hope this is no part of your meaning Yet I doubt this b Qui conantur sidem destruere sub specie Questionis difficilis aut fortè indissolubilis c. Orig. Q. 35. in S. Matth. Question How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harme than you will be ever able to helpe by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted upon by you and is in it self a c To know that Scriptures are Divine and infallible in every part is a Foundation so necessary as if it bee doubtfully question'd all the Faith built upon Scripture fals to the ground A. C. p. 47. Necesse est nôsse extare Libros aliquos vere Divinos Bellarm. L. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto c. 4. §. Quarto necesse Et etiam libros qui sunt in manibus esse illos Ibid. §. Sexto oportet matter of such Consequence I will sift it a little farther Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Divinity have used diverse meanes to prove it All have not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolve Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into onely Tradition For onely and no other proofe are equall To prove the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God there are severall Offers at diverse proofes For first some flie to the Testimony and witnesse of the Church and 1. her Tradition which constantly believes and unanimously delivers it Secondly some to the Light 2. and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it selfe with other internall proofes which are observed in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoever Thirdly some to the Testimony of the Holy 3. Ghost which cleares up the light that is in Scripture and seales this Faith to the soules of men that it is Gods Word Fourthly all that have not imbrutished 4. themselves and sunke below their species and order of Nature give even Naturall Reason leave to come in and make some proofe and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments And this must be admitted if it be but for Pagans and Infidels who either consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other bee converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. and that is Rom. 1. 20. done by this very evidence 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church which is your way That taken and considered alone it is so farre from being the onely that it cannot be a sufficient Proofe to believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God For that which is a full and sufficient proofe is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this For it may bee further asked why wee should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered we may believe Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded of you How that may appeare And if this be demanded either you must say you have it by speciall Revelation which is the private Spirit you object to other men or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture a Esse aliquas veras Traditiones demonstratur ex Scripturis Bellar L. 4 de verbo Dei non Scripto c. 5. and A. C p. 50. proves Tradition out of 2 Thes. 2. as all of you doe And that very offer to prove it out of Scripture is a sufficient acknowledgement that the Scripture is a higher Proofe then the Churches Tradition w ch in your own Grounds is or may be Questionable till you come thither Besides this is an Inviolable ground of Reason * Arist. 1. Post. c. 2. T. 16. Per Pacium Quocirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia per illa scimus credimus etiam posteriora That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credite then the conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith The Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the Conclusions and the Principles by which they are prooved be only Ecclesiasticall Tradition it must needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of the Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Resolved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony But this †Eorum errorem dissimulare non possum qui asserunt fidern Nostram cò tanquà m in ultimam credendi causam reducendam esse Vt Credamus Ecclesiam esse Veracem c. M. Canus L. 2. de Locis c. 8. §. Cui tertium your Learned and wary men deny And therefore I hope your selfe dare not affirme Againe if the Voyce of the Church saying the Bookes of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God be the formall Object of Faith upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my selfe then every man not only may but ought to resolve his Faith into the Voyce or Tradition of the Church for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formall Object of the Faith But nothing can bee more evident then this That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church Therefore neither is that Testimony or Tradition alone the formall Object of Faith * Uox Ecclesiae non est formale Obiectum Fidei Stapl. Relect. Cont 4. q. 3. A. 2. Licet in Articulo Fidei Credo Ecclesiam fortè contineatur hoc totum Credo ea quae docet Ecclesia tamen non intelligitur necessariò quod Credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam Testi insallibili ibid. Vbi etiam rejicit Opinionem Durandi Gabr. Et Waldens L. 2 Doctr. Fidei Art 2. c. 21. Num. 4. Testimonium Ecclesiae Catholicae est Objectum Fidei Christianae Legislatio Scripturae Canonica subjicitur tamen ipsi sicut Testis Iudici Testimonium Veritati c. Canus Loc. Lib. 2. cap. 8. Nec si Ecclesia aditum nobis prabet ad hujusmodi Libros Sacros cognoscendos protinus ibi acquiescendum est sed ultrà â—…portet progredi Solidà Dei veritate niti c. The Learned of your owne part grant this †Although in that Article of the Creed I believe the Catholike Church peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witnesse And if they did not confesse this it were no hard thing to prove But here 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authority's of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too b Omnis ergo Ecclesiastica Authoritas cùm sit ad
others And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it unlesse both They and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an unalterable Rule by b Gal. 1. 8. man or Angell To all this A. C. sayes nothing save that I seeme not to admit of an infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit ex parte subjecti A. C. p. 52. without any infallible Reason and that sufficiently applied ex parte objecti which if I did admit would open a gap to all Enthusiasmes and dreames of fanaticall men Now for this yet I thank him For I do not onely seeme not to admit but I doe most clearely reject this phrensie in the words going before 4. The last way which gives c Utitur tamâ—… sacra Doctrina Ratione Humanâ non quidem ad probandum Fidem ipsam sed ad manifest andum aliqua alia quae traduntur in hac Doctrina Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 2. Passibus rationis novus homo tendit in Deum S. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 26. Passibus veruÌ„ est sed nec aequis nec solis Nam Invisibilia Dei altiori modo quantum ad plura pâ—…rcipitg Fides quà m Ratio naturalis ex Creaturis in Deum procedens Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. ad 3. Reason leave to come in and prove what it can may not justly be denied by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven nor believe this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is never placed but in a reasonable creature and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by †Animalis homo non percipit 1. Cor. 2. 14. Nature onely it cannot but never to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend Now the use of Reason is very generall and man do what he can is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will believe though after he once believes his Faith growes d Quia scientiae certitudinem habent ox naturali lumine Rationis humanae quae potest errare Theologia autem quae docet Objectum Notitiam Fidei sicut Fidem ipsam certitudinem habet ex lumine Divinae scientiae quae decipi non potest Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. c. Vt ipsà fide valentiores facti quod credimus intelligere mereamur S. Aug. cont Ep. Manichaei dictam Fundamentum c. 14. Hoc autem it a intelligendum est ut scientia certior sit Certitudine Evidentiae Fides verò certior Firmitate Adhaesionis Majus lumen in Scientia majus Robur in Fide Et hoc quia in Fide ad Fidem Actus imperatus Voluntatis concurrit Credere enim est Actus Intellectus Vero assentiontis productus ex Voluntatis Imperio Biel. in 3. Sent. d. 23. q. 2. A. 1. Unde Tho. Intellectus Credentis determinatur ad Unum non per Rationem sed per Voluntatem ideo Assensus hic accipitur pro Actu Intellectus secundum quod à Voluntate determinatur ad Vnum 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad 3. stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other can in this life In this Particular the Bookes called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to bee the Word of God and so infallible Verity to the least point of them Doth any man doubt this The world cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason whether it bee the Word of God or not To the same Weights hee brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it selfe all Testimonies within which seeme to beare witnesse to it and in all this there is no harme the danger is when a man will use no other Scale but Reason or preferre Reason before any other Scale For the Word of God and the Booke containing it refuse not to bee weighed by a Si vobis rationi veritati consentanca videntur in pretio habete c. de mysteriis Religionis Iustin. Mart. Apol. 2. Igitur si fuit dispositio Rationis c. Tertull. L de Carne Christi c. 18. Rationabile est credere Deum esse Autorem Scripturae Henr. a Gand. Sum To. 1. Ar. 9. q. 3. Reason But the Scale is not large enough to containe nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and full force of either Reason then can give no supernaturall ground into which a man may resolve his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Booke stands upon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equity and Iustice than any thing in the World which any Infidell or meere Naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himselfe The Ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures no Christians more and having to doe with Philosophers men very well seene in all the subtilties which Naturall Reason could teach or learne They were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to relie so much as They did upon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deale with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authority of the Booke of God by such Arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but thinke reasonable if they weighed them with indifferency For though I set the Mysteries of Faith above Reason which is their proper place yet I would have no man thinke They contradict Reason or the Principles thereof No sure For Reason by her own light can discover how firmely the Principles of Religion are true but all the Light shee hath will never bee able to finde them false Nor may any man thinke that the Principles of Religion even this That Scriptures are the Word of God are so indifferent to a Naturall eye that it may with as just cause leane to one part of the Contradiction as to the other For though this Truth That Scripture is the Word of God is not so Demonstratively evident a priori as to enforce Assent yet it is strengthen'd so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it selfe and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilfull and selfe-conceited that shall dare to suspect it Nay yet farther a Hook L. 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse viveret me interrogantem non aspernaretur c. S. Aug. de verá Relig. c. 3. Vide amus quatenus Ratio potest progredi á visibilibus ad invisibilia c. Ibid. c. 29. It is not altogether impossible to proove it even by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them deny some
is in Scripture it selfe is not bright enough it cannot beare sufficient witnesseto itselfe The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what meanes we believe but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object fit for Beliefe And for Reason no man expects that that should proove it it doth service enough if it enable us to disproove that which misguided men conceive against it If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient meanes to prove it either we must finde out another or see what can bâ—… more wrought out of these And to all this again A. C. sayes nothing For the Tradition of the Church then certaine it is wee must distinguish the Church before wee can judge right of the Validity of the Tradition For if the speech bee of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven no question but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like Validity written or delivered And against this Tradition of which kinde this That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is the most generall and uniforme the Church of England never excepted And when S. †L. 1. cont Epis. Fund c. 5. Ego vero non crederem Evangelio nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas Augustine said I would not believe the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Catholike Church mooved mee which Place you urged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by it some of your owne will not endure should be understood save * Occham Dial. p. 1. L. 1. c. 4. Intelligitur solum de Ecclesiâ—… qua fuit tempore Apostolorum of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and a Biel. lect 2â—… in C. Missâ—… A tempore Christi Apostolorum c. And so doth S. August take Eccles. Contra Fund some of the Church in Generall not excluding after-ages But sure to include Christ and his Apostles And the certainety is there abundance of certainety in it selfe but how farre that is evident to us shall after appeare But this will not serve your turne The Tradition of the present Church must bee as Infallible as that of the Primitive But the contrary to this is prooved * §. 16. Nu. 6. before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Divine To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For first it serves by a full consent to worke upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to reade and to consider the Scripture which they heare by so many Wise Learned and Devoute men is of no meaner esteeme then the Word of God And secondly It serves among Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scripture which the Church delivers as the Word of God And thus againe some of your owne understand the fore-cited Place of S. Augustine I would not believe the Gospell c. * Sive Infâ—…les sive in Fide Novitii Can. Loc. L. 2. c 8. Neganti aut omnino nescientâ—… Scripturam Stapl. Relect. Cent. 4. q. 1. A 3. For he speakes it either of Novices or Doubters in the Faith or else of such as were in part Infidels You at the Conference though you omit it here would needs have it that S. Augustine spake even of the †Quid si fateamur Fideles etiam Ecclesiae Authoritate commoveri ut Scripturas recipiant Non tamen inde sequitur eos hoc modo penitus 〈◊〉 aut nullâ aliâ fortioreque ratione induci Quis autem Christianus est quem Ecclesia Christi commâ—…dans Scripturam Christi non commoveat Whitaker Disp. de sacrâ Scripturá Contro 1. q 3. c. 8. vbt 〈◊〉 locum hunc S. Aug. faithfull which I cannot yet thinke For he speakes to the Manichees and they had a great part of the Infidell in them And the words immediately before these are If thou shouldest finde one Qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospell what wouldest thou doe to make him believe a Et ibid. Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus Credite Evangelio Therefore he speakes of himselfe when he did not believe Ego verò non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serves and there need be no Question between us But then every thing that is the first Inducer to believe is not by and by either the Principall Motive or the chiefe and last Object of Beliefe upon which a man may rest his Faith Vnlesse we shall be of b Certum est quod tenemur credere omnibus contentis in Sacro Canone quia Ecclesia credit ex caratione soluÌ„ Ergo per prius magis tenemur Credere Ecclesiae quam Evangelio Almain in 3. Dist. 24 Conclus 6. Dub. 6. And to make a shew of proof for this he falsifies S Aug. most notoâ—…ously and reads that known place not Nisi me commoveret as all read it but compelleret Patet quia dicit Augustinus Evangelio non CredereÌ„ nisi aa hoc me compelleret Ecclesiae Au. horitas Ibid. And so also Gerson 〈◊〉 In Declarat veritatum quae credendae sunt c. part 1 p. 414. §. 3. But in a most ancient Manuscript in Corp. Ch. Colledge Library in Cambridge the words are Nisi me commoveret c. Lacobus Almain's Opinion That we are per prius magis first and more bound to believe the Church then the Gospell Which your own Learned men as you may see by c Canus L. 2. de Locis c. 8. fo 34. b. §. 16. Num. 6. Mel. Canus reject as Extreame foule and so indeed it is The first knowledge then after the Quid Nominis is knowne by Grammer that helpes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to bee able to Demonstrate a Truth and make it evident is his Logicke But when he hath made a Demonstration he resolves the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammaticall or Logicall Principles but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in this Particular a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing induceing perswading Meanes to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God but when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it selfe and with other Writings with the helpe of Ordinary Grace and a minde morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voyce of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it selfe then Tradition alone could give And then he that Believes resolves his last and full Assent That Scripture is of
Divine Authority into internall Arguments found in the Letter it selfe though found by the Helpe and Direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and restit selfe upon the Helpes but upon that Divine Light which the Scripture no Question hath in it selfe but is not kindled till these Helps come Thy word is a Light d Psal. 119. 105. Sanctarum Scripturarum Lumen S. Aug. L. de verâ Relig. c. 7. Quid Lucem Scripturarum vanis umbris c. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol c. 35. so David A Light Therefore it is as much manifestativum sui as alterius a manifestation to it selfe as to other things which it shewes but still not till the Candle be Lighted not till there hath beene a Preparing Instruction What Light it is Children call the Sunne and Moone Candles Gods Candles They see the light as well as men but cannot distinguish betweene them till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And * 1 Cor. 2. 14. animalis homo the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsell and instruction in Scripture as well as Believers But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light and cannot distinguish betweene the Sunne 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 Morall Motive to Beliefe But the Beliefe it selfe That the Scripture is the Word of God rests †Orig. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. went this way yet was he a great deale nearer the prime Tradition then we are For being to proove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis Divinis Scripturis quae nos competenter movcrint c. upon the Scripture when a man findes it to answer and exceed all that which the Church gave in Testimony as will after appeare And as in the Voyce of the Primitive and Apostolicall Church there was a Principaliter tamen etiam hîc credimus propter Deum non Apoâ—…olos c. Henr. à Gand. Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now if where the Apostles themselves spake ultimata resolutio Fidei was in Deum not in ipsos per se much more shall it be in Deum then in praesentem Ecclesiam and into the writings of the Apostles then into the words of their Successors made up into a Tradition simply Divine Authority delivering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule the Voyce of God is plainly heard in Scripture it selfe And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirmes Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it And the internall worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace 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 onely into d Calv. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum scriptis Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata fuit ubicunque reperietur ea Doctrina c. Prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scripture it selfe Secondly you pretend we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolicall 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 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 onely meanes to prove it For suppose I had not nor could have full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Divine yet the morall 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 esteeme very reverently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soule that hath but ordinary Grace out of Doubt That Scripture is the Word of God Infallible and Divine Thirdly you pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be knowne Lumine suo by the Light and Testimony which it hath in and gives to it selfe Against this you give reason for your selves and proofe from us Your Reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe 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 a And where Hooker uses this very Argument as he doth L. 3. §. 8. his words are not If there bee sufficient Light But if that Light bee Evident sufficient Light therefore every man may see it Blinde men are men and cannot see it and b 1 Cor. 2. 14. sensuall men in the Apostles judgement are such Nor may we deny and put out this Light as insufficient because blinde eyes cannot and perverse eyes will not see it no more then we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sicke 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 carrie a naturall Light with them and evident for the Termes are no sooner understood then the Principles themselves are fully knowne to the convincing of mans understanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwels in full Light but such a full Light we do neither say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man doe let him answer for himselfe The Question is onely 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 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as Knowledge and Heb. 11. 1. the Beliefe is firmer then any Knowledge can
be because it rests upon Divine Authority which cannot deceive whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinks he knowes is not ever certaine in Deductions from Principles †§. 16. 〈◊〉 13. But the Evidence is not so deere For it is c Heb. 11. 1. of things not seene in regard of the Object and in regard of the Subject thatsees it is in d 1 Cor. 13. 12. And A. C. confesses p. 52. That this very thing in Question may be known infallibly when 't is knowne but obscurely Et Scotus in 3. Dist. 23 q. 1. fol. 41. B. Hoc modo sacile est videre quomodo â—…ides est cum aenigmate obscuritate Quia Habitus Fidei non credit Articulum esse verum ex Evidentia Objâ—…cti sed propter hoc quod assentit veracitati infâ—…ndentis Habitum in hoc revelantis Credibilia aenigmate in a Glasse or darke 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 certaine Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the soule is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church unlesse you be of Bellarmine's e Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. Credere 〈◊〉 esse divinaâ—… Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem I will not breake my Discourse to risâ—…e this speech of Bellarmine it is bad enough in the best sense that favour it selfe can give it For if he meane by omninò that it is not altogether or simply necessary to believe there is Divine Scripture and a written Word of God that 's false that being granted which is among all Christians That there is a Scripture And God would never have given a Supernaturall unnecessary thing And if he meanes by omninò that it is not in any wise necessary then it is sensibly false For the greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were made the Scripture very necessary in all the Ages of the Church So it was necessary because it was given and given because God thought it necessary Besides upon Romane Grounds this I thinke will follow That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omninò necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omninò be the sense of the word what it can necessary to Salvation So Bellarmine is herein foule and unable to stand upon his owne ground And he is the more partly because he avouches this Proposition for truth after the New Testament written And partly because he might have seene the state of this Proposition carefully examined by Gandavo and distinguished by Times Sum. p. 1. A. 8. q. 4. fine Opinion That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures is not omninò necessary to Salvation The Authority which you pretend against this is out of a Lib. 1. §. 14. Hooker Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Bookes we are bound to esteeme Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach Of this b Protest Apol. Tract 1. §. 10. N. 3. Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seeme well read tels us That c L. 2. §. 4. Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that wee doe well to thinke it is His Word for if any one Booke 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 unlesse beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And d L. 2. §. 7. L. 3. §. 8. this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authority of Gods Church Certainely 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 selfe cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it selfe can It must needs ordinarily have Tradition to prepare the minde of a man to receive it And in the next place where he speaks so sensibly That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe nor one part of it to another that is grounded upon Nature which admits no created thing to bee witnesse to it selfe and is acknowledged by our Saviour e S. Ioh. 5. 31. He speakes of himselfe as man If I beare witnesse to my selfe my witnesse is not true that is is not of force to bee reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more then manifest S. Ioh. 8. 13. that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proofe nay many other proofes to usher it and lead it in then no question it can both prove and approve it selfe His words are So that unlesse besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another Proofe to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition which no man that hath his braines about him denies In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding up all that Hooker sayes in these words This other meanes to assure us besides Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church he wrinkles that Worthy Authour desperately and shrinkes up his meaning For in the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the Question betweene Scripture and Tradition then Hooker doth a L. 2. §. 7. His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Beliefe The Authority of man that is the Name he gives to Tradition is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I aske 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 goodnesse and Commodiousnesse which he sees in the House And this is all the difference that I know betweene 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 plaine as constant to himselfe and Truth b L. 3. §. 8. His words are The first outward Motive leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more wee bestow our Labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the
Scripture is first yeelded unto For all other necessary Poynts of Divinity may by undenyable Discourse bee inferred out of Scripture it selfe once admitted but this concerning the Authority of Scripture not possibly But must either be prooved by Revelation which is not now to bee expected Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it selfe like the Principles of natâ—…rall knowledge which Reasm alone will never Grant Or by Tradition of the Church both Prime and Present with all other Ratinall Helpes preceding or accompanying the internall Light in Scripture it selfe which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe yet Light enough it gives not to bee a convincing Reason and proofe for knowledge And this is it which makes the very entrance into Divinity inaccessible to those men who standing high in the Opinion of their owne wisdome will believe nothing but that which is irrefragably prooved from Rationall Principles For as Christ requires a Deniall of a mans selfe that he may be able to follow him S. Luke 9 So as great a part as any of S. Luke 9. 23. this Denyall of his Whole-selfe for so it must bee is the denyall of his Vnderstanding and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisitor into the Secrets of Him that made it and the over-ruleing the doubtfulnesse of it by the fervency of the a Intellectus Credentis determinatur per Voluntatem non per Rationem Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad tertium And what power the Will hath in Case of mens Believing or not Believing is manifest Jer. 44. But this is spoken of the Will compared with the Vnderstandinâ—… onely leaving the Operations of Grace free over Both. Will. Seventhly That the knowledge of the Supreme Pun. 7. Cause of all which is God is most remote and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with The Quod sit That there is a God b Communis enim sententia est Patrum Theologorum aliorum demonstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse Sed à postâ—…riori per effectus Sic Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. Et Damasâ—… L. 1. Orth. Fid. c. 3. Almain in 3. sent D. 24 q. 1. But what may be demonstrated by naturall reason by natural light may the same be known And so the Apostle himselfe Rom. 1. 20. Invisibilia Dei à Creatur â mundi per ca quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur And so Calvin most clearely L. 1. Inst c. 5. §. 1. Aperire Oculos nequeunt quin aspicere cum coguntur though Bellarmine would needes be girding at him L. 4. de Grat. Lib. Arbit c 2. Videtur autem Ratio iis quae apparent attestari Omnes enim homines de Diis ut ille loquitur habent existimationem Arist. L. 1. de Coelo T. 22. bleare-eyed Reason can see But the c Damasc. L. 1. Ortho. Fid. c. 4. Quid sit what that God is is infinitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason He is a Light indeed but such as no mans Reason can come at for the Brightnes d 1 Tim. 6. 16. Et ne Vâ—…stigium sic accedendi 〈◊〉 S. Aug. nisi augeas imaginari ne cogitationis lucem soliâ—… innumerabiliter vel quid aliud c. L. 8 de Tâ—…in c. 2 Solus modus accedendi Preces sunt Boet. de consolâ—… Philos. L. 5. prosa 3. 1 Tim. 6. If any thing therefore bee attainable in this kinde it must bee by c Prater Scientias Philosophicas necesse est ut ponatur alia Scientia 〈◊〉 revelata de iis quae hominis captum 〈◊〉 Tho. p. 1. q. 1 A. 1. Revelation And that must bee from Himselfe for none can Reveale but f And therefore Bid is exâ—…sse That God could not reveale any thing that is to come nisi illud esset a Deo praesâ—…um sâ—…u praevisum i. e. unlesse God did fully comprehend that which He doth reveale Biel in 3. sent D. 239. 2. A. 1. hee that Comprehends And g Nullus Intellectus Creatus videndo Deum potest cogno 〈◊〉 omâ—…ia quae Deus sacit vel potest saccre Hoc enim esset Comprehendere ejus virtutem c. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. C. Ad Argumentum Quod Deus ut Speculum est Et quod Omnia quae sieri possunt in co resplendent Respondet Thom. Quod non est necessarium quod videns speculum omnia in speculo videat nisi speculum visu suo comprâ—…hendat Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. a 12. Now no man can comprehend this Glasse which is God Himselfe none doth or can comprehend God but Himselfe And when he doth Reveale yet He is no farther discernable then h Deus enim est Speculum voluntarium revelans quae quod vult alicui beato non est Speculum naturalitèr repraesentans omnia Biel. Suppl in 4. Sent. D. 49. q. 3. propos 3. Himself pleases Now since i For if Reason well put to its search did not finde this out how came Arist. to assirme this by rationa l disquisition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Restat ut mens sola extrinsecùs accedat eaque sola divina sit nibil enim cum ejus Actione communicat Actio corporalis Aâ—…st l. 2. de gen Anim. c. 3. This cannot be spoken of the Soule were it mortall And therefore I must needs be of Paulus Benius his opinion who sayes plainly and proves it too Turpiâ—…r assixam à quibâ—…sdam Aristoteli Mortalitatis Animae Opinionem Benius in Timaeum Platonis Decad. 2ae L. 3. Reason teaches that the Soule of man is immortal and k For it Reason did not dictate this also whence is it that Aristotle disputes of the way and meanes of attaining it L. 1. Moral c. 9. And takes on him to proove That Felicity is rather an Honourable then a Commendable thing c. 12. And after all this he addes Deo 〈◊〉 tota vita est hominibus autem catenus quatenus similitudo quaedam ejusmodi Operationis ipsis in est Arist. l. 10. Moral c. 8. capeable of Felicity And since that Felicity consists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause w ch againe is God himselfe And since Christ therin Confirmes that Dictate that mans eternal Happines is to know God and Him whom he hath sent S. k S. Iohn 17. 3. Ultima Beatitudo hominis consistit in quadam supernaturali visione Dei Ad hanc autem visiâ—…m Homo pertingere non potest nisi per modum Addisâ—…is à Deo Doctore Omnis qui audit a Patre didicit S. Iohn 6. 45. Thom. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. in c. Ioh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Contemplation but some Revelation of Himselfe and of the way to himselfe I say since all this is so It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man that the All-wise God should create man with a Desire of
more wee finde that the thing it selfe doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason Here then againe in his Iudgement 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 firme and yet plaine enough to him that will not shut his eyes Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts himselfe in againe and tels me That if I would A. C. p. 52. consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men in which sense the Authority of it as himselfe 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 finde it more then an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Well I have considered The Tradition of the present Church both these wayes And I finde that A. C. confesses That in the first sense the Tradition of the Church is meere humane Authority and no more And therefore in this sense it may serve for an Introduction to this Beliefe but no more And in the second sense as it is not the Tradition of a Company of men onely 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 Romane Prelates and their Clergie he meanes are so fully so cleerely so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility much lesse 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 onely 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 Clergie in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it And therefore though at the entreaty of A. C. I have considered this very A. C. p. 52. well yet I cannot no not in this Assisted sense thinke 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 sorrie A. C. should affirme so boldly as he doth What A. C. p. 52. That Company of men the Romane Bishop and his Clergie of Divine and Infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Good God! Whither will these men goe Surely they are wise in their generation but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of light a S. Luke 16. 8. S. Luke 16. And could they put this home upon the world as they are gone farre in it what might they not effect How might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendome contrary to b 1. S. Pet. 5. 3. S. Peter's Rule whose Successours 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 unknowne to the a S. Basil goes as farre for Traditions as any For he sayes Parem vim habent ad pictatem L. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. But first he speaks of Apostolicall Tradition not of the Tradition of the Present Church Secondly the Learned take exceptions to this Booke of S. Basil as corrupted BP Andr. Opusc. cont Peron p. 9. Thirdly S. Basil himself Ser. de Fide professes that he uses somtimes Agrapha sed ca solùm quae non sunt aliona à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiâ So he makes the Scripture their Touch-stone or tryall And therefore must of Necessity make Scripture superior in as much as that which is able to try another is of greater force and superiour Dignity in that use then the thing tried by it And Stapleton himselfe confesses Traditionem recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem nullo modo cum Scripturâ vel cum Traditionibus priùs à se explicatis comparandam esse Stapleton Relect. Controv. 5. q. 5. A. 2. Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it selfe by justling with it So belike he that hath but halfe an indifferent eye may see this Assisted Company have erred and yet we must wink in obedience and think them Infallible But. A. C. would have me consider againe That A. C. p 52. 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 then 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 have considered this too And I can take the Printing and Approving the Copies of Holy-Writ in these two senses And I can and do make a difference betweene Copies printed and approved by meere morall men and men assisted by Gods Spirit And yet for the Printing onely a skilfull and an able morall man may doe better service to the Church then an illiterate man though assisted in other things by God's Spirit But when I have considered all this what then The Scripture being put in writing is a thing visibly existent and if any errour be in the Print 't is easily corrigible by b Ut §. 18. Nu. 4. Eâ—… S. Aug. L. 32. cont Faustum 〈◊〉 1â—… former Copies Tradition is not so easily observed nor so safely kept And howsoever to come home to that which A. C. inferres upon it namely That the A. C. p. 53. Tradition of the present Church may be accepted in these two senses And if this be all that he will inferre for his penne here is troubled and forsakes him whether by any checke of Conscience or no I know not I will and you see have granted it already without more adoe with this Caution That every Company of men assisted by Gods Spirit are not assisted to this height to be Infallible by Divine Authority For all this
of Divinity in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the light of a Superiour Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the Blessed in Heaven In this Superiour Science this Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more then evident in full light This Superiour Science delivered this Principle in full revealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles †Non creditur Deus esse Author bujus Scientiae quia Homines hoc testati sunt in quantum Homines nudo Testimonio Humano sed in quantum circa eos effulsit virtus Divina â—…sa Deus iis sibi ipsi in eis Testimonium pâ—…buit Hen. à Gand. Sum. P. 1. A. 9. q. 3. This Infallible Light of this Principle made their Authority derivatively Divine By the same Divine Authoriâ—…y they wrote and delivered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture and that uncorrupt though not in the same clearenesse of Ligâ—…t which they had And yet since no sufficient Reason hath or can be given that in any Substantiall thing it hath beene * Corruâ—…pi non possunt quia in manibus sunt omnium Christianorum Et quisquis hoc primitùs ausus esset multorum Codicum vetustiorum collatione confutaretur Maximè quia non unâ—… linguá sea multis continetur Scriptura Nonnullae autem Codicum mendositates vel de Antiquioribus vel de Linguá praecedente emendantur S. Aug. L. 32. cont Faustum c. 16. Corrupted it remaines firme at this day and that proved in the most Supreme Science and therefore now to bee supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God So my Answer is good even in strictnesse That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute Besides the Iewes never had nor can have any other Proofe That the Old Testament is the Word of God then we have of the New For theirs was delivered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was delivered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Iewes did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authority For so the Iewes argue themselves a S. Iohn 9. 29. S. Ioh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses b Maldonat in S. Ioh. 9. It aque non magis errare posse eum sequentes quà m si Deum ipsum sequerentur And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses then they could in following God himselfe And our Saviour seemes to inferre as much c S. Ioh. 5. 47. S. Ioh. 5. where he expostulates with the Iewes thus If you believe not Moses his Writings how should you believe Me Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses How why apparently the same way that is before set downe First by Tradition So S. d Hom. 57. iâ—… S. Ioh. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome We know why By whose witnesse do you know By the Testimony of our Ancestors But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimony was Divine into which namely their Writings the Iewes did Resolve their Faith And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a e 2. S. Pet. 1. 19. Light and a shining Light too And therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And yet though the Iewes entred this way to their Beliefe of the Scripture they do not say f S. Chrys. ubi suprà 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Audivimus We have heard that God spâ—…ke to Moses but We know it So they Resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle then an Eare to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition And I would willingly learne of you if you can shew it me where ever any one Iew disputing with another about their Law did put the other to prove that the Old Testament was the Word of God But they still supposed it And when others put them to their Proofe this way they went And yet you say F. That no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point B. I thinke I have shewed that my Answer is § 19 good and that no other Answer need be made If there were need I make no Question but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten I say to assure us and you expresse no more If you had said to assure us by Divine Faith your Argument had beene the stronger But if you speake of Assurance onely in the generall I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall and Humane Proofe Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe That such a Citie there is by Historicall and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Storie can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-storie assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Iewes Enemies to Christ they beare witnesse to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations †Tant a hominum temporum consensione firmatum S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccles Cath. c. 29. Is Libri quoquo modo se habent sancti tamen Divinarum Rerum pleni prope totius generis humani Confessione diffamantur c. S. Aug. de util cred c. 7. L. 13. cont Faust. c. 15. give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimonie for any Authoritie upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all * Super omnes omnium Gentiâ—… Literas S. Aug. 11. de Civit. Dei c. 1. Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Vnwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Beliefe when it is true and remaines so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth can not deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancy and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non su'est falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured infallibly by Divine Faith a Incertum
their own and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a private Spirit For Private Spirits are too giddy to rest upon Scripture and too heady and shallow to be acquainted with Demonstrative Arguments And it were happy for the Church if she might never be troubled with Private Spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotly objected against c Praefat. p. 29. Hooker the d Dialogus â—…ctus Deus Rex Authour cals him a e Cordatus Protestans Wise Protestant yet turnes thus upon him If a Councell must yeeld to a Demonstrative Proofe Who shall Iudge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For every man that will kicke against the Church will say the Scripture he urges is evident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leave all to the wildenesse of a Private Spirit Can any ingenuous man read this Passage in Hooker and dreame of a Private Spirit For to the Question Who shall judge Hooker answers as if it had beene then made f Praef. p. 29. And therefore A. C. is much to blame after all this to talk of a pretext of seeming evident Scripture or Demonstration As he doth p 59. An Argument necessary and Demonstrative is such saith he as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it So it is not enough to thinke or say it is Demonstrative The Light then of a Demonstrative Argument is the Evidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that understand it Well but because all understand it not If a Quarrell be made Who shall decide it No Question a § 32. Nu. 2. but a Generall Councell not a Private Spirit first in the intent of the Authour for Hooker in all that Discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell b Praesat p. 28. binding and therefore that is made Judge not a Private Spirit And then for the Judge of the Argument it is as plaine For if it be evident to any man then to so many Learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse And if they cannot but assent it is hard to thinke them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And c 2 de Bapt cont Don. cap. 4. S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would have presently yeelded to any one that would d Uni verum dicenti demonstr anti demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with e Cont. Fund cap. 4. him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peters Chaire and Succession from it Motives to keepe him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth f Quae quidem si tam manifesta monâ—…ratur ut in dubtum â—…enire non possit praeponenâ—…a est omâ—…ibus ills rebus quiius in Catholica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aciquid apertissimâ—… in Euangelâ—… 〈◊〉 c. 4. which if it bee so clearely demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority And doth not Bellarmine himselfe grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councell do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himselfe that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he adds this Exception a L. 2 de Concil c. 8. §. Alii dicunt Cencilium Nisi manifestissimè constet intolerabilem Errorem committi Unlesse it manifestly appeare that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councell must yeeld unlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he expresse who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable This will not downe with you but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible Your Fellowes tell us and you can affirme no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councell is not b Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. Q. 3. Ar. 1. Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a c Divina suo modo Ibid. And so A. C. too who hath opened his mouth very wide to proove the Succession of Pastors in the Church to be of Divine and infallible Authority yet in the close is forced to add At least in some sort p. 51. manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak lowdest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith d In altiori genere viz. in geners causae efficientis atque adeò aliquâ exparte formalis Ibid. Q. 4. Ar. 3. in an higher kinde then the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith and in some sort the very formall Is not this Blasphemie Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his owne Grounds that sayes it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians doe doe with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his owne Grounds that sayes it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but suo modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree then that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture much lesse in altiori genere in a higher kinde then the Scripture But because when all other things faile you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell is by Inspiration and so Divine and infallible My haste shall not carrie mee from a little Consideration of that too Sixtly then If the
Faith and an Infallible understanding of the same thing under the same Considerations cannot possibly stand together in the same man at the same time A. C. hath not done asking yet But he would farther know Whether Protestants can be Infallibly sure that all and onely those points which Protestants account A. C. p. 69. Fundamentall and necessary to be expressely knowne by all were so accounted by the Primitive Church Truly Vnity in the Faith is very Considerable in the Church And in this the Protestants agree and as Vnisormely as you and have as Infallible Assurance as you can have of all points which they account Fundamentall yea and of all which were so accounted by the Primitive Church And these are but the Creed and some few and those Immediate deductions from it And †Tert. praescript adversus Haeres c. 13. c Tertullian and * Ruffin in Symb. Ruffinus upon the very Clause of the Catholike Church to decypher it make a recitall only of the Fundamentall Points of Faith And for the first of these the Creed you see what the sense of the Primitive Church was by that famous and knowne place of a Et neque qui valde potens est in dicendo ex Ecclesiae Praefectis alia ab his dicet c. Neque debilis in dicendo hanc Traditionem imminuet Quùm euim una cadem fides sit ueque is qui multum de eâ dicere potest plusquam oportet dicit neque qui parum ipsam imminuit Irenae L. 1. Adv. Haer. c. 2. 3. Et S. Basil. Serm. de Fide To. 2. p. 195. Edit Bafil 1505. Vna Immobilis Regula c. Tert. de veland Virg. c. 1. Irenaeus where after hee had recited the Creed as the Epitome or Briefe of the Faith he addes That none of the Governors of the Church be they never so potent to Expresse themselves can say alia ab his other things from these Nor none so weake in Expression as to diminish this Tradition For since the Faith is One and the same He that can say much of it sayes no more then he ought Nor doth he diminish it that can say but little And in this the Protestants all agree And for the second the immediate Deductions they are not formally Fundamentall for all men but for such b Quantum ad prima Credibilia quae sunt Articuli Fidei tenetur homo Explicitè credere sicut tenetur habere fidem Quantum autem ad alia Credibilia c. non tenetur Explicitè credere nisi quando hoc ci constiterit in Doctrinâ Fidei contineri Tho. 2. 2 q. 2. A. 5. c. Potest quis Errare Credendo oppositum Alicui Articulo subtill ad cujas sidem explicitam non â—…mnis teuentur Holkot in 1. sent q. 1. ad quartum as are able to make or understand them And for others t is enough if they doe not obstinatâ—…ly or Schismatically refuse them after they are once revealed Indeed you account many things Fundamentall which were never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church such as are all the Decrees of Generall Councels which may be all true but can never be all Fundamentall in the Faith For it is not in the power of * Resolutio Ocbam est Quod nec tota Ecclesiae nec Concilium Generale nâ—… suminus Pontifex potest facere Artiâ—…ulum quod non suit Articulus Articulus cuim est ex co solo qui à Deo Revelatuâ—… est Almain in 3. sent D. 15. q. unica Coâ—…clus 4. Dub 3. the whole Church much lesse of a Generall Councell to make any thing Fundamentall in the Faith that is not contained in the Letter or sense of that common Faith which was once given and but once for all to the Saints S. Lude 3. But if it be A. C's meaning to call S. Iude vers 3. for an Infallible Assurance of all such Points of Faith as are Decreed by Generall Councels Then I must bee bold to tell him All those Decrees are not necessary to all mens salvation Neither doe the Romanists themselves agree in all such determined Points of Faith Be they determined by Councels or by Popes For Instance After those Bookes which wee account Apochryphall were †Concil Trid Sess 4. defined to bee Canonicall and an Anathema pronounced in the Case a Six Senens Biblioth Sanct. L. 1. Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them And after b Non est necessariò credendum Detâ—…minatis per Sum Pontificem c. Aimain in 3. sent D. 24. q. unica Conclus 6. Dubio 6. fine Pope Leo the tenth had defined the Pope to be aboue a Generall Councell yet many Romane Catholikes defend the Contrary And so doe all the Sorbonists at this very day Therefore if these be Fundamentall in the Faith the Romanists differ one from another in the Faith nay in the Fundamentals of the Faith And therefore cannot have Infallible Assurance of them Nor is there that Unity in the Faith amongst them which they so much and so often boast of For what Scripture is Canonicall is a great point of Faith And I believe they will not now Confesse That the Popes power over a Generall Councell is a small one And so let A. C. looke to his owne Infallible Assurance of Fundamentals in the Faith for ours God be thanked is well And since he is pleased to call for a particular Text of Scripture to proove all and every thing of this nature which is ridiculous in it selfe and unreasonable to demand as hath beene * §. 38. N. 6. shewed yet when he shall bee pleased to bring forth but a particular knowne Tradition to proove all and every thing of this on their side it will then be perhaps time for him to call for and for us to give farther Answer about particular Texts of Scripture After all this Questioning A. C. inferres That I had need seeke out some other Infallible Rule and meanes by A. C. p. 69. which I may know these things infalliâ—…ly or else that I have no reason to be so confident as to adventure my soule that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith How weake this Inference is will easily appeare by that which I have already said to the premises And yet I have somewhat left to say to this Inference also And first I have lived and shall God willing dye in the Faith of Christ as it was professed in the Ancient Primitive Church and as it is professed in the present Church of England And for the Rule which governes me herein if I cannot bee confident for my soule upon the Scripture and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it I will be confident upon no other And secondly I have all the reason in the world to be confident upon this Rule for this can never deceive me Another that very other which A. C. proposes
and after that by Pope Stephen and after both in the first b Can. 1. Councell of Carthage yet no one word is there in that Councell which mentions this as an Error That hee 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 Generall which results from it namely That for all his being in the Popedome he might erre is most true 2. The second Father which Bellarmine cites is S. Ierome d Attamen scito Romanam sidem Apostolica vove laudatam ejusmodi praestigias non recipere etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Pauli authoritate munitam non posse mutari S. Hicron L. 3. Apol. contra Ruffinum Tom. 2. Edit Paris 1534. sol 84. K. Peradventure it is here to be read jam si For so the place is more plaine and more strong but the Answer is the same His words are The Romane Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such praestigia's deceits and delusions into it though an Angell should preach it otherwise than 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. Ierome speakes here of the Faith For the Praestigiae here mentioned are afterwards more plainely expressed For he tels us after a Deinde ut Epistolas contra te ad Orientem mitteret cauterium tibi Haereseós inureret Diceretque libros Origenis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à te translatos simplici Ecclesiae Romanae plebi traditos ut fidei veritatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant per te perderent S. Hicron ibid. fol. 85. K. 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 meanes 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 speakes And secondly I shall as easily confesse that S. Ierome'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 Romane Faith he will understand the Particular Church of Rome Which is as much as to say Romanos Fideles the Faithfull of that Church And that no wilie Delusions or Cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them Now hereupon I returne to that of S. Cyprian If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos why may not Perfidia before signifie Perfidos Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers as Termes a Qui cum Fidei dux esse non potuit perfidiae existat S. Cyprian L. 1. Epist. 7. Fidem perfidi c. Ibid. Facti sunt ex Ovibus Vulpes ex fidelibus perfidi Optatus L. 7. Quomodo iis prosit quum baptizantur Parentum Fides quorum iis non potest obesse perfidia S. Aug. Epist. 23. Quantò potiùs Fides aliena potest consulere parvulo cui sua perfidia c. S. Aug. L. 3. de lib. Arbit c. 23. Opposite And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably So with these great Masters with whom 't is almost growne to be Quod volumus rectum est what we please shall be the Authours meaning Perfidia must signifie absolutely Errour in Faith or Misbeliefe But Fides must relate to the Persons and signifie the Faithfull of the Romane Church And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deale of Reason For Romana Fides the Romane Faith as it was commended by the Apostle of which S. Ierome speakes is one thing and the Particular Romane Church of which the Cardinall speakes is another The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias wilie delusions into it if it did it could not be the Whole and Vndefiled Faith of Christ which they learned from the Apostle And which is so fenced by Apostolicall Authority as that it cannot be changed though an Angell should preach the contrary But the Particular Church of Rome hath admitted Praestigias diverse crafty Conveyances into the Faith and is not fenced as the Faith it selfe is And therefore though an Angell cannot contrary that yet the bad Angell hath sowed tares in this By which meanes 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 Romane Faith that is the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romanes and after commended in them was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other than that One. And this one can never be changed in or from it selfe by Angell or Divell 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 yee see S. Hierome himselfe confesses that the Pope himselfe was afraid b Ne fidei veritatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant per te perderent ut suprà ne perderent least by this Art of Ruffinus the People might loose 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 Clergie too if they looke not to it as it seemes they after did not at Rome though then they did Nay at this time the whole Romane Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Booke and all the Errors in it comming under the Name of Pamphilus and so S. Ierome himselfe expresly and close upon the Place cited by Bellarmine For he desires a Muta titulum Romanam simplicitatem tanto periculo libera ibid. fol. 84. K. Ruffinus to change the Title of the Booke that Error may not be spread under the specious Name of Pamphilus and so to free from danger the Romane simplicity Where by the way Romane unerring Power now challenged and Romane simplicity then feared agree not very well together 3. The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is a Uetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam Fidem semper eam retinet sicut decet Urbem quae toti Orbt prâ—…sidet semper de Deo integram fidem habere Greg. Naz. in Carmine de vità suà Ante medium p. 9. Edit
of the Romane Church then non sumpsit exordium no Heresie tooke its beginning there but that denyes not but that some Haereticall taint might get in there And 't is more then manifest that the most famous Haeresies in their severall Times made their aboade even at Rome And 't is observable too that Bellarmine cites nomore of Ruffinus his words then these In Ecclesiâ 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 Customes of the Church whereas he speaks but of one Particular Custome of Reciting the Creed before Baptisme But after all this I pray did no Heresie ever begin at Rome where did Novatianisme begin At Rome sure For a Baron To. 2. An. 254. Num. 62. Baronius b Pamel in Cyprian Epist. 41. 73. Pamelius and c Petavius in Epiphan Haeres 59. Petavius doe all dispute the Point whether that sect was denominated from Novatianus the Romane 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 d Onuph in Notis ad Plat. in vita Cornelii of Bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine which is neare upon two hundred yeares Nay could Ruffinus himselfe be ignorant that some Haeresie began at Rome No sure For in this I must challenge him either for his weake memory or his wilfull error For Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius his History but had beene at the paines to translate him Now * Haeretici alii in morem venenatorum serpentum in Asiam Phrygiam irrepserunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum Dux Florinus Euseb. L. 5. cap. 14. And in Ruffinus his Translation c. 15. And then afterwards c. 19. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Now this Blastus taught that God was the Author of sin Eusebius sayes plainely that some Hereticks spread their venome in Asia some in Phrygia and others grew at Rome and Florinus was the Ring-leader of them And more clearely after Irenaeus saith he directed diverse Epistles against this Florinus and his fellow Blastus and condemnes 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 maine a Point as is the Canon of the Scripture as he plainely doth a Ruff. in Exposit Symb. p. 188. In which reckoning heplainly agrees with the Church of England Art 6. For reckoning up the Canonicall Bookes he most manifestly dissents from the Romane Church Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was infallible or els the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Bookes within the Canon than heretofore she did If she do then she is changed in a maine 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 than she did when Ruffinus lived then he reckons fewer than she and so dissents from her which doubtlesse he durst not have done had he thought her judgement infallible Yea and he sets this marke upon his Dissent besides b Novi Veteris Testamenti Volumina c. sicut ex Patrum Monumentis accepimus Ruff. in Symb. p. 188. Et haec sunt quae Patres intra canonem concluserunt Et ex quibus Fidei nostrae Assertiones constare voluerunt Ib. p. 189. That he reckons up the Bookes of the Canon just so and no otherwise than 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 Clergie should take any Benefit by it For S. c Si Episcopi Romani est stultè facis ab eo Exemplar Epistolae petere cui missa non est c. Vade potiùs Romane praesens apâ—… eum expostula cur tibi absenti innocenti fecerit injuriaÌ„ Primum ut non reciperâ—…t Expositionem Fidei tuae quam omnis ut scribis Italia comprobavâ—… c. Deinde ut Cauterium tibi Haerescôs dum nescis inureret S. Hicron Apol. 3. advers Ruffin fol. 85. K. Ierome tels 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 expostulate 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 dùm nesciret behind 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 Haeresie his sentence against Ruffinus was Iust or Vnjust If Vnjust then the Pope erred about a matter of Faith and so neither He nor the Church of Rome infallible If Iust then the Church of Rome labours to defend herself by his pen which is judged Haereticall by her self So whether it were Iust or Vnjust the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait when she must beg help of him whom she branded with Haeresie and out of that Tract which she her self rejected And so uphold her Infallibility by the Iudgement of a man who in her Iudgement had erred so foully Nor may she by any †Quum quis se vellâ—… personaâ—… tâ—…stium post publicationem repellere fuerit protestatus Si quid pro ipso dixerint iis non creditur Extra Tex ibi Gloss. c. Praesentium 31. de Testibus Law take benefit of a Testimony which her self hath defamed and protested against With these Bellarmine is pleased to name Sixe Popes which he saith are all of this Opinion But he a Bellar. L. 4. de RoÌ„ Pont. c. 4. §. Addo etiam Quae eâ—…si ab Haereticis contemnentur c. adds That these Testimonies will be contemned by the Haereticks Good words I pray I know whom the Cardinall meanes by Hereticks very well But the best is His Call cannot make them so Nor shall I easily contemne Sixe ancient Bishops of Rome concurring in Opinion if apparent verity in the thing it selfe do not
Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it selfe for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest upon a shaking foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And f Quum exim una cadem sides sit neque is qui multum de ipsà dicere potest plusquam oportet dicit neque qui parùm ipsam imminuit Iren. L. 1. advers haeres c. 3. Ireneus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoever dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth He which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake utters no more then this and lesse then this the most simple doth not utter Therefore the Creed of which he speaks is a common is a constant Foundation And an Explicite faith must be of this in them which have the use of Reason for both Guides and simple people All the Church utter this Now many things are defined by the Church w ch are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right move far from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitly believed many millions of Christians go to Heaven and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the faith True Deductions from the Article may require necessary beliefe in them which are able and do go along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion But I do not see either that the Learned do make them necessary to all or any reason why they should Therfore they cannot be FundameÌ„tall yet to some mens Salvation they are necessary Besides that which is Fundamentall in the Faith of Christ is a Rocke immoveable and can never be varied Never a Resolutio Occhami est quòd nâ—… tota Ecclesia nec Concilium Generale nec summus Pontifex potest facere Articulum quod non suit Articulus Sed in dubiis propositionibus potest Ecclesia determinare an sint Cathilicae c. Tamen sic determinando non facit quod sint Catholicae quum prius essent ante Ecclesiae Determinationem c. Almain in 3. D. 25. Q. 1. Therefore if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath defined it it was Fundamentall before the Definition els it is mooveable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immooveable as b Regula Fidei una omnino est solailla immobilis irreformabilis Tertul. de Virg. vel cap. 1. In hac fide c. Nihil transmutare c. Athan. Epist. ad Iovin de side indeed it is no Decree of a Councell be it never so Generall can alter immooveable Verities no more than it can change immooveable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing the thing defined is not Fundamentall because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the Definition of the Church if it be not so in it selfe For if the Church had this power she might make a New Article of the Faith c Occham Almain in 3. Sent. D. 25. q. 1. which the Learned among your selves deny For the Articles of the Faith cannot increase in substance but onely in Explication d Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. Ar. 7. C. And for this I 'le be judg'd by Bellarmine f Fides Divina non ideo habet certitudinem quia toti Ecclesiae communis est sed quia nititur Authoritate Dei qui nec falli nec fallere potest quum sit ipsa Veritas L. 3. de Justif. c. 3. §. Quod verò Concilium Probatio Ecclesiae facit ut omnibus innotescat Objectum Fidei Divinae esse revelatum à Deo propter hoc certum indubitatum non autem tribuit firmitatem verbo Dei aliquid revelantis Ibid. §. At inqust who disputing against Amb. Catharinus about the certainty of Faith tels us That Divine Faith hath not its certainty because 't is Catholike .i. common to the whole Church but because it builds on the Authority of God who is Truth it self and can neither deceive nor be deceived And he addes That the Probation of the Church can make it known to all that the Object of Divine Faith is revealed from God and therefore certaine and not to be doubted but the Church can adde no certainty no firmenesse to the word of God revealing it Nor is this hard to be farther proved out of your owne Schoole For a Scotus in 1. Sent. D. 11. q. 1. Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greeke Church If there be saith he a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be verè Haeretici truly and indeed Hereticks And he speakes this of the old Greekes long before any Decision of the Church in this Controversie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S Ierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Hereticks is his challenge I deny not but that Scotus adds there That howsoever this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if he intend by it That whatsoever the Church defines shall be ipso ficto and for that Determination's sake Fundamentall For if before the Determination supposing the Difference reall some of those Worthies were truly Hereticks as he confesses then somewhat made them so And that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somwhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it made them Hereticks against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser than to intend this It may be he saw the streame too strong for him to swim against therfore he went on with the doctrine of the Time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith But meant not to betray the truth For he goes no further than Ecclesia declaravit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is used by diverse b Bellarm. L. 2. de Conc. Auth. c. 12. Concilia cùm definiunt non faciunt aliquid esse infallibilis veritatis sed declarant Explicare Bonavent in 1. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. ad sinem Explanare declarare Tho 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad 2. 2. 2. q. 1 A. 10. ad 1. Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Câ—… ili rum Decretis enisa est nisi ut quod anica simplicitèr credebatur hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur Vin. Lyr. cont 〈◊〉 c. 32 Now the a Sent. 1. D. 11 Master teaches and the b Alb. Mag. in 1. Sent. D. 11 Art 7. Schollers too That every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of
to feede when he is in and when he had fed to c S. Luk. 22. 35. Confirme and in all these not to erre and faile 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 carefull 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 Claymes But what if after all this M. Rogers there sayes no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are d Rogers in Art Eccle. Angl. Art 3. 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 then others And againe e Ibid. 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 Iudgement in the Church of England Now here A. C. will have somewhat againe to say though God knowes 't is to little purpose 'T is A. C. p. 47. that the Iesuite urged M. Roger's Booke because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Booke beares 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 Booke was publikely allowed For many Bookes among them as well as among us have beene 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 Iudgement which yet is farre 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 Schoolemen then among any of our Controversers as is well knowne Nor secondly because his Booke beares 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 owne paines and gave his Booke too high a Title is his private Iudgement therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more then I should say every thing said by * Angelici D. S. Tho. Summa Thomas or †Celebratissimi Patris Dom. Bonaventurae Doctoris Seraphici in 3. L. Sent. Disputata Bonaventure is Angelicall or Seraphicall Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphicall and the other Angelicall Doctor And yet their workes are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sorte to expresse A. C. p. 47. our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will goe farre 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 knew it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knowes 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 Booke But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to expresse 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 mâ—…tter subject to Question to great Question in these Dayes Whether a man may be certaine of his Salvation câ—…rtitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth nâ—…t * Bellar. Lib. 3. de Justificat c. 1. 14. Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the †Huic Concilio Catholici omnes ingenia sua judicia sponte subjiciunt Bellar. 3. de Justif. c. 3. §. Sed Concilii Tridâ—…i Councell of Trent And yet these two great Friers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega a Hist. Concil Trident. Lib. 2. p. 245. Edit Lat. Leidae 1622. were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councell and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of them concluded and both of them wrote Bookes to maintaine their Opinions and both of their Bookes were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to expresse 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 then Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it A. C. p. 47. For he sayes that for ought he knowes Private men are not allowed so to expresse their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine b Bellar. L. 3. de Iustif. c. 3. take on them to expresse 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 finde the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles § 14 of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all Protestants were sworne 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 speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the maine Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Romane Church as appeares by their severall Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of A. C. p. 47. England the Iesuite understood mee in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Bee it so ther 's no great harme done †And therfore A. C. needs not make such a Noise about it as he doth p. 48 but this that the Iesuite offers to enclose me too much For I did not
Testificandum de Christo Legibus ejus vilior est Christi legibus Scripturis Sanctis necessariò postponenda Wald. L. 2. Doct. Fidei Art 2. cap. 21. Numb 1. though this be contrary to their owne Doctrine must bee finally Resolved into the Authority of the Present Romane Church And though they would seeme to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their owne Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say wee cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Romane Church teaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they doe to the whole which wee believe in our Creede and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things That any c Totum est majus suâ parte Etiamsi Axioma sit apud Euclâ—…dem non tamen ideò Geometricum put andum est quia Geometres to utitur Vtitur enim tota Logica Ram in Schol. Matth. And Aristotle vindicates such Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from being vsurped by Particular Sciences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quia conveniunt omni Eâ—…ti non alicui Generi separatim 4. Metapb cap. 3. T. 7. Part should bee of equall worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you aske them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you aske them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councells and Fathers But if you aske a third time By what meanes they are assured that these Testimonies doe indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or phrase and propriety of Language in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the d Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi quia non Sermonires sed Rei Sermo est subjectus S. Hilar. L. 4. de Trin. Ex materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus Tert. L. de Resur carnis c. 37. Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like e Uidendo differentias Similium ad Similia Orig. Tract 19 in S Matth. Places or the Anteceden's f Recolendum est unde venerit ista Sententia qua illam superiora pepererint quibúsque connexa dependeat S. Aug. Ep. 29 Solet circumstantia Scriptura illuminare Sementiam S. Aug. L. 83. Quaest. q. 69. and Consequents of the same Places g Quae ambiguè obscurè in nonnullis Scripturae Sacrae locis dicta videntur per ea quae alibi certa indubitata habentur dâ—…clarantur S Basil in Regulis contractis Reg. 267. Manifestiora quaeque praevaleant de incertis certiora praescribant Tert. L. de Resur c. 19 21. S. Aug. L. 3. De Doct Christ. c. â—…6 Moris est Scripturarum obscuris Manifesta subnectere quod prius sub aenigmatibus dixerint apertâ voce proferre S. Hieron in Esa 19. princ Uide §. 26. Nu. 4. or the Exâ—…osition of the darke and doubtfull Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occurre in h S. Aug. L. 3. de Doctr. Christianâ S. Augustine No none of these or the like helpes That with them were to Admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their finall Answer is They know it to be so because the present Romane Church witnessethit according to Tradition So arguing à primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her owne Doctrine and Tradition to bee true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this bee not to proove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only It seemes therefore to mee very necessary * And this is so necessary that Bellarmine confesses that if Tradition which he relies upon be not Divine He and his can have no Faith Non habemus fidem Fides enim verbo Dei nititur L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 4. §. At si ita est And A. C. tells us p. 47. To know that Scripture is Divine and Infallible in every part is a Foundation so necessary as if it be doubtfully questioned all the Faith built upon Scripture falls to the ground And he gives the same reason for it p. 50. which Belarmine doth that we bee able to proove the Bookes of Scripture to bee the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they bee warranted unto us by any Authority lesse then Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine beliefe And that once granted will enforce us to yeeld That all the Articles of Christian Beliefe have no greater assurance then Humane or Morall Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Poynt This Authority cannot bee any Testimony or Voyce of the * Ecclesiam spiritu afflatam esse certè credo Non ut veritatâ—…m authoritatemve Libris Canonicis triâ—…uat sed ut doc eat illos non alios esse Canonicos Nec fi aditum nobis praebet ad hujusmodi sacros Librâ—…s cognoscendos protinus ibi acquiescendum est sed ultra oportet progredi solidâ Dei veritate niti Quâ ex re intelligitur quid sibi volucrit Augustinus quam ait Evangelio non crederem nisi c. M. Canus L. 2. de Locis c. 8 fol. 34. b. Non docet fundatam esse Evangelii fidem in Ecclesiae Authoritate sed c. Ibid. Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them fince the Apostles times hath beene assisted with so plentifull a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and sallible the VVhole cannot possibly bee Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things oâ—…
Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. ad 1. Et Articulorum Fidei veritas non potest nobis esse evidens absolutè Bellar. L. 4. de Eccles. Mil. c. 3. §. 3. grants That in us which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us there is lesse Light lesse Evidence in the Principles of Faith then in the Principles of Knowledge upon which there can be no doubt But I think the Schoole will never grant That the Principles of Faith even this in Question have not sufficient Evidence And you ought not to do as you did without any Distinction or any Limitation deny a Praecognitum or Prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science in their Light and Evidence a thing in it self directly against Reason Well though I do none of this yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in againe and tels me That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearely knowne as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion betweene them that whether it be in Science or in Faith the Praecognitum or thing supposed as knowne must be priùs cognitum first knowne and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith or Knowledge to be knowne before it But the Scripture saith he needs Tradition to goe before it and introduce the knowledge of it Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a Praecognitum and a thing fore-knowne Tru'y I am sorrie to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes For A. C. cannot but perceive by that which I have clearely laid downe * §. 17. 18. Nu. 2. before That I intended not to speake precisely of a Praecognitum in this Argument But when I said Scriptures were Principles to be supposed I did not I could not intend They were priùs cognitae knowne before Tradition since I confesse every where That Tradition introduces the knowledge of them But my meaning is plaine That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed before you can dispute this Question †And my immediate Words in the Conference upon which the Iesuite asked How I knew Scripture to be Scripture were as the â—…esuite himselfe relates it apud A. C. p. 48. That the Scripture onely not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of our Faith Now the Scripture cannot be the onely Foundation of Faith if it containe not all things necessary to Salvation Which the Church of Rome denying against all Antiquity makes it now become a Question And in regard of this mâ—… Aâ—…ver was That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed and praecognitae before the handling of this Question Whether the Scriptures containe in them all things necessary to Salvation Before which Question it must necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides That the Scriptures are the Word of God For if they be not 't is instantly out of all Question that They cannot include all Necessaries to Salvation So 't is a Praecognitum not to Tradition as A C. would cunningly put upon the Cause but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiency And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question and proveable in a Superiour Science I thinke I shall go very neare to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confesse it too And now having told A. C. this I must secondly follow him a little farther For I would faine make it appeare as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case And it is the common fault of them all For when the Protestants answer to this Argument which as I have shew'd can properly have no place in the Question betweene us about Tradition †Hook L. 3 §. 8. they which grant this as a Praecognitum a thing foreknown as also I do were neither ignorant nor forgetfull That things presupposed as already known in a Science are of two sorts For either they are plaine and fully manifest in their owne Light or they are proved and granted already some former knowledge having made them Evident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God we cannot say is cleare and fully manifest to all men simply and in self-Light for the Reasons before given Yet we say after Tradition hath beene our Introduction the Soule that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason may discerne Light sufficient to resolve our Faith that the Sun is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply evident in it selfe is presumed to be taught us otherwise And if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superiour Science to which Theologie is subordinate Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence That Divinity can have no Science above it But your owne Schoole teaches me that it hath * Hoc modo sacra Doctrina est Scientia quia â—…dit ex Principiis notis Lumine superioris Scientia quae scilicet est Scientia Dei Beatorum Tho. p. 1. q. 1. a. 2. And what sayes A. C. now to this of Aquinas Is it not cleare in him that this Principle The Scriptures are the Word of God of Divine and most Infallible Credit is a Praecognitum in the knowledge of Divinity and proveable in a superiour Science namely the Knowledge of God and the Blessed in Heaven Yes so cleare that as I told you he would A. C. confesses it p. 51. But he adds That because no man ordinarily sees this Proofe therefore we must go either to Christ who saw it clearely Or to the Apostles to whom it was clearely revealed or to them wholy Succession received it from the Prime Secrs So now because Christ is ascended and the Apostles gone into the number of the Blessed and made in a higher Degree partakers of their knowledge therefore we must now onely goe unto then Successours and borrow light from the Tradition of the present Church For that we must do And 't is so farre well But that we must relie upon this Tradition as Divine and Infallible and able to breed in us Divine and Insallible Faith as A. C. adds p. 51 52. is a Proposition which in the times of the Primitive Church would have beene accounted very dangerous as indeed it is For I would fame know why leaning too much upon Tradition may not mislead Christians as well as it diâ—… the Iewes But they saith S. Hilarie Traditionis savore Legis praecepta transgressi sunt Can. 14. in S. Mat. Yet to this height are They of Rome now growne That the Traditions of the present Church are infallible And by out-fâ—…cing the Truth lead many after them And as it is Jer. 5. 31. The Prophets prophesie untruths anâ—… the Priests receive gifts and my people delight therein what will become of this in the end The sacred Doctrine
exceeding corrupt both in Manners and Doctrine and so a dishonour to the Name is yet a True Church in the verity of Essence as a Church is a Company of men which professe the Faith of Christ and are Baptized into His Name But yet it is not therefore a Right Church either in Doctrine or Manners It may be you meant cunningly to slip in this word Right that I might at unwares grant it Orthodox But I was not so to be caught For I know well that Orthodox Christians are keepers of integrity and followers of right things so a Integritatis custodes recta sectantes De vera Relig. c. 5. S Augustine of which the Church of Rome at this day is neither In this sense then no Right that is no Orthodox Church at Rome And yet no Newes it is that I granted the Romane Church to be a True Church For so much very learned Protestants b Hooker l. 3. §. 1. Iunius l. de Ec. c. 17. Falluntur qui Ecclesiam negant quiâ—… Papatus in ea est Reynold Thes. 5. Negat tantum esse Catholicam vel sanuÌ„â—…jus membrum Nay the very Separatists grant it Fr. Johnson in his Treatise called A Christian Plea Printed 1617. p. 123. c. have acknowledged before me and the Truth cannot deny it For that Church which receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as Instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace though they adde more and misuse these yet cannot but be a True Church in essence How it is in Manners and Doctrine I would you would looke to it with a single eye c Si tamen bono ingenio Pictas Pax quaeda mentis accedat sine quá de sanctis rebus nihil prorsus intelligi potest S. Aug. de Vâ—… Cred. c. 18. For if Piety and a Peaceable mind be not joyned to a good understanding nothing can be knowne in these great things Here AC tells us That the Iesuite doth not say that the Lady asked this Question in this or any other precise forme A. C. p. 53. of words But saith the Iesuite is sure her desire was to know of me whether I would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church And how was the Iesuite sure the Lady desired to heare this from me Why A. C. tells us that too For he addes That the Iesuite had particularly spoken with her before A. C. p. 54. and wished her to insist upon that Poynt Where you may see and 't is fit the Clergie of England should consider with what cunning Adversaries they have to deale who can finde a way to d And after A. C. saith againe p. 54. that the Lady did not aske the Question as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing what I said So belike they take Caâ—…tion before hand for that too That what ever we say unlesse we grant what they would have their Proâ—…elytes shall not be satisfied wiâ—…hit prepare their Disciples and instruct them before hand upon what Poynts to insist that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences which should never come there And this once known I hope they will the better provide against it But A. C. goes on and tells us That certainly A. C. p. 54. by my Answer the Ladies desire must needs be to beare from me not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church c. but whether I would grant that there is but one holy Catholike Church and whether the Romane Church that is not only that which is in the City or Diocesse of Rome but all that agreed with it be not it About A Church and The Church I have said enough †§. 20. N. 1. before and shall not repeat Nor is there any need I should For A. C. would have it The Church The One Holy Catholike Church But this cannot be granted take the Roman Church in what sense they please in City or Diocesse or all that agree with it Yet howsoever before I leave this I must acquaint the Reader with a perfect Iesuitisme In all the Primitive Times of the Church a Man or a Family or a Nationall Church were accounted Right and Orthodox as they agreed w th the Catholike Church But the Catholike was never then measured or judged by Man Family or Nation But now in the Iesuites new schole The One Holy * And though Stapleton to magnifie the Church of Rome is pâ—…eased to say Apud veteres pro codem habit a fuit Ecclesia Romana Ecclesia Catholica yet he is â—…o modest as to give this Reason of it Quia ejus Communio erat evident èr certissimè cum tota Catholicá Relect. Con. 1. q. 5. A. 3. Lo The Comâ—…union of the Romane was then with the Catholike Church not of the Catholike with iâ—… Anâ—… S. Cyprian imployed his Legates Caldonius and Fortunatus not to bring the Catholike Church o the Communion of Rome buâ—… Rome to the Catholike Church Elaborarâ—…nt ut ad Cath licae Ecclesiae unitatâ—…m 〈◊〉 Corporis membra 〈◊〉 c Now the Memâ—…ers of this Râ—… and tâ—…rne Body were they of Rome then in an open Schisme betweene Cornâ—…ius and Novatian S. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 10. Catholike Church must bee measured by that which is in the City or Diocesse of Rome or of them which agreed with it and not Rome by the Catholike For so A. C. sayes expresly The Laâ—…y would know of me not whether that were the Catholike Church to which Rome agreed but whether that were not the Holy Catholike Church which agreed with Rome So upon the matter belike the Christian Faith was committed to the Custody of the Romane not of the Catholike Church And a man cannot agree with the Catholike Church of Christ in this new Doctrine of A. C. unlessâ—… he agree with the Church of Rome but if he agree with that all 's safe and he is as Orthodox as he need be But A. C. is yet troubled about the forme of the Ladies Question And he will not have it That She desired to know whether I would grant the Romane Church to be the Right Church Though these be her words according to the Iesuites owne setting downe but he thinkes the Question was Whether the Church of Rome was not the Right Church not Be not but was not Was not That is was not once or in time past the Right A. C. p. 54. Church before Luther and others made a breach from it Why truly A. C. needed not have troubled himselfe halfe so much about this For let him take his Choise It shall be all one to me whether the Question were asked by Be or by Was For the Church of Rome neither is nor was the Right Church as the Lady desired to heare A Particular Church it is and was and in some times right and in some times wrong
writ downe my words in fresh memory and upon speciall notice taken of the Passage and that I did say either Iâ—…dem or aequipollentibus verbis either in these or equivalent words That the Protestants did make the Râ—…nt or Division from the Romane Church What did the Iesuite set downe my words in fresh memory and upon speciall notice taken and were they so few as these The Protestants did make the Schisme 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 Fellowes would leave this Art of theirs and in Conferences which * A. C. p. 57. they are so ready to call for impose no more upon other men then 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 Iesuite tooke speciall notice in fresh memory and is sure he related at A. C. p. 55. least in sense just as it was uttâ—…red What 's this At least in sense jâ—…st as it was uttered Do not these two Enterfeire and shew the Iesuite to be upon his shuffling pace For if it were just as it was uttered then it was in the very forme of words too not in sense onely 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. meane the Iesuite's sense of it he may make what sense he pleases of his owne words but he must impose no sense of his upon my words But as he must leave my words to my selfe 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 Not with my selfe That 's the next For A. C. sayes 't is truth and that the world knowes it that the A. C. p. 56. 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 selfe 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 †Conventus suit Ordinum Imperii Spirae Ibi Decretum factum est ut Edictum Wormatiense observaretur contra Novatores sic appellare placuit ut omnia in integrum restituantur sic nulla omnino Reformatio Contra hoc Edictum solennis fuit Protestatio Aprilis 16. An. Ch. 1529. Et hinc ortum pervulgatum illud Protestantium nomen Se. Calvis Chron. ad An. 1529. Thâ—…s Protestation therefore was not simply against the Romane Church but against the Edict which was for the restoring of all things to their former estate without any Râ—…formation against her Errours Superstitions Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome and our Protestation is ended and the Separation too Nor is Protestation it selfe 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 owne Schoole Visible Signes 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 doe but Protest the sincerity of their Faith against that Doctrinall Corruption which hath invaded the great Sacrament of the Eucharist and other Parts of Religion Especially since they are men a Quibus homo fidem suam protestaretur Tho. p. 3. q. 61. A. 3. 4. C. which must protest their Faith by these visible Signes and Sacraments But A. C. goes on and will needs have it that the Protestants were the Cause of the Schisme For A. C. p. 56. 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 Romane Faith and Practice of the Church which to do S. Bernard thinks is Pride and S. Augustine Madnesse 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. C s. words are very considerable For he charges the Protestants to be the Authours of the Schisme for obstinate holding and teaching Contrary Opinions To what I pray Why to the b I know Bellarm. quotes S. Ierome Sciro Romanam Fidem c. suprà §. 3. Nu. 9. But there S. Ierome doth not call it Fidem Romanam as if Fides Romana and Fides Catholica were convertible but he speakes of it in the Concrete Romana Fides i. Romanorum Fides qua laudata suit ab Apostolo c. Ro. 1. 8. S. Hieron Apol. 3. cont Ruffin That is that Faith which was then at Rome when S. Paul commended it But the Apostles commending of it in the Romanes at one time passes no deed of Assurance that it shall continue worthy of Commendations among the Romans through all tâ—…mes Romane Faith To the Romane Faith It was wont to be the Christian Faith to which contrary Opinions were so dangerous to the Maintainers But all 's Romane now with A. C. and the Iesuite And then to countenance the Businesse S. Bernard and S. Augustine are brought in whereas neither of them speak of the Romane and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholike nor the Romane but of a Particular Church or Congregation Or if he speake of the Catholike of the Romane certainly he doth not His words are Quae major superbia c. What greater pride then that one man should preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world So A. C. as out of Saint Bernard †Quae major superbia quà m ut unus homo toti Congregationi judicium
that give just Cause to continue a Separation But for free-hearings or safe Conducts I have said enough till that Church doe not only say bnt doe otherwise And as for Truth and Peace they are in every mans mouth with you and with us But lay they but halfe so close to the hearts of men as they are common on their tongues it would soone be better with Christendome then at this day it is or is like to be And for the Protestants in generall I hope they seeke both Truth and Peace sincerely The Church of England I am sure doth and hath taught me to †Beseeching God to inspire continually the Vniversall Church with the Spirit of truth unity and concord c. In the Prayer for the Militant Church And in the third Collect on Good-friday pray for both as I most heartily doe But what Rome doth in this if the world will not see I will not Censure And for that which A. C. addes That such a free hearing is more then ever the English Catholikes could obtaine A. C. p. 57. though they have often offered and desired it and that but under the Princes word And that no Answer hath nor no good Answer can be given And he cites Campian for it How farre or how often this hath beene asked by the English Rommists I cannot tell nor what Answer hath beene given them But surely Campian was too bold and so is A. C. too to say * Campian praefat Rationsbut praefixà Honestum responsum nullum no good Answer can be given For this I thinke is a very good Answer That the Kings and the Church of England had no Reason to admit of a Publike Dispute with the English Romish Clergie till they shall be able to shew it under the Seale or Powers of Rome That that Church will submit to a Third who may be an Indifferent Iudge betweene us and them or to such a Generall Councell as is after * §. 26. Nu. 1. mentioned And this is an Honest and I thinke a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour And therefore the more publike the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schisme too F. Moreover he said he would ingenuously acknowledge That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departing from it B. I would I could say you did as ingenuously repeat § 22 as I did Confesse For I never said That Corruption of Manners was or was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departure How could I say this since I did not grant that they did Depart otherwise then is * §. 21. N. 6. before expressed There is difference between Departure and causelâ—…sse Thrusting from you For out of the Church is not in your Power God bee thanked to thrust us Think on that And so much I said expresly then That which I did ingenuously confesse was this That Corruption in Manners only is no sufficient Cause to make a Separation in the Church a Modò ea qùae ad CathedraÌ„ pertinent recta praecipiant S. Hier. Ep. 236. Nor is it It is a Truth agreed on by the Fathers and received by Divines of all sorts save by the Cathari to whom the Donatist and the Anabaptist after accorded And against whom b L. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 13. c. Ep. 48. A malis piscibus corde semper moribus seâ—…arantur c. Corporalem separationem in â—…tore maris hoc est in fine saculi expectant Calvin disputes it strongly And S. Augustine is plaine There are bad fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be ever a Separation in heart and in manners but a corporali 〈◊〉 must be expected at the Sea shore that is the end of the world And the best fish that are must not teare and breake the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously Confessed for you as by me For if Corruption in Manners were a just Cause of Actuall Separation of one Church from another in that Catholike Body of Christ the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any since as * Uix ullum peccatum solâ—… Haeresi exceptá câ—…gitari potest quo illa Sedes â—…urpiter maculata non fucrit maxime ab An 8â—…0 Relect Cont. 1. q. 5. Art 3. Stapleton grants there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man Heresie only excepted with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained especially from eight hundred yeares after Christ. And he need not except Haeresie into which a Biel in Can. Miss Lect. 23. Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And †Stel. in S. Luc. c 22 Almain in 3. Sent. d. 24. q. 1 fine Multae sunt Decretales haereticae c. And so they erred as Popes Stella and Almaine gâ—…ant it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars defection to looke to his Cure himselfe F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. This I spake indeed And can you prove that § 23 I spake not true in this But I added though here againe you are pleased to omit it That some of the errors of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation For it is not every light Eâ—…ror in Disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can bee a just Cause of Separation in that Admirable Body of Christ which is his * Eph. 1. 23. Church or of one Member of it from another For hee gave his Naturall Body to bee rent and torne upon the Crosse that his Mysticall Body might be One. And S. †S. Aug. Ep. 50. Et iterum Colum ba non sunt qui EcclesiaÌ„ dissipant Accipitres sunt Milvi sunt Non laniat Columba c. S. Aug. tract 5. in S. Iohn Augustine inferres upon it That â—…e is no way partaker of Divine Charity that is an enemie to this Vnity Now what Errors in Doctrine may give just Cause of Separation in this Body or the Parts of it one from another were it never so easie to determine as I thinke it is most difficult I would not venture to set it downe in particular least in these times of Discord I might bee thought to open a Doore for Schisme which surely I will never doe unlesse it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes The proofe whereof runnes through the Particular Points that are betweene us and so is too long for this Discourse Now here A. C. would faine have a Reason given him Why I did endeavour A. C. p. 55. to shew what Cause
the Protestants had to make that Rent or Division if I did not grant that they made it Why truly in this reasonable demand I will satisfie him I did it partly because I had granted in the generall that Corruption in Manners was no sufficient cause of Separation of one Particular Church from another and therefore it lay upon me at least to Name in generall what was And partly because he and his Partie will needes have it so that we did make the Separation And therefore though I did not grant it yet amisse I thought it could not be to Declare by way of Supposition that if the Protestants did at first Separate from the Church of Rome they had reason so to doe For A. C. himselfe confesses A. C. p. 56. That Error in Doctrine of the Faith is a just Cause of Separation so just as that no Cause is just but that Now had I leasure to descend into Particulars or will to make the Rent in the Church wider 't is no hard matter to proove that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith and dangerously too And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to Particulars A. C. his Importunity forcing me to it F. Which when the Generall Church would not Reforme it was lawfull for Particular Churches to Reforme themselves B. Is it then such a strange thing that a Particular § 24 Church may reforme it selfe if the Generall will not I had thought and do so still That in Point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawfull for the Church sinoe Christ to doe as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes This Church came to have a Separation upon a most ungodly Policie of a 3. Reg. 12. 27. Ieroboam's so that it never peeced together againe To a Common Councell to reforme all they would not come Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe when Israel would not joyne Sure it was or els the Prophet deceives me that sayes expresly b Hos. 4. 15. Though Israel transgresse yet let not Iudah sinne And S. Hierome c Super Haereticis prona intelligentia est S. Hier Ibid. expounds it of this very particular sinne of Heresie and Errour in Religion Nor can you say that d Non tamen cessavit Deus populum hunc arguere per Prophetas Nam ibi extiter unt Magni illi insignes Prophetae Elias Elizaeus c. S. Aug. L. 17. de Civit. Dei c. 22. Multi religiosè intra se Dei cultum habebant c. De quo numero eorumvè Posteris septem illa miâ—…ia fuisse statuo qui in Persecutione sub Achabo Deum sibi ab Idololatriâ immunes reservârunt nec genua ante Baal flexerunt Fran. Monceius L. 1. de Vit. Aureo c. 12. Israel from the time of the Separation was not a Church for there were true Prophets in it e 3. Reg. 17. sub Achabo Elias and f 4. Reg. 3. sub Iehoram filio Achabi Elizaeus and others and g 3. Reg. 19. 18. thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal And there was salvation for these which cannot be in the Ordinary way where there is no Church And God threatens h Hos. 9. 17. to cast them away to wander among the Nations and be no Congregation no Church therefore he had not yet cast them away in Non Ecclesiam into No-Church And they are expresly called the People of the Lord in i 4. Reg. 9. 6. Iehu's time and so continued long after Nor can you plead that Iudah is your part and the Ten Tribes ours as some of you doe for if that bee true you must grant that the Multitude and greater number is ours And where then is Multitude your numerous Note of the Church For the Ten Tribes were more then the two But you cannot plead it For certainly if any Calves be set up they are in Dan and in Bethel They are not ours Besides to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine or Manners is as lawfull for a Particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either And your Question Quo Judice lies alike against both And yet I thinke it may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a Particular Church did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church namely The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne If she erred in this Fact confesse her Errour if she erred not why may not another Particular Church doe as shee did A learned Schoole-man of yours saith she may †Non oportuit ad hac cos vocare quum Authoritas fuerit publicandi apud siaâ—… Romanam pracipuè cùm unicuique ctiam particulari Ecclesiaeliceat id quod Catholicum est promulgare Alb. Mag. in 1. Dist. 11. A. 9. The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree upon this Truth fince the Authority of publishing it was in the Church of Rome especially since it is lawfull for every particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike Nor can you say he m anes Catholike as fore determined by the Church in generall for so this Point when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell was not And how the Grecians were used in the after-Councell such as it was of Florence is not to trouble this Dispute But Catholike stands there for that which is so in the nature of it and Fundamentally Nor can you justly say That the Church of Rome did or might do this by the Pope's Authority over the Church For suppose he have that and that his Sentence be Infallible I say suppose both but I give neither yet neither his Authority nor his Infallibility can belong unto him as the particular Bishop of that Sea but as the * Non errare convenit Papa â—…t est Caput Bell. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. Ministeriall Head of the whole Church And you are all so Iodged in this that †L. 2. de Christo. c. 21. §. Quando autem So you cannot finde Record of your own Truths which are farre more likely to be kept but when Errours are crept in we must bee bound to tell the place and the time and I know not what of their Beginnings or els they are not Errours As if some Errours might not want a Record as well as some Truth Bellarmine professes he can neither tell the yeare when nor the Pope under whom this Addition was made A Particular Church then if you judge it by the Schoole of Rome or the Practice of Rome may publish any thing that is Catholike where the whole Church is silent and may therefore Reforme any thing that is not Catholike where the whole Church is negligent or will not But you are as jealous of the honour of Rome as a
est aut quaelibet alia Ecclesiae communis Generalis Hispaniâ—… Galliciae Synodus celebretur c. Conc. Tolet. 4. Can. 3. They Decree That if there happen a Cause of Faith to be setled a Generall that is a Nationall Synod of all Spaine and Gallicia shall be held thereon And this in the yeare 643. Where you see it was then Catholike Doctrine in all Spaine that a Nationall Synod might be a Competent Iudge in a Cause of Faith And I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall then that of Filioque And yet the Church of Rome her selfe made that Addition to the Creed without a Generall Councell as I have shewed e §. 24. Nu. 2. already And if this were practised so often and in so many places why may not a Nationall Councell of the Church of England doe the like as Shee did For Shee cast off the Pope's Vsurpation and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right That appeares by a a The Institution of a Christian man printed An. 1534. Booke subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eight's time And by the b In Synodo Londinâ—…nsi Sess. 8. Die Veneris 29. Ianuarii An. 1562. Records in the Arch-bishop's Office orderly kept and to be seene In the Reformation which came after our c And so in the Reformation under Hezekiah 2. Chron. 29 under Iosia 4 Reg. 23. And in the time of Reccarcdus King of Spaine the Reformation there proceeded thus Quùm gloriosissimus Princeps omnes Regiminâ—… sui Pontifices in unum convenire mandâ—…sset c. Conâ—…il Tolet. 3. Can. 1. Cùm convemssemus Sacerdotes Domini apud urbem Toletanâ—… ut Râ—…giis imperiis atque jussis commoniti c. Concil Tolet. 4. in princ apud Caraâ—…zam And boâ—…h these Synods did treat of Matters of Faith Princes had their parts and the Clergy theirs And to these Two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs That our Princes had their parts is manifest by their Calling together of the Bishops and others of the Clergie to consider of that which might seeme worthy Reformation And the Clergie did their part For being thus called together by Regall Power they met in the Nationall Synod of sixty two And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by Acts of State and the Royall Assent In this Synod the Positive Truths which are delivered are more then the Polemicks So that a meere Calumnie it is That we professe only a Negative Religion True it is and we must thanke Rome for it our Confession must needs containe some Negatives For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored Nor can we admit Maimed Sacraments Nor grant Prayers in an unknowne tongue And in a corrupt time or place 't is as necessary in Religion to deny falshood as to assert and vindicate Truth Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former an Affirmative Verity being ever included in the Negative to a Falshood As for any Errour which might fall into this as any other Reformation if any such can be found then I say 't is most true Reformation especially in Cases of Religion is so difficult a worke and subject to so many Pretensions that 't is almost impossible but the Reformers should step too farre or fall too short in some smaller things or other which in regard of the farre greater benefit comming by the Reformation it selfe may well be passed over and borne withall But if there have beene any wilfull and grosse errours not so much in Opinion as in Fact †Quisquis occasione hujus Legis quam Regesterra Christo servientes ad emendandam vestram impietatem promulgaverunt res proprias vestras cupide appetit displicet nobis Quisquis denique ipsas res pauperum vel Baâ—…licas Congregationum c. non per Iustitiam sed per Avaritiamtenet displicet nobis S. Aug. Epist. 48. versus finem Sacriledge too often pretending to reforme Superstition that 's the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation and they are long since gone to God to answer it to whom I leave them But now before I go off from this Point I must put you in remembrance too That I spake at that time and so must all that will speak of that Exigent of the Generall Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Romane Sea And this you understand well enough For in your very next words you call it the Romane Church Now I make no doubt but that as the Vniversall Catholike Church would have reform'd her selfe had she beene in all parts freed of the Romane Yoke so while she was for the most in these Westerne parts under that yoke the Church of Rome was if not the Onely yet the Chiefe Hindrance of Reformation And then in this sense it is more then cleare That if the Romane Church will neither Reform nor suffer Reformation it is lawfull for any other Particular Church to Reform it selfe so long as it doth it peaceably and orderly and keeps it selfe to the Foundation and free from * And this a Particular Church may doe but not a Schisme For a Schisme can never be peaceable nor orderly and seldome free from Sacriledge Out of which respects it may be as well as for the grâ—…evousnesse of the Crime S. Aug. cals it Sacrilegium Schismatis L. 1 de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 8. For usually they go together Sacriledge F. I asked Quo Iudice did this appeare to bee so VVhich Question I asked as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own Cause should be Accusers VVitnesses and Iudges of the Romane Church B You doe well to tell the reason now why you § 25 asked this Question For you did not discover it at the Conference if you had you might then have received your Answer It is most true No man in common equity ought to be suffered to be Accuser Witnesse and Iudge in his owne Cause But is there not as little reason and equity too that any man that is to be accused should be the Accused and yet VVitnesse and Iudge in his owne Cause If the first may hold no man shall be Innocent and if the last none will be Nocent And what doe we here with in their owne Cause against the Romane Church Why Is it not your owne too against the Protestant Church And if it be a Cause common to both as certaine it is then neither Part alone may be Iudge If neither alone may judge then either they must be judged by a * §. 21. Nu. 9. Third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a Generall
the Romane Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not usurpe to himselfe this Iudgment which was determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate â—…nd what will you say if he did not usurpe this Power For the Emperour being desired sent Bishops Iudges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole Cause In which Passage there are very many things Observeable As first that the Romane Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly that if the Pope had come in without this Leave it had been an Usurpation Thirdly that when he did thus come in not by his owne Proper Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Iudges with him Fourthly that these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperour and his Power that which the Pope will least of all indure Lastly least the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperour * Ad cujus Cuvanâ—…ds quâ rationem Deo redditurus est res illa maximè pertinebat S. Aug. Epist 162. S. Augustine tels us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad Curam ejus to the Emperours Care and charge and that He is to give an Account to God for it And Melciades did sit and Iudge the Businesse with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Romane Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church say A. C. what he please Nor had he any Supremacy over the other Patriarchs And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civill Law is proofe enough And that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church The Text there is †Nam contra horum Antistitum de Patriarchis loquitur Sententias non esse locum Appellationi à Majoribus nostris â—…itutum est â—…od L 1. Tit. 4. L. 29. ex â—…ditions Gothofredi Si non rata habuerit â—…traque Pars qua judicata sunt tunc Beatissimns Patriarcha Dioceseôs illius â—…ter eos audiat c. Nullâ parte ejus Sententiae contradicere valente Authen Coâ—…at 9. Tit. 15. C. 22. A Patriarchâ non datur Appellatio From a Patriarch there lies no Appeale No Appeale Therefore every Patriarch was alike Supreme in his owne Patriarchate Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacie over the whole Church Therefore certainely not then received as Universall Pastour And S. Gregory himselfe speaking of Appeales and expresly citing the Lawes themselves sayes plainly * Et ille scilicet Patriarcha secundum Canones Leges prâ—…bent finem And there hee cites the Novell its selfe S. Greg. L. 11. Judict 6. Epist. 54. That the Patriarch is to put a finall end to those Causes which come before him by Appeale from Bishops and Archbishops but then he adds a Si dictum fuâ—…it quòd nec Metropolitanum habeat nec Patriarcham dicendum est quòd à Sede Apostolicâ quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est causa andienda est c. S. Greg. Ibid. That where there is nor Metropolitan nor Patriarch of that Diocesse there they are to have recourse to the Sea Apostolike as being the Head of all Churches Where first this implies plainely That if there bee a Metropolitan or a Patriarch in those Churches his Iudgement is finall and there ought to be no Appeale to Rome Secondly 'T is as plaine That in those Ancient times of the Church-Government Britaine was never subject to the Sea of Rome For it was one of the b Notitia Provinciarum Occidentalium per Guidum Pancirolum l. 2. c. 48. Sixe Diocesses of the West Empire and had a Primate of its owne Nay c Hunc cunctis Liberalium Artium disciplinis eruditum pro Magistro teneamus quasi Comparem velut alterius Orbis Apostolicum Patriarcham c. Io. Capgravius de Vitis Sanctorum in vitâ S. Anselmi Et Guil. Malmesburiens de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum p. 223. Edit Francof 1601. Iohn Capgrave one of your owne and Learned for those times and long before him William of Malmesburie tell us That Pope Urbane the second at the Councell held at Bari in Apulia accounted my Worthy Predecessour S. Anselme as his owne Compeere and said he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world So he then termed this Iland Now the Britains having a Primate of their owne which is greater then a Metropolitan yea a d Ibi Cantuariae id est prima Sedes Archiepiscopi habetur qui est totius Anglia Primas Patriarcha Guil. Malmesburiensis in Prolog Lib. 1. de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum p. 195. Patriarch if you will He could not be Appealed from to Rome by S. Gregorie's owne Doctrine Thirdly it will be hard for any man to proove there were any Churches then in the World which were not under some either Patriarch or Metropolitane Fourthly if any such were 't is gratis dictum and impossible to be proved that all such Churches where ever seated in the world were obliged to depend on Rome For manifest it is that the Bishops which were Ordained in places without the Limits of the Romane Empire which places they commonly called * praterea qui sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Baâ—…barico Episcopi à Sanctissimo Throno Sanctissima Constantinopolitanae Ecclesia Ordinentur Codex Canonum Ecclesia universae Can. 206. And Iustellus proves it there at large that by in Barbarico in that Canon is meant In Solo Barbarorum Annot. Ibid. Barbarous were all to be Ordained and therefore most probable to be governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople And for Rome's being the Head of all Churches I have said enough to that in diverse parts of this Discourse And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of Africk I shall borrow another reason from the Practice of that Church why by Principatus S. Augustine neither did nor could meane any Principality of the Church or Bishop of Rome over the Whole Church of Christ. For as the Acts of Councels and Stories go the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melciades his temper set themselves to assert their owne Liberties and held it out stoutly against Zozimus Boniface the first and Caelestine the first who were successively Popes of Rome At last it was concluded in the sixt Councell of Carthage wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeene Bishops of which S. Augustine himselfe was one that they would not give way to such a manifest incroachment upon their Rights and Liberties and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Coelestine to forbeare sending his Officers amongst them †Ne fâ—…mosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videatur inducere c. Epist Conc. Afric ad Papam Coelestinum primum Apud Nicolin To. 1. Concil p. 844. least he should seeme to induce the swelling pride of the world into
perpetuum Scripturâ testante errabit Quòd Rom. Pontifex si Canonic è suerit ordinatus meritis B. Petri indubit an t èr efficitur sanctus Quòd à fidelitate Iniquorum subditos potest absolvere Gregory the seventh in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the ChristiaÌ„ world Thirdly A. C. knowing 't is not enough to say this That the Pope is Pastour of the whole Church labours to prove it And first he tels us that Irenaeus intimates so much but he doth not tell us where And he is ' much scanted of Ancient Proofe if Irenaeus stand alone Besides Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallicane Church and a very unlikely man to Captivate the Liberty of that Church under the more powerfull Principality of Rome And how can we have better evidence of his Iudgement touching that Principality then the Actions of his Life When Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †Euseb. L. 5. c. 25. all at a blow was not Irenaeus the Chiefe man that reprehended him for it A very unmeet and undutifull thing sure it had been in Irenaeus in deeds to taxe him of rashnesse and inconsideratenesse whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him The Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversall Church But the Place of Irenaeus which A. C. meanes I thinke is this whâ—…â—…he uses these words indeed but short of A. C s. sense of it †Adhanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem necesse est â—…mnem convenire Ecclesiam 1. e. eos qui sunt undique sideles In quá semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolu Traditio Iren. L. 3. c. 3. To this Church he speakes of Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem for the more powerfull Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithfull undique round about should have recourse Should have recourse so A. C. translates it And what doth this availe him A. C. p. 58. Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time That upon any Difference arising in the Faith omnes undique Fideles all the Faithfull or if you will all the Churches round about should have recourse that is resort to Rome being the Imperiall City and so a Church of more powerfull Principality then any other at that time in those parts of the world Well Will this exalt Rome to be the Head of the Church Vniversall What if the States and Policies of the world be much changed since and this Conveniâ—…ncy of resorting to Rome be quite ceased Then is not Rome devested of her more powerfull Principality But the meaning of A C. is We must so have recourse to Rome as to submit our Faith to hers And then not onely in Irenaeus his time but through all times reforme Our selves by her Rule That is all the Faithfull not undique round about but ubique every where must agree with Rome in point of Faith This he meanes and Rome may thank him for it But this Irenaeus saith not nor will his words beare it nor durst A C. therfore construe him so but was content to smooth it over with this ambiguous phrase of having recourse to Rome Yet this is a place as much stood upon by them as any other in all Antiquity And should I grant them their owne sense That all the faithfull everywhere must agree with Rome which I may give but can never grant yet were not this saying any whit prejudiciall to us now For first here 's a powerfull Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome And that no man of learning doubts but the Church of Rome had within its owne Patriarchate and Iurisdiction and that was very large containing a Ed. Brierwood of the Iurisdiction and Limits of the Patriarchs in the time of the Nicen Councel Ad. Qu. 1. M. S. all the Provinces in the Diocesse of Italy in the old sense of the word Diocesse which Provinces the Lawyers and others terme Suburbicarias There were ten of them The three Ilands Sicily Corsica and Sardinia and the other seven upon the firme land of Italie And this I take it is plaine in Ruffinus For he living shortly after the Nicene Councell as he did and being of Italy as he was he might very well know the Bounds of that Patriarchs Iurisdiction as it was then practised b Apud Alexandriam ut in urbe Româ vetusta consuetudo servetur ut ille Aegypti ut hic SuburbicariarnÌ„ Ecclesiarum selicitudinem gerat Russin L. 1. Eccles. Hist. c. 6. And he sayes expresly That according to the old Custome the Romane Patriarchs Charge was confined within the Limits of the Suburbicarian Churches To avoid the force of this Testimony c Peron L. 2. of his Reply c. 6. Cardinall Peron layes load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with Passion Ignorance and Rashnesse And one peece of his Ignorance is That hee hath ill translated the Canon of the Councell 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 hee lived Secondly heres That it had potentiorem a more powerfull Principality then other Churches had And that the Protestants grant too and that not onely because the Romane Prelate was Ordine primus first in Order and Degree which some One must be to avoid Confusion †Quia cùm Orientales Gracae Ecclesiae Afrcanae etiam multis inter se Opinionum dissentionibus 〈◊〉 haec sedatior aliis minùs turbulenta fuerit Calv. L. 4. Justit c. 6. §. 16. But also because the Romane Sea had wonne a great deale of Credit and gained a great deale of Power to it selfe in Church Assaires Because while the Greeke yea and the African Châ—…rches 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 calme and constant to the Truth Thirdly here 's a Necessity say they required That every Church that is the faithfull which are every where agree with that Church But what simply with that Church what ever it doe or believe No nothing lesse For Irenaeus addes 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 faithfull to agree with that Ancient Apostolike Church in all those Things in which it keepes to the Doctrine and Discipline delivered by the Apostles In Irenaeus his time it kept these better then any other Church and by this in part obtained potentiorem Principalitate a Greater
power then other Churches but not over all other Churches And as they understand Irenae 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 Romane Jurisdiction now challenged And let Rome reduce it selfe 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 Faithfull every where to agree with it Lastly let me Observe too That Irenaeus made no doubt but that Rome might fall away from Apostolicall 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 shal ever be entirely kept That had beene home indeed But in which by God's grace and mercy it was to that time of Irenaeus so kept and preserved So wee have here in Irenaeus his Iudgement the Church of Rome then Intire but not Infallible And endowed with a more powerfull Principality then other Churches but not with an Universall Dominion over all other Churches which is the Thing in Question But to this place of Irenaeus A. C. joynes a reason of his owne For he tels us the Bishop of Rome is A. C. p. 58. S. Peter's Successour 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 owne 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 †Ipse autem Dominus constituit â—…um Primum Apostolorum Petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei adificat a est portae inferorum non valebunt adversus illam c. Juxta omnem enim modum in Ipso firmata est fides qui accepit Clavem Coelorum c. In hoc enim omnes Questiones ac Subtilitates fidei inveniuntur Epiphan in Ancorato Edit Paris Lat. 1564. fol. 497. A. Edit verò Grace Latin To. 2. p. 14. For the Lord himselfe made S. Peter the first of the Apostles a firme Rocke upon which the Church of God is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it c. For in him the Faith is made firme every way who received the Key of Heaven c. For in him all the Questions and Subtilties of the Faith are found This is a great Place at first sight too and deserves a Marginall 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 Peter's Principality and Excellency This Place as much shew as it make for the Romane Principality I shall easily cleare and yet doe no wrong either to S. Peter or the Romane Church For most manifest it is That the authority of S. Peter is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there bâ—…gins the Arâ—…ument of Epiphanius urged here to proove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost And then follow the Elogyes given to S. Peter the better to set off and make good that Authority As that hee was b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princeps Apostolorum the Prince of the Apostles and pronounced blâ—…ssed by Christ because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Sonne so did the Sonne the Godhead of the Holy Ghost After this Epiphanius calls Him c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solidam Petram a solid Rocke upon which the Church of God was founded and against which the Gates of Hell should not prevaile And addes That the Faith was rooted and made firme in him d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every way in him who received the Key of Heaven And after this he gives the Reason of all e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. S. Mâ—… 16. 17. Because in Him mark I pray 't is still in Him as he was blessed by that Revelation from God the Father S. Matthew 16. were found all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Niceties and exactnesse of the Christian Faith For he prosessâ—…d the Godhead of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost And so Omni modo every Point of Faith was 〈◊〉 in Him And this is the full meaning of that Learned Father in tâ—…is 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 ovâ—…r it for ever But it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Pâ—…ter made And so f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui factus est nobis rever à solida Petra firmans fidem Domini In quâ Petrá aedificata est Ecclesia juxta omnem modum Primò quòd confessus est Christum esse Filium Dei vi vi statim audivit super hanc Petram soliâ—… 〈◊〉 adisicabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 Etiam de Sp. Sancto idem c. Epipha L. 2. Hares 59. contra Catharos To. 1. p. 500. Edit Graeco-Lat Hee expresses himselfe elsewhere most plainly Saint Peter saith he who was made to us indeed a solid Rock firming the Faith of our Loâ—…d On which Rocke the Church is built juxta omneÌ„ modum every way First that he Confessed Christ to be the Sonne of the Living God and by and by he heard Upon this Rocke of solid Faith I will build my Church And the same Confession he made of the Holy Ghost Thus was S. Peter a solid Rocke upon which the Church was founded omni modo every way That is the Faith of the Church was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. confirmed by him in every Point But that S. Peter was any Rocke or Foundation of the Church so as that he and his Successours must be relied on in all matters of Faith and governe the Church like Princes or Monarchs that Epiphanius never thought of And that he did never thinke so I prove it thus For beside this apparent meaning of his Context as is here expressed how could hee possibly thinke of a Supremacy due to S. Peter's Successour that in most expresse termes and that b Ille primus speaking of S. Iames the Lords Brother Episcopalem Cathedram capit quum ei ante â—…teros omnes suum in terris Thronum Dominus tradidisset Epiphan L. 3. Hares 78. To. 2. p. 1039. Et ferè similiter To. 1. L. 1. Hares 29. twice repeated makes S. Iames the brother of our Lord and not S. Peter succeed our Lord in the Principality of the Church And Epiphanius was too full both of Learning and Industrie to
Siomnes nullum fuit hactenus Concilium Generale neque etiam videtur deinceps suturum Bcl. 1. de Coâ—…c c. 17. §. 1. 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 vaine too Yea but Thirdly If all that meet doe 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 Faithfull People met together unlesse all other Requisites as well as Vnanimity to make their prayer to bee heard and granted bee observed by them So that an Vnanimous Prayer is not adequately supposed and therefore Concludes not But lastly how far a Generall Councell if all A. C s. Conditions bee observed is firm and Infallible that shall be more fully discussed at †§. 33. Consil 1. after In the meane time these two words Firme 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 firme among men And there are many things made firm by Law both in Churches Kingdomes which yet are not Infallible in themselves So to draw all together to settle CoÌ„troversies in the Church there is a Visible Iudge and Infallible but not living And that is the * And this was thought a sufficient â—…udge too when Christians were as humble as learned I am sure Optatus thought so Quaeren li sunt Iudices Si Christiani de utraque parte dari non possunt quia studâ—…s veritas impeditur De forts quaerendus est Iudex Si Paganus non potest nosse Christiana Secreta Si Iudaeus inimicus est Christiani Baptismatis Ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reporiri Iudiciis De Caelo quaerendus est Iudex Sed ut quid pulsamus ad Coelum quum habemus hîc in Evangelio Testamentum inquam quia hoc loco recâ—…e possunt terrena coelestibus comparari talc est quod quivis hominum habens numerosos siltos his quamdiu pater praesens est ipse imperat singulis non est adhuc necessarium Testamâ—…ntuÌ„ Sic Christus quamdiu praesens in terris suit quamvis nec modo desit pro tempore quicquid necessarium crat Apostolis Imperavit Sed quomodo terrenus Pater dum se in consinio senserit mortis timens ne post mortem suam ruptà pace litigent fratres adhibitis Testibus Uoluntatem suam de Pectore morituro transfert in Tabulas diu duraturas Et si fuâ—…rit inter fratres contentio nata non itur ad Tumulum sed quaeritur TestamentuÌ„ qui Tumulo quiescit tacitus de Tabulis loquitur Vivus cujus est TestamentuÌ„ in caelo est Ergo Voluntas ejus velut in Testamento sic in Evangelio inquiratur Opt. l. 5. adv Parm. This pregnant Place of Optatus That the Scripture is the Iudge of Divine Truth when ever it is questioned though Baldwin dare not deny yet he would faine slide both by it and by a paralell place as full in S. Aug. in Psal. 21. Expositione 〈◊〉 with this shift that S. Augustine in another place had rather use the Testimony of Tradition that is the Testimony Nuncupativi potius quâm Scripti Testamenti of the Nuncupative rather then the Written Will of Christ. Baldwin in Optat. L. 5. But this is a meere shift First because it is Petitio principii the meere begging of the Question For we deny any Testament of Christ but that which is written And A. C. cannot thew it in any one Father of the Church that Christ ever left behind him a Nuncupative obligatory Will Secondly because nothing is more plaine in these two Fathers Optatus and S. Augustine then that both of them appeale to the Wrrtten Will and make that the Iudge without any Exception when a matter of Faith comes in Question In Optat. the words are Habemus in Evangelio we have it in the Gospell And in Evangelio inquiratur Let it be inquired in the Gospell And Christ put it in tabulas diu duraturas into Written and lasting Instruments In S. Augustine the words are Our Father did not dye intestate c. And Tabulae aperiantur Let his Will his written Instruments be opened And Legantur Uerbamortui let the words of him that dyed be read And againe Aperi Legamus Open the Will and let us reade And Legamus quid litigamus Why do we strive Let 's read the Will And againe Aperi Testamentum lege Open the Will read All which Passages are most expresse and full for his Written Will and not for any Nuncupative Wil as Baldwin would put upon us And Hart who takes the same way with Baldwin is not able to make it out as appeares by D. Reynolds in his Conference with Hart. c. divis 1. p. 396. c. Scripture pronouncing by the Church And there is a visible and a Living Iudge but not Infallible And that is a Generall Councell lawfully called and so proceeding But I know no formall Confirmation of it needfull though A. C. require it * §. 28. N. 1. And so plainly S. Augustine speaking of S. Cyprians Errour about Rebaptization c. sayes Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarii Concilii sententiae quid in hac re sequendum esset t ot ius Ecclesiae Consensio confirmasset Uisum est ei cum c. L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donatist c. 18. So here is first Sententia Concilii And then the Confirmation of it is totius Ecclesiae Consensio the Consent of the whole Church yeelding unto it And so Gerson Concurrente Vniversali totius Ecclesiae consensu c. In Declaratione Ueritatum quae credenda sunt c. §. 4. For this that the Pope must confirme it or else the Generall Councell is invalid is one of the Romane Novelties For this cannot be shewed in any Antiquity void of just Exception The truth is the Pope as other Patriarchs and great Bishops used to doe did give his assent to such Councels as he approoved But that is no Corroboration of the Councell as if it were invalid without it but a Declaration of his consenting with the rest §. 33. Consid. 4. Nu. 6. but onely that after it is ended the Whole Church admit it bee it never so tacitely In the next Place A. C. interposes new matter quite out of the Conference And first in case of Distractions A. C. p. 59 60. and Disunion in the Church he would know what is to be done to Re-unite when a Generall Councell which is acknowledged a fit Iudge cannot be had by reason of manifold impediments Or if being called will not bee of one minde
indeed can he include 〈◊〉 For he speakes of that Word of God upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reâ—…cks consent But concerning Traditions they â—…ll consent not That they are a Rule of Faith Therâ—… he speakes not of them Romanists dare not deny but this Rule is â—…aine and that it is 〈◊〉 â—…ntly Knowne in 〈◊〉 â—…lest Places of 〈◊〉 â—…uch as are 〈◊〉 to Salvation none of the Ancients did ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…here's an Infallible Rule Nor need there be such feare 〈◊〉 Private Spirit in these manifest things which beâ—… 〈◊〉 read or heard teach themselves Indeed you 〈◊〉 had need of some other Iudge and he a pâ—…opitious one to crush the Pope's more powerfull â—…rincipality out of Pasce oves feed my sheepe And yet this must be the meaning if you will have it whether Gideon's fleece bee wet or dry Iudg. 6. that is whether there be dew Iudg. 6. enough in the Text to water that sense or no. But I pray when God hath left hisâ—… Church this Infallible Rule what warrant have you to seeke another You have shewed us none yet what e're you thinke you have And I hope A. C. cannot thinke it followes that Christ our Lord hatâ—… provided no Rule to determine necessary Controversies because hee hath not provided the Rule which he would have Besides let there be such a living Iudge as A. C. would have and let the * For so he affirmes p. 58. Pope be he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Divell and impious men to keepe the Church at all Times from Renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For Oportet esse Haereses 1. Cor. 11. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot 1. Cor. 11. 19. be but in Doctrine of the Faith And what will A. C. in this Case do Will he send Christ our Lord to provide another Rule then the Decision of the Bishop of Rome because he can neither make Unity nor Certainty of Beliefe And as 't is most apparent he cannot doe it de facto so neither hath he power from Christ over the Whole Church to doe it nay out of all doubt 't is not the least reason why de facto he hath so little successe because de Iure he hath no power given But since A. C. requires another Iudge besides the Scripture and in Cases when either the time is so difficult that a Generall Councell cannot be called or the Councell so set that they will not agree Let 's see how he proves it 'T is thus every earthly kingdome saith he when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot A. C. p. 60. be called upon all Occasions why doth he not adde here And which being called will not alwaies be of one minde as he did adde it in Case of the Councell hath besides the Law Bookes some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Highest Iudge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Unity in all Temporall Affaires And shall we thinke that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his kingdome the Church onely the Law-bookes of the Holy Scripture and no living visible Iudges and above all one Chiefe so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Bookes as he list This is a very plausible Argument with the Many But the foundation of it is but a †Qua subtilissime de hoc disputari possunt ità ut non similitudinibus quae plerunque fallunt sed rebus ipsis satisfiat c. S. Aug. L. de Quant Animae c. 32. Whereupon the Logicians tell us rightly that this is a Fallacy unlesse it be taken reduplicativè i. e. de similibus qua similia sunt And hence Arist. himself 2. Top. Loc. 32. sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rursum in Similibus si similitèr se habent Similitude and if the Similitude hold not in the maine the Argument's nothing And so I doubt it will proove here I 'le observe Particulars as they lie in order And first he will have the whole Militant Church for of that we speake a Kingdome But this is not certaine For they are no meane ones which thinke our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocraticall or rather a Mixt Government and that the Church is not a When Gerson writ his Tract De Auferibilitate Pape sure hee thought the Church might continue in a very gooâ—… Being without a Monarchicall Head Therefore in his Iudgement the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ Monarchicall Gerson par 1. pag. 154. When S. Uierom wrote thus Ubicuaque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegit sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti cjusdem est Sacerdotii S. Hieron Epist. ad Evagrium doubtlesse he thought not of the Romane Bishops Monarcâ—…y For what Bishop is of the same Merit or of the same Degree in the Priesthood with the Pope as things are now carried at Rome Affirmamus etiam Patribus Graecis Latinis ignot as esse voces de Petro aut Papa Monarcha Monarchia Namquod in superioribus obscrvabamus reperiri obsâ—…rvabamus dictiones positas pro Episcopatu nihil hoc ad râ—…m facit 〈◊〉 Casaub. Excrcitatione 15. ad Annales Eccles. Baron §. 12. p. 378. §. 11 p. 360. diserte asserit probat Ecclesiae Regimen Aristocraticum fuisse Monarchicall otherwise then the Trumphant and Militant make one Body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this onely the Church is a most absolute Kingdome And the very Expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the Places of Scripture and other Arguments brought by b Bellar. L. a. de Concil c. 16. §. 1 2 3. Bellarmine to prove that the Church is a Monarchie But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought it fitter to governe it Aristocratically by Diverse rather then by One Vice Roy. And I believe this is true For all the time of the first three hundred yeares and somewhat better it was governed Aristocratically if we will impaitially consider how the Bishops of those times carried the whole Businesse of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to or rejecting them from their Communion For I have carefully Examined this for the first sixe hundred yeares even to and within the time of S. Gregory the great c S. Greg. L. 9. Epist. 58. L. 12. Epist. 15. Who in the beginning of the seventh hundred yeare sent such Letters to Augustine then Archbishop of Canterburie and to d S. Greg. L. 9. Epist. 61. Quirinus and other Bishops in Ireland And I finde That the Literae Communicatoriae which certified from one Great
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c S. Auâ—… â—…pist 119 c. 6. S. Augustine tels us That the Militant Church is often in Scripture called the Moone both for the many Changes it hath and for its obscurity in many times of its peregrination And hee tels us too That if we will understand this place of Scripture in a Spirituall Sense a Intelligimus spiritualiter Ecclesiam c. Et hic â—…uis est Sol nisi Sol lustitsâ—… c. S. Aug. in Psal. 103. Our Saviour Christ is the Sun and the Militant Church as being full of changes in her estate the Moone But now it must bee a Triumphant Church here Militant no longer The Pope must be the Sun and the Emperor but the Moone And least Innocents owne power should not be able to make good his Decretall b â—…p â—…op L. dicto E clesiaâ—…us c. 145. Gasper Schioppius doth not onely avow the Allusion or Interpretation but is pleased to expresse many Circumstances in which hee would faine make the world believe the Resemblance holds And lest any man should not know how much the Pope is made greater then the Emperour by this Comparison the c Igitur cùm terra sit septies major Lunâ Sol autem octies major terra restat ergo ut Fontificalis dignitas quadragesies septics sit major Realidignitate Gloss. in Decret praedict Where first the Glosse is out in his Latine Hee might have said Quadragies for Quadragesies is no word next he is out in his Arithmetick For eight times seven makes not forty seven but fifty sixe And then he is much to blame for drawing downe the Pope's power from fifty six to 47. And lastly this Allusion hath no ground of Truth at all For the Emperour being Solo Deo minor Tertul. ad Scap. cannot be a Moone to any other Sun Glosse furnishes us with that too and tels us that by this it appeares that since the Earth is seven times greater then the Moone and the Sun eight times greater then the Earth it must needs follow that the Pope's power is forty seven times greater then the Emperour 's I like him well he will make odds enough But what doth Innocent the third give no Reason of this his Decretall Yes And it is saith he d Sed illa Potestas quae praeest diebus i. e. in spiritualibus major est quae verò Carnaâ—…ibus miâ—…or Inn cent 3. ubi supra because the Sun which rules in the day that is in Spirituall things is greater then the Moone which rules but in the night and in carnall things But is it possible that Innocentius the third being 〈◊〉 wise and so able as e â—…t post ejus mortem nihil eorum quae in hac vita egerit laudaverit aut inprobaverit immâ—…um sit Platina in vita 〈◊〉 that nothing which he did or commended or disproved in all his life should after his death be thought fit to bee changed could thinke that such an Allusion of Spirituall things to the Day which the Sun governes and Worldly Businesse to the Night which the Moone governes should carie waight enough with it to depresse Imperiall power lower then God hath made it Out of doubt he could not For he well knew that Omnis Anima every soule was to be Rom. 13. 1. subject to the Higher Power Rom. 13. And the †Patres veteres praecipâ—… Aug. Epist. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de Potestate seculari tantum loqui quod ipse Textus subindicat c. Salmer on Disput. 4. in Rom. 13. §. Porrò per Potestatem Higher Power there mentioned is the Temporall And the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Omnibus ista imperantur Sacerdotibus Monachis c. Et postea Etiamsi Apostolus sis fi Evangelista si Propheta sive quisquis tandem fueris S. Chrysost. Hom. 23. in Rom. Sive est Sacerdos sive Antistes c. Theodoret in Rom. 13. Si omnis Anima vestra Quis vos excipit ab Universitate c. Ipsi sunt qui vobis dicere solent servate vestrae Sedis honorem c. Sed Christus aliter Iussâ—… Gâ—…ssit c. S. B. r. Epist. 42. ad Henricum Senonensem Archiepiscopum Et Theophilact in Rom. 13. Where it is very observable that Theophilact lived in the time of Pope Gregory the seventh And S. Bernard after it and yet this Truth obtained then And this was about the yeare 1130. Ancient Fathers come in with a full consent That Omnis Animâ—… every soule comprehends there all without any Exception All Spirituall men even to the Highest Bishop and in spirituall Causes too so the Foundations of Faith and Good Manners bee not shaken And where they are shaken there ought to bee Prayer and Patience there ought not to be Opposition by force Nay hee knew well that a An fortè de Religione fas non est ut dicat Imperator vel quos miserit Imperator cur ergo ad Imperatorem vestri venâ—…re Legati cur enim fecerunt Causae suae Iudicem non secuturi quod ille judicaret c. S. Aug. L. 1. cont Epist. Parmen c. 9. Et quaestio fuit au pertineret ad Imperatorem advâ—… eos aliquid statuere qui prava in Religione sectantur Ibid Nor can this be said to be usurpation in the Emperor Nam S. August alibi sic Ad Imperatoris curâ—…m de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est Res â—…lla maximè pâ—…rtinebat S. Aug. Epist. 162. Epist. 50. Quis mente sobrius Regibus dicat Nolite cuâ—…are in Regno vestro à quo teneatur vet oppugnetur Ecclesia Domini vestri c. Antiqui 〈◊〉 rectè dixit Magistratus est custos legis silicet primae secundae Tabulae quod ad disciplinam attinet Confessio Saxonica §. 23. Gerardus To. 6. Locorum c. 6. § 5. Membro 1. probat ex Deut. 17. 18. Emperors and Kings are Custodes utriusque Tabulae They to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law for worship to God and duty to man are committed That a Booke of the Law was by Gods owne Command in Moses his time to bee given the King b Deut. 17. 18 Deut. 17. That the Kings under that Law but still according to it did proceed to Necessary Reformations in Church Businesses and therein Commanded the very Priests themselves as appeares in the Acts of * â—…ron 29. 4. Hezechiah and †4. Râ—… 23. 2. Iosiah who yet were never Censured to this day for usurping the High Priests Office Nay hee knew full well That the greatest Emperors for the Churches Honour Theodosius the Elder and Iustinian and Charles the Great and divers other did not only meddle now and then but did inact Lawes to the great Settlement and Increase of Religion in their severall times But then if this could not be the Reason why Innocentius made this strange
Definition of a Generall Councell Consid. 6. be infallible then the infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Meanes that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Meanes or in the Meanes not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Meanes For there are diverse Deliberations in Generall Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Meanes by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councell uses be sometimes uncertaine as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessary if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can never be worne out nor shifted off your great Master a Relect. Cont. 4. q. 2. ad Argâ—… 1â—… Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councell is in the second Course that is b And herein I must needs Commend your Wildome For you have had many Popes so ignorant 〈◊〉 ignorant as that they have beene â—…o way able to sift and Examine the Meanes And therefore you doe most advisedly make them infallible in the Conclusion without the Meanes §. 39. Nu. 8. It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and Proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether unknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it c Ibid. Not. 4. First because the Church is discursive and uses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Propheticke in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Meanes too Then since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes This is an Vniversall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his own Authority That he thinks so Nay make it appeare that ever any Prophet in that which he delivered from God as Infallible Truth was ever discursive at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinary course of Prophecie and I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at God's absolute Power That that which is discursive in the Meanes can be Prophetick in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for ever In the meane time I have learned this from a Prophetae audiebant à Deo interiùs inspirante Tho. 2. 24. q. 5. A. 1. ad 3. yours That all Prophecie is by Vision Inspiration c. And that no Vision admits Discourse That all Prophecie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the b The word of the Lord came unto me is common in the Prophets Lord came to them and that was not by Discourse And yet you c Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 2. p. 473. say againe That this Prophetick Infallibility of the Church is not gotten without study and industry You should do well to tell us too why God would put his Church to study for the Spirit of Prophecie which never any Particular Prophet was put unto d Propheticam Revelationem nullo pacto haberi posse vel ope Naturae vel studio Contra Avicennam Algazalem Averrocm c. Fran. Picus 2. Praenot c. 4. And whosoever shall study for it shall do it in vaine since Prophecie is a e 1. Cor. 12. 10. Gift and can never bee an acquired Habit. And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authority of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke f L. 2. de Conc. c. 12. He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the Deliberations of Councels and so do we but I do not remember that ever he speaks out That the Conclusion is delivered by Prophecie or Revelation Sure he sounded the shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speaks plainly would his bad Cause let him be constant * Concilia noâ—… habent neque scribunt immediatas Revelationes c sed ex Verbo Dei per ratiocinationeÌ„ dcducunt Conclusiones Bellar. l. 2 de Concil A. 12. §. At Concilia non Councels do deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neither have they nor do they write any immediate Revelations The second Reason why a Stap. Jb. p. 374 Stapleton will have it Propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be believed though it use Meanes yet it stands not upon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Revelation of the Holy Ghost Els when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church uses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the later part That then our admitting the Decree of a Councell would be no Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge what great inconvenience is there if it be granted For
Charity of the Church her selfe were mistaken in the Case of the Donatists as shall †§. 35. Nu. 3. after appeare Secondly even Mistaken Charity if such it were is farre better then none at all And if the Mistaken be ours the None is yours Yea but A. C. tells us That this denyall of Salvation A. C. p. 65. is grounded upon Charitie as were the like threats of Christ and the Holy Fathers For there is but one true Faith and one true Church and out of that there is no Salvation And he that will not heare the Church S. Matth. 18. let him bee as a Heathen and a Publicane Therefore he sayes 't is more Charity to fore-warne us of the danger by S. Matth. 18. 17. these threats then to let us run into it thorough a false security 'T is true that there is but one true Faith and but one true Church But that one both Faith and Church is the a And this is prooved by the Creed â—…n which we professe our Beliefe of the Catholike not of the Roman Church Catholike Christian not the Particular Romane And this Catholike Christian Church he that will not both heare and obey yea and the Particular Church in which hee lives too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the Vniversall is in as bad condition as a Heathen and a Publicane and perhaps in some respects worse And were we in this Case we should thanke A. C. for giving us warning of our danger But 't is not so For he thunders out all these threats and denyall of salvation because we joyne not with the Romane Church in all things as if her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meere begging of the Question and then threatning upon it without all ground of Reason or Charity In the meane time let A. C. looke to himselfe that in his false security hee run not into the danger and losse of his owne salvation while hee would seeme to take such care of ours But though this Argument prevailes with the weake yet it is much stronger in the cunning then the true force of it For all Arguments are very mooving that lay their ground upon b This is a free Confession of the Adversaries Argument against themselves and therefore is of force A. C. p. 64. But every Confession of Adversaries or others is to be taken with its Qualities and Conditions If you leave out or change these you wrong the Confession and then 't is of no force And â—…so doth A. C. here And though Bell. rm makes the Confession of the Adversaâ—…y a note of the true Church L. 4. de Notâ—…s Ecâ—…l c. 16. yet in the very beginning whâ—… layes his Ground 〈◊〉 1. he layes it 〈◊〉 plaine fallacie à secunaùm quid ad simpliciter the Adversaries Confession especially if it be confessed and avouched to be true But if you would speak truly and say Many Protestants indeed confesse there is salvation possible to be attained in the Romane Church but that yet they say withall that the Errors of that Church are so many * For they are no meane Differences that are betweene us by Bellarmines owne Confession Agendum est non de rebus levibus sed de gravissimis Quastionibut quae ad ipsa Fidei fundament a pertinent c. Bellarm. in praefat Operibus praefixá §. 3. And therefore the Errours in them and the Corruptions of them cannot bee of small Consequence by your owne Confession Yeâ—… by your owne indeed For you A. C. say full as much if not more then Bellarmine Thus We Catholikes hold all points in which Protestants differ from us in Doctrine of Faith to be Fundamentall and necessary to bee Believed or at least not denyed A. C. Relation of the first Conference p. 28. and some so great by the Confession of your owne as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to goe 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 lyes upon two things one directly Expressed the other but as upon the By. That which is expressed is We and our Adversaries consent that there is salvation to some in the Romane 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 straine for a Proofe But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evill for evill in this headie course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly soules whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that professe the Foundation Christ And therefore seeke not â—…o help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely do where you can come to worke upon them And this was an old trick of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptisme Whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church or in the Part of Donatus they exhorted all to be baptised among them VVhy Because both Parts granted that Baptisme was true among the Dâ—…atists which that peevish Sect most unjustly denyed the sound part as S. †Esse verò apud Dâ—…natistas Baptismum illi asserunt nos concedimus c. L. 1. de Bap. cont Donat. c. 3. Augustine delivers it I would aske now Had not the Orthodox true Baptisme among them because the Donatists denyed it injuriously Or should the Orthodox against Truth have denyed Baptisme among the Donatists either to cry quittance with them or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts granted But Marke this how farre you runne 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 doe 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 * Corpus Christi manducatur in Coena c. tantùm caelesti spirituall ratione Medium autem quo Corpus Christi accipitur manducatur in Coenâ Fides est Eccl. Angl. Art 28. After a spirituall manner by Faith on our behalfe and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalfe of Christ. Fulk in 1 Cor. 11. p. 528. Christus se cum omnibus bonis suit in Coenâ offert nos eum recipimus fide c. Calv. 4. Inst. c. 17. §. 5. Et Hooker L. 5. §. 67. p. 176. And say not you the same with us Spiritualis manducatio quae per Animam fit ad Christi Carnem in Sacramento pertingit Cajet Tom. 2. Opusc. de Euchar. Tract 2. Cap. 5. Sed
spiritualiter idest invisibiliter per virtutem Spiritus Sancti Thom. p. 3. q. 75. A. 1. ad 1 um Spiritualiter manducandus est per Fidem Charitatem Tena in Heb. 13. Difficultate 8. Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Body and Blood of Christ †I would have no man troubled at the words Truly and Really For that Blessed Sacrament received as it ought to be doth Truly and Really exhibit and apply the Body and the Blood of Christ to the Receiver So Bishop White in his Defence against T. W. P. Edit London 1617. p. 138. And Calvin in 1 Cor. 10. 3. Verè datur c. And againe in 1 Cor. 11. 24. Neque enim Mortis tantùm Resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit Concludo Realiter ut vulgò loquuntur hoc est Verè nobis in Coenâ datur Christi Corpus ut sit Animis nostris in cibum Salutarem c. truly and really and of all the Benefits of his Passion Your Romane Catholikes adde a manner of this his Presence 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 then with the Roman or Lutheran Because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion Nay †Hoe totum pendet ex Principiis Metaphysicis philosophicis ad Fidei Doctrinam non est necessarium Suarez iâ—… 3. Thom. Disput. 50. §. 2. Suarez himselfe and he a very Learned Adversary what say you to this A. C doth Truth force this from him Confesses plainely †That to Beleeve Transubstantiation is not simply necessary A. C. p. 64. 65. to Salvation And yet he knew well the Church had Determined it And * Bellar. L. 3. de Eucha c. 18. §. Ex his colligimus Bellarmine after an intricate tedious and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Adductive Conversion A thing which neither Divinity nor Philosophy ever heard of till then is at last forced to come to this a Sed quidquid fit de Modis loquendi illud tenendum est Conversionem Panis Uini in Corpus Sanguinem Christi esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus Conversionibus per omnia similem c. Bellar. in Recognit hujus loci Et Vid. §. 38. Nu. 3 Whatsoever is concerning the manner and formes of speech illud tenendum est this is to be held that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantiall but after a secret and ineffable manner and not like in all things to any naturall Conversion whatsoever Now if he had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs reall Presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no man could have spoke better And therefore if you will force the Argument alwayes to make that the safest way of Salvation which differing Parties agree on why doe you not yeeld to the force of the same Argument in the Beliefe of the Sacrament one of the most immediate meanes of Salvation where not onely the most but all agree And your owne greatest Clarkes cannot tell what to say to the Contrary I speake here for the force of the Argument which certainly in it selfe is nothing though by A. C. made of great account For he sayes 'T is a A. C. p. 64. Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth Iust as * Sed quia it a magnum firmamentum vanitatis vestrae in hâc sententia esse abitramini ut ad hoc tiâ—… terminandam putares Epistolam quo quasi recentiùs in Animus LegeÌ„tium remaneret brevitèr respondeo c. S. Aug. L. 2. cont Lit. Petil. c. 108. Andhere A. C. ad hoc sibi putavit terminandaÌ„ Collationem sed frustra ut apâ—…bit Num. 6. Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptisme But in truth 't is nothing For the Syllogisme which it frames is this The Papists and the Protestants which are the Parties differing agree in this That there is Salvation possible to be found in the Romane Church But in Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on Therfore 't is safest for a man to be and continue in the Romane Church To the Major Proposition then I observe first that though many Learned Protestants grant this all doe not And then that Proposition is not Universall nor able to sustaine the Conclusion For they doe 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 doe us And A. C. should doe well to consider whether they doe it not upon as good reason at least Next for the Minor 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 fay that is no Metaphysicall Principle but a bare Contingent Proposition and may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applyed and so of no necessary truth in it selfe nor able to leade 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 selfe 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 Proofe of Truth For Herod and Pilate disagreeing Parties enough yet agreed against Truth it selfe But Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement And secondly by the two Instances †§. 35. N. 3 before given For in the Instance betweene the Orthodox Church then and the Donatists this Proposition is most false For it was a Point of Faith and so of Salvation that they were upon Namely the right use and administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme And yet had it beene safest to take up that way which the differing Parts agreed on or which the adverse Part Confessed men must needs have gone with the Donatists against the Church And this must fall out as oft as any Heretick will cunningly take that way against the Church which the Donatists did if this Principle shall goe for currant But in the second Instance concerning the Eucharist a matter of Faith and so of Salvation too the same Proposition is most true And the Reason is because here the matter is true Namely The true and reall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacrament But in the former the matter was false Namely That Rebaptization
was necessary after Baptisme formally given by the Church So this Proposition In Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree in or which the Adversary Confesses is you see both true and false as men have cunning to apply it and as the matter is about which it is Conversant And is therefore no Proposition able or fit to settle a Conclusion in any sober mans minde till the Matter contained under it bee well scanned and examined And yet as much use as you would make of this Proposition to amaze the weake your selves dare not stand to it no not where the matter is undenyably true as shall appeare in divers Particulars beside this of the Eucharist But before I adde any other particular Instances I must tell you what A. C. sayes to the two A. C. p. 65. former For he tels us These two are nothing like the present case Nothing That is strange indeed Why in the first of those Cases concerning the Donatists your Proposition is false And so farre from being safest that it was no way safe for a man to take that way of Beliefe and so of Salvation which both parts agreed on And is this nothing Nay is not this full and home to the present case For the present case is this and no more That it is safest taking that way of Beliefe which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary Confesses And in the second of those Cases concerning the Eucharist your Proposition indeed is true not by the Truth which it hath in it selfe Metaphysically and in Abstract but only in regard of the matter to which it is applyed yet there you desert your owne Proposition where it is true And is this nothing Nay is not this also full and home to the present case since it appeares your Proposition is such as your selves dare not bide by either when it is true or when it is false For in the Case of Baptisme administred by the Donatist the Proposition is false and you dare not bide by it for Truths sake And in the case of the Eucharist the Proposition is true and yet you dare not bide by it for the Church of Romes sake So that Church with you cannot erre and yet will not suffer you to maintaine Truth which not to doe is some degree of Errour and that no small one Well A. C. goes on and gives his Reasons why these two Instances are nothing like the present Case A. C. p. 65. For in these Cases saith hee there are annexed other Reasons of certainly knowne perill of damnable Schisme and Heresie which wee should incurre by consenting to the Donatists denyall of true Baptisme among Catholikes and to the Protestants denyall or doubting of the true substantiall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in this Case of Resolving to live and dye in the Catholike Romane Church there is confessedly no such perill of any damnable Heresie or Schisme or any other sinne Here I have many Particulars to observe upon A. C. and you shall have them as briefly as I can set them downe And first I take A. C. at his word that in Punct 1. the case of the Donatist should it bee followed there would bee knowne perill of damnable Schisme and Heresie by denying true Baptisme to be in the Orthodoxe Church For by this you may see what a sound proposition this is That where two Parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both Parties agree or which the Adversary confesses for here you may see by the case of the Donatist is confessed it may leade a man that will universally leane to it into knowne and damnable Schisme and Heresie An excellent Guide I promise you this is it not Nor secondly are these though A. C. calles them Punct 2. A. C. p. 65. so annexed Reasons For hee calls them so but to blaunch the matter as if they fell upon the proposition ab extra accidentally and from without Whereas they are not annexed or pinned on but flow naturally out of the Proposition it selfe For the Proposition would seeme to be Metaphysicall and is applyable indifferently to any Common Beliefe of dissenting Parties be the point in difference what it will Therfore if there be any thing Hereticall Schismaticall or any way evill in the Point this proposition being neither Vniversally nor necessarily true must needes cast him that relyes upon it upon all these Rocks of Heresie Schisme or what ever else followes the matter of the Proposition Thirdly A. C. doth extremely ill to joyne these Cases of the Donatists for Baptisme and the Protestant for Punct 3. A. C. p. 66. the Eucharist together as he doth For this Proposition in the first concerning the Donatists leades a man as is confessed by himselfe into knowne and damnable Schisme and Heresie but by A. C s. good leave the later concerning the Protestants and the Eucharist nothing so For I hope A. C. dare not say That to believe the true * Caterùm his absurditatibus sublatis quicquid ad Exprimendam veram substantialemque Corporis ac sanguinis Domini Communicationem qua sub sacris Coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur facere potest libeuter recipio Calvin L 4. Inst. c. 17. §. 19. In Coenae mysterio per symbola Panis Vini Christus verè nobis exhibetur c. Et nos participes substantiae ejus facti sumus Ibid. §. 11. substantiall Presence of Christ is either knowne or damnable Schisme or Heresie Now as many and as Learned †§. 35. N 3. Protestants believe and maintaine this as doe believe possibility of Salvation as before is limited in the Romane Church Therefore they in that not guilty of either knowne or damnable Schisme or Heresie though the Donatists were of both Fourthly whereas he imposes upon the Protestants The denyall or doubting of the true and Reall Presence of Punct 4. A. C. p. 66. Christ in the Eucharist he is a great deale more bold then true in that also For understand them right and they certainly neither deny nor doubt it For as for the Lutheran as they are commonly called their very Opinion of Consubstantiation makes it knowne to the world that they neither deny nor doubt of his true and Reall Presence there And they are Protestants And for the Calvinists if they might bee rightly understood they also maintaine a most true and Reall Presence though they cannot permit their judgement to be Transubstantiated And they are Protestants too And this is so knowne a Truth that a Bellarm. L. 1 de Euchar. c 2. §. Quinto dicit Sacrameâ—… saepe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Corpus Christian Coenâ—… adesse sea 〈◊〉 adesse nunquam 〈◊〉 quod legerim nifi forte loquuntur de Coenâ quae fit in Calo c. And that he meanes to brand Protestants under the name of Sacramentarii is plaine For he sayes the Councell of
What then Why then A. C. addes That D. White confessed that this Visible Church had in all ages A. C. p. 67. taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all Points Fundamentall D. White had reason to say that the Visible Church taught so but that this or that Particular Visible Church did so teach sure D. White affirmed not unlesse in case the whole Visible Church of Christ were reduced to one Particular only But suppose this What then Why then A. C. telles us that D. White being urged to assigne such a Church expresly A. C. p. 67. granted he could assigne none different from the Romane which held in all ages all Points Fundamentall Now here I would faine know what A. C. meanes by a Church different from the Romane For if he mean different in Place 'T is easie to affirme the Greeke Church which as hath * §. 9. before beene prooved hath ever held and taught the Foundation in the midst of all her Pressures And if he meane differentiâ—… Doctrinall Things and those about the Faith he cannot assigne the Church of Rome for olding them in all ages But if he meane different in the Foundation it selfe the Creed then his urging to assigne a Church is void be it Rome or any other For if any other Church shall thus differ from Rome or Rome from it selfe as to deny this Foundation it doth not it cannot remaine a Differing Church sed transit in Non Ecclesiam but passes away into No-Church upon the Denyall of the Creed Now what A. C. meanes he expresses not nor can I tell but I may peradventure guesse noare it by that which out of these Premises he would inferre For hence he tels us he gathered that D. Whito's Opinion A. C. p. 67. was That the Romane Church held and taught in all ages unchanged Faith in all Fundamentall Points and did not in any age erre in any Point Fundamentall This is very well For A. C s. 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 againe 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 then in the Premises For A. C s. A. C. p. 67. Conclusion is That in D. White 's Opinion the Romane Church held and taught in all ages unchanged Faith in all Fundamentall Points And so farre perhaps the Conclusion may stand taking Fundamentall Points in their literall sense as they are expressed in Creedes and approved Councels But then he addes And did not in any age erre in any Point Fundamentall Now this can never follow out of the Premises before laid downe For say some one Church or other may still be Visible And that Visible Church hold all Fundamentall 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 followes not therefore That the Church of Rome did not erre in any age in any Point Fundamentall For a Church may hold the Fundamentall Point Literally and as long as it stayes there be without controlle and yet erre grosly dangerously nay damnably in the Exposition of it And this is the Church of Romes 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 beliefe and yet seems the same Now that which deceives the world is That because the Barke is the same men thinke 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 'le believe too that Rome is not only sound but beautifull But A. C. goes on and tels us That hereupon the Iesuite asked whether Errors in Points not Fundamental were damnable And that D. White answered they were not unlesse they A. C. p. 67. were held against conscience T is true that Error in Points not Fundamentall is the more damnable the more it is held against conscience But it is true too that Error in Points not Fundamentall 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 seeke the meanes to know the Truth nor accept and believe Truth when 't is known especially being men able to Iudge which I feare is the case of too many at this day in the Romane Church Out of all which A. C. tels us The Iesuite collected that D. White 's Opinion was That the Romane Church held all A. C. p. 68. Points Fundamentall and only erred in Points not Fundamentall which he accounted not damnable so long as he did not hold them against his Conscience And that thereupon hee said D. White had secured him since he held no Faith different from the Romane nor contrary to his Conscience Here againe wee have but A C s and the Iesuites Collection But if the Iesuite or A. C. will collect amisse who can helpe it I have spoken before in this very Paragraph to all the Passages of A. C. as supposing them true and set downe what is to be answered to them in case they proove so But now 't is most apparent by D. White 's Answer set downe before †§. 37. N. 1. at large that he never said that the Church of Rome erred onely in Points not Fundamentall as A. C. would have it But that hee said the contrary Namely that some errours of that Church were Fundamentall reductivê by a Reducement if they which embraced them did pertinaciously adhere to them having sufficient meanes of information And againe expresly That hee 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 Iesuite or any other may collect Propositions which are not granted him nay contrary to those which are granted him hee may inferre what hee please And he is much too blame that will not inferre a strong Conclusion for himselfe that may frame his owne Premises say his Adversary what hee will And just so doth A. C. bring in his Conclusion to secure himselfe of Ialvation because he holds no Faith but the Romane nor that
Contrary to his Conscience Presupposing it granted that the Church of Rome erres only in not Fundamentals and such Errours not Damnable which is absolutely and clearly denyed by D. White To this A. C. sayes nothing but that D. VVhite did not give this Answer A. C. p. 67. at the Conference I was not present at the Conference betweene them so to that I can say nothing as a witnesse But I thinke all that knew D. White will believe his affirmation as soone as the Iesuites To say no more And whereas A. C. referres to the Relation of the Conference betweene D. White and M. Fisher A. C. p. 67. most true it is there * A. C. in his relation of that Conference p. 26. D. VVhite is charged to have made that Answer twise But all this rests upon the credit of A. C. only For †For so 't is said in the Title-page by A. C. he is said to have made that Relation too as well as this And against his Credit I must engage D. Whites who hath avowed another Answer as a §. 37. Nu. 1. NUM 8. before is set downe And since A. C. relates to that Conference which it seemes hee makes some good account of I shall here once for all take occasion to assure the Reader That most of the Points of Moment in that Conference with D. VVhite are repeated againe and againe and urged in this Conference or the Relation of A. C. and are here answered by me For instance In the Relation of the first Conference the Iesuite takes on him to prove 1 the Vnwritten VVord of God out of 2. Thes. 2. pag. 15. And so he doth in the Relation of this Conference with me pag. 50. In the first he stands upon it That the Protestants 2 upon their Principles cannot hold that all Fundamentall points of Faith are contained in the Creed pag. 19. And so he doth in this pag. 46. In the first he would faine through 3 M. Roger's sides wound the Church of England as if shee were unsetled in the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell pag 21 And he endeavours the same in this pag. 46. In the first he is very earnest to prove That the Schisme was made by the Protestants pag. 23. And he is as earnest for 4 it in this pag. 55. In the first he layes it for a Ground That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation 5 from Faith or Church pag. 24. And the same Ground he layes in this pag. 55. In the first he will have it That the 6 Holy Ghost gives continuall and Infallible Assistance to the Church pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this p 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Errig of the 7 Greeke Church page 28. And as much makes he in this page 44. In the first he makes a great noyse about the 8 place in S. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans c. page 18. and 24. And so doth hee here also page 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe That 9 he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sentence of S. Bernard 'T is intolerable Pride And that of S. Augustine 'T is insolent madnesse to oppose the Doctrine or Practice of the Catholike Church page 25. And twise he is at the same Art in this page 56. and. 73. In the first he 10 tels us That * Postquam discessionem a toto mundo facere coacti sumus Calv. Epist. 141. Calvin confesses That in the Reformation there was a Departure from the whole world page 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world and of no Uoluntary but a forced Departure and wrote this to Melancthon to worke Vnity among the Reformers not any way to blast the Reformation Yet we must heare of it againe in this page 56. But over and above the rest one Place with his owne glosse upon 11 it pleases him extremely 'T is out of S. Athanasius his Creed That whosoever doth not hold it entire that is saith he in all Points and Inviolate that is saith hee in the true unchanged and uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This he hath almost verbatim in the first page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader under the Name of VV. I. and then againe the very same in this if not with some more disadvantage to himselfe page 70. And perhaps had I leasure to search after them more Points then these Now the Reasons which mooved mee to set downe these Particulars thus distinctly are two The One that whereas the * In the begining of the Conference set out by A. C. Iesuite affirmes that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters and little or nothing about the maine and great generall Point of a Continuall Infallible Uisible Church in which that Lady required satisfaction and that therefore this third Conference was held It may hereby appeare that the most materiall both Points and Proofes are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences though little bee related of the second Conference by A. C. as appeares in the Preface of the Publisher VV. I. to the Reader So this tends to nothing but Ostentation and shew The Other is that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it It cannot but appeare by this and their handling of other Points in Divinity that they labour indeed but no otherwise then like an Horse in a Mill round about in the same Circle no farther at night then at noone The same thing over and over againe from Tu es Petrus to Pasce oves from thou art Peter to Do thou feed my Sheepe And backe againe the same way F. The Lady asked Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith Vpon my soule said the Bishop you may Vpon my soule said I there is but one saving Faith and that is the Romane B. So it seems I was confident for the Faith professed § 38 in the Church of England els I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soule And sure I had reason of this my Confidence For to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church To receive the foure great Generall Councels so much magnified by Antiquity To believe all Points of Doctrine generally received as Fundamentall in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soule upon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are contioverted betweene us I would faine see any one Point maintained by the Church of England that can be proved
Emmanuel Sa in his Aphorismes Verbo Tyrannus yet he is so moderate that he would not have this done till he be Sentenc'd but then Quisquis potest fieri Executor Mariana is farre worse For he sayes it is lawfull to kill him postquam à paucis Seditiosts sed doctis caeperit Tyrannus appellari L. 1. de Rege Reg. Iustitutione c. 6. Yea but Mariana was disclaimed for this by the Iesuites Yea but for all that there was an Apology printed in Italy An. 1610. permissu Superiorum And there 't is said They were all Enemies of the Holy name of Iâ—…sus 〈◊〉 condemned Mariana for any such Doctrine As for Testatus no Sentence hath touched upon him at all for it And whose Deposition and Vnthron ing nay killing of Princes the like if they were not yours For I dare say and am able to proove there 's none of these but are rather contrary then conformable to Scripture Neither is A. C. or any Iesuite able to shew any * Corpus Christi veraciter esse in Eucharistià ex Evangelio habemus Conversionem vero Panis in Corpus Christi Evangelium non explicavit sed expresse ab Ecclesià accepimus Cajetan in Thâ—…m 3. q. 75. Art 1. Scripture interpreted by Vnion or †De Transubstantiatione Panis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio Alph. a Castro L. 8. advers Haer. Uerbo Indulgentia Consent of Fathers of the Primitive Church to proove any one of these Nor any Definition of Ancient Councels but only a Conc. Lateran Can. 1. Lateran for Transubstantiation and that of b Conc. Constan. Sess. 13. Constance for the Eucharist in one kinde which two are moderne at least farre downward from the Primitive Church and have done more mischiefe to the Church by those their Determinations then will be cured I feare in many Generations So whatever A. C. thinks yet I had reason enough to leave the Iesuite to looke to his owne soule But A. C. having as it seemes little new matter is at the same againe and over and over it must goe That there is but one saving faith That this one Faith was A. C. p. 70. once the Romane And that I granted one might bee saved in the Romane Faith To all which I have aboundantly answered c §. 35. N. 1. §. 38. N 10. before Marry then hee inferres That hee sees not how we can have our soules saved without we entirely hold this faith being the Catholike faith which S. Athanasius saith unlesse a man hold entirely he cannot be saved Now here againe is more in the Conclusion then in the premises and so the Inference failes For say there was a time in which the Catholike and the Romane Faith were one and such a time there was when the Romane faith was Catholike and famous through the world Rom. 1. Yet it doth not follow since the d Concil Triden Bulla Pii 4 super formâ Iuramenti professionis Fidei ad finem Concil Trident. Councell Rom. 1. 8. of Trent hath added a new Creed that this Romane faith is now the Catholike For it hath added extranea things without the Foundation disputable if not false Conclusions to the faith So that now a man may Believe the whole and entire Catholike Faith even as S. Athanasius requires and yet justly refuse for drosse a great part of that which is now a And this is so much the more Remarkâ—…ble if it be true which Thomas hath S. 〈◊〉 non composuisse hanc â—…nifestationem Fideâ—… per mâ—…dum Symboli sed per modum Doctrinae c. Et deinde Authoritate summi Pontificis receptam esse ut quasi Regula fidei habeatur The. 2. 2ae q. 1. A. 10. ad 3. Symbolo Apostâ—…rum addita sunt duo alia scilicet Symbolum Nicaenum S. Athanasii admajorem Fidei Explanationem Biel. in 3. Sent. D. 25. q. unicâ A. 1. D. the Romane Faith And Athanasius himselfe as if he meant to arme the Catholike Faith against all corrupting additions hath in the beginning of his b S. Athanas. in Symb. Creed these words This is the Catholike Faith This and no other This and no Other then here followes And againe at the end of his Creed c And yet the Councell of Trent having added twelve new Articles sayes thus oâ—… them also Haec est vera Catholica Fideâ—… extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. Bulla 〈◊〉 4. super forma Iuramenti professionis Fidei In sine Concil Triaent This is the Catholike Faith d Integram Fidâ—…i Veritatem ejus Doctrina breviter continet Tho. 2. 〈◊〉 q. 1. A. 10. ad 3. This and no more then is here delivered alwaies presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did and this is the largest of all Creeds So that if A. C. would wipe his eyes from the mist which rises about Tyber he might see how our soules may be saved believing the Catholike Faith and that entire without the Addition of Romane Leaven But if he cannot or I doubt will not see it 't is enough that by God's Grace wee see it And therefore once more I leave him and his to looke to their owne soules After this A. C. is busie in unfolding the meaning of this great Father of the Church S. Athanasius And A. C. p. 70. he tels us That he sayes in his Creed that without doubt every man shall perish that holds not the Catholike Faith entire that is saith A. C. in every point of it and inviolate that is in the right sense and for the true formall reason of divine Revelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church proposing to us by her Pastours this Revelation Well we shall not differ much from A. C. in expounding the meaning of S. Athanasius yet some few things I shall here observe And first I agree that he which hopes for salvation must believe the Catholike Faith whole and entire in every point Next I agree that he must likewise hold it inviolate if to believe it in the right sense be to hold it inviolate But by A. C s. leave the Believing of the Creed in the right sense is comprehended in the first branch The keeping of it whole and entire For no man can properly be said to believe the Whole Creed that believes not the Whole Sense as well as the Letter of it and as entirely But thirdly for the word inviolate 't is indeed used by him that translated Athanasius But the Father 's owne words are That he that will be saved must keepe the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the sound and entire Faith And it cannot be a sound Faith unlesse the Sense be as whole and entire as the Letter of the Creed And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is compounded of the privative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is reproach or infamie So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the holding of the entire Faith in such holinesse of life and conversation as is without all infamy and reproach That is as our English renders that Creed exceeding well Which Faith unlesse a man do keep whole and * Sic Ecclesia dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 27. in veteri Glossario Immaculatus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undefiled even with such a life as Momus himselfe shall not be able to carpe at So Athanasius who certainly was passing able to expresse himselfe in his owne language in the beginning of that his Creed requires That we keepe it entire without diminution and undefiled without blame And at the end that we believe it faithfully without wavering But Inviolate is the mistaken word of the old Interpreter and with no great knowledge made use of by A. C. And then fourthly though this be true Divinity that he which hopes for salvation must believe the whole Creed and in the right sense too if he be able to comprehend it yet I take the true and first meaning of Inviolate could Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have signified so not to be the holding of the true sense but not to offer violence or a forced sense or meaning upon the Creed which every man doth not that yet believes it not in a true sense For not to believe the true sense of the Creed is one thing But 't is quite another to force a wrong sense upon it Fiftly a reason would be given also why A. C. is so earnest for the whole faith and bawkes the word which goes with it which is holy or undefiled For Athanasius doth alike exclude from salvation those which keepe not the Catholike Faith holy as well as these which keepe it not whole I doubt this was to spare many of his †§. 33. Nu. 6. holy Fathers the Popes who were as farre as any the very lewdest among men without exception from keeping the Catholike Faith holy Sixtly I agree to the next part of his Exposition That a man that will be saved must believe the whole Creed for the true formall reason of divine Revelation For upon the Truth of God thus revealed by himselfe lies the Infallible certainty of the Christian Faith But I do not grant that this is within the Compasse of S. Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor of the word Inviolate But in that respect 't is a meere straine of A. C. And then lastâ—…y though the whole Catholike Church be sufficient in applying this to us and our Beliefe not our Understanding which A. C. is at A. C. p. 70. againe yet Infallible She is not in the proposall of this Revelation to us by every of her Pastours Some whereof amongst you as well as others neglect or forget at least to feed Christ's sheepe as Christ and his Church hath fed them But now that A. C. hath taught us as you see the meaning of S. Athanasius in the next place he tels us A. C. p. 70. That if we did believe any one Article we finding the same formall Reason in all and applied sufficiently by the same meanes to all wou'd easily believe all Why surely we do not believe any one Article onely but all the Articles of the Christian Faith And we believe them for the same formall Reason in all namely Because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his Word and by his Churches Ministration But so long as they do not believe all in this sort saith A. C. Looke you He A. C. p. 70. tels us we do not believe all when we professe we do Is this man become as God that he can better tell what we believe them we our selves Surely we do believe all and in that sort too Though I believe were S. Athanasius himselfe alive againe and a plaine man should come to him and tell him he believed his Creed in all and every particular he would admit him for a good Catholike Christian though he were not able to expresse to him the formall reason of that his beliefe Yea but saith A. C. while they will as all Heretickes doe make choice of what they will and what they A. C. p. 70. will not believe without relying upon the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church they cannot have that one saving Faith in any one Article Why but whatsoever Hereticks doe we are not such nor do we so For they which believe all the Articles as once againe I tell you we do make no choice And we do relie upon the Infallible Authority of the Word of God and the whole Catholike Church And therefore we both can have and have that one saving Faith which believes all the Articles entirely though we cannot believe that any particular Church is infallible And yet againe A. C. will not thus be satisfied but on he goes and adds That although we believe the same A. C. p. 71. truth which other good Catholikes doe in some Articles yet not believing them for the same formall reason of Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by Infallible Church Authority c. we cannot be said to have one and the same Infallible and Divine Faith which other good Catholike Christians have who believe the Articles for this formall Reason sufficiently made knowne to them not by their owne fancy nor the fallible Authority of humane deductions but by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God If A. C. will still say the samething I must still give the same answer First he confesses we believe the same Truth in some Articles I pray marke his phrase the same Truth in some Articles with other good Catholike Christians so farre his pen hath told Truth against his will for he doth not I wot well intend to call us Catholikes and yet his pen being truer then himselfe hath let it fall For the word other cannot be so used as here it is but that we as well as they must be good Catholikes For he that shall say the old Romans were valiant as well as other men supposes the Romans to be valiant men And he that shall say The Protestants believe some Articles as well as other good Catholikes must in propriety of speech suppose them to be good Catholikes Secondly as we do believe those some Articles so do we believe them and all other Articles of Faith for the same formall reason and so applied as but just * §. 38. Nu. 13. before I have expressed Nor do we believe any one Article of Faith by our own fancy or by fallible Authority of humane deductions but next to the Infallible Authority of God's Word we are guided by his Church But then A. C. steps into a Conclusion whither we cannot A. C. p. 71. follow him For he sayes that the Articles to be believed must be sufficiently made
comes this short of Bâ—…asphemy to make the Trinity and Pâ—…y things alike and equally Credible Yea but A. C. will give you a Reason why no man may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much lesse deny any thing that A C. â—…7 is defiâ—…ed by a Generall Councell And his Reason is Because every such doubt and denyall is a breach from the one saving faith This is a very good reason if it bee true But how appeares it to be true How why it takes away saith A. C. Infallible credit from the Church and so the Divine Revelation being not sufficiently applyed it cannot according A. C. p. 71. to the ordinary course of Gods providence breed Infallible Beliefe in us VVhy but deliberately to douâ—…t and constantly to deny upon the grounds and in the manner * §. 38. N. 15. aforesaid doth not take away Infallible credit from the whole Church but onely from the Definition of a Generall Councell some way or other missed And that in things not absolutely Necessary to all mens salvation For of such things †Though every Thing Defined to bee a Divine Truth in Generall Councels is not absolutely necessary to bee expresly known and actually believed by all sorts c. A. C. p. 71. A. C. here speakes expresly Now to take away Infallible credit from some Definitions of Generall Councels in things not absolutely necessary to salvation is no breach upon the one saving faith which is necessary nor upon the Credit of the Catholike Church of Christ in things absolutely necessary for which onely it had Infallible Assistance promised So that no breach being made upon the faith nor no credit which ever it had being taken from the Church the Divine Revelation may bee and is as sufficiently applyed as ever it was and in the ordinary course of Gods providence may breed as Infallible beliefe in things necessary to salvation as ever it did But A. C. will proove his Reason before given and therefore hee askes us out of Saint Paul A. C. p. 71. Rom. 10. How shall men believe unlesse they heare How shall they heare without a Preacher And how shall they Rom. 10. 14. 15. preach to wit Infallibly unlesse they bee sent that is from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit Here 's that which I have twise at least spoken to already namely That A. C. by this will make every Priest in the Church of Rome that hath Learning enough to preach and dissents not from that Church an Infallible Preacher which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever assume to himselfe nor the Church give him And yet the Fathers of the Primitive Church were sent and from God were assisted and by God and did sufficiently propose to men the Divine Revelation and did by it beget and breed up Faith saving Faith in the Soules of men Though * Aliâ—…s ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Se ripâ—… 〈◊〉 legâ—… 〈◊〉 saâ—…ctitate 〈◊〉 prapoâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 〈◊〉 pâ—…teÌ„ 〈◊〉 ipsi ita 〈◊〉 vel scripsâ—… Tho. 〈◊〉 q 1. A. 8. ad 2. Ex S. Aug. Ep. 19. Miâ—…i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demonstr 〈◊〉 accipias ex saâ—…ris Liâ—…eris S. Cyril 〈◊〉 Caâ—… 4. no one among them since the Apostles was an Infallible Preacher And A. C. should have done very well here to have made it manifest That this Scripture How shall they preach to wit Infallibly is so interpreted by Union Consent of Fathers and Definitions of Councels as hee a A. C. p. 70. bragged before that they use to interpret Scripture For I doe not finde How shall they Preach to wit †〈◊〉 Apostoli 〈◊〉 possunt intelligi ae Fide infusa illa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Deocreata est non est ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec apertissimè colligitur ex Bâ—… 3. sent D. 23 q. 2. A. 2. Conclus 1. Ergo Fides acquisiea necessaria est â—…d sed prater Acquisitam Infusa etiam requiritur non solum propter Intentionem Act us sedetiam propter Assensum Certâ—…nern Quia non potest esse firmus Assensus à Fide acquisita Quia per cam nullus credit alicui nisi 〈◊〉 scit posse fâ—…lli fallers licet credâ—… cum non Uelle fallere Scotus in 3. sent D. 23. q. unica Therefore in the judgement of your owne Schoole your Preachers can both deceive and be deceived And therefore certainly are not Infallible And M. Canus very expresly makes this but an Introduction to Infallible faith Primum ergo id statno juxta Commâ—…em Legem aliqua exterior a humâ—…a inciâ—…â—…ta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse 〈◊〉 ad Evangelii fidem 〈◊〉 Quomodo enim crâ—…nt ei quem non audierâ—…t c. Canus L. 2. de Lâ—…is c. 8. §. Primum ergo Et iterum St Fides infusa ita Fidei acquisitae niteretur tanquam suo fundamento ipsum Fundamentum Fiaâ—… nostra non esset Divina sed Humana Veritas Ibid § Cut tertium Therefore surely A. C. abâ—…ses this place of the Apostle very boldly Infallibly to bee the Comment of any one of the Fathers or any other approved Author And let him shew it if he can After this for I see the good man is troubled and forward and backward he goes he fals immediately A. C. p. 7â—… upon this Question If a whole generall Councell defining what is Divine Truth be not believed to be sent and assisted by Gods Spirit and consequently of Infallible Credit what man in the World can bee said to bee of Infallible Credit Well first A. C. hath very ill lucke in fitting his Conclusion to his Premises and his Consequent to his Antecedent And so 't is here with him For a Generall Councell may be assisted by God's Spirit and in a great measure too and in a greater then any private man not inspired and yet not consequently be of Inâ—… Credit for all assistance of God's Spirit reaches not up to Infallibility I hope the Ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted by God's Spirit and in a plentifull measure too and yet A. C. himselfe will not say they were Infallible And secondly for the Question itselfe If a Generall Councell be not what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Truly I 'le make you a ready Answer No man Not the Pope himselfe No Let God and his word be true and every man a lyer Rom. 3. for so more or lesse every man will Rom. 3. 4. be found to be And this is neither dammage to the Church nor wrong to the person of any But then A. C. asks a shrewder Question then this If such a Councell lawfully called continued and confirmed A. C. p. 71. may erre in defining any one Divine Truth how can we be Infallibly certaine of any other Truth defined by it For if §. 10. N. 15. it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all 'T is most true if such a Councell may erre in one it may
how farre every man must believe as it relates to the possibility or impossibility of his salvation in every particular And that which the Church cannot teach men cannot learne of her She can teach the Foundation and men were happy if they would learne it and the Church more happy would she teach nothing but that as necessary to Salvation for certainly nothing but that is Necessary Now then whereas after all this the Iesuite tels us that F. Upon this and the precedent Conferences the Lady rested in judgement fully satisfied as she told a confident Friend of the Truth of the Romane Churches faith Yet upon frailty and feare to offend the King she yeelded to goe to Church for which she was after very sorry as soâ—… of her friends can testifie B. This is all personall And how that Honourable § 39 Lady was then setled in Conscience how in Iudgement I know not This I think is made cleare enough That that which you said in this and the precedent Conferences could settle neither unlesse in some that were setled or setling before As little do I know what she told any confident friend of her approoving the Roman cause No more whether it were frailty or feare or other Motive that made her yeeld to go to Church nor how sorry shee was for it nor who can testifie that sorrow This I am sure of if shee repent and God forgive her other sinnes she will more easily be able to Answer for her comming to Church then for her leaving of the Church of England and following the superstitions and errours which the Romane Church hath added in Point of Faith and the Worship of God For the Lady was then living when I answered thus Now whereas I said the Lady would farre more easily be able to answer for her comming to Church A. C. p. 73. then for her leaving the Church of England To this A. C. excepts and sayes That I neither prove nor can prove that it is lawfull for one perswaded especially as the Lady was to goe to the Protestant Church There 's a great deale of cunning and as much malice in this passage but I shall easily pluck the sting out of the Tayle of this Waspe And first I have proved it already through this whole Discourse and therefore can prove it That the Church of England is an Orthodoxe Church And therefore with the same labour it is proved that men may lawfully goe unto it and communicate with it for so a man not onely may but ought to doe with an Orthodoxe Church And a Romanist may communicate with the Church of England without any Offence in the Nature of the thing thereby incurred But if his Conscience through mis-information checke at it he should do well in that Case rather to informe his Conscience then for sake any Orthodoxe Church whatsoever Secondly A. C. tels me plainly That I cannot prove that a man so perswaded as the Lady was may goe to the Protestant Church that is That a Romane Catholike may not goe to the Protestant Church Why I never went about to proove that a Romane Catholike beiug and continuing such might against his Conscience goe to the Protestant Church For these words A man perswaded as the Lady is are A. C s. words they are not mine Mine are not simply that the Lady might or that she might not but Comparative they are That she might more easily answer to God for comming to then for going from the Church of England And that is every way most true For in this doubtfull time of hers when upon my Reasons given shee went againe to Church when yet soone after as you say at least shee was sorrie for it I say at this time she was in heart and resolution a Romane Catholike or she was not If she were not as it seemes by her doubting shee was not then fully resolved then my speech is most true that she might more easily answer God for comming to Service in the Church of England then for leaving it For a Protestant shee had beene and for ought I knew at the end of this Conference so she was and then 't was no sin in it selfe to come to an Orthodoxe Church nor no sinne against her Conscience she continuing a Protestant for ought which then appeared to mee But if she then were a Romane Catholike as the Jesuite and A. C. seeme confident she was yet my speech is true too For then she might more easily answer God for comming to the Church of England which is Orthodoxe and leaving the Church of Rome which is superstitious then by leaving the Church of England communicate with all the superstitions of Rome Now the cunning and the malignity of A. C. lies in this he would faine have the world think that I am so Indifferent in Religion as that I did maintaine the Lady being conscientiously perswaded of the Truth of the Romish Doctrine might yet against both her conscience and against open and avowed profession come to the Protestant Church Neverthelesse in hope his cunning malice would not be discovered against this his owne sense that is and not mine he brings diverse Reasons As first 't is not lawfull for one affected as that Lady was that is for one that is resolved of the Truth of the Romane Church to goe to the Church of England there and in that manner to serve and worship God Because saith A. C. that were to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world Truly I say the A. C. p. 73. same thing with him And that therefore neither may a Protestant that is resolved in Conscience that the profession of the true Faith is in the Church of England goe to the Romish Church there and in that manner to serve and worship God Neither need I give other Answer because A. C. urges this against his owne fiction not my assertion Yet since he will so doe I shall give a particular Answer to each of them And to this first Reason of his I say thus That to Believe Religion after one sort and to practise it after another and that in the maine points of worship the Sacrament and Invocation is to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world And other then this I never taught nor ever said that which might inferre the Contrary But A. C. give me leave to tell you your fellow Iesuite * Quintò quaeritur An ubi Catholici unà cum Haereticis versantur licitum sit Catholico adiâ—… Templa ad quae Haeretici conveniunt eorum interesse Conventibus c. Respondeo Sirei Naturam spectemus non est per se malum sed suà naturâ indifferens c. Ec postea Si Princeps haeresi laboret jubeat subditos Catholicos sub poena Mortis vel Confiscationis bonorum frequentare templa Haereticoâ—… quid tum faciendum Respondeo si jubeat
tantum ut omnes Mandato suo obediant licitum est Catholicis facere Quià praestant solum Obedientia officium Sin jubeat ut eo Symbolo fimul Religionem Haereticam profiteantur parere non debent Quares iterum An liceat Catholico obedire modò publicè asseveret se id efficere solùm ut Principi suo obediat non ut sectam hareticam profiteatur I Respondeo Quidam id licere arbitrantur ne bona ejus publicentâ—…r vel Vita eripiatur Quod sanè probabiliter dici videtur Azorius Instit. Moral p. 1. L 8. c. 27 p. 1299. Edit Paris 1616. Azorius affirmes this in expresse termes And what doe you think can he prove it Nay not Azorius onely but other Priests and Iesuites here in England either teach some of their Proselytes or els some of them learn it without teaching That though they be perswaded as this Lady was that is though they be Romane Catholikes yet either to gaine honour or save their purse they may goe to the Protestant Church just as the Iesuite here sayes The Lady did out of frailty and feare to offend the King Therefore I pray A. C. if this be grosse dissimulation both with God and the world speake to your fellowes to leave perswading or practising of it and leave men in the profession of Religion to bee as they seeme or to seeme and appeare as they are Let 's have no Maske worne here A. C s. second Reason why one so perswaded as that Lady was might not goe to the Protestant Church is Because that were outwardly A. C. p. 73. to professe a Religion in Conscience knowne to bee false To this I answer first that if this Reason be true it concernes all men as well as those that be perswaded as the Lady was For no man may outwardly professe a Religion in conscience knowne to bee false For with the bea rt man believeth to righteousnesse and with the mouth hee confesseth to salvation Rom. 10. Rom. 10. 10. Now to his owne salvation no man can confesse a knowne false Religion Secondly if the Religion of the Protestants be in conscience a knowne false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too for their Religion is the same Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion And the difference is in certaine grosse corruptions to the very endangering of salvation which each side sayes the other is guilty of Thirdly the Reason given is most untrue for it may appeare by all the former Discourse to any Indifferent Reader that Religion as it is professed in the Church of England is nearest of any Church now in being to the Primiâ—…ive Church And therefore not a Religion knowne to be false And this I both doe and can prove were not the deafenesse of the Aspe upon the eares of seduced 〈◊〉 58. 4. Christians in all humane and divided parties whatsoever After these Reasons thus given by him A. C. tels me That I neither doe nor can prove any superstition A. C. p. 73. or errour to be in the Romane * I would A. C. would call it the Romane Perswasion as some understanding Romanists do Religion What none at all Now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome were so happy and the whole Catholike Church thereby blessed with Truth and Peace For I am confident such Truth as that would soone either Command Peace or †For though I spare their Names yet can I not agree in Iudgement with him that sayes in Print God be praised for the disagreement in Religion Nor in Devotion with him that prayed in the Pulpit That God would teare the Rent of Religion wider But of S. Greg. Naz. Opinion I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae Doctrinae ut facilitatis Mansuetudinis famam colligamus Et rursum Pacem colimus legitimè pâ—…gnantes c. Orat. 32. confound Peace-Breakers But is there no Superstition in Adoration of Images None in Invocation of Saints None in Adoration of the Sacrament Is there no errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giving it but in one kinde None about Purgatorie About Common Prayer in an unknowne tongue none These and many more are in the Romane Religion if you will needs call it so And 't is no hard worke to prove every of these to be Errour or Superstition or both But if A. C. think so meanely of me that though this be no hard worke in it selfe yet that I such is my weakenesse cannot prove it I shall leave him to enjoy that opinion of me or what ever else he shall be pleased to entertaine and am farre better content with this his opinion of my weaknesse then with that which followes of my pride for he adds That I cannot A. C. p. 73. prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion but by presuming with intolerable pride to make my selfe or some of my fellowes to be Iudge of Controversies and by taking Authority to censure all to be Superstition and Errour too which sutes not with my fancy although it be generally held or practised by the Vniversall Church Which saith he in S. Augustine's judgement is most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What not prove any Superstition any Errâ—…ur at Rome but by Pride and that 〈◊〉 Truly I would to God A. C. saw my heart and all the Pride that lodges therein But wherein doth this Pride appeare that he censures me so deeply Why first in this That I cannot prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion unlesse I make my selfe or 〈◊〉 of my fellowes Iudge of Controversies Indeed if I tooke this upon me I were guilty of great Pride But A C. knowes well that before in this Conference which he undertakes to Answer I am so farre from making my selfe or any of my fellowes Iudge of Controversies that a §. 33. §. 26. Nu. 1. 11. I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councell Iudge of Controversies by and according to the Scriptures And this I learned from b Praeponitur Scripturae c. S. Aug. L. 2. de Bapt. cont Donat c. 3. S. Augustine with this That ever the Scripture is to have the prerogative above the Councell Nay A. C. should remember here that c §. 32. Nu. 5. A. C. p. 63. he himselfe taxes me for giving too much power to a Generall Councell and binding men to a strict Obedience to it even in Case of Errour And therefore sure most innocent I am of the intolerable pride which he is pleased to charge upon me and he of all men most unfit to charge it Secondly A. C. will have my pride appeare in this A. C. p. 73. that I take Authority to censure all for
but that it shall still be a maiâ—… Note of the true Church and in that sense which he would have it And his Reason is b Quia Doctrina Sana est ab ipsa verà legiâ—…ima Successione indivâ—…lsa Stapl. Ibid. Bâ—…se sound Doctrine is indivisible from true and Lawfull Succession Where you shall see this great Clarke for so hee was not able to stand to himselfe when he hath forsaken Truth For 't is not long after that he tels us That the People are led along and judge the Doctrine by the Pastors But when the Church comes to examine she judges the Pastors by their Doctrine And this c Nam è Pastore Lâ—…s fieri potâ—…st Stap. ibid. Nâ—…tab 4. he sayes is necessary Because a Man may become of a Pastor a Wolfe Now then let Stapleton take his choise For either a Pastor in this Succession cannot become a Wolfe and then this Proposition's false Or els if he can then sound Doctrine is not inseparable from true and Legitimate succession And then the former Proposition's false as indeed it is For that a good Pastour may become a Wolfe is no newes in the Ancient Story of the Church in which are registred the Change of many a Vincent Lit. cont Har. c. 23. 24. Great men into Hereticks I spare their Names And since Iudas chang'd from an Apostle to a Divell S. Ioh. 6. 't is no wonder to see S. Ioh. 6. 70. others change from Shepheards into Wolves I doubt the Church is not empty of such Changelings at this day Yea but Stapleton will helpe all this For he adds That suppose the Pastors do forsake true Doctrine yet Succession shall still be a true Note of the Church Yet not every Succession but that which is Legitimate and true Well And what is that Why b Legitima autem est illorum Pastorum qui Vnitatem tenent Fidem Stap. ibid. Notab 5. That Succession is lawfull which is of those Pastors which hold entire the Unity and the Faith Where you may see this Samson's haire cut off againe For at his word I 'le take him And if that onely be a Legitimate Succession which holds the Vnity and the Faith entire then the Succession of Pastors in the Romane Church is illegitimate For they have had c In their owne Chronologer Onuphrius there are Thirty acknowledged more Schismes among them then any other Church Therefore they have not kept the unity of the Church And they have brought in grosse Superstition Therefore they have not kept the Faith â—…ntire Now if A. C. have any minde to it he may do well to helpe Stapleton out of these bryars upon which he hath torne his Credit and I doubt his Conscience too to uphold the Corruptions of the Sea of Rome As for that in which he is quite mistaken it is his Inference which is this That I should therefore consider carefully Whether it be not more Christian and lesse braine-sicke to think that the Pope being S Peter's Successour with a Generall Councell should be Iudge of Controversies c. And that the Pastorall Iudgement of him should be accounted Infallible rather then to make every man that can read the Scripture Interpreter of Scripture Decider of Controversies Controller of Generall Councels and Judge of his Judges Or to have no Judge at all of Controversies of Faith but permit every man to believe as he list As if there were no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth which were instead of one saving Faith to induce a Babilonicall Confusion of so many faiths as fancies Or no true Christian Faith at all From which Evils Sweet Jesus deliver us I have Considered of this very carefully But this Inference supposes that which I never granted nor any Protestant that I yet know Namely That if I deny the Pope to be Iudge of Controversies I must by and by either leave this supreme Judicature in the hands and power of every private man that can but read the Scripture or els allow no Iudge 〈◊〉 and so let in all manner of Confusion No God forbid I should grant either For I have expâ—…esly * §. 26. Nu. 1. declared That the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and a Lawfull and free Generall Councell determining according to these is Iudge of Controversies And that no private man whatsoever is or can be Iudge of these Therefore A. C. is quite mistaken and I pray God it be not wilfully to beguile poore Ladiâ—… and other their weake adherents with seeming to say somewhat I say quite mistaken to inferre that I am either for a private Iudge or for no Iudge for I utterly disclaime both and that as much if not more then he or any Romanist who ever he be But these things in this passage I cannot swallow First That the Pope with a Generall Councell should be Iudge for the Pope in ancient Councels never had more power then any the other Patriarchs Precedency perhaps for Orders sake and other respects he had Nor had the Pope any Negative voice against the rest in point of difference †Patrum Avorum nostrorum tempore pauci audebant dicere Papam esse supra Concilium Aeneas Sylvius sen Pius 2. L. 1. de Gestis Concil Basil. Et illâ—… imprimis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…nes qui aliquo numero sâ—… Concilio subjiciâ—…nt Ibid. in fascic rerum Expetend fol. 5. 〈◊〉 autem Papam esse non solùm supra Concilium Generale sed Vniversam Ecclesiam est propositio ferè de Fide Bellar. L. 2. de Concil c. 17. 〈◊〉 1. No nor was he held superiour to the Councell Therefore the ancient Church never accounted or admitted him a Iudge no net with a Councell much lesse without it Secondly it will not downe with me that his Pastorall Iudgement should be Infallible especially since some of them have been as * Quum hoc tempore nullus sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fâ—…nd est qui sacras Litâ—…ras dâ—…dicerit quâ—… fronte aliquis eorum docere audebit quod non didicerit Arnulph in Concil Rheâ—…nsi Nam câ—… constet plures eorum adeò illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitùs ignorarent qui sit ut Sacras Literas interpretari possint Alphons à Castro L. 1. advers Hâ—… c. 4. versùs medium Edit Paris 1534. For both that at Antwerpe An. 1556. and that at Paris An. 15â—… 〈◊〉 beene in Purgatorie And such an Ignorant as these was Pope Iohn the foure and twentieth Platiâ—… 〈◊〉 Vitae ejus Et § 33. Nu. 6. Ignorant as many that can but read the Scripture Thirdly I cannot admit this neither though hee doe most cunningly thereby abuse his Readers That any thing hath been said by me out of which it can justly be inferred That there 's no Infallible certainty of Faith to bee expected on earth For there is most Infallible certainty of it that is of the Foundations of it in Scripture and the Creeds And 't is so clearely delivered there as that it needs no Iudge at all to sit upon it for the Articles themselves And so entire a Body is this one Faith in it selfe as that the †Resolutio Occham est Quod nec tota Ecclesia net Concilium Generale nec Summus Pontifex potest facere Articulum quod non fuit Articulus Sed Ecclesia bene determinat de Propositionibus Catholicis de quibus erat dubium c. Ia. Almain in 3 Sent. D. 25. q. unicâ Dub. 3. Sicut ad ea quae spectant ad Fidem nostram nequaquam â—…x voluntate humana dependent non potest Summus Pontifex nec Ecclesia ae Assertione non verâ veram nec de non falsâ falsam facere it à non potest de non Catholicâ Catholicam facere nec de non Haretica Hareticam Et ideo non potest â—…ovum Articulum facere nec Articulum Fidei tollere Quoniam sicut Veritates Catholicae absque omni approbatione Ecclesiae ex naturâ rei sunt immutabiles immutabilitèr verae it à sunt immutabilitèr Catholica reputandae Similitèr sicut Hareses absque omni reprobatione damnatione sunt falsae it à absque omni reprobatione sunt Haereses reputanda c. Et posteà Patet ergo quod nulla Veritas est Catholica ex approbatione Ecclesiae vel Papae Gab. Biel. in 3. Sâ—…nt Dist. 25. q. unica Art 3. Dub. 3. versùs sinem Whole Church much lesse the Pope hath not power to adde one Article to it nor leave to detract any one the least from it But when Controversies arise about the meaning of the Articles or Superstructures upon them which are Doctrines about the Faith not the Faith it selfe unlesse where they be immediate Consequences then both in and of these a a §. 26. Nu. 1. Lawfull and free Generall Councell determining according to Scripture is the best Iudge on earth But then suppose uncertainty in some of these superstructures it can never be thence concluded That there is no Infallible certainty of the Faith it selfe But 't is time to end especially for me that have so Many Things of Weight lying upon me and disabling me from these Polemicke Discourses beside the Burden of sixty five yeares complete which drawes on apace to the period set by the Prophet David Psal. 90. and to the Psal. 90. 10. Time that I must goe and give God and Christ an Account of the Talent committed to my Charge In which God for Christ Iesus sake be mercifull to me who knowes that however in many Weaknesses yet I have with a faithfull and single heart bound to his free Grace for it laboured the Meeting the Blessed Meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church and Psal. 85. 10. which God in his own good time will I hope effect To Him be all Honour and Praise for ever Amen FINIS