is not Infallible F. The Question was Which was that Church A Friend of the Ladies would needs defend That not only the Roman but also the Greek Church was right B. § 4 When that Honourable Personage answered I was not by to hear But I presume he was so far from granting that only the Roman Church was right as that he did not grant it right and that he took on him no other defence of the poor Greek Church then was according to truth F. I told him That the Greek Church had plainly changed and taught false in a Point of Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that even his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost B. § 5 You are very bold with His Majesty to relate him upon Hear-say My intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majesty said But if he said it not you have been too credulous to believe and too sudden to report it Princes deserve and were wont to have more respect then so If His Majesty did say it there is Truth in the speech the Errour is yours only by mistaking what is meant by losing the Holy Ghost For a particular Church may be said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways or in two degrees 1 The one when it loses such special assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous Errours and sins and the temporal punishment which is due unto them And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost for they erred against him they sinned against God And for this or other sins they were delivered into another Babylonish Captivity under the Turk in which they yet are and from which God in his mercy deliver them But this is rather to be called an Errour circa Spiritum Sanctum about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an Errour against the Holy Ghost 2 The other is when it loses not only this assistance but all assistance ad hoc to this that they may remain any longer a true Church and so Corinth and Ephesus and divers other Churches have lost the Holy Ghost but in this sense the whole Greek Church lost not the Holy Ghost For they continue a true Church in the main substance to and at this day though Erroneous in this Point which you mention and perhaps in some other too F. The Ladies Friend not knowing what to answer called in the Bishop who sitting down first excused himself as one unprovided and not much studied in Controversies and desiring that in case he should fail yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of B. § 6 This is most true For I did indeed excuse my self and I had great reason so to do And my Reason being grounded upon Modesty for the most part there I leave it Yet this it may be fit others should know that I had no information where the other Conferences brake off no instruction at all what should be the ground of this third Conference nor the full time of four and twenty hours to bethink my self And this I take upon my Credit is most true whereas you make the sifting of these and the like Questions to the very Bran your daily work and came throughly furnished to the business and might so lead on the Controversie to what your self pleased and I was to follow as I could S. Augustine said once Scio me invalidum esse I know I am weak and yet he made good his Cause And so perhaps may I against you And in that I preferr'd the Cause before my particular Credit that which I did was with modesty and according to Reason For there is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon any one particular man And great reason that the personal defects of any man should press himself but not the Cause Neither did I enter upon this service out of any forwardness of my own but commanded to it by Supreme Authority F. It having an hundred better Scholars to maintain it then he To which I said there were a thousand better Scholars then I to maintain the Catholike Cause B. § 7 In this I had never so poor a Conceit of the Protestants Cause as to think that they had but an hundred better then my self to maintain it That which hath an hundred may have as many more as it pleases God to give and more then you And I shall ever be glad that the Church of England which at this time if my memory reflect not amiss I named may have far more able Defendants then my self I shall never envy them but rejoyce for her And I make no question but that if I had named a thousand you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the Catholike Cause as you call it And this confidence of yours hath ever been fuller of noise then proof But you proceed F. Then the Question about the Greek Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred B. § 8 Then I think the Question about the Greek Church was proposed But after you had with confidence enough not spared to say That what I would not acknowledge in this Cause you would wring and extort from me then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denied But every Errour denies not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ deny it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The Bishop said That the Errour was not in Point Fundamental B. § 9 Num. 1 I was not so peremptory My speech was That divers Learned men and some of your own were of Opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a Question not simply Fundamental I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous Errour in Divinity And sure it would have grated the Foundation if they had so denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as that they had made an inequality between the Persons But since their form of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a true Church for this though I confess them an erroneous Church in this particular Num. 2 Now that divers Learned men were of Opinion that à Filio and per Filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not Fundamental is evident The Master and his Scholars agree upon it The Greeks saith he confess the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. John 16. And since Non est aliud it is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and
Thomas holds the first and Durand the later Then you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and proved it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himself and gives his reason because it is the common Opinion of the School Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther Dispute and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawful for them to say I conceive thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I deny it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The Bishop said That M. Rogers was but a private man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publike Authority be accounted onely a private man c. B. § 13 Num. 1 I said truth when I said M. Rogers was a private man And I take it you will not allow every speech of every 〈…〉 though allowed by Authority to have his Books Printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath been oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church yet I see you mean not to leave it And surely as Controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand But I have long thought it a kinde of descent into Hell to be conversant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seek to blinde the People or cast a mist before evident Truth lest it cause a final descent to that place of Torment But since you will hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers his Exposition or Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us And as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie over the whole Church Shall he have his power over the Catholike Church given him expresly in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he had fed to Confirm and in all these not to erre and fail in his Ministration And is the Catholike Church in and over which he is to do all these great things quite left out of the Scripture Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if he could so prescribe for what he now Claims Num. 2 But what if after all this M. Rogers there says no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge He descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And again Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this Article is M. Rogers We the Church of England or rather his and some others Judgment in the Church of England Num. 3 Now here A. C. will have somewhat again to say though God knows 't is to little purpose 'T is that the Jesuit urged M. Roger's Book because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers if he please But he ought not to say that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed First not because his Book was publikely allowed For many Books among them as well as among us have been Printed by publike Authority as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners and yet containing many things in them of Opinion only or private Judgment which yet is far from the avowed Positive Doctrine of the Church the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words or things controverted And this is more frequent among their School-men than among any of our Controversers as is well known Nor secondly because his Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England For suppose the worst and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title is his private Judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more than I should say every thing said by Thomas or Bonaventure is Angelical or Seraphical Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphical and the other Angetical Doctor And yet their works are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Num. 4 Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to express our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will go far to bring A. C. off whatsoever I shall say against him For first let me instance in any private man that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth he will say he know it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knows Secondly If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much yet he will answer 't is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it that is perhaps it is not the very Title of his Book But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question What Not in any matter Were not Vega and Soto two private men Is it not a matter subject to Question to great Question in these Days Whether a man may be certain of his being in the state of Salvation certitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth not Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the Councel of Trent And yet these two great Fryers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councel and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of
them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
Nay make it appear that ever any Prophet in that which he delivered from God as infallible Truth was ever discursive at all in the Means Nay make it but probable in the ordinary course of Prophecie I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at God's absolute Power That that which is discursive in the Means can be Prophetick in the Conclusion you shall be my great Apollo for ever In the mean time I have learnt this from yours That all Prophecy is by Vision Inspiration c. that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophecie is an Illumination not always present but when the Word of the Lord came to them that was not by discourse And yet you say again 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 And whosoever shall studie for it shall not do it in vain since Prophecie is a Gift and can never be an acquired Habit. And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authority of General Councels dares not come at this Rock He prefers 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 speak plainly would his bad Cause let him be constant 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 Num. 4 The second Reason why Stapleton will have it Prophetick 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 Means yet it stands not upon Art or Means or Argument but the Revelation of the Holy Ghost Else 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 Means but follows them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the later Part That then our admitting the Decree of a Councel would be no Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge what great inconvenience is there if it be granted For I think it is undoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Believer that cannot prove and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing even this the very wisdom of the Church in her Doctrines ascribes Understanding to one sort of men and Belief to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him Num. 5 Now for farther satisfaction if not of you yet of others this may well be thought on Man lost by sin in the Integrity of his Nature and cannot have Light enough to see the way to Heaven but by Grace This Grace was first merited after given by Christ this Grace is first kindled by Faith by which if we agree not to some Supernatural Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply we can never see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it self clears the eye of Reason it never puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the very Catholike Church it self is reasonable as well as diffused every where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath been able either to convert or convince or at least stop the mouthes of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the very Point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamental Points of Faith without which there is no Salvation as they cannot be proved by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councel nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of these Prime Articles of Faith General Councels determine any thing as they have done in Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Councel should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the Learned by the Means and Proof by which that Deduction is vouched and made good And again the Conclusion of a Councel suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by Reason There I believe and assent in Faith But the same Conclusion if you give me ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by natural Reason against any Arrian in the world And if it be demonstrable I may know it and have an Habit of it And what inconvenience in this For he weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they have the Principle granted they are to rest upon the Definition onely and their Assent is meer Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration evident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconvenience in this Nay the necessity of Nature is such that these Principles once given the understanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would never have required a man to be able to give a Reason and an account of the hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or have lawful interest to give it when he knew it without prejudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meer Belief cannot stand together in the same Person in regard of the same thing by the same means yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact knowledge or in whom that must not meerly in points of Faith believe the Article or ground upon which they rest But when that is once believed it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them Num. 1 And now because you ask Wherein are we nearer to Unity by a Councel if a Councel may erre Besides the Answer given I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserve or reduce Christian Peace The Romane That a Councel cannot erre or the Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leave the Christian world to consider of it
secure way in regard of Roman Corruptions And A. C. cannot plead for himself that he either knew not this or that he overlook'd it for himself disputes against it as strongly as he can What modesty or Truth call you this For he that confesses a possibility of Salvation doth not thereby confess no peril of Damnation in the same way Yea but if some Protestants should say there is peril of Damnation to live and die in the Roman Faith their saying is nothing in comparison of the number or worth of those that say there is none So A. C. again And beside they which say it are contradicted by their own more Learned Brethren Here A. C. speaks very confusedly But whether he speak of Protestants or Romanists or mixes both the matter is not great For as for the Number and Worth of men they are no necessary Concluders for Truth Not Number for who would be judged by the Many The time was when the Arrians were too many for the Orthodox Not Worth simply for that once misled is of all other the greatest misleader And yet God forbid that to Worth weaker men should not yield in difficult and Perplexed Questions yet so as that when Matters Fundamental in the Faith come in Question they finally rest upon an higher and clearer certainty than can be found in either Number or Weight of men Besides if you mean your own Party you have not yet proved your Party more worthy for Life of Learning than the Protestants Prove that first and then it will be time to tell you how worthy many of your Popes have been for either Life or Learning As for the rest you may blush to say it For all Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of Damnation for any man to live and die in the Roman perswasion And you are not able to produce any one Protestant that ever said the contrary And therefore that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of Damnation are contradicted by their own more Learned Brethren Num. 7 And thus having cleared the way against the Exceptions of A. C. to the two former Instances I will now proceed as I promised to make this farther appear that A. C. and his Fellows dare not stand to that ground which is here laid down Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary Confesses to be true or whereon the differing Parties agree And that if they do stand to it they must be forced to maintain the Church of England in many things against the Church of Rome And first I Instance in the Article of our Saviour Christs Descent into Hell I hope the Church of Rome believes this Article and withal that Hell is the place of the Damned so doth the Church of England In this then these dissenting Churches agree Therefore according to the former Rule yea and here in Truth too 't is safest for a man to believe this Article of the Creed as both agree That is that Christ descended in Soul into the Place of the Damned but this the Romanists will not endure at any hand For the School agree in it That the Soul of Christ in the time of his death went really no farther than in Limbum Patrum which is not the place of the Damned but a Region or Quarter in the upper part of Hell as they call it built up there by the Romanist without Licence of either Scripture or the Primitive Church And a man would wonder how those Builders with untempered Mortar found light enough in that dark Place to build as they have done Secondly I 'll instance in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds That Christ Instituted it so is confessed by both Churches and the Ancient Churches received it so is agreed by both Churches Therefore according to the former Rule and here in Truth too 't is safest for a man to receive this Sacrament in both kinds And yet here this Ground of A. C. must not stand for good no not at Rome but to receive in one kinde is enough for the Laity And the poor Bohemians must have a Dispensation that it may be lawful for them to receive the Sacrament as Christ commanded them And this must not be granted to them neither unless they will ackdowledge most opposite to Truth that they are not bound by Divine Law to receive it in both kinds And here their Building with untempered Mortar appears most manifestly For they have no shew to maintain this but the fiction of Thomas of Aquin That he which receives the Body of Christ receives also his Blood per ‖ concomitantiam by concomitancy because the Blood goes always with the Body of which Term Thomas was the first Author I can yet finde First then if this be true I hope Christ knew it And then why did he so unusefully institute it in both kinds Next if this be true Concomitancy accompanies the Priest as well as the People and then why may not he receive it in one kinde also Thirdly this is apparently not true For the Eucharist is a Sacrament Sanguinis effusi of Blood shed and poured out And Blood poured out and so severed from the Body goes not along with the Body per concomitantiam And yet Christ must rather erre or proceed I know not how in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kindes rather than the Holy unerring Church of Rome may do amiss in the Determination for it and the Administration of it in one kinde Nor will the Distinction That Christ instituted this as a Sacrifice to which both kinds were necessary serve the turn For suppose that true yet he instituted it as a Sacrament also or else that Sacrament had no Institution from Christ which I presume A. C. dares not affirm And that Institution which the Sacrament had from Christ was in both kindes And since here 's mention happen'd of Sacrifice my Third Instance shall be in the Sacrifice which is offer'd up to God in that Great and High Mystery of our Redemption by the death of Christ. For as Christ offer'd up himself once for all a full and all-sufficient Sacrifice for the sin of the whole world So did He Institute and Command a Memory of this Sacrifice in a Sacrament even till his coming again For at and in the Eucharist we offer up to God three Sacrifices One by the Priest onely that 's the Commemorative Sacrifice of Christs Death represented in Bread broken and Wine poured out Another by the Priest and the People joyntly and that is the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving for all the Benefits and Graces we receive by the precious death of Christ. The Third by every particular man for himself onely and that is the Sacrifice of every mans Body and Soul to serve
him in both all the rest of his life for this blessing thus bestowed on him Now thus far these dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a Sacrifice of Duty and a Sacrifice of Praise and a Sacrifice of Commemoration of Christ. Therefore according to the former Rule and here in truth too 't is safest for a man to believe the Commemorative the the Praising and the Performing Sacrifice and to offer them duely to God and leave the Church of Rome in this Particular to her Superstitions that I may say no more And would the Church of Rome stand to A. C's Rule and believe dissenting Parties where they agree were it but in this and that before of the Real presence it would work far toward the Peace of Christendom But the Truth is They pretend the Peace of Christendom but care no more for it than as it may uphold at least if not increase their own Greatness My fourth Instance shall be in the Sacrament of Baptism and the things required as necessary to make it effectual to the Receiver They in the common received Doctrine of the Church of Rome are three The Matter the Form and the Intention of the Priest to do that which the Church doth and intends he should do Now all other Divines as well ancient as modern and both the dissenting Churches also agree in the two former but many deny that the Intention of the Priest is necessary Will A. C. hold his Rule That 't is safest to believe in a controverted Point of Faith that which the dissenting Parties agree on or which the Adverse Part Confesses If he will not then why should he press that as a Rule to direct others which he will not be guided by himself And if he will then he must go professedly against the Councel of Trent which hath determined it as deside as a Point of Faith that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to make the Baptism true and valid Though in the History of that Councel 't is most apparent the Bishops and other Divines there could not tell what to answer to the Bishop of Minors a Neapolitane who declared his Judgement openly against it in the face of that Councel My fifth Instance is We say and can easily prove there are divers Errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal But I my self have heard some Jesuites confess that in the Liturgie of the Church of England there 's no positive Errour And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us They answered they could not do it Because though our Liturgie had in it nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service Now here let A. C. consider again Here is a plain Concession of the adverse Part And both agree there 's nothing in our Service but that which is holy and good What will the Jesuite or A. C. say to this If he forsake his ground then it is not safest in point of Divine Worship to joyn in Faith as the dissenting Parties agree or to stand to the Adversaries own Confession If he be so hardy as to maintain it then the English Liturgy is better and safer to worship God by than the Roman Mass. Which yet I presume A. C. will not confess Num. 8 In all these Instances the Matter so falling out of it self for the Argument enforces it not the thing is true but not therefore true because the dissenting Parties agree in it or because the adverse Part Confesses it Yet lest the Jesuite or A. C. for him farther to deceive the weak should infer that this Rule in so many Instances is true and false in none but that one concerning Baptism among the Donatists and therefore the Argument is true ut plerumque as for the most and that therefore 't is the safest way to believe that which dissenting Parties agree on I will lay down some other Particulars of as great Consequence as any can be in or about Christian Religion And if in them A. C. or any Jesuite dare say that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting Parties agree or as the adverse Party confesses I dare say he shall be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Insidel And First where the Question was betwixt the Orthodox and the Arrian whether the Son of God were consubstantial with the Father The Orthodox said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance The Arrian came within in a Letter of the Truth and said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like substance Now he that says he is of the same substance confesses he is of like substance and more that is Identity of Substance for Identity contains in it all Degrees of likeness and more But he that acknowledges and believes that He is of like nature and no more denies the Identity Therefore if this Rule be true That it is safest to believe that in which the dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part Confesses which A. C. makes such great vaunt of then 't is safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature with God the Father and be free from Belief that He is Consubstantial with him which yet is Concluded by the Councel of Nice as necessary to Salvation and the Contrary Condemned for Damnable Heresie Secondly in the Question about the Resurrection between the Orthodox and diverse â—ross Hereticks of old and the Anabaptists and Libertines of late For all or most of these dissenting Parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to a state of Grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers Passages of holy Scripture together with the Life of the Soul which they are content to say is Immortal But they utterly deny any Resurrection of the Body after Death So with them that Article of the Creed is gone Now then if any man will guide his Faith by this Rule of A. C. The Consent of dissenting Parties or the Confession of the Adverse Part he must deny the Resurrection of the Body from the Grave to Glory and believe none but that of the Soul from sin to Grace which the Adversaries Confess and in which the Dissenting Parties agree Thirdly in the great Dispute of all others about the Unity of the Godhead All dissenting Parties Jew Turk and Christian Among Christians Orthodox and Anti-Trinitarian of old And in these later times Orthodox and Socinian that Horrid and mighty Monster of all Heresies agree in this That there is but one God And I hope it is as necessary to believe one God our Father as one Church our Mother Now will A. C. say here 't is safest believing as the dissenting Parties agree or as the Adverse Parties Confess namely That there is but one God and so deny the Trinity and therewith the Son of God the Saviour of
defining any one Divine Truth how can we be Infallibly certain of any other Truth defined by it For if it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all 'T is most true if such a Councel may erre in one it may in another and another and so in all of like nature I say in all of like nature And A. C. may remember he expressed himself a little before to speak of the Defining of such Divine Truths as are not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed of all sorts of men Now there is there can be no necessity of an Infallible certainty in the whole Catholike Church and much less in a General Councel of thing not absolutely necessary in themselves For Christ did not intend to leave an Infallibe certainty in his Church to satisfie either Contentious or Curious or Presumptuous Spirits And therefore in things not Fundamental not Necessary 't is no matter if Councels erre in one and another and a third the whole Church having power and means enough to see that no Councel erre in Necessary things and this is certainty enough for the Church to have or for Christians to expect especially since the Foundation is so strongly and so plainly laid down in Scripture and the Creed that a modest man might justly wonder why any man should run to any later Councel at least for any Infallible certainty Num. 22 Yet A. C. hath more Questions to ask and his next is How we can according to the ordinary Course be Infallibly assured that it erres in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same Authority defines both to be Divine Truth A. C. taking here upon him to defend M. Fisher the Jesuite could not but see what I had formerly written concerning this difficult Question about General Councels And to all that being large he replied little or nothing Now when he thinks that may be forgotten or as if he did not at all lye in his way he here turns Questionist to disturb that business and indeed the Church as much as he can But to this Question also I answer again If any General Councel do now erre either it erres in things absolutely necessary to Salvation or in things not necessary If it erre in things Necessary we can be infallibly assured by the Scripture the Creeds the four first Councels and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in another If it be in non necessariis in things not necessary 't is not requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance As for that which follows it is notoriously both cunning and false 'T is false to suppose that a General Councel defining two things for Divine Truths and erring in one but not erring in another doth define both equally by one and the same Authority And 't is cunning because these words by the same Authority are equivocal and must be distinguished that the Truth which A. C. would hide may appear Thus then suppose a General Councel erring in one point and not in another it doth define both and equally by the same delegated Authority which that Councel hath received from the Catholike Church But it doth not define both and much less equally by the same Authority of the Scripture which must be the Councels Rule as well as private mens no nor by the same Authority of the whole Catholike Church who did not intentionally give them equal power to define Truth and errour for Truth And I hope A. C. dares not say the Scripture according to which all Councels that will uphold Divine Truth must Determine doth equally give either ground or power to define Errour and Truth Num. 23 To his former Questions A. C. adds That if we leave this to be examined by any private man this examination not being Infallible had need to be examined by another and this by another without end or ever coming to Infallible certainty necessarily required in that one faith which is necessary to salvation and to that peace and unity which ought to be in the Church Will this inculcating the same thing never be left I told the Jesuite before that I give no way to any private man to be Judge of a General Councel And there also I shewed the way how an erring Councel might be rectified and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored without lifting any private spirit above a Councel and without this process in Infinitum which A. C. so much urges and which is so much declined in all Sciences For as the understanding of a man must always have somewhat to rest upon so must his Faith But a private man first for his own satisfaction and after for the Churches if he have just cause may consider of and examine by the Judgment of discretion though not of power even the Definitions of a General Councel But A. C. concludes well That an Infallible certainty is necessary for that one Faith which is necessary to salvation And of that as I expressed before a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture the Creeds and the four first General Councels to which for things Necessary and Fundamental in the Faith we need no assistance from other General Councels And some of your own very honest and very Learned were of the same Opinion with me And for the peace and unity of the Church in things absolutely necessary we have the same infallible direction that we have for Faith But in Things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also if about them Christian men do differ 't is no more than they have done more or less in all Ages of the Church and they may differ and yet preserve the One necessary Faith and Charity too entire if they be so well minded I confess it were heartily to be wished that in these things also men might be all of one mind and one judgment to which the Apostle exhorts 1 Cor. 1. But this cannot be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailties which here hang thick and close about her The want both of Unity and Peace proceeding too often even where Religion is pretended from Men and their Humours rather than from Things and Errours to be found in them Num. 24 And so A. C. tells me That it is not therefore as I would perswade the fault of Councels Definitions but the pride of such as will prefer and not submit their private Judgments that lost and continues the loss of peace and unity of the Church and the want of certainty in that one afore-said soul-saving Faith Once again I am bold to tell A. C. there is no want of certainty most infallible certainty of That one soul-saving Faith And if for other opinions which flutter about it there be a difference a dangerous difference as at this day there is yet
whereas I said the Lady would far more easily be able to answer for her coming to Church than for her leaving the Church of England To this A. C. excepts and says That I neither prove nor can prove that it is lawful for one perswaded especially as the Lady was to go to the Protestant Church There 's a great deal of Cunning and as much Malice in this passage but I shall easily pluck the Sting out of the Tail of this Wisp And first I have proved it already through this whole Discourse and therefore can prove it That the Church of England is an Orthodox Church And therefore with the same labour it is proved that men may lawfully go unto it and communicate with it for so a man not onely may but ought to do with an Orthodox 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 check at it he should do well in that Case rather to inform his Conscience than forsake any Orthodox Church whatsoever Secondly A. C. tells me plainly That I cannot prove that a man so perswaded as the Lady was may go to the Protestant Church that is That a Romane Catholike may not go to the Protestant Church Why I never went about to prove that a Romane Catholike being and continuing such might against his Conscience go 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 coming to than for going from the Church of England And that is every way most true For in this doubtful time of hers when upon my Reasons given she went again to Church when yet soon after as you say at least she was sorry for it I say at this time she was in heart and resolution a Romano Catholike or she was not If she were not as it seems by her doubting she was not then fully resolved then my speech is most true that she might more easily answer God for coming to Service in the Church of England than for leaving it For a Protestant she had been and for ought I knew at the end of this Conference so she was and then 't was no sin in it self to come to an Orthodox Church nor no sin against her Conscience she continuing a Protestant for ought which then appeared to me But if she then were a Romane Catholike as the Jesuite and A. C. seem confident she was yet my speech is true too For then she might more easily answer God for coming to the Church of England which is Orthodox and leaving the Church of Rome which is Superstitious than 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 fain have the world think that I am so Indifferent in Religion as that I did maintain 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 Num. 3 Nevertheless in hope his cunning Malice would not be discovered against this his own sence that is and not mine he brings divers Reasons As first 't is not lawful for one affected as that Lady was that is for one that is resolved of the Truth of the Romane Church to go 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 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 go 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 own fiction not my assertion Yet since he will so do 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 main 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 infer the Contrary But A. C. give me leave to tell you your fellow Jesuite Azorius affirms this in express terms And what do you think can he prove it Nay not Azorius onely but other Priests and Jesuites here in England either teach some of their Proselytes or else 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 gain honour or save their purse they may go to the Protestant Church just as the Jesuite here says The Lady did out of frailty and fear to offend the King Therefore I pray A. C. if this be gross dissimulation both with God and the world speak to your fellows to leave perswading or practising of it and leave men in the profession of Religion to be as they seem or to seem and appear as they are Let 's have no Mask worn here A. C's second Reason why one so perswaded as that Lady was might not go to the Protestant Church is Because that were outwardly to profess a Religion in Conscience known to be false To this I answer first that if this Reason be true it concerns all men as well as those that be perswaded as the Lady was For no man may outwardly profess a Religion in conscience known to be false For with the heart man believeth to righteousness and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10. Now to his own salvation no man can confess a known false Religion Secondly if the Religion of the Protestants be in conscience a known 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 certain gross corruptions to the very endangering of salvation which each side says the other is guilty of Thirdly the Reason given is most untrue for it may appear 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 Primitive Church And therefore not a Religion known to be false And this I both do and can prove were not the deafness of the Asp upon the
edification of the Church Now if he do mean to prove the Pope's Infallibility by this place in his Pastoral Judgement Truly I do not see how this can possibly be collected thence Christ gave some to be Apostles for the Edification of his Church Therefore S. Peter and all his Successors are Infallible in their Pastoral Judgement And if he mean to prove the Continued Visible Succession which he saith is to be found in no Church but the Romane there 's a little more shew but to no more purpose A little more shew Because it is added Vers. 13. That the Apostles and Prophets c. shall continue at their work and that must needs be by Succession till we all meet in unity and perfection of Christ. But to no more purpose For 't is not said that they or their Successors should continue at this work in a personal uninterrupted Succession in any one Particular Church Romane or other Nor ever will A. C. be able to prove that such a Succession is necessary in any one particular place And if he could yet his own words tell us the Personal Succession is nothing if the Faith be not brought down without change from Christ and his Apostles to this day and so to the end of the world Now here 's a piece of Cunning too The Faith brought down unchanged For if A. C. mean by the Faith the Creed and that in Letter 't is true the Church of Rome hath received and brought down the Faith unchanged from Christ and his Apostles to these our days But then 't is apparently false That no Church differing from the Romane in Doctrine hath kept that Faith unchanged and that by a visible and continued Succession For the Greek Church differs from the Romane in Doctrine and yet hath so kept that Faith unchanged But if he mean by the Faith unchanged and yet brought down in a continual visible Succession not onely the Creed in Letter but in Sense too And not that onely but all the Doctrinal Points about the Faith which have been Determined in all such Councels as the present Church of Rome allows as most certainly he doth so mean and 't is the Controversie between us then 't is most certain and most apparent to any understanding man that reads Antiquity with an impartial eye that a Visible Continual Succession of Doctors and Pastors have not brought down the Faith in this sence from Christ and his Apostles to these days of ours in the Romane Church And that I might not be thought to say and not to prove I give instance And with this that if A. C. or any Jesuite can prove That by a Visible Continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist Or the Eucharist in one kinde Or Purgatory Or worship of Images Or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism Or the Power of the Pope over a General Councel Or his Infallibility with or without it Or his Power to depose Princes Or the publike Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other Points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause Beside for Succession in the general I shall say this 'T is a great happiness where it may be had Visible and Continued and a great Conquest over the Mutability of this present world But I do not finde any one of the Ancient Fathers that makes Local Personal Visible and Continued Succession a Necessary Signe or Mark of the true Church in any one place And where Vincentius Lirinensts calls for Antiquity Universality and Consent as great Notes of Truth he hath not one word of Succession And for that great place in Irenaeus where that Ancient Father reckons the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to Eleutherius who sate in his time and saith That this is a most full and ample proof or Ostension Vivificatricem Fidem that the Living and Life-giving Faith is from the Apostles to this day Conserved and delivered in Truth And of which place Bellarmine boasts so much Most manifest it is in the very same place that Irenaeus stood as much upon the Succession of the Churches then in Asia and of Smyrna though that no prime Apostolical Church where Polycarpus sate Bishop as of the Succession at Rome By which it is most manifest that it is not Personal Succession onely and that tyed to one Place that the Fathers meant but they taught that the Faith was delivered over by Succession in some places or other still to their present time And so doubtless shall be till Time be no more I say The Faith But not every Opinion true or false that in tract of time shall cleave to the Faith And to the Faith it self and all it's Fundamentals we can shew as good and full a Succession as you And we pretend no otherwise to it than you do save that We take in the Greeks which you do not Only we reject your gross Superstitions to which you can shew no Succession from the Apostles either at Rome or else-where much less any one uninterrupted And therefore he might have held his peace that says It is evident that the Roman Catholike Church only hath had a Constant and uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and Doctors and Tradition of Doctrine from Age to Age. For most evident it is That the Tradition of Doctrine hath received both Addition and Alteration since the first five hundred years in which Bellarmine confesses and B. Jewel maintains the Churches Doctrine was Apostolical Num. 8 And once more before I leave this Point Most evident it is That the Succession which the Fathers meant is not tyed to Place or Person but 't is tyed to the Verity of Doctrine For so Tertullian expresly Beside the order of Bishops running down in Succession from the beginning there is required Consanguinitas Doctrinae that the Doctrine be allyed in blood to that of Christ and his Apostles So that if the Doctrine be no kinnâ— to Christ all the Succession become strangers what nearness soever they pretend And Irenaeus speaks plainer than he We are to obey those Presbyters which together with the Succession of their Bishopricks have received Charisma Veritatis the gift of truth Now Stapleton being press'd hard with these two Authorities first Confesses expresly That Succession as it is a Note of the true Church is neither a Succession in place onely nor of Person onely but it must be of true and sound Doctrine also And had he stayed here no man could have said better But then he saw well he must quit his great Note of the Church-Succession That he durst not doe Therefore he begins to cast about how he may answer these Fathers and yet maintain Succession Secondly therefore he tells us That that which these Fathers say do nothing weaken Succession but that it shall still be a main Note of the true
Church and in that sense which he would have it And his Reason is * Because sound Doctrine is indivisible from true and lawful Succession Where you shall see this great Clerk for so he was not able to stand to himself when he hath forsaken Truth For 't is not long after that he tells 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 he says is necessary Because a man may become of a Pastor a Wolf Now then let Stapleton take his choice For either a Pastor in this Succession cannot become a Wolf and then this Proposition's false Or else 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 Pastor may become a Wolf is no news in the Ancient Story of the Church in which are registred the Change of many Great men into Hereticks I spare their Names And since Judas chang'd from an Apostle to a Devil S. John 6. 't is no wonder to see others change from Shepherds into Wolves I doubt the Church is not empty of such Changelings at this day Yea but Stapleton will help 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 That Succession is lawful which is of those Pastors which hold entire the Unity and the Faith Where you may see this Sampson's hair cut off again For at his word I 'll take him And if that onely be a Legitimate Succession which holds the Unity and the Faith entire then the Succession of Pastors in the Romane Church is illegitimate For they have had more Schisms among them than any other Church Therefore they have not kept the Unity of the Church And they have brought in gross Superstition Therefore they have not kept the Faith entire Now if A. C. have any minde to it he may do well to help Stapleton out of these briars upon which he hath torn his Credit and I doubt his Conscience too to uphold the Corruptions of the Sea of Rome Num. 9 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 less brain-sick to think that the Pope being S. Peter's Successour with a General Councel should be Judge of Controversies c. And that the Pastoral Judgment of him should be accounted Infallible rather than to make every man that can read the Scripture Interpreter of Scripture Decider of Controversies Controller of General Counsels 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 Babylonical 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 Judge of Controversies I must by and by either leave this supream Judicature in the hands and power of every private man that can but read the Scripture or else allow no Judge at all and so let in all manner of Confusion No God forbid that I should grant either For I have expresly declared That the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and a lawful and free General Councel determining according to these is Judge of Controversies And that no private man whatsoever is or can be Judge of these Therefore A. C. is quite mistaken and I pray God it be not wilfully to beguile poor Ladies and other their weak adherents with seeming to say somewhat I say quite mistaken to infer that I am either for a private Judge or for no Judge for I utterly disclaim both and that as much if not more than he or any Romanist whoever he be But these things in this passage I cannot swallow First That the Pope with a General Councel should be Judge for the Pope in Ancient Councels never had more power than any the other Patâ—â—â—râ—hs Precedency perhaps for Orders sake and other respects he had Nor had the Pope any Negative voice against the rest in point of difference No nor was he held superiour to the Councel Therefore the ancient Church never accounted or admitted him a Judge no not with a Councel much less without it Secondly it will not down with me that his Pastoral Judgement should be Infallible especially since some of them have been as Ignorant as many that can but read the Scripture Thirdly I cannot admit this â—eâ—ther though he do 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 be 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 clearly delivered there as that it needs no Judge at all to sit upon it for the Articles themselves And so entire a Body is this one Faith in it self as that the Whole Church much less the Pope hath not power to add 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 self unless where they be immediate Consequences then both in and of these a Lawful and free General Councel determining according to Scripture is the best Judge 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 self But 't is time to end especially for me that have so Many Things of Weight lying upon me and disabling me from these Polemick Discourses beside the Burden of sixty five years compleat which draws on apace to the period set by the Prophet David Psal. 90. and to the Time that I must go and give God and Christ an Account of the Talent committed to my Charge In which God for Christ Jesus sake be merciful to me who knows that however in many Weaknesses yet I have with a faithful and single heart bound to his free Grace for it laboured the Meeting the Blessed Meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church and which God in his own good time will I hope effect To Him be all Honour and Praise for ever AMEN FINIS A Table
yet we yeeld as full and firm Assent not only to the Articles but to all the Things rightly deduced from them as we do to the most evident Principles of Natural Reason This Assent is called Faith And Faith being of things not seen Heb. 11. would quite lose its honour nay it self if it met with sufficient Grounds in Natural Reason whereon to stay it self For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Understanding and the Will inclines the Understanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof Not but that there is most full proof of them but because the main Grounds which prove them are concealed from our view and folded up in the unrevealed Counsel of God God in Christ resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness by Faith and not by knowledge that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open And certain it is that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither while they will believe no more than they can clearly know In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left and have these things hid from them S. Matth. 11. Fourthly That the Credit of the Scripture the Book in which the Principles of Faith are written as of other writings also depends not upon the subservient Inducing Cause that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author which leader here is the Church but upon the Author himself and the Opinion we have of his sufficiencie which here is the Holy Spirit of God whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were And therefore the Mysteries of Divinity contained in this Book As the Incarnation of our Saviour The Resurrection of the dead and the like cannot finally be resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church who is but a subservient Cause to lead to the knowledge of the Author but into the Wisdom and Sufficiencie of the Author who being Omnipotent and Omniscient must needs be Infallible Fifthly That the Assurance we have of the Pen-men of the Scriptures the Holy Prophets and Apostles is as great as any can be had of any Humane Authors of like Antiquity For it is morally as evident to any Pagan that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their Names as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs But that the Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them and that they are the very Word of God expressed by them this hath ever been a matter of Faith in the Church and was so even while the Apostles themselves lived and was never a matter of Evidence and Knowledge at least as Knowledge is opposed to Faith Nor could it at any time then be more Demonstratively proved than now I say not scientifice not Demonstratively For were the Apostles living and should they tell us that they spake and writ the very Oracles of God yet this were but their own Testimony of themselves and so not alone able to enforce Belief on others And for their Miracles though they were very Great Inducements of Belief yet were neither they Evident and Convincing Proofs alone and of themselves Both because There may be counterfeit Miracles And because true ones are neither Infallible nor Inseparable Marks of Truth in Doctrine Not Infallible For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Deut. 13. Not proper and Inseparable For all which wrote by Inspiration did not confirm their Doctrine by Miracles For we do not find that David or Solomon with some other of the Prophets did any neither were any wrought by S. John the Baptist S. Joh. 10. So as Credible Signs they were and are still of as much force to us as 't is possible for things on the credit of Relation to be For the Witnesses are many and such as spent their lives in making good the Truth which they saw But that the Workers of them were Divinely and Infallibly inspired in that which they Preacht and Writ was still to the Hearers a matter of Faith and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Days than to us now For had that been Demonstrated or been clear as Prime Principles are in its own light both they and we had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge not by Faith But this is most apparent was not For had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstratively or Intuitively by Discourse or Vision appear as clear to their Auditors as to themselves it did that whatsoever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth all men which had the true use of Reason must have been forced to yeeld to their Doctrine Esay could never have been at Domine quis Lord who hath believed our Report Esay 53. Nor Jeremy at Domine factus sum Lord I am in derision daily Jer. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him as some of them did Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himself had in the Assurance which God gave of it in and by the Resurrection of Christ vers 31. But the way of Knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for mans Salvation For Man having sinned by Pride God thought fittest to humble him at the very root of the Tree of Knowledge and make him deny his understanding and submit to Faith or hazard his happiness The Credible Object all the while that is the Mysteries of Religion and the Scripture which contains them is Divine and Infallible and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation But we and all our Forefathers the Hearers and Readers of them have neither knowledge nor vision of the Prime Principles in or about them but Faith only And the Revelation which was clear to them is not so to us nor therefore the Prime Tradition it self delivered by them Sixthly That hence it may be gathered that the Assent which we yeeld to this main Principle of Divinity That the Scripture is the Word of God is grounded upon no Compelling or Demonstrative Ratiocination but relies upon the strength of Faith more than any other Principle whatsoever For all other necessary Points of Divinity may by undeniable Discourse be inferred out of Scripture it self once admitted but this concerning the Authority of Scripture not possibly But must either be proved by Revelation which is not now to be expected Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it self like the Principles of natural knowledge which Reason alone will never Grant Or by Tradition of the Church both Prime and Present with all other Rational Helps preceding or accompanying the internal Light in Scripture it self which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe yet Light enough it gives not to be a convincing Reason and proof for
knowledge And this is it which makes the very entrance into Divinity inaccessible to those men who standing high in the Opinion of their own wisdom will believe nothing but that which is irrefragably proved from Rational Principles For as Christ requires a Denial of a mans self that he may be able to follow him S. Luke 9. So as great a part as any of this Denial of his Whole-self for so it must be is the denial of his Understanding and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisitor into the Secrets of Him that made it and the over-ruling the doubtfulness of it by the fervency of the Will. Seventhly That the knowledge of the Supreme Cause of all which is God is most remote and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with The Quod sit That there is a God blear-eyed Reason can see But the Quid sit what that God is is infinitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason He is a Light indeed but such as no mans Reason can come at for the Brightness 1 Tim. 6. If any thing therefore be attainable in this kind it must be by Revelation And that must be from Himself for none can Reveal but he that Comprehends And none doth or can comprehend God but Himself And when he doth Reveal yet he is no farther discernable than Himself pleases Now since Reason teaches that the Soul of man is immortal and capable of Felicity And since that Felicity consists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause which again is God himself And since Christ therein Confirms that Dictate that mans eternal Happiness is to know God and Him whom he hath sent S. Joh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Contemplation but some Revelation of Himself and of the way to Himself I say since all this is so It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man that the All-wise God should create man with a desire of Felicity and then leave him utterly destitute of all Instrumental Helps to make the Attainment possible since God and Nature do nothing but for an end And Help there can be none sufficient but by Revelation And once grant me that Revelation is necessary and then I will appeal to Reason it self and that shall prove abundantly one of these two That either there was never any such Revelation of this kind from the worlds beginning to this day And that will put the frustrà upon God in point of mans Felicitie Or that the Scriptures which we now embrace as the Word of God is that Revelation And that 's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism Prophaneness and Infidelity Last of all To prove that the Book of God which we honour as His Word is this necessary Revelation of God and his Truth which must and is alone able to lead us in the way to our eternal Blessedness or else the world hath none comes in a Cloud of witnesses Some for the Infidel and some for the Believer Some for the Weak in Faith and some for the Strong And some for all For then first comes in the Tradition of the Church the present Church so 't is no Heretical or Schismatical Belief Then the Testimony of former Ages so 't is no New Belief Then the consent of Times so 't is no Divided or partial Belief Then the Harmony of the Prophets and them fulfilled so 't is not a Devised but a forespoken Belief Then the success of the Doctrine contained in this Book so 't is not a Belief stifled in the Cradle but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could do against it And increased from weak and unlikely Beginnings to incredible Greatness Then the Constancie of this Truth so 't is no Moon-Belief For in the midst of the worlds Changes it hath preserved its Creed entire through many generations Then that there is nothing Carnal in the Doctrine so 't is a Chast Belief And all along it hath gained kept and exercised more power upon the minds of men both learned and unlearned in the increase of vertue and repression of vice than any Moral Philosophy or Legal Policie that ever was Then comes the inward Light and Excellencie of the Text it self and so 't is no dark or dazling Belief And 't is an Excellent Text For see the riches of Natural knowledge which are stored up there as well as Supernatural Consider how things quite above Reason consent with things Reasonable Weigh it well what Majesty lies there hid under Humility What Depth there is with a Perspicuity unimitable What Delight it works in the Soul that is devoutly exercised in it how the Sublimist wits find in it enough to amaze them while the ‖ simplest want not enough to direct them And then we shall not wonder if with the assistance of Gods Spirit who alone works Faith and Belief of the Scriptures and their Divine Authority as well as other Articles we grow up into a most Infallible Assurance such an Assurance as hath made many lay down their lives for this Truth such as that Though an Angel from Heaven should Preach unto us another Gospel we would not believe Him or it No though we should see as great and as many Miracles done over again to disswade us from it as were at first to win the world to it To which firmness of Assent by the Operation of Gods Spirit the Will confers as much or more strength than the Understanding Clearness the whole Assent being an Act of Faith and not of Knowledge And therefore the Question should not have been asked of me by F. How I knew But upon what Motives I did believe Scripture to be the word of God And I would have him take heed lest hunting too close after a way of Knowledge he lose the way of Faith and teach other men to lose it too So then the Way lies thus as far as it appears to me The Credit of Scripture to be Divine Resolves finally into that Faith which we have touching God Himself and in the same order For as that so this hath Three main Grounds to which all other are Reducible The first is the Tradition of the Church And this leads us to a Reverend perswasion of it The Second is The Light of Nature and this shews us how necessary such a Revealed Learning is and that no other way it can be had Nay more that all Proofs brought against any Point of Faith neither are nor can be Demonstrations but soluble Arguments The Third is The light of the Text it self in Conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts and sealing the full Assurance of the sufficiencie of all Three unto us And then and not before we are certain That the Scripture is the Word of God
But as it is appliable to the whole Church Militant in all succeeding times so the Promise was made with a Limitation namely that the Blessed Spirit should abide with the Church for ever and lead it into all Truth but not simply into all Curious Truth no not in or about the Faith but into all Truth necessary to Salvation And against this Truth the Whole Catholike Church cannot erre keeping her self to the direction of the Scripture as Christ hath appointed her For in this very Place where the Promise is made That the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things 't is added that He shall bring all things to their remembrance What simply all things No But all things which Christ had told them S. John 14. So there is a Limitation put upon the words by Christ himself And if the Church will not erre it must not ravel Curiously into unnecessary Truths which are out of the Promise nor follow any other Guide than the Doctrine which Christ hath lest behind him to govern it For if it will come to the End it must keep in the Way And Christ who promised the Spirit should lead hath no where promised that it shall follow its Leader into all Truth and at least not Infallibly unless you will Limit as before So no one of these Places can make good A. C.'s Assertion That the whole Church cannot erre Generally in any 〈◊〉 Point of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Absolute Foundations she cannot in Deductions and superstructures she may Num. 6 Now to all that I have said concerning the Right which Particular Churches have to Reform themselves when the General Church cannot for Impediments or will not for Negligence which I have proved at large before All the Answer that A. C. gives is First Quo Judice Who shall be Judge And that shall be the Scripture and the Primitive Church And by the Rules of the one and to the Integrity of the other both in Faith and Manners any Particular Church may safely Reform it self Num. 7 Secondly That no Reformation in Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches In which Case also he saith Particular Churches may not take upon them to Judge and Condemn others of Errors in Faith Well how far forth Reformation even of Faith may be necessary in the General Church I have expressed already And for Particular Churches I do not say that they must take upon them to Judge or Condemn others of Error in Faith That which I say is They may Reform themselves Now I hope to Reform themselves and to Condemn others are two different Words unless it fall out so that by Reforming themselves they do by consequence Condemn any other that is guilty in that Point in which they Reform themselves and so far to Judge and Condemn others is not only lawful but necessary A man that lives religiously doth not by and by sit in Judgment and Condemn with his mouth all Prophane Livers But yet while he is silent his very Life condemns them And I hope in this way of Judicature A. C. dares not say 't is unlawful for a particular Church or man to Condemn another And 〈◊〉 whatsoever A. C. can say to the contrary there are divers Cases where Heresies are known and notorious in which it will be hard to say as he doth That one Particular Church must not Judge or Condemn another so far forth at 〈◊〉 as to 〈◊〉 and protest against the Heresie of it Num. 8 Thirdly If one Particular Church may not Judge or Condemn another what must then be done where Particulars need Reformation What Why then A. C. tells us That Particular Churches must in that Case as Irenaeus intimateth have recourse to the Church of Rome which hath more powerful sub Principality the Principality of an Apostolike Chair Or if you will the Apostolike Chair in relation to the West and South parts of the Church all the other four Apostolike Chairs being in the East Now this no man denies that understands the state and story of the Church And Calvin confesses it expresly Nor is the Word Principatus so great nor were the Bishops of those times so little as that Principes and Principatus are not commonly given them both by the Greek and the Latine Fathers of this great and Learnedst Age of the Church made up of the fourth and fifth hundred years always understanding Principatus of their Spiritual Power and within the Limits of their several Jurisdictions which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed And there is not one word in S. Augustine That this Principality of the Apostolike Chair in the Church of Rome was then or ought to be now exercised over the whole Church of Christ as Bellarmine insinuates there and as A. C. would have it here And to prove that S. Augustine did not intend by Principatus here to give the Roman Bishop any Power out of his own Limits which God knows were far short of the whole Church I shall make it most manifest out of the very same Epistle For afterwards saith S. Augustine when the pertinacie of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only they gave them leave to be beard by forein Bishops And after that he hath these words And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops non debuit ought not usurp to himself this Judgment which was determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate And what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole Cause In which Passage there are very many things Observeable As first that the Roman Prelate came not in till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops Secondly that if the Pope had come in without this Leave it had been an Usurpation Thirdly that when he did thus come in not by his own Proper Authority but by Leave there were other Bishops made Judges with him Fourthly that these other Bishops were appointed and sent by the Emperor and his Power that which the Pope will least of all indure Lastly lest the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperor S. Aug. tells us a little before in the same Epistle still that this doth chiefly belong ad Curam ejus to the Emperors Care and charge and that He is to give an Account to God for it And Melciades did sit and Judge the Business with all Christian Prudence and Moderation So at this time the Roman Prelate was not received as Pastor of the whole Church say A. C. what he please Nor had he any Supremacie over the other Patriarchs And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent the Civil Law is proof enough And that 's a Monument
Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 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 S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly 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 Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than 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 formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says 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 do do 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 own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but sâ—o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church â— for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm 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 Prophecie 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 says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so
at Credimus we believe eternal Punishment but he goes no farther than Arbitramur we think there is a Purging So with him it was Arbitrary And therefore sure no Matter of Faith then And again he saith That some Christians may be saved post poenas after some punishments indured but he neither tells us Where nor When. S. Basil names indeed Purgatory fire but he relates as uncertainly to that in 1 Cor. 3. as S. Ambrose doth As for Paulinus he speaks for Prayer for the dead but not a word of Purgatory And the Place in S. Gregory Nazianzen is far from a manifest Place For he speaks there of Baptism by fire which is no usual phrase to signifie Purgatory But yet say that here he doth there 's a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fortassis a peradventure in the words which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out And if it be a Peradventure ye shall then be Baptized with fire why then 't is at a Peradventure too that ye shall not Now such Casual stuff as this peradventure you shall and peradventure you shall not is no Expression for things which are valued to be de side and to be believed as Matters of Faith Bellarmine goes on with Lactantius but with no better success For he says indeed That some men perstringentur igne shall be sharply touched by fire But he speaks of such quorum peccata praevaluerunt whose sins have prevailed And they in Bellarmine's Doctrine are for Hell not Purgatory As for S. Hilary he will not come home neither 'T is true he speaks of a Fine too and one that must be indured but he tells us 't is a punishment expiandae à peccatis animae to purge the soul from sins Now this will not serve Bellarmine's turn For they of Rome teach That the sins are forgiven here and that the Temporal Punishment onely remains to be satisfied in Purgatory And what need is there then of purging of sins Lest there should not be Fathers enough he reckons in Boetius too But he though not long before a Convert yet was so well seen in this Point that he goes no farther than Puto I think that after death some souls are exercised purgatoriâ clementiâ with a Purgative Clemency But Puto I think 't is so is no expression for Matter of Faith The two pregnant Authorities which seem to come home are those of Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret But for Theodoret in Scholiis Graecis which is the Place Bellarmine quotes I can finde no such Thing And manifest it is Bellarmine himself took it but upon trust And for S. Gregory Nyssen 't is true some places in him seem plain But then they are made so doubtful by other Places in him that I dare not say simply and roundly what his Judgment was For he says Men must be purged from Perturbations and either by Prayers and Philosophy or the study of Wisdome or by the furnace of Purgatory-fire after this life And again That a man cannot be partaker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine nature unless the Purging-fire doth take away the stains that are in his Soul And again That after this life a Purgatory-fire takes away the blots and propensity to evil And I deny not divers other like places are in him But first this is quite another thing from the Roman Purgatory For S. Gregory tells us here that the Purgatory he means purges Perturbations and stains and blots and propensity to evil Whereas the Purgatory which Rome now teaches purges not sin but is only satisfactory by way of punishment for sins already forgiven but for which satisfaction was not made before their Death Secondly S. Gregory Nyssen himself seems not obscurely to relate to some other Fire For he says expresly That the soul is to be punished till the Vitiosity of it be consumed Purgatorio igne So the Translation renders it but in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a fire that sleeps not which for ought appears may be understood of a Fire that is eternal whereas the fire assigned to Purgatory shall cease Besides S. Gregory says plainly The Soul cannot suffer by sire but in the Body and the Body cannot be with it till the Resurrection Therefore he must needs speak of a fire after the Resurrection which must be either the Fire of the General Conflagration or Hell Purgatory he cannot mean Where according to the Romish Tenet the Soul suffers without the Body The truth is Divers of the Ancient especially Greeks which were a little too much acquainted with Plato's School philosophized and disputed upon this and some other Points with much Obscurity and as little Certainty So upon the whole matter in the fourth and fifth hundred year you see here 's none that constantly and perspicuously affirm it And as for S. Augustine he said and unsaid it and at the last left it doubtful which had it then been received as a Point of Faith he durst not have done Indeed then in S. Gregory the Great 's time in the beginning of the sixth Age Purgatory was grown to some perfection For S. Gregory himself is at Scio 't was but at Puto a little before I know that some shall be Expiated in Purgatory flames And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that follow For after this time Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffered to Cool again And in the after Ages more were frighted than led by proof into the Belief of it Num. 17 Now by this we see also That it could not be a Tradition For then we might have traced it by the smoke to the Apostles times Indeed Bellarmine would have it such a Tradition For he tells us out of S. Augustine That that is rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority which the whole Church holds and hath ever held and yet is not Instituted by any Councel And he adds That Purgatory is such a Tradition so Constantly held in the whole Church Greek and Latine And that we do not finde any beginning of this Belief Where I shall take the boldness to Observe these three things First that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not held ever in the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And this appears by the proofs of Bellarmine himself produced and I have before examined For there 't is manifest that scarce two Fathers directly affirm the belief of Purgatory for full six hundred years after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no Matter of Faith nor to be believed as descending from Apostolical Authority by S. Augustine's Rule Secondly that we can finde a beginning of this Doctrine and a Beginner too namely Origen And neither Bellarmine nor any other is able to shew any one Father of the Church that said it before him Therefore Purgatory is not to be believed as a Doctrine delivered
off de Vite from this Catholike Vine still as unprofitable Branches Ipsa autem but this Catholike Church remains in Radice suâ in in its own Root in its own Vine in its own Charity which must needs be as ample and as Catholike as it self Or else were it any Particular All Heretical Branches could not be cut off from one Root And S. Augustine says again That the Donatists did not consider that they were cut off from the Root of the Eastern Churches Where you see again 't is still but One Root of many Churches And that if any man will have a Particular Root of the Catholike Church he must have it in the East not in the West at Rome And now lastly besides this out of S. Cyprian to prove his own meaning and sure he is the best interpreter of himself and other assisting Proofs 't is most evident that in the prime and principal sence the Catholike Church and her Unity is the Head Root or Matrix of Rome and all other Particular Churches and not Rome or any other Particular the Head Root or Matrix of it For there is a double Root of the Church as there is of all things else That is Radix Essentiae the Root Head or Matrix of its Essence And this is the prime sence For Essence and Being is first in all things And then there is Radix Existentiae the Root of its Existence and formal Being which always presupposes Being And is therefore a sense less Principal Now to apply this The Catholike or Universal Church is and must needs be the Root of Essence and Being to Rome and all other Particulars And this is the Principal Root Head or Matrix that gives Being And Rome but with all other Particular Churches and no more then other Patriarchal Churches was and is Radix Existentiae the Root of The Churches Existence And this agrees with that known and received Rule in Art That Universals give Essence to their Particulars and Particulars supply their Universals with Existence For as Socrates and every Particular man borrow their Essence from the Species and Definition of a man which is Universal but this Universal Nature and Being of Man hath no actual Existence but in Socrates and all other particular men so the Church of Rome and every other particular Church in the world receive their very Essence and Being of a Church from the Definition of the Catholike Universal Church of Christ But this Universal Nature and Being of the Church hath no actual Existence but in Rome and all other Particular Churches and equal Existence in all her particulars And should all the Particular Churches in the world fall away from Christ save onely One which God forbid yet the Nature Essence and Being of the Universal Church would both Exist and Subsist in that one Particular Out of all which to me most clear it is That for the Churches Being the Catholike Church and that in Unity for Ens Unum Being and Being one are Convertible is Radix the Root Head Matrix Fountain or Original call it what you will of Rome and all other Particular Churches But Rome is no more than other Churches the Root or Matrix of the Catholike Churches Existence or Place of her actual Residence And this I say for her Existence only not the purity or form of her Existence which is here not considered But if the Catholike she be not nor the root of the Catholike Church yet Apostolike I hope She is Indeed Apostolike She is as being the Sea of One and he a Prime Apostle But then not Apostolike as the Church is called in the Creed from all the Apostles no nor the Only Apostolike Visible I may not deny God hath hitherto preserved Her but for a better end doubtless than they turn it to But Infallible She was never Yet if that Lady did as the Jesuite in his close avows or others will rest satisfied with it who can help it Sure none but God And by A. C's leave this which I said is no work for my Pen cannot be learned no not of the One Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church much less of the Roman For though the Foundation be one and the same and sufficiently known by Scripture and the Creeds Yet for the building upon the Foundation the adding to it the Detracting from it the Joyning other things with it The grating upon it Each of these may be damnable to some and not to others according to the Knowledge Wisdome means of Information which some have and others want And according to the ignorance simplicity and want of Information which some others have and cannot help And according to the Negligence Contempt Wilfulness and Malice with Obstinacy which some have against the Known Truth and all or some of these in different degrees in every particular man And that in the whole Latitude of mankinde from the most wise and learned in the School of Christ to the simplest Idiot that hath been so happy as to be initiated into the Faith by Baptism Now the Church hath not this knowledge of all particulars Men and Conditions nor can she apply the Conditions to the Men. And therefore cannot teach just how far 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 learn of her She can teach the Foundation and men were happy if they would learn 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 Jesuite tells us that F. Upon this and the precedent Conferences the Lady rested in judgment fully satisfied as she told a confident Friend of the Truth of the Roman Churches faith Yet upon frailty and fear to offend the King she yielded to go to Church for which she was after very sorry as some of her friends can testifie B. § 39 Num. 1 This is all personal And how that Honourable Lady was then setled in Conscience how in Judgement I know nor This I think is made clear enough That that which you said in this and the precedent Conferences could settle neither unless in some that were setled or setling before As little do I know what she told any confident friend of her approving the Roman cause No more whether it were frailty or fear or other Motive that made her yield to go to Church nor how sorry she was for it nor who can testifie that sorrow This I am sure of if she repent and God forgive her other sins she will more easily be able to Answer for her coming to Church than 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 Num. 2 Now