of Gildas by Jo. Joselin printed at London also An. 1568. And this falshood of Broughton is so much the more foul because he boasts Praefat. to his Reader fine That he hath seen and diligently perused the most and best Monuments and Antiquities extant c. For if he did not see and peruse these he is vainly false to say it if he did see them he is most maliciously false to belie them And Lastly whereas he says The Protestants themselves confess so much I must believe he is as false in this as in the former till he name the Protestants to me which do confess it And when he doth he shall gain but this from me That those Protestants which confessed it were mistaken For the thing is mistaken * Return of Untruths upon M. Jewel Art 4. Untruth 105. †For I am sure there is a Roman Church that is but a Particular Bâ—llarm L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. And then you must either shew me another Roman Church which is The Catholike Or you must shew how One and the same Roman Church is in different Respects or Relations A Particular and yet The Catholike Which is not yet done And I do not say A Particular and yet A Catholike But A Particular and yet The Catholike Church For so you speak For that which Card. Peron hath That the Roman Church is the Catholike Causally because it insuses Universality into all the whole Body of the Catholike Church can I think satisfie no man that reads it That a Particular should insuse Universality into an Universal Peron L. 4. of his Reply c. 9. * Rom. 14. 4. * Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed Credendi simplicitas tutissiniâ—â— fâ—tiâ— S. Aug. Cont. Fund c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 21. Omission of Inquiry many times saves the people †Hereticks in respect of the Profession of sundry Divine Verities which they still retain in common with right Believers c. do still pertain to the Church Field L. 1. de Eccles. c. 14. Potest aliquis Ecclesia membrum esse secundum quid qui tamen simpliciter non est Haereticus recedens à Fide non dimittitur ut Paganiâ—â— sed propter Baptismi Characterem punitur ut transfuga Excommunicationis gladio spiritualitèr occiditur Stapl. Controv. 1. q. 2. A. 3. Notabil 3. The Apostle pronounces some gone out S. Joh. 2. 19. from the fellowship of sound Believers when as yet the Christian Religion they had not utterly cast off In like sense and meaning throughout all Ages Hereticks have justly been hated as branches cut off from the true Vine yet only so far forth cut off as the Heresies have extended For both Heresie and many other Crimes which wholly sever from God do sever from the Church of God but in part only Hooker L. 5. Eccles. Pol. § 68. ‖ Ipsis Magistris pereuatibus nisi fortè ante mortem resipuerint Luth. de Serv. Arbit Hâ—resiarche plâ—s peccant quà m alii qui Heresin aliquam secuti Supplem Tho. q. 99. A. 4. c. * Si mihi videretur uâ—â—s idem Haereticus Haereticis credens homo c. S. Aug. L. 1. de util Cred. c. 1. Et Epist 162. ad Donatist Episc. †S. Mat. 18. 17. Qui oppugnaut Regulam Veritatis S. Aug L. de Haeresibus versus sinem ‖ Cypriaâ—us Reatus Martyr S. Aug. L. 1. de Bapt. cont Doâ—at c. 18.
the Name of Persecution and in the mean time let M. Fisher and his Fellows Angle in all parts of your Dominions for your Subjects If in your Grace and Goodness you will spare their Persons Yet I humbly beseech You see to it That they be not suffer'd to lay either their Weels or bait their Hoooks or cast their Nets in every stream lest that Tentation grow both too general and too strong I know they have many Devices to work their Ends But if they will needs be fishing let them use none but Lawful Nets Let 's have no dissolving of Oathes of Allegiance No deposing no killing of Kings Noblowing up of States to settle Quod Volumus that which fain they would have in the Church with many other Nets as dangerous as these For if their Profession of Religion were as good as they pretend it is if they cannot Compass it by Good Means I am sure they ought not to attempt it by Bad. For if they will do evil that good may come thereof the Apostle tells me Their Damnation's just Rom. 3. Now as I would humbly Beseech Your Majesty to keep a serious Vatch upon these Fsher-men which pretend S. Peter but fish not with His Net So whould I not have You neglect another sort of Anglers in a Shallower Water For they have some ill Nets too And if they may spread them when and whore they will God know what may become of it These have not so strong a Back abroad as the Romanists have but that 's no Argument to suffer them to encrease They may grow to equal Strength with Number And Factious People at home of what Sect or fond Opinion soever they be are not to be neglected Partly because they are so Near. And 't is ever a dangerous Firâ— that begins in the Bedstraw And partly because all those Domestick Evils which threaten a Rent in Church or State are with far more safety prevented by Wisdom than punished by Justice And would men consider it right they are far more beholding to that man that keeps them from falling than to him takes them up though it be to set the Arm or the Leg that 's broken in the Fall In this Discourse I have no aim to displease any nor any hope to please all If I can help on to Truth in the Church and the Peace of the Church together I shall be glad be it in any measure Nor shall I spare to speak necessary Truth out of too much Love of Peace Nor thrust on Unnecessary Truth to the Breach of that Peace which once broken is not so easily sâ—der'd again And if for Necessary Truths sake onely any man will be offended nay take nay snatch at that offence which is not given I know no fence for that 'T is Truth and I must tell it 'T is the Gospel and I must preach it 1 Cor. 9. And far safer it is in this Case to bear Anger from men than a Woe from God And where the Foundations of Faith are shaken be it by Superstition or Prophaneness he that puts not to his hand as firmly as he Can to support them is too wary and hath more Care of himself then of the Cause of Christ. And 't is a Wariness that brings more danger in the end then it shuns For the Angel of the Lord issued out a Curse against the Inhabitants of Meroz because they came not to help the Lord to help the Lord against the mighty Judg. 5. I know 't is a Great ease to let every Thing be as it will and every man believe and do as he list But whether Governors in Statâ— or Church do their duty there while is easily seen since this is an effect of no King in Israel Judg. 17. The Church of Christ upon Earth may be compared to a Hive of Bees and that can be no where so steddily placed in this world but it will be in some danger And men that care neither for the Hive nor the Bees have yet a great mind to the Honey And having once tasted the sweet of the Churches Maintenance swallow that for Honey which one day will be more bitter than Gall in their Bowells Now the King and the Priest more than any other are bound to look to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners and that in the first place For that 's by farre the Best Honey in the Hive But in the second place They must be Careful of the Churches Maintenance too else the Bees shall make Honey for others and have none left for their own necessary sustenance and then all 's lost For we see it in daily and common use that the Honey is not taken from the â—ees but they are destroyed first Now in this great and Busie Work the King and the Priest must not fear to put their hands to the Hive though they be sure to be stung And stung by the Bees whose Hive and House they preserve It was King Davids Caâ—e God grant it be never Yours They came about me saith the Psal. 118. like Bees This was hard usage enough yet some profit some Honey might thus be gotten in the End And that 's the Kings Case But when it comes to the Priest the Case is alter'd They come about him like Waspes or like Hornets rather all sting and no Honey there And all this many times for no offence nay sometimes for Service done them would they see it But you know who said Behold I come shortly and my reward is with me to give to every man according as his Works shall be Revel 22. And he himself is so exceding great a Reward as that the manifold stings which are in the World howsoever they smart here are nothing when they are pressed out with that exceeding weight of Glory which shall be revealed Rom. 8. Now one Thing more let me be bold to Observe to Your Majesty in particular concerning Your Great Charge the Church of England 'T is in an hard Condition She professes the Ancient Catholike Faith And yet the Romanist condemns Her of Novelty in her Doctrine She practises Church-Government as it hath been in use in all Ages and all Places where the Church of Christ hath taken any Rooting both in and ever since the Apostles Times And yet the Separatist condemns Her for Antichristianism in her Discipline The plain truth is She is between these two Factions as between two Milstones and unless Your Majesty look to it to Whose Trust She is committed She 'l be grownd to powder to an irrepairable both Dishonour and loss to this Kingdom And 't is very Remarkable that while both these press hard upon the Church of England both of them Cry out upon Persecution like froward Children which scratch and kick and bite and yet cry out all the while as if themselves were killed Now to the Romanist I shall say this The Errors of the Church of Rome
are grown now many of them very Old And when Errors are grown by Age and Continuance to strength they which speak for the Truth though it be far Older are ordinarily challenged for the Bringers in of New Opinions And there is no Greater Absurdity stirring this day in Christendom than that the Reformation of an Old Corrupted Church will we â—ill we must be taken for the Building of a New And were not this so we should never be troubled with that idle and impertinent Question of theirs Where was your Church before Luther For it was just there where their's is now One and the same Church still no doubt of that One in Substance but not One in Condition of state and purity Their part of the same Church remaining in Corruption and Our part of the same Church under Reformation The same Naaman and he a Syrian still but Leprous with them and Cleansed with us The same man still And for the Separatist and him that lays his Grounds for Separation or Change of Discipline though all he says or can say be in Truth of Divinity and among Learned men little better than ridiculous yet since these fond Opinions have gain'd some ground among your people to such among them as are wilfully seâ— to follow their blind Guides through thick and thin till they fall into the Ditch together I shall say nothing But for so many of them as mean well and are onely misled by Artifice and Cunning Concerning them I shall say thus much only They are Bells of passing good mettle and tuneable enough of themselves and in their own disposition and a world of pity it is that they are Rung so miserably out of Tune as they are by them which have gotten power in and over their Consciences And for this there is yet Remedy enough but how long there will be I know not Much talking there is Bragging Your Majesty may call it on both sides And when they are in their ruff they both exceed all Moderation and Truth too So far till both Lips and Pens open for all the World like a Purse without money Nothing comes out of this and that which is worth nothing out of them And yet this nothing is made so great as if the Salvation of Souls that Great work of the Redeemer of the World the Son of God could not be effected without it And while the one faction cryes up the Church above the Scripture and the other the Scripture to the neglect and Contempt of the Church which the Scripture it self teaches men both to honour and obey They have so far endangered the Belief of the One and the Authority of the Other as that neither hath its Due from a great part of Men. Whereas according to Christs Institution The Scripture where 't is plain should guide the Church And the Church were there 's Doubt or Difficulty should expound the Scripture Yet so as neither the Scripture should be forced nor the Church so bound up as that upon Just and farther Evidence She may not revise that which in any Case hath slipt by Her What Success this Great Distemper caused by the Collision of two such Factions may have I know not I cannot Prophesie This I know That the use which Wise men should make of other mens falls is not to fall with with them And the use which Pious and Religious men should make of these great Flaws in Christianity is not to Joyn with them that make them nor to help to dislocate those main Bones in the Body which being once put out of Joynt will not easily be set again And though I cannot Prophesie yet I fear That Atheism and Irreligion gather strength while the Truth is thus weakned by an Unworthy way of Contending for it And while they thus Contend neither part Consider that they are in a way to induce upon themselvs and others that Contrary Extream which they seem most both to fear and oppose Besides This I have ever Observed That many Rigid Professors have turn'd Roman Catholiks and in that Turn have been more Jesuited than any other And such Romanists as have chang'd from them have for the most part quite leaped over the Mean and been as Rigid the other way as Extremity it self And this is there be not both Grace and Wisdom to govern it is a very Natural Motion For a man is apt to think he can never run far enough from that which he once begins to hate And doth not Consider therewhile That where Religion Corrupted is the thing he hates a Fallacy may easily be put upon him For he ought to hate the Corruption which depraves Religion and to run from it but from no part of Religion it self which he ought to Love and Reverence ought he to depart And this I have Observed farther That no one thing hath made Conscientious men more wavering in their own mindes or more apt and easie to be drawn aside from the sincerity of Religion professed in the Church of England than the Want of Uniform and Decent Order in too many Churches of the Kingdom And the Romanists have been apt to say The Houses of God could not be suffer'd to lye so Nastily as in some places they have done were the True worship of God observed in them Or did the People think that such it were â—istrue the Inward Worship of the Heart is the Great Service of God and no Service acceptable without it But the External worship of God in his Church is the Great Witness to the World that Our heart stands right in that Service of God Take this away or bring it into Contempt and what Light is there left to shine before men that they may see our Devotion and glorifie our Father which is in Heaven And to deal clearly with Your Majesty These Thoughts are they and no other which have made me labour so much as I have done for Decency and an Orderly settlement of the External Worship of God in the Church For of that which is Inward there can be no Witness among men nor no Example for men Now no External Action in the world can be Uniform without some Ceremonies And these in Religion the Ancienter they be the better so they may fit Time and Place Too many Over-burden the Service of God And too few leave it naked And scarce any Thing hath hurt Religion more in these broken Times than an Opinion in too many men That because Rome had thrust some Unnecessary and many Superstitious Ceremonies upon the Church therefore the Reformation must have none at all Not considering therewhile That Ceremonies are the Hedge that fence the Substance of Religion from all the Indignities which Prophaneness and Sacriledge too Commonly put upon it And a Great Weakness it is not to see the strength which Ceremonies Things weak enough in themselves God knows adde even to Religion it self But a far greater to see it and yet to Cry Them down all