A relation of the conference betweene William Lavvd, then, Lrd. Bishop of St. Davids; now, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury: and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite by the command of King James of ever blessed memorie. VVith an answer to such exceptions as A.C. takes against it. By the sayd Most Reverend Father in God, William, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

A RELATION Of the Conference betweene WILLIAM LAWD, Then L. Bishop of S. Davids; now Lord Arch-Bishop of CANTERBURY; AND M. Fisher the Jesuite, by the command of KING JAMES Of ever Blessed Memorie: With an Answer to such Ecceptions as A. C. takes against it.

F

The Occasion of this Conference was.

B

THe Occasion of this Third [§ 1] Conference you should know fufficiently. You were an Actor in it, as well as in two other. Whether you have related the two for∣mer truly, appeares by D. White the late Reverend L. Bishop of Ely his Relation, or Exposition of them. I was present at none, but this Third; of which I here give the Church an Account. But of this Third, whether that were the Cause which you alledge, I cannot tell. You say,

F.

It was observed, That in the second Confe∣rence all the Speech was about particular mat∣ters; little or none about a continuall, infallible, visible Church, which was the chiefe and onely Point, in which a certaine Lady required satis∣faction; as having formerly setled in her minde, That it was not for her, or any other unlearned Persons, to take up on them to judge of Particu∣lars, without depending upon the Iudgement of the true Church.

B.

The Opinion of that Honourable Person in [§ 2] this, was never opened to mee. And it is very fit the people should looke to the Iudgement of the Church, before they bee too busie with Particulars. But yet neither a 1.1 Scripture, nor any good Authority denies them some mo∣derate use of their owne un∣derstanding, and Iudgement, espe∣cially in things familiar and evi∣dent; which even b 1.2 ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as reade. And therefore some Particulars a Christian may judge without depending.

F.

This Lady therefore having heard it granted in the first Conference, That there must bee a continuall visible Company ever since Christ, teaching unchanged Doctrine in all Funda∣mentall Points; that is, Poynts necessary to salvation, desired to heare this confirmed, and

proofe brought, which was that continuall, infallible, visible Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot attaine salvation. And therefore having appointed a time of Meeting betweene a B. and me, and thereupon hav∣ing sent for the B. and me, before the B. came, the Lady and a friend of hers came first to the roome where I was, and debated before me the aforesaid Question, and not doubting of the first part, to wit, That there must be a con∣tinuall visible Church, as they had heard gran∣ted by D. White, and L. K. &c.

B.

What D. White, and L. K. granted, I heard [§ 3] not. But I thinke, both granted a continuall, and a [ 1] visible Church; neither of them an infallible, at least in your sense. And your selfe in this Relation speake distractedly: For in these few lines from the begin∣ning hither, twice you adde infallible betweene con∣tinuall and visible, and twice you leave it out. But this concernes D. W. and he hath answered it.

Here A. C. steps in, and sayes, The Iesuite did [ 2] not speake distractedly, but most advisedly. For (saith he) * 1.3 where he relates, what D. White, or L. K. granted, hee leaves out the word Infallible, because they granted it not; But where he speakes of the Lady, there he addes it, because the Iesuite knew, it was an infallible Church, which she sought to rely upon. How farre the Catholike Militant Church of Christ is infallible, is no Dispute for this Place, though you shall finde it after. But sure the Iesuite did not speake most advisedly, nor A. C. neither, nor the Lady her selfe, if she said she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church. For an Infallible Church denotes a Particular Church, in that it is set in opposition to some other Particular

Church, that is not infallible. Now I for my part, doe not know what that Lady desired to relie upon. This I know, if she desired such a Particular Church, neither this Iesuite, nor any other is able to shew it her: No not Bellarmine himselfe, though of very great ability to make good any Truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome. † 1.4 But no strength can uphold an Error against Truth, where Truth hath an able Defendant. Now where Bellar∣mine sets himselfe purposely to make * 1.5 this good, That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in matter of Faith; Out of which it followes, That there may be found a Particular infallible Church, you shall see what he is able to performe.

1. First then, after he hath Distinguished, to ex∣presse his meaning, in what sense the Particular [ 3] Church of Rome cannot erre in things which are de Fide of the Faith; he tells us, this Firmitude is, be∣cause the Sea Apostolike is fixed there. And this he saith is most true. * 1.6 And for proofe of it, he brings three Fathers to justifie it.

1. The first S. Cyprian, a 1.7 whose words are, That the Romanes are such, as to whom Perfidia cannot have ac∣cesse. Now Perfidia can hardly stand for Error in Faith, or for Misbeliefe: But it properly signifies malicious False∣hood in matter of Trust, and Action: not error in faith, but in fact against the Discipline, and Govern∣ment of the Church. And why may it not here have this meaning in S. Cyprian?

For the Story there it is this. b 1.8 In the [ 4] Yeare 255. there was a Councell in

Carthage in the cause of two Schismatiks Felicissimus, and Novatian, about restoring of them to the Communi∣on of the Church, which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry. Felicissimus would ad∣mit all even without penance; and Novatian would admit none, no not after penance. The Fathers forty two in number went, as the Truth led them, between both Extreames. To this Councell came Privatus a knowne Heretick, but was not admitted, because he was formerly Excommunicated, and often con∣demned. Hereupon he gathers his Complicies to∣gether, and chooses one Fortunatus (who was for∣merly condemned as well as himselfe) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against S. Cyprian. This done, Felicissimus and his Fellowes haste to Rome with Letters Testimoniall from their owne party, and pretend that Twenty five Bishops concurred with them: and their desire was to be received into the Communion of the Romane Church, and to have their new Bishop acknowledged. Cornelius then Pope, though their hast had now prevented S. Cyprian's Letters, having formerly heard from him, both of them, and their Schisme in Africke, would neither heare them, nor receive their Letters. They grew in∣solent and furious (the ordinary way that Schisma∣ticks take.) Vpon this Cornelius writes to S. Cyprian; and S. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks, for refusing these African fugitives, declares their Schisme and wickednesse at large, and encourages him, and all Bishops to maintaine the Ecclesiasticall Discipline, and Censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks. This is the Story, and in this is the Passage here urged by Bel∣larmine. Now I would faine know why Perfidia (all Circumstances considered) may not stand here in

its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men, having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was warie enough not to be over∣reach'd by Busie Schismaticks?

2. Secondly, let it be granted that Perfidia doth [ 5] signifie here Error in faith and doctrine. For I will not denie, but that among the African Writers (and espe∣cially S. Cyprian) it is somtimes so us'd; and there∣fore here perhaps. But then this Priviledge of not erring dangerously in the Faith, was not made over absolutely to the Romanes, that are such by birth, and dwelling onely; but to the Romanes, qua tales, as they were such as those first were, whose faith was famous through the world, and as long as they conti∣nued such; which at that time it seemes they did. And so S. Cyprian's words seeme to import, eos esse Romanos, that the Romanes then under Pope Corne∣lius, were such as the b 1.9 Apostle spake of, and there∣fore to whom at that time (or any time, they still remaining such) perfidious Misbeliefe could not be welcome, Or rather indeed perfidious Misbelievers or Schismaticks could not be welcome. For this very phrase Perfidia non potest habere accessum, directs us to understand the word in a Concrete sense. Perfidiousnesse could not get accesse, that is, such perfidious persons, Excommunicated out of other Churches, were not likely to get accesse at Rome: Or to finde Admittance into their Com∣munion. It is but a Metonymie of speech, the Adjunct for the Subject, A thing very usuall even in elegant a 1.10 Authours, and much more in later times, as in S. Cyprian's, when the Latine Lan∣guage was growne rougher. Now if it be thus

understood (I say in the Concrete) then it is plaine, that S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romanes from possibility of Errour, but to brand his Adversaries with a Title due to their Merit, cal∣ling them perfidious, that is, such as had betrayed, or perverted the Faith. Neither can wee loose by this Construction, as will appeare at after.

3. But thirdly, when all is done, what if it bee no [ 6] more than a Rhetoricall Excesse of speech? Perfidia non potest, for non facilè potest, It cannot, that is, it cannot easily; Or what if S. Cyprian doe but Laudando praecipere, by commending † 1.11 them to be such, in∣struct them, that such indeed they ought to bee, to whom Perfidiousnesse should not get accesse. Men are very bountifull of their Complements sometimes. * 1.12 Synesius writing to Theophilus of Alexandria, begins thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. I both will, and a Divine Necessity lies upon mee, to esteeme it a Law, whatsoever that Throne (meaning his of Alex∣andria) shall Determine. Nay the Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that signifies to determine like an Oracle, or as in Gods stead. Now, I hope you will say, This is not to be taken Dogmatically, it is but the Epistolers Courtesie onely. And why not the like here? For the haste which these Schismaticks made to Rome, prevented Saint Cyprians Letters: yet Cornelius very carefull of both the Truth and Peace of the Church, would neither heare them, nor receive their Letters, till b 1.13 hee had written to S. Cyprian. Now this Epistle is S. Cyprian's answer to Cor∣nelius, in which he informes him of the whole truth, and withall gives him thanks for refusing to heare these Afri∣can Fugitives. In which faire way of returning his thanks, if hee make an honourable mention of the

Romanes and their Faith, with a little dash of Rhe∣torick, even to a Non potest, for a Non facilè potest, 'tis no great wonder.

But take which Answer you will of the three; [ 7] This is plaine, that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope, or Church of Rome. For this is more then manifest, by the Contestation, which after happened betweene S. Cyprian, and Pope Stephen, about the Rebaptiza∣tion of those, that were Baptized by Haereticks, For hee † 1.14 saith expresly, that Pope Stephen did then not onely maintaine an error, but the very Cause of Haereticks, and that against Christians, and the very Church of God. * 1.15 And after this he chargeth him with Obstinacy and Presumption. I hope this is plaine enough to shew, that S. Cyprian had no great Opinion of the Romane Infallibility. Or if he had it, when he writ to Cornelius; certainely hee had chang'd it, when he wrote against Stephen. But I think it was no change, and that when he wrote to Cornelius, it was Rhetoricke, and no more.

Now if any man shall say, that in this Poynt of Rebaptization, S. Cyprian himselfe was in the wrong Opinion, and Pope Stephen in the right, I easily grant that; But yet that Error of his takes not off his judgement, what he thought of the Papall or Ro∣mane Infallibility in those times. For though after∣wards a 1.16 S. Cyprian's Opinion was condemned in a Councell at Rome under Cornelius, and after that by Pope Stephen; and after both in the first b 1.17 Councell of Carthage: yet no one word is there in that Councell, which mentions this as an Error, That hee thought Pope Stephen might erre in the faith, while he pro∣claimed

he did so. In which, though the particular Censure, which he passed on Pope Stephen, was erroneous (for Stephen erred not in that) yet the Ge∣nerall which results from it (namely, That for all his being in the Popedome, he might erre) is most true.

2. The second Father which Bellarmine cites, is [ 9] S. Ierome: d 1.18 His words are: The Romane Faith commended by the Apostle, admits not such praestigia's, deceits, and delusions into it, though an Angell should preach it otherwise, than it was preach'd at first (and) being armed and fenced by S. Paul's authority, cannot be changed. Where first, I will not doubt, but that S. Ierome speakes here of the Faith; For the Prae∣stigiae here mentioned, are afterwards more plainely expressed; For he tels us after, a 1.19 That the Bishop of Rome had sent Letters into the East, and charged Heresie upon Ruffi∣nus: And farther, that Origen's Books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were translated by him, and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome, that by his meanes they might loose the verity of the Faith, which they had learned from the Apostle. There∣fore the Praestigiae before mentioned were the Cun∣ning Illusions of Ruffinus, putting Origen's Book un∣der the Martyr Pamphilus his name, that so he might bring in Heresie the more cunningly under a name of Credit, and the more easily pervert the Peoples Faith. So, of the Faith he speakes. And secondly, I shall as easily confesse that S. Ierome's speech is most true, but I cannot admit the Cardinal's sense of it. For he im∣poses upon the word Fides. For by Romana Fides,

the Romane Faith, he will understand the Particular Church of Rome. Which is as much as to say, Roma∣nos Fideles, the Faithfull of that Church: And that no wilie Delusions, or Cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them. Now hereupon I re∣turne to that of S. Cyprian: If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos, why may not Perfidia be∣fore signifie Perfidos? Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers, as Termes a 1.20 Opposite. And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably. So with these great Masters, with whom 'tis almost growne to be, Quod volumus, rectum est, what we please, shall be the Authours meaning: Perfidia must signifie abso∣lutely Errour in Faith, or Misbeliefe: But Fides must relate to the Persons, and sig∣nifie the Faithfull of the Romane Church. And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deale of Reason. For Romana Fides, the Romane Faith, as it was commended by the Apostle (of which S. Ierome speakes) is one thing, and the Particular Romane Church, of which the Cardinall speakes, is another. The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias, wilie delusi∣ons into it; if it did, it could not be the Whole and Vndefiled Faith of Christ, which they learned from the Apostle. And which is so fenced by Apostolicall Authority, as that it cannot be chan∣ged, though an Angell should preach the contra∣ry. But the Particular Church of Rome hath admit∣ted Praestigias, diverse crafty Conveyances into the Faith, and is not fenced, as the Faith it selfe is. And therefore though an Angell cannot contrary

that, yet the bad Angell hath sowed tares in this. By which meanes Romana Fides, though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed; yet it is not the same for the sense of it: Nor for the super and praeter-structures built upon it, or joyned unto it. So the Romane Faith, that is, the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romanes, and after commended in them, was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other than that One. And this one can never be changed in, or from it selfe by Angell or Divell. But in mens hearts it may receive a change; And in particular Churches it may receive a change; And in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change. And yee see S. Hierome himselfe con∣fesses, that the Pope himselfe was afraid b 1.21 ne perde∣rent, least by this Art of Ruffinus, the People might loose the verity of the Faith. Now that which can be lost, can be changed. For usually Habits begin to alter, before they be quite lost. And that which may be lost among the People, may be lost among the Bishops, and the rest of the Clergie too, if they looke not to it, as it seemes they after did not at Rome, though then they did Nay at this time the whole Romane Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Booke, and all the Errors in it com∣ming under the Name of Pamphilus; and so S. Ierome himselfe expresly, and close upon the Place cited by Bellarmine. For he desires a 1.22 Ruffinus to change the Title of the Booke (that Error may not be spread under the specious Name of Pamphilus) and so to free from danger the Romane simplicity. Where, by the way, Romane unerring Power now challenged, and Romane simplicity then feared, agree not very well together.

3. The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is a 1.23 S. Gre∣gory [ 10] Nazianzen. And his words are, that Ancient Rome from of old hath the right Faith, and alwayes holds it, as becomes the City; which is Go∣vernesse over the whole World to have an entire faith in, and concerning God. Now certainly it became that City very well, to keepe the Faith sound, and entire. And having the Government of a great part of the World then in her power, it became her so much the more, as her Example thereby was the greater. And in S. Gregory Nazianzen's time, Rome did certainly hold both rectam & integram fidem, the right, and the whole entire Faith of Christ. But there is nor Promise, nor Prophecy in S. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so doe. For his words are plaine semper decet, it alwayes be∣comes that great City to have, and to hold too integram Fidem the en∣tire Faith. But at the other semper, 'tis b 1.24 retinet, that City from of old holds the right faith yet; but he saith not retinebit semper, that the City of Rome shall retaine it ever, no more then it shall ever retaine the Empire of the World. Now it must be assur'd, that it shall ever hold the entire faith of Christ, before we can be assured, That that Particular Church can never erre, or be Infallible.

Besides these, the Cardinall [ 11] names Cyrillus, and Ruffinus, but he neither tells us where, nor cites their words. Yet I thinke I have found the most pregnant place in S * 1.25 Cyril, and that makes clearly against him. For I finde expresly

these three things. First, that the Church is Inex∣pugnable, and that the Gates of Hell shall never pre∣vaile against it, but that it shall in perpetuum manere remaine for ever. And this all Protestants grant. But this, That it shall not fall away, doth not secure it fromall kinds oferror. Secondly, Bellarmine quotes S. Cyril for the Particular Romane Church; and S. Cyril speakes not of the Romane at all, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholike Church. Thirdly, that the Foundation and firmenesse, which the Church of Christ hath, is placed not in, or upon the * 1.26 Person, much lesse the Successor of S. Peter; but upon the * faith, which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmely professed: which is the Common received Opinion both of the Anci∣ent Fathers, and the Protestants. Vpon this Rocke, that is, upon this faith will I build my Church. S. Matth. 16. So here's all the Good he hath gotten * 1.27 by S. Cyril, unlesse he can cite some other place of S. Cyril, which I believe he cannot.

And for Ruffinus, the [ 12] Place which Bellarmine aimes at, is in his Exposi∣tion upon the Creed: and is quoted in part the b 1.28 Chap∣ter before. But when all his words shall be laid to∣gether, they will make no more for Bellarmine and his Cause, then the former Places have done. c 1.29 Ruffi∣nus his words then runne thus: Before I come to the

Words of the Creed, this I thinke fit to warne you of. That in divers Churches some things are found added to the words (of the Creed.) But in the Church of the City of Rome, this is not found done. And as I thinke, it is, for that no Haeresie did take its rise or beginning there: And for that the old Custome is there observed, Namely, that they which are to receive the grace of Baptisme, doe publikely repeate the Creed in the hearing of the People, who would not admit such Additions. But in other places (as farre as I can understand) by reason of some Hereticks, some things were added, but such as were to exclude the sense of their Novell Doctrine. Now these words make little for Bellarmine who cites them, and much against Ruffinus that uttered them. They make little for Bellarmine. First, because suppose Ruffinus his speech to be true, yet this will never follow: In Ruffinus his time no Haeresie had taken its beginning at Rome: therefore no Haeresie hath had rooting there so ma∣ny hundred yeares since. Secondly, Bellarmine takes upon him there to proove That the particular Church of Rome cannot erre. Now neither can this be concluded out of Ruffinus his words. First, because (as I said be∣fore) to argue from Non sumpsit to Ergo sumere non po∣test: No Haeresie hath yet begun there; therefore none can begin there, or spring thence, is an Argu∣ment drawne Ab actu ad Potentiam negative, from the Act to the Power of Being, which every No∣vice in Learning can tell proceeds not Negatively. And Common Reason telles every man, 'tis no Consequence to say, Such a thing is not, or hath not beene, Therefore it cannot be. Secondly, because though it were true, that no Haeresie at all did ever take its beginning at Rome, yet that can never proove that the particular Church of Rome can never erre (which is the thing in Question.) For suppose that no Hae∣resie

did ever beginne there, yet if any, that began els∣where, were admitted into that Church, it is as full a proofe, That that Church can erre, as if the Haeresie had beene hatched in that Nest. For that Church erres, which admits an Haeresie into it, as well as that which broaches it. Now Ruffinus sayes no more of the Romane Church, then non sumpsit exordium no Heresie tooke its beginning there; but that denyes not, but that some Haereticall taint might get in there. And 'tis more then manifest, that the most famous Haeresies in their severall Times made their aboade even at Rome. And 'tis observable too, that Bellarmine cites nomore of Ruffinus his words then these (In Ecclesiâ urbis Romae neque Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium, & mos ibi servatur antiquus) as if this were an entire speech, whereas it comes in but as a Reason given of the speech precedent, and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great observer of the Customes of the Church, whereas he speaks but of one Parti∣cular Custome of Reciting the Creed before Baptisme. But after all this, I pray did no Heresie ever begin at Rome? where did Novatianisme begin? At Rome sure. For a 1.30 Baronius, b 1.31 Pamelius, and c 1.32 Petavius doe all dis∣pute the Point, whether that sect was denominated from Novatianus the Romane Priest, or Novatus the African Bishop; And they Conclude for Novatian. He then that gave that Name, is in all right the Founder, and Rome the nest of that Heresie. And there it Continued with a succession d 1.33 of Bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine, which is neare upon two hun∣dred yeares. Nay could Ruffinus himselfe be igno∣rant that some Haeresie began at Rome? No sure. For in this I must challenge him either for his weake me∣mory, or his wilfull error. For Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius his History, but had beene at the paines

to translate him. Now * 1.34 Eusebius sayes plainely, that some Hereticks spread their venome in Asia, some in Phrygia, and others grew at Rome, and Florinus was the Ring-leader of them. And more clearely after. Irenaeus (saith he) directed diverse Epistles against this Florinus, and his fellow Blastus, and condemnes them of such Heresies, as threw them and their Followers into great Impiety, &c. Those at Rome corrupting the sound Doctrine of the Church. Therefore most manifest it is, that some Heresie had its rise and beginning at Rome. But to leave this slip of Ruffinus, most evident it is, that Ruffinus neither did, nor could account the Par∣ticular Church of Rome infallible. For if he had esteemed so of it, he would not have dissented from it in so maine a Point, as is the Canon of the Scripture, as he plainely doth. a 1.35 For reckoning up the Canonicall Bookes, he most manifestly dissents from the Romane Church. Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was infallible, or els the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Bookes within the Canon, than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a maine Point of Faith, the Canon of Scri∣pture, and is absolutely convinced not to be infalli∣ble; For if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now; And if she be right now, she was wrong then; And if she do not reckon more now than she did, when Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her; which doubtlesse he durst not have done, had he thought her judgement infallible. Yea, and he sets this marke upon his Dissent besides, b 1.36 That he reckons up the Bookes of the Canon just so, and no other∣wise,

than as he received them out of the Monuments of the Forefathers; And out of which the Assertions of our Faith are to be taken. Last of all, had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, yet there is very little reason, that the Pope, and his Clergie should take any Benefit by it. For S. c 1.37 Ierome tels us, That when Ruffi∣nus was angry with him for an Epistle which he writ not, he plainly sent him to the Bishop of Rome, and bid him expostu∣late with him for the Contumely put upon him, in that he received not his exposition of the Faith, which, said He, all Italy appro∣ved: and in that he branded him also, dùm nesciret (behind his back) with Heresie. Now if the Pope which then was, re∣jected this Exposition of the Creed made by Ruffi∣nus, and branded him besides with Haeresie; his sentence against Ruffinus was Iust, or Vnjust. If Vn∣just, then the Pope erred about a matter of Faith, and so neither He, nor the Church of Rome, infallible. If Iust, then the Church of Rome labours to defend her∣self by his pen, which is judged Haereticall by her self. So whether it were Iust, or Vnjust, the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait, when she must beg help of him, whom she branded with Haeresie, and out of that Tract, which she her self rejected; And so uphold her Infallibility by the Iudgement of a man, who in her Iudgement had erred so foully: Nor may she by any † 1.38 Law take benefit of a Testimony, which her self hath defamed, and protested against.

With these Bellarmine is pleased to name Sixe [ 13] Popes, which, he saith, are all of this Opinion. But he a 1.39 adds, That these Testimonies will be contemned by the

Haereticks. Good words I pray. I know whom the Cardinall meanes by Hereticks very well. But the best is, His Call cannot make them so. Nor shall I easily contemne Sixe ancient Bishops of Rome con∣curring in Opinion, if apparent verity in the thing it selfe do not force me to dissent. And in that Case I shall do it without Contempt too. This onely I will say, b 1.40 That Sixe Popes concurring in opinion shall have lesse waight with me in their own Cause, than any other Sixe of the more Ancient Fathers. Indeed could I swallow b 1.41 Bellarmines Opinion, That the Popes Iudgement is Infallible, I would then submit without any more adoe. But that will never downe with me, unlesse I live till I doate, which I hope in God I shall not.

Other Proofes than these Bellarmine brings not [ 14] to prove, that the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in, or from the Faith. And of what force these are to sway any Iudgement, I submit to all indif∣ferent Readers. And having thus examined Bellar∣mines Proofes, That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith; I now returne to A. C. and the * 1.42 Iesuite, and tell them, that no Iesuite, or any other, is ever able to prove any Particular Church Infallible.

But for the Particular Church of Rome, and the [ 15] Pope with it, erred it hath. And therefore may erre. Erred I say it hath, in the Worship of Images, and in altering Christs Institution in the blessed Sacra∣ment, by taking away the Cup from the Peo∣ple, and diverse other particulars, as shall appeare at † 1.43 after. And as for the Ground, which is presu∣med to secure this Church from Errour, 'tis very

remarkable How the c 1.44 Learned Cardi∣nall speakes in this Case. For he tells us, that this Proposition [So long as S. Pe∣ter's Chaire is at Rome, that Particular Church cannot erre in the Faith] is verissi∣ma, most true; and yet in the very next words, 'tis Fortasse tam vera, peradven∣ture as true as the former (that is) That the Pope when he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the faith, cannot erre in any case, What? is that Proposition most true? And yet is it but at a per∣adventure 'tis as true as this? Is it possible any thing should be absolutely most true; and yet under a Perad∣venture that it is but as true as another truth? But here without all Peradventure neither Proposition is true. And then indeed Bellarmine may say without a For∣tasse, That this proposition: The Particular Church of Rome cannot erre, so long as the Sea Apostolike is there, is as true as this: The Pope cannot erre, while he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the Faith. For neither of them is true. But he cannot say that either of them is verissima, most true, when neither of them hath Truth.

2. Secondly, if the Particular Church of Rome [ 16] be Infallible, and can neither erre in the Faith, nor fall from it, then it is because the Sea Apostolike can∣not be transferred from Rome, but must ever to the consummation of the World, remaine there, and keepe that Particular Church from erring. Now to this what sayes Bellarmine? what? why he tells us, a 1.45 That it is a pious, and most pro∣bable Opinion to thinke so. And he reckons foure Probabilities, that it shall never be remov'd from Rome. And I will not deny, but some of them are

faire Probabilities; But yet they are but Proba∣bilities, and so unable to convince any man. Why but then, what if a man cannot thinke as Bel∣larmine doth, but that enforced by the light of his understanding, he must thinke the quite contrary to this, which Bellarmine thinks pious, and so probable? What then? Why, then b 1.46 Bellarmine himselfe tells you, that the quite contrary Proposition to this, namely, That S. Peter's Chayre may be severed from Rome, and that the•…•… that Particular Church may erre, is neither Hae∣reticall, nor manifestly erroneous. So then, by Bellarmines owne Confession, I am no Haereticke, nor in any ma∣nifest error, if I say (as indeed I doe, and thinke it too) that 'tis possible for S. Peter's Chaire to be carried from Rome, and that then at least, by his owne argu∣ment, that Church may erre.

Now then upon the whole matter, and to re∣turne [ 17] to A. C. If that Lady desired to rely upon a * 1.47 particular infallible Church, 'tis not to be found on earth. Rome hath not that gift, nor her Bishop neither. And Bellarmine (who I thinke was as able as any Champion that Church hath) dares not say, tis either Haeresie, or a manifest error, to say, That the Apostolike Sea may be removed thence, and That Church not only erre in Faith, but also fall quite away from it. Now I for my part have not ignorance enough in me to be∣lieve, That that Church which may Apostatize at some one time, may not erre at another. Especially since both her erring, and failing may arise from other Causes, besides that, which is mention'd by the Cardinall. And if it may erre, 'tis not Infallible.

F.

The Question was, Which was that Church? A friend of the Ladies would needs defend, That not only the Romane; but also the Greek Church was right:

B.

When that Honourable Personage answer∣ed, [§ 4] I was not by to heare. But I presume, He was so farre from granting, that only the Romane Church was right, as that He did not grant it right: And that He tooke on him no other Defence of the poore Greeke Church, then was according to truth.

F.

I told him, That the Greeke Church had plainly changed, and taught false in a Poynt of Do∣ctrine concerning the Holy Ghost; and That I had hear'd say, that even His Majestie should say, That the Greeke Church having erred against the Holy Ghost, had lost the Holy Ghost.

B.

You are very bold with His Majesty, to [§ 5] relate Him upon Heare-say. My Intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majestie said: But if he said it not, you have beene too credulous to believe, and too suddaine to report it. Princes deserve, and were wont to have, more respect than so. If His Majestie did say it, there is Truth in the speech; The error is yours only, by mistaking what is meant by Loosing the Holy Ghost. For a Particular Church may be said to loose the Holy Ghost two wayes, or in two Degrees. 1. The one, when it looses such speciall as∣sistance of that Blessed Spirit, as preserves it from all dangerous Errors, and sinnes, and the temporall pu∣nishment, which is due unto them: And in this sense the Greeke Church did perhaps loose the Holy Ghost: for they erred against Him, they sinned against God, And for this, or other sinnes, they were delivered in∣to another Babylonish Captivity under the Turke, in which they yet are; and from which, God in his mercy deliver them. But this is rather to be called an Error circa Spiritum Sanctum, about the Doctrine

concerning the Holy Ghost, then an error against the Holy Ghost. 2. The other is, when it looses not only this assistance, but all assistance ad hoc, to this, that they may remaine 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 Greeke Church lost not the Holy Ghost. For they con∣tinue a true Church in the maine substance, to and at this day, though erroneous in this Poynt, which you mention, and perhaps in some other too.

F.

The Ladies friend, not knowing what to answer, called in the Bishop, who sitting downe first, ex∣cused himselfe as one unprovided, and not much studied in Controversies; and desiring that in Case he should faile; yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of.

B.

This is most true. For I did indeed excuse [§ 6] my selfe, and I had great reason so to doe. And my Reason being grounded upon Modestie 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 instru∣ction at all what should be the ground of this third Conference; nor the full time of foure and twenty hour•…•…s to bethinke my selfe. And this I take upon my Credit is most true: whereas you make the sifting of these, and the like Questions to the very Branne your daily work, and came throughly furni∣shed to the businesse, and might so leade on the Con∣troversie to what your selfe pleased, and I was to fol∣low as I could. * 1.48 S. Augustine said once, Scio me in∣validum esse, I know I am weake, and yet he made good his Cause. And so perhaps may I against you.

And in that I prefer'd the Cause before my particular credit, that which I did, was with modesty, and ac∣cording to Reason. For there is no Reason the waight of this whole Cause should rest upon any one par∣ticular man. And great Reason, that the personall Defects of any man should presse himselfe, but not the Cause. Neither did I enter upon this Service, out of any forwardnesse of my owne, but commanded to it by Supreame Authority.

F.

It having an hundred better Schollers to main∣taine it than he. To which I said, there were a thousand better Schollers than I to maintaine the Catholike Cause.

B.

In this I had never so poore a Conceit of the Protestants Cause, as to thinke, that they had [§ 7] but an hundred better than my selfe to maintaine it. That which hath an hundred, may have as many more, as it pleases God to give, and more than you. And I shall ever bee glad, that the Church of England (which, at this time, if my memory reflect not amisse, I named) may have farre more able Defendants, than my selfe. I shall never envie 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 beene fuller of noyse than Proofe. But you pro∣ceed.

F.

Then the Question about the Greeke Church being proposed, I said as before, That it had erred.

B.

Then I thinke the Question about the [§ 8] Greeke 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 de∣nies not Christ, the Foundation; or makes Christ denie it, or thrust it from the Foundation.

F.

The Bishop said, That the Errour was not in Point Fundamentall.

B.

I was not so peremptory. My speech [§ 9] was, That diverse Learned men, and some of [ 1] your owne, were of opinion, That (as the Greeks expressed themselves) it was a Question not simply Fundamentall. I know, and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, to be a grievous errour in Divini∣ty. And sure, it would have grated the Foun∣dation, if they had so denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, as that they had made an inequality betweene the Persons. But since their forme of speech is, a 1.49 That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne, and is the Spirit of the Sonne, without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons; I dare not denie them to bee a true Church for this; though I confesse them an Erroneous Church in this Par∣ticular.

Now that diverse learned men were of Opini∣on, [ 2] That à Filio, & per Filium, in the sense of the Greeke Church, was but a Question in modo loquendi,

in manner of b 1.50 speech, and therefore not Fundamentall, is evident. c 1.51 The Master, and his Schollers agree upon it. The Greeks (saith he) confesse the Holy Ghost to bee the Spirit of the Son, with the Apostle, Galath. 4. and the Spirit of truth, S. Iohn 16. And since Non est aliud, it is not an∣other thing to say; The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father, and the Sonne, then that He is, or proceeds from the Father, and the Sonne, in this They seeme to agree with us in candem Fidei sententiam, upon the same Sentence of Faith, though they differ in words. Now in this cause, where the words differ, but the Sentence of Faith is the same, d 1.52 penitùs eadem, even altogether the same, Can the Point be fundamentall? You may make them no Church (as e 1.53 Bellarmine doth) and so deny them salvation; which cannot be had out of the true Church; but I for my part dare not so do. And Rome in this Particular should be more moderate, if it be but because this Article (Filió{que}) was added to the Creed, by her selfe. And 'tis hard to adde, and Ana∣thematize too.

It ought to be no easie thing, to condemne a [ 3] man of Heresie, in foundation of faith; much lesse, a Church; least of all, so ample and large a Churchas the Greeke, especially so, as to make them no Church. Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multi∣tudes, when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne gir∣dle. And it is good counsell, which a 1.54 Alphonsus à castro, one of your owne, gives; Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie, how easie it is for themselves to erre. Or if you will pronounce, consider what it is that separates from the Church simply, and not in part only. I must needs professe, that I wish heartily, (as well as b 1.55 others,) that those distressed men, whose Crosse is heavie already, had beene more plainly, and moderately dealt withall, though they thinke a di∣verse thing from us, then they have beene by the Church of Rome. But hereupon you say you were forc'd,

F.

Whereupon I was forced to repeate what I had formerly brought against D. White, concern∣ing Points Fundamentall.

B.

Hereupon it is true, that you read a large [§ 10] Discourse out of a Booke printed, which, you said, [ 1] was yours, The Particulars (all of them at the least) I do not now remember, nor did I then approve. But if they be such, as were for∣merly brought against Do∣ctor White, they are by him formerly answered. The first thing you did, was the * 1.56 righting of S. Augustine: which Sentence I doe not at all remember was so

much as named in the Conference, much lesse was it stood upon, and then righted by you. Another place of S. Augustine indeed was (which you omit;) But it comes after, about Tradition, to which I remit it. But now you tell us of a great Proofe made out of this † 1.57 Place: For these words of yours containe two Propositions. One, That all Poynts defined by the Church are Fundamentall; The other, That this is proved out of this Place of S. Augustine.

1. For the first, That all Poynts defined by the Church [ 2] are fundamentall: It was not the least meanes, by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse, to blast every Opposer she had with the name of Hereticke, or Schis∣maticke; for this served to shrivel the credit of the Per∣sons. And the Persons once brought into contempt, and ignominie, all the good they desired in the Church, fell to dust, for want of creditable Persons to backe, and support it. To make this Proceeding good in these later yeares, this Course (it seemes) was taken. The Schoole, that must maintaine (and so they doe) That all Points Defined by the Church, are thereby a 1.58 Funda∣mentall b 1.59 necessary to be believ∣ed, c 1.60 of the substance of the Faith, and that, though it be determined quite d 1.61 Extra Scripturam. And then e 1.62 leave the wise, and active Heads to take order, that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fit∣test for them.

But since these men distinguish not, nor you, be∣tweene [ 3] the Church in generall, and a Generall Councell, which is but her Representation, for Determinations

of the Faith, though I be very slow in sifting, or op∣posing what is concluded by Lawfull, Generall, and consenting Authority, though I give as much as can justly be given to the Definitions of Councels truly Generall: nay, suppose I should grant (which I doe not) That Generall Councells cannot erre; yet this can∣not downe with me, That all Poynts even so defined are Fundamentall. For Deductions are not prime, and na∣tive Principles; nor are Superstructures, Foundations. That which is a Foundation for all, cannot be one, and another, to different Christians in regard of it selfe; for then it could be no common Rule for any, nor could the soules of men rest upon a shaking foun∣dation. No: If it be a true Foundation, it must be com∣mon to all, and firme under all; in which sense the Ar∣ticles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall. And f 1.63 Irene∣us layes this for a ground, That the whole Church (howsoever dispersed in place) speakes this with one mouth He, which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake, utters no more then this; and lesse then this, the most simple doth not utter. Therefore the Creed (of which he speaks) is a common, is a constant Founda∣tion. And an Explicite faith must be of this, in them which have the use of Reason; for both Guides and simple people, All the Church utter this.

Now many things are defined by the Church, w^ch [ 4] are but Deductions out of this: which, (suppose them deduced right) move far from the Foundation; without which Deductions explicitly believed, many millions of Christians go to Heaven; and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the faith. True Deductions from the Ar∣ticle may require necessary beliefe, in them which are able, and do go along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion. But I do not see, either that the Learned do make them necessary to all, or any reason,

why they should. Therfore they cannot be Fundamē∣tall; & yet to some mens Salvation they are necessary.

Besides, that which is Fundamentall in the Faith [ 5] of Christ, is a Rocke immoveable, and can never be varied. Never a 1.64. Therefore, if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath de∣fined it, it was Fundamentall before the Definition; els it is mooveable; and then no Christian hath where to rest. And if it be immooveable, as b 1.65 indeed it is, no Decree of a Councell, be it never so Generall, can alter immooveable Verities, no more than it can change immooveable Natures. Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing, the thing de∣fined is not Fundamentall, because the Church hath defined it; nor can be made so by the Definition of the Church, if it be not so in it selfe. For if the Church had this power, she might make a New Article of the Faith, c 1.66 which the Learned among your selves deny: For the Articles of the Faith cannot increase in sub∣stance, but onely in Explication d 1.67. And for this, I'le be judg'd by Bellarmine, f 1.68 who disputing against Amb. Catharinus about the cer∣tainty of Faith, tels us, That Divine Faith hath not its certainty, because 'tis Ca∣tholike, .i. common to the whole Church; but because it builds on the Authority of God, who is Truth it self, and can neither deceive, nor be deceived. And he addes, That the Probation of the Church can make it known to all, that the Object of Divine Faith is re∣vealed from God, and therefore certaine, and not to be doubted; but the Church can adde no certainty, no firmenesse to the word of God revealing it.

Nor is this hard to be farther proved out of your [ 6] owne Schoole; For a 1.69 Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greeke Church: If there be (saith he) a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the La∣tines, about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, then either they, or we be verè Haeretici, truly and indeed Hereticks. And he speakes this of the old Greekes, long before any Decision of the Church in this Controversie: For his instance is in S. Basil, and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side, and S Ierome, Augu∣stine, and Ambrose, on the other. And who dares call any of these Hereticks? is his challenge. I deny not, but that Scotus adds there, That howsoever this was before, yet ex quo, from the time that the Catholike Church declared it, it is to be held, as of the substance of Faith. But this cannot stand with his former Principle, if he intend by it, That whatsoever the Church defines, shall be ipso ficto, and for that De∣termination's sake Fundamentall. For if before the De∣termination (supposing the Difference reall) some of those Worthies were truly Hereticks, (as he confesses) then somewhat made them so. And that could not be the Decree of the Church, which then was not: Therefore it must be somwhat really false, that made them so, and fundamentally false, if it made them He∣reticks against the Foundation. But Scotus was wiser, than to intend this. It may be, he saw the streame too strong for him to swim against, therfore he went on with the doctrine of the Time, That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith; But meant not to betray the truth: For he goes no further than Ecclesia de∣claravit, since the Church hath declared it, which is the word that is used by di∣verse b 1.70.

Now the a 1.71 Master teaches, and the b 1.72 Schollers too, [ 7] That every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another, intùs est, is not another contrary thing, but is contained within the Bowels, and nature of that which is interpreted: from which, if the Declaration depart, it is faulty and erro∣neous, because instead of Declaring, it gives another, and contrary c 1.73 sense. Therefore, when the Church declares any thing in a Councell, either that which she declares, was intùs, or extrà, in the Nature and ve∣rity of the thing, or out of it. If it were extrà, without the nature of the thing declared, then the Declaration of the thing is false, and so, farre from being Fundamentall in the Faith d 1.74. If it were intùs, within the Compasse and nature of the thing, though not open and apparent to every eye; then the Declaration is true, but not otherwise Fundamentall, than the thing is, which is declared: for that which is intùs, cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is; if it were, it could not be intùs. Therefore nothing is simply Fundamentall, because the Church declares it, but because it is so in the nature of the thing, which the Church declares.

And it is a slight, and poore Evasion that is com∣monly used, that the Declaration of the Church [ 8] makes it Fundamentall, quoad nos, in respect of us; for it doth not that neither: For no respect to us can varie the Foundation. The Churches Decla∣ration can binde us to peace; and externall Obedi∣ence, where there is not expresse Letter of Scrip∣ture, and sense agreed on; but it cannot make any thing Fundamentall to us, that is not so in its owne

nature. For if the Church can so adde, that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be Fundamentall in the faith, that was not, then it can take a thing away from the Foundation, and make it by Declaring, not to be Fundamentall; which all men grant, no power of the Church can doe. e 1.75 For the power of ad∣ding any thing contrary, and of detracting any thing ne∣cessary, are alike forbidden, * 1.76 and alike denyed Now nothing is more apparent, then this, to the eye of all men, That the Church of Rome hath determined, or declared, or defined (call it what you will) very ma∣ny things, that are not in their owne nature Funda∣mentall; and therefore neither are, nor can be made so by her adjudging them. Now to all this Dis∣course, That the Church hath not power to make any thing Fundamentall in the Faith, that intrinsecally, and in its owne nature is not such, A. C. is content to say nothing.

2. For the second, That it is prooved by this place of [ 9] S. Augustine, That all Poynts defined by the Church are Fundamentall. You might have given me that Place cited in the Margin, and eased my paines to seeke it; but it may be there was somewhat in con∣cealing it. For you doe so extraordinarily right this Place, that you were loth (I thinke) any body should see, how you wrong it. The place of S. Augustine is this, against the Pelagians, about Remission of Ori∣ginall sinne in Infants: * 1.77 This is a thing founded; An erring Disputer is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested, not yet made firme by full Authority of the Church, there, error is to be borne with: but it ought not to goe so farre, that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe of the Church. This

is the Place: but it can never follow out of this Place (I thinke) That every thing defined by the Church is Fundamentall.

For first, he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine [ 10] in Scripture, not a Church definition. This appeares: for, few lines before, he tels us, b 1.78 There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian, Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight Day, as well as Circumcision? And no doubt was made then of the c 1.79 beginning of sin, and that d 1.80 out of this thing, about which no Question was mooved, that Question that was made, was Answered. And e 1.81 againe, That S. Cypryan tooke that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church, to confirme a stone that was shaking. Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives, hath not one word of any Definiti∣on of the Church: therefore ea res, That thing by which he answered, was a Foundation of prime, and setled Scripture-Doctrine, not any Definition of the Church: Therefore, that which he tooke out of the Foundation of the Church, to fasten the stone that shooke, was not a Definition of the Church, but the Foundation of the Church it selfe, the Scripture, upon which it is builded: as appeareth in the f 1.82 Milevitane Councell; where the Rule, by which Pelagius was condemned, is the Rule of g 1.83 Scripture; Therefore Saint Augustine goes on in the same sense, That the Dis∣puter is not to be borne any longer, that shall h 1.84 en∣deavour to shake the Foundation it selfe, upon which the whole Church is grounded.

Secondly, if S. Augustine did meane by Founded, and Foundation, the definition of the Church, because of these [ 11] words, This thing is Founded, this is made firm by full Au∣thority of the Church; and the words following these, to shake the foundation of the Church; yet it can never fol∣low out of any, or all these Circumstances (and these

are all) That all Poynts defined by the Church, are Fundamentall in the faith. For first, no man denies, but the Church is a c 1.85 Foundation; That things defined by it, are founded upon it: And yet hence it cannot follow, That the thing, that is so founded, is Funda∣mentall in the Faith: For things may be d 1.86 founded upon Humane Authority, and be very certaine, yet not Fundamentall in the Faith. Nor yet can it follow, This thing is founded, therefore every thing determined by the Church, is founded. Again that which followes, That those things are not to be opposed, which are made firme by full Authority of the Church, can∣not conclude, they are therefore Fundamentall in the Faith. For full Church Authority (alwayes the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by, and not comprehended in it) is but Church Authori∣ty; and Church Authority, when it is at full sea is not simply e 1.87 Divine, therefore the Sentence of it not funda∣mentall in the Faith. And yet no erring Disputer may be endured to shake the foundation, which the Church in Councell layes. But plaine Scripture with evident sense, or a full Demonstrative Argument must have Roome, where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it. And ther's f 1.88 neither of these, but may Convince the Definition of the Coun∣cell, if it be ill founded. And the Articles of the faith may easily proove it is not Fundamentall, if indeed, and verily it be not so.

And I have read some body that sayes (is it not [ 12] you?) That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes: One, in their Matter, such as are all things which be so in themselves; The other, in the Manner, such as are all things, that the Church hath Defined, and determined to be of Faith: And that so, some

things that are de modo, of the manner of being, arc of Faith. But in plaine truth, this is no more, then if you should say, some things are Fundamentall in the faith, and some are not. For wrangle while you will, you shall never be able to proove, that any thing, which is but de modo, a consideration of the manner of being only, can possibly be Fundamentall in the faith.

And since you make such a Foundation of this [ 13] Place, I will a little view the Mortar, with which it is laid by you. It is a venture, but I shall finde it a 1.89 un∣tempered. Your Assertion is: All poynts defined by the Church, are Fundamentall. Your proofe, this Place: Be∣cause that is not to be shaken, which is setled by b 1.90 full Au∣thority of the Church. Then (it seemes) your mean∣ing is, that this poynt there spoken of, The remission of Originall sinne in Baptisme of Infants, was defined, when S. Augustine wrote this, by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell. First if you say it was; c 1.91 Bellarmine will tell you, it is false; and that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell, but only in Nationalls. But Bellarmine is deceived: For while the Pelagians stood out impudently against Nationall Councels, some of them defended Nestorius, which gave occasion to the first d 1.92 Ephesine Councell to Excommunicate, and depose them. And yet this will not serve your turne for this Place. For S. Augustine was then dead; and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place. Secondly, if you say, it was not then Defined in an Oecumenicall Synode, Plena authoritas Ecclesiae, the full Authority of the Church there mentioned, doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell; but for some Nationall; as this was con∣demned in a * 1.93 Nationall Councell: And then the full Authority of the Church here, is no more then the full

Authority of this Church of † 1.94 Africk. And I hope that Authority doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall. You will say, yes: if that Coun∣cell be confirmed by the Pope. And then I must ever wonder, why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church, and not bestow one word upon the Pope, by whose Authority only that Councell, as all other, have their fulnesse of Au∣thority in your Iudgement. An inexpiable Omis∣sion; if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true.

But here A. C. steps in againe to helpe the Ie∣suite, [ 14] and he tells us, over and over againe, That all * 1.95 points made firme by full Authority of the Church, are Fundamentall, so, firme he will have them, and therefore fundamentall. But I must tell him: That first, 'tis one thing in Nature, and Religion too, to be firme; and another thing to be fundamentall. These two are not Convertible: Tis true, that eve∣ry thing that is fundamentall, is firme: But it doth not follow, that every thing that is firme, is funda∣mentall. For many a Superstructure is exceeding firme, being fast, and close joyned to a sure foundation, which, yet no man will grant, is fundamentall. Be∣sides, what soever is fundamentall in the faith, is fun∣damentall to the Church, which is one by the vnity a 1.96 of faith. Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church be fundamentall in the faith; then the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation. And so, upon the matter, the Church can lay her owne foundation, and then, the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being, before so much as her Foundation is laide. Now this is so absurd for any man of learning to say, that by and by after, A. C. is content to affirm, not only, that the prima Credibilia, the Articles of Faith

but all which so pertaines to Supernaturall, Divine, and Infallible Christian Faith, as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts, &c. is the Foundation of the Church under Christ the Prime Foundation. And here he's out againe. For first, all which pertaines to Supernaturall, Divine, and Infallible Christian Faith, is not by and by b 1.97 Fun∣damentall in the Faith to all men. And secondly, the whole Discourse here is concerning Faith, as it is taken Objectivè, for the Object of Faith, and thing to be Beleeved; but that Faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts, is taken Subjectivè, for the Habit and Act of Faith. Now to confound both these in one period of speech, can have no other ayme, than to confound the Rea∣der. But to come closer both to the Iesuite, and his Defender A. C. If all Poynts made firme by full Au∣thority of the Church be Fundamentall, then they must grant, that every thing determined by the Councell of Trent, is Fundamentall in the Faith. For with them 'tis firme and Catholike, which that Councell Decrees. Now that Coun∣cell decrees; b 1.98 That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void, though they be given without the Consent or calling of the People, or of any secular Power. And yet they can produce no Authour that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councell Fundamentall in the Faith. 'Tis true, I do not grant, that the Decrees of this Councell are made by full Authority of the Church: but they do both grant and maintaine it; And therefore 'tis Argumentum ad hominem, a good Argument against them, that a thing so defined may

be sirme, for so this is; and yet not Fundamentall, for so this is not.

But A. C. tels us further, That if one may deny, or [ 15] doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the * 1.99 Church, then he may against another, and another, and so against all; since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church; which being weakened in any one, cannot be firme in any other. First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of a 1.100 Vin. Lir. And as that Learned Father uses it, I subscribe to it, but not as A. C. applies it. For Vincentius speaks there de Catho∣lico Dogmate, of Catholike Maximes: and A. C. will force it to every Deter∣mination of the Church. Now Catholike Maximes, * 1.101 which are properly Fundamentall, are certaine Prime Truths deposited with the Church, and not so much determined by the Church, as published and manife∣sted, and so made firme by her to us. For so b 1.102 Vincentius expresly. Where, all that the Church doth, is but, ut hoc idem quod anteà, that the same thing may be believed, which was before Believed, but with more light, and cleerenesse, and (in that sense) with more firme∣nesse, than before. Now in this sense, give way to a Disputator errans, every cavilling Disputer to deny, or quarrell at the Maximes of Christian Religion, any one, or any part of any one of them; and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other, till he have shaken all? But this hin∣ders not the Church her selfe, nor any appointed by the Church to examine her owne Decrees, and to

see that she keepe Dogmata deposita, the Principles of Faith unblemished, and uncorrupted. For if she do not so, but that c 1.103 Novitia veteribus; new Doctrines bee added to the old; the Church, which is Sacrarium, Verita∣tis, the Repository of Verity, may be changed in lupanar errorum, I am loth to English it. By the Church then this may, nay it ought to be done, however, every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much lesse obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church, no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita, these deposited Principles. But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church; yet that may be done without shaking the Foundation, where the De∣terminations themselves belong but to the Fabricke, and not to the Foundation. For a whole Frame of Building may be shaken, and yet the Foundation, where it is well lay'd, remaine firme. And therefore after all, A. C. dares not say, the Foundation is shaken, but onely in a sort. And then 'tis as true, that in a sort * 1.104 it is not shaken.

2. For the second part of his Argument, A. C. must pardon me, if I dissent from him. For first, all [ 16] Determinations of the Church are not made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation. For some Deter∣minations of the Church are made firme to us, per a 1.105 chirographum Scripturae, by the Hand-writing of the Scripture, and that's Authenticall indeed. Some other Decisions, yea and of the Church too, are made, or may be (if b 1.106 Sta∣pleton informe us right) without an evident, nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy-Writ.

But c 1.107 Bellarmine fals quite off in this, and confesses in expresse termes, That nothing can be certaine by Certainty of Faith, unlesse it be contained immediately in the Word of God: Or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident Consequence. And if nothing can be so certaine, then certainly no Determination of the Church it selfe, if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these: either expresse Word of God, or evident Consequence out of it. So here's little Agreement in this great Point betweene Stapleton and Bellarmine. Nor can this be shifted off, as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God written, and Bellarmine of the Word of God unwritten (as he cals Tradition.) For Bellarmine treats there of the know∣ledge which a man hath of the Certainty of his owne Salvation. And I hope A. C. will not tell us, There's any Tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their severall Salvations. Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputa∣tion there is quite beside the matter: Or els he must speake of the Written Word, and so lie crosse to Sta∣pleton, as is mention'd. But to returne. If A. C. will, he may, but I cannot believe, That a Definition of the Church, which is made by the expresse Word of God, and another which is made without so much, as a probable Testimony of it, or a cleare Deduction from it, are made firme to us, by one and the same Divine Revelation. Nay I must say in this case, that the one Determination is firme by Divine Revelati∣on, but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all, but the Churches Authority onely.

2. Secondly, I cannot believe neither, That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church. For the

Authority of the Church, though it be of the same fulnesse in regard of it self, and of the Power, which it commits to Generall Councels lawfully called: yet it is not alwayes of the same fulnesse of know∣ledge, and sufficiency: nor of the same fulnesse of Conscience, and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei, that which is Dogmaticall in the Faith. For instance, I thinke you dare not deny but the Councell of Trent was lawfully called, and yet I am of opinion, that few, even of your selves, believe that the Councell of Trent hath the same fulnesse with the Councell of Nice, in all the fore-named kinds, or degrees of ful∣nesse. Thirdly, suppose That all Determinations of the Church are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, and sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority; yet it will not follow, that they are all alike Fundamentall in the Faith. For I hope A. C. himselfe will not say, that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition, than the Propo∣sitions of Canonicall Scripture. Now all Propositi∣ons of Canonicall Scripture are alike firme, because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation: but they are not all alike Fundamentall in the Faith. For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter, and S. Andrew, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men a 1.108, is as firm a Truth, as that which he delivered to his Disciples, That he must die, and rise againse the third day b 1.109. For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation, out of the mouth of our Saviour, and both are sufficiently ap∣plied by one and the same full Authority of the Church, which receives the whole Gospell of S. Mat∣thew to be Canonicall and infallible Scripture. And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike Funda∣mentall in the Faith. For I dare say, No man shall be saved (in the ordinary way of salvation) that believes

not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say, that No man shall be sa∣ved, into whose Capacity it never came, that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men. And yet should he say it, nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris, no man will believe it, that hath not made shipwrack of his Common Notions. Now if it be thus betweene Proposition and Proposition issu∣ing out of Christ's own Mouth; I hope it may well be so also betweene even Iust and True Determina∣tions of the Church, that supposing them alike true and firme; yet they shall not be alike Fundamentall to all mens beliefe.

F.

Secondly, I required to know, what Points the Bishop would account Fundamentall. He said, all the Points of the Creed were such.

B.

Against this I hope you except not. For [§ 11] [ 1] since the a 1.110 Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith; b 1.111 since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts, by which a Divine is governed about the Faith; since your owne Councell of c 1.112 Trent decrees, That it is that Prin∣ciple of Faith, in which all that professe Christ, doe necessarily agree, & Fundamentum firmum & unicum, not the firme alone, but the onely Foundation; since it is Excommunication d 1.113 ipso jure, for any man to con∣tradict the Articles contained in that Creed; since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed, as that the e 1.114 substance of it was believ'd even before the comming of Christ, though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles, since f 1.115 Bellarmine con∣fesses, That all things simply necessary for all mens salvation are in the Creed, and the Decalogue; what

reason can you have to except? And yet for all this, everything Fundamentall is not of a like nearenesse to the Foundation, nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith. And my granting the Creed to be Fundamen∣tall, doth not deny, but that there are g 1.116 quaedam prima Credibilia, certaine prime Principles of Faith, in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up: One of which since Christ, is that of S. h 1.117 Iohn. Every spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh, is of God. And one, both before the comming of Christ, and since, is that of S. Paul, i 1.118 He that comes to God, must believe that God is, and that he is a re∣warder of them that seeke him.

Here A. C. tels you, That either I must meane that [ 2] those Points are onely Fundamentall, which are expressed * 1.119 in the Creed; or those also which are infolded. If I say, those onely which are expressed, then (saith he) to believe the Scriptures is not Fundamentall, because 'tis not ex∣pressed. If I say, those which are infolded in the Articles, then some unwritten Church Traditions may be accounted Fundamentall. The truth is, I said, and say still, that all the Points of the Apostles Creed, as they are there expressed, are Fundamentall. And therein I say no more, than some of your best Learned have said be∣fore me. But I never either said, or meant, That they onely are Fundamentall; That they are a 1.120 Fundamentum unicum, the only Foundation, is the Councell of Trent's; 'tis not mine. Mine is, That the Beliefe of Scripture to be the Word of God, and infallible, is an equall, or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith, with, or to the whole Body of the Creed. And this agrees (as before I told the Iesuite) with one of your owne great Ma∣sters, Albertus Magnus b 1.121, who is not farre from that Proposition in terminis. So here the very Foun∣dation of A. C'^s. Dilemma fals off. For I say not,

That onely the Points of the Creed are Fundamentall, whether expressed, or not expressed. That all of them are, that I say. And yet though the Foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away, I will take the boldnesse to tell A. C. That if I had said, That those Articles onely which are expressed in the Creed, are Fundamentall, it would have beene hard to have excluded the Scrip∣ture, upon which the Creed it selfe in every Point is grounded. For nothing is supposed to shut out its owne Foundation. And if I should now say, that some Articles are Fundamentall which are infolded in the Creed, it would not follow, that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamentall. Some Tra∣ditions I deny not true and firme, and of great, both Authority, and Vse in the Church, as being Apostoli∣call, but yet not Fundamentall in the Faith. And it would be a mighty large fold, which should lap up Traditions within the Creed. As for that Tradition, That the Bookes of holy Scriptures are Divine, and In∣fallible in every part, I will handle that when I come to the proper place * 1.122 for it.

F.

I asked how then it happened (as M. Rogers saith) that the English Church is not yet resolved, what is the right sense of the Article of Christs Descending into Hell.

B.

The English Church never made doubt (that [§ 12] I know) what was the sense of that Article. The [ 1] words are so plaine, they beare their meaning before them. Shee was content to put that a 1.123 Ar∣ticle among those, to which she requires Subscrip∣tion, not as doubting of the sense, but to prevent the Cavils of some, who had beene too busie in Cru∣cifying that Article, and in making it all one with

the Article of the Crosse, or but an Exposition of it.

And surely for my part, I thinke the Church [ 2] of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article, then the Church of Rome, especially if shee must be tryed by her Writers, as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers. For, you cannot agree, whether this Article be a meere Tradition, or whe∣ther it hath any Place of Scripture to vvarrant it. a 1.124 Scotus, and b 1.125 Stapleton allow it no foo∣ting in Scripture, but c 1.126 Bellarmine is re∣solute, that this Article is every where in Scripture, and d 1.127 Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed. The Church of England never doubted it, and S. e 1.128 Au∣gustine prooves it.

And yet againe, you are different for the sense. [ 3] For you agree not, Whether the Soule of Christ, in triduo mortis, in the time of his Death, did go downe into Hell really, and was present there; or vertually and by effects only. For g 1.129 Thomas holds the first, and h 1.130 Durand the later. Then you agree not, Whe∣ther the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest pit of Hell, and Place of the Damned, as i 1.131 Bellarmine once held probable, and prooved 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 k 1.132 Bellarmine reduces himselfe, and gives his reason, because it is the l 1.133 common Opinion of the Schoole. Now, the Church of England takes the words, as they are in the Creed, and believes them without farther Dis∣pute, 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 law∣full

for them to say (I conceive thus, or thus of it; yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer then this, I deny it not, but as yet I know no other) as it was for m 1.134 Durand to say it, and yet not impeach the Foun∣dation 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 only a private man, &c.

B.

I said truth, when I said M. Rogers was a pri∣vate [§ 13] man. And I take it, you will not allow every [ 1] speech of every man, though allowed by Authority to have his Bookes Printed, to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. * 1.135 This hath beene oft complained of on both sides: The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church: yet I see you meane 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 os descent into Hell, to be conversant in them. I would the Authors would take heed in time, and not seeke to blinde the People, or cast a mist before evident Truth, least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment. But since you will hold this course, Stapleton was of greater note with you, then M. Rogers his exposition of 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 affirmes, † 1.136 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 be∣come of the Popes Supremacie over the whole Church? Shall he have his Power over the Catho∣like Church given him expresly in Scripture, in the a 1.137 Keyes, to enter, and in b 1.138 Pasce, to feede when he is in, and when he had fed, to c 1.139 Confirme; and in all these not to erre and faile in his Ministration: And is the Catho∣like Church, in and over which he is to do all these great things, quite left out of the Scripture? Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to give him his power; Yes in any case; but left the assigning of his great Cure, the Catholike Church, to Tradition. And it were well for him, if he could so prescribe for what he now Claymes.

But what if after all this, M. Rogers there sayes [ 2] no such thing? As in truth, he doth not. His words are: d 1.140 All Christians acknowledge, He descended; but in the interpretation of the Article, there is not that consent, that were to be wished. What is this to the Church of England, more then others? And againe e 1.141 Till we know the na∣tive and undoubted sense of this Article, is M. Rogers (We) the Church of England? or rather his, and some others Iudgement, in the Church of England?

Now here A. C. will have somewhat againe to [ 3] say, though God knowes; 'tis to little purpose 'Tis, * 1.142 that the Iesuite urged M. Roger's Booke, because it was set out by Publike Authority: And because the Booke beares the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England. A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers, if he please; But he ought not to say, that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed. First, not because his

Booke was publikely allowed. For many Bookes among them, as well as among us, have beene Printed by publike Authority, as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners, and yet contain∣ing many things in them of Opinion only, or private Iudgement, which yet is farre from the avowed Po∣sitive Doctrine of the Church, the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words, or things controverted. And this is more frequent among their Schoolemen, then among any of our Controversers, as is well knowne. Nor, secondly, because his Booke beares the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England. For sup∣pose the worst, and say, M. Rogers thought a little too well of his owne paines, and gave his Booke too high a Title, is his private Iudgement therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England? Surely no: No more then I should say, every thing said by * 1.143 Thomas, or † 1.144 Bonaventure, is Angelicall, or Seraphicall Doctrine, because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome, Seraphicall, and the other, Angelicall Doctor. And yet their workes are Printed by Publike Authority, and that Title given them.

Yea but our private Authors (saith A. C.) are not al∣lowed [ 4] (for ought I know) in such a like sorte to expresse * 1.145 our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question. Here are two Limitations, which will goe farre to bring A. C. off, whatsoever I shall say against him: For first, let me instance in any private man, that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth, he will say, he knew it not, his Assertion here being no other, then for ought he knowes. Secondly, If he be unwil∣ling to acknowledge so much, yet he will answer, 'tis not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it, that

is, perhaps, it is not the very Title of his Booke. But well then: Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to expresse your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to question? What? not in any matter? Were not Vega, and Soto two private men? Is it not a m•…•…tter subject to Question, to great Question in these Dayes, Whether a man may be certaine of his Sal∣vation, c•…•…rtitudine fidei, by the certainty of Faith? Doth n•…•…t * 1.146 Bellarmine make it a Con∣troversie? And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith, if it be determined in the † 1.147 Councell of Trent? And yet these two great Friers of their time, Dominicus Soto, and Andreas Vega a 1.148 were of contrary Opinions; and both of them challeng∣ed the Decree of the Councell; and so consequent∣ly your Catholike Faith to be as each of them conclu∣ded; and both of them wrote Bookes to maintaine their Opinions, and both of their Bookes were pub∣lished by Authority. And therefore I think 'tis allow∣ed in the Church of Rome to private men to expresse your Ca∣tholike Doctrine, and in a matter subject to Question. And therefore also, if another man in the Church of Eng∣land, should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers, and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England, this were no more then Soto, and Vega did in the Church of Rome. And I, for my part, cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it. * 1.149 For he sayes, that for ought he knowes, Private men are not allowed so to expresse their Catholike Doctrine. And in the same Question both Catharinus, and Bel∣larmine b 1.150 take on them, to expresse your Catholike Faith, the one differing from the other, almost as much as Soto, and Vega, and perhaps in some respect more.

F.

But if M. Rogers be only a private man; in what Book may we finde the Protestants pub∣like Doctrine? The Bishop answered, That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne.

B.

What? Was I so ignorant to say, The Articles [§ 14] of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all [ 1] the Protestants? Or, that all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England, as this speech seems to imply? Sure I was not. Was not the immediate speech before, of the Church of England? And how comes the Sub∣ject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines? Nor yet speake I this, as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines, and in the maine Exceptions, which they joyntly take against the Romane Church, as appeares by their severall Confessions. But if A. C. will say (as he doth) that because there was speech before of the Church of * 1.151 England, the Iesuite understood mee in a limited sense, and meant only the Protestants of the English Church; Bee it so; ther's no great harme done † 1.152 but this, that the Iesuite offers to enclose me too much. For I did not say, that the Booke of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands pub∣like Doctrine: She is not so narrow, nor hath she pur∣pose 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 De∣nounce an Anathema against them, if some peacea∣bly dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation, as your owne Schoole men differ. And if the Church of Rome, since she grew to her great∣nesse, had not beene so fierce in this Course, and too particular in Determining too many things,

and making them matters of Necessary Beliefe, which had gone for many hundreds of years before, only for things of Pious Opinion. Christendome (I per∣swade my selfe) had beene in happier peace at this Day, then I doubt, we shall ever live to see it.

Well, but A. C. will proove the Church of England [ 2] a Shrew, and such a Shrew. For in her Booke * 1.153 of Canons * 1.154 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 affirme that the Articles are in any part superstitious, or erroneous, &c. And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himselfe; and ano∣ther thing boldly and publikely to affirme it. And againe, 'tis one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article, which perhaps may bee but in the manner of Expression; and another thing positively to affirme, that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious, and erroneous. But this is not the Maine of the Businesse: For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication, as is a 1.155 before expressed; Yet She comes farre short of the Church of Rome's se∣verity, whose Anathema's are not only for 39. Arti∣cles, but for very many more, * 1.156 above one hundred in matter of Doctrine; and that in ma∣ny Poynts as farre remote from the Foundation, though to the farre greater Rack of mens Consci∣ences, they must be all made Fundamentall, if that Church have once Determined them: whereas the Church * 1.157 of England never declared, That every one of her Articles are Fundamentall in the Faith. For 'tis 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 Beliefe. Besides, the Church of England prescribes only to her owne Chil∣dren, and by those Articles provides but for her owne peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth. But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under paine of Damnation.

F.

And that the Scriptures only, not any unwritten Tradition, was the Foundation of their Faith.

B.

The Church of England grounded her Positive [§ 15] Articles upon Scripture, and her Negative doe refute [ 1] there, where, the thing affirmed by you, is not affirm∣ed 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 con∣taines in it all things ne∣cessary to it. The Fathers a 1.158 are plaine, the b 1.159 Schoole∣men not strangers in it. And have not we rea∣son then to account it, as it is, The Foundation of our Faith? And c 1.160 Sta∣pleton himselfe, though an angry Opposite, confesses, That the Scrip∣ture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith, that is, in the nature of Testi∣mony, and in the matter, or thing to be believed. And if the Scripture be the Foundation, to which we are to goe for witnesse, 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 Universall, and Apostolike, for the better Exposition of the Scripture; nor any De∣finition of the Church, in which she goes to the Scrip∣ture, for what she teaches, and thrusts nothing as Fundamentall in the Faith upon the world, but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendo∣rum, the substance of that which is so to be believed, whether immediatly and expresly in words, or more remotely, till a cleare, and full Deduction draw it out.

Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts. And first he sayes; 'Tis true, that the Church [ 2] of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture: * 1.161 That is, 'tis true, if themselves may be competent Iudges in their owne Cause. But this by the leave of A. C. is true, without making our selves Iudges in our owne Cause. For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of England are grounded upon Scripture, we are content to be judged by the joynt and con∣stant Beliefe of the Fathers, which lived within the first foure or five hundred yeares after Christ, when the Church was at the best; and by the Councels held within those times; and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine. Therefore we desire not to be Iudges in our owne Cause. And if any whom A. C. cals a Novellist, can truly say, and maintaine this, he will quickly proove himselfe no Novellist. And for the Negative Articles, they refute, where the thing affirmed by you, is either not affirmed in Scripture, or not directly to be concluded out of it: Vpon this Negative ground A. C. inferres againe, That the Baptisme of Infants is not expresly (at least not evidently) affirmed in Scripture, nor directly (at least not * 1.162

demonstratively) concluded out of it. In which case he professes, he would gladly know, what can be answered to defend this doctrine, to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants. And in Conclusion, professes he cannot easily guesse what Answer can be made, unlesse we will acknowledge, Authority of Church-Tradition ne∣cessary in this Case.

And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an An∣swer, [ 3] I will give it freely. And first in the Generall. I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition (not expresly, at least not evidently) what means he? If he speake of the Letter of the Scripture, then, whatsoe∣ver is expresly, is evidently in the Scripture; and so his Addition is vaine. If he speake of the Meaning of the Scripture, then his Addition is cunning. For many things are Expresly in Scripture, which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there. And what e're hee meane, my words are, That our Negative Articles re∣fute that which is not affirmed in Scripture, without any Addition of Expresly, or Evidently. And he should have taken my words, as I used them. I like nor change, nor Addition, nor am I bound to either of A. C^s. making. And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition (nor directly, at least not demonstratively concluded out of it.) For are there not many things in Good Logicke concluded, directly, which yet are not concluded Demonstratively? Surely there are. For to be directly or indirectly concluded flowes from the Moode or Forme of the Syllogisme: To be demonstra∣tively concluded flowes from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions. If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths, the Syllogisme is demonstrative and scientificall, because the Propositions are such. If the Propositions be probable onely, though the Syllo∣gisme be made in the clearest Moode, yet is the

Conclusion no more. The Inference, or Consequence indeed is cleare and necessary, but the Consequent is but probable, or topicall, as the Propositions were. Now my words were onely for a Direct Conclusion, and no more: though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution. For Scripture here is the thing spoken of. And Scripture being a Principle, and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christi∣ans, whereof no man a 1.163 desires any farther proofe: I would faine know, why that which is plainely and apparently, that is, by direct Consequence, proved out of Scripture, is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved? If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity: and if there can be none, why did he add Demonstratively?

Next in Particular; I answer to the Instance [ 4] * 1.164 which A. C. makes, con∣cerning the Baptisme of In∣fants, That it may be con∣cluded directly (and let A. C. judge, whether not demon∣stratively?) out of Scrip∣ture; both that Infants ought to be baptized; and that Baptisme is necessary to their Salvation. And first, that Baptisme is necessary to the Salvation of Infants (in the ordinary way of the Church, without binding God to the use and meanes of that Sacrament, to which he hath bound us) † 1.165 is ex∣presse in S. Iohn 3. Except a man be borne againe of water,

and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. So, no Baptisme, no Entrance. Nor can In∣fants creepe in, any other ordinary way. And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ a 1.166. And secondly, That In∣fants ought to bee baptized, is first plaine by evident and Direct Conse∣quence out of Scripture. For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordi∣nary way of the Church, but by Bap∣tisme, and this appeare in Scripture, as it doth, then out of all Doubt, the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture, That Infants are to be baptized, that their Salvation may be certaine. For they which cannot b 1.167 help themselves, must not be left onely to Extraordinary Helpes, of which wee have no assurance, and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture, while wee in the meane time neglect the ordinary way, and meanes commanded by Christ. Secondly, 'tis very neare an Expression in Scripture it selfe. For when S. Pe∣ter had ended that great Sermon of his, Act. 2. he * 1.168 applies two comforts unto them, Vers. 38. Amend your lives, and be baptized, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And then, Verse 39. hee in∣ferres, For the promise is made to you, and to your chil∣dren. The Promise; what Promise? What? Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost. By what meanes? Why, by Baptisme. For 'tis ex∣presly, Be baptized, and ye shall receive. And as ex∣presly, This promise is made to you, and to your chil∣dren. And therefore A. C. may finde it, if he will, That the Baptisme of Infants may be directly concluded

out of Scripture. For some of his owne Party, a 1.169 Ferus and b 1.170 Salmeron, could both find it there. And so (if it will doe him any pleasure) he hath my Answer, which he saith, he would be glad to know.

'Tis true, a 1.171 Bellarmine presses a maine Place out of [ 5] S. Augustine, and he urges it hard. S. b 1.172 Augustine's words are, The Cu∣stome of our Mother the Church in Bap∣tizing Infants, is by no meanes to be contemned, or thought superfluous; nor yet at all to be believed, unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition. The Place is truly cited, but seemes a great deale stronger, than indeed it is. For first, 'tis not denyed, That this is an Apostolicall Tradition, and therefore to be believed. But se∣condly, not therefore onely. Nor doth S. Augustine say so, nor doth Bellarmine presse it that way. The truth is, it would have beene somewhat difficult to finde the Collection out of Scripture onely for the Baptisme of Infants, since they do not actually believe. And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi, that this Custome of the Church had not been to be believed, had it not been an Apostolicall Tra∣dition. But the Tradition being Apostolicall, led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture. And this is not the least use of Tradition, to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture, though not ob∣vious to every eye there. And that this is S. Augustine's meaning, is manifest by himself, who best knew it. For when he had said, c 1.173 as he doth, That to baptize children, is Antiqua fidei Regula, the Ancient Rule of Faith, and the constant Tenet of the Church, yet he

doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also. For when Pelagius urged, That Infants needed not to be baptized, because they had no Originall Sin: S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only, but argues from the Text thus. a 1.174 What need have Infants of Christ, if they be not sicke? For the sound need not the Physitian, S. Mat. 9. And againe, is not this said by Pelagius, ut non acce∣dant ad Iesum? That Infants may not come to their Saviour? Sed clamat Iesus, but Iesus cries out, Suffer Little ones to come unto me, * 1.175 S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by b 1.176 Calvine, Namely, That all men acknowledge the Baptisme of Infants to descend from Apostolicall Tradition. † 1.177 And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church. Which he speakes not in re∣gard of Tradition, but in relation to such proofe, as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scrip∣ture over and above Tradition.

As for Tradition, * 1.178 I have said enough for that, and [ 6] as much as A. C. where 'tis truly Apostolicall. And yet if any thing will please him, I will add this con∣cerning this particular, The Bapti∣zing of Infants. That the Church re∣ceived this by c 1.179 Tradition from the Apo∣stles. By Tradition And what then? May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture, because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition? I hope A. C. will never say so. For certainly in Doctrinall things, nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolicall,

as that which hath a * 1.180 root and a Foundation in Scripture. For Apostles cannot write, or deliver contrary, but subordinate, and subservient things.

F.

I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture, and in particular, Genesis, Exodus, &c. These are believed to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture. The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved.

B.

I did never love too curious a search into [§ 16] that which might put a man into a wheele, and cir∣cle [ 1] him so long betweene proving Scripture by Tra∣dition, and Tradition by Scripture, till the Divell finde a meanes to dispute him into Infidelity, and make him believe neither. I hope this is no part of your meaning. Yet I doubt this b 1.181 Question, How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture? hath done more harme, than you will be ever able to helpe by Tradition. But I must follow that way which you draw me. And because it is so much insisted upon by you, and is in it self a c 1.182 matter of such Consequence, I will sift it a little farther.

Many men labouring to settle this great Principle [ 2] in Divinity, have used diverse meanes to prove it. All have not gone the same way, nor all the right way. You cannot be right, that resolve Faith of the Scriptures, being the Word of God, into onely Traditi∣on. For onely, and no other proofe are equall. To

prove the Scripture therefore (so called by way of Excellence) to be the Word of God, there are seve∣rall Offers at diverse proofes. For first, some flie to the Testimony and witnesse of the Church, and * 1.183 her Tradition, which constantly believes, and una∣nimously delivers it. Secondly, some to the Light * 1.184 and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it selfe; with other internall proofes which are observed in it, and to be found in no other Writing whatsoe∣ver. Thirdly, some to the Testimony of the Holy * 1.185 Ghost, which cleares up the light that is in Scripture, and seales this Faith to the soules of men, that it is Gods Word. Fourthly, all that have not imbru∣tished * 1.186 themselves, and sunke below their species, and order of Nature, give even Naturall Reason leave to come in, and make some proofe, and give some approbation upon the weighing, and the consideration of other Arguments. And this must be admitted, if it be but for Pagans and Infidels, who either consider not, or value not any one of the other three: yet must some way or other bee converted, or left without excuse, Rom. 1. and that is * 1.187 done by this very evidence.

1. For the first: The Tradition of the Church, [ 3] which is your way: That taken and considered alone, it is so farre from being the onely, that it cannot be a sufficient Proofe to believe by Divine Faith, that Scripture is the Word of God. For that which is a full and sufficient proofe, is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it. Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this. For it may bee further asked, why wee should believe the Churches Tradition? And if it be answered, we may believe, Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost; it may yet be

demanded of you, How that may appeare? And if this be demanded, either you must say; you have it by speciall Revelation, which is the private Spi∣rit you object to other men; or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture a 1.188, as all of you doe. And that very offer, to prove it out of Scripture is a sufficient acknowledgement, that the Scripture, is a higher Proofe, then the Churches Tradition, w^ch (in your own Grounds) is, or may be Questionable, till you come thither. Besides, this is an Inviolable ground of Rea∣son: * 1.189 That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credite, then the conclusion it self. Therefore if the Articles of Faith, The Trinity, the Resurrection, and the rest, be the Conclusions, and the Principles by which they are prooved, be only Eccle∣siasticall Tradition, it must needs follow, That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Ar∣ticles of the Faith, if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Re∣solved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony. But this † 1.190 your Learned and wary men deny. And therefore I hope your selfe dare not affirme.

Againe, if the Voyce of the Church (saying the [ 4] Bookes of Scripture commonly received, are the Word of God) be the formall Object of Faith, upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my selfe, then every man not only may, but ought to resolve his Faith in∣to the Voyce or Tradition of the Church: for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formall Ob∣ject of the Faith. But nothing can bee more evident then this, That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church. Therefore neither is that Testimony, or Tradition alone

the formall Object of Faith. * 1.191 The Learned of your owne part grant this: † Although in that Article of the Creed (I believe the Catholike Church) peradventure all this be contained (I believe those things which the Church teacheth) yet this is not necessarily understood, That I believe the Church teaching, as an Infallible Witnesse. And if they did not confesse this; it were no hard thing to prove.

But here's the cunning of this Devise All the [ 5] Authority's of Fathers, Councels, nay of Scripture too, b 1.192 (though this be con∣trary to their owne Do∣ctrine) must bee finally Resolved into the Au∣thority of the Present Ro∣mane Church, And though they would seeme to have us believe the Fathers, and the Church of old, yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their owne Writings, or the Decrees of Councels: because (as they say) wee cannot know by read∣ing them, what their meaning was, but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Romane Church teaching by Tradition. Now by this, two things are evident. First, That they ascribe as great Au∣thority (if not greater) to a part of the Catholike Church, as they doe to the whole, which wee believe in our Creede; and which is the Society of all Christians. And this is full of Absurdity in Nature, in Reason, in All things, That any

c 1.193 Part should bee of equall worth, power, cre∣dit, or authority with the Whole. Secondly, that in their Doctrine concern∣ing the Infallibility of their Church, their pro∣ceeding is most unreasonable. For if you aske them, Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith? Their Answer is, Because it is agreeable to the Word of God, and the Doctrine and Tra∣dition of the Ancient Church. If you aske them, How they know that to be so? They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture, Councells, and Fathers, But if you aske a third time, By what meanes they are assured, that these Testimonies doe indeed make for them, and their Cause? They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture, or Exposition of Fathers, or phrase and propriety of Language, in which either of them were first written, or to the scope of the Author, or the d 1.194 Causes of the thing uttered, or the Conference with like e 1.195 Places, or the Ante∣ceden's f 1.196 and Conse∣quents of the same Pla∣ces: g 1.197 or the Ex•…•…osition of the darke and doubt∣full Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest. With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of

Scripture, which do frequently occurre in h 1.198 S. Augu∣stine. No, none of these, or the like helpes: That, with them, were to Admit a Private Spirit, or to make way for it: But their finall Answer is; They know it to be so, because the present Romane Church wit∣nessethit, according to Tradition. So arguing, à primo ad ultimum, from first to last, the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her owne Do∣ctrine, and Tradition to bee true and Catholike, because she professes it to be such. And if this bee not to proove idem per idem, the same by the same, I know not what is: which, though it be most ab∣surd in all kind of learning, yet out of this I see not how 'tis possible to winde themselves, so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest (as they teach) upon the Tradition of the present Church only.

It seemes therefore to mee very necessary * 1.199, that [ 6] we bee able to proove the Bookes of Scrip∣ture to bee the Word of God, by some Authority that is absolutely Divine. For if they bee warranted unto us by any Autho∣rity lesse then Divine, then all things contained in them (which have no greater assurance then the Scripture, in which they are read) are not Objects of Divine beliefe. And that once granted will enforce us to yeeld, That all the Articles of Christian Beliefe have no greater assurance then Humane, or Morall Faith, or Credulity can afford. An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility, at least in the last Reso∣lution of our Faith in that Poynt. This Authority

cannot bee any Testimony, or Voyce of the * 1.200 Church alone. For the Church consists of men subject to Error; And no one of them, fince the Apostles times, hath beene as∣sisted with so plentifull a measure of the Blessed Spirit, as to secure him from being deceived; And all the Parts, being all liable to mistaking, and sallible, the VVhole cannot possibly bee Infallible, in, and of it self, and priviledged from being deceived in some Things, o•…•… other. And even in those Fundamentall Things, in which the Whole Vniversall Church neither doth, nor can Erre; yet even there her Authority is not Divine, because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance, yet tyed to Meanes: And not by any speciall Immediate Revelation, which is necessa∣rily required to the very least Degree of Divine Au∣thority. And therefore our † 1.201 VVorthies do not only say, but prove, That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law. a 1.202 And some among you, not unworthy for their Learning, prove it at large, That all the Churches Testimony, or voyce, or Sentence (call it what you will) is but suo modo, or aliquo modo, not simply, but in a manner Divine. Yea, and A. C. himselfe, * 1.203 after all his debate comes to that, and no fur∣ther. That the Tradition of the Church is, at least in some sort, Divine and Infallible. Now that which is Di∣vine but in a sort or manner, bee it the Chur∣ches manner, is aliquo modo non Divina, in a sort not Divine. But this Great Principle of Faith (the Ground and Proofe of whatsoever else is of Faith) cannot stand firme upon a Proofe that is, and is not; in a manner, and not in a manner Divine,

As it must, if we have no other Anchor then the Ex∣ternall Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon, and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves, which daily beate upon it.

Now here A. C. confesses expresly, That to prove [ 7] the Bookes of Scripture to bee Divine, we must bee * 1.204 warranted by that which is Infallible. Hee confesses farther, that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proofe of * 1.205 this, but Gods Word, written, or unwritten. And he gives his Reason for it. Because if the Proofe be meerely Humane, and Fallible, the Science or Faith which * 1.206 is built upon it, can be no better. So then this is agreed on by mee, (yet leaving other men to travell by their owne way, so bee they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible) That Scrip∣ture must bee knowne to bee Scripture by a suf∣ficient, Infallible, Divine Proofe. And that such Proofe can be nothing but the Word of God, is agreed on also by me. Yea, and agreed on for me it shall be likewise, that Gods Word may be writ∣ten, and unwritten. For Cardinall † 1.207 Bellarmine tells us truly, that it is not the writing, or printing, that makes Scripture the Word of God; but it is the Prime Vnerring Essentiall Truth, God himselfe ut∣tering, and revealing it to his Church, that makes it Verbum Dei, the Word of God. And this Word of God is uttered to men, either immediately by God him∣selfe, Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, and so 'twas to the Prophets and Apostles: Or mediately, either by Angels, to whom God had spoken first, and so the Law was given, * 1.208 Gal. 3. and so also the Message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin, a 1.209 S. Luke 1. or by the Prophets b 1.210 and Apostles, and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church. But their being written, gave them no Authority at all, in regard of them∣selves.

VVritten or unwritten, the VVord was the same. But it was written, that it might bee the better c 1.211 preserved, and conti∣nued with the more in∣tegrity to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully in our d 1.212 Me∣mories. And you have been often enough told (were truth, and not the maintaining of a party, the thing you seek for) that if you will shew us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles, we will acknowledge it to be Divine, and Infallible. So, written, or unwritten, that shall not stumble us. But then A. C. must not tell us, at least not thinke we shall swallow it into our Beliefe: that every thing which he sayes, is the unwritten VVord of God, is so indeed.

I know Bellarmine hath written a whole Booke [ 8] * 1.213 De Verbo Dei non scripto, of the Word of God not written, in which he handles the Controver∣sie concerning Traditions. And the Cunning is, to make his weaker Readers believe, that all that, which He, and his are pleased to call Traditions, are by and by no lesse to be received, and honoured, then the unwritten word of God ought to be. Whereas 'tis a thing of easie knowledge, That the unwritten VVord of God and Tradition, are not Convertible Termes, that is, are not all one. For there are ma∣ny Vnwritten VVords of God, which were ne∣ver delivered over to the Church, for ought ap∣peares: And there are many Traditions (affirmed,

at least to be such by the Church of Rome) which were never warranted by any unwritten Word of God.

First, That there are many unwritten words of God, [ 9] which were never delivered over to the Church, is manifest. For when, or where were the words, which Christ spake to his Apostles, during the a 1.214 forty dayes of his Conversing with them after his Resurrection, first delivered over to the Church? or what were the unwritten Words He then spake? If neither He•…•…, nor His Apostles, or Evangelists have delivered them to the Church, the Church ought not to deliver them to her Children. Or if she doe b 1.215 tradere non traditum, make a Tra∣dition of that, which was not delivered to her, and by some of Them, then She is unfaithful to God, and doth not servare depositum, faithfully keepe that which is committed to her Trust. * 1.216 1 Tim. 6. And her Sonnes, which come to know it, are not bound to obey her Tradition against the c 1.217 Word of their Father. For where∣soever Christ holds his peace, or that his words a•…•…e not Registred, I am of S. d 1.218 Augustines Opinion, No man may dare without rashnesse say they were these, or these. So, there were many unwritten Words of God, which were never de∣livered over to the Church; and there•…•…ore never made Tradition And there are many Traditions, which cannot be said to be the unwritten word of God. For I believe, a Learned Romanist, that will weigh before he speakes, will not easily say, That to Annoint, or use Spittle in Baptisme: or to use three Dippings in

the use of that Sacrament: or diverse other like Tra∣ditions had their Rise from any Word of God unwrit∣ten: Or if he be so hardy as to say so, 'tis gratis di∣ctum, and he will have enough to doe to prove it. So, there may be an unwritten Word of God, which is no Tradition. And there are many Traditions, which are no unwritten Word of God. Therfore Tradition must be taken two wayes. Either, as it is the Churches Act delivering, or the Thing thereby delivered, and then 'tis Humane Authority, or from it, and unable infallibly to warrant Divine Faith, or to be the Ob∣ject of it. Or els as it is the unwritten Word of God: and then where ever it can be made to appeare so, 'tis of divine and infallible Authority, no question. But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in * 1.219 this Particular. He tels us, We must know infallibly, that the Bookes of Holy Scripture are Divine, and that this must be done by unwritten Tradition, but so, as that this Tradition is the Word of God unwritten: Now let him but prove that this, or any Tradition, which the Church of Rome stands upon, is the Word of God, though unwritten, and the businesse is ended. But A. C. must not thinke, that because the Tradition of the Church tels me these Bookes are Verbum Dei, Gods * 1.220 Word; and that I do both honour and believe this Tradition; That therefore this Tradition it selfe is Gods Word too; and so absolutely sufficient and infalli∣ble to worke this Beliefe in me. Therefore for ought A. C. hath yet added, we must on with our Inquiry after this great Businesse, and most necessary Truth.

2. For the second way of proving, That Scrip∣ture [ 10] should be fully and sufficiently knowne, as by Divine and Infallible Testimony, Lumine proprio, by the resplendency of that Light, which it hath in it selfe onely, and by the witnesse that it can so

give to it selfe, I could never yet see cause to allow. a 1.221 For as there is no place in Scripture that tels us, Such Books containing such, and such Particulars are the Canon, and infallible Will and Word of God: So if there were any such place, that were no suffi∣cient proofe; For a man may justly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that; and againe of that another; and where ever it were written in Scripture, that must be a part of the Whole. And no created thing can alone give witnesse to it selfe, and make it evident, nor one part testifie for ano∣ther, and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest. Except those Principles onely of Naturall knowledge, which appeare manifest by intuitive light of understanding, without any Discourse. And yet they also to the weaker sort require Indu∣ction preceding. Now this Inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it selfe: and so, the Principles, and the Conclusion in this kind of proofe should be entirely the same, which cannot be. Besides, if this inward Light were so cleare, how could there have beene any variety among the Ancient Believers touching the Authori∣ty of S. a 1.222 Iames, and S. Jude's Epistles, and the b 1.223 Apo∣calyps, with other Bookes which were not recei∣ved for diverse yeares after the rest of the New Testament? For certainly, the Light which is in the Scripture, was the same then, which now it is. And how could the Gospell of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, and other counterfeit peeces obtaine so much credit with some, as to be received into the Canon, if the evidence of this Light were either Uni∣versall, or Infallible, of, and by it selfe? And this, though I cannot approve, yet, me thinks, you may, and upon probable grounds at least. For I hope

no † 1.224 Romanist will deny, but that there is as much light in Scripture to manifest, and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God, as there is in any Tradition of the Church, that it is Divine, and in∣fallibly the unwritten Word of God. And the Scriptures saying from the mouthes of the Prophets, b 1.225 Thus saith the Lord, and from the mouthes of the a 1.226 Apostles, that the Holy Ghost spake by them, are at least as able, and as fit to beare wit∣nesse to their owne Verity; as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions, by bare say∣ing they come from the Apostles. And your selves would never go to the Scripture, to prove that there are Traditions, b 1.227 as you do, if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discovered by inbred light in it∣selfe, as Traditions by their light. And if this be so, then it is as probable at the least (which some of ours affirme) That Scripture may bee knowne to bee the Word of God, by the Light, and Lustre which it hath in it selfe, as it is (which you c 1.228 affirme) That a Tradition may be knowne to be such, by the light which it hath in it selfe: which is an excellent Proposition to make sport withall, were this an Argument, to be hand∣led merrily.

3. For the third Opinion, and way of proving; [ 11] either some thinke, that there is no sufficient warrant for this, unlesse they fetch it from the Testimony of the Holy Ghost, and so looke in vaine after speciall Revelations, and make themselves by this very Con∣ceit, obnoxious, and easie to be led by all the whis∣perings of a seducing private spirit; or els you would faine have them think so. For your side, both upon this, and other Occasions, do often challenge, That

we resolve all our Faith into the Dictates of a * 1.229 private Spirit; from which we shall ever prove our selves as free, if not freer than you. To the Question in hand then: Suppose it agreed up∣on, that there must be a d 1.230 Divine Faith, cui subesse non potest falsum, under which can rest no possible errour, That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God: If they which goe to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this, doe meane by Faith, Objectum Fidei, the Ob∣ject of Faith that is to bee belie∣ved, then, no question, they are out of the ordinary way. For God never sent us by any word or warrant of his, to looke for any such spe∣ciall, and private Testimony to prove which that Booke is, that we must believe. But if by Faith they meane, the Habit, or Act of Divine infused Faith, by which vertue they doe believe the Credible Object, and thing to bee believed; then their speech is true, and confessed by all Divines of all sorts. For Faith is the gift * 1.231 of God, of God alone, and an infused † 1.232 Habit, in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipi∣ent; And therefore the sole In∣fuser, the Holy Ghost must not be•…•… excluded from that worke, which none can doe, but Hee. For the Holy Ghost, as * 1.233 Hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles:

b 1.234 So did he not leave the Church in generall, nor the true members of it in particular, without Grace to believe, what himself had revealed, and made Credible. So that Faith, as it is taken for the vertue of Faith, whether it be of this, or any other Article, c 1.235 though it receive a kinde of prepa∣ration, or Occasion of Be∣ginning from the Testimo∣ny of the Church, as it proposeth, and induceth to the Faith; yet it ends in God, revealing within, and teach∣ing within, that which the Church preached without. For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man, he cannot believe, be the Object never so Credible. The speech is true then, but quite d 1.236 out of the State of this Question: which in∣quires onely after a suffi∣cient meanes to make this Object Credible, and fit to be believed, against all im∣peachment of folly and temerity in Beliefe, whether men do actually believe it or not. For which no man may expect inward private Revelation, without the externall means of the Church, unlesse perhaps the e 1.237 case of Nece•…•…ity be excep∣ted, when a man lives in such a time & place as ex∣cludes him from all ordi∣nary means; in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the foules of men, nor to tie him to those ordina∣ry waies and means, to which yet in great wisdome

and providence He hath tied and bound all mankind.

Private Revelation then hath nothing ordinarily [ 12] to doe, to make the Object Credible in this, That Scripture is the Word of God, or in any other Article. For the Question is of such outward, and evi∣dent meanes, as other men may take notice of, as well as our selves. By which if there arise any Doubting, or Infirmity in the Faith, others may strengthen us, or we affoord meanes to support them: Whereas the a 1.238 Te∣stimony of the Spirit, and all private Revelation is within, nor felt, nor seen of any, but him that hath it. So that hence can be drawn no proofe to others. And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it, unlesse both They, and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture; which is now an unalterable Rule by b 1.239 man, or Angell. To all this A. C. sayes nothing, save that I seeme not to admit of an infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit, ex parte subjecti, * 1.240 without any infallible Reason, and that sufficiently ap∣plied ex parte objecti, which if I did admit, would open a gap to all Enthusiasmes, and dreames of fanaticall men. Now for this yet I thank him. For I do not one∣ly seeme not to admit, but I doe most clearely reject this phrensie in the words going before.

4. The last way, which gives c 1.241 Reason leave to [ 13] come in, and prove what it can, may not justly be denied by any reasona∣ble man. For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven, nor believe this Booke, in which God hath written the way; yet

Grace is never placed but in a reasonable creature, and proves by the very seat, which it hath taken up, that the end it hath, is to be spirituall eye-water, to make Reason see what by † 1.242 Nature onely it cannot, but never to blemish Rea∣son in that, which it can comprehend. Now the use of Reason is very generall; and man (do what he can) is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will believe, though after he once believes, his Faith growes d 1.243 stronger, than ei∣ther his Reason, or his Knowledge: and great rea∣son for this, because it goes higher, and so upon a safer Principle, than either of the other can in this life.

In this Particular, the Bookes called the Scrip∣ture, [ 14] are commonly and constantly reputed to bee the Word of God, and so infallible Verity, to the least point of them. Doth any man doubt this? The world cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason, whether it bee the Word of God, or not. To the same Weights hee brings the Tradition of the Church, the inward motives in Scripture it selfe, all Te∣stimonies within, which seeme to beare wit∣nesse to it; and in all this, there is no harme: the danger is, when a man will use no other Scale, but Reason, or preferre Reason before any other Scale. For the Word of God, and the Booke containing it, refuse not to bee weighed by

a 1.244 Reason. But the Scale is not large enough to containe, nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue, and full force of either. Reason then can give no supernaturall ground, into which a man may resolve his Faith, That Scripture is the Word of God in∣fallibly; yet Reason can go so high, as it can prove that Christian Religion, which rests upon the Authori∣ty of this Booke, stands upon surer grounds of Na∣ture, Reason, common Equity, and Iustice, than any thing in the World, which any Infidell, or meere Naturalist, hath done, doth, or can adhere unto, against it, in that which he makes, accounts, or assumes as Religion to himselfe.

The Ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures, no Christians more; and having to doe with Philo∣sophers [ 15] (men very well seene in all the subtilties, which Naturall Reason could teach, or learne) They were often put to it, and did as often make it good, That they had sufficient warrant to relie, so much as They did, upon Scripture. In all which Dis∣putes, because they were to deale with Infidels, they did labour to make good the Authority of the Booke of God by such Arguments, as unbelie∣vers themselves could not but thinke reasonable, if they weighed them with indifferency. For though I set the Mysteries of Faith above Reason, which is their proper place; yet I would have no man thinke They contradict Reason, or the Principles thereof. No sure. For Reason by her own light can discover how firmely the Principles of Re∣ligion are true: but all the Light shee hath will never bee able to finde them false. Nor may any man thinke that the Principles of Religion,

even this, That Scriptures are the Word of God, are so indifferent to a Naturall eye, that it may with as just cause leane to one part of the Contradiction, as to the other. For though this Truth, That Scripture is the Word of God, is not so Demonstratively evident, a priori, as to enforce Assent: yet it is strengthen'd so abundantly with probable Arguments, both from the Light of Nature it selfe, and Humane Testimony, that he must be very wilfull, and selfe-conceited, that shall dare to suspect it.

Nay, yet farther, a 1.245 It is not altogether impossible to [ 16] proove it even by Reason, a Truth infallible, or else to make them deny some apparent Princi∣ple of their own. For Example: It is an ap∣parent Principle, and with them, That God, or the Absolute prime Agent, cannot be forced out of any Possession. For if He could be forced by another Greater, He were neither Prince, nor Absolute, nor b 1.246 God, in their owne Theologie. Now they must grant, That that God, and Christ, which the Scripture teaches, and we believe, is the only true God, and no other with him, and so deny the Deity, which they worshipped, or else deny their owne Principle about the Deity, That God cannot be commanded, and forced out of possession: For c 1.247 their Gods, Saturne, and Serapis, and Iupiter himselfe, have beene adjured by the Name of the true, and only God, and have beene forced out of the bodies they possessed, and confessed themselves to be foule and se∣duceing Divels. And their Confession was to be supposed true, in poynt of Reason: For they that were adored as Gods, would never belie themselves into Divels, to their owne re∣proach, especially in the presence of them that worshipped

them, were they not forced. This, many of the Vnbe∣lievers saw; therefore they could not (in very force of Reason) but they must either deny their God, or deny their Principle in Nature. Their long Custome would not forsake their God, and their Reason could not forget their Principle. If Reason therefore might judge among them, they could not worship any thing that was under Command. And if it be reason∣able to doe, and believe this, then why not reasona∣ble also to believe, That Scripture is his Word, gi∣ven to teach himselfe, and Christ, since there they find Christ d 1.248 doing that, and e 1.249 giving power to doe it after, which themselves saw executed upon their Divell-Gods?

Besides, whereas all other written Lawes have [ 17] scarce had the honour to be duly observed, or con∣stantly allowed worthy approbation in the Parti∣cular places, where they have beene established for Lawes; this Law of Christ, and this Canon of Scripture the container of it, is, or hath beene received in al∣most * 1.250 all Nations under Heaven: And wheresoevet it hath beene received, it hath been both approved for Vn∣changeable good, and believed for Infallible verity. This perswasion could not have beene wrought in men of all sorts, but by working up∣on their Reason, unlesse wee shall thinke all the VVorld unreasonable, that received it. And certainly God did not give this admirable faculty of Reasoning to the soule of man, for any cause more prime then this, to discover, or to Iudge and allow (within the Sphere of its owne Acti∣vity, and not presuming farther) of the way to

Himselfe, when and howsoever it should bee dis∣covered.

One great thing that troubled Rationall men, was [ 18] that which stumbled the Manichee (an Heresie it was, but more then halfe Pagan) namely, That some∣what must be believed, before much could be knowne. Wise men use not to believe, but what they know: And the Manichcee * 1.251 scorned the Orthodox Christian: as light of Beliefe, promising to leade no Disciple after him, but upon evident knowledge. This stumbles many; but yet the Principle, That somewhat must be believed before much can be knowne, stands firme in Reason still. For if in all Sciences there be some Prin∣ciples, which cannot be prooved; if Reason be able to see this, and confesse it; if almost all Artists have granted it, if in the Mathematicks, where are the Ex∣actest Demonstrations, there be Quaedam postulata; some things to be first Demanded, and granted, be fore the Demonstration can proceed: Who can justly deny that to Divinity, A Science of the Highest Object, God Himselfe, which he easily and reasonably grants to inferiour Sciences, which are more within his reach? And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without prooving; so have they almost all, some Text, some Authority, upon which they rely in some measure: and it is Reason they should. For though these Sciences make not their Texts Infallible, as Divi∣nity doth; yet full consent and prudent Examinati∣on, and long continuance, have wonne reputation to them, and setled reputation upon them, very de∣servedly. And were these Texts more void of Truth, then they are, yet it were fit, and reasonable to up∣hold their credit, that Novices, and young Begin∣ners in a Science, which are not able to worke strongly upon Reason, nor Reason upon them, may

have Authority to believe, till they can learne to Con∣clude from Principles, and so to know. Is this also reasonable in other Sciences, and shall it not be so in Theologie, to have a Text, a Scripture, a Rule, which Novices may be taught first to believe, that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things, which out of this rich Principle, and * 1.252 Trea∣sure are Deduceable? I yet see not how right Reason can deny these Grounds; and if it cannot, then a meere Naturall man may be thus farre convinced, That the Text of God is a very Creditle Text.

Well, these are the foure wayes, by most of which, men offer to proove the Scripture to bee the [ 19] Word of God, as by a Divine and Infallible Warrant. And, it seemes, no one of these doth it alone. The Tradition of the present Church is too weake, be∣cause that is not absolutely Divine. The Light which is in Scripture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesseto itselfe. The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question, which is not, how, or by what meanes we believe, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Cre∣dible Object, fit for Beliefe. And for Reason, no man expects, that that should proove it; it doth service enough, if it enable us to disproove that which mis∣guided men conceive against it. If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient meanes to prove it, either we must finde out another, or see what can b•…•… more wrought out of these. And to all this again A. C. sayes nothing.

For the Tradition of the Church then, certaine [ 20] it is, wee must distinguish the Church, before wee can judge right of the Validity of the Tra∣dition. For if the speech bee of the Prime Chri∣stian Church, the Apostles, Disciples, and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven; no questi∣on, but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine, not aliquo modo, in a sort, but simply; and the Word of God from them, is of like Validity, written, or delivered. And against this Tradition (of which kinde this, That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God, is the most generall and uni∣forme) the Church of England never excepted. And when S. † 1.253 Augustine said, I would not believe the Gospell, unlesse the Autho∣rity of the Catholike Church mooved mee (which Place you urged at the Confe∣rence, though you are now content to slide by it) some of your owne will not endure should be understood, save * 1.254 of the Church in the time of the Apostles only: and a 1.255 some of the Church in Generall, not excluding after-ages. But sure to include Christ, and his Apostles. And the certainety is there, abundance of certainety in it selfe: but how farre that is evident to us, shall after appeare.

But this will not serve your turne. The Tra∣dition of the present Church must bee as Infal∣lible, [ 21] as that of the Primitive. But the con∣trary to this is prooved * 1.256 before, because this Voyce of the present Church, is not simply Di∣vine. To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church? To what? Why to a very

good end. For first, it serves by a full consent to worke upon the mindes of unbelievers, to move them to reade, and to consider the Scripture, which (they heare by so many Wise, Learned, and Devoute men) is of no meaner esteeme then the Word of God. And secondly, It serves among Novices, Weaklings, and Doubters in the Faith, to instruct, and confirme them, till they may acquaint themselves with, and understand the Scripture, which the Church de∣livers as the Word of God. And thus againe some of your owne understand the fore-cited Place of S. Au∣gustine, I would not believe the Gospell, &c. * 1.257 For he speakes it either of No∣vices, or Doubters in the Faith, or else of such as were in part Infidels. You at the Conference (though you omit it here) would needs have it, that S. Augustine spake even of the † 1.258 faithfull, which I cannot yet thinke: For he speakes to the Manichees, and they had a great part of the Infidell in them. And the words immediately before these, are, If thou shouldest finde one, Qui Evangelio nondum credit, which did not yet believe the Gospell, what wouldest thou doe to make him believe? a 1.259 Ego verò non, Truly I would not, &c. So to these two ends it serves, and there need be no Question between us. But then every thing, that is the first In∣ducer to believe, is not by and by ei∣ther the Principall Motive, or the chiefe, and last Object of Beliefe, upon which a man may rest his Faith. Vnlesse we shallbe of b 1.260 Lacobus Almain's Opinion;

That we are per prius & magis, first and more bound, to believe the Church, then the Gospell. Which your own Learned men, as you may see by c 1.261 Mel. Canus, reject as Extreame foule, and so indeed it is. The first know∣ledge then (after the Quid Nominis is knowne by Grammer) that helpes to open a mans understanding, and prepares him to bee able to Demonstrate a Truth, and make it evident, is his Logicke: But when he hath made a Demonstration, he resolves the know∣ledge of his Conclusion, not into his Grammaticall, or Logicall Principles, but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced: So in this Particular, a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church, as by the first informing, induceing, perswading Meanes, to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God: but when he hath studied, considered, and compared this Word with it selfe, and with other Writings, with the helpe of Ordinary Grace, and a minde morally induced, and reasonably perswa∣ded by the Voyce of the Church; the Scripture then gives greater, and higher reasons of Credibility to it selfe, then Tradition alone could give. And then he that Believes, resolves his last and full Assent, That Scripture is of Divine Authority, into internall Arguments found in the Letter it selfe, though found by the Helpe and Direction of Tradition without, and Grace within. And the resolution that is rightly grounded, may not endure to pitch, and restit selfe upon the Helpes, but upon that Divine Light, which the Scripture, no Question, hath in it selfe, but is not kindled, till these Helps come. Thy word is a Light d 1.262: so David. A Light? Therefore it is as

much manifestativum sui, as alterius, a manifestation to it selfe, as to other things which it shewes: but still, not till the Candle be Lighted; not till there hath beene a Preparing Instruction, What Light it is. Chil∣dren call the Sunne, and Moone, Candles; Gods Candles: They see the light as well as men, but cannot distin∣guish betweene them, till some Tradition, and Educa∣tion, hath informed their Reason. And * 1.263 animalis homo, the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsell, and instruction in Scripture, as well as Believers; But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light, and can∣not distinguish betweene the Sunne, and twelve to the Pound, till Tradition of the Church, and Gods Grace put to it, have cleared his understanding: So Traditi∣on of the present Church, is the first Morall Motive to Beliefe. But the Beliefe it selfe, That the Scripture is the Word of God, rests † 1.264 upon the Scri∣pture, when a man findes it to answer, and exceed all that, which the Church gave in Testimony, as will after ap∣peare. And as in the Voyce of the Pri∣mitive, and Apostolicall Church, there was a 1.265 simply Divine Authority, delivering the Scripture, as Gods Word; so, after Tradition of the present Church hath taught, and in∣formed the Soule, the Voyce of God is plainly heard in Scripture it selfe. And then here's double Authority, and both Divine, that confirmes Scri∣pture to be the Word of God, Tra∣dition of the Apostles delivering it; And the internall worth and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition, and Gods Grace.

The Difficulties which are pretended against [ 22] this, are not many, and they will easily vanish. For first, you pretend, we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture. No, we do not, you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question: and we go to the Tradition of the present Church, and by it, as well as you. Here we differ; we use the Tradi∣tion of the present Church, as the first Motive, not as the Last Resolution of our Faith. We Resolve onely into d 1.266 Prime Tradition Apostolicall, and Scripture it selfe.

Secondly, you pretend, we do not, nor cannot [ 23] know the prime Apostolicall Tradition, but by the Tra∣dition of the present Church; and that therefore, if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods un∣written Word, and Divine, we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture, by a Divine Authority. Well: Suppose I could not know the prime Traditi∣on to be Divine, but by the present Church, yet it doth not follow, that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Autho∣rity; because Divine Tradition is not the sole, and one∣ly meanes to prove it. For suppose, I had not, nor could have full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Di∣vine; yet the morall perswasion, reason, and force of the present Church, is ground enough to move any reasonable man, that it is fit he should read the Scripture, and esteeme very reverently and highly of it. And this once done, the Scripture hath then In, and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soule, that hath but ordinary Grace, out of Doubt, That Scrip∣ture is the Word of God, Infallible and Divine.

Thirdly, you pretend, that we make the Scripture [ 24] absolutely, and fully to be knowne Lumine suo, by

the Light and Testimony which it hath in, and gives to it selfe. Against this, you give reason for your selves, and proofe from us. Your Reason is, If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe, then every man that can, and doth but read it, may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God; which we see by daily experience, men neither do, nor can. First it is not absolutely, nor universally true, There is a 1.267 sufficient Light; therefore every man may see it. Blinde men are men, and cannot see it; and b 1.268 sensuall men, in the Apostles judgement, are such: Nor may we deny, and put out this Light, as insufficient, because blinde eyes cannot, and perverse eyes will not see it; no more then we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment, though men that are heart-sicke, can∣not eat it. Next, we do not say, That there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it; such Light as is found in Prime Principles; Every whole is greater than a Part of the same, and this, The same thing cannot be, and not be, at the same time, and in the same respect. These carrie a naturall Light with them, and evident: for the Termes are no sooner understood, then the Principles themselves are fully knowne, to the convincing of mans understanding, and so they are the beginning of knowledge; which, where it is perfect, dwels in full Light: but such a full Light we do neither say is, nor require to be in Scripture; and if any particular man doe, let him answer for himselfe. The Question is, onely of such a Light in Scripture, as is of force to breed faith, that it is the Word of God; not to make a perfect knowledge. Now Faith, of whatsoever it is, this or other Principle, is an Evidence, a 1.269 as well as Knowledge, and * 1.270 the Beliefe is firmer then any Knowledge can be,

because it rests upon Divine Authority, which cannot deceive; whereas Knowledge (or at least he that thinks he knowes) is not ever certaine in Deductions from Principles? † 1.271 But the Evidence is not so deere: For it is c 1.272 of things not seene, in regard of the Object; and in regard of the Subject thatsees, it is in d 1.273 aenigmate, in a Glasse, or darke speaking. Now God doth not require a full Demon∣strative Knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his Word, and there∣fore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that, but he requires our Faith of it, and such a certaine Demonstration, as may fit that. And for that, he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason, and Grace meeting, where the soule is morally prepa∣red by the Tradition of the Church; unlesse you be of Bellarmine's e 1.274 O∣pinion, That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures, is not omni∣nò necessary to Salvation.

The Authority which you pretend against this, is [ 25] out of a 1.275 Hooker: Of things necessary, the very chiefest

is to know, what Bookes we are bound to esteeme Holy; which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. Of this b 1.276 Brierly (the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle, and yet seeme well read) tels us, That c 1.277 Hooker gives a very sensible Demon∣stration: It is not the Word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that wee doe well to thinke it is His Word: for if any one Booke of Scripture did give Testimony to all; yet still that Scripture, which giveth credit to the rest, would require another to give credit unto it. Nor could we ever come to any pause, to rest our assurance this way. so that un∣lesse, beside Scripture, there were something that might assure, &c. And d 1.278 this he acknowledgeth (saith Brierly) is the Authority of Gods Church. Cer∣tainely, Hooker gives a true, and a sensible De∣monstration; but Brierly wants fidelity, and inte∣grity, in citing him: For in the first place, Hoo∣ker's speech is, Scripture it selfe cannot teach this; nor can the Truth say, that Scripture it selfe can. It must needs ordinarily have Tradition, to pre∣pare the minde of a man to receive it. And in the next place, where he speaks so sensibly, That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe, nor one part of it to another; that is grounded upon Nature, which admits no created thing to bee witnesse to it selfe; and is acknowledged by our Saviour, e 1.279 If I beare witnesse to my selfe, my witnesse is not true, that is, is not of force to bee reasonably accepted for Truth. But then it is more then ma∣nifest, * 1.280 that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone. For if Scripture hath another proofe, nay many other proofes to usher it, and lead it in, then no question, it can both prove; and ap∣prove it selfe. His words are, So that unlesse, besides

Scripture, there be, &c. Besides Scripture; therefore he excludes not Scripture, though he call for ano∣ther Proofe to lead it in, and help in assurance, name∣ly, Tradition, which no man, that hath his braines about him, denies. In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully; for folding up all that Hooker sayes, in these words, This (other meanes to assure us besides Scripture) is the Authority of Gods Church; he wrinkles that Worthy Authour desperately, and shrinkes up his meaning. For in the former place abused by Brierly, no man can set a better state of the Question betweene Scripture, and Tradition, then Hooker doth: a 1.281 His words are these, The Scripture is the ground of our Beliefe; The Authority of man (that is the Name he gives to Tradition) is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture. I aske now, when a man is entred, and hath viewed a house, and upon viewing likes it, and upon liking resolves unchange∣ably to dwell there; doth he set up his Resolution upon the Key, that let him in? No sure; but upon the goodnesse and Commodiousnesse, which he sees in the House. And this is all the difference (that I know) betweene us in this Point; In which, do you grant (as you ought to do) that we resolve our Faith into Scripture, as the Ground; and we will never deny, that Tradition is the Key that lets us in. In the latter place, Hooker is as plaine, as constant to himselfe, and Truth: b 1.282 His words are, The first out∣ward Motive, leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture, is the Authority of Gods Church &c. But afterwards, the more wee bestow our Labour in reading, or learn∣ing the Mysteries thereof, the more wee finde that the thing it selfe doth answer our received opinion concerning it: so that the former inducement prevailing

somewhat with us before, doth now much more pre∣vaile, when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason. Here then againe, in his Iudgement, Tradition is the first Inducement; but the farther Reason, and Ground, is the Scripture. And Re∣solution of Faith ever settles upon the Farthest Reason it can, not upon the First Inducement. So that the State of this Question is firme, and yet plaine enough, to him that will not shut his eyes.

Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts [ 26] himselfe in againe, and tels me, That if I would * 1.283 consider the Tradition of the Church, not onely as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men, in which sense the Authority of it (as himselfe confesses) is but Humane, and Fallible, &c. But as the Tra∣dition of a Company of men assisted by Christ, and his Holy Spirit; in that sense I might easily finde it more then an Introduction, indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive. Well, I have con∣sidered The Tradition of the present Church both these wayes. And I finde that A. C. confesses, That in the first sense, the Tradition of the Church is meere humane Authority, and no more. And therefore in this sense, it may serve for an Intro∣duction to this Beliefe, but no more. And in the second sense, as it is not the Tradition of a Com∣pany of men onely, but of men assisted by Christ, and His Spirit: In this second sense I cannot finde, that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority, till A. C. can prove, That this Company of men (the Romane Prelates, and their Clergie he meanes) are so fully, so cleerely, so per∣manently assisted by Christ, and his Spirit, as may reach to Infallibility, much lesse to a Divine Infallibility,

in this, or any other Principle, which they teach. For every Assistance of Christ, and the Blessed Spirit, is not enough to make the Authority of any Com∣pany of men Divine, and infallible; but such and so great an Assistance onely, as is purposely gi∣ven to that effect. Such an Assistance the Pro∣phets under the Old Testament, and the Apo∣stles under the New had; but neither the High-Priest with his Clergie in the Old, nor any Com∣pany of Prelates, or Priests in the New, since the Apostles ever had it. And therefore, though at the entreaty of A. C. I have considered this very * 1.284 well; yet I cannot, no not in this Assisted sense, thinke the Tradition of the present Church, Divine, and Infallible, or such Company of men to be worthy of Divine, and infallible Credit, and sufficient to breed in us Divine, and Infallible Faith. Which I am sorrie A. C. should affirme so boldly as he doth. What? * 1.285 That Company of men (the Romane Bishop, and his Clergie) of Divine and Infallible Credit, and suffici∣ent to breed in us Divine, and Infallible Faith? Good God! Whither will these men goe? Surely they are wise in their generation, but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of light a 1.286: S. Luke 16. And could they put this home upon the world (as they are gone farre in it) what might they not effect? How might they, and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendome, con∣trary to b 1.287 S. Peter's Rule (whose Successours certain∣ly in this they are not.) But I pray, if this Compa∣ny of men be infallibly assisted, whence is it, that this very Company have erred so dangerously, as they have, not only in some other things, but even in this Particular, by equaling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God? Which is a Doctrine

unknowne to the a 1.288 Primitive Church, and which frets upon the very Foundation it selfe, by justling with it. So belike, he that hath but halfe an indifferent eye, may see this Assi∣sted Company have erred, and yet we must wink in obedience, and think them Infallible.

But. A. C. would have me consider againe, That [ 27] * 1.289 it is as easie to take the Tradition of the present Church in the two fore-named senses, as the present Scriptures printed, and approved by men of this Age. For in the first sense, The very Scriptures (saith he) considered as prin∣ted, and approved by men of this Age, can be no more then of Humane Credit. But in the second sense, as printed and approved by men assisted by God's Spirit for true Copies of that which was first written, then we may give Infallible Credit to them. Well. I have considered this too. And I can take the Printing, and Appro∣ving the Copies of Holy-Writ in these two senses. And I can, and do make a difference betweene Copies printed and approved by meere morall men, and men assisted by Gods Spirit. And yet for the Printing one∣ly, a skilfull, and an able morall man may doe better service to the Church, then an illiterate man, though assisted in other things by God's Spirit. But when I have considered all this, what then? The Scripture being put in writing, is a thing visibly existent; and if any errour be in the Print, 'tis easily corrigible by b 1.290 former Copies. Tradition is not so easily observed,

nor so safely kept. And howsoever, to come home to that which A. C. inferres upon it, namely, That the * 1.291 Tradition of the present Church may be accepted in these two senses: And if this be all that he will inferre (for his penne here is troubled, and forsakes him, whe∣ther by any checke of Conscience, or no, I know not) I will, and you see, have granted it already without more adoe, with this Caution, That every Company of men assisted by Gods Spirit, are not as∣sisted to this height, to be Infallible by Divine Authority.

For all this A. C. will needes give a needlesse Proofe of the Businesse: Namely, That there is the Pro∣mise of Christs, and his Holy Spirits continuall presence, and [ 28] * 1.292 assistance, S. Luke 10. 16. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Ioh 14. 16. not only to the Apostles, but to their Successors also, the law∣fully sent Pastors, and Doctors of the Church in all Ages. And that this Promise is no lesse, but rather more expresly to them in their Preaching by word of mouth, then in wri∣ting, or reading, or printing, or approoving of Copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles. And to all this I shall briefly say, That there is a Promise of Christ's and the Holy Spirits continuall presence, and assi∣stance. I do likewise grant most freely, that this Pro∣mise is on the part of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, most really and fully performed. But then this Promise must not be extended further then 'twas made. It was made of Continuall presence, and assistance, That I grant; And it was made to the Apostles, and their Successors; That I grant too. But in a different Degree. For it was of Continuall, and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles; But to their Successors of Continuall, and fitting assistance, but not Infallible. And therefore the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all Ages, have had, and shall have Continuall Assistance; but by A. C'^s. leave, not Infallible, at least, not Divine and In∣fallible,

either in writing, reading, printing, or ap∣proving Copies. And I believe A C is the first, that durst affirme this; I thought he would have kept the Popes Prerogative intire, that He only might have been Infallible; And not He neither, but in Cathedrâ sate down and well advised. And well Advised: Yes, that's right, * 1.293 But he may be sate, and not well Advised, even in Cathedrâ. And now, shall we have all the Lawfully sent Pa∣stors, and Doctors of that Church in all ages Infallible too? Here's a deale of Infallibility indeed, and yet error store. The truth is, the Iesuites have a Moneths minde to this Infallibility. And though A. C. out of his bounty is content to extend it to all the law∣fully sent Pastors of the Church: yet to his owne Society quostionlesse he meanes it chiefly. As did the Apolo∣gist to whom Casaubon replyes, to Fronto Ducaeus. The words of the † 1.294 Apologist are. Let day and night—life and death be joyned together, and then there will be some hope, that He∣resie may fall upon the person of a Iesuite. Yea marry, this is something indeed. Now we know where Infallibility is to be found But for my present Occasion, touching the Lawfully sent Pastors of the Church &c. I will give no other Confutation of it, then that M. Fisher and A. C. (if they be two men) are lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church; at least I am sure, they'll assume they are, and

yet they are not Infallible; which, I thinke, appeares plaine enough in some of their errors manifested by this Discourse, and elsewhere. Or if they do hold themselves Infallible, let them speake it out, as the Apologist did.

As for the Three Places of Scripture, which [ 29] A. C. cites, they are of old alledged, and well knowne * 1.295 in this Controversie. The First is in S. Luke 10. * 1.296 where Christ saith, He that heareth you, heareth me. This was absolutely true in the a 1.297 Apostles, who kept them∣selves to that, which was re∣vealed by Christ. But it was to be but Conditionally true in their b 1.298 Successors, He that hear∣eth you, heareth me. That is so long, and so * 1.299 farre, as you c 1.300 speak my words, and not your own. For d 1.301 where the Com∣mand is for Preaching, the Restraint is added. Go (saith Christ) and teach all Nations. But you may not preach all things what you please; but althings which I have commanded you. The Publication is yours, the Doctrine is mine: And where the Doctrine is not mine, there your Publication is beyond, or short of your Com∣mission. The Second Place is in S. Matth. 28. There Christ sayes againe e 1.302 I am with you al∣wayes unto the end of the world. Yes; most certaine it is, present by his Spirit; For else in bodily presence Hee continued not with his Apostles, but during his

abodc on Earth. And this Promise of his spirituall presence was to their Successors; else, why to the end of the world? The Apostles did not, could not live so long. But then to the * 1.303 Successors, the Promise goes no further, then I am with you alwayes; which reach∣es to continuall assistance, but not to Divine, and Infallible. Or if he think me mistaken, let him shew mee any One Father of the Church, that extends the sense of this Place to Divine and Infallible Assistance, granted hereby to all the Apostles Successors. Sure I am, Saint † 1.304 Gregory thought otherwise. For hee saies plainly, That in those Gifts of God which concern other mens salvation (of which Preaching of the Gospell is One) the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost doth not alwayes abide in the Preachers, bee they never so lawfully sent Pastors, or Doctors of the Church. And if the Holy Ghost doth not alwayes abide in the Preachers, then most certainly he doth not abide in them to a Divine Infallibility alwayes. The Third Place is in S. Iohn 14. where Christ sayes * 1.305 The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever, Most true againe. For the Holy Ghost did abide with the Apostles according to Christs Promise there made, and shall abide with their Successors for ever, to * 1.306 com∣fort and preserve them. But here's no Promise of Divine Infallibility made unto

them. And for that Promise which is made, and expresly of Infallibility, Saint Iohn 16. (though not * 1.307 cited by A. C.) That's confined to the Apostles onely, for the setling of th•…•…m in all Truth. And yet not simply all: For there are some Truths (saith a 1.308 Saint Augustine) which no mans Soule can comprehend in this life. Not simply all: But b 1.309 all those Truths, quae non poterant portare, which they were not able to beare, when Hee Conversed with them. Not simply all; but all that was necessary for the Founding, propagating, establishing, and Confirming the Christian Church. But if any man take the boldnesse to inlarge this Promise in the ful∣nesse of it, beyond the persons of the Apostles them∣selves, that will fall out which Saint c 1.310 Augustine hath in a manner prophecyed: Eve∣ry Heretick will shelter him∣selfe, and his Vanities un∣der this Colour of Infallible Veritie.

I told you a * 1.311 little before, that A. C. his [ 30] Penne was troubled, and failed him: There∣fore I will helpe to make out his Inference for him, that his Cause may have all the strength it can. And (as I conceive) this is that hee would have. The Tradition of the present Church is as able to worke in us Divine and Infallible Faith, That the Scripture is the VVord of God: As that the Bible (or Bookes of Scripture) now printed, and in use, is a true Copie of that, which was first writ∣ten, by the Penne-men of the Holy Ghost, and de∣livered

to the Church. 'Tis most true, the Tra∣dition of the present Church is a like operative, and powerfull in, and over both these workes: but nei∣ther Divine, nor Infallible in either. But as it is the first morall Inducement to perswade, that Scripture is the Word of God; so is it also the first, but morall still, that the Bible wee now have, is a true Copie of that which was first written. But then as in the former, so in this latter for the true Copie, The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest up∣on the naked Tradition of the present Church, but must by, and with it goe higher to other Helpes, and Assurances. Where I hope A. C. will confesse, wee have greater helpes to discover the truth, or falshood of a Copie, then wee have meanes to looke into a Tradition. Or especially to sift out this Truth, that it was a Divine and Infalli•…•…le Revelation, by which the Originals of Scripture were first writ∣ten: That being fatre more the Subject of this In∣quiry, then the Copie, which according to Art, and Science may be examined by former preceding Co∣pies close up to the very Apostles times.

But A. C. hath not done yet; For in the last [ 31] place hee tells us, That Tradition, and Scripture, * 1.312 without any vicious Circle, doe mutually confirme the Au∣thority either of other. And truly for my part, I shall easily grant him this, so hee will grant mee this other: Namely, That though they doe mu∣tually, yet they doe not equally confirme the Au∣thority either of other. For Scripture doth infallibly confirme the Authority of Church Traditions truly so called: But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirme the Authority of the Scripture. And this is manifest by A. C'^s. owne Similitude, For (saith he) 'tis as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth, and

His Kings Letters beare mutuall witnesse to each other. Iust so indeed. For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seale, confirme the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seale, and hand: But the Embassadors word of mouth con∣firmes His Kings Letters but onely probably. For else, Why are they called Letters of Credence, if they give not him more Credit, then hee can give them? But that which followes I cannot ap∣prove, to wit, That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospell are Gods Legats, and the Scriptures Gods Letters, which hee hath appointed his Legates to de∣liver, and expound. So farre 'tis well, but here's the sting. That these Letters doe warrant, that the People may heare, and give Credit to these Legats of Christ, as to Christ the King himselfe. Soft, this is too high a great deale. No * 1.313 Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King Himselfe. Nor was any Priest, never so lawfully sent, ever of that Authority, that Christ himselfe; No sure, For yee call mee Master, and Lord, and yee doe well; for so I am, saith our Saviour, S. Iohn 13. And certainly, this did not sud∣denly * 1.314 drop out of A. C'_s. Penne. For hee tould us once before, That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition, (that is the lawfully sent * 1.315 Preachers of the Church) are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority, and to bee worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit, sufficient to breed in us Divine, and Infallible Faith. Why, but is it possible these men should goe thus farre to defend an Error, bee it never so deare unto them? They as Christ? Divine, and Infallible Authority in them? Sufficient to breed in us Divine, and Infal∣lible Faith? I have often heard some wise men say,

That the Iesuite in the Church of Rome, and the Pre∣cise party in the Reform•…•…d Churches agree in many things, though they would seeme most to differ. And surely this is one: For both of them differ ex∣treamely about Tradition. The one in magnifying it, and exalting it into Divine Authority; The other vi∣lifying, and depressing it almost beneath Humane. And yet even in these different wayes, both agree in this consequent. That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth, of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith; Nay are the * 1.316 very word of God. So A. C. expresly. And no lesse then so, have some accounted of their owne fa∣ctious words (to say no more) then as the † 1.317 Word of God. I ever tooke Sermons (and so doe still) to be most necessa∣ry Expositions, and Applicati∣ons of Holy Scripture, and a great ordinary meanes of saving knowledge. But I cannot thinke them, or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible. The An∣cient Fathers of the Church preached farre beyond any of these of either faction; And yet no one of them durst thinke himselfe Infallible, much lesse, that whatsoever hee preached was the VVord of God. And it may be Obserued too, That no men are more apt to say, That all the Fathers were but Men, and might Erre, then they that thinke their owne preachings are Infallible.

The next thing (after this large Interpretation of A C.) which I shall trouble you with, is, That [ 32] this method, and manner of proving Scripture to bee the VVord of God, which I here use, is the same, which

the Ancient Church ever held, namely, Tradition, or Ecclesiasticall Authority first; and then all other Argu∣ments, but especially internall, from the Scripture it selfe. This way the Church went in S. Augustine's a 1.318 Time. He was no enemy to Church-Tradition; yet when hee would prove, that the Authour of the Scri∣pture (and so of the whole know∣ledge of Divinity, as it is superna∣turall) is Deus in Christo, God in Christ; he takes this as the All-suf∣ficient way, and gives foure proofes, all internall to the Scripture: First, The Miracles. Secondly, That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine. Thirdly, That there hath been such performance of it. Fourthly, That by such a Doctrine of Humility, the whole world almost hath beene converted. And whereas ad muniendam Fidem, for the Defending of the Faith, and keeping it en∣tire, there are two things requisite, Scripture, and Church-Tradition; b 1.319 Vincent Lirinens. places Authority of Scriptures first; and then Tradition. And since it is apparent, that Tradition is first in order of time, it must necessarily follow, that Scripture is first in order of Nature, that is, the chiefe, upon which Faith rests, and resolves it selfe. And your owne Schoole confesses this was the way ever. The Woman of a 1.320 Samaria is a knowne Resemblance, but allowed by your selves. For b 1.321 quotid•…•…è, daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman, that is the Church, and they believe by that fame which she gives, &c But when they come to heare Christ himselfe, they believe his words, before the words of the Woman. For when

they have once found Christ, c 1.322 they do more believe his words in Scripture, then they do the Church, which testifies of him; because then propter illam, for the Scripture they believe the Church: And if the Church should speake contra∣ry to the Scripture, they would not be∣lieve it. Thus the Schoole taught then; And thus the Glosse commented then; And when men have tyred themselves, hither they must come. The Key, that lets men in to the Scriptures, even to this knowledge of them, That they are the Word of God, is the Tra∣dition of the Church: but when they are in, d 1.323 They heare Christ him∣selfe immediately speaking in Scrip∣ture to the Faithfull: e 1.324 And his Sheepe doe not onely heare, but know his voice. And then here's no vicious Circle indeed of prooving the Scripture by the Church, and then round about, the Church by the Scripture. Onely distinguish the Times, and the Conditions of men, and all is safe. For a Beginner in the Faith, or a Weakling, or a Doubter about it, begins at Tradition, and proves Scripture by the Church: But a man strong and growne up in the Faith, and understandingly conversant in the Word of God, proves the Church by the Scripture; And then upon the matter, we have a double Divine Testimony, altogether Infallible, to confirme unto us, That Scripture is the Word of God. The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apo∣stles themselves, who delivered immediately to the world, the Word of Christ. The other, the Scrip∣ture it selfe, but after it hath received this Testimo∣ny. And into these we doe, and may safely Resolve

our Faith. a 1.325 As for the Tradi∣tion of after Ages, in, and about which Miracles and Divine Pow∣er were not so evident, we be∣lieve them (by Gandavo's full Confession) because they doe not preach other things then those for∣mer (the Apostles) left in scriptis certissimis, in most certaine Scripture. And it appeares by men in the mid∣dle ages, that these writings were vitiated in nothing, by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders, to our owne time.

And now by this time it will be no hard thing [ 33] to reconcile the Fathers, which seeme to speake dif∣ferently in no few places, both one from another, and the same from themselves, touching Scripture and Tradition; And that as well in this Point, to prove Scripture to be the Word of God, as for con∣cordant exposition of Scripture in all things else. When therefore the Fathers say, b 1.326 We have the Scripture by Tradition, or the like, either They meane the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it, and there, when it is knowne to be such, we may resolve our Faith. Or if they speake of the Present Church, then they meane, that the Tradition of it, is that by which we first receive the Scripture, as by an accor∣ding Meanes to the Prime Tradition. But because it is not simply Divine, we cannot resolve our Faith into it, nor settle our Faith upon it, till it resolve it selfe into the Prime tradition of the Apostles, or the Scripture, or both; and there we rest with it. And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers: Nay can you, or any of your Quarter, shew any one Father of the

Church, Greeke, or Latine, that ever said, We are to resolve our Faith, that Scripture is the Word of God, into the Tradition of the present Church? And againe, when the Fathers say, we are to relie upon Scrip∣ture a 1.327 onely, they are never to bee understood with Exclusi∣on of Tradition, in what causes soever it may be had, b 1.328 Not but that the Scripture is abundantly suf∣ficient, in, and to it self for all things, but because it is deepe: and may be drawne into different senses, and so mistaken, if any man will pre∣sume upon his owne strength, and go single with∣out the Church.

To gather up whatsoever may seeme scattered [ 34] in this long Discourse to prove, That Scripture is the Word of God, I shall now in the Last Place put all together, that so the whole state of the Question may the better appeare.

First then I shall desire the Reader to consider, * 1.329 that every Rationall Science requires some Principles quite without its owne Limits, which are not pro∣ved in that Science, but presuppo∣sed. Thus Rhetoricke presuppo∣ses Grammar, and Musicke Arith∣meticke. Therefore it is most rea∣sonable that c 1.330 Theologie should be allowed to have some Principles also, which she proves not, but presupposes. And the chiefest of these, is, That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority.

Secondly, that there is a great deale of difference * 1.331 in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity, and those of any other Art, or Science whatsoever.

For the Principles of all other Sciences doe finally resolve, either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science; or into those Principles which are per se no∣ta, known by their own light, and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science. And this is it, which properly makes them Sciences, because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration, as forces Reason to yeeld unto them. But the Principles of Divinity re∣solve not into the Grounds of Naturall Reason (For then there would be no roome for Faith, but all would bee either Knowledge, or Vision) but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernaturall. And of this we have just so much light, and no more, then God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture.

Thirdly, That though the Evidence of these Su∣pernaturall * 1.332 Truths, which Divinity teaches, appeares not so manifest as that of the Na∣turall; a 1.333 yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible then they. For they proceed im∣mediately from God, that Heaven∣ly Wisdome, which being the foun∣taine of ours, must needs infinite∣ly precede ours, both in Nature and excellence. He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? † 1.334 Psal. 94. And therefore, though wee reach not the Order of their Deductions, nor can in this life come to the vision of them, yet wee yeeld as full, and firme Assent, not onely to the Articles, but to all the Things rightly deduced from them, as wee doe to the most evident Principles of Naturall Reason. This Assent is called Faith. And Faith being of things not seene, Heb. 11. * 1.335

a 1.336 would quite loose its honour, nay it selfe, if it met with suffici∣ent Grounds in Naturall Reason, whereon to stay it selfe. For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Vnderstanding, and the b 1.337 Will in∣clines the Vnderstanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proofe. Not but that there is most full proofe of them, but because the maine Grounds which prove them, are concealed from our view, and folded up in the unrevealed Counsell of God, God in Christ resolving to bring man∣kinde to their last happinesse by Faith, and not by knowledge, that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessednesse open. And certaine it is, that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven, and many over-knowing Chri∣stians loose their way thither, while they will be∣lieve no more then they can clearely know. In which pride, and vanity of theirs they are left, and have these things hid from them, S. Matth. 11. * 1.338

Fourthly, That the Credit of the Scripture, the * 1.339 Booke 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 Authour, which leader here is the Church, but upon the Author himself, and the Opinion we have of his sufficiency, which here is the Holy Spirit of God, whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were. And therfore the Mysteries of Divinity contained

in this Booke; As the Incarnation of our Saviour; The Resurrection of the dead, and the like, cannot finally bee resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church, who is but a Subservient Cause, to lead to the knowledge of the Authour, but into the wisedome and Sufficiency of the Authour, who being Omnipotent, and Omniscient, must needs bee Infallible.

Fiftly, That the Assurance we have of the Pen∣men of the Scriptures, the Holy Prophets, and Apo∣stles, * 1.340 is as great, as any can be had of any Humane Authours of like Antiquity. For it is morally as evi∣dent to any Pagan, that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospell, and Epistles which beare 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 expres∣sed by them, this hath ever beene a matter of Faith in the Church, and was so, even while the Apostles themselves a 1.341 lived, and was never a matter of Evidence and Know∣ledge, at least as Know∣ledge is opposed to Faith. Nor could it at any time then bee more Demonstratively prooved then now. I say, not scientificè, 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 owne Testimony of themselves, and so not alone able to enforce Beliefe on others. And for their Miracles, though they were very Great Inducements of Beliefe, yet were neither they

Evident and Con∣vincing Proofes, b 1.342 alone and of themselves. Both because, There may bee coun∣terfeit Miracles: And because true ones are neither c 1.343 Infall•…•…ble nor In∣separable Markes of Truth in Do∣ctrine. Not Infalli∣ble: For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest de∣gree. d 1.344 Deut. 13. Not proper, and Inseparable: For e 1.345 all which wrote by Inspiration, did not confirm their Doctrine by Mi∣racles. For we do not finde that David, or Solo∣mon, with some other of the Prophets, did any, neither were any wrought by S. Iohn the Baptist, † 1.346 S. Ioh. 10. So, as Cre∣dible Signes they were, and are still of as much forceto us, as 'tis 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 Infallibilly inspired in that which they Preacht, and writ was still to the † 1.347 Hearers a matter of Faith, and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Dayes, then to us now. For had that beene Demonstrated, or beene cleare (as Prime Principles are) in its owne light, both they and we had apprehended all the Myste∣ries of Divinity by Knowledge, not by Faith. But this is most appa∣rent was not. For had the Pro∣phets, or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstrative∣ly, or Intuitively by Discourse, or vision appeare as cleare to their Auditors, as to themselves it did, that Whatsoever they taught was Divine, and Infalli∣ble Truth, all men which had the true use of Reason, must have beene forced to yeeld to their Doctrine. a 1.348 Esay could never have beene at Domine quis? Lord who hath believed our Report? Esay 53. Nor b 1.349 Ieremy at Domine, factus sum, Lord I am in de∣rision daily, Ier. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him (as some of them did) * 1.350 Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection, if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himselfe had in the Assure∣ance, 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 un∣derstanding, and submit to Faith, or hazard his happinesse. The Cre∣dible Object all the while, that is, the Mysteries of Religion, and the Scripture which containes them is Di∣vine and Infallible, and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation. But we, and all our Fore-Fathers, the Hearers, and Readers of them, have neither * 1.351 knowledge, nor vision of the Prime Principles in, or about them, but * Faith only. And the Revelation, which was cleare to them, is not so to us, nor there∣fore the Prime Tradition it selfe de∣livered by them.

Sixthly, That hence it may be gathered, that * 1.352 the Assent, which we yeeld to this maine Principle of Divinity, That the Scripture is the Word of God, is grounded vpon no Compelling, or Demonstrative Rati∣ocination, but relyes upon the strength of Faith, more then any other Principle whatso∣ever. † 1.353 For all other necessary Poynts of Divinity, may by un∣denyable Discourse bee inferred out of Scripture it selfe once ad∣mitted; but this, concerning the Au∣thority of Scripture not possibly: But must either be prooved by Revelation, which is not now to bee expected: Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it selfe, like the Principles of nat•…•…rall knowledge, which Reasm alone will never Grant: Or by Tradition of the Church, both Prime, and Present, with all other Rati∣nall Helpes, preceding, or accompanying the internall

Light in Scripture it selfe; which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe, yet Light enough it gives not to bee a convincing Reason, and proofe for knowledge. And this is it, which makes the very entrance into Divinity, inaccessible to those men, who standing high in the Opinion of their owne wis∣dome, will believe nothing, but that which is irre∣fragably prooved from Rationall Principles. For as Christ requires a Deniall of a mans selfe, that he may be able to follow him. S. Luke 9: So as great a part as any of * 1.354 this Denyall of his Whole-selfe (for so it must bee) is the denyall of his Vnderstanding, and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisi∣tor into the Secrets of Him that made it, and the over-ruleing the doubtfulnesse of it by the fervency of the a 1.355 Will.

Seventhly, That the knowledge of the Supreme * 1.356 Cause of all (which is God) is most remote, and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with. The Quod sit, That there is a God, b 1.357 bleare-eyed Reason can see. But the c 1.358 Quid sit, what that God is, is in∣finitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason. He is a Light indeed, but such as no mans Rea∣son can come at for the Brightnes. d 1.359 1 Tim. 6.

If any thing therefore bee attainable in this kinde, it must bee by c 1.360 Revelation; And that must bee from Him∣selfe: for none can Reveale, but f 1.361 hee that Comprehends. And g 1.362 none doth, or can compre∣hend God, but Himselfe. And when he doth Re∣veale, yet He is no far∣ther discernable, then h 1.363 Himself pleases. Now since i 1.364 Reason teaches, that the Soule of man is immortal, and k 1.365 cape∣able of Felicity. And since that Felicity con∣sists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause, w^ch againe is God himselfe. And since Christ ther∣in Confirmes that Di∣ctate, that mans eternal Happines is to know God, and Him whom he hath sent, S. k 1.366 Ioh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Con∣templation, but some Re∣velation of Himselfe, and of the way to himselfe. I say, since all this is so, It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man, that the All-wise God should

create man with a Desire of Felicity; and then leave him utterly destitute of all Instrumentall Helps to make the Attainment possible: since * 1.367 God and Nature do no∣thing, but for an end. And Helpe there can bee none sufficient, but by Revelation And once grant mee that Revelation is necessary, and then I will appeale to Reason it selfe, and that shall prove abundantly one of these two. That either, there was never any such Re∣velation of this kinde 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 wee now embrace, as the Word of God, is that Revelation. And that's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheisme, Prophanenesse, and Infidelity.

Last of all, To prove that the Booke of God which * 1.368 we honour as His Word, is this necessary Revelation of God and his Truth, which must, and is alone able, to leade us in the way to our eternall Blessednesse (or else the world hath none) comes in a Cloud of witnesses. Some for the Infidel, and some for the Beleever. Some for the VVeake 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 'tis no Hereticall, or Schismaticall Beliefe. Then the Testimony of former A∣ges; so 'tis no New Beliefe. Then the consent of Times; so 'tis no Divided or partiall Beliefe. Then the Harmony of the Prophets, and them fulfilled; so 'tis not a * 1.369 Devised, but a forespoken Beliefe. Then the suc∣cesse of the Doctrine contained in this Booke; so 'tis not a Beliefe stisted in the Cradle; but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could doe against it; And increased from weake, and unlikely Beginnings, to incredible Greatnesse. Then the Constancy of this Truth; so 'tis no Moone-Be∣liefe: For in the midst of the worlds Changes, it

hath preserved it's Creede entire through many gene∣rations. Then, that there is nothing Carnall in the Do∣ctrine; so 'tis a Chast Beliefe. 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, then any Morall Philosophie, or Legall Policy that ever was. Then comes the inward Light and Excellency of the Text it self; and so 'tis no darke, or dazling Beliefe. And 'tis an Excellent Text: For see the riches of Naturall knowledge, which are stored up there, as well as Supernaturall. Consider how things quite above Reason consent with things Reasonable. Weigh it well what Majesty lyes there hid under Humility: a 1.370 What Depth ther is with a Perspicuity uni∣mitable: What b 1.371 Delight it works in the Soule, that is devoutely excer∣cised in it, how the c 1.372 Sublimest wits finde in it enough to amaze them; while the ^c simplest want not enough to direct them. And then we shall not wonder, if (with the assistance of d 1.373 Gods Spirit, who alone workes Faith and Beliefe of the Scriptures, and their Divine Autho∣rity, as well as other Articles) wee grow up into a most Infallible As∣surance, such an Assurance, as hath made many lay downe their lives for this Truth: such, as that, * Though an Angell from Heaven should Preach unto us another Gospell, we would not be∣lieve * 1.374 Him, or it. No; though wee should see as great, and as many Miracles done over againe to dis∣swade us from it, as were at first to win the world

to it. To which firmnesse of Assent by the Operati∣on of Gods Spirit, the Will conferres as much, or more strength, then the Vnderstanding, Clearenesse, the whole Assent being an Act of Faith, and not of Knowledge. And therefore the Question should not have beene asked of mee by F. How I knew? But vpon what Motives I did believe Scripture to bee the VVord of God? And I would have him take heed, lest hunting too close after a way of Knowledge, hee loose the way of Faith, and teach other men to loose it too.

So then the Way lyes thus (as farre as it appeares * 1.375 to me) The Credit of Scripture to bee Divine Resolves finally into that Faith, which wee have touching God Himselfe, and in the same order. For as that, so this hath Three maine Grounds, to which all other are Reducible. The First is, the Tradition of the Church: And this leades us to a Reverend perswasion of it. The Second is, The light of Nature: And this shewes us how necessary such a Revealed Learning is, and that no other way it can be had. * 1.376 Nay more, that all Proofes brought against any Point of Faith, nei∣ther are, nor can be Demonstra∣tions, but soluble Arguments. The Third is, The light of the Text it selfe; in Conver∣sing wherewith wee meet with the † 1.377 Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealeing the full Assurance of the sufficiency of all Three unto us. And then, and not before, wee are certaine, That the Scripture is the VVord of God both by Di∣vine, and by Infallible Proofe. But our Certainty is by Faith, and so voluntary, not by Knowledge of such Prin∣ciples, as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent, whether we will or no.

I have said thus much upon this great Occasi∣on, because this Argument is so much pressed, with∣out due respect to Scripture. And I have proceeded in a Syntheticall way, to build up the Truth for the be∣nefit of the Church, & the satisfaction of all men Chri∣stianly disposed. Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Iesuites (for certainly this Question was Captiously asked:) it had beene suf∣ficient to have restored the Question, thus, How doe you know the Testimony of the Church (by which, you say, you know Scripture to be the Word of God) to be Divine and Infallible? If they proove it by Scripture * 1.378 (as all of them doe, and as A. C. doth) how doe they know that Scripture to be Scripture? It is but a Cir∣cular Assurance of theirs, by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimonie of the Scripture; And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church: That is upon the Matter, the Churches In∣fallibility upon the Churches Infallibility. But I labour for edification, not for destruction. And now, by what I have here said, I will weigh my Answer, and his Exception taken against it.

F.

The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed, and needed not to be Proved.

B.

Why, but did I say, That this Principle (The [§ 17] Books of Scripture are the Word of God) is to be suppo∣sed, as needing no Proof at al to a Naturall man? Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith? yea or perhaps to a Doubter, or Weakling in the Faith? Can you think me so weake? It seemes you doe. But sure I know, there is a great deale of difference betweene Ethnicks that deny, and deride the Scripture, and men that are Born in the Church. The first have a farther way

about to this Principle; The other in their very Christian Education sucke it in, and are taught so soone as they are apt to learne it, That the Books, com∣monly called The Bible, or Scripture, are the Word of God. And I dealt with you † 1.379 as with a Christian, though in Errour, while you call Catholike. The Words before spoken by me were, That the Scrip∣ture onely, not any unwritten Tradition, was the Foun∣dation of Faith. The Question betweene us, and you, is, Whether the Scripture do containe all necessary things of Faith? Now in this Question, as in all Na∣ture, and Art, the Subject, the Scripture is and must be a 1.380 supposed. The Quaere be∣tween the Romane-Catholikes and the Church of England, being one∣ly of the Praedicate, the thing ut∣tered of it, Namely, whether it containe all Fundamentals of Faith, all Necessaries for Salvation within it? Now since th•…•… Question proposed in very forme of Art, proves not, but b 1.381 supposes the Subject, I thinke I gave a satisfying Answer, That to you, and me, and in this Question, Scripture was a Supposed Principle, and needed no Proofe. And I must tell you, that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent, it is against all Art, yea and Equity too, in Reasoning to call for a Proofe of That here, which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question. And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety, to Question it, it must be tryed in a preceding Question, and Dispute by it self. Yet here not you onely, but c 1.382 Bellarmine, and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage.

F.

Against this I read what I had formerly writ∣ten in my Reply against M. Iohn White:

Wherein I plainely shewed, that this Answer was not good, and that no other Answer could be made, but by admitting some Word of God un∣written, to assure us of this Point.

B.

Indeed here you read out of a Booke (which [§ 18] you called your owne) a large Discourse upon this [ 1] Argument. But surely I so untied the knot of the Ar∣gument, that I set you to your Book againe. For your selfe con∣fesse, that against this you read what you had formerly written. Well! what ere you read there, certaine it is you do a great deale of wrong to M. Hooker a 1.383, and my selfe, that because we call it a Sup∣posed or Presumed Principle among Christians, you should fall by and by into such a b 1.384 Metaphysicall Dis∣course to prove, That that which is a c 1.385 Praecognitum, fore-knowne in Science, must be of such light, that it must be knowne of, and by it selfe alone; and that the Scripture cannot be so knowne to be the Word of God.

I will not now enter againe into that Discourse, [ 2] having said enough already, how farre the Beame, which is very glorious (especially in some parts of Scripture) gives light to prove it selfe. You see nei∣ther Hooker, nor I, nor the Church of England (for ought I know) leave the Scripture alone to manifest it selfe, by the light, which it hath in it selfe No; but when the present Church hath prepared, and led the way, like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun∣shine;

then indeed we settle for our Direction, but not upon the first opening of the morning Light, but upon the Sun it selfe. Nor will I make needlesse enquiry, how farre, and in what manner a Praecog∣nitum, or Supposed Principle in any Science, may be proved in a Higher, to which that is subordinate; or accepted in a Prime. Nor how it may in Divi∣nity, where Prae, as well as Post-cognita, things fore, as well as after-knowne, are matters, and under the manner of Faith, and not of Science strictly. Nor whether a Praecognitum, a presupposed Principle in Faith, which rests upon Divine Authority, must needs have as much, and equall Light to Naturall Reason, as Prime Principles have in Nature, while they rest upon Reason. Nor whether it may justly bee denied to have sufficient Light, because not equall. Your owne Schoole † 1.386 grants, That in us, which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge, and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us, there is lesse Light, lesse Evidence in the Principles of Faith, then in the Principles of Knowledge, upon which there can be no doubt. But I think the Schoole will ne∣ver grant, That the Principles of Faith (even this in Question) have not sufficient Evidence. And you ought not to do, as you did, without any Distincti∣on, or any Limitation, deny a Praecognitum, or Prime Principle in the Faith; because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science, in their Light, and Evidence; a thing in it self directly against Reason.

Well, though I do none of this, yet first I must [ 3] tell you, that A. C. here steps in againe, and tels me, That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearely knowne, as a Praecognitum in Science, yet there must be this proportion betweene them, that, whether it be

in Science, or in Faith, the Praecognitum, or thing sup∣posed as knowne, must be priùs cognitum, first knowne, and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith, or Knowledge, to be knowne before it. But the Scripture (saith he) needs Tradition to goe before it, and introduce the knowledge of it. Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed, as a Praecognitum, and a thing fore-knowne. Tru'y I am sorrie to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes. For A. C. cannot but perceive, by that which I have clearely laid downe * 1.387 before, That I intended not to speake precisely of a Praecog∣nitum in this Argument. But when I said, Scriptures were Principles to be supposed; I did not, I could not intend, They were priùs cognitae, knowne before Tradition; since I confesse every where, That Tradi∣tion introduces the knowledge of them. But my meaning is plaine; That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed, before you can dispute this Question; † 1.388 Whether the Scriptures containe in them all things necessary to Salvation. Be∣fore which Question it must ne∣cessarily be supposed and granted on both sides, That the Scriptures are the Word of God. For if they be not, 'tis instantly out of all Question, that They cannot in∣clude all Necessaries to Salvation. So 'tis a Praecognitum, not to Tradi∣tion (as A C. would cunningly put upon the Cause) but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiency. And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question, and proveable in a Superiour Science; I thinke I shall go very neare to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confesse it too.

And now having told A. C. this, I must second∣ly [ 4] follow him a little farther. For I would faine make it appeare as plainly, as in such a difficulty it can be made, what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case. And it is the common fault of them all. For when the Protestants answer to this Argument (which, as I have shew'd, can properly have no place in the Question betweene us about Tradition) † 1.389 they which grant this as a Praecognitum, a thing fore∣known (as also I do) were neither ignorant, nor forget∣full, That things presupposed, as already known in a Science, are of two sorts. For either they are plaine and fully manifest in their owne Light: or they are proved, and granted already, some former knowledge having made them Evident. This Principle then, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, we cannot say is cleare, and fully manifest to all men simply, and in self-Light, for the Reasons before given. Yet we say, after Tradition hath beene our Introduction, the Soule that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason, may discerne Light sufficient to resolve our Faith, that the Sun is there. This Principle then being not absolutely, and simply evident in it selfe, is presumed to be taught us otherwise. And if otherwise, then it must be taught in and by some superiour Science, to which The∣ologie is subordinate. Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence, That Divinity can have no Science above it. But your owne Schoole teaches me that it hath. * 1.390 The sacred Doctrine of Divi∣nity in this sort is a Sci∣ence, because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the light of a

Superiour Knowledge, which is the Knowledge of God, and the Blessed in Heaven. In this Superiour Science, this Principle, The Scriptures are the Ora∣cles of God, is more then evident in full light. This Superiour Science delivered this Principle in full re∣vealed Light to the Prophets, and Apostles. † 1.391 This Infallible Light of this Principle made their Authority deriva∣tively Divine. By the same Divine Authori•…•…y they wrote, and deli∣vered the Scripture to the Church. There∣fore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture, and that uncorrupt, though not in the same clearenesse of Lig•…•…t, which they had. And yet since no sufficient Reason hath, or can be given, that in any Substantiall thing it hath beene * 1.392 Corrupted, it re∣maines firme at this day, and that proved in the most Supreme Science; and therefore now to bee supposed (at least by all Christians) That the Scripture is the Word of God. So; my Answer is good, even in

strictnesse, That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute.

Besides, the Iewes never had, nor can have any [ 5] other Proofe, That the Old Testament is the Word of God, then we have of the New. For theirs was de∣livered by Moses, and the Prophets; and ours was de∣livered by the Apostles, which were Prophets too. The Iewes did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authori∣ty: For so the Iewes argue themselves: a 1.393 S. Ioh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses. b 1.394 And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses, then they could in following God himselfe. And our Saviour seemes to inferre as much, c 1.395 S. Ioh. 5. where he expostulates with the Iewes thus: If you believe not Moses his Writings, how should you believe Me? Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses? How? why apparently, the same way that is before set downe. First by Tradition. So S. d 1.396 Chrysostome: We know why? By whose witnesse do you know? By the Testimony of our Ancestors. But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors, but their Prime, which were Prophets, and whose Testimony was Divine; into which (namely their Writings) the Iewes did Resolve their Faith. And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a e 1.397 Light, and a shining Light too: And therefore could not but be sufficient, when Tra∣dition had gone before. And yet though the Iewes entred this way to their Beliefe of the Scripture, they do not say, f 1.398 Audivimus, We have heard that God sp•…•…ke to Moses, but We know it. So they Resolved their Faith higher, and into a more inward Principle, then an Eare to their immediate Ancestors, and their Tradi∣tion. And I would willingly learne of you, if you can shew it me, where ever any one Iew disputing with another about their Law, did put the other to

prove, that the Old Testament was the Word of God. But they still supposed it. And when others put them to their Proofe, this way they went. And yet you say:

F.

That no other Answer could be made, but by admitting some Word of God unwritten, to as∣sure us of this Point.

B.

I thinke, I have shewed, that my Answer is [§ 19] [ 1] good, and that no other Answer need be made. If there were need, I make no Question, but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point, though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten. I say, to assure us; and you expresse no more. If you had said, to assure us by Divine Faith, your Argument had beene the stronger. But if you speake of Assu∣rance onely in the generall, I must then tell you (and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels) a man may be assured, nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall, and Humane Proofe. Men that never saw Rome, may be sure, and infallibly believe, That such a Citie there is, by Histo∣ricall, and acquired Faith. And if Consent of Hu∣mane Storie can assure me this, why should not Consent of Church-storie assure me the other, That Christ, and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God? For Iewes, Enemies to Christ, they beare witnesse to the Old Testament; and Christians through almost all Nations † 1.399 give in evidence to both Old and New. And no Pagan, or other Enemies of Christianity, can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testi∣monie for any Authoritie upon

which they rely, or almost for any Principle which they have, as the Scripture hath gained to it self. And as is the Testimony which it receives, above all * 1.400 Writings of all Nations; so here is assurance in a great measure, without any Divine Authority, in a Word written, or Vnwritten. A great assurance, and it is Infallible too; Only then we must distin∣guish Infallibility. For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Beliefe, when it is true and re∣maines so. For Truth quà talis, as it is Truth, can not deceive. Secondly, a thing is said to be Infallible, when it is not only true, and remains so, actually, but when it is of such invariable constancy, and upon such ground, as that no Degree of falshood at any time, in any respect can fall upon it. Certain it is, that by Humane Authority, Consent, and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly, that the Scripture is the Word of God, by an acquired Habit of Faith, cui non su'est falsum, under which nor Error, nor falshood is: But he cannot be assured infallibly, by Divine Faith, a 1.401 cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falshood can come, but by a Divine Testimony: This Testimo∣ny is absolute in Scripture it selfe, delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God, and so sealed to our Soules by the operation of the Holy Ghost. That which makes way for this as an b 1.402 Introduction and out∣ward motive, is the Tradition of the present Church; but that neither simply Divine, nor sufficient alone, into which we may resolve our Faith, but only as is † 1.403 before expressed.

And now to come close to the Particular. The [ 2] time was, before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ (which I thinke no true Christian can looke upon, but with a bleeding heart) that you and Wee were all of One Beliefe: That beliefe was tainted, in

tract and corruption of times, very deepely. A Di∣vision was made; yet so, that both Parts held the Creed, and other Common Principles of Beliefe. Of these, this was one of the greatest, † 1.404 That the Scrip∣ture is the VVord of God; For our beliefe of all things contained in it, depends upon it. Since this Divisi∣on, there hath beene nothing done by us to discre∣dit this Principle. Nay, We have given it all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the con∣taining of all things necessary to salvation, with * 1.405 Satis su∣per que, enough and more then enough; which your selves have not done, do not. And for begetting and setling a Beliefe of this Principle, we goe the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you: Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first induceing Motive to embrace this Principle; onely we cannot goe so farre in this way as you, to make the present Tradition al∣wayes an Infallible VVord of God unwritten; For this is to goe so farre in, till you be out of the way. For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church; it hath an end, not only to receive us in, but another after, to let us out, into more open, and richer ground. And We go a better way then you: Because after we are mov∣ed, and prepared, and induced by Tradition, we re∣solve our Faith into that Written Word, and God delivering it; in which we finde materially, though not in Termes, the very Tradition, that led us thither. And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way, because at the end we find the way prov∣ed. And doe what can be done, you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle, till you rise to greater assurance, then the Present Church alone can give. And therefore once againe to that known place of S. Augustine * 1.406 The words of the

Father are, Nisi commoveret, Vnlesse the Authority of the Church mooved me: but not alone, but with other Mo∣tives; e•…•…se it were not commovere, to move together. And the other Motives are Resolvers, though this be Lea∣der. Now since we goe the same way with you, so farre as you goe right; and a better way then you, where you go wrong; we need not admit any other Word of God, then We doc. And this ought to re∣maine, as a Presupposed Principle among all Christi∣ans, and not so much as come into this Question, about the sufficiency of Scripture betweene you, and us. But you say that

F.

From this the Lady called us, and desiring to heare, VVhether the Bishop would grant the Ro∣mane Church to be the Right Church? The B. granted, That it was.

B

One occasion which mooved Tertullian to [§ 20] write his Booke de Praescript. adversùs Haereticos, was, [ 1] That he * 1.407 saw little or no Profit come by Disputati∣ons. Sure the Ground was the same then, and now. It was not to deny, that Disputation is an Opening of the Vnderstanding, a sifting out of Truth; it was not to affirme, that any such Disquisition is in, and of it selfe unprofitable. If it had, S. Stephen a 1.408 would not have disputed with the Cyrenians, nor S. Paul with the b 1.409 Grecians first, and then with the Iewes, c 1.410 and all Com∣mers. No sure: it was some Abuse in the Disputants, that frustrated the good of the Disputation. And one Abuse in the Disputants, is a Resolution to hold their own, though it •…•…e by unworthy means, and disparagement d 1.411 of truth. And so I finde it here. For as it is true, that this Que∣stion was asked; so it is altogether false, that it was

asked in this * 1.412 forme, or so Answ•…•…r∣ed. There is a great deale of Diffe∣rence (especially as Romanists han∣dle the Question of the Church) between The Church, and A Church; and there is some, betvveene a True Church and a Right Church: vvhich is the vvord you use, but no man else that I knovv; I am sure not I.

For The Church may import in our Language, [ 2] The only true Church; and perhaps (as some of you seeme to make it) the Root and the Ground of the Catho∣like. And this I never did grant of the Romane Church, nor ever meane to doe. But A Church can imply no more, then that it is a member of the Whole. And this I never did, nor ever will deny, if it fall not abso∣lutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I grant∣ed also; but not a Right (as you impose upon me.) For Ens and Verum, Being and True, are convertible one with another; and every thing that hath a Be∣ing, is truly that Being, which it is, in truth of Substance. But this word Right is not so used, but is referd more properly to perfection in Conditions: And in this sense, every thing that hath a true, and reall Being, is not by and by Right in the Con•…•…itions of it. A man that is most dishonest, and unworthy the name, a ve∣ry Thiefe (if you will) is a True man, in the verity of his Essence, as he is a Creature endued with Reason; for this none can steale from him, nor he from himselfe, but Death: But he is not therefore a Right, or an up∣right man. And a Church that is exceeding corrupt, both in Manners and Doctrine, and so a dishonour to the Name, is yet a True Church in the verity of Es∣sence, as a Church is a Company of men, which professe the Faith of Christ, and are Baptized into His

Name: But yet it is not therefore a Right Church, either in Doctrine, or Manners. It may be you meant cun∣ningly to slip in this word Right, that I might at un∣wares grant it Orthodox. But I was not so to be caught; For I know well, that Orthodox Christians are keepers of integrity, and followers of right things (so a 1.413 S Augu∣stine) of which, the Church of Rome at this day is nei∣ther. In this sense then no Right, that is, no Orthodox Church at Rome.

And yet no Newes it is, that I granted the Romane [ 3] Church to be a True Church. For so much ve∣ry learned Protestants b 1.414 have acknowledg∣ed before me; and the Truth cannot deny it. For that Church, which receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith, though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule; and both the Sacraments as Instrumentall Causes, and Seales of Grace, though they adde more, and misuse these; yet cannot but be a True Church in es∣sence. How it is in Manners and Doctrine, I would you would looke to it with a single eye, c 1.415 For if Piety and a Peaceable mind be not joyned to a good understanding, nothing can be knowne in these great things.

Here AC. tells us, That the Iesuite doth not say, that [ 4] the Lady asked this Question in this, or any other precise forme * 1.416 of words; But saith, the Iesuite is sure, her desire was to know of me, whether I would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church? And how was the Iesuite sure the Lady desired to heare this from me? Why, A. C. tells us that too. For he addes, That the Iesuite had particularly spoken with her be∣fore, * 1.417 and wished her to insist upon that Poynt. Where you may see, and 'tis fit the Clergie of England should consider with what cunning Adversaries they have to deale, who can finde a way to d 1.418 prepare their

Disciples, and instruct them be∣fore hand upon what Poynts to in∣sist, that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences, which should never come there. And this once known, I hope they will the better pro∣vide against it. But A. C. goes on, and tells us, That cer∣tainly * 1.419 by my Answer, the Ladies desire must needs be to beare from me, not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church &c. but whether I would grant that there is but one holy Catholike Church, and whether the Romane Church (that is, not only that which is in the City, or Diocesse of Rome, but all that agreed with it) be not it. About A Church, and The Church, I have said enough † 1.420 before, and shall not repeat. Nor is there any need I should. For A. C. would have it The Church, The One, Holy, Catholike Church. But this can∣not be granted, take the Roman Church, in what sense they please, in City, or Diocesse, or all that agree with it. Yet howsoever before I leave this, I must acquaint the Reader with a perfect Iesuitisme. In all the Primitive Times of the Church, a Man, or a Fa∣mily, or a Nationall Church were ac∣counted Right, and Orthodox, as they agreed w^th the Catholike Church; But the Catholike was never then measured, or judged by Man, Fami∣ly, or Nation. But now in the Iesu∣ites new schole, The One, Holy, * 1.421 Ca∣tholike Church must bee measured by that which is in the City or Di∣ocesse of Rome, or of them which agreed with it, and not Rome by the Catholike. For so A. C. sayes expresly, The La•…•…y would know of me, not whether that were

the Catholike Church to which Rome agreed; but whether that were not the Holy Catholike Church, which agreed with Rome. So upon the matter, belike the Christian Faith was committed to the Custody of the Romane, not of the Catholike Church; And a man cannot agree with the Catholike Church of Christ (in this new Doctrine of A. C.) unless•…•… he agree with the Church of Rome; but if he agree with that, all's safe, and he is as Orthodox, as he need be.

But A. C. is yet troubled about the forme of the Ladies Question. And he will not have it, That She de∣sired [ 5] to know, whether I would grant the Romane Church to be the Right Church? Though these be her words, ac∣cording to the Iesuites owne setting downe, but he thinkes the Question was, Whether the Church of Rome was not the Right Church? not Be not, but was not. Was not? That is, was not once or in time past the Right * 1.422 Church before Luther and others made a breach from it? Why, truly A. C. needed not have troubled himselfe halfe so much about this. For let him take his Choise. It shall be all one to me, whether the Question were asked by Be, or by Was? For the Church of Rome nei∣ther is, nor was the Right Church, as the Lady desired to heare. A Particular Church, it is, and was, and in some times right, and in some times wrong, and then in some things right, and in some things wrong: But The Right Church, or The Holy Catholike Church it never was, nor ever can be. And therefore was not such before Lu∣ther, and Others either left it, or were thrust from it. A Particular Church it was; But then A. C. is not di∣stinct enough here neither. For the Church of Rome both was and was not a Right, or Orthodox Church before Luther made a Breach from it. For the word Ante, Before, may looke upon Rome, and that Church a great way off, or long before; and then in the Prime

times of it, it was a most Right and Orthodox Church. But it may looke also nearer home, and upon the im∣mediate times before Luther, or some Ages before that; And then in those times * 1.423 Rome was a Corrupt and a tainted Church, farre from being Right. And yet both these times Before Luther made his Breach. So here A. C. should have beene more distinct. For the word Before includes the whole time before Luther, in part of which time that Church of Rome was Right, and in other part whereof it was wrong. But A. C. addes yet, That I suspect∣ed the Lady would inferre, if once that Church were Right, what hindred it now to be? Since that did not depart * 1.424 from the Protestant Church, but the Protestant Church from it. Truly, I neither suspected the Inference would be made, nor feare it, when it is made. For 'tis no Newes that any Particular Church, Romane, as well as another, may once have beene Right, and afterwards wrong and in farre worse case. And so it vvas in Rome after the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat. † 1.425 S Mat. 13 But whe∣ther these Tares were sovven, vvhile their Bi∣shops slept; or vvhether * 1.426 They themselves did not helpe to sovv them,

is too large a Disquisition for this Place. So though it were once Right; yet the Tares which grow thick in it, are the Cause why 'tis not so now. And then, though that Church did not depart from the Prote∣stants Church; yet if it gave great and just Cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the Errours of it, while it in some Particulars departed from the Truth of Christ, it comes all to one for this Particular, That the Romane Church which was once right, is now become wrong, by embracing Superstition, and Errour.

F.

Farther he confessed, That Protestants had made a Rent and Division from it.

B.

I confesse I could here be heartily a 1.427 angry, but [§ 21] [ 1] that I have resolved in handling matters of Religion to leave all gall out of my Ink; For I never granted, that the Romane Church either is, or was the right Church. 'Tis too true indeed, that there is a miserable Rent in the Church, and I make no Question but the best men doe most bemoane it b 1.428; nor is he a Christian, that would not have Vnity, might he have it with Truth. But I never said, nor thought * 1.429 that the Protestants made this Rent. The Cause of the Schisme is yours; for you thrust us from you; because we called for Truth, and Redresse of Abuses. For a c 1.430 Schisme must needs be theirs, whose the Cause of it is. The Woe runs

full out of the mouth of * 1.431 Christ, ever against him, that gives the Offence; not against him that takes it, ever. But you have, by this carriage, given me just cause, ne∣ver to treat with you, or your like, but before a Iudge, or a Iurie.

But here A. C. tels me, I had no cause to be angry, [ 2] either with the Jesuite, or my selfe. Not with the Iesuite, * 1.432 for he writ downe my words in fresh memory, and upon speciall notice taken of the Passage, and that I did say either I•…•…dem, or aequipollentibus verbis, either in these, or equivalent words, That the Protestants did make the R•…•…nt, or Division from the Romane Church. What, did the Iesuite set downe my words in fresh memory, and upon speciall notice taken, and were they so few as these, The Protestants did make the Schisme; and yet was his memory so short, that he cannot tell, whether I uttered this iisdem, or aequipollentibus verbis? Well, I would A. C. and his Fellowes would leave this Art of theirs, and in Conferences (which * 1.433 they are so ready to call for) impose no more upon other men, then they utter. And you may observe too, that after all this full Assertion, that I spake this iisdem, or aequipollen∣tibus verbis, A. C. concludes thus; The Iesuite tooke speciall notice in fresh memory, and is sure he related, at * 1.434 least in sense, just as it was utt•…•…red. What's this, At least in sense j•…•…st as it was uttered? Do not these two Enter∣feire, and shew the Iesuite to be upon his shuffling pace? For if it were just as it was uttered, then it was in the very forme of words too, not in sense onely. And if it were but At least in sense, then when A. C. hath made the most of it, it was not just as 'twas ut∣tered. Besides, at least in sense, doth not tell us in whose sense it was. For if A. C. meane the Iesuite's sense of it, he may make what sense he pleases of his owne words; but he must impose no sense of his upon my

words. But as he must leave my words to my selfe, so when my words are uttered, or written, he must leave their sense either to me, or to that genuine Constru∣ction, which an Ingenuous Reader can make of them. And what my words of Grant were, I have before expressed, and their sense too.

Not with my selfe: That's the next. For A. C. [ 3] sayes, 'tis truth, and that the world knowes it, that the * 1.435 Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome, and got the name of Protestants, by protesting against it. No, A. C. by your leave, this is not truth neither; and therefore I had reason to be angry with my selfe, had I granted it. For, first, the Protestants did not depart: For departure is voluntary, so was not theirs. I say, not theirs, taking their whole Body and Cause together. For that some among them were peevish, and some igno∣rantly zealous, is neither to be doubted, nor is there Danger in confessing it. Your Body is not so perfect (I wot well) but that many amongst you are as pet∣tish, and as ignorantly zealous, as any of Ours. You must not suffer for these; nor We for those; nor should the Church of Christ for either. Next, the Protestants did not get that Name by Protesting against the Church of Rome, but by Protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) † 1.436 against her Errours, & Superstitions. Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome, and our Protestation is ended, and the Separation too. Nor is Prote∣station it selfe such an unheard of thing in the very heart of Religion. For the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are called by your owne Schoole, Visible Signes protesting the Faith. Now if the

Sacraments be Protestantia, Signes Protesting, why may not men also, and without all offence, be called Protestants, since by receiving the true Sacraments, and by refusing them which are corrupted, they doe but Protest the sincerity of their Faith against that Doctri∣nall Corruption, which hath invaded the great Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist, and other Parts of Religion? Es∣pecially, since they are men a 1.437 which must protest their Faith by these visible Signes and Sacraments.

But A. C. goes on, and will needs have it, that [ 4] the Protestants were the Cause of the Schisme. For * 1.438 (saith he) though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by Excommunication, yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding, and teaching opinions con∣trary to the Romane Faith, and Practice of the Church, which to do, S. Bernard thinks is Pride, and S. Augustine Madnesse. So then, in his Opinion; First, Excommu∣nication on their Part was not the Prime Cause of this Division; but the holding and teaching of contrary Opini∣ons. Why but then in my Opinion, That holding and teaching was not the Prime Cause neither, but the Cor∣ruptions and Superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold, and teach the contrary. So, the Prime Cause was theirs still. Secondly, A. C_s. words are very considerable. For he charges the Protestants to be the Authours of the Schisme for obstinate holding and teaching Contrary Opinions. To what I pray? Why to the b 1.439 Romane Faith. To the Romane Faith? It was wont to be the Christian Faith, to which contrary Opinions were so dangerous to the Maintainers: But all's Romane now with A. C. and the Iesuite. And then to

countenance the Businesse, S. Bernard and S. Augu∣stine are brought in, whereas neither of them speak of the Romane, and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholike, nor the Romane, but of a Particular Church, or Congregation. Or if he speake of the Catho∣like, of the Romane certainly he doth not. His words are, Quae major superbia, &c. What greater pride, then that one man should preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world. So A. C. as out of Saint Bernard. † 1.440 But Saint Bernard not so. For these last words (of all the Christian Churches in the world) are not in Saint Bernard. And whether Toti Congregationi implie more in that Place then a Particular Church, is not very manifest. Nay I thinke 'tis plaine, that hee speakes both of, and to that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching. And I believe A. C. will not easily finde where tota Congregatio, the whole Congregation is used in S. Bernard, or any other of the Fathers, for the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And howsoever the meaning of S. Bernard be, 'tis one thing for a private man, Iudicium suum praeferre, to preferre, and so follow his private Iudgement, before the Whole Congregation, which is indeed, Lepra proprii Consilii (as S. Bernard there cals it) the proud Lepro∣sie of the Private Spirit. And quite another thing for an Intelligent man, and in some things unsatisfied, modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholike Church. And much more may a whole Nationall Church, nay the whole Body of the Protestants doe it. And for S Augustine, the Place alledged out of him is a knowne Place. And he speakes indeed of the Whole Catholike Church. And he * 1.441 sayes (and hee sayes it truly) 'Tis a part of most insolent mad∣nesse for any Man to dispute, whether that bee to bee

done, which is usually done in, and thorough the whole Catholike Church of Christ. Where first here's not a word of the Romane Church, but of that, which is tota per Orbem, all over the World, Catholike, which Rome never yet was. Secondly, A. C. applies this to * 1.442 the Romane Faith, whereas S. Augustine speakes there expresly of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, and a 1.443 particularly about the Manner of Offering upon Maundy-Thursday, whether it be in the Morning, or af∣ter Supper, or both. Thirdly, 'tis manifest, by the words themselves, that S. Augustine speakes of no Matter of Faith there, Romane, nor Catho∣like. For Frequentat, and b 1.444 Facien∣dum are for Things done, and to be done, not for Things believed, or to be believed. So here's not One Word for the Romane Faith in ei∣ther of these Places. And after this, I hope you will the lesse wonder at A. C^s. Boldnesse. Lastly, a right sober man may without the least Touch of Insolency or Madnesse, dispute a Businesse of Religion with the Romane either Church or Pre∣late, (As all men know c 1.445 Irenaeus did with Victor.) so it bee with Modesty, and for the finding out, or Confirming of Truth, free from Vanity, and pur∣posed Opposition against even a Particular Church. But in any other way to dispute the Whole Catholike Church, is just that which S Augustine cals it, Insolent Madnesse.

But now were it so, that the Church of Rome were Or∣thedoxe [ 5] in all things, yet the Faith, by the Jesuite's leave, is not simply to be called the Romane, but the Christian and the Catholike Faith. And yet A. C. will not under∣stand * 1.446 this, but Roman and Catholike, whether Church or

Faith must be one and the same with him; and therefore inferres, That there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme or Division from the whole Church. For the whole Church cannot uni∣versally erre in Doctrine of Faith. That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith, is most true, and 'tis granted by diverse † 1.447 Protestants (so you will but understand its not erring, in Ab∣solute Fundamentall Do∣ctrines.) And therefore 'tis true also, that there can bee no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church. But here's the Iesuite's Cunning. The whole Church, with him, is the Romane, and those parts of Christendome, which subject them∣selves to the Romane Bishop. All other parts of Christendome are in Heresie, and Schisme, and what A. C. pleases. Nay soft. For another Church

may separate from Rome, if Rome will separate from Christ. And so farre as it separates from Him and the Faith, so farre may another Church sever from it. And th•…•…s is all that the Learned Protestants doe or can say: And I am sure all that ever the Church of England hath either said, or done. And that the whole Church can∣not erre in Doctrines absolutely Fundamentall, and Ne∣cessary to all mens Sa•…•…vation (besides the Authority of these Protestants, most of them being of prime ranke) seemes to me to be cleare by the Promise of Christ, S. Matth. 16 •…•…hat the gates of Hell shall not prevaile * 1.448 against it. Whereas most certaine it is, that the Gates of Hell prevaile very farre against it, if the Whole Mi∣litant Church universally taken, can Erre, from, or in the Foundation, But then this Power of not Erring is not to be conceived, as if it were in the Church primò & per se, Originally, or by any power it hath of it selfe. For the Church is constituted of Men, and Humanum est errare, all men can erre. But this Power is in it, partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ: and partly by the Matter which it teacheth, which is the uner∣ring Word of God, so plainely and manifestly deli∣vered to her, as that it is not possible she should uni∣versally fall from it, or teach against it in things abso∣lutely necessary to Salvation. Besides, it would be well waighed, whether to believe or teach otherwise, will not impeach the Article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholike Church, which we professe we believe. For the Holy Catholike Church there spoken of, containes not onely the whole Militant Church on earth, but the whole Triumphant also in Heaven. For so † 1.449 S. Augustine hath long since taught me. Now if the whole Ca∣tholike Church in this large extent be Holy, then certainly the whole Militant Church is Holy,

as well as the Triumphant, though in a far lower degree, in as much as all * 1.450 Sanctification, all Holinesse is imperfect in this life, as well in Churches, as in Men. Ho∣ly then the whole Militant Church is. For that which the Apostle speakes of Abraham, is true of the Church, which is a Body Collective made up of the spirituall seed of Abraham. Rom. 11. If the root be holy so are the branches. Well then the whole Militant Church is Holy, * 1.451 and so we believe. Why but, will it not follow then Tha•…•… the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in the Foundations of the Faith, That she may erre in Super∣structures and Deductions and other by, and unneces∣sary Truths, if her Curiosity, or other weaknesse carry her beyond, or cause her to fall short of her Rule, no doubt need be made. But if She can erre ei∣ther from the Foundation, or in it, She can be no lon∣ger Holy, and that Article of the Creed is gone For if She can erre quite from the Foundation, then She is nor Holy, nor Church, but becomes an Infidell. Now this cannot be. For † 1.452 all Divine Ancient, and Moderne, Romanists, and Reformers, agree in this, That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostacy. And if She Erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamentall Poynts of Faith, then Shee may bee a Church of Christ still, but not Holy, but be∣comes Hereticall; And most certain it is that, no * 1.453 Assem•…•…ly (be it never so generall) of such Hereticks, is, or can be Holy. Other Errors that are of a meaner alay take not Holinesse from the Church; but these that are dyed in graine cannot consist with Holinesse, of

which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation. And therefore if we will keepe up our Creed, the whole Militant Church must be still Holy. For if it be not so still, then there may be a time, that Falsum may subesse Fidei Catholicae, that falshood, and that in a high degree, in the very Article, may be the Subject of the Catholike Faith, which were no lesse then Blas∣phemy to affirme. For we must still believe the Holy Catholike Church. And if She be not still Holy, then at that time when She is not so, we believe a Falshood under the Article of the Catholike Faith. Therefore a very dangerous thing it is to cry out in generall termes, That the whole Catholike Militant Church can Erre, and not limit nor distinguish in time, that it can erre indeed, for Ignorance it hath, and Ignorance can Erre. But Erre it cannot, either by falling totally from the Foundation, or by Hereticall Error in it. For the Ho∣linesse of the Church consists as much, if not more, in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners taught and Commanded in the Doctrine of Faith.

Now in this Discourse A. C. thinkes he hath met [ 6] with me. For he tells me, that I may not only safely grant, * 1.454 that Protestants made the Division that is n•…•…w in the Church; but further also, and that with a safe Confidence, as one did, was it not you? saith he, That it was ill done of those, who did first made the Separation, Truly I doe not now remem∣ber, whether I said it or no. But because A. C. shall have full satisfaction from me, and without any Ter∣giversation, if I did not say it then, I do say it now, and most true it is, That it was ill done of those, who e're they were, that first made the separation. But then A. C must not understand me of Actuall only, but of Causall separa∣tion. For (as I said * 1.455 before) the Schisme is theirs, whose the Cause of it is: And he makes the Separation, that gives the first just Cause of it; not he that makes an

Actuall Separation upon a just Cause preceding. And this is so evident a Truth, that A, C. cannot deny it; for he sayes 'tis most true. Neither can he deny it in this * 1.456 sense, in which I have expressed it; For his very Asser∣tion against us (though false) is in these Termes, That we gave the first Cause; Therefore he must meane it of Causall, not of Actuall Separation only.

But then A. C. goes on and tells us, That after this [ 7] Breach was made, yet the Church of Rome was so kinde * 1.457 and carefull to seeke the Protestants; that She invited them publikely with safe conduct to Rome, to a Ge∣nerall Councell, freely to speak what they could for themselves. Indeed I thinke the Church of Rome did carefully seeke the Protestants; But I doubt it was to bring them with∣in their Net. And she invited them to Rome; A very safe place if you marke it, for them to come to, Iust as the Lion (in the a 1.458 Apo∣logue) invited the Fox to his own Den. * 1.459 Yea but there was safe Conduct offered too? Yes, Conduct perhaps, but not safe, or safe perhaps for going thither, but none for cōming thence. Vestigia nulla retrorsùm. Yea, but it should have been to a Generall Councell? Perhaps so. But was the Con∣duct safe, that was given for com∣ming to a Councell, which they cal Ge∣nerall, to some o∣thers before them? No sure, b 1.460 Iohn Hus, and Jerome of Prage burnt for all their safe conduct. And so long as c 1.461 the Ie∣Iesuites

write and maintaine, That Faith given is not to be kept with Here∣tickes: And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensur∣ed (as it hath hi∣therto done, and no exception put in of force and vi∣olence.) A. C shall pardon us, that we come not to Rome, nor within the reach of Romane Power, what free∣dome of Speech so∣ever bee promis∣ed us. For to what end Freedome of Speech on their part, d 1.462 since they are resolved to al∣ter nothing? And to what end Free∣dome of speech on our part, if after speech hath beene free, life shall not?

And yet for all this, A. C. makes no doubt, but that the [ 8] Romane Church is so farre from being Cause of the continu∣ance * 1.463 of the Schisme, or hinderance of the Re-union, that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample safe Conduct, if any hope might be given, that the Protestants would sincerely seeke nothing but Truth, and Peace. Truly A. C. is very

Resolute for the Romane Church, yet how far he may undertake for it, I cannot tell. But for my part, I am of the same Opinion for the continuing of the Schisme, that I was for the making of it. That is, that it is ill, ve∣ry ill done of those, whoever they be, Papists, or Pro∣testants, that give just Cause to continue a Separation. But for free-hearings, or safe Conducts, I have said enough till that Church doe not only say, bnt doe otherwise. And as for Truth and Peace, they are in every mans mouth with you, and with us; But lay they but halfe so close to the hearts of men, as they are common on their tongues, it would soone be better with Christen∣dome, then at this day it is, or is like to be. And for the Protestants in generall, I hope they seeke both Truth and Peace, sincerely. The Church of England, I am sure doth, and hath taught me to † 1.464 pray for both, as I most heartily doe. But what Rome doth in this, if the world will not see, I will not Censure.

And for that, which A. C. addes, That such a free [ 9] hearing is more then ever the English Catholikes could obtaine, * 1.465 though they have often offered, and desired it, and that but un∣der the Princes word: And that no Answer hath, nor no good Answer can be given. And he cites Campian for it. How farre, or how often this hath beene asked by the Eng∣lish Rommists, I cannot tell, nor what Answer hath beene given them. But surely Campian was too bold, and so is A. C. too, to say * 1.466 Honestum responsum nullum, no good Answer can be given. For this, I thinke is a very good Answer; That the Kings and the Church of England had no Reason to admit of a Publike Dispute with the English Romish Clergie, till they shall be able to shew it under the Seale, or Powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a Third, who may be an Indifferent Iudge betweene us and them; or to such a Generall Councell as is after * 1.467 mentioned. And this is an Honest,

and I thinke a full Answer. And without this all Dis∣putation must end in Clamour; And therefore the more publike, the worse. Because as the Clamour is the grea∣ter, so perhaps will be the Schisme too.

F.

Moreover he said, he would ingenuously acknow∣ledge, That the Corruption of Manners in the Ro∣mish Church, was not a sufficient Cause to justi∣fie their Departing from it.

B.

I would I could say, you did as ingenuously re∣peat, [§ 22] as I did Confesse For I never said, That Corrupti∣on of Manners was, or was not a sufficient Cause to ju∣stifie their Departure. How could I say this, since I did not grant, that they did Depart, otherwise then is * 1.468 be∣fore expressed?) There is difference between Departure, and causel•…•…sse Thrusting from you; For out of the Church is not in your Power (God bee thanked) to thrust us: Think on that. And so much I said expresly then, That which I did ingenuously confesse, was this, That Corruption in Manners only, is no sufficient Cause to make a Separation in the Church; a 1.469 Nor is it. It is a Truth agreed on by the Fathers, and received by Divines of all sorts, save by the Cathari, to whom the Donatist, and the Ana∣baptist after accorded. And against whom b 1.470 Calvin di∣sputes it strongly. And S. Augustine is plaine: There are bad fish in the Net of the Lord, from which there must be ever a Separation in heart, and in manners; but a corporali 〈◊〉〈◊〉 must be expected at the Sea shore, that is, the end of the world. And the best fish that are, must not teare and breake the Net, because the bad are with them. And this is as ingenuously Confessed for you, as by me. For if Corruption in Manners were a just Cause of Actuall Separa∣tion of one Church from another, in that Catholike Body of Christ, the Church of Rome hath given as

great cause as any, since (as * 1.471 Stapleton grants) there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man (Heresie only excepted) with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained, espe∣cially from eight hundred yeares after Christ. And he need not except Haeresie, into which a 1.472 Biel grants it possi∣ble the Bishops of that Sea may fall. And † 1.473 Stella, and Almaine g•…•…ant it freely, that some of them did fall, and so ceased to be Heads of the Church, and left Christ (God be thanked) at that time of his Vicars defection, to looke to his Cure himselfe.

F.

But (saith he) beside Corruption of Manners, there were also Errors in Doctrine.

B.

This I spake indeed. And can you prove, that [§ 23] I spake not true in this? But I added (though here againe you are pleased to omit it) That some of the er∣rors of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation. For it is not every light E•…•…ror in Disputable Doctrine, and Points of curious Speculation, that can bee a just Cause of Separation in that Admirable Body of Christ, which is his * 1.474 Church, or of one Member of it from another. For hee gave his Naturall Body to bee rent and torne upon the Crosse, that his My∣sticall Body might be One. And S. † 1.475 Augustine inferres upon it; That •…•…e is no way partaker of Divine Charity, that is an enemie to this Vnity. Now what Errors in Doctrine may give just Cause of Separation in this Bo∣dy, or the Parts of it one from another, were it never so easie to determine (as I thinke it is most difficult) I would not venture to set it downe in particular, least in these times of Discord, I might bee thought to open a Doore for Schisme; which surely I will never doe, unlesse it be to let it out.

But that there are Errors in Doctrine, and some of them such, as most manifestly endanger salvation, in the Church of Rome, is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes. The proofe whereof runnes through the Particular Points, that are betweene us; and so is too long for this Discourse. Now here A. C. would faine have a Reason given him, Why I did endeavour * 1.476 to shew what Cause the Protestants had to make that Rent or Division, if I did not grant that they made it. Why truly in this reasonable demand I will satisfie him. I did it partly because I had granted in the generall, that Corruption in Manners was no sufficient cause of Separation of one Particular Church from another, and therefore it lay upon me, at least to Name in ge∣nerall what was: And partly because he, and his Partie will needes have it so, that we did make the Separation; And therefore though I did not grant it, yet amisse I thought it could not be, to De∣clare by way of Supposition, that if the Protestants did at first Separate from the Church of Rome, they had reason so to doe: For A. C. himselfe confesses, * 1.477 That Error in Doctrine of the Faith is a just Cause of Sepa∣ration; so just, as that no Cause is just, but that. Now had I leasure to descend into Particulars, or will to make the Rent in the Church wider, 'tis no hard matter to proove, that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith, and dangerously too: And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to Particulars, A. C. his Importunity forcing me to it.

F.

Which when the Generall Church would not Re∣forme, it was lawfull for Particular Churches to Reforme themselves.

B.

Is it then such a strange thing, that a Particular [§ 24] Church may reforme it selfe, if the Generall will not? [ 1] I had thought, and do so still, That in Point of Refor∣mation of either Manners, or Doctrine, it is lawfull for the Church sinoe Christ, to doe as the Church before Christ did, and might do. The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes: This Church came to have a Separation, upon a most ungodly Policie of a 1.478 Ieroboam's, so that it never peeced together againe. To a Common Councell, to reforme all, they would not come. Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe, when Israel would not joyne? Sure it was, or els the Prophet deceives me, that sayes expresly, b 1.479 Though Israel transgresse, yet let not Iudah sinne. And S. Hierome c 1.480 expounds it of this very particular sinne of Heresie, and Errour in Religion. Nor can you say, that d 1.481 Israel from the time of the Separation was not a Church; for there were true Prophets in it, e 1.482 Elias, and f 1.483 Elizaeus, and others, and g 1.484 thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal. And there was salva∣tion for these; which cannot be in the Ordinary way, where there is no Church. And God threatens h 1.485 to cast them away, to wander among the Nations, and be no Congregation, no Church: therefore he had not yet cast them away in Non Ecclesiam, into No-Church. And they are expresly called the People of the Lord in i 1.486 Iehu's time, and so continued long after. Nor can you plead, that Iudah is your part, and the Ten Tribes ours (as some of you doe) for if that bee true, you must grant that the Multitude and greater number is ours: And where then is Multitude, your numerous Note of the Church. For the Ten Tribes

were more then the two. But you cannot plead it. For certainly if any Calves be set up, they are in Dan, and in Bethel: They are not ours.

Besides, to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine, or [ 2] Manners, is as lawfull for a Particular Church, as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either. And your Question, Quo Judice? lies alike against both. And yet I thinke it may be proved, that the Church of Rome, and that as a Particular Church, did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth, which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church; namely, The Pro∣cession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne. If she erred in this Fact, confesse her Errour; if she erred not, why may not another Particular Church doe as shee did? A learned Schoole-man of yours saith she may: † 1.487 The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree upon this Truth, fince the Authority of publish∣ing it was in the Church of Rome, es∣pecially since it is lawfull for every particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike. Nor can you say, he m anes Catho∣like, as fore determined by the Church in generall; for so this Point, when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell, was not. And how the Grecians were used in the after-Councell (such as it was) of Florence, is not to trouble this Dispute; But Catholike stands there, for that which is so in the na∣ture of it, and Fundamentally. Nor can you justly say, That the Church of Rome did, or might do this, by the Pope's Authority over the Church. For suppose he have that, and that his Sentence be Infallible, (I say, suppose both, but I give neither) yet neither his Au∣thority, nor his Infallibility can belong unto him, as the particular Bishop of that Sea, but as the * 1.488 Ministeriall

Head of the whole Church. And you are all so Iodged in this, that † 1.489 Bellarmine pro∣fesses he can neither tell the yeare when, nor the Pope under whom this Addition was made. A Par∣ticular Church then, if you judge it by the Schoole of Rome, or the Practice of Rome, may publish any thing that is Catholike, where the whole Church is silent; and may therefore Reforme any thing that is not Catholike, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not.

But you are as jealous of the honour of Rome, as [ 3] a 1.490 Capellus is, who is angry with Ba∣ronius about certaine Canons in the second Milevit•…•…ne Councell, and saith, That he considered not of what consequence it was, to grant to Parti∣cular Churches the Power of making Ca•…•…ons of Faith, without consulting the Romane Sea, which (as he saith, and you with him) was never lawfull, nor ever done. But suppose this were so, my Speech was not, Not consulting, but in Case of Neglecting, or Refu∣sing: Or when the difficulty of Time and Place, or other Circumstances are such, that a b 1.491 Generall Councell cannot be called, or not convene. For that the Ro∣mane Sea must be consulted with, before any Reformation bee made. First, most certaine it is, Capellus can never proove. And secondly as certaine, that were it proved, and practised, we should have no Reforma∣tion: For it would be long enough, before the Church should be cured, if that Sea alone should be her Phy∣sitian, which in truth is her Disease.

Now if for all this you will say still, That a Pro∣vinciall [ 4] Councell will not suffice, but we should have borne with Things, till the time of a Generall Coun∣cell. First, 'tis true, a Generall Councell, free and entire, would have beene the best Remedy, and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so farre, and eaten so deepe into Christianity. But what? Should we have suffered this Gangren to endanger life and all, rather then bee cured in time by a Physitian of a weaker knowledge, and a lesse able Hand? Secondly, We live to see since, if we had stayed and expected a Generall Councell, what manner of one we should have had, if any. For that at Trent was neither generall, nor free. And for the Errours which Rome had contracted, it confirmed them, it cured them not. And yet I much doubt, whether ever that Councell (such as it was) would have beene called, if some Provinciall and Na∣tionall Synods under Supreme and Regall Power, had not first set upon this great worke of Reformation; Which I heartily wish had in all places beene as Or∣derly and Happily pursued, as the Worke was right Christian and good in it selfe. But humane frailty, and the Heats and Distempers of men, as well as the Cunning of the Divell, would not suffer that. For even in this sense also, The wrath of man doth not ac∣complish the will of God, S. Iames 1. But I have learned * 1.492 not to reject the Good, which God hath wrought, for any Evill, which men may fasten to it.

And yet if for all this, you thinke 'tis better for us [ 5] to be blinde, then to open our owne eyes, let me tell you, very Grave and Learned Men, and of your owne Party, have taught me, That when the Vniversall Church will not, or for the Iniquities of the Times, can∣not obtaine and settle a free generall Councell, 'tis law∣full, nay sometimes necessary to Reforme grosse

Abuses by a Nationall, or a Provinciall. For, besides Alb. Magnus, whom I quoted a 1.493 before, Gerson, the Learned and Devout Chancellour of Paris tels us plainly: b 1.494 That he will not deny, but that the Church may be reformed by parts. And that this is necessary, and that to effect it, Provinciall Councels may suffice; And, in somethings, Dio∣cesan. And againe, c 1.495 Either you should reforme all Estates of the Church in a Generall Councell, or command them to be reformed in Provinciall Councels. Now Gerson lived about two hundred yeares since. But this Right of Provinci∣all Synods, that they might decree in Causes of Faith, and in Cases of Reformation, where Corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ, was practised much above a thousand yeares ago by many, both Nationall and Provinciall Synods. For the d 1.496 Councell at Rome under Pope Sylvester An: 324. condemned Photinus and Sa∣bellius. (And their Heresies were of high Nature against the Faith.) The e 1.497 Councell at Gangra about the same time condemned Eustathius for his condemning of Marriage as unlawfull. The f 1.498 first Councell at Car∣thage, being a Provinciall, condemned Rebaptization much about the yeare •…•…48. The g 1.499 Provinciall Councell at Aquileia in the yeare 381. in which S. Ambrose was present, cond•…•…mned Pall•…•…dius and Secundinus for em∣bracing the Arrian Heresie. The h 1.500 second Councell of Carthage handled and Decreed the Beliefe and Preach∣ing of the Trinity; And this a little after the yeare 424. The i 1.501 Councell of Milevis in Africa, in which S. Augustine was present, condemned the whole Course of the Horesie of Pelagius, that greatand

bewitching Heresie, in the yeare 416. The a 1.502 second Coun∣cell at Orang, a Provinciall too, handled the great Con∣troversies about Grace and Free-will, and set the Church right in them, in the yeare 444 The b 1.503 third Councell at Toledo (a Nationall one) in the yeare 589. de∣termined many things against the Arrian Heresie about the very Prime Articles of Faith, under fourteene severall Anathema's. The fourth Councell at Toledo did not onely handle Matters of Faith for the Reformation of that People, c 1.504 but even added also some things to the Creed, which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds. Nay the Bishops did not onely practise this, to Condemne Heresies in Nationall and Provinciall Synods, and so Reforme those severall Places, and the Church it selfe by parts: But They did open∣ly challenge this as their Right and Due, and that without any leave asked of the Sea of Rome. For in this Fourth Councell of Toledo d 1.505 They Decree, That if there hap∣pen a Cause of Faith to be setled, a Generall, that is, a Nationall Synod of all Spaine and Gallicia shall be held thereon. And this in the yeare 643. Where you see, it was then Catholike Do∣ctrine in all Spaine, that a Nationall Synod might be a Competent Iudge in a Cause of Faith And I would faine know, what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall, then that of Filioque? And yet the Church of Rome her selfe made that Addition to the Creed without a Generall Councell, as I have shewed e 1.506 already. And if this were practised so often, and in so many places, why may not a Nationall Coun∣cell of the Church of England doe the like? as Shee did. For, Shee cast off the Pope's Vsurpation,

and as much as in her lay, restored the King to his right. That appeares by a a 1.507 Booke subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eight's time. And by the b 1.508 Re∣cords in the Arch-bishop's Office, or∣derly kept and to be seene. In the Reformation which came after, our c 1.509 Princes had their parts, and the Clergy theirs. And to these Two principally the power and directi∣on for Reformation belongs. That our Princes had their parts, is mani∣fest by their Calling together of the Bishops, and others of the Clergie, to consider of that which might seeme worthy Re∣formation. And the Clergie did their part: For being thus called together by Regall Power, they met in the Nationall Synod of sixty two. And the Articles there agreed on, were afterwards confirmed by Acts of State, and the Royall Assent. In this Synod the Posi∣tive Truths which are delivered, are more then the Polemicks. So that a meere Calumnie it is, That we pro∣fesse only a Negative Religion. True it is, and we must thanke Rome for it, our Confession must needs containe some Negatives. For, we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored. Nor can we admit Maimed Sacra∣ments. Nor grant Prayers in an unknowne tongue. And in a corrupt time, or place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falshood, as to assert, and vindicate Truth. In∣deed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done, but by the former; an Affirmative Verity being ever included in the Negative to a Falshood. As for any Errour which might fall into this (as any other Refor∣mation) if any such can be found, then I say, & 'tis most true: Reformation, especially in Cases of Religion, is

so difficult a worke, and subject to so many Pretensi∣ons, that 'tis almost impossible but the Reformers should step too farre, or fall too short, in some smal∣ler things or other, which in regard of the farre grea∣ter benefit comming by the Reformation it selfe, may well be passed over, and borne withall. But if there have beene any wilfull, and grosse errours, not so much in Opinion, as in Fact, († 1.510 Sacriledge too often pretending to reforme Superstition) that's the Crime of the Reformers, not of the Reformation; and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them.

But now before I go off from this Point, I must [ 6] put you in remembrance too, That I spake at that time (and so must all that will speak of that Exigent) of the Generall Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Romane Sea. And this you understand well enough; For in your very next words you call it the Romane Church. Now I make no doubt, but that as the Vniversall Catholike Church would have reform'd her selfe, had she beene in all parts freed of the Romane Yoke: so while she was for the most in these Westerne parts under that yoke, the Church of Rome was, if not the Onely, yet the Chiefe Hindrance of Reformation. And then in this sense, it is more then cleare, That if the Romane Church will neither Reform, nor suffer Reformation, it is law∣full for any other Particular Church to Reform it selfe, so long as it doth it peaceably and orderly, and keeps it selfe to the Foundation, and free from * 1.511 Sacriledge.

F.

I asked Quo Iudice, did this appeare to bee so? VVhich Question I asked, as not think∣ing it equity that Protestants in their own Cause should be Accusers, VVitnesses, and Iudges of the Romane Church.

B

You doe well to tell the reason now, why you [§ 25] asked this Question; For you did not discover it [ 1] at the Conference: if you had, you might then have received your Answer. It is most true: No man in common equity ought to be suffered to be Accuser, Witnesse, and Iudge in his owne Cause. But is there not as little reason, and equity too, that any man that is to be accused, should be the Accused, and yet VVitnesse, and Iudge in his owne Cause? If the first may hold, no man shall be Innocent; and if the last, none will be Nocent. And what doe we here with (in their owne Cause against the Romane Church?) Why? Is it not your owne too, against the Protestant Church? And if it be a Cause common to both, as certaine it is, then nei∣ther Part alone may be Iudge: If neither alone may judge, then either they must be judged by a * 1.512 Third which stands indifferent to both, and that is the Scri∣pture, or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that; or both call, and submit to a Generall Councell, which shall be lawfully called, and fairely, and freely held with indifferency to all parties; And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture, which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens.

And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride [ 2] and Insolent madnesse of the Prot•…•…stants, A. C. addes, That * 1.513 the Church of Rome is the Principall, and Mother Church: And that therefore, though it be against common equity, that

Subjects, and Children should be Accusers, Witnesses, Iudges, and Executioners against their Prince, and Mother in any case: yet it is not absurd, that in some Cases, the Prince, or Mother may Accuse, Witnesse, Iudge, and if need be, execute Iustice, against unjust and rebellious Subjects, or evill Children. How farre forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church, or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after. In the meane time, though I cannot grant her to be either, yet let's suppose her to be both, that A. C^s. Argument may have all the strength it can have. Nor shall it force me (as plausible as it seemes) to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects, or of Mothers over their Children, to avoid the shocke of this Argument. For though A. C. may tell us 'tis not absurd in some Cases; yet I would faine have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just, or tooke it upon him to be Accuser, and VVitnesse, and Iudge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects, but that the Law had Libertie to Iudge betweene them. For the great Philo∣sopher tells us, * 1.514 That the Chiefe Magistrate is Custos ju∣ris, the Guardian and keeper of the Law, and if of the Law, then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him. And even Tiberius himselfe, in the Cause of Silanus, when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power then in wisdome he thought fit then to take to himselfe, he put him off thus. No, † 1.515 the Lawes grow lesse where such Power enlarges. Nor is absolute Power to be used, where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law. And for * 1.516 Parents, 'tis true, when Chil∣dren are young, they may chastise them without other Accuser or VVitnesse, then themselves; and yet the chil∣dren are to give them reverence. And 'tis presumed that naturall affection will prevaile so far with them, that they will not punish them too much. For all ex∣perience tells us (almost to the losse of Education) that

they * 1.517 punish them too little, even when there is cause. Yet when Chil∣dren are growne up, and come to some full use of their owne Reason, the Apostles Rule is † 1.518 Colos. 3. Parents, provoke not your Children. And if the Apostle prevaile not with froward Parents, there's a Magistrate, and a Law to relieve even a sonne against a 1.519 unnaturall Parents: as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over Imperious Father. And an expresse Law there was among the Iewes Deut. 21. when Chil∣dren * 1.520 were growne up and fell into great extremities, that the Parents should then bring them to the Magi∣strate, and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince, yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law, the Scripture: And suppose her a Mother; yet there is, or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are growne up, if she forget all good Nature, and turne Stepdame to them.

Well; the Reason why the Iesuite asked the Que∣stion, [ 3] Quo Iudice? Who should be Iudge? He sayes was this; Because there's no equity in it, that the Pro∣testants should be Iudges in their owne Cause. But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us (as if he * 1.521 knew the Iesuites minde as well as himselfe, as sure I thinke he doth) That the Iesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine, That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith, and that in the Generall Church, as the Iesuite understood my meaning. The Iesuite here tooke my meaning right. For I confesse I said there were Errours in Doctrine, and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome. I said likewise that when the Generall

Church could not, or would not Reforme such, it was Lawfull for Particular Churches to Ref•…•…rme themselves. But then I added, That the Generall Church (not universally taken, but in these Westerne parts) fell into those Errours, being swayed in these lat∣ter Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome, under whose Government it was for the most part for∣ced. And all men of understanding know how oft, and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it, in any Body, Naturall, Politick, or Ecclesiasticall.

Yea but A. C. telles us, That never any Competent [ 4] Iudge did so censure the Church; And indeed, that no Power * 1.522 on Earth, or in Hell it selfe, can so farre prevaile against the Generall Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth, and much lesse to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith, which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed, or involved in Scriptures rightly understood. And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needfull in the Generall Church, but only in Particular Churches. And for proofe of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. Iohn 14. and 16. In this trou•…•…lesome and quarrelling Age, I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in generall. The Church of England is content to passe that over. And though * 1.523 She tels us, That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith; yet of the Erring of the Church in generall She is modestly silent. But since A. C. will needs have it: That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith, he should doe well to Distinguish, before he be so peremptory. For if he mean no more then that the whole Vniversal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply ne∣cessary to altmens salvation, he fights against no Adver∣sary, that I know, but his owne fiction. For the most

† 1.524 Learned Protestants grant it. But if he meane, that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in generall, which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles, is yet a Point of Faith, and may proove dangerous to the Sal∣vation of some, which believe it, and practise after it, (as his words seeme to import) especially, if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide, the Scripture, as * 1.525 Bellarm. sayes She may, and yet not Erre. Then perhaps it may be said, and without any wrong to the Ca∣tholike Church, that the Whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point of Divine Truth and of Faith. Nay A. C. confesses expresly in his very next * 1.526 words, That the VVhole Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths, which afterwards it may learne by study of Scripture, and otherwise. So then in A. C^s. judgement, the Whole Militant Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths. Now that which knows not all, must be ignorant of some; and that which is ignorant of some, may possibly erre in one Point or other; The rather because he confesses the knowledge of it must be got by Learning; and Learners may mistake and erre; espe∣cially where the Lesson is Divine Truth out of Scri∣pture, out of Difficult Scripture. For were it of plain and easie Scripture that he speakes, the Whole Church could not at any time be without the knowledge of it. And for ought I yet see, the VVhole Church Militant hath no greater warrant against Not erring in, then against Not knowing of the Points of Divine Truth. For in S. Ioh. 16. * 1.527 There is as large a Promise to the Church of knowing all Points of Divine Truth, as A. C. or any Iesuite can

produce for Her Not erring in any. And if She may be ignorant, or mistaken in learning of any Point of Di∣vine •…•…ruth, Doubtiesle in that state of Ignorance she may both E•…•…re, and teach her Error, yea and teach that to be Divine Truth, which is not: Nay perhaps teach that as a Matter of Divine Truth, which is contrary to Divine Truth; Alwayes provided it be not in any Point simply Fundamentall, of which the Whole Catholike Church cannot be Ignorant, and in which it cannot Eire, as hath * 1.528 •…•…efore beene prooved.

As for the Places of Scripture which A C. cites to [ 5] proove that the Wh•…•…l Church cannot Erre Generally in * 1.529 any one Point of Divine Truth, be it Fundamentall or not, they are known Places all of them, and are al∣ledged by A. C. three severall times in this short Tract, and to three severall purposes. Here to proove, That * 1.530 the Vniversall Church cannot erre. Before this to prove, * 1.531 that the Tradition of the present Church cannot Erre. Af∣ter this to prove, that the Pope cannot Erre. He should * 1.532 have done well to have added these Places a fourth time, to proove that Generall Councels cannot Erre. For so doth both * 1.533 Stapleton and † 1.534 Bellarmine. Sure A. C. and his fellowes are hard driven, when they must fly to the same Places for such different purposes. For A Pope may Erre, where a Councell doth not. And a Generall Councell may Er•…•…e, where the Catholike Church cannot. And therefore it is not likely that these Places should serve alike for all. The first Place is Saint Matthew 16. There Christ told Saint Peter, * 1.535 and we believe it most assuredly, That Hell Gates shall never be able to prevaile against his Church. But that is, That they shall not prevaile to make the Church Catholike Apostatize, and fall quite away from Christ, or Erre in absolute 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which amounts to as much. But the Promise reaches not

to this, that the Church shall never Erre, no not in the lightest matters of Faith. For it will not fol∣low: Hell Gates shall not prevaile against the Church; Therefore Hellish Divells shall not tempt, or assault, and batter it. And thus Saint a 1.536 Augustine understood the place. It may fight (yea and bee wounded too) but it cannot be wholly overcome. And Bellarmine himselfe applies it to proove, * 1.537 That the Visible Church of Christ cannot deficere, Erre so, as quite to fall away. Therefore in his judgement, this is a true, and a safe sense of this Text of Scri∣pture. But as for not Erring at all, in any Point of Divine Truth, and so making the Church absolute∣ly Infallible, that's neither a true, nor a safe sense of this Scripture. And tis very remarkable, that whereas this Text hath beene so much beaten upon by Writers of all sorts, there is no one Father of the Church for twelve hundred yeares after Christ (the Counterseit or Partiall Decretalls of some Popes except∣ed) that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this Place: but her Non deficiency, that hath beene, and is justly deduced hence. And here I chal∣lenge A. C. and all that partie to shew the contrary, if they can. The next Place of Scripture is Saint Mat∣thew 28. * 1.538 The Promise of Christ that hee will bee with them to the end of the VVorld. But this in the generall voyce of the * 1.539 Fathers of the Church is a promise of Assistance and Pro∣tection, not of an Infallibility of the Church. And † 1.540 Pope Leo himself en∣larges this presence and providence of Christ to all those things w^ch he committed to the execution of his Ministers. But no word of Infallibility is to be found there. And indeed since Christ according to his Promise is present with his Ministers in all these

things; and that one and a Chiefe of these All is the preaching of his Word to the People. It must follow That Christ should be present with all his Ministers that Preach his word, to make them Insallible, which daily Experience tells us, is not so. The third Place urged by A C is S. Luke 22. Where the Prayer of Christ * 1.541 will effect no more then his Promise hath performed; neither of them implying an Insallibility for, or in the Church against all Errours whatsoever. And this almost all his owne side confesse is spoken either of S. Peters person only, or of him, and his Successors, * 1.542 or both. Of the Church it is not spoken, and there∣fore cannot prove an unerring Power in it. For how can that Place prove the Church cannot Erre, which speakes not at all of the Church? And 'tis observable too, that when the Divines of Paris expounded this Place, that Christ here prayed for S. Peter, as he repre∣sented the VVhole Catholike Church, and obtained for it that the Faith of the Catholike Church nunquam defi∣ceret, should never so erre, as quite to fall away; † 1.543 Bellarmine is so stiffe for the Pope, that he sayes expresly, This Exposition of the Parisians is false, and that this Text cannot be meant of the Catholike Church. Not be meant of it? Then certainly it ought not to be alledged as Proo•…•…e of it, as here it is by A. C. The fourth Place named by A. C. is S. Iohn 14. And the consequent Place to it * 1.544 S. John 16 These Places containe an other Promise of Christ concerning the comming of the Holy Ghost. Thus: That the Comforter shall abide with them forever. That this Comforter is the Spirit of Truth. And That this Spirit of Truth will lead them into all Truth. Now this Promise as it is applyed to the Church consisting of all Believers which are and have beene since Christ

appeared in the Flesh, including the Apostles, is a 1.545 ab∣solute, and without any Restriction. For, the Holy Ghost did lead them into all Truth, so that no Errour was to be found in that Church. But as it is appliable to the whole Church Militant in all succeeding times, so the Promise was made with a Limitation, b 1.546 name∣ly, 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 ap∣pointed her. For in this very Place where the Promise is made, That the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things, 'tis added, that He shall bring all things to their remem∣brance. What? simply all things? No: But all things which Christ had told them, S. Joh. 14. So there is a Li∣mitation * 1.547 put upon the words by Christ himselfe. And if the Church will not erre, it must not ravell Cu∣riously into unnecessary Truths, which are out of the Promise, nor follow any other Guide then the Do∣ctrine which Christ hath left behinde him to governe it. For if it will come to the End, it must keepe 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 Infallibly, unlesse 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 one Point of Divine Truth. In Absolute Foundations c 1.548 she cannot: in Deductions and Superstructures she may.

Now to all that I have said concerning the Right [ 6] which Particular Churches have to Reforme themselves, when the Generall Church cannot for Impediments, or will not for Negligence, which I have prooved at large

a 1.549 before, All the Answer that A. C. gives, is, First, Quo Judice? Who shall be Iudge? And that shall bee the Scripture, and the * 1.550 Primitive Church. And by the Rules of the one, and to the Integrity of the other, both in Faith, and Manners, any Parti∣cular Church may safely Reforme it selfe.

Secondly, That no Reformation in Faith can be need∣full [ 7] in the Generall Church, but only in Particular Churches. In which Case also (he saith) Particular Churches may not * 1.551 take upon them to Judge and Condemne others of Errours in Faith: Well, how farre forth Reformation even of Faith may be necessary in the Generall Church, I have expressed c 1.552 already. And for Particular Churches, I do not say, that they must take upon them to Iudge or Condemne others of Errour in Faith. That which I say, is, They may Reforme themselves. Now I hope, to Reforme themselves, and to Condemne others, are two different Workes, unlesse it fall out so, that by Reform∣ing themselves, they do by consequence Condemne any other, that is guilty in that Point, in which they Re∣forme themselves; and so farre to Iudge and Con∣demne others, is not onely lawfull, but necessary. A man that lives religiously, doth not by and by sit in Iudgement, and Condemne with his mouth all Pro∣phane Livers. But yet while he is silent, his very Life condemnes them. And I hope in this Way of Judica∣ture, A. C. dares not say 'tis unlawfull for a particular Church or man to Condemne another. And farther, whatsoever A. C. can say to the contrary, there are di∣verse Cases, where Heresies are knowne, and notori∣ous, in which it will be hard to say (as he doth) That * 1.553 one Particular Church must not Iudge or Condemne

another, so farre forth at least, as to abhorre and pro∣test against the Heresie of it.

Thirdly, If one Particular Church may not Iudge [ 8] or Condemne another, what must then be done, where Particulars need Reformation? What? Why then A. C. tels us, That Particular Churches must in * 1.554 that Case (as Irenaeus intimateth) have recourse to the Church of Rome, which hath more powerfull Principality, and to † 1.555 her Bishop, who is chiefe Pastour of the whole Church, as being S. Peter's Successour, to whom Christ promised the keyes, S. Matth. 16. for whom he prayed that his Faith might not faile, S. Luke 22. And whom he char∣ged to seed and governe the whole Flocke, S: Iohn 21. And this (A. C. tels us) he shall never refuse to doe in such sort, as that this neglect shall be a Iust Cause for any Particular Man, or Church, under Pretence of Reformation in Man∣ners, or Faith, to make a Schisme or Separation from the Whole Generall Church.

Well; first you see where A. C. would have us. If [ 9] any Particular Churches differ in Points of Divine Truth, they must not Iudge, or Condemne each other, (saith he) No, take heed of that in any case; That's the Office of the Universall Church. And yet he will have it, That Rome, which is but a Particular Church, must and ought Iudge all other Particulars.

Secondly, he tels us this is so; Because the Church of Rome hath more Powerfull Principality, then other [ 10] Particular Churches, and that her Bishop is Pastour of the Whole Church. To this I answer, that it is most true indeed; the Church of Rome hath had, and hath yet, more Powerfull Principality, then any other Particular Church. But she hath not this Power from Christ. The Romane Patriarch, by Ecclesiasticall Constitutions, might perhaps have a Primacy of Order; But for Principality of Power, the Patriarchs were as even, as

equall, as the a 1.556 Apostles were before them. The Truth is, this more Pow∣erfull Principality the Romane Bishops b 1.557 got under the Emperours af∣ter they became Christi∣an; and they used the matter so, that they grew big enough to oppose, nay to depose the Emperours, by the same power which they had given them. And after this, other Parti∣cular Churches, especial∣ly here in the West, submitted themselves to them for succour and Protections sake. And this was one maine Cause which swelled Rome into this more Powerfull Principality, and not any Right given by Christ to make that c 1.558 Prelate, Pastour of the whole Church. I know Bellarmine makes much adoe about it, and will needs fetch it out of d 1.559 S. Augustine, who sayes indeed, That in the Church of Rome there did alwaies flourish the Principality of an Apostolicke Chaire: Or, if you will, the Apostolicke Chaire, in relation to the West and South parts of the Church, all the other foure Apostolicke Chaires being in the East. Now this no man denies, that understands the state and story of the Church. And e 1.560 Calvin confesses it ex∣presly. 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 a 1.561 Greeke and the Latine Fathers of this great and Learnedest. Age of the Church made up of the fourth and fist hundred yeares, alwaies under∣standing Principatus of their Spirituall Power, and within the Li∣mits of their severall Iurisdictions, which perhaps now and then they did occasionally exceed. And there is not one word in S. Augustine, That this Principality of the Aposto∣like Chaire 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 Romane Bishop any Power out of his owne Limits (which God knowes were farre short of the whole Church) I shall make it most manifest out of the very same Epistle. For afterwards (saith S. Augustine) when the pertinacy of the Donatists could not be restrained by the African Bishops only, b 1.562 they gave them leave to be heard by forraigne Bishops. And after that he hath these words. c 1.563 And yet peradventure Melciades the Bishop of the Romane Church, with his Colleagues, the Transmarine Bishops, non debuit, ought not usurpe to him∣selfe this Iudgment which was determi∣ned by seventy African Bishops, Tigi∣sitanus sitting Primate? •…•…nd what will you say if he did not usurpe this Power? For the Emperour being desired, sent Bishops Iudges, which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole Cause. In which Passage there are very

many things Observeable. As first, that the Ro∣mane Prelate came not in, till there was leave for them to go to Transmarine Bishops. Secondly, that if the Pope had come in without this Leave, it had been an Usurpation. Thirdly, that when he did thus come in, not by his owne Proper Authority, but by Leave, there were other Bishops made Iudges with him. Fourthly, that these other Bishops were ap∣pointed, and sent by the Emperour, and his Power; that which the Pope will least of all indure. Lastly, least the Pope and his Adherents should say this was an Usurpation in the Emperour, * 1.564 S. Augustine tels us a little before, in the same Epistle still, that this doth chief∣ly belong ad Curam ejus, to the Emperours Care and charge, and that He is to give an Account to God for it. And Melciades did sit and Iudge the Businesse with all Christian Prudence and Moderation. So at this time the Romane Prelate was not received as Pastour of the whole Church, say A. C. what he please. Nor had he any Su∣premacy over the other Patriarchs: And for this were all other Records of Antiquity silent, the Civill Law is proofe enough, (And that's a Monument of the Pri∣mitive Church.) The Text there is, † 1.565 A Patriarchâ non datur Appellatio. From a Patriarch there lies no Ap∣peale. No Appeale. Therefore eve∣ry Patriarch was alike Supreme in his owne Patriarchate. Therefore the Pope then had no Supremacie over the whole Church. There∣fore certainely not then received as Universall Pa∣stour. And S. Gregory himselfe speaking of Appeales, and expresly citing the Lawes them∣selves, sayes plainly, * 1.566 That the Pa∣triarch is to put a finall end to those

Causes, which come before him by Appeale from Bishops and Archbishops: but then he adds, a 1.567 That where there is nor Metropolitan, nor Patriarch of that Diocesse, there they are to have recourse to the Sea Apostolike, as being the Head of all Churches. Where first this implies plainely, That if there bee a Metropolitan, or a Patriarch in those Churches, his Iudgement is finall; and there ought to be no Appeale to Rome. Secondly, 'Tis as plaine, That in those Ancient times of the Church-Govern∣ment, Britaine was never subject to the Sea of Rome. For it was one of the b 1.568 Sixe Diocesses of the West Em∣pire, and had a Primate of its owne: Nay c 1.569 Iohn Capgrave, one of your owne, and Learned for those times, and long before him Willi∣am of Malmesburie tell us, That Pope Urbane the second, at the Councell held at Bari in Apulia, accounted my Worthy Predecessour S. Anselme, as his owne Compeere, and said, he was as the Apostolike, and Patriarch of the other world. (So he then termed this Iland.) Now the Britains having a Primate of their owne (which is greater then a Metropolitan) yea a d 1.570 Patriarch, if you will, He could not be Appealed from, to Rome, by S. Gregorie's owne Doctrine. Thirdly, it will be hard for any man to proove, there were any Churches then in the World, which were not under some either Patriarch, or Metropolitane. Fourthly, if any such were, 'tis gratis dictum, and impossible to be proved, that all such Churches, where ever seated in the world, were obliged to depend on Rome. For

manifest it is, that the Bishops which were Ordained in places without the Limits of the Ro∣mane Empire (which places they commonly called * 1.571 Barbarous) were all to be Ordained, and therefore most probable to be governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. And for Rome's being the Head of all Churches, I have said enough to that in diverse parts of this Discourse.

And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of [ 11] Africk, I shall borrow another reason from the Pra∣ctice of that Church, why by Principatus, S. Augustine neither did, nor could meane any Principality of the Church, or Bishop of Rome over the Whole Church of Christ. For as the Acts of Councels and Stories go, the African Prelates finding that all succeeding Popes were not of Melciades his temper, set themselves to assert their owne Liberties, and held it out stoutly against Zozimus, Boniface the first, and Caelestine the first, who were successively Popes of Rome. At last it, was concluded in the sixt Councell of Carthage (wherein were assembled two hundred and seventeene Bishops, of which S. Augustine himselfe was one) that they would not give way to such a manifest incroachment upon their Rights and Liberties, and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Coelestine to forbeare sending his Officers amongst them, † 1.572 least he should seeme to induce the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ. And this is said to have amounted into a formall Separation from the Church of Rome, and to have continued for the space of somewhat more then one hundred yeares; Now that such a Separation there was of the African Church from Rome, and a Recon∣ciliation after, stands upon the Credit and Authority

of two publike Instruments extant both, among the Anci∣ent Councels. The one is an a 1.573 Epistle from Boniface the se∣cond, in whose time the Reconciliation to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius then Bishop of Carthage, but the Sepa∣ration, Instigante Diabolo, by the Temptation of the Divil. The other is an b 1.574 Exemplar Precū, or Copie of the Petiti∣on of the same Eulalius, in which he damnes and cur∣ses all those his Predecessors which went against the Church of Rome. Amongst which Eulalius must needes Curse S. Augustine; And Pope Boniface accepting this Submmission, must acknowledge that S. Augustine and the rest of that Councell deserved this Curse, and dy∣ed under it, as violating Rectae Fidei Regulam, the Rule of the Right Faith (so the Exemplar Precum beginnes) by refusing the Popes Authority. I will not deny, but that there are divers Reasons given by the Learned Romanists, and Reformed Writers for and against the Truth and Authority of both these Instruments. But be∣cause this is too long to be examin'd here, I wil say but this, and then make my use of it to my present pur∣pose, giving the Church of Rome free leave to acknow∣ledge these Instruments to be true, or false, as they please. That which I shall say, is this: These Instruments are let stand in all Editions of the Councels and Epistles Decre∣tall. As for Example in the Old Edition by Isidor, Anno. 1524. And in another Old Edition of them Printed Anno. 1530. And in that which was published by P Crabbe, Anno. 1538. And in the Edition of Valentinus Ioverius, Anno. 1555. And in that by Surius, Anno. 1567. And in the Edition at Venice by Nicolinus, Anno. 1585. And in all of these without any Note, or Censure up∣on them. And they are in the Edition of Binius too, Anno. 1618. but there's a Censure upon them to keepe a quarter it may be with * 1.575 Baronius, who was the first (I think) that ever quarrelled them, and he doth

it tartly. And since † 1.576 Bellarmine followes the same way but more doubtfully. This is that which I had to say. And the Vse which I shall make of these Instruments, whether they be true or false, is this. They are either true or false, that is of necessity. If they be false, then Boniface the Second, and his Accomplices at Rome, or some for them are notorious Forgers, and that of Records of great Consequence concerning the Government and Peace of the whole Church of Christ, and to the perpetual Infamie of that Sea, and all this foolishly and to no purpose. For if there were no such Separation, as these Records mention of the Africane Churches from the Romane, to what end should Boniface, or any other counterfeit an Epistle of his owne, and a Submission of Eulalius? On the other side, if these Instruments be true (as the sixth Councell of Carthage against all other Arguments makes me incline to believe they are, in Substance at least, though perhaps not in all Circum∣stances) then 'tis manifest, that the Church of Africk se∣parated from the Church of Rome; That this Separati∣on continued above one hundred yeares; That the Church of Africke made this Separation in a Nationall Councell of their owne, which had in it two hundred and seventeene Bishops: That this Separation was made (for ought appeares) only because they at Rome were too ready to entertaine Appeales from the Church of Africke, as appeares in the Case of * 1.577 Apiarius, who then ap∣pealed thither; That S. Augustine, Eugenius, Fulgentius, and all those Bishops, and other Martyrs which suffered in the Uandalike Persecu∣tion; dyed in the time of this Separation, That if this Separation were not just, but a Schisme, then these Famous Fathers of the Church dyed (for ought

appeares) in Actuall and unrepented Schisme, † 1.578 and out of the Church. And if so, then how comes S. Augustine to be, and be accounted a Saint all over the Christian world, and at Rome it selfe? But if the Separation were just, then is it farre more law∣full for the Church of England by a Nationall Councell to cast off the Popes Vsurpation (as * 1.579 She did) then it was for the African Church to separate; Because then the African Church excepted only against the Pride of Rome † 1.580 in Case of Appeales, and two other Canons lesse materiall; But the Church of England excepts (besides this Grievance) against many Corruptions in Doctrine belonging to the Faith, with which Rome at that time of the African Separation was not tainted. And I am out of all doubt, that S. August. and those other Famous men in their generations, durst not thus have sepa∣rated from Rome, had the Pope had that powerfull Prin∣cipality over the whole Church of Christ; And that by Christs owne Ordinance, and Institution, as A. C. pretends he had. * 1.581

I told you a little * 1.582 before, that the Popes grew un∣der [ 12] the Emperors till they had over-grown them And now lest A. C. should say, I speake it without proofe, I will give you a briefe touch of the Church-story in that behalfe: And that from the beginning of the Empe∣rors becomming Christians, to the time of Charles the Great, which containes about five hundred yeares. For so soone as the Emperors became Christian, the Church (which before was kept under by persecutions) began to be put in better order. For the calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergie, that was a thing of k•…•…owne use, and benefit for Preservation of Unity and Peace in the Church. And so much

† 1.583 S. Ierome tels us. Though being none himselfe hee was no great friend to Bishops. And this was so setled in the mindes of men from the very Infancy of the Christian Church, as that it had not been to that time contradicted by any. So that then there was no Controversie about the Calling; all agreed upon that. The only Difficulty was to accom∣modate the Places and Precedencies of Bishops, among themselves, for the very Necessity of Order and Go∣vernment. To doe this, the most equall and impartiall way was, That as the Church is in the Common-wealth, not the Common-wealth in it (as * 1.584 Optatus telles us.) So the Honours of the Church should a 1.585 follow the Ho∣n urs of the State. And so it was insi∣nuated, if not Ordered (as appeares) by the Canons of the Councels of Chalcedon and Antioch. And this was the very fountaine of Papall Greatnesse, the Pope having his Residence in the great Imperiall City. But Precedency is one thing, and Authority is another. It was thought fit therefore, though (as b 1.586 S. Cyprian speakes) Episcopa∣tus unus est; the Calling of a Bishop be one and the same, that yet among Bishops there should be a certaine Sub∣ordination, and Subjection. The Empire therefore being cast into severall Divisions (which they then called Diocesses) every Diocesse contained severall Provinces, every Province severall Bishopricks. The Chiefe of a Di∣oc sse (in that larger sense) was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sometimes a Patriarch. The Chiefe of a Province, a Me∣tropolitane. Next the Bishops in their severall Diocesses

(as we now use that word) Among These there was effectuall subjection respectively grounded upon Canon, and Positive Law in their severall Quarters. But over them none at all. All the Difference there, was but Ho∣norary, not Autoritative. If the Ambition of some parti∣cular persons did attempt now and then to breake these Bounds, it is no marvel. For no Calling can sancti∣fie all that have it. And Socrates t•…•…lles us, That in this way the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome advanced them∣selves to a great height 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, even beyond the quality of Bishops. Now upon view of Story it will appeare, that what advantage accrewed to Alexandria, was gotten by the violence of Theophilus, Patriarch there. A man of exceeding great Learning, and of no lesse violence; and he made no little advantage, out of this, That the Empresse •…•…udoxia used his helpe for the casting of S. Chrylostome out of Constantinople. But the Roman Prelates grew by a steddy and constant watch. fulnesse upon all Occasions to increase the Honour of that Sea. Interposing and * 1.587 assuming to themselves to be Uindices Canonum (as S. Gregory Naz. speaks) Defenders and Restorers of the Canons of the Church, which was a faire pretence, and took extremely well. But yet the world tooke notice of this their aime. For in all Contestations between the East and the West, w^ch were nor smal, nor few, the Western Bishops objected Levity to the Eastern; And they again Arrogancy to the Bishops of the West, as † 1.588 Bilius observes, and upon very warrantable testimonies. For all this, the Bishop of Rome continued in good Obedience to the Emperor, enduring his Cen∣sures and Iudgements: And being chosen by the Cler∣gy and People of Rome, he accepted from the Emperor the Ratification of that choise. Insomuch that about the yeare 579. when all Italy was on fire with the Lombards, and * 1.589 Pelagius the second constrained through

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the necessity of the times contrary to the Example of his Predecessors to entere upon the Popedome without the Emperors leave, S. Gregory then a Deacon was shortly after sent on Embassie to excuse it. About this time brake out the Ambition of † 1.590 Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople affecting to be Vniversall Bishop. He was countenanced in this by Mauricius the Emperor, but sowerly opposed by Pelagius and S. Gregory. Inso∣much, that S. Gregory saies plainly, That this Pride of a 1.591 his shewes that the times of Anti∣christ were neare. So as yet (and this was now upon the point of six hundred yeares af∣ter Christ) there was no Vni∣versall Bishop, No One Mo∣narch over the whole Mili∣tant Church. But Mauricius be∣ing deposed and murthered by Phocas; Phocas conferred upon † 1.592 Boniface the third that very honour, which two of his Predecessors had de∣claimed against as * 1.593 Monstrous and Blasphemous, if not An∣tichristian. Where, by the way either these two Popes, Pela∣gius and S. Gregory erred in this waighty businesse about an Vniversall Bishop over the whole Church. Or if they did not Erre, Boniface, and the rest which after him tooke it upon them, were in their very Predecessors judgment, Antichristian.

But to proceed. * 1.594 As yet the right of Election or Ratifi∣cation of the Pope continued in the Emperor. But then the Lombards grew so great in Italie, and the Empire was so infested with Saracens; and such changes hapned in all parts of the world, as that neither for the pre∣sent, the Hom ge of the Pope was usefull to the Empe∣ror; nor the Protection of the Emperor availaeble for the Pope. By this meanes the Bishop of Rome was left to play his owne game by himselfe. A thing which as it pleased him well enough; So both he, and his Succes∣sors made great Advantage by it. For being growne to that Eminence by the Emperor, and the greatnesse of that City and Place of his abode, He found himselfe the more free, the greater the tempest was, that beat upon the other: And then first, † 1.595 He set himselfe to alienate the hearts of the Italians from the Emperor. Next he Opposed himselfe against him. And about the yeare seven hun∣dred and ten, Po•…•…e Constantine the first did also first of all openly con∣front Ph•…•…ppicus the Emperor in de∣fence of Images. As * 1.596 Onuphrius telles us. After him Gregory the se∣cond, and the third tooke up his ex∣ample, and did the like by Leo Isau∣rus. By this time the Lombards be∣gan to pinch very close and to vex on all sides not It•…•…ly only, but a 1.597 Rome too This drives the Pope to seeke a new Pa∣tron. And very fitly he meetes with Charles Martell in France, that famous warriour against the Saracen's. b 1.598 Him he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombar•…•…s. This add esse seemes very advised y taken, atleast it proves very fortunate to them both.

* 1.599 For in short time it dissolved the King∣dome of the Lombards in Italy, which had then stood two hundred and foure yeares, which was the Popes security; And it brought the Crown of France into the House of Charles, and shortly after the VVesterne Empire. And now began the Pope to be great indeed. for by the Bounty of † 1.600 Pipin sonne of Charles, that which was taken from the Lombards was given to the Pope. So that now of a Bishop, he became a Temporall Prince. But when Charles the Great had set up the Westerne Empire, then he resumed the Ancient and Originall Power of the Emperor, to governe the Church, to call Councells, to order Papall Elect•…•…. And this Power continued in his Posterity. For this Right of the Em∣peror was in force and use in Gregory the seventh's time, * 1.601 Who was confirmed in the Popedome by Henry the fourth, whom he after∣ward deposed. And it might have continued longer, if the succeeding •…•…mperors had had abilities enough to secure, or vin∣dicate their owne Right. But the Pope keeping a strong Councell about him, and meeting with some Weake Princes, and they oft times distracted with great and dangerous warres, grew stronger, till he got the better. So this is enough to shew how the Popes climed up by the Emperors, till they over-topped them, which is all I said before, and have now proved. And this was about the yeare, 1073. (For the whole Pope∣dome of Greg. the seventh was begun and ended within the Raigne of William the Conquerour.) Yet was it carri∣ed in succeeding times with great changes of fortune and different successe. The Emperor sometimes pluck∣ing from the Pope, and the † 1.602 Pope from the Emperor,

winning and loo∣sing ground, as their Spirits, Abi∣lities, Aids & Op∣portunities were, till at the last the Pope setled him∣selfe upon the Grounds laid by * 1.603 Gregory the se∣venth, in the great power which he now uses in and over these parts of the Christiā world.

Thirdly, A. C. knowing 'tis not enough to say this, [ 13] That the Pope is Pastour of the whole Church, labours to prove it. And first he tels us, that Irenaeus intimates so much; but he doth not tell us where. And he is' much scanted of Ancient Proofe, if Irenaeus stand alone. Besides, Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallicane Church, and a very unlikely man to Captivate the Li∣berty of that Church under the more powerfull Princi∣pality of Rome. And how can we have better evi∣dence of his Iudgement touching that Principality, then the Actions of his Life? When Pope Victor Excom∣municated the Asian Churches 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 † 1.604 all at a blow, was not Irenaeus the Chiefe man that reprehended him for it? A very unmeet and undutifull thing, sure, it had been in Irenaeus, in deeds to taxe him of rash∣nesse and inconsideratenesse, whom in words A. C. would have to be acknowledged by him, The Supreme and Infallible Pastour of the Vniversall Church. But the Place of Irenaeus, which A. C. meanes, (I thinke) is this, wh•…•… •…•…he uses these words indeed, but short

of A. C^s. sense of it. † 1.605 To this Church (he speakes of Rome) prop∣ter potentiorem principalitatem, for the more powerfull Principality of it, 'tis necessary that every Church, that is, the faithfull, undique, round about should have recourse. Should have recourse, so A. C. translates it. And what doth this availe him? * 1.606 Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time, That upon any Difference arising in the Faith omnes undique Fideles, all the Faithfull, or, if you will, all the Churches round about, should have recourse, that is, resort to Rome, being the Imperiall City, and so a Church of more powerfull Principality, then any other at that time in those parts of the world. Well: Will this exalt Rome to be the Head of the Church Vniversall? What if the States and Policies of the world be much changed since, and this Conveni•…•…ncy of resorting to Rome be quite ceased? Then is not Rome devested of her more powerfull Principality? But the meaning of A C. is, We must so have recourse to Rome, as to sub∣mit our Faith to hers: And then not onely in Irenae∣us his time, but through all times reforme Our selves by her Rule: That is, all the Faithfull, not undi{que}, round about, but ubi{que}, every where, must agree with Rome in point of Faith. This he meanes, and Rome may thank him for it. But this Irenaeus saith not, nor will his words beare it, nor durst A C. therfore construe him so, but was content to smooth it over with this ambiguous phrase of having recourse to Rome. Yet this is a place as much stood upon by them, as any other in all Antiquity. And should I grant them their owne sense, That all the faithfull everywhere must agree with Rome (which I may give, but can never grant) yet were not this saying any whit prejudiciall to us now.

For first here's a powerfull Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome. And that no man of learning doubts but the Church of Rome had within its owne Patriar∣chate and Iurisdiction; and that was very large, con∣taining a 1.607 all the Provinces in the Diocesse of Italy (in the old sense of the word Diocesse) which Provinces the Lawyers and others terme Suburbicarias. There were ten of them. The three Ilands, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia; and the other seven upon the firme land of Italie. And this (I take it) is plaine in Ruffinus. For he living shortly after the Nicene Councell, as he did, and being of Italy, as he was, he might very well know the Bounds of that Patriarchs Iurisdiction, as it was then practised: b 1.608 And he sayes expresly, That according to the old Custome, the Romane Patriarchs Charge was confined within the Limits of the Suburbicarian Churches. To avoid the force of this Testimony, c 1.609 Cardinall Pe∣ron layes load upon Ruffinus. For he charges him with Passion, Ignorance, and Rashnesse. And one peece of his Ignorance is, That hee hath ill transla∣ted the Canon of the Councell of Nice. Now be that as it may, I neither do, nor can approve his Translation of that Canon; nor can it be easily proved, that he pur∣posely intended a Translation. All that I urge is, that Ruffinus living in that time and Place, was very like well to know and understand the Limits and Bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome, in which hee lived. Secondly heres, That it had potentiorem, a more powerfull Principality then other Churches had. And that the Protestants grant too; and that not onely because the Romane Prelate was Ordine primus, first in Order, and Degree, which some One must be, to avoid Confusion; † 1.610 But also because the Romane Sea had wonne a great deale of Credit, and gained a

great deale of Power to it selfe in Church Assaires: Be∣cause while the Greeke, yea and the African Ch•…•…rches too, were turbulent, and distracted with many and dangerous Opinions, the Church of Rome all that while, and a good while after Irenaeus too, was more calme, and constant to the Truth. Thirdly, here's a Necessity (say they) required, That every Church, that is, the faithfull, which are every where, agree with that Church. But what? simply with that Church, what ever it doe, or believe? No, nothing lesse. For Irenaeus addes, with that Church, in quâ, in which is conserved that Tradition which was de∣livered by the Apostles. And God forbid but it should be necessary for all Churches, and all the faithfull to agree with that Ancient Apostolike Church in all those Things, in which it keepes to the Doctrine and Disci∣pline delivered by the Apostles. In Irenaeus his time it kept these better then any other Church, and by this in part obtained potentiorem Principalitate, a Greater power then other Churches, but not over all other Churches. And (as they understand Irenae) a Necessity lay upon all other Churches to agree with this: but this Necessity was laid upon them by the Then Integrity of the Christian Faith there professed, not by the Universality of the Romane Jurisdiction now challenged. And let Rome reduce it selfe to the Observation of Tradition Apo∣stolike, to which it then held, and I will, say as Ire∣naeus did; That it will be then necessary for every Church, and for the Faithfull every where, to agree with it. Lastly, let me Observe too, That Irenaeus made no doubt, but that Rome might fall away from Apostolicall Tradition, as well as other Particular Churches of great Name have done. For he does not say, in quâ servanda semper erit, sed in quâ servata est: Not, in which Church the Doctrine delivered from the Apostles shal ever be entirely kept: That had beene home indeed:

But in which, by God's grace and mercy, it was to that time of Irenaeus so kept and preserved. So wee have here in Irenaeus his Iudgement, the Church of Rome then Intire, but not Infallible. And en∣dowed with a more powerfull Principality then other Churches, but not with an Universall Dominion over all other Churches; which is the Thing in Question.

But to this place of Irenaeus A. C. joynes a reason [ 14] of his owne. For he tels us the Bishop of Rome is * 1.611 S. Peter's Successour, and therefore to Him we must have recourse. The Fathers I deny not, ascribe very much to S. Peter: But 'tis to S. Peter in his owne person. And among them, Epiphanius is as free, and as frequent in extolling S. Peter, as any of them: And yet did he never intend to give an Absolute Principality to Rome in S. Peter's right. There is a Noted Place in that Father, where his words are these: † 1.612 For the Lord himselfe made S. Peter the first of the Apostles, a firme Rocke, upon which the Church of God is built, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it, &c. For in him the Faith is made firme every way, who received the Key of Heaven, &c. For in him all the Questions and Subtilties of the Faith are found. This is a great Place at first sight too, and deserves a Marginall Note to call young Readers eyes to view it. And it hath this Note in the Old Latine Edition at Pa∣ris, 1564. Petri Principatus, & Praestantia, Peter's Principality, and Excellency. This Place, as much shew as it make for the Romane Principality, I shall easily cleare, and yet doe no wrong, either to S. Peter, or the Romane Church. For most manifest

it is, That the authority of S. Peter is a 1.613 urged here to proove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. And then follow the Elogyes given to S. Peter, the better to set off, and make good that Authority; As that hee was b 1.614 Princeps Apostolorum, the Prince of the Apo∣stles, and pronounced bl•…•…ssed by Christ; because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Sonne, so did the Sonne the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. After this Epiphanius calls Him c 1.615 solidam Petram, a so∣lid Rocke, upon which the Church of God was founded, and against which the Gates of Hell should not prevaile. And addes, That the Faith was rooted, and made firme in him d 1.616 every way, in him who received the Key of Heaven. And after this, he gives the Reason of all: e 1.617 Because in Him: (mark I pray, 'tis still in Him, as he was blessed by that Revelation from God the Father S. Matthew 16.) were found all the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the very Niceties and exactnesse of the Chri∣stian Faith. For he prosess•…•…d the Godhead of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost; And so Omni mo∣do every Point of Faith was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Him. And this is the full meaning of that Learned Father in t•…•…is passage. Now therefore Building the Church upon Saint Peter, in Epiphanius his sense, is not, as if He and his Successors were to be Monarchs ov•…•…r it for ever: But it is the edifying and esta∣blishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confes∣sion which S. P•…•…ter made. And so f 1.618 Hee expresses himselfe else∣where most plainly: Saint Pe∣ter (saith he) who was made to us indeed a solid Rock firming the Faith of our Lo•…•…d On which (Rocke) the Church is built juxta omnē modum, every way. First that

he Confessed Christ to be the Sonne of the Living God, and by and by he heard: Upon this Rocke of solid Faith I will build my Church. And the same Confession he made of the Holy Ghost. Thus was S. Peter a solid Rocke upon which the Church was founded omni modo, every way. That is, the Faith of the Church was a 1.619 con∣firmed by him in every Point. But that S. Peter was any Rocke, or Foundation of the Church, so as that he and his Successours must be relied on in all matters of Faith, and governe the Church like Princes, or Mo∣narchs, that Epiphanius never thought of. And that he did never thinke so, I prove it thus. For beside this apparent meaning of his Context (as is here ex∣pressed) how could hee possibly thinke of a Supremacy due to S. Pe∣ter's Successour, that in most ex∣presse termes, and that b 1.620 twice re∣peated, makes S. Iames the brother of our Lord, and not S. Peter, suc∣ceed our Lord in the Principality of the Church. And Epiphanius was too full both of Learning, and Indu∣strie, to speake contrary to himselfe in a Point of this moment.

Next, since A. C. speeds no better with Irenaeus, he [ 15] will have it out of Scripture. And he still tels us, the * 1.621 Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successour. Well. Suppose that. What then? What? Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter's c 1.622 Prerogatives which are Ordinary, and belonged to him as a Bishop, though not in the Extraordinary, which belonged to him as an Apostle. For that's it which you all say, d 1.623 but no man proves. If this be so, yet then I must tell A. C. S. Peter in his Ordinary Power was never made Pastour of the whole Church: Nay in his Extraordinary, he had no e 1.624 more powerfull Principality then the other Apostles had.

A a 1.625 Primacy of Order was never de∣nied Him by the Protestants: And an Vniversall Supremacy of Power was never granted him by the Primi∣tive Christians. Yea but Christ promised the keyes to S. Peter, b 1.626 S. Mat. 16. True, but so did he to all the rest of the Apostles, c 1.627 S. Mat. 18. and S. Ioh. 20. And to their Successours, as much as to His. So 'tis Tibi, & Illis, not Tibi, non Illis. I give the Keyes to thee and them, not to thee to exclude them. Vnlesse any man will thinke Heaven Gates so easie, that they might open and shut them without the Keyes. And S. Augustine d 1.628 is plaine: If this were said onely to S. Peter, then the Church hath no power to doe it; which God forbid! The Keyes therefore were given to S. Peter, and the rest in a Figure of the Church, to whose power, and for whose use They were given. But there's not one Key in all that Bunch, that can let in S. Peter' Successour, to a more powerfull Principality universall the the Successors of the other Apostles had.

Yea but Christ prayed, That S. Pete•…•… Faith might * 1.629 [ 16] not faile. e 1.630 S. Luke 22. That's true. And •…•…n that sense, that Christ prayed, S. Peter's Faith faile•…•… not; That is, in Application to his person for his Perseverance in the Faith, as f 1.631 S. Prosper applies it. Which Perseverance yet he must owe and acknowledge to the grace of Christ's Prayer for him, not to the power and ability of his owne Free-Will, as g 1.632 S. Ierome tels us. h 1.633 Bel∣larmine likes not this: Because (saith he) Christ here obtained so•…•…e speciall Priviledge for S. Peter, whereas Per∣severance in Grace is a Gift common to all the Elect. And he is so farre right. And the Speciall Grace which this Prayer of Christ ob∣tained for S. Peter was, That he should not fall into

a finall Apostacy; no not when Sathan had sisted him to the branne, that he fell most horribly even into a threefold Denyall of his Master, and that with a Curse. And to recover this, and Persevere, was aliquid speciale I trow, if any thing ever were. But this will not down with Bellarmine. No, The a 1.634 Aliquid speciale, the speciall Thing here obtained was (saith he) That neither S. Peter himselfe, nor any other that should sit in his Seat should ever teach any thing contrary to the true Faith. That S. Peter after his recovery should preach nothing either as Apostle or Bishop contrary to the Faith, will easily be granted him; But that none of his Successors should doe it, but be all Infallible, that certainly never came within the Compasse of Rogavi pro te Petre, I have prayed for thee Peter. And Bellarmines Proofe of this is his just Confutation. For he prooves this Exposition of that Text only by the Testimony of seven Popes in their owne Cause. And then takes a leape to Theophylact, who sayes nothing to the purpose. So that upon the matter Bellarmine confesses there is not one Father of the Church disinteressed in the Cause, that understands this Text as Bellarmiue doth, till you come downe to Theophylact. So the Popes Infallibility appeared to no bo∣dy but the Popes themselves, for above a Thousand yeares after Christ. For so long it was before * 1.635 Theophy∣lact lived. And the spite of it is, Theophylact could not see it neither. For the most that Bellarmine makes him say, is but this: † 1.636 Because I account thee as chiefe of my Di∣sciples, confirme the rest; for this becomes Thee, which art to be a Rock and Foundation of the Church after me. For this is •…•…ersonall too, and of S. Peter, and that as he was an Apostle. For otherwise then as an Apostle, he was not a Rocke or Foundati•…•…n of the Church, no not in a Secondary sense. The speciall priviledge therefore which Christ prayed for, was personall to S. Peter, and

is that which before I mentioned. And Bellarmine himselfe sayes, That Christ † 1.637 obtained by this Prayer two Priviledges, especiall ones for S. Peter. The one, That he should never quite fall from the true Faith, how strongly soever he were tempted. The other, That there should never be found any sitting in his Seate, that should teach against it. Now for the first of these, * 1.638 Bellarmine doubts it did not flow over to his Successors. Why then 'tis true, which I here say, That this was Personall to S. Peter. But the second he sayes, Out of all doubt passed over to his Successors. Nay, that's not out of all doubt neither. First, because ma∣ny Learned men have challenged many Popes for teaching Heresy; and that's against the true Faith. And that which so many Learned Men have affirmed, is not out of all doubt. Or if it be, why does Bellarmine take so much paines to confute and disproove them, as † 1.639 he doth. Secondly, because Christ obtained of his Father every thing that he prayed for, if he prayed for it absolutely, and not under a Condition: Father I know thou hearest me alwayes S. Iohn 11. Now Christ here pray∣ed absolutely for S. Peter; Therefore whatsoever he * 1.640 asked for him was granted. Therfore if Christ intend∣ed his Successors as well as himselfe, his Prayer was granted for his Successors as well as for himselfe. But then, if Bellarmine will tell us absolutely, as he doth, * 1.641 That the whole Gift obtained by this Prayer for S. Peter did belong to his Successors; and then by and by after breake this Gift into two parts, and call the first part into doubt, whether it belongs to his Successors or no, he cannot say the second part is out of all doubt. For if there be reason of doubting the one, there's as much reason of doubting the other, since they stand both on the same foot, The Ualidity of Christ's Prayer for Saint Peter.

Yea, but Christ charged S. Peter to governe, and feede [ 17]

his whole flocke. S. Iohn. 21. Nay soft. 'Tis but his Sheepe * 1.642 and his Lambes; and that every Apostle, and every Apo∣stles Successor hath charge to doc. * 1.643 S. Matth. 28. But over the whole Flocke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 find no one Apostle or Succes∣sor set. And 'tis a poore shift to say, as A C doth, That the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole Flocke, because both over Lambes, and Sheep, For in every flock that is not of barren Weathers, there are Lam•…•…s and Sheepe, that is, † 1.644 weaker and stronger Christians; not People and Pastors, Subjects and Governou•…•…s, as A. C. expounds it to bring the Necks of Princ•…•…s under Romane Pride And if Kings bee meant, yet then the command is Pasce, feed them, But Deponere, or Oc∣ciure, to depose, or kill them; is not Pascere in any sense; Lanii id est, non Pastori, that's the Butchers, not the Shepheards part. If a Sheep go astray never so far, 'tis not the Shepheards part, to kill him; at least if he doe, non pascit, dum occidit, he doth not certainly feede, while he killes.

And for the Close, That the Bishop of Rome shall ne∣ver [ 18] refuse to feed and governe the whole stock in such sort, as * 1.645 that neither particular Man, nor Church shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 just Cause under p•…•…etence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a S•…•…paration from the whole Church. By A. C^s. favour, this is meere begging of the Question. He sayes, the Pope shall ever governe the Whole Church, so as that there shall be no just Cause given of a Separation. And that is the very Thing, which the Protestants charge upon him; Namely that he hath governed, if notthe Whole, yet so much of the Church as he hath beene able to bring under his Power, so as that he hath given too just Cause of the present continued separation. And

as the Corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith, in the Church of Rome were the Cause of the first Separation; so are they at this present day the Cause why the separa∣tion continues. And further, I for my part, am cleare of Opinion, that the Errours in the Doctrine of Faith, which are charged upon the whole Church, at least so much of the whole, as in these parts of Europe hath beene kept under the Romane Iurisdiction, have had their Originall and Continuance from this, that so much of the Vniversall Church (which indeed they account All) hath forgotten her owne Liberty, and submitted to the Romane Church and Bishop; and so is in a man∣ner forced to embrace all the Corruptions, which the Particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon itself. And being now not able to free her selfe from the Romane Iurisdiction, is made to continue also in all her Corruptions. And for the Protestants, they have made no separation from the Generall Church properly so called (for therein A. C. said well, the Popes Admini∣stration can give no Cause to separate from that) but * 1.646 their Separation is only from the Church of Rome, and such other Churches, as by adhering to her, have haz∣arded themselves, and do now miscall themselves, the Whole Catholike Church. Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence, but in her Errours; not in the Things which Constitute a Church, but only in such Abuses and Corruptions, as work toward the Dissolution of a Church.

F.

I also asked, who ought to judge in this Case? The B. said a Generall Councell.

B.

And surely, What greater or surer Iudgement you can have, where sense of Scripture is doubted, [§ 26] [ 1] then a Generall Councell, I doe not see: Nor doe you

doubt. And A. C. grants it to be a most Com∣petent * 1.647 Iudge of all Controversies of Faith, so that all Pastors be gathered together, and in the Name of Christ, and pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, and make great and diligent search and ex∣amination of the Scriptures, and other Grounds of Faith, And then Decree what is to bee held for Divine Truth. For then (saith he) 'tis Firme, and Insallible, or els there is nothing firm upon earth. As faire as this Passage seems, and as freely as I have granted, that a Ge∣nerall Councell is the best Judge on earth, where the sense of Scripture is doubted; yet even in this passage there are some things Considerable. As first, when shall the Church hope for such a Generall Councell, in which all Pastors shall be gathered together? there was never any such Generall Councell yet, nor doe I believe such can be had. So that's supposed in vaine; and you might have learn'd this of * 1.648 Bel∣larmine: if you will not believe me. Next (saith he) If all these Pastors pray unani∣mously for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost. Why, but if all Pastors cannot meet together, all can∣not pray together, nor all search the Scriptures to∣gether, nor all upon that Search Decree toge∣ther. So that is supposed in vaine too. Yea but Thirdly, If all that meet doe pray unanimously. What then? All that meet are not simply All. Nor doth the Holy Ghost come, and give his Assistance up∣on every Prayer, that is made unanimously, though by very many Prelates or other Faithfull People met together, unlesse all other Requisites as well as, Vnanimity, to make their prayer to bee heard and granted, bee observed by them; So that an Vnanimous Prayer is not adequately supposed, and therefore Concludes not. But lastly how far a Generall

Councell, if all A. C^s. Conditions bee ob∣served, is firm, and Infallible, that shall be more fully dis∣cussed at † 1.649 after. In the meane time, these two words Firme, and Infalli∣ble are ill put to∣gether as Synoni∣ma's. For there are some things most Infallible in them∣selves, which yet could never get to be made firme among men. And there are many things made firm by Law, both in Churches & King∣domes, which yet are not Infallible in themselves. So to draw all toge∣ther; to settle Cō∣troversies in the Church, there is a Visible Iudge and Infallible, but not living. And that is the * 1.650 Scripture pronouncing by the Church. And

there is a visible and a Living Iudge, but not Infallible; And that is a Generall Councell, lawfully called, and so proceeding. But I know no formall Con∣firmation of it needfull (though A. C. require it, * 1.651 but onely that after it is ended, the Whole Church admit it, bee it never so ta∣citely.

In the next Place, A. C. interposes new matter [ 2] quite out of the Conference. And first in case of Di∣stractions, * 1.652 and Disunion in the Church, he would know, what is to be done to Re-unite, when a Generall Councell (which is acknowledged a fit Iudge) cannot be had by reason of manifold impediments: Or if being call∣ed, will not bee of one minde? Hath Christ our Lord (saith hee) in this Case provided no Rule, no Iudge Infallibly to determine Controversies, and to procure Vnitie, and Certainty of Beliefe? Indeed the Prote∣stants admit no Infallible Meanes, Rule, or Iudge, but onely Scripture, which every man may interpret, as hee pleases, and so all shall bee uncertaine. Truly, I must confesse, there are many Impediments to hinder the Calling of a Generall Councell. You know in the Auncient Church there was † 1.653 hinderance enough, and what hurt it wrought. And afterward though it were long first, there was provision made

for † 1.654 frequent calling of Councels, and yet no Age since saw them called according to that Pro∣vision in every Circum∣stance; therefore Impe∣diments there were e∣enough, or else some de∣clined them wilfully, though there were no Impediments. Nor will I deny, but that when they were called, there were as many * 1.655 Practi∣ces to disturbe or pervert the Councels. And these Practices were able to keepe many Councels from being all of one minde. But if being called, they will not be of one minde, I cannot helpe that; Though that very not agreeing is a shrewd signe, that the other Spirit hath a partie there against the Holy Ghost.

Now A. C. would know, what is to be done for [ 3] Re-uniting of a Church divided in Doctrine of the Faith, when this Remedy by a Generall Councell can∣not be had; Sure Christ our Lord (saith he) hath provid∣ed some Rule, some Iudge in such and such like Cases to pro∣cure unity and certainty of beliefe. I believe so too; for he hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture. And that by the manifest Places in it (which need no Dispute, no Externall Iudg) is a 1.656 able to settle Vnity and Cer∣tainty of Beliefe in Ne∣cessaries to Salvation; And in Non necessariis, in and about things

not necessarie, there ought not to bee a Contention to a a 1.657 Se∣paration.

And therefore A. C. does not well, to make that [ 4] a Crime, that the Pro∣testants admit no Infal∣lible Rule, but the Scrip∣ture onely: Or as he (I doubt not without some scorne) termes it, beside onely Scripture. For what need is there of another, since this is most Infallible; and the same which the b 1.658 Anci∣ent Church of Christ admitted. And if it were sufficient for the Ancient Church to guide them, and direct their Councels, why should it be now held insuffici∣ent for us, at least, till a free Generall Councell may bee had? And it hath both the Conditi∣ons which c 1.659 Bellarmine requires to a Rule. Namely, that it be Cer∣taine, and that it bee Knowne; For if it bee not certaine, it is no Rule, and if it be not knowne, 'tis no Rule to us. Now the d 1.660 Romanists dare not

deny, but this Rule is •…•…aine; and that it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ntly Knowne in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…lest Places of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…uch as are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Salvation, none of the Ancients did ever 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…here's an In∣fallible Rule.

Nor need there be such feare. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Private Spirit in [ 5] these manifest things, which be•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 read, or heard teach themselves. Indeed you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had need of some other Iudge, and he a p•…•…opitious one, to crush the Pope's more powerfull •…•…rincipality out of Pasce oves, feed my sheepe. And yet this must be the meaning (if you will have it) whether Gideon's fleece bee wet, or dry, Iudg. 6. that is, whether there be dew * 1.661 enough in the Text, to water that sense or no. But I pray, when God hath left his•…•… Church this Infallible Rule, what warrant have you to seeke another? You have shewed us none yet, what e're you thinke you have. And I hope A. C. cannot thinke, it followes, that Christ our Lord hat•…•… provided no Rule to deter∣mine necessary Controversies, because hee hath not provided the Rule, which he would have.

Besides, let there be such a living Iudge, as A. C. [ 6] would have, and let the * 1.662 Pope be he, yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Divell, and impious men, to keepe the Church at all Times from Renting, even in the Doctrine of Faith; or to soder the Rents which are made. For Oportet esse Haereses, 1. Cor. 11. He∣resies there will be, and Heresies properly there cannot * 1.663 be, but in Doctrine of the Faith. And what, will A. C. in this Case do? Will he send Christ our Lord to provide another Rule then the Decision of the Bishop of Rome, because he can neither make Unity, nor Certainty of

Beliefe. And (as 'tis most apparent) he cannot doe it de facto; so neither hath he power from Christ over the Whole Church to doe it, nay out of all doubt, 'tis not the least reason, why de facto he hath so little successe, because de Iure he hath no power given. But since A. C. requires another Iudge besides the Scripture, and in Cases, when either the time is so difficult, that a Generall Councell cannot be called; or the Councell so set, that they will not agree; Let's see, how he proves it.

'Tis thus; every earthly kingdome (saith he) when [ 7] matters cannot be composed by a Parliament (which can∣not * 1.664 be called upon all Occasions, why doth he not adde here, And which being called, will not alwaies be of one minde, as he did adde it in Case of the Councell) hath, besides the Law Bookes, some living Magistrates and Judges, and above all, one visible King, the Highest Iudge, who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controver∣sies, and settle Unity in all Temporall Affaires. And shall we thinke that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his kingdome the Church onely the Law-bookes of the Holy Scripture, and no living visible Iudges, and above all, one Chiefe, so assisted by his Spirit, as may suffice to end all Controversies for Vnity and Certainty of Faith; which can never be, if every man may interpret Holy Scripture, the Law-Bookes, as he list? This is a very plausible Argument with the Many. But the foundation of it is but a † 1.665 Similitude, and if the Simi∣litude hold not in the maine, the Argument's nothing. And so I doubt, it will proove here. I'le observe Particulars, as they lie in order.

And first, he will have the whole Militant Church [ 8]

(for of that we speake) a Kingdome. But this is not certaine; For they are no meane ones, which thinke our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles, and their Successours, in an Aristocraticall, or rather a Mixt Government, and that the Church is not a 1.666 Monarchi∣call otherwise then the Trumphant, and Militant make one Body un∣der Christ the Head. And in this sense indeed, and in this onely, the Church is a most absolute King∣dome. And the very Expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the Places of Scripture, and other Ar∣guments brought by b 1.667 Bellarmine, to prove that the Church is a Monar∣chie. But the Church being as large as the world, Christ thought it fitter to governe it Aristocratically, by Di∣verse, rather then by One Vice Roy. And I believe this is true. For all the time of the first three hundred yeares, and somewhat better, it was governed Aristocratically, if we will impaitially consider, how the Bishops of those times, carried the whole Businesse of admitting any new consecrated Bishops or others to, or rejecting them from their Communion. For I have carefully Examined this for the first sixe hundred yeares, even to, and within the time of S. Gregory the great. c 1.668 Who in the beginning of the seventh hundred yeare sent such Letters to Augustine then Archbishop of Canterburie, and to d 1.669 Quirinus, and other Bishops in Ire∣land; And I finde, That the Literae Communicatoriae

which certified from one Great Patriarch to another, who were fit or unfit to be admitted to their Commu∣nion, if they upon any Occasion repaired to their Seas, were sent mutually. And as freely, and in the same manner from Rome to the other Patriarchs, as from them to it. Out of which, I thinke, this will follow most directy, That the Church-Government then was Ari∣stocraticall. For had the Bishop of Rome been then ac∣counted Sole Monarch of the Church, and beene put in∣to the Definition of the Church (as he is now by a 1.670 Bel∣larmine) all these Communicatorie Letters should have beene directed from him to the rest, as whose admit∣tance ought to be a Rule for all to Communicate; but not from others to him, or at least not in that even, equall, and Brotherly way, as now they appeare to be written. For it is no way probable, that the Bishops of Rome, which even then sought their owne Great∣nesse too much, would have submitted to the other Patriarchs voluntarily, had not the very Course of the Church put it upon them.

Besides, this is a great and undoubted Rule, gi∣ven [ 9] by b 1.671 Optatus, That wheresoever there is a Church, there the Church is in the Common-wealth, not the Common-wealth in the Church. And so also the Church was in the Romane Empire. Now from this Ground I argue thus: If the Church be within the Empire or other Kingdome, 'tis impossible the Go∣vernment of the Church should be Monarchicall. For no Emperour or King will indure another King with∣in his Dominion that shall bee greater then him∣selfe, since the very induring it, makes him that in∣dures it, upon the matter, no Monarch. Nor will it di∣sturbe this Argument: That two Great Kings in France and Spaine permit this. For he that is not blinde, may see, if hee will, of what little value

the Pope's power is in those Kingdomes, farther then to serve their owne turnes of Him, which They do to their great advantage. Nay farther, the Ancient Canons and Fathers of the Church seem to me plaine for this: For the a 1.672 Councell of Anti∣och submits Ecclesiasticall Causes to the Bishops. And what was done amisse by a Bishop, was cor∣rigible by a b 1.673 Synod of Bishops, but this with the c 1.674 Metropolitane. And in Case these did not agree, the d 1.675 Metropolitane might call in other Bishops out of the neighbouring Provinces. And if Things set∣led not this way, a Generall Councell (e 1.676 under the Scripture, and directed by it) was the Highest Re∣medy. And f 1.677 S. Cyprian even to Pope Cornelius him∣selfe sayes plainely: That to every Bishop is ascribed a portion of the flocke for bim to governe. And so not all committed to One. In all this the Government of the Church seemes pla•…•…nely Aristocraticall. And if all other Arguments faile, wee have one left from Bellarmine, who opposes it as much as any, g 1.678 twice for failing. And yet, where hee goes to Exclude Secular Princes from Church-Governe∣ment, h 1.679 all his Quotations, and all his Proofes run upon this Head, to shew, That the Governement of the Church was ever in the Bishops. What sayes A. C. now to the Confession of this great Adver∣sarie, * 1.680 and in this great Point, extorted from him by force of Truth? Now if this bee true, then the whole foundation of this Argument is gone. The Church Militant is no Kingdome; and therefore not to be Compared, or Iudged by One. The Re∣semblance will not hold.

Next, suppose it a Kingdome: yet the Church Mili∣tant [ 10] remaining one, is spread in many Earthly Kingdomes; and cannot well bee ordered like any

one particular a 1.681 King∣dome. And therefore, though in one parti∣cular Kingdom there be many Visible Iudges, and one Supreme: yet it followes not, That in the Vniversall Mili∣tant Church there must be one Supreme. For how will he enter to Execute his Office, if the Kings of those Kingdomes will not give leave?

Now here, though A. C. expresses himselfe no far∣ther, [ 11] yet I well know, what he and his Fellowes would be at. They would not be troubled to aske leave of any severall Kings in their severall Domini∣ons. No: they would have one Emperour over all the Kings, as well as One Pope over all the Bi∣shops. And then you know b 1.682 who told us of two great Lights to go∣verne the world, the Sun and the Moone, that is the Pope and the Emperour. At the first it began with more modesty, The Emperour and the P•…•…pe. And that was somewhat Tolerable. For c 1.683 S. Augustine tels us, That the Militant Church is often in Scripture called the Moone, both for the many Changes it hath, and for its ob∣scurity in many times of its peregrination. And hee tels us too, That if we will understand this place of

Scripture in a Spirituall Sense: a 1.684 Our Saviour Christ is the Sun, and the Militant Church, as being full of changes in her estate, the Moone. But now it must bee a Triumphant Church here; Militant no longer. The Pope must be the Sun, and the Emperor but the Moone. And least Innocents owne power should not be able to make good his Decretall; b 1.685 Gasper Schioppius doth not onely avow the Allusion or Interpretation, but is plea∣sed to expresse many Circumstances, in which hee would faine make the world believe the Resemblance holds. And lest any man should not know how much the Pope is made greater then the Empe∣rour by this Compari∣son; the c 1.686 Glosse fur∣nishes us with that too: and tels us, that by this it appeares, that since the Earth is seven times greater then the Moone, and the Sun eight times greater then the Earth, it must needs follow, that the Pope's power is forty seven times greater then the Em∣perour's. I like him well, he will make odds enough. But what, doth Innocent the third give no Reason of this his Decretall? Yes. And it is (saith he) d 1.687 because the Sun, which rules in the day, that is, in Spirituall things, is greater then the Moone, which rules but in the night, and in carnall things. But is it possible that Innocentius the third, being 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wise, and so able, as e 1.688 that nothing which he did, or commended, or disproved in all his life, should af∣ter his death be thought fit to bee changed, could thinke that such an Allusion of Spirituall things to the Day, which the Sun governes, and Worldly Businesse to the Night, which the Moone governes, should carie waight

enough with it to depresse Imperiall power lower then God hath made it? Out of doubt he could not. For he well knew that Omnis Anima, every soule was to be * 1.689 subject to the Higher Power, Rom. 13. And the † 1.690 Higher Power there mentioned is the Tem∣porall. And the * 1.691 Ancient Fathers come in with a full consent, That Om∣nis Anim•…•…, every soule, comprehends there all without any Excepti∣on: All Spirituall men even to the Highest Bi∣shop, and in spirituall Causes too, so the Foun∣dations of Faith and Good Manners bee not shaken. And where they are shaken, there ought to bee Prayer, and Patience, there ought not to be Oppo∣sition by force. Nay hee knew well that a 1.692 Em∣perors and Kings are Custodes utriusque Tabulae: They, to whom the custody and preservation of both Tables of the Law for wor∣ship to God, and duty to man are committed. That a Booke of the Law was by Gods owne Command in Moses his time, to bee given the King b 1.693 Deut. 17. That the Kings under that Law, but still according to it, did proceed to Necessary Reformations in Church Busines∣ses; and therein Commanded the very Priests them∣selves,

as appeares in the Acts of * 1.694 Hezechiah and † 1.695 Io∣siah, who yet were never Censured to this day for usurping the High Priests Office. Nay hee knew full well, That the greatest Emperors for the Churches Ho∣nour, Theodosius the Elder, and Iustinian, and Charles the Great, and divers other, did not only meddle now and then, but did inact Lawes to the great Settlement and Increase of Religion in their severall times. But then if this could not be the Reason, why Innocentius made this strange Allusion, what was? Why truly, I'le tell you. The Pope was now growne to a great, and a firme height. a 1.696 Gregory the seventh had set the Popedome upon a broad bottome before this Innocents time. So that now 'tis the lesse wonder, if hee make so bold with the Emperor, as to depresse him as low as the Moone, upon no better ground, then a groundlesse Resemblance. But be∣side this prime Reason, there are divers other, which may easily bee drawne out of the same Resemblance. For since Inno∣centius his maine ayme was to publish the Popes great∣nesse over Kings and Emperors: why doth he not tell us, That the Pope is as the Sunne: and the Emperor as the Moone. Because as the Moone borrowes all her light from the Sunne: So the Emperor borrowes all •…•…is true light from the Pope. Or because as the Moone still in∣creases in light solong as she followes the Sunne, but so soone as ever she steps before the Sunne shee waines presently, and her light decreases: So the Emperor, so long as he is content to follow the Pope, and doe all that he would have him, his light, and his power en∣crease, but if he doe but offer to step before •…•…hough that be his proper place) then his light, and honour,

and power, and all decrease. And this Pope Gregory the seventh made too good upon the Emperor Henry the fourth. And Pope Adrian the fourth, and Alexander the third, and Lucius the third with some others, upon Fre∣derick Barbarossa. And some other Emperors were alike serv'd, where they did not submit. And I hope no man will blame the Popes Holinesse for this. For if the Em∣perors kept the Popes under for divers yeares together, whereas * 1.697 Bellarmine tels us it was against all right they should so do, the Pope being never rightfully subject unto them, I hope the Pope having now got power enough, may keepe the Emperors under, and not fuffer them any more to step before the Sunne, lest like Moones as they are they loose all their Light. Or because as the Moone is but Ui∣caria Solis, the Vicar or Substitute of the Sunne as † 1.698 Philo telles us: So the Emperor, at least in all Spirituall Causes is but the Popes Substitute, and that for the Night, that his Holinesse may sleepe the quieter on the other side of the Spheare. Or lastly (if you will abuse the Scripture, as you too often doe, and as Innocentius did in the Decret all very grosly) you may say 'tis, be∣cause the Woman, which all grant represented the Church. a 1.699 Revel. 12. is clothed with the Sunne, that is, with the glorious rayes of the Pope, and had the Moon, that is, the b 1.700 Emperor under her feet. For this is as good, as litterall as proper an interpretation of these words, as that of Innocentius is of the words Gen. 1. God made two great Lights, the greater light to Rule the day, and the less to rule the night. Thus he or you may give your witts leave to play, if you will, for the Popes Decretall is a

meere fancy. But the true reason indeed, why Innocen∣tius made it, was that above mentioned. He was now in that greatnesse, that he thought he might passe any thing upon the Christian world, that pleased him: And was therefore resolved to bring it into the Body of the Canon, that after times might have a Law to le∣gitimate and make good their Predecessors usurpati∣on over Emperors and Kings. And rather then faile of this, ho would not spare the abusing of Scripture it selfe. Where by the way, dares A. C. say this Pope did not erre in Cathedrâ, when he was so dazled betweene the Sunne and the Moone, that hee wanted light in the midst of it, to expound Scripture? Well, I would have the Iesuites leave their practising, and remember, First, that one Emperor will not alwayes be able to establish and preserve one only Vniform practise and Excercise of Religion. Secondly, that supposing he both can and will so do, yet the Iesuites cannot be certaine, that that one Vniforme Exercise of Religion shall be the Romane Catholike. And Thirdly, That as there is a Body of Earth, a world of Confusion, to Eclipse their Moon the Emperor: so in the same way, and by like interpositi∣on, the Moone when 'tis growne too neare in conjun∣ction, may Eclipse their Sunne the Pope And there is no great doubt but he will, considering what some great Kings make of the Popes power at this day, when it pleases them.

And since we are in this Comparison between the [ 12] Sun and the Moon, give me leave a little farther to exa∣mine, who A. C. and his fellow Iesuites with some others would have to be this one Emperor. I am not willing to meddle with any the secret Designs of Forraine States: but if they wil expresse their Designs in print, or publish them by Great and Full Authority, I hope then it shall be neither unlawfull, nor unfit for me, either to take

notice, or to make use of them. Why then you may be pleased to know, They would have another Transla∣tion of the Empire from Germany to Spaine. They thinke belike this Emperors line, though in the same House, is not Catholike enough. And if you aske me, how I know this secret, I will not take it up upon any common report, though I well know what that sayes. But I'le tell you how I know it. Some∣what above foure hundred yeares after Innocentius made his Comment upon the two greate Lights, the Sunne, and the Moone, the Pope, and the Emperor: † 1.701 a Spanish Friar followes the same resemblance betweene the Monarchies of Rome and Spaine, in a Tract of his, in∣titled: The Agreement of the two Catholike Monarchies, and Printed in Spanish in Madrid Anno 1612. In the Frontispice or Title Page of this Booke there are set out two Scutchions: The one bearing the Crosse-Keyes of Rome: The other the Armes of Castile and Leon, both joyned together with this Motto; In vinculo pacis, in the bond of peace. On the one side of this there is a Portraiture resembling Rome, with the Sunne shining over it and darting his beames on S. Peters Keyes, with this Inscription: * 1.702 Luminare Majus, the greater Light that it may governe the City (that is Rome) and the whole world. And on the other side there's another Image designing Spaine, with the Moone shining over that and spreading forth its Raies upon the Spanish Scutchion, with this Impresse: † 1.703 Luminare minus, the lesse Light, that it may be subject to the City (of Rome he meanes) and so be Lord to governe the whole world besides. And over all this in the top of the Title-Page there is Printed in Capitall Letters, Fecit Deus duo Lu∣minaria magna, God made two great Lights. There followes after in this Author a Discovery at large of this Blazoning of these Armes, but this is the

Substance of it, and abundantly enough to shew what is aimed at, by whom, and for whom. And this Booke was not stollen out without the will and con∣sent of the State. For it hath Printed before it all man∣ner of Licence, that a Booke can well have. For it hath the approbation of Father Pedro de Buyza, of the Com∣pany of the lesuites. Of Iohn de Arcediano, Provinciall of the Dominicans. Of Diego Granero, the Licencer appoint∣ed for the supreme Councell of the Inquisition. And some of these revised this booke by a 1.704 Order from the Lords of that Councell. And last of all the b 1.705 Kings Priviledge is to it, with high Commendation of the Worke. But the Spanyards had need looke to it for all this, least the French deceive them. For now lately Friar Campanella hath set out an Eclogue upon the Birth of the Dolphin, and that Per∣missu Superiorum, by Licence from his Superiors. In which he sayes ex∣presly, c 1.706 That all the Princes are now more afraid of France then ever, for that there is provided for it Regnum Vni∣versale, The Vniversall Kingdome, or Monarchy.

But tis time to Returne. For A. C. in this passage [ 13] hath beene very Carefull to tell us of a Parliament, * 1.707 and of Living Magistrates and Iudges besides the Law-Bookes. Thirdly, therefore the Church of England (God be thanked) thrives happily under a Gracious Prince, and well understands that a Parliament cannot be called at all times; And that there are visible Iudges besides the Law-Bookes, and One Supreme (long may he be, and be happy) to settle all Temporall differences (which certainly, he might much better performe, if his Kingdomes were well rid of A. C. and his fel∣lowes) And she believes too, That our Saviour Christ

hath left in his Church, besides his Law-booke the Scri∣pture, Visible Magistrates, and Iudges, that is, Archbi∣shops and Bishops, under a gracious King, to governe both for Truth and Peace according to the Scripture, and her owne Canons and Constitutions, as also those of the Catholike Church, which crosse not the Scripture, and the Iust Laws of the Realme. * 1.708 But she doth not be∣lieve there is any Necessity to have one Pope, or Bishop over the Whole Christian world, more then to have one Emperor over the whole World. Which were it possible, She cannot thinke fit. Nor are any of these intermediate Iudges, or that One, which you would have Supreme, Infallible.

But since a Kingdome, and a Parliament please A. C. [ 14] so well to patterne the Church by, I'le follow him in the * 1.709 way he goes, and be bold to put him in minde; that in some Kingdomes there are divers Businesses of great∣est Consequence, which cannot be finally and bind∣ingly ordered, but in and by Parliament: And particu∣larly the Statute Lawes which must bind all the Sub∣jects, cannot be made, and ratified, but there. Therefore according to A. Cs. owne Argument, there will be some Businesses also found, (Is not the setling of the Divisions of Christendome one of them?) which can never be well setled, but in a † 1.710 Ge∣nerall Councell: And particularly the making of Canons, which must binde all Particular Christians, and Churches cannot be concluded, and established, but there. And againe, as the Supreme Magistrate in the State Civill, may not abrogate the Lawes made in Parliament; though he may Dispense with the Sanction, or penalty of the Law

quoad hic & nunc, as the Lawyers speake. So in the Ec∣clesiasticall Body, no Bishop, no not the Pope (where his Supremacie is admitted) hath power to * 1.711 disanull, or violate the true and Fundamentall Decrees of a Generall Councell, though he may perhaps dispense in some Cases with some Decrees. By all which it appeares, though somewhat may be done by the Bishops and Governours of the Church, to pre∣serve the unity and certainty of Faith, and to keepe the Church from renting, or for uniting it, when it is rent; yet that in the ordinary way which the Church hath hitherto kept, some things there are, and upon great emergent Occasions may be, which can have no other helpe, then a lawfull, fre; and well composed Generall Councell. And when that cannot be had, the Church must pray that it may, and expect till it may, or else reforme its selfe per par∣tes, by Nationall or Provinciall Synods, (as hath beene said a 1.712 before.) And in the meane time, it little beseemes A. C. or any Christian to check at the wisdome of † 1.713 Christ, if he have not taken the way they thinke fit∣test to settle Church Differences. Or if for the Churches sin, or Tryall, the way of Composing them be left more uncertaine, then they would have it, that they which are ap∣proved may be knowne. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cor. 11. 19. But the Iesuite had told me before, that a Generall Councell had adjudged these things already. For so hee saies.

F.

I told him, that a Generall Councell, to wit, of Trent, had already Iudged, not the Romane Church, but the Protestants to hold Errours. That (saith the B.) was not a Lawfull Councell.

B.

It is true, that you replied for the Councell of [§ 27] Trent. And my Answer was, not onely, That the [ 1] Councell was not Legall, in the necessary Conditions to be observed in a Generall Councell; but also, That it was no Generall Councell; which againe you are content to omit. Consider it well. First, is that Councell Legall, the Abettors whereof maintaine publikely, That it is lawfull for them to conclude any controversie, and make it bee de fide, and so in your Iudgement Funda∣mentall, though it have not, I doe not say now, the Written Word of God for warrant, either in expresse Letter, or necessary sense, and deduction (as all unerring Coun∣cels have had, and as all must have that will not erre) but not so much as † 1.714 Pro∣bable Testimony from it, nay quite extrà, with∣out the Scripture? Nay secondly, Is that Coun∣cell * 1.715 Legall, where the Pope, the Chiefe Person to be Reformed, shall sit President in it, and be chiefe Iudge in his own Cause, against all Law,

Divine, Naturall, and Humane? In a place not free, but in, or too neare his owne Dominion? To which all were not called, that had Deli∣berative, or Consulta∣tive Voice? In which none had Suffrage, but such as were sworne to the Pope and the Church of Rome, and professed Enemies to all that cal∣led for Reformation, or a free Councell. And the * 1.716 Pope himselfe, to shew his Charity, had decla∣red, and pronounced the Appellants, Here∣ticks, before they were Condemned by the Councell, I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no Lawfull Coun∣cell; and I thinke the Decrees of such a one, are omni jure nulla, and carry their Nullity with them through all Law.

Againe, is that Councell Generall, that hath none [ 2] of the Easterne Churches Consent, nor presence there? Are all the Greekes so become Non Ecclesia, no Church, that they have no Interest in Generall Councels? I•…•… numbers indeed among the Subscribers, sixe Greekes; They might be so by Nation, or by Title, purposely

given them; but dare you say they were actually Bishops of, and sent from the Greeke Church to the Councell? Or is it to be accounted a Generall Councell, that in many Sessions had scarce Ten Archbishops, or Forty, or Fifty Bishops present? And for the West of Christendome, nearer home, it reckons one English, S. Assaph. But Cardinall Poole was there too: And Fnglish indeed he was by birth, but not sent to that Councell by the King, and Church of England, but as one of the † 1.717 Popes Legates; And so we finde him in the fift Session of that Councell; but neither before, nor after. And at the beginning of the Councell, he was not Bishop in the Church of England; and after he was Archbishop of Canterburie, he never went over to the Councell. And can you prove, that S. Assaph went thither by Authority? There were but few of other Nations, and, it may be, some of them reckoned with no more truth, then the Greekes. In all the Sessions under Paul the third, but two French-men, and some∣times none; as in the sixt under Iulius the third; when Henr. 2. of France protested against that Councell. And in the end, it is well known, how all the French (which were then a good part) held off, till the Cardi∣nall of Loraigne was got to Rome. As for the Spaniards, they laboured for many things upon good Grounds, and were most unworthily over-borne.

To all this A. C. hath nothing to say, but That it [ 3] is not Necessary to the Lawfulnesse, and Generalnesse of a * 1.718 Councell, that all Bishops of the World should be actually present, subscribe, or consent, but that such Promulgation be made, as is morally sufficient to give notice, that such a Coun∣cell is called, and that all may come, if they will; and that a Major part, at least, of those that are present, give assent to the Decrees. I will forget, that it was but p. 59. in which * 1.719 A. C. speakes of all Pastours, and those not onely

summoned, but gathered together. And I will easily grant him, that 'tis not necessary that all Bishops in the Christian world be present, and subscribe; But sure 'tis necessary to the Generalnesse of a Councell, that some be † 1.720 there, and authorized for all Particular Churches. And to the freedome of a Councell, that all that come, may come safe. And to the Lawfulnesse of a Councell, that all may come uningaged, and not fastened to a fide, before they sit downe to argue, or deliberate. Nor is such a Promulgation as A. C. mentions, sufficient, but onely in Case of Contumacy, and that where they which are called, and refuse to come, have no just Cause for their not comming, as too many had in the Case of Trent. And were such a Promulgation suffici∣ent for the Generalnesse of a Councell; yet for the Freedome and the Lawfulnesse of it, it were not.

F.

So (said I) would Arrians say of the Councell of Nice. The B. would not admit the Case to be like.

B.

So indeed you said. And not you alone: It is [§ 28] the Common Objection made against all that admit not every latter Councell, as fully as that Councell of Nice, famous through all the Christian world. In the meane time, nor you, nor they consider, that the Case is not alike, as I then told you. If the Case be alike in all, why doe not you admit that which was held at Ariminum, and the second of Ephesus, as well as Nice? If you say (as yours doe) It was because the Pope ap∣proved them not. That's a true Cause, but not Ade∣quate, or full. For it was, because the Whole Church refused them; * 1.721 with whom the Romane Prelate (standing then entire in the Faith) agreed, and so (for his Patriarchate) refused those Councels. But suppose

it 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that these Sy•…•…s were not admitted, because the Pope refused them, yet this ground is gamed, That the C•…•…e is not alike for mens Assent to all Councells. And if you looke to have this granted, That the Pope must co•…•…me, or the Councel's not lawfull; we have farre more reason to looke, that this be not denied, Th•…•…t Scripture must not be departed from, in a 1.722 letter, or necessary sense, or the Councell is not lawfull. For the Con∣sent and Confirmation of Scripture is of farre greater Authority to make the Councell Authenticall, and the Decisions of it de fide, then any Confirmation of the Pope can bee. Now of these two, the Councell of N•…•…e, we are sure, had the first, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and you say it had the second, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Confirmation. The Councell of Trent, we are able to prove, had not the first, and so we have no reason to respect the second. And to what end do your Lear∣•…•… Men maintaine that a Councell may make a Con∣clusion de s•…•…e though it be simply b 1.723 extra, out of a•…•…l •…•…nd o•…•… Scr•…•…ure; but out of a Iealousie at least, that this of Trent, and some others have in their Deter∣min•…•…s left both •…•…ter, and Sense of Scripture. Shew this against the Councell of Nice and I will grant so much of the Case to be like. But what will you say, if c 1.724 Con∣st•…•… required, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thus brought into Question, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Testimony out of Scripture? And the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Councell never refused that •…•…e. And what will you say, if they professe they de∣part not from it, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 d 1.725 by many Test•…•…s of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ith? Is the Case then alike betwixt 〈◊〉〈◊〉, •…•…nd 〈◊〉〈◊〉? Surely no. But you say that I pretended something els, for my not admitting the Case to be alike.

F.

Pretending that the Pope made Bishops of pur∣pose, for his side. But this the Bishop proved not.

B.

No: Nor had I reason to take on me to [§ 29] prove what I said not. I know it will be expected I [ 1] should prove what I say. And it is hard to prove the purpose of the Pope's Heart. For if it be proved that he made Bishops at that time; that some of them were Titular onely, and had no Livelihood to subsist, but out of his purse (and so must hang their Iudgement at the strings of it;) That some of these thus made were sent to the Councell; and sure not without their Errand: yet if the Pope will say, he neither made, nor sent them to over rule the Holy Ghost at that Meeting, or of purpose for his side (as no question but it will be said) who can prove it, that is not a Surveyor of the heart? But though the Pope's heart cannot be seene, yet if these, and the like Presumptions be true, it is a great signe that Trent was too corrupt, and factious a Meeting for the Holy Ghost to be at. And sure the Case [ 2] in this, not alike at Nice.

That which I said was, That Trent could be no Indifferent Councell to the Church, the Pope having made himselfe a strong Party in it. And this I proved, though you be here not onely content to omit, but plainely to denie the Proofe. For I proved it thus (and you † 1.726 answe∣red not) That there were more Italian Bi∣shops there, then of all Christendome besides. More? Yea more then

double. And this I proved out of the Coun∣cell it selfe, which you had in your hand in Decimo sexto; but had no great heart to looke it. For, where the number of Praelates is expressed, that had Suffrage and Vote in that Councell, the Ita∣lians are set downe to bee 187. and all the rest make but 83. So that there were more Italian Bishops by 104. then of all the rest of Christen∣dome. Sure the Pope did not meane to be over-reached in this Councell. And whatsoever became of his In∣fallibility otherwise, he might this way be sure to be Infallible in whatsoever he would have Determined: And this without all doubt, is all the Infallibility he hath. So I proved this sufficiently, I thinke. For if it were not to be sure of a side, give any satisfying rea∣son, why such a potent Party of Italians, more then double to the whole Christian world, should be there? Shew me the like for Nice, and I will give it, that the Case is alike betweene these two Councels.

Here Bellarmine comes in to helpe: But sure it [ 3] will not helpe you, that he hath offered at as much against the Councell of Nice, as I have urged against that at Trent. For hee tels us, * 1.727 That in the Councell at Nice, there were as few Bishops of the West present, as were of the East at Trent,

but five in all. Be it so. Yet this will not make the Case alike between the two Councels. First, because I presse not the disparity in number onely; but with it the Pope's carriage, to be sure of a Major part. For it lay upon the Pope to make sure worke at Trent, both for himselfe, and his Church. But neither the Greeke Church in generall, nor any Patriarch of the East had any private interest to looke to, in the Councell at Nice. Secondly, because I presse not so much against the Councell of Trent, That there were so exceeding many Bishops of the West compared with those of the East (for that must needs be, when a Councell is held in the West) but that there were so many more Italians, and Bishop obnoxious to the Pope's power, then of all Germany, France, Spaine, and all other Parts of the West besides Thirdly, because both Bellarmine and A. C. seeke to avoid the Dint of this Argument, by compa∣ring the Westerne with the Easterne Bishops, and are content to say nothing about the Excessive number of Italians, to others of the West: That will receive a ful∣ler Answer then any of the rest. For though very few Westerne Bishops were at the Councell of Nice, be∣ing so remote: yet at the same time Pope Sylvester held a Councell at Rome, in which He with 275. Bishops of the West confirmed the Nicene Creed; † 1.728 and Anathemati∣zed all those which should dare to dissolve the Definition of that Holy, and Great Councell. Now let Bellarmine, or A. C. or any els shew, That when the Councell of Trent sate, there was another Councell (though never so pri∣vately in regard of their miserable Oppression) which sate in Greece, or anywhere in the East, under any Patri∣arch or Christian Bishop, which did confirm the Canons of the Councell of Irent, and Anathematize them which admitted them not, and I will confesse they speake home to the Comparison between the Councels, els a

blinde man may see the difference, and 'tis a vast one.

But here A. C. makes account he hath found a [ 4] better reply to this, and now tels us, that neither French, nor Spanish, nor Schismaticall Greekes did agree with Prote∣stants * 1.729 in those Points which were defined in that Coun∣cell, especially after it was Confirmed by the Pope, as ap∣peares by the Censure of Ieremias the Greeke Patriarch. Who agreed with the Protestants in the Points de∣fined by that Councell, (as he speakes) or rather (•…•…o speake properly) against the Points there defined; I know not. And for ought A. C. knowes, many might agree with them in heart, that in such a Councell durst not open themselves. And what knowes A. C. how many might have beene of their Opinion in the maine before the Councell ended, had they beene admitted to a faire, and a free Dispute? And it may be too; some Decrees would have beene more favour∣able to them, had not the care of the Popes interest made them sowrer. For else what mean these words, Especially after it was confirmed by the Pope? As for Iere∣mtas, 'tis true, his Censure is in many things against the Protestants: But I finde not that that Censure of his is warranted by any Authority of the Greeke Church: Or that he gave the Protestants any hearing, before he passed his Censure. And at the most, it is but the Censure of a Schismatick in A. C. owne Iudgement. And for his flourish which followes, that East, and West would Condemne Protestants for Hereticks, I would he would forbeare prophecying, till both parts might meet in a free Generall Councell, that sought Christ more then themselves. But I finde the Iesuite hath not done with me yet, but addes:

F.

In fine, the B. wished, That a Lawfull Generall Councell were called to end Controversies. The Persons present said, That the King was inclined thereunto, and that therefore we Catholikes might doe well to concurre.

B.

And what say you to my Wish? you pretend [§ 30] great love to the Truth, would you not have it found? Can you, or any Christian be offended, that there should be a good end of Controversies? Can you think of a better end, then by a Generall Councell? And if you have a most Gracious King inclined unto it (as you say it was offered) how can you acquit your selves, if you doe not consent? Now here A. C. marvels what * 1.730 kind of General Councel I would have, and what Rules I would have observed in it, which are morally like to be observed, and make an end of Controversies better then their Catholike Generall Councels. Truly I am not willing to leave A. C. unsatisfied in any thing. Nor have I any meaning to trouble the Church with any New Devisings of mine. Any Generall Councell shall satisfie me, (and, I pre∣sume, all good Christians) that is lawfully called, continued, and ended according to the same course, and under the same * 1.731 Conditions, which Generall Councels observed in the Primitive Church; which I am sure were Councels Generall, and Ca∣tholike, what ever yours bee. But I doubt that after all noyse made about these Requisite Conditions, A. C. and his Fellowes will be found as much, if not more defective in performance of the Conditions, then in the conditions themselves. Well, the Iesuite goes on for all this.

F.

I asked the B. whether hee thought a Generall Ccuncell might erre? He said it might.

B.

I presume you doe not expect I should enter into the Proofe of this Controversie, Whether a Gene∣rall [§ 31] Councell may erre in Determination, or not? Your selfe brought no proofe that it cannot, and till that bee brought, my speech is good that it can: and yet I hope to bee found no Infringer of any Power given by Christ to his Church. But it seemes by, that which fol∣lowes, you did by this Question (Can a generall Councell Erre?) but seeke to winne ground for your other, which followes.

F.

If a Generall Councell may erre, what nearer are wee then (said I) to unity, after a Councell hath determined? Yes (said he) although it may erre; yet we should be bound to hold with it, till another come to reverse it.

B

Whether a Generall Councell may erre, or not, [§ 32] is a Question of great Consequence in the Church of [ 1] Christ. To say it cannot erre, leaves the Church not on∣ly without Remedy against an errour once Determi∣ned. but also without sense that it may need a Reme∣dy, and so without care to seeke it, which is the mise∣ry of the Church of Rome at this day. To say it can erre, seemes to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith, to make un∣quiet Spirits, not only to disrespect former Councels of the Church, but also to slight and contemne whatso∣ever it may now Determine; into which Errour some Opposers of the Church of Rome have fallen. And upon this is grounded your Question, Wherein are we nearer

to unity, if a Councell may erre? But in relating my an∣swer to this you are not so candid; For my words did not sound as yours seeme to doe, That wee should •…•…old with the Councell, erre, or not erre, till another came to reverse it. As if Grounds of Faith might vary at the Racket, and be cast of each side, as a cunning hand might lay them.

You forget againe, omit at least (and with what [ 2] minde you best know) the Caution which I added. For I said, The Determination of a Generall Councell erring was to stand in force, and to have externall Obedience at the least yeelded to it, till * 1.732 Evidence of Scripture, or a De∣monstration to the Contrary made the Errour appeare; and untill thereup∣on † 1.733 another Councell of equall au∣thority did reverse it. And indeed I might have returned upon you againe: If a Generall Councell not Confirmed by the Pope may erre (which you affirme) to what end then a Generall Councell? And you may Answer, yes: For although a Generall Councell may erre, yet the Pope as Head of the Church, cannot. An excellent meanes of unity, to have all in the Church as the Pope will have it, what ever Scripture say, or the Church thinke. And then I pray, to what end a Generall Coun∣cell? Will his Holinesse be so holy, as to confirme a Generall Councell, if it Determine against him? And as for * 1.734 Bellarmines reasons why a Ge∣nerall Councell should be usefull, if

not necessary, though the Pope bee I•…•…fallible, they are so weake in Part, and in part so unworthy; that I am sory any necessity of a bad cause should force so learned a man to make use of them.

Here A. C. tels mee, The Caution mentioned, as [ 3] omitted, makes my Answer werse then the Iesuite relat∣ed * 1.735 it. And that in two things. First, in that the Ie∣suite relates it thus: Although it may erre: but the Cau∣tion makes it, as if it did actually erre. Secondly, in that the Iesuite relates, That wee are bound to hold it, till another come to reverse it; that is, w•…•…e not knowing whe∣ther it doe erre or not, but onely that it may erre. But the Caution puts the Case so, as if the Determination of a Generall Councell actually erring were not ipso jure in∣valid, but must stand in force, and have externall Obe∣dience yeelded to it, till not onely morall Certainty, but Evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration to the Contra∣ry make the errour appeare; And when it appeares, wee must yeeld our Obedience, till a Councell of equall Au∣thority reverse it, which perhaps will not bee found in an whole Age. So either the Iesuite relates this speech truly, or lesse disgracefully. And A. C. thinkes, that upon better Iudgement, I Will not allow this Caution. Truly I shall not thanke the Iesuite for any his kindnesse here. And for the Caution, I must and doe acknowledge it mine, even upon advise∣ment, and that whether it make my Answer worse, or better. And I thinke farther, that the Iesuite hath no great Cause to thanke A. C. for this Defence of his Relation.

First then the Iesuite (so sayes A. C.) doth in his Rela∣tion [ 4] make it but a supposition, That a Generall Councell * 1.736 may erre. But the Caution expresses it as actually err∣ing. True, But yet I hope this Expression makes no Generall Councell actually erre. And then it comes

all to one, whether I suppose that such a Councell may erre, or that it doe erre. And 'tis fitter for clearing the Difficulties into which the Church fals in such a Case to suppose (and more then a supposition it is not) a Generall Councell * 1.737 actually erring, then as on∣ly under a Possibility of Erring. For the Church hath much more to doe to vindicate it selfe from such an Errour actually being, then from any the like Errour that might be.

Secondly A. C. thinkes, he hath got great advan∣tage [ 5] * 1.738 by the words of the Caution; in that I say, A Generall Councell erring is to stand in force, and have exter∣nall Obedience, at least so farre as it consists in silence, Patience, and forbearance yeelded to it, till Evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration to the Contrary make the Error appeare, and untill therupon another Councell of equal Authori∣ty did reverse it. Well! I say it again. But is there any one word of mine in the Caution, that speakes of our knowing of this Errour? Surely not one (thats A. C^s. Ad∣dition) Now suppose a Generall Councell actually Er∣ring in some Point of Divine Truth, I hope it will not follow that this Errour must bee so grosse, as that forthwith it must needes be knowne to private men. And doubtlesse till they know it, Obedience must be yeelded; Nay when they know it (if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall verity, in which case a Generall Councell can not easily erre) I would have A C. and all wise men Consider. Whether Externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded. For if Contro∣versies arise in the Church some end they must have, or they'll teare all in sunder. And I am sure no wisdome can thinke that fit, Why then say a Generall Councell Erre, and an Erring Decree be ipso jure; by the very Law it selfe invalid, I would have it wisely considered again, whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell

that Honour and Priviledge, which all other Great Courts have. Namely, That there be a Declaration of the Invalidity of its Decrees, as well as of the Laws of other Courts, before private men can take liberty to refuse Obedience, For till such a declaration, if the Councel stand not in force, A. C: sets up Private Spirits to con∣troll Generall Councels, w^ch is the thing he so often, and so much cryes out against in the Protestants. Therefore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome, that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force, till Evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the Errourto appeare, * 1.739 as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it. For as for Morall Certainty, that's not strong enough in Points of Faith. (which alone are spoken of here) And if another Councell of equall Authority cannot be gotten together in an Age, that is such an Incon∣venience, as the Church must beare, when it happens. And far better is that inconvenience, then this other, † 1.740 that any Authority lesse then a Generall Councell, should rescinde the Decr•…•…es of it, unlesse it erre manifestly, and intolera'ly: Or that the whole Church upon peaceable, and just complaint of this Errour neglect or refuse to call a Councell, and examine it. And there come in Nationall or Provinciall Councels to a 1.741 reforme for them∣selves. But no way must lye open to private men to b 1.742 Refuse obedience, till the Councell be heard, and weighed. as well as that which they say against it; yet with c 1.743 Bellarmines Ex∣ception still: so the errour be not ma∣nifestly intolerable. Nor is it fit for Private men, in such great Cases as this, upon which the whole peace of Christendome depends, to argue thus; The Error ap∣peares, Therefore the Determination of the Councell is ipso jure invalid. But this is farre the safer way (I say

still, when the Errour is neither Fundamentall, nor in it selfe manifest) to argue thus: The Determina∣tion is by equall Authority, and that secundùm jus, ac∣cording to Law declared to be invalid, Therefore the Errour appeares. And it is a more humble and conscientious way, for any private man to suffer a Councell to goe before him, then for him to out∣runne the Councell. But weake and Ignorant mens outrunning both God, and his Church is as bold a fault now on all sides, as the daring of the Times hath made it Common. As for that which I have added concerning the Possibility of a Generall Coun∣cells erring, I shall goe on with it, without asking any farther leave of A. C.

For upon this Occasion I shall not hold it [§ 33] amisse a little more at large to Consider the Poynt of Generall Councels, How they may, or may not erre, And a little to looke into the Romane and Protestant Opinion concerning them; which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church; and which is most preser∣vative of Peace established, or ablest to reduce perfect unity into the Church of Christ, when that poore Ship hath her ribs dashed in sunder by the waves of Contention. And this I will adven∣ture to the World, but only in the Nature of a Consideration, and with submission to my Mother, the Church of England, and the Mother of us all, the Universall Catholike Church of Christ; As I doe most humbly All whatsoever else is herein contained.

First then, I Consider, whether all the Power, * 1.744 that an Oecumenicall Councell hath to Determine, and all the Assistance it hath, not to erre in that Determination, it hath it not all from the

a 1.745 Catholike Universall Body of the Church, and Clergie in the Church, whose b 1.746 Representative it is? And it seemes it hath. For the Govern∣ment of the Church being not c 1.747 Monarchicall, but as Christ is Head, this Principle is inviolable in Na∣ture: Every Body Collective that re∣presents, receives power, & priviledges from the Body which is represented, els a Representation might have force without the thing it represents; which cannot be. So there is no Power in the Coun∣cell, no Assistance to it, but what is in, and to the Church. But yet then it may be Questioned, whether the Representing Body hath d 1.748 all the Power, Strength, and Priviledge, which the Represented hath? And suppose it hath all the Legall Power, yet it hath not all the Na∣turall, either of strength, or wisdome, that the whole hath. Now because the Representative hath power from the Whole, and the Maine Body, can meet no other way; therefore the Acts, Lawes, and Decrees of the Representative, be it Ecclesiasticall, or Civill, are Bind∣ing in their Strength. But they are not so certaine, and free from Errour, as is that Wisdome which resides in the Whole. For in Assemblies meerely Civill, or Ec∣clesiasticall, all the able and sufficient men cannot be in the Body that Represents, And it is as possible, so ma∣ny able, e 1.749 and sufficient men (for some particular bu∣sinesse) may be left out, as that they which are in, may misse, or mis apply that Reason, and Ground, upon which the Determination is principally to rest. Here, for want of a cleare view of this ground, the Repre∣sentative Body erres; whereas the Represented, by ver∣tue of those Members which saw and knew the ground, may hold the Principle inviolated.

Secondly, I Consider, That since it is thus in Na∣ture, * 1.750 and in Civill Bodies, if it be not so in Ecclesiasticall too, some reason must be given why, a 1.751 For that Body also consists of men: Those men neither all equall in their perfections of Knowledge and Iudgement, whe∣ther acquired by Industry, or rooted in Nature, or infu∣sed by God. Not all equall, nor any one of them per∣fect, and absolute, or freed from passion and humane infirmities. Nor doth their meeting together make them Infallible in all things, though the Act which is hammered out by many together, must in reason be perfecter, then that which is but the Child of one mans sufficiency. If then a Generall Councell have no ground of Not erring from the Men, or the Meeting, ei∣ther it must not be at all, or it must be by some assi∣stance and power upon them, when they are so met to∣gether: And this, if it bee lesse then the Assistance of the Holy Ghost, it cannot make them secure against Errour.

Thirdly, I Consider, That the Assistance of the * 1.752 Holy Ghost is without Errour; That's no Question, [ 1] and as little there is, That a Councell hath it. But the Doubt that troubles, is, Whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such a High manner, as to cause all the Definitions of a Councell in matters Fundamentall in the Faith, and in remote Deductions from it, to be alike infallible? Now the Romanists, to prove there is b 1.753 in∣fallible assistance, produce some places of Scripture; but no one of them inferres, much lesse enforces an infallibility. The Places which Stapleton there rests upon, are these: c 1.754 I will send you the Spirit of Truth, which will lead you into all Truth. And, d 1.755 This Spirit shall abide with you for ever. And, e 1.756 Behold I am with you to the end of the world. To these, others add, f 1.757 The foun∣ding of the Church upon the Rocke, against which the gaes

of Hell shall not prevaile. And, Christ's Trayer for S. Peter, * 1.758 That his Faith faile not. And Christ's pro∣mise, That † 1.759 where two or three are gathered together in his Name, hee will bee in the midst of them. And that in the * 1.760 Acts: It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.

For the first, which is, Leading into all truth, and [ 2] that for ever. a 1.761 All, is not alwaies universally taken in Scripture. Nor is it here simply for All Truth: For then a Generall Councell could no more erre in matter of Fact, then in matter of Faith; in which yet b 1.762 your selves grant it may erre. But into Alt c 1.763 Truth, is a limi∣ted All: Into all Truth absolutely ne∣cessary to Salvation: And this, when they suffer themselves to be led by the Blessed Spirit, by the Word of God. And all Truth which Christ had before (at least fundamentally) delivered unto them, d 1.764 He shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you. And againe, e 1.765 He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your Remembrance, which I have told you. And for this necessary Truth too, the Apostles received this Promise, not for themselves, and a Councell, but for themselves, and the f 1.766 Whole Catholike Church; of which a Councell, be it never so generall, is a very little part. Yea, and this very Assistance is not so absolute, nor in that manner to the whole Church, as it was to the Apostles; neither doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell, but of His Apostles Preach∣ing, and Doctrine.

As for Christ's being with them unto the end of the [ 3] world, the Fathers are so various, that in the sense of the Ancient Church, we may understand him present

in a 1.767 Majesty, in b 1.768 Pow∣er, in Ayd and c 1.769 Assi∣stance, against the Diffi∣culties they should find for preaching Christ; which is the native sense, as I take it. And this Pro∣mise was made to support their weakenesse. As for his Presence, in teaching by the Holy Ghost, d 1.770 few men∣tion it; and no one of them which doth, speakes of any Infallible Assistance, farther then the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles, as the Apostles kept to the Guidance of the Spirit. Besides, the e 1.771 Fathers referre their Speech to the Church Universall, not to any Councell, or Representa∣tive Body. And f 1.772 Maldo∣nate adds, That this His presence by teaching, is, or may be a Collection from the place, but is not the Intention of Christ.

For the Rocke upon which the Church is founded, [ 4] which is the next Place, we dare not lay any other Foundation, then g 1.773 Christ: Christ laid his h 1.774 Apostles, no question, but upon Himselfe. With these S. Peter was laid, no man questions, and in prime place of Or∣der (would his claiming Successours be content with that) as appeares, and diverse Fathers witnesse, by his Particular designement, Tu es Petrus; But yet the Rocke even there spoken of, is not S. Peter's Person, ei∣ther onely, or properly, but the Faith which he profes∣sed. And to this, be∣sides the Evidence, which is in Text, and Truth, the i 1.775 Fathers

come in with very full consent. And this, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it, is not spoken of the Not erring of the Church principally, but of the Not a 1.776 falling away of it from the Founda∣tion. Now a Church may erre, and dange∣rously too, and yet not fall from the Founda∣tion, especially if that of b 1.777 Bellarmine be true, That there are many things, even de fide, of the Faith, which yet are not necessary to Sal∣vation. Besides, even here againe, the Pro∣mise of this stable edification, is to the whole Church, not to a Councell; at least no far∣ther then a Councell builds, as a Church is built, that is, upon Christ.

The next Place is Christ's Prayer for S. Peter's [ 5] Faith. The native sense of which Place is, That Christ prayed, and obtained for S. Peter perseverance in the grace of God, against the strong temptation, which was to winnow him above the rest. But to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope, or in his Chaire, or in the Romane Sea, or in a Generall Councell, though the Pope bee President, I

finde no one Ancient Father that dare adventure it. And a 1.778 Bellarmine himselfe, besides some Popes, in their owne Cause (and that in Epistles counterfeit, or falsely alledged) hath not a Father to name for this sense of the Place, till he come downe to Chrysolo∣gus, Theophylact, and S. Bernard: of which Chry∣sologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetoricke, and the other two are men of yesterday, compared with Antiquity, and lived when (it was God's great grace, and learned mens wonder) the corruption of the time, had not made them corrupter then they are. And b 1.779 Thomas is resolute, That what is meant here beyond S. Peter's Person, is referred to the whole Church. And the Glosse upon the Canon Law is more peremptorie then he, even to the Deniall, that it is c 1.780 meant of the Pope. And if this Place warrant not the Popes Faith, where is the Infallibility of the Councell that in your Doctrine depends upon it?

The next Place is Bellarmines choice one, & his first, [ 6] and he sayes 'tis a d 1.781 proper place for Proofe of the Infallibility of Generall Councels. This Place is Christ's Promise. Where two or three are ga∣thered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them, e 1.782 S. Mat. 18. And he tels us, The strength of the Argument is not taken from these words alone, but as they are continued with the former, and f 1.783 that the Argu∣ment is drawne à M•…•…nori ad Majus, from the lesse to the Greater. Thus g 1.784 If two or three gathered together in my Name do alwaies ob∣taine that which they aske at God's hands, to wit, wisdome and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them: How much more shall all the •…•…ops gathered

together (in a Councell) alwaies obtaine wisdome and knowledge to Iudge those things, which belong to the Dire∣ction of the whole Church? I answer; First, 'tis most true, that here is little strength in these words alone. For, though the Fathers make different interpretati∣ons of this Place of Scripture, yet * 1.785 most of them agree in this, That this Place is to be understood of Consent in Prayer. And this is manifest enough in the Text it selfe Secondly, I think there is as little strength in them by the Argument drawne A Minori ad Majus. And that I prove two wayes. First, because though that Argument hold in Naturall, and Necessary Things: yet I doubt it holds not either in Voluntary, or Promised things, or things which depend upon their Institution. For he that Promises the lesse, doth not hereby promise the greater; and he which will doe the Lesse, will not alwaies doe the greater. Secondly, because this Argument from the Lesse to the greater, can never fol∣low, but where, and so farre as the thing upon which the Argument is founded, agrees to the lesse. For if it do not alwayes agree to the lesse, it cannot Necessarily passe from thence to the greater. Now that upon which this Argument is grounded here, is Infallible hearing, and granting the Prayers of two or three met together in the Name of Christ. But this Infalli∣bility is not alwaies found in this Lesse Congrega∣tion, where two or three are gathered together. For they often meet, and pray, yet ob∣taine not, because there are diverse other Conditions necessarily required (as S. Chrysostome † 1.786 observes) to make the Prayers of a Congregation heard beside their gathering together in the Name of Christ. And therefore it is not extended to a greater

Congregation, or Councell, unlesse the same Conditions be still observed. Neither doth Christs Promise, Ero in Medio, I will be in the midst of them, inferre, That they, the greater, or the Lesse, three, or three hundred have all, even a 1.787 necessary things infallibly granted unto them, as oft as they aske, if they aske not, as well as they ought, as what they ought. And yet most true it is, that where more or fewer are gathered together in the Name of Christ, there is he in the midst of them, but to assist, and to grant whatsoever he shall find fit for them, not Infal∣libly whatsoever they shall thinke fit to aske for them∣selves. And therefore S. Cyprian, though he use this very Argument A minori ad majus, from the lesse to the greater, yet he presumes not to Extend it as Bellarm. doth, to the obtaining of Infallibility; but only useth it in the Generall way, in which there neither is, nor can be doubt of the truth of it. Thus. b 1.788 If two that are of one minde to God-ward, can doe so much, what might be done, if there were Vnanimity among all Christians? Vn∣doubtedly more, but not All whatso∣ever they should aske, unlesse all other Requisites were present. Thirdly, in this their owne c 1.789 Great Champions disagree from Bellarmine, or he from them. For Gregory de Va∣lentia and Stapleton tell us, That this place doth not belong properly to prove an Infallible Certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the Name of Christ: But to the efficacy of Consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the Name of Christ, if at least that be for their

soules health. For els you may prove out of this Place, That not only the Definition of a Generall Councell; but even of a Provin∣ciall, n•…•…y of two or three Bishops gathered together is valid, and that without the Popes Assent.

The last Place mentioned for the Infallibility of [ 7] Generall Councells is that, Acts, 15. where the Apostles say * 1.790 of themselves and the Councell held by them: It seemes good to the Holy Ghost, and to Vs. And They might well say it. For They had Infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost, and they kept close to his Direction. But I do not finde, that any Generall Councell since, though they did implore (as they ought) the Assistance of that Blessed Spirit, did ever take upon them to say in terminis, in expresse termes of their Definitions: Visum est Spiritui Sancto, & Nobis. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to Vs. Acknowledging even thereby (as I conceive) a great deale of Difference in the Certainty of those things, which a Generall Councell at after Determined in the Church; and those which were setled by the Apostles, when They sate in Councell. But though I do not finde, That They used this speech punctually, and in termes; yet the Fathers, when They met in Councell were Confident, and spake it out, That They had Assistance from the Holy Ghost; yet so, as that They neither tooke Themselves, nor the Coun∣cells They sate in, as Infallibly Guided by the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles were. And Valentia is very right, a 1.791 That though the Councell say they are ga∣thered together in the Holy Ghost, yet the Fathers are neither Arrogant, in using the speech, nor yet Infallible for all that. And this is true, whether the Pope approve, or disapprove their Definitions; Though Va∣lentia will not admit that. The Pope must be (with him) infallible, what ever come of it. Now though this be but an Example, & include no Precept, yet both b 1.792 Stapleton

and a 1.793 Bellarmine make this Pla•…•…e a proper Proofe of the Infallibility of Generall Councels. And b 1.794 Stapleton sayes the Decrees of Councels are the very Oracles of the Holy Ghost, which is little short of Blasphemy. and c 1.795 Bellarmine addes, that, Be∣cause all other Councels borrowed their forme from this, therefore other lawfull Councels may affirme also, That their Decrees are the Decrees of the Holy Ghost. Little consider∣ing therewhile, That it is one thing to borrow the Forme, and another thing to borrow the Certainty, and the Infallibility of a Councell For suppose that After-Councels did follow the Form of that first Councel exact∣ly in all Circumstances, yet, I hope, no advised man will say, There is the like Infallibility in other Councels, where no man sate that was Inspired, as was in this, where all, that sate as Iudges, were Inspired. Or if any Iesuite will be so bold as to say it, he had need bring very Good Proofe for it, and far better then any is brought yet. Now that all Councels are not so Infallible as was this of the Apostles, nor the Causes handled in them, as there they were, is manifestby d 1.796 One of their owne, who tels us plainly That the Apostles in their Councell delt very prudently, did not precipitate their Iudgement, but waighed all things. For in Matters of Faith, and which touch the Conscience, it is not enough to say, Volumus & Mandamus, We Will and Command. And thus the Apostles met together in simplicity and singlenesse, seeking noth•…•…ng but God, and the Salvation of men. An•…•… what wonder if the Holy Ghost were

present in such a Councell? Nos alitèr. But we meet other∣wise, in great pompe, and seeke our selves, and promise our selves that we may doe any thing out of the Plenitude of our power. And how can the Holy Ghost allow of such meetings? And if not allow; or approove the Meetings, then certainly not concurre to make every thing Infallible, that shall be concluded in them.

And for all the Places together waigh them with [ 8] indifferency, and either they speake of the Church (in∣cluding the Apostles) as all of them doe; And then All grant the Uoyce of the Church is Gods Voyce, Divine and Infallible. Or else they are Generall unli∣mited, and applyable to private Assemblies as well as Generall Councels, which none grant to be Infal∣li•…•…le, but some mad Enthusiasts. Orels they are limit∣ed, not simply into All truth, but All necessary to salvati∣on; in which I shall easily grant a Generall Councell can∣not erre, suffering it selfe to be led by this Spirit of Truth in the Scripture, and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit. For Suppose these Places or any other, did promise Assistance even to Infallibility, yet they granted it not to every Generall Councell, but to the Catholike Body of the Church it selfe, and if it be in the whole Church principally, then is it in a Generall Councell, but by Consequent; as the Councell represents the Whole. And that which be∣longs to a thing by consequent, doth not otherwise, nor longer, belong unto it, then it consents and cleaves to that, upon which it is a consequent. And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance, but as it keepes to the whole Church, and Spouse of Christ, whose it is to heare His word, and determine by it. And therefore if a Generall Councell wil go out of the Churches way, it may easily goe without the Churches Truth.

Fourthly, I Consider, That All agree, That the * 1.797 [ 1] Church in Generall can never erre from the Faith ne∣cessary to Salvation: No Persecution, no Temptation, no † 1.798 Gates of Hell (whatsoever is meant by them) can ever so prevaile against it. For all the Members of the Militant Church cannot erre, either in the whole Faith, or in any Article of it; it is impossible. For if all might so erre, there could be no union betweene them, as Members, and Christ the Head: And no Vnion be∣tweene Head and Members, no Body, and so no Church, which cannot be. But there is not the like consent, That * 1.799 Generall Councels cannot erre. And it seemes strange to me, the Fathers having to doe with so many Hereticks, and so many of them opposing Church Authority, that in the condemnation of those Hereticks, this Proposition, even in termes (A Generall Councell cannot erre) should not be found in any one of them, that I can yet see. Now suppose it were true, That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day, which will not be found true; yet this would not have followed, that it is therefore infallible, and cannot erre. I have no time to descend into Particulars, therefore to the Generall still. S. Augustine a 1.800 puts a Difference betweene the Rules of Scripture, and the Definitions of men; This Difference is; Praeponitur Scriptura, That the Scripture hath the Prerogative, That Prerogative is, That whatsoever is found written in Scripture, may neither be doubted, nor disputed, whether it be true, or right. But the Letters of Bishops may not only be dis∣puted, but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise then they, or by Nationall Councels; and Nationall Coun∣cels by Plenary or Generall: And even b 1.801 Plenary Councels themselves may be amended, the former by the later. It seemes it was no newes with S. Augustine, that a Gene∣rall Councell might erre, and therefore inferiour to the

Scripture, which may neither be doubted, nor disput∣ed, where it affirmes. And if it be so with the Definiti∣on of a Councell too (as * 1.802 Stapleton would have it) That that may neither be doubted, nor disputed; Where is then the Scriptures Prerogative?

I know there is much shifting about this Place, but [ 2] it cannot be wrastled off. b 1.803 Stapleton sayes first, That S. Au∣gustine speaks of the Rules of Manners, and Discipline: And this is Bellarmines last shift. Both are out, and Bellarmine in a Contradiction. Bellarmine in a Contradiction: For first he tels us, Generall Councels cannot erre in c 1.804 Precepts of Manners; and then, to turne off Saint Augustine in this Place, hee tels us, That if Saint Augustine doth not speake of matter of Fact, but of Right, and of univer∣sall Questions of Right, then he is to be understood d 1.805 of Precepts of Manners, not of Points of Faith. Where he hath first runne himselfe upon a Contradiction; and then we have gained this ground upon him, That either his Answer is nothing; or els against his owne state of the Question, A Generall Councell can erre in Pre∣cepts of Manners. So belike when Bellarmine is at a shift, A Generall Councell can, and cannot erre in Precept of Manners. And Both are out: For the whole Di∣spute of Saint Augustine, is against the Errour of Saint Cyprian, followed by the Donatists, which was an Er∣rour in Faith; Namely, That true Baptisme could not be given by Hereticks, and such as were out of the Church. And the Proofe which Stapleton and Bellarmine draw out of the subsequent words (e 1.806 VVhen by any experiment of things, that which was shut, is opened) is too weake: For experiment there is not of Fact; nor are the words, Conclusum est, as if it were of a Rule of Discipline con∣cluded, as Stapleton cites them; but a farther expe∣riment or proofe of the Question in hand; and per∣taining to faith which was then shut up, and as

Saint Augustin after speakes, * 1.807 wrapped up in cloudy darknesse.

Next Stapleton † 1.808 will have it, That if Saint Au∣gustine [ 3] doe speake of a Cause of Faith, then his meaning is, that later Generall Councels can mend, that is, explicate more perfectly that Faith which lay hid in the seed of Ancient Doctrine. He makes instance, That about the Divinity of Christ, the Councell of Ephesus ex∣plicated the first of Nice; Chalcedon, both of them; Constance, Chalceden. And then concludes: * 1.809 In all which things, none of (these) Councels taught that which was erroneous: An excellent Conclusion: These Councels, and These in this thing, taught no errour, and were only explained: Therefore no Councell can erre in any matter of Faith, Or therefore S. Augustine speakes not of an Emendation of errour, but of an Explanation of sense: wheras every eye sees neither of these can follow.

Now that S. Augustine meant plainly, That even [ 4] a Plenary Councell might erre, and that † 1.810 often (for that is his word) and that in matter of Faith, and might and ought so to be amended in a later Councell, I think wil thus appeare. First his word is, Emendari, to be amended, which properly supposes for error, and faultinesse, not Explanation; And Saint Augustine needed not to go to a word of such a * 1.811 forced sense, nor sure would, es∣pecially in a Disputation against Adversaries. Next, S. Augustines Dis∣pute is against S. Cyprian and the Councell held at Carthage about Baptisme by Hereticks; in which Point, that Nationall Councell erred (as now all agree) And S. Augustines Deduction goes on: Scripture cannot be other then

right; That is the Prerogative of it: but Bishops may, and be a 1.812 Reprehended for it, if peradventure they * 1.813 erre from the Truth, and that either by more learned Bishops, or by Provinciall Councels. Here Reprehension, and that for deviation from the Truth, is (I hope) Emendation pro∣perly, and not Explanation onely. Then Provinciall Councels, they must † 1.814 yeeld to Generall: And to yeeld is not in case of Explanation only. Then it followes, That even Plenary Councels themselves may be amend∣ed, the former by the later; still retaining that which went before, If peradventure they erred, or made deviation from the Truth. And if this be not so, I would faine know, why in one and the same tenour of words, in one and the same continuing argument, and deducti∣on of S. Augustine, Reprehendi should be in proper sense, and à veritate deviatum in proper sense, and Cedere in proper sense, and only Emendari should not be proper, but stand for an Explanation? If you say the Reason is, because the former words are applyed to men, and Nationall Councels, both which may erre, but this last to Generall Councels, which cannot erre; This is most miserable begging of the Principle, and thing in Question.

Again, S Augustine concludes there, That the Ge∣nerall [ 5] Councell preceding may be amended by Gene∣rall Councels that follow, b 1.815 When that is knowne which lay bid before. Not as Stapleton would have it, lay hid as in the seed of Ancient Doctrine only, and so needed nothing but explanation; but hid in some darknes or ambiguity, which led the former into error, and mi∣staking, as appeares: For S. Augustine would have this amendment made without Sacrilegious Pride, doubtlesse, of insulting upon the former Councel, that was to be amended; and without swelling arrogancy, sure, against the weaknesse in the former Councell; and without

contention of envie, which uses to accompany mans frailty, where his, or his friends Error is to be amend∣ed by the later Councell; and in holy Humility, in Catho∣like Peace, in Christian Charity, no question, that a Schisme be not made to teare the Church (as here the Donatists did) while one Councell goes to reforme the lapse of another, if any be. Now to what end should this learned Father be so zealous in this work, this highest worke, that I know in the Church, Re∣viewing and Surveighing Generall Councels, to keepe off Pride, and Arrogance, and Envie, and to keepe all in Humility, Peace, and Charity; if after all this noyse, he thought later Councels might do nothing, but amend, that is, explaine the former?

That shift, which * 1.816 Bellarmine addes to these two of Stapleton, is poorest of all, namely, That S. Augustine [ 6] speakes of unlawfull Councels; and it is no question, but they may be amended, as the second Ephesine was at Chalcedon. For this Answer hath no Foundation but a peradventure; nor durst Bellar. rest upon it And most manifest it is, that S. August. speaks of Councels in ge∣neral, that they may erre, and be amended in Doctrine of Faith; and in case they be not amended, that then they be condemned and rejected by the Church, as this of Ephesus, and divers others were. And as for that meere Trick, of the † 1.817 Popes Instruction, Approbation, or Confirmation, to preserve it from errour, or ratifie it that it hath not erred, the most ancient Church knew it not. He had his Suffrage, as other great Patriarchs had, and his Uote was highly esteemed, not onely for his Place, but for worth too, as Popes were then. But that the Whole Councell depended upon him, and his confirmation, was then unknowne, and I ve∣rily thinke at this day not Believed, by the wise and Learned of his Adherents.

Fiftly, it must be considered, If a Generall Councell * 1.818 may erre, who shall judge it? S. Augustine is at a 1.819 priora [ 1] à posterioribus, Nothing sure, that is lesse then a b 1.820 Gene∣rall Councell. Why, b•…•…t this yet layes all open to uncer∣tainties, and makes way for a Whirlewind of a Pri∣vate Spirit, to ruffle the Church. No, neither of these. First, all is not open to uncertainties. For Gene∣rall Councels lawfully called, and ordered, and lawful∣ly proceeding, are a Great and an Awfull Representati∣on, and cannot erre in matters of Faith, keeping them∣selves to God's Rule, and not attempting to make a New of their own; and are with all submission to be observed by every Christian, where Scripture, or evident Demon∣stration come not against them. Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a private Spirit: For Private Spirits are too giddy to rest upon Scripture, and too heady and shallow to be acquainted with Demonstrative Ar∣guments. And it were happy for the Church, if she might never be troubled with Private Spirits, till they brought such Arguments. I know this is hotly obje∣cted against c 1.821 Hooker, the d 1.822 Authour cals him a e 1.823 Wise Protestant, yet turnes thus upon him. If a Councell must yeeld to a Demonstrative Proofe, Who shall Iudge, whether the Argument that is brought, be a Demonstration, or not? For every man, that will kicke against the Church, will say, the Scripture he urges, is evident, and his Reason a Demonstration. And what is this, but to leave all to the wildenesse of a Private Spirit? Can any in∣genuous man read this Passage in Hooker, and dreame of a Private Spirit? For to the Questi∣on, Who shall judge? Hooker answers, as if it had beene then made; f 1.824 An Argument necessary and Demon∣strative, is such (saith he) as being proposed to any man, and understood, the minde cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it. So, it is not enough to thinke or say it is

Demonstrative. The Light then of a Demonstrative Argument, is the Evidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that understand it. Well; but because all un∣derstand it not, If a Quarrell be made, Who shall de∣cide it? No Question, a 1.825 but a Generall Councell, not a Private Spirit: first, in the intent of the Authour; for Hooker in all that Discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell b 1.826 binding: and therefore that is made Judge, not a Private Spirit. And then for the Judge of the Argument, it is as plaine: For if it be evident to any man, then to so many Lear∣ned men as are in a Councell, doubtlesse: And if they cannot but assent, it is hard to thinke them so impious, that they will define against it. And if that which is thought evident to any man, be not evident to such a grave Assembly, it is probable 'tis no Demonstration, and the producers of it, ought to rest, and not to trouble the Church.

Nor is this Hooker's alone, nor is it newly thought [ 2] on by us. It is a Ground in Nature, which Grace doth ever set right, never undermine. And c 1.827 S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter, That S. Cyprian, and that Councell at Carthage, would have presently yeel∣ded to any one that would d 1.828 demonstrate Truth. Nay, it is a Rule with e 1.829 him, Consent of Nations, Authority confirmed by Miracles, and Antiquity, S. Peters Chaire, and Succession from it, Motives to keepe him in the Catholike Church, must not hold him against Demonstrati∣on of Truth; f 1.830 which if it bee so clearely demonstra∣ted, that it cannot come into doubt, it is to be preferred be∣fore all those things, by which a man is held in the Catholike Church. Therefore an evident Scripture, or Demonstra∣tion of Truth must take place every where, but where these cannot be had, there must be Submission to Au∣thority.

And doth not Bellarmine himselfe grant this? For [ 3] speaking of Councels, he delivers this Proposition, That Inferiours may not judge, whether their Superiours (and that in a Councell) do proceed lawfully, or not. But then having bethought himselfe, that Inferiours at all times, and in all Causes, are not to be cast off, he adds this Exception, a 1.831 Unlesse it manifestly appeare that an intolerable Errour be committed. So then, if such an Er∣rour be, and be manifest, Inferiours may do their du∣ty, and a Councell must yeeld; unlesse you will ac∣cuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit; for neither doth he expresse who shall judge, whether the Errour be intolerable.

This will not downe with you, but the Defini∣tion [ 4] of a Generall Councell is, and must be infallible. Your Fellowes tell us (and you can affirme no more) That the Voice of the Church determining in Councell, is not b 1.832 Humane, but Divine. That is well; Divine, then sure Infallible; yea, but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would utter it. It is not Divine simply, but in a c 1.833 manner Divine. Why but then sure not infallible, because it may speak lowdest in that manner, in which it is not Divine. Nay more: The Church (forsooth) is an infallible Foundation of Faith, d 1.834 in an higher kinde then the Scripture: For the Scri∣pture is but a Foundation in Testimony, and Matter to be believed; but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith, and in some sort the very formall. Is not this Blasphe∣mie? Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth, and his owne Grounds, that sayes it? Against all evidence of Truth: For in all Ages, all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God (as all Christians doe) doe with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible. But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions, though they

have in greatest Obedience submitted to them. And against his owne Grounds, that sayes it: For the Scripture is absolutely, and every way Divine; the Churches Definition is but suo modo, in a sort, or man∣ner Divine. But that which is but in a sort, can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree, then that which is absolute, and every way such: Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so infal∣lible as the Scripture; much lesse in altiori genere, in a higher kinde then the Scripture. But because, when all other things faile, you flie to this, That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell, is by Inspiration, and so Divine and infallible: My haste shall not carrie mee from a little Consideration of that too.

Sixtly then, If the Definition of a Generall Coun∣cell * 1.835 be infallible, then the infallibility of it is either [ 1] in the Conclusion, and in the Meanes that prove it; or in the Conclusion, not the Meanes; or in the Meanes, not the Conclusion. But it is infallible in none of these. Not in the first, The Conclusion and the Meanes: For there are diverse Deliberations in Generall Councels, where the Conclusion is Catholike; but the Meanes by which they prove it, not infallible. Not in the second, The Con∣clusion, and not the Meanes: For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced; therefore if those which the Councell uses be sometimes uncertaine, as is proved be∣fore, the Conclusion cannot be infallible. Not in the third, The Meanes, and not the Conclusion: For that can∣not but be true and necessary, if the Meanes be so. And this I am sure you will never grant; because if you should, you must deny the Infallibility which you seeke to establish.

To this (for I confesse the Argument is old, but [ 2]

can never be worne out, nor shifted off) your great Master a 1.836 Stapleton (who is miserably hamper'd in it, and indeed so are you all) answers, That the Infalli∣bility of a Councell is in the second Course, that is, b 1.837 It is infallible in the Conclusion, though it be uncertaine and fallible in the Meanes, and Proofe of it. How comes this to passe? It is a thing altogether unknowne in Nature and Art too, That fallible Principles can, either father, or mother, beget, or bring forth an infallible Conclusion.

Well, that is granted in Nature, and in all Argu∣mentation, [ 3] that causes Knowledge. But we shall have Reasons for it: c 1.838 First, because the Church is discursive, and uses the weights, and moments of Reason in the Meanes; but is Propheticall, and depends upon immedi∣ate Revelation from the Spirit of God, in delivering the Conclusion. It is but the making of this appeare, and all Controversie is at an end. Well, I will not dis∣course here, To what end there is any use of Meanes, if the Conclusion be Propheticall, which yet is justly urged; for no good cause can be assigned of it. If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion (I speake still of the present Church; for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie, and immediate Revelation, was ever Propheticke in the Definition, but then that was Infallible in the Meanes too) Then since it delivers the Conclusion not ac∣cording to Nature and Art, that is, out of Princi∣ples which can beare it, there must be some super∣naturall Authority which must deliver this Truth: That (say I) must be the Scripture. For if you flie to immediate Revelation now, the Enthusiasme must be yours. But the Scriptures, which are brought in the

very Exposition of all the Primitive Church, neither say it, nor enforce it. Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion. And I know no other thing, that can warrant it. If you think the Tradition of the Church can, make the world beholding to you. Produce any Father of the Church, that sayes, This is an Vniversall Tradition of the Church, That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall, and by immediate Re∣velation. Produce any one Father that sayes it of his own Authority, That he thinks so: Nay, make it appeare, that ever any Prophet, in that which he delivered from God, as Infallible Truth, was ever discursive at all in the Meanes. Nay, make it but probable in the ordinary course of Prophecie (and I hope, you go no higher, nor will I offer at God's absolute Power) That that which is discursive in the Meanes, can be Prophetick in the Con∣clusion, and you shall be my great Apollo for ever. In the meane time, I have learned this from a 1.839 yours, That all Prophecie is by Vision, Inspiration, &c. And that no Vision admits Discourse: That all Prophecie is an Illu∣mination, not alwayes present, but when the Word of the b 1.840 Lord came to them, and that was not by Discourse. And yet you c 1.841 say againe, That this Prophetick Infallibili∣ty of the Church is not gotten without study and industry. You should do well to tell us too, why God would put his Church to study for the Spirit of Prophecie, which never any Particular Prophet was put unto. d 1.842 And whosoever shall study for it, shall do it in vaine, since Prophecie is a e 1.843 Gift, and can never bee an acquired Habit. And there is somewhat in it, that Bellar∣mine, in all his Dispute for the Authority of Gene∣rall Councels, dares not come at this Rocke. f 1.844 He preferres the Conclusion, and the Canon, before the Acts and the Deliberations of Councels, and so do we: but I do not remember, that ever he speaks out, That the

Conclusion is delivered by Prophecie, or Revelation. Sure he sounded the shore, and found danger here. He did sound it: For a little before he speaks plainly (would his bad Cause let him be constant?) * 1.845 Councels do deduce their Conclusions. What? from Inspiration? No: But out of the Word of God, and that per ratiocinationem, by Argumentation: Neither have they, nor do they write any immediate Revelations.

The second Reason, why a 1.846 Stapleton will have it Propheticke in the Conclusion, is, Because that which [ 4] is determined by the Church, is matter of Faith, not of Knowledge: And that therefore the Church proposing it to be believed, though it use Meanes, yet it stands not upon Art, or Meanes, or Argument, but the Revelation of the Holy Ghost: Els when we embrace the Conclusion proposed, it should not be an Assent of Faith, but an Habit of Know∣ledge: This for the first part (That the Church uses the Meanes, but followes them not) is all one in sub∣stance with the former Reason. And for the later part, That then our admitting the Decree of a Coun∣cell, would be no Assent of Faith, but an Habit of Know∣ledge; what great inconvenience is there, if it be gran∣ted? 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 b 1.847 S. Augustine, I am sure, in regard of one, and the same thing, even this, the very Wisdome of the Church in her Doctrine, ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men, and Beliefe to another weaker sort. And c 1.848 Thomas goes with him.

Now for further satisfaction, if not of you, yet of others, this may well be thought on. Man lost by sin [ 5] 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 in Faith; by which, if we agree not to some Supernaturall Principles, which no Reason can de∣monstrate simply, we can never see our way. But this Light, when it hath made Reason submit it self, cleares the Eye of Reason, it never puts it out. In which sense, it may be, is that of a 1.849 Optatut, That the very Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable, as well as diffused every where. By which b 1.850 Reason inlightened (which is stronger then Reason) the Church in all Ages hath beene able, either to convert, or convince, or at least c 1.851 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, Fundamentall Points of Faith, without which there is no salvation, as they cannot be proved by Reason; so neither need they be determined by any Councell, nor ever were they attempted, they are so plaine set downe in the Scrip∣ture. If about the sense, and true meaning of these, or necessary deduction out of these Prime Articles of Faith, Generall Councels determine any thing, as they have done in Nice, and the rest; there is no inconve∣nience, that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be believed, as it reflects upon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable; and d 1.852 yet knowne to the Learned, by the Meanes and Proofe, by which that Deduction is vouched, and made good. And againe, the Conclusion of a Councell, suppose that in Nice, about the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father, in it selfe considered, is indemonstrable by Reason; There I believe, and assent in Faith: But the same Conclusi∣on, e 1.853 if you give me the Ground of Scripture, and the Creed (and somewhat must be supposed in all, whe∣ther Faith, or Knowledge) is demonstrable by naturall 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 the weak∣er sort of Christians, which cannot deduce, when they have the Principle granted, they are to rest upon the Definition only, and their Assent is meere 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 can∣not rest, but it must be thus And the † 1.854 Apostle would never have required a man to be alle 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 lawfull interest to give it, when he knew it, without prejudicing his Faith by his knowledge. And suppose exact knowledge and meere Beliefe cannot stand together in the same Person, in regard of the same thing, by the same meanes, yet that doth not make void this Truth. For where is that exact knowledge, or in whom, that must not meerely, in points of Faith, believe the Ar∣ticle, 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.

And now because you aske, Wherein are we nearer * 1.855 to unity by a Councell, if a Councell may erre? Besides the [ 1] Answer given, I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church, which most able to preserve, or reduce Christian Peace: The Ro∣mane, That a Councell 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, as I doe.

First then I Consider, Whether in those Places of Scripture before mentioned, or any other, there b•…•…e [ 2] promised to the present Church an absolute Infallibility?

Or whether such an Infallibility will not serve the turne, as * 1.856 Stapleton; after much wrigling, is forced to acknowledge? One not every way exact: because it is enough, if the Church doe diligently insist upon that which was once received: and there is not need of so great certainty to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the seed of Faith sowne, and deduce from it as to seeke out, and teach that which was altogether unknowne. And if this be so, then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of Infallibility, then the present Church; which yet, if it follow the Scripture, is Infallible enough, though it hath not the same degree of Certainty which the Apostles had, and the Scripture hath. Nor can I tell, what to make of Bellarmine, that in a whole Chapter disputes five Prerogatives, in Certainty of Truth, a 1.857 that the Scripture hath above a Councell; and at last Concludes, That They may be said to be equally certain in Infallible Truth.

The next thing I Consider, is: Suppose this not Ex∣act, [ 3] but congruous Infallibility in the Church; Is it not residing according to Power and Right of Authority in the whole Church, and in a Generall Councell, on∣ly by Power deputed b 1.858; with Man∣date to determine? The Places of Scripture, with Expositions of the Fathers upon them, make me apt to believe this. S. Peter (saith S. Augu∣stine c 1.859,) did not receive the Keyes of the Church, but as sustaining the Person of the Church. Now for this Particular, suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth, and shut out Error; and sup∣pose the Key rightly used, infallible in this: yet this In∣fallibility is primely in the Church; in whose person, (not strictly, in his owne) S. Peter received the Keyes. But here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe, and

would thrust me out of this Consideration. He * 1.860 grants that S. Peter received these Keyes indeed, and in the Person of the Church; but (saith he) that was, because he was Primate of the Church; And therefore the Church received the Keyes finally, but S. Peter formally: that is (if I mistake him not) S. Peter for himselfe and his Successors received the Keyes in his owne Right; but to this end, to benefit the Church, of which he was made Pastor. But I keepe in my Consideration still, and I would have this considered, whether it be ever read in any Classicke Author, That to receive a thing in the Person of another, or sustaining the Person of an∣other, is onely meant finally to receive it, that is, to his good, and not in his Right. I should thinke, he that receives any thing in the Person of another, receives it indeed to his good, and to his use, but in his right too: And that the primary and formall right is not in the receiver, but in him whose person he sustaines, while he receives it. A man purchases Land, and takes possession of it by an Attour∣ney. I hope the † 1.861 Attourney being the hand to receive it Instrumentally, and no more, shall take nor Vse nor right from the Purchaser. A Man marries a Wife by a * 1.862 Proxy (This is not unusuall among great Persons) But I hope he that hath the Proxy, and re∣ceives the woman with the Ceremonies of Mariage in the Others Name, must also leave her to be the Others Wife, who gave him power to receive her for him. This stumbling-blocke then is nothing: and in my Consideration it stands still, That the Church in Gene∣rall by the hands of the Apostles and their Successors received the Keyes, and all Power signified by them, and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to use them,

but still in and by the same hands, and perhaps to open, and shut in some things infallibly, when the Pope, and a Generall Councell too (forgetting both her, and her Rule, the Scripture) are to seek how to turne these Keyes in their wards.

The third Particular, I Consider, is: Suppose in the [ 4] whole Catholike Church Militant, an absolute Infalli∣bility in the Prime Foundations of Faith, absolutely necessary to Salvation; and that this Power of not erring so, is not * 1.863 communicable to a Generall Coun∣cell, which represents it, but that the Councell is subject to errour: This supposition doth not onely preserve that w^ch you desire in the Church, an Infallibility, but it † 1.864 meets w^th all inconveniences, w^ch usually have done, and daily do perplexe the Church And here is still a Re∣medy for all things. For if Private respects, if * 1.865 Bandies in a Faction, if power, and favour of some parties, if weaknesse of them which have the man∣naging, if any unfit mixture of State Councels, if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God, if any thing else sway and wrench the Councell; the Whole a 1.866 Church upon evidence found in expresse Scripture, or de∣monstration of this miscariage, hath power to represent her selfe in another Body, or Councell, and to take order for what was amisse, either practised, or concluded. So here is a meanes without any infringing any lawfull Au∣thority of the Church, to preserve or reduce unity, and yet grant, as I did, and as the b 1.867 Church of England

doth. That a Generall Councell may erre, And this course the Church heretofore took; for she did cal, and repre∣sent her self in a new Councell, and define against the Heretical Conclusions of the former: as in the case at Ari∣minum, and the second of Ephesus, is evident, and in other Councels named by † 1.868 Bellarmine. Now the Church is never more cunningly abused, then when men out of this Truth, that she may erre, infer this falshood, that she is not to be Obeyed. For it will never follow, She may erre, Therefore She may not Govern. For he that sayes, Obey them which have the Rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your soules a 1.869 Heb. 13. Commands Obedience, and expresly ascribes Rule to the Church. And this is not only a Pastorall Power, to teach and direct, but a Praetorian also, to Controll and Censure too, where Errors or Crimes are against Points Fundamen∣tall, or of great Consequence. Els S. Paul would not have given the Rule for Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. Nor Christ * 1.870 himselfe have put the man that will not heare and Obey the Church into the place and condition of an Ethnick and a Publican, as he doth, S. Mat. 18. And Salo∣mon's * 1.871 Rule is generall, and he hath it twice: My Son, for∣sake not the teaching, or instruction of thy Mother Now this is either spoken and meant of a naturall Mother; And her * 1.872 Authority over her Children is confirmed, Ecclus. 3. And the foole will be upon him, that despiseth her, Prov. 15: Or'tis extended also to our Mysti•…•…all and Spirituall Mother, the Church And so the Geneva b 1.873 Note upon the Place expresses it. And I cannot but incline to this Opi∣nion; Because the Blessings which accompany this O•…•…edience are so many and great, as that they are not like to be the fruits of Obedience to a Naturall Mo∣ther onely, as Salomon expresses them all, Prov. * 1.874 6. And in all this, here's no Exception of the Mothers erring. For Mater errans, an erring Mother looses

neither the right nor the power of a Mother by her error. And I marvell what Sonne should shew reve∣rence or Obedience, if no Mother, that hath erred, might exact it. 'Tis true, the Sonne is not to follow his Mothers error, or his Mother into Error. But 'tis true too, 'tis a grievous crime in a Sonne to cast off all obedi∣ence to his Mother, because at some time, or in some things she hath fallen into error. And howsoever, this Consideration meetes with this Inconvenience, as well as the rest, For suppose (as I said) in the whole Catho∣like Militant Church, an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation: And then, though the Mother Church, Pro∣vinciall, or Nationall may erre; yet if the Grand-Mother, the whole Vniversall Church cannot in these necessa∣ry things, all remaines safe, and all Occasions of Dis∣obedience taken from the possibility of the Churches erring, are quite taken away. Nor is this Mother lesse to be valued by her Children, because in some smaller things age had filled her face fuller of wrinkles. For where 'tis said, that Christ makes to himselfe a Church with∣out spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. That is not understood of the * 1.875 Church Militant, but of the Church Triumphant. * 1.876 And to maintaine the contrary, is a Branch of the spread∣ing Heresy of Pelagianisme. Nor is the Church on earth any fr•…•…er from wrinkles in Doctrine, and Di∣scipline, then she is from Spots in Life and Conversation.

The next thing I consider, is: Suppose a Generall [ 5] Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith: If it prove not so, but that an Error in the Faith be con∣cluded; the same erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible, makes the Error of it seeme irrevocable.

And when Truth, which lay hid, shall be brought to light, the Church (who was lulled asleepe by the opinion of Infallibility) is left open to all manner of Distractions, as it appeares at this day. And that a Councel may erre (besides al other instances, which are not few) appeares by that Error of the Councell of a 1.877 Constance. And one Instance is enough to overthrow a Generall, be it a Councell. b 1.878 Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in both Kinde. * 1.879 To breake Christs Institution, is a damnable Error, and so confessed by c 1.880 Stapleton. The Councel is bold, and defines peremptorily, That to communicate in both kindes, is not neces∣sary, with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consi∣der now with me, Is this an Error, or not? d 1.881 Bellarmine, and Stapleton, and you too, say 'tis not; because to re∣ceive under both kindes, is not by Divine Right. No? no sure. For it was not Christs e 1.882 Precept, but his Ex∣ample. Why, but I had thought, Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more then his Example only, and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament, the Mat∣ter and Forme, † 1.883 as a Precept: There∣fore speake out, and deny it to bee Christs Institution, or els grant with Stapleton, It is a damnable Error to goe against it. If you can prove, that Christs Institution is not as binding to us as a Precept (which you shall never be able) take the Precept with it, g 1.884 Drinke ye All of this, which though you shift as you can, yet you can never make it other then it is, A binding Precept. But Bellarmine hath yet one better Devise then this, to save the Councell. He saith, it is a meere Calumny, and that the Councell hath no such thing; That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiving under both kindes, but to the time of re∣ceiving it, after Supper; in which the Councell saith, the Custome of the Church is to be observed, Non obstante

notwithstanding Christs Example. How foule Bellarmine is in this, must appeare by the Words of the Councell, which are these. * 1.885 Though Christ in∣stituted this venerable Sacrament, and gave it his Disciples after Supper under both kindes of Bread and Wine, yet, Non obstante, notwithstanding this, it ought not to be Consecrated after Supper; nor received but fasting. And likewise, that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithfull under both kindes; yet this Custome, that it should be received by Lay-men only under the kinde of Bread, is to be held for a Law, which may not be re∣fused. And to say, this is an unlawfull Custome of Receiving under one kinde, is erroneous; and they which persist in saying so, are to be punished, and driven out as Heretiks. Now, where is here any slander of the Councel? The words are plaine, and the Non obstante must necessarily (for ought I can yet see) be referred to both Clauses in the words following, be∣cause both Clauses went before it, & hath as much force against Receiving under both kindes, as against receiv∣ing after Supper. Yea, and the after-words of the Councell couple both together, in this Reference; for it followes, Et similiter, And so likewise, that though in the Primitive Church &c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell, may be an Heretike, for standing to Christs Institution, in the very matter of the Sacrament: And the Churches Law for One kinde may not be re∣fused, but Christs Institution under Both kindes may. And yet this Councell did not erre; No; take heede of it.

But your opinion is more Vnreasonable then this: for [ 6] consider any Body Collective, be it more, or lesse Vniversal, whensoever it assembles it selfe, did it ever give more power to the Representing Body of it, then binding power

upon all particulars, and it self? And did it ever give this power otherwise, then with this Reservation in Nature, That it would call againe and reforme, yea, and if need were, abrogate any Law, or Ordinance upon just cause made evident, that this Representing Body had failed in Trust, or Truth? And this Power no Body Collective, Ec∣clesiasticall, or Civill can put out of it selfe, or give away to a Parliament, or Councell, or call it what you will, that represents it. Nay, in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church. For a Councell hath power to order, set∣tle, and Define differences arisen concerning Faith. This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate In∣stitution from Christ, but it was prudently taken up in the Church, from the * 1.886 Apostles Example. So that to hold Councells to this end; is apparent Apostolicall Tradition written: but the Power, which Councells so held have, is from the whole Catholike Church, whose members they are, and the Churches power from God. And † 1.887 this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a Ge∣nerall Councel, then that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars, and it self, but not binde the whole Church from calling againe, and in the After-Calls, upon just cause to order, yea, and if neede be, to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just cause. For if the Councel be lawfully called, and proceed orderly, and conclude according to the Rule, the Scripture, the whole Church cannot but ap∣prove the Councell, and then the Definitions of it, are Binding. And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this, so long as no Power, but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body, a Lawfull Generall Councell. And certaine it is, no Power, but her owne may doe it. Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits. For all Decisions in such a Councell, are binding: And because the Whole Church can meete no other way, the

Councell shall remaine the Supreme, Externall, Living, Temporary, Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controversies. Only the whole Church, and she alone hath power, when Scripture or Demonstration is found, and peaceably ten∣dred to her, to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell, and in it to order what was amisse.

Nay, your Opinion is yet more unreasonable: For [ 7] you doe not only make the Definition of a Generall Councell, but the Sentence of the Pope infallible, nay more infallible then it. a 1.888 For any Generall Councell may erre with you, if the Pope confirme it not. So be∣like this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body, the Councell, nor in the Whole Body, the Church, but in your Head of the Church, the Pope of Rome. Now I may aske you, to what end such a trouble for a Generall Councell? Or wherin are we neerer to Vnity, if the Pope confirme it not? You answer (though not in the Conference, yet elsewhere) That the Pope erres not, especially giving Sentence in a Generall Councell. And why espe∣cially? Doth the Deliberation of a Councell helpe any thing to the Conclusion? Surely not in your Opinion: For you hold the Conclusion Propheticall, the Meanes fal∣lible: and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Pro∣phetik Conclusion. And just as the Councel is in Staple∣tons Iudgment, for the Definition and the Proofes; so is the Pope, in the Iudgment of b 1.889 Melch. Canus, and them which followed him, Propheticall in the Conclusion. The Councell then is called but only in effect to heare the Pope give his Sentence in more state. Els what meanes this of † 1.890 Stapleton: The Pope by a Councell joyned unto him, acquires no new Power, or Authori∣ty, or Certainty in judging, no more then a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it, then it is without them? Or this of * 1.891 Bellar. That all the firme∣nesse and infallibility of a Generall Councell is only from the Pope,

not partly from the Pope, and partly from the Councell? So, belike the Presence is necessary, not the Assistance: Which opinion is the most groundlesse, and worth∣lesse, that ever offered to take possession of the Chri∣stian Church. And I am perswaded, many Learned Men among your selves scorne it at the very heart. And I avow it, I have heard some Learned and Iudi∣cious Romane Catholikes utterly condemne it. And well they may. For no man can affirme it, but he shall make himselfe a scorne to all the Learned Men of Christendome, whose Iudgements are not Captiva∣ted by Romane Power. And for my owne part, I am cleare of a 1.892 Jacobus Almain's Opinion: And a great wonder it is to me, That they which affirme the Pope cannot erre, do not affirme likewise, that he cannot sinne. And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirme it, did not the daily Workes of the Popes compell them to believe the Contrary. For very many of them have led lives quite Contrary to the Gospell of Christ. Nay, such lives, as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality, or other grosse Impiety, if their owne Historians be true. Take your choice of b 1.893 John the thirteenth, about the yeare 966. Or of Syl∣vester the second, about the yeare 999. Or John the eighteenth, about the yeare 1003. Or Benedict the ninth, about the yeare 1033. Or Boniface the eighth, about the yeare 1294, Or Alexander the sixt, about the yeare 1492. And yet these, and their like, must be infallible in their Dictates and Conclusions of Faith. Do your owne believe it? Surely no. For c 1.894 Alphonsus à Castro tels us plainly, That he doth not be∣lieve, that any man can be so grosse and impudent a flatterer of the Pope, as to attribute this unto him, that he can

neither erre, nor mistake in expounding the Holy Scripture. This comes home; And therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd Purge. For these words are Expresse in the Edition at Paris 1534. But they are not to be found in that at Colen 1539. Nor in that at Antwerp, 1556. Nor in that at Paris, 1571. a 1.895 Harding sayes indeed, Alphonsus left it out, of himselfe, in the following Editions. Well: First, Harding sayes this, but proves it not; so I may chuse whether I will believe him, or no. Secondly, bee it so, that hee did, that cannot helpe their Cause a whit. For say hee did dislike the sharpnesse of the Phrase, or ought els in this speech, yet he alter'd not his judg∣ment of the thing. For in all these later Editions he speakes as home, if not more then in the first; and sayes Expresly, * 1.896 That the Pope may erre, not onely as a private person, but as Pope. And in difficult Cases he adds, That the Pope ought to Consult Viros doctos, men of Learning. And this also was the Opinion of the Ancient Church of Christ concerning the Pope and his Infallibility. For thus Liberius, and he a Pope him∣selfe, writes to Athanasius. Brother Athanasius, if you thinke in the presence of God, and Christ, as I doe, I pray subscribe this Confession, which is thought to be the true Faith of the Holy, Catholike, and Apostolike Church, that we may be the more certaine, that you thinke concerning the Faith as We doe. † 1.897 Vt ego etiam persuasus sim inhaesitantèr, That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to Command me. Now I would faine know, if the Pope at that time were, or did thinke himselfe Infallible, how he should possibly be more certainly perswaded of any Truth belonging to the Faith by Athanasius his Concurring in judgment with him. For nothing can make Infallibility more cer∣taine then it is: At least, not the Concurring Iudgement

that is Fallible, as S. Athanasius was. Beside the Pope Complemented exceeding low, that would submit his unerring Iudgement to bee Commanded by Athanasius, who, hee well knew, could Erre. Againe in the Case of Easter (which made too great a noyse in the Church of old) a 1.898 Very many men called for S. Ambrose his Iudgement in that Point, even after the Defi∣nition of the Church of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Rome. And this I presume they would not have done, had they then conceived either the Pope, or his Church Infallible. And thus it continued downe till Lyra's time. For he sayes expresly, b 1.899 That many Popes as well as other Inferiours, have not onely erred, but even quite Apostatized from the Faith. And yet now nothing but Infallibility will serve their turnes. And sometimes they have not onely taken upon them to bee Infallible in Ca∣thedrâ, in their Chaire of Decision, but also to Prophecie Infallibly out of the Scripture. But Pro∣pheticall Scripture (such as the Revelation is) was too dangerous for men to meddle with, which would bee carefull of their Credit in not Erring. For it fell out in the time of Innocent the third, and Honorius the third, (as c 1.900 Aventine tels us) That the then Popes assured the world, that Destruction was at hand to Saracens, Turks, and Ma∣humetans, which, the Event shewed, were notorious untruths. And 'tis remarkeable which happened Anno 1179. For then in a Councell held at Rome, Pope * 1.901 Alexander the third Condemned Peter Lombard of

Heresie: And he lay under that Damnation for thir∣ty and sixe yeares, till Innocent the third restored him, and condemned his Accusers. Now Peter Lombard was then Condemned for some thing which hee had written about the humane Nature of our Savi∣our Christ. So here was a great Mystery of the Faith in hand; something about the Incarnation. And the Pope was in Cathedrâ, and that in a Councell of three hundred Archbishops and Bishops. And in this Coun∣cell he condemned Peter Lombard, and, in him, his Opinion about the Incarnation: And therefore of ne∣cessity either Pope Alexander erred, and that in Cathe∣drâ, as Pope, in Condemning him: Or Pope Innocen∣tius, in restoring him. The truth is, Pope Alexander had more of Alexander the Great, then of S. Peter in him. And being accustomed to warlike Imployments, he understood not that which Peter Lombard had written about this Mystery. And so He, and his Learned Assi∣stants Condemned him unjustly.

And whereas you professe * 1.902 after, That you hold no∣thing [ 8] against your Conscience. I must ever wonder much, how that can be true, since you hold this of the Pope's Infallibility, especially as being Propheti∣call in the Conclusion. If this be true, why doe you not lay all your strength together, all of your whole Society, and make this one Proposition evident? For all Controversies about matters of Faith are ended, and without any great trouble to the Christian World, if you can but make this one Proposition good, That the Pope is an Infallible Iudge. Till then, this shame will follow you infallibly, and eternally, That you should make the Pope, a meere man, Principium Fi∣dei, a Principle, or Authour of Faith; and make the mouth of him, whom you call Christ's Vicar, sole Iudge, both of Christ's Word, be it never so manifest,

and of his Church, be she never so Learned, and carefull of his Truth. And for Conclusion of this Point, I would faine know (since this had beene so plaine, so easie a way, either to prevent all Divisions about the Faith, or to end all Controversies, did they arise) why this briefe, but most necessary Proposition, The Bishop of Rome cannot erre in his Iudiciall Determi∣nations concerning the Faith, is not to be found either in Letter, or sense, in any Scripture, in any Councell; or in any Father of the Church, for the full space of a thousand yeares and more after Christ? For had this Proposition been true, and then received in the Church, how weake were all the Primitive Fathers, to pre∣scribe so many Rules and Cautions for avoydance of Heresie, as Tertullian, and Vincentius Lirinensis, and others do, and to indure such hard Conflicts, as they did, and with so many various Haereticks; To see Christendome so rent, and torne by some distem∣pered Councels, as that of Ariminum, the second of Ephe∣sus, and others; Nay to see the whole world almost be∣come Arrian, to the amazement of it selfe; And yet all this time not so much as call in this Necessary Assi∣stance of the Pope, and let the world know, That the Bishop of Rome was infallible; that so in his Decision all differences might cease? For either the Fathers of the Church, Greeke, as well as Latine, knew this Pro∣position to be true, That the Pope cannot Erre Iudicially in matters belonging to the Faith, or they knew it not. If you say they knew it not; you charge them with a base, and unworthy Ignorance, no wayes like to over-cloud such, and so many Learned men, in a Mat∣ter so Necessary, and of such infinite use to Christen∣dome. If you say they knew it, and durst not deliver this Truth, how can you charge them which durst die for Christ, with such Cowardise towards his Church?

And if you say they knew it and with-held it from the Church, you lay a most unjust Load upon those Chari∣table Soules, which loved Christ too well to imprison any Truth, but likely to make or keepe peace in his Church Catholike over the world. But certainly, as no Divine of worth did then dreame of any such Infallibility in Him, so is it a meere dreame, or worse, of those Moderne Divines, who affirme it now a 1.903. And as b 1.904 S. Augustine som∣times spake of the Donatists, and their absurd limiting the whole Christian Church to Africa onely; so may I truly say of the Romanists confining all Christianity to the Ro∣mane Doctrine, governed by the Pope's Infallibility: I verily perswade my selfe, That even the Jesuites them∣selves laugh at this. And yet unlesse they say this, which they cannot but blush while they say, they have nothing at all to say. But what's this to us, we envy no man? If the Pope's Decision bee infallible, Legant, Let them read it to us out of the Holy Scripture, and wee'l believe it.

In the meane time, take this with you, that [ 9] most certaine it is, That the Pope hath no Infal∣libility to attend his Cathedrall Iudgement in Things belonging to the Faith. For first, besides the silence of Impartiall Antiquity, Diverse c 1.905 of your Owne confesse it, yea and proove it too, by sun∣dry Instances.

Secondly, there is a great Question among the [ 10] Learned, both Schoole-men and Controversers, Whether the Pope comming to bee an Hereticke may bee Deposed? And 'tis learnedly disputed by d 1.906 Bellarmine. The Opi∣nions are different. For the e 1.907 Canon-Law saies expresly,

He may be judged and deposed by the Church in Case of He∣resie. † 1.908 Io. de Turrecremata is of Opinion, That the Pope is to be deposed by the Church so soone as he becomes an Hereticke, though as yet not a manifest one; Because he is already deprived by Divine Right. And recites ano∣ther opinion, That the Pope cannot be deposed, though be fall into secret or manifest Heresie. * 1.909 Cajetan thinkes that the Pope cannot be deposed, but for a manifest Heresie, and that then he is not deposed ipso facto, but must be de∣posed by the Church. † 1.910 Bellarmines owne Opinion is, That if the Pope become a manifest Hereticke, he present∣ly ceases to be Pope and Head of the Church, and may then be Iudged and punished by the Church. Bellarmine hath disput∣ed this very learnedly, and at large, and I will not fill this Discourse with another mans labours. The use I shall make of it, runnes through all these Opinions, and through all alike. And truly the very Question it selfe supposes, that A Pope may be an Heretick. For if he cannot be an Heretick, why doe they question, whe∣ther he can be Deposed for being One? And if he can be one, then whether he can be deposed by the Church, Before he be manifest, or not till after, or neither before nor after, or which way they will, it comes all to one for my purpose. For I question not here his Deposition for his Heresie, but his Heresie. And I hope none of these Learned men, nor any other dare deny, but that if the Pope can be an Hereticke, he can erre. For every Heresie is an errour, and more. For 'tis an Errour ofttimes against the Errants knowledge, but ever with the per∣tinacie of his Will. Therefore out of all, even your owne Grounds; If the Pope can be an Heretick, he can erre grosly, he can erre wilfully. And he that can so Erre, cannot bee Infallible in his Iudgement private or

publike. For if he can be an Hereticke, he can, and doubtlesse will Iudge for his Heresie, if the Church let him alone. And you your selves maintaine his Deposition lawfull, to prevent this. I verily believe a 1.911 Alb. Pighius foresaw this blow. And therefore he is of Opinion. That the Pope cannot become an Hereticke at all. And though b 1.912 Bellarmine favour him so farre, as to say his Opinion is probable: yet he is so honest as to adde, that the common Opinion of Divines is against him. Nay, though c 1.913 he Labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the first from the Heresie of the Monothelites, and sayes, that Pope Adrian was deceived, who thought him one, yet d 1.914 He confesses, That Pope Adrian the second, with the Councell then held at Rome, and the eight Generall Synod did thinke that the Pope might be judged in the Cause of Heresie: And that the con∣dition of the Church were most misera∣ble, if it should be constrained to ac∣knowledge a Wolfe manifestly raging for her Shepheard. And here againe I have a Question to aske, whether you believe the eight Generall Councell, or not? If you be∣lieve it, then you see the Pope can erre, and so He not Infallible. If you believe it not, then in your Iudgement that Generall Councell erres, and so that not Infallible.

Thirdly, It is altogether in vaine and to no use, [ 11] that the Pope should be Infallible, and that according to your owne Principles. Now God and Nature make nothing in vaine. Therefore either the Pope is not Infallible, or at least God never made him so. That the Infallibility of the Pope (had he any in him) is altogether vaine, and uselesse, is manifest. For if it be of any use, 'tis for the setling of Truth and Peace in the Church, in all times of her Distraction. But neither the Church, nor any member of it can make any use of the Popes Infallibility

that way; Therefore it is of no use or benefit at all. And this also is as manifest, as the rest. For before the Church, or any particular man can make any use of this Infallibility, to settle him and his Conscience, hee must either Know or Believe that the Pope is Infallible; But a man can neither Know nor Believe it. And first for Beliefe; For if the Church, or any Christian man can believe it, he must believe it either by Divine, or by Humane Faith. Divine Faith cannot be had of it; For (as is before prooved) it hath no Ground in the written Word of God. Nay (to follow you closer) it was never delivered by any Tradition of the Catholike Church. And for Humane Faith, no Rationall man can possibly believe (having no Word of God to over-rule his Vn∣derstanding) that he which is Fallible in the meanes, as a 1.915 your selves confesse the Pope is, can possibly be Infalli∣ble in the Conclusion. And were it so that a Rationall man could have Humane Faith of this Infallibility, yet that neither is, nor ever can be sufficient to make the Pope Infallible. No more then my strong Beliefe of another mans Honesty can make him an Honest man, if he be not so. Now secondly for Knowledge, And that is altogether impossible too, that either the Church, or any Member of the Church, should ever know that the Pope is Infallible. And this I shall make evident al∣so out of your owne Principles. For your b 1.916 Councell of Florence had told us That three things are necessary to eve∣ry Sacrament, the Matter, the Forme of the Sacrament, And the Intention of the Priest, which Administers it, that he intends to do as the Church doth. Your c 1.917 Coun∣cell of Trent confirmes it for the Intention of the Priest. Vpon this Ground (be it Rocke or Sand, it is all one, for you make it Rocke, and build upon it) I shall raise this Battery against the Popes Infallibility. First the Pope if he have any Infallibility at all, he hath it as he is Bishop

of Rome, and S. Peters Successor. * 1.918 This is granted. Se∣condly, the Pope cannot be Bishop of Rome, but he must be in holy Orders first. And if any man be chosen that is not so, the Election is void ipso facto, propter errorem Per∣sonae, for the Errour of the Person. † 1.919 This is also grant∣ed. Thirdly, He that is to be made Pope can never be in Holy Orders, but by receiving them from One that hath Power to Ordaine. This is notoriously knowne, So is it also, that with you Order is a Sacrament properly so called And if so, then the Pope, when he did receive the Order of Deacon, or Priesthood at the hands of the Bi∣shop, did also receive a Sacrament. Vpon these Grounds I raise my Argument thus. Neither the Church, nor any Member of the Church can know that this Pope which now sits, or any other that hath beene, or shall be, is Infallible. For he is not Infallible, unlesse he be Pope, and he is not Pope, unlesse he be in Holy Orders, And he cannot be so, unlesse he have received those Holy Orders, and that from one that had Power to Ordaine, And those Holy Orders in your Doctrine are a Sacrament, And a Sacrament is not perfectly given, if he that Administers it have not intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, an intention to doe that which the Church doth by Sacraments. Now who can possibly tell, that the Bishop which gave the Pope Orders, was first, a man qualified to give them: and secondly, so devoutly set upon his Worke, that he had, at the In∣stant of giving them, an Intention and purpose to doe therein as the Church doth? Surely none but that Bishop himselfe And his testimony of himselfe, and his owne Act, such especially as, if faulty, he would be loth to Confesse, can neither give Knowledge nor Be∣liefe sufficient, that the Pope, according to this Canon, is in Holy Orders. So upon the Whole matter, let the Ro∣manists take which they will (I give them free choyce)

either this Canon of the Councell of Trent is false Divini∣ty, and there is no such Intention necessary to the Es∣sence and Being of a Sacrament: Or if it be true, it is impossible for any man to know, and for any advis∣ed man to Believe, That the Pope is Infallible in •…•…is Iu∣diciall Sentences in things belonging to the Faith. And so here againe a Generall Councell, at least such an One, as that of Trent is, can Erre, or the Pope is not Infallible.

But this is an Argument ad Hominem, good against your Partie onely which maintaine this [ 12] Counc•…•…ll. But the plaine Truth is, Both are Errours. For neither is the Bishop of Rome Infallible in his Iudicialls about the Faith: Nor is this Intention of either Bishop or Priest of Absolute Necessity to the Essence of a Sacrament; so, as to make void the gra∣cious Institution of Christ, in case by any Tenta∣tion the Priests Thoughts should wander from his Worke, at the Instant of using the Essentials of a Sa∣crament, or have in him an Actuall Intention to scorne the Church. And you may remember, if you please, that a Neopolitan † 1.920 Bishop then present at Trent disputed this Case very learnedly, and made it most evident that this Opinion cannot be defend∣ed, but that it must open a way for any unworthy Priest to make infinite Nullities in Administration of the Sacraments. And his Arguments were of such strength, * 1.921 ut caeteros Theologos dederint in stuporem, as amazed the other Divines which were present. And concluded, That no Internall Intention was requir∣ed in the Minister of a Sacrament, but that Intenti∣on which did appeare Opere externo, in the VVorke it selfe performed by him; And that if hee had unwor∣thily any wandring thoughts, nay more, any contrary Intention within him, yet it neither did, nor could

hinder the blessed effect of any Sacrament. And most cer∣taine it is, if this be not true, besides all other Incon∣veniences, which are many, no man can secure him∣selfe upon any Doubt or trouble in his Conscience, that he hath truly, and really beene made partaker of any Sacrament whatsoever, No, not of Baptisme; and so by Consequence be left in Doubt whether he be a Christian or no, even after he is Baptised. Wher∣as 'tis most impossible; That Christ should so order his Sacraments, and so leave them to his Church, as that poore Believers in his Name, by any unworthinesse of any of his Priests, should not be able to know whether they have received His Sacraments or not, even while they have received them. And yet for all this such great lovers of Truth, and such Carefull Pastors over the Flock of Christ were these Trent Fathers, that they re∣garded none of this, but went on in the usuall track, and made their Decree for the Internall Intention and pur∣pose of the Priest, and that the Sarcament was invalid with∣out it.

Nay, one Argument more there is, and from your [ 13] owne Grounds too, that makes it more then manifest, That the Pope can erre, not Personally only, but Iudicially also; and so teach false Doctrine to the Church; which a 1.922 Bellarmine tels us No Pope hath done, or can doe. And a Maxime it is with you, That a Generall Councell can erre, if it be not confirmed by the Pope, b 1.923 But if it be confirmed, then it cannot erre. Where first, this is very improper Lan∣guage. For I hope no Councell is Confirmed, till it be finished. And when 'tis finished, even before the Popes Confirmation be put to it, either it hath Erred, or not er∣red. If it have Erred, the Pope ought not to Confirme it, and if he do, tis a void Act. For no power can make falshood Truth: If it have not Erred, then it was True before the Pope Confirmed it. So his Confirmation addes

nothing but his owne Assent, Therefore his Confirma∣tion of a Generall Councell (as you will needs call it) is at the most Signum, non Causa, A Signe, and that such as may faile, but no Cause of the Councels not Erring. But then secondly, if a Generall Councell Confirmed (as you would have it) by the Pope have Erred, and so can Erre, then certainly the Pope can Erre Iudicially For he never gives a more solemne Sentence for Truth, then when he Decrees any thing in a Generall Councell. Therefore if he have Erred, and can Erre there, then certainly he can Erre in his Definitive Sentence about the Faith, and is not Infallible. Now that he hath Erred, and therefore can Erre in a Generall Councell Confirmed, in which he takes upon him to teach all Christendome, is most cleere and evident. For the Pope teaches in, and by the a 1.924 Coun∣cell of Lateran Confirmed by Innocent the third; Christ is present in the Sacrament by way of Transubstanti∣ation. And in, and by the b 1.925 Councell of Constance, the Administration of the Blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kinde, notwithstanding Christs Institu∣tion of it in both kindes for all. And in, and by the c 1.926 Councell of Trent, Invocation of Saints, and Adoration of Images, to the great Scandall of Christianity, and as great hazard of the Weake. Now that these Particulars, among Many, are Errours in Divinity, and about the Faith, is manifest both by Scripture, and the Iudgement of the Primitive Church For Transub∣stantiation first; That was never heard of in the Primitive Church, nor till the Councell of Lateran, nor can it bee prooved out of Scripture; And taken properly cannot stand with the Grounds of Christ an Religion. As for Communion in one kinde; Christs Insti∣tution is cleere against that. And not onely the Pri∣mitive Church, but the VVhole Church of Christ kept it so, till within lesse then foure hundred yeares. For

a 1.927 Aquinas confesses it was so in use even to his times; And he was both borne and dead during the Raigne of Henry the third of England. Nay, it stands yet as a Monument in the very b 1.928 Missall, against the present Practice of the Church of Rome, That then it was usually Given and received in both kindes. And for Invocation of Saints, though some of the Ancient Fa∣thers have some Rhetoricall flourishes about it, for the stirring up of Devotion (as they thought) yet the Church then admitted not of the Invocation of them, but only of the Commemoration of the Martyrs, as appeares cleerely in c 1.929 S. Augustine. And when the Church prayed to God for any thing, she desired to be heard for the Mercies and the Merits of Christ, not for the Merits of any Saints whatsoever. For I much doubt this were to make the Saints more then Mediators of Intercession, which is all that d 1.930 you will ac∣knowledge you allow the Saints. For I pray, is not by the Merits, more then by the Intercession? Did not Christ redeeme us by his Merits? And if God must heare our Prayers for the Merits of the Saints, how much fall they short of sharers in the e 1.931 Media∣tion of Redemption. You may thinke of this. For such Prayers as these the Church of Rome makes at this day, and they stand (not without great scandall to Christ, and Chri∣stianity) used, and authorized to be used in the Missall. For instance. f 1.932 Vpon the Feast of S. Nicolas you pray, That God by the Merits and Prayers of S. Nicolas,

would deliver you from the fire of Hell. And upon the Octaves of S. Peter and S. Paul, a 1.933 you desire God That you may Ob∣taine the Glory of Eternity by their Merits. And on the b 1.934 Feast of S. Bo∣naventure you pray, that God would absolve you from all your sinnes by the Interceding Merits of Bonaventure. And for Adoration of Images, the c 1.935 Ancient Church knew it not. And the Moderne Church of Rome is too like to Paganisme in the Practice of it; and driven to scarce Intelligible Subtilties in her Servants Writings that defend it; And this without any Care had of Millions of Soules unable to understand her Subtilties, or shun her Practice. Did I say, the Moderne Church of Rome is grown too like Paganisme in this Point? And may this Speech seeme too hard? Well, if it doe, I'll give a double Account of it. The One is. 'Tis no harsher Expression then They of Rome use of the Pro∣testants, and in Cases in which there is no shew or Resemblance. For d 1.936 Becanus tels us, 'Tis no more law∣full to receive the Sacrament as the Calvinists receive it, then 'tis to worship Idols with the Ethnicks: And Gregory de Valentia inlarges it to more Points then one, but with no more truth. The Sectaries of our times e 1.937 (saith he) seeme to Erre culpably in more things then the Gen∣tiles. This is easily said, but here's no Proofe. Nor shall I hold it a sufficient warrant for me to sower my Language, because these men have dipped their Pens in Gall. The other Account therefore which I shall give of this speech, shall come vouched both by Authority and Reason. And first for Authority; I

could set Lu•…•…o vicus Vives against Becanus, if I would, who layes expresly, That the making of Feasts at the Oratories of the Martyrs (which a 1.938 S. Augustine tels us, The best Chri∣stians practised not) are a kinde of b 1.939 Parentalia, Funerall Feasts too much resembling the superstition of the Gen∣tiles. Nay, Vives need not say, resem∣bling that superstition, since c 1.940 Tertullian tels us plainely, that Idolatry it selfe is but a kinde of Parentation. And Vives dying in the Communion of the Church of Rome, is a better testimony against you, then Becanus, or Valentia, being bitter enemies to our Communion, can be against us. But I'le come nearer home to you, and prove it by more of your owne. For d 1.941 Cas∣sander, who lived and died in your Communion, sayes it expresly, That in this present Case of the Adoration of Images, you came full home to the Superstition of the Heathen. And secondly, for Reason, I have (I think) too much to give, that the Moderne Church of Rome is growne too like to Paganisme in this Point. For the e 1.942 Councell of Trent it selfe confesses, That to believe there's any Divinity in Images, is to do as the Gentiles did by their Idols. And though in some words afterthe Fathers of that Coun∣cell seeme very religiously carefull, that all f 1.943 Occasion of dangerous Errour be prevented; yet the Doctrine it selfe is so full of danger, that it workes strongly, both upon the Learned and Unlearned, to the scandall of Religion, and the perverting of Truth. For the Un∣learned first, how it workes upon them by whole

Countries together, you may see by what happened in Asturia, Cantabria, Galetia, no small parts of Spaine. For there the People (so * 1.944 He tels me that was an Eye witnesse, and that since the Councell of Trent) are so ad∣dicted to their worme eaten and deformed Images, that when the Bishops commanded new, and handsommer Images to be set up in their roomes, the poore people cried for their old, would not looke up to their new, as if they did not repre∣sent the same thing. And though he say, this is by little and little amended, yet I believe there's very little Amendment. And it workes upon the Learned too, more then it should. For it wrought so farre upon Lamas himselfe, who bemoaned the former Passage, as that he delivers this Doctrine, † 1.945 That the Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, are not to be worshipped, as if there were any Divinity in the Images, as they are materiall things made by Art, but only as they repre∣sent Christ and the Saints; For els it were Idolatry. So then belike, according to the Divinity of this Casuist, a man may worship Images, and aske of them, and put his trust in them, as they Represent Christ, and the Saints. For so there is Divinity in them, though not as Things, yet as Representers. And what I pray did, or could any Pagan Priest say more then this? For the Proposition resolved is this. The Images of Christ and the Saints, as they represent their Exemplars, have Deity or Divinity in them. And now I pray A. C. doe you be Iudge, whe∣ther this Proposition do not teach Idolatry? And whe∣ther the Moderne Church of Rome be not growne too like to Paganisme in this Point? For my owne part, I heartily wish it were not. And that men of Learn∣ing would not straine their wits to spoile the Truth, and rent the Peace of the Church of Christ by such dangerous, such superstitious vanities. For better they are not; but they may be worse. Nay these and their

like have given so great a Scandall among us, to some ignorant, though, I presume, well meaning men, that they are afraid to testifie their Duty to God, even in * 1.946 his owne House, by any Outward Gesture at all. In so much that those very Ceremonies, which, by the Iudge∣ment of Godly and Learned men, have now long continued in the practice of this Church, suffer hard measure for the Romish Superstitions sake. But I will conclude this Point with the saying of B. Rhena∣nus: Who could indure the people (sayes hee) rush∣ing into the Church like Swine into a Stye? Doubt∣lesse, Ceremonies doe not hurt the people, but profit them, so there be a meane kept, and the By be not put for the Maine, that is, so we place not the principall part of our Piety in them.

The Conference growes to an end, and I must meet it againe ere we part. For you say,

F.

After this (we all rising) the Lady asked the B. whether she might be saved in the Romane Faith? He answered, She might.

B.

What? Not one † 1.947 Answer perfectly related? [§ 34] My Answer to this was Generall, for the ignorant, that could not discerne the Errours of that Church; so they held the Foundation, and conformed themselves to a Religious life. But why do you not speake out what I added in this Particular? That it must needs go harder with the Lady, even in Point of Salvation, because she had beene brought to understand very much, for one of her Condition, in these Controverted Causes of Religion. And a Person that comes to know much, had need carefully bethinke himselfe, that he oppose not knowne Truth against the Church that made him a Christian. For Salvation may be in the Church of Rome, and yet they not finde it,

that make surest of it: Here A. C. is as confident as * 1.948 the Iesuite himselfe, That I said expresly, That the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith. Truly, 'tis too long since now for me to speake any more then I have al∣ready, upon my memory: But this I am sure of, That whatsoever I said of her, were it never so particular, yet was it under the Conditions before expressed.

F.

I bad her marke that.

B.

This Answer (I am sure) troubles not [§ 35] [ 1] you. But it seemes you would faine have it lay a load of en∣vie upon mee, that you professe you bad the Lady, so carefully marke that. Well, you bad her Marke that. For what? For some great matter? or for some new? Not for some New sure. For the Protestants have ever beene ready for Truth and in Charity to grant as much as might be. And there∣fore from the be∣ginning many † 1.949 Leàr∣ned men granted this. So that you needed not have put such a serious Mark that upon

my speech, as if none before had, or none but I would speake it. And if your Marke that were not for some New matter, was it for some Great? Yes sure, it was. For what greater then Salvation? But then I pray, marke this too, That might be saved, grants but a a 1.950 Possibility, no sure, or safe way to Salvation. The Possibility I think cannot be denied, the Ignorants especially, because they hold the Foundation, and cannot sur∣vey the Building. And the Foundati∣on can deceive no man that rests upon it. But a secure way they cannot goe, that hold with such corruptions, when they know them. Now whether it be wis∣dome, in such a Point as Salvation is, to forsake a Church, in the which the Ground of Salvation is firme, to follow a Church, in which it is but possible one may be saved, but very pro∣bable he may do worse, if he look not well to the Foundation, judge ye. I am sure b 1.951 S. Augustine thought it was not, and judged it a great sinne, in Point of Salva∣tion, for a man to preferre incerta certis, uncertainties and naked possibilities before an evident and certaine Course. And c 1.952 Bellarmine is of Opinion, and that in the Point of Iustification: That in regard of the uncer∣tainty of our own Righteousnesse, and of the danger of vaine glory, tutissimum est, 'tis safest to repose our whole trust in the Mercy and Goodnesse of God. And surely, if there be One safer way then another, as he Confesses there is, he is no wise man, that in a matter of so

great moment will not betake himselfe to the safest way. And therefore even you your selves in the Point of Condignity of Merit, though you write it, and preach it boysterously to the People; yet you are con∣tent to dye, renouncing the condignity of all your owne Merits, and trust to Christs. Now surely, if you will not venture to dye as you live, live and beleeve in time, as you meane to die.

And one thing more, because you bid Marke this, [ 2] let me remember to tell you for the benefit of others. Vpon this very Point (That we acknowledge an honest ig∣norant Papist may be saved) you and your like worke upon the advantage of our Charity, and your owne want of it, to abuse the weake. For thus I am told you worke upon them. You see the Protestants (at least many of them) confesse there may be salvation in our Church; We absolutely deny there is salvation in theirs: Therefore it is safer to come to Ours, then to stay in theirs; to be where, almost all grant Salvation, then where the greater part of the world deny it. This Argument is very prevailing with men, that cannot weigh it, and with women especially, that are put in feare by * 1.953 violent (though causelesse) deny∣ing Heaven unto them. And some of your party since this, have set out a Booke, called Charity mistaken. But beside the Answer fully given to it, this alone is sufficient to Con∣fute it. First, that in this our Chari∣ty (what ever yours be) is not mistaken, unlesse the Charity of the Church her selfe were mistaken in the Case of the Donatists, as shall † 1.954 after appeare. Secondly, even Mistaken Charity (if such it were) is farre better then none at all. And if the Mistaken be ours, the None is yours. Yea, but A. C. tells us, That this denyall of Salvation * 1.955

is grounded upon Charitie, as were the like threats of Christ, and the Holy Fathers. For there is but one true Faith, and one true Church, and out of that there is no Sal∣vation. And he that will not heare the Church, S. Matth. 18. let him bee as a Heathen, and a Publicane, Therefore he sayes, 'tis more Charity to fore-warne us of the danger, by * 1.956 these threats, then to let us run into it, thorough a false security. 'Tis true, that there is but one true Faith, and but one true Church. But that one, both Faith, and Church, is the a 1.957 Catholike Christian, not the Particular Romane. And this Catholike Christian Church, he that will not both heare, and obey, yea and the Particular Church, in which hee lives too, so farre as it in neces∣saries agrees with the Vniversall, is in as bad conditi∣on as a Heathen and a Publicane, and perhaps in some respects worse. And were we in this Case, we should thanke A. C. for giving us warning of our danger. But 'tis not so. For he thunders out all these threats, and denyall of salvation, because we joyne not with the Romane Church, in all things; as if her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meere begging of the Question, and then threatning upon it, without all ground of Reason or Charity. In the meane time let A. C. looke to himselfe, that in his false security, hee run not into the danger, and losse of his owne salvation, while hee would seeme to take such care of ours. But though this Argument prevailes with the weake, yet it is much stronger in the cunning, then the true force of it. For all Arguments are very mooving that lay their ground upon b 1.958 the Adversaries Confession;

especially if it be confessed, and avouched to be true. But if you would speak truly, and say, Many Prote∣stants indeed confesse, there is salvation possible to be at∣tained in the Romane Church, but that yet they say withall, that the Errors of that Church are so many * 1.959 (and some so great, by the Confession of your owne, as weaken the Foundati∣on) that it is very hard to goe that way to Heaven, especially to them that have had the Truth manifest∣ed; the heart of this Argument were utterly broken. Besides the force of this Argument lyes upon two things, one directly Expressed, the other but as upon the By.

That which is expressed, is, We and our Adversa∣ries [ 3] consent, that there is salvation to some in the Ro∣mane Church. What? would you have us as malicious, (at least as rash) as your selves are to us, and deny you so much, as possibility of Salvation? If we should, we might make you in some things straine for a Proofe? But we have not so learned Christ, as either to return evill for evill in this headie course, or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly soules; whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men, that professe the Foundation, Christ; And therefore seeke not •…•…o help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians, as you most fiercely do, where you can come to worke upon them. And this was an old trick of the Donatists. For in the Point of Baptisme (Whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church, or in the Part of Donatus) they exhorted all to be bap∣tised among them. VVhy? Because both Parts granted, that Baptisme was true among the D•…•…atists: which that

peevish Sect most unjustly denyed the sound part, as S. † 1.960 Augustine delivers it. I would aske now, Had not the Orthodox true Baptisme among them, because the Donatists denyed it injuriously? Or should the Ortho∣dox against Truth, have denyed Baptisme, among the Donatists, either to cry quittance with them, or that their Argument might not be the stronger, because both parts granted? But Marke this, how farre you runne from all common Principles of Christian Peace, as well as Christian Truth, while you deny salvation most unjustly to us, from which you are farther off your selves. Besides, if this were, or could be made a concluding Argument, I pray, why doe not you believe with us in the Point of the Eucharist? For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of Eng∣land, That in the most Blessed Sacrament, the Worthy receiver is by his * 1.961 Faith made spiri∣tually partaker of the true and reall Body and Blood of Christ † 1.962 truly, and really, and of all the Benefits of his Passion. Your Romane Catholikes adde a manner of this his Presence, Transub∣stantiation, which many deny; and the Lutherans a manner of this Pre∣sence, Consubstantiation, which more deny. If this argument be good, then even for this

Consent, it is safer Communicating with the Church of England, then with the Roman, or Lutheran; Be∣cause all agree in this Truth, not in any other Opinion. Nay † 1.963 Suarez himselfe, and he a very Learned Adversary (what say you to this A. C? doth Truth force this from him?) Confesses plainely, † That to Beleeve Transubstantiation is not simply necessary * 1.964 to Salvation. And yet he knew well the Church had Determined it. And * 1.965 Bellarmine, after an intricate, te∣dious, and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Adductive Conversion (A thing which neither Divinity, nor Philosophy ever heard of till then) is at last forced to come to this: a 1.966 Whatsoever is concer∣ning the manner and formes of speech, illud tenendum est, this is to be held, that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ, is substantiall, but after a secret and ineffable manner, and not like in all things to any naturall Conversion whatsoever. Now if he had left out Conversion, and affirmed only Christs reall Presence there, after a mysterious, and indeed an ineffable manner, no man could have spoke better. And therefore, if you will force the Argument alwayes to make that the safest way of Salvation, which differing Parties agree on; why doe you not yeeld to the force of the same Argument, in the Beliefe of the Sacrament, one of the most immediate meanes of Salvation, where not onely the most, but all agree; And your owne great∣est Clarkes cannot tell what to say to the Contrary?

I speake here for the force of the Argument, [ 4] which certainly in it selfe is nothing, though by A. C. made of great account; For he sayes, 'Tis a * 1.967 Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth. Iust as

* 1.968 Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptisme. But in truth, 'tis nothing. For the Syllogisme, which it frames, is this. The Papists and the Protestants, which are the Parties differing, agree in this, That there is Salvation possible to be found in the Romane Church. But in Point of Faith and Salvation 'tis safest for a man to take that way, which the differing Parties agree on. Therfore 'tis safest for a man to be, and continue in the Romane Church. To the Major Proposition then; I observe first, that though ma∣ny Learned Protestants grant this, all doe not. And then that Proposition is not Universall, nor able to sustaine the Conclusion. For they doe not in this all agree; nay I doubt not, but there are some Protestants, which can, and do as stifly, and as churlishly deny them Salvation, as they doe us. And A. C. should doe well to consider, whether they doe it not upon as good reason at least. Next for the Minor Proposition; Namely, That in point of Faith and Salvation, 'tis safest for a man to take that way, which the Adversary confesses, or the Differing Parties agree on. I fay, that is no Metaphysicall Principle, but a bare Con∣tingent Proposition, and may be true, or false, as the matter is to which it is applyed, and so of no necessary truth in it selfe, nor able to leade in the Conclusion. Now that this Proposition (In point of Faith and Salvation, 'tis safest for a man, to take that way, which the differing Parties agree on, or which the Adversary Confesses) hath no strength in it selfe, but is sometimes true, and sometimes false, as the Matter is, about which it is conversant, is most evi∣dent. First, by Reason: Because Consent of disagree∣ing Parties, is neither Rule, nor Proofe of Truth. For Herod and Pilate, disagreeing Parties enough, yet agreed against Truth it selfe. But Truth rather is, or should be the Rule to frame, if not to force Agree∣ment. And secondly, by the two Instances † 1.969 before given. For in the Instance betweene the Orthodox Church then,

and the Donatists, this Proposition is most false; For it was a Point of Faith, and so of Salvation, that they were upon, Namely, the right use, and administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme. And yet had it beene safest to take up that way, which the differing Parts agreed on, or which the adverse Part Confessed, men must needs have gone with the Donatists against the Church. And this must fall out as oft as any, Heretick will cunningly take that way against the Church, which the Donatists did, if this Principle shall goe for currant. But in the second Instance, concern∣ing the Eucharist, a matter of Faith, and so of Salvation too, the same Proposition is most true. And the Reason is, because here the matter is true; Namely, The true, and reall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacra∣ment. But in the former the matter was false, Name∣ly, That Rebaptization was necessary after Baptisme formally given by the Church. So this Propositi∣on (In Point of Faith and Salvation it is safest for a man to take that way, which the differing Parties agree in; or which the Adversary Confesses) is, you see, both true and false, as men have cunning to ap∣ply it, and as the matter is, about which it is Con∣versant. And is therefore no Proposition able, or fit to settle a Conclusion in any sober mans minde, till the Matter contained under it, bee well scan∣ned, and examined. And yet as much use as you would make of this Proposition to amaze the weake, your selves dare not stand to it, no not where the matter is undenyably true, as shall appeare in divers Particulars beside this of the Eucharist.

But before I adde any other particular Instan∣ces, [ 5]

I must tell you what A. C. sayes to the two * 1.970 former. For he tels us, These two are nothing like the present case. Nothing? That is strange indeed. Why in the first of those Cases concerning the Do∣natists, your Proposition is false; And so farre from being safest, that it was no way safe for a man to take that way of Beliefe, and so of Salvation, which both parts agreed on. And is this nothing? Nay, is not this full, and home to the present case? For the present case is this, and no more. That it is safest taking that way of Beliefe, which the differing Parties agree on: or which the Adversary Confesses. And in the second of those Cases concerning the Eucharist, your Proposition indeed is true, not by the Truth which it hath in it selfe, Metaphysically, and in Ab∣stract, but only in regard of the matter, to which it is applyed; yet there you desert your owne Propo∣sition, where it is true. And is this nothing? Nay, is not this also full, and home to the present case, since it appeares your Proposition is such as your selves dare not bide by, either when it is true, or when it is false? For in the Case of Baptisme ad∣ministred by the Donatist, the Proposition is false, and you dare not bide by it, for Truths sake. And in the case of the Eucharist, the Proposition is true, and yet you dare not bide by it, for the Church of Romes sake. So that Church (with you) cannot erre, and yet will not suffer you to maintaine Truth, which not to doe is some degree of Errour, and that no small one.

Well, A. C. goes on, and gives his Reasons why [ 6] these two Instances are nothing like the present Case. * 1.971 For in these Cases (saith hee) there are annexed other Reasons of certainly knowne perill of damnable. Schisme

and Heresie, which wee should incurre by consenting to the Donatists denyall of true Baptisme among Catholikes: and to the Protestants denyall, or doubting of the true substantiall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But in this Case of Resolving to live and dye in the Catholike Romane Church, there is confessedly no such perill of any damnable Heresie, or Schisme, or any other sinne. Here I have many Particulars to observe upon A. C. and you shall have them, as briefly as I can set them downe.

And first, I take A. C. at his word, that in * 1.972 the case of the Donatist, should it bee followed, there would bee knowne perill of damnable Schisme, and Heresie, by denying true Baptisme to be in the Orthodoxe Church. For by this you may see, what a sound proposition this is (That where two Parties are dissenting, it is safest believing that in which both Parties agree, or which the Adversary confesses) for here you may see by the case of the Donatist, is con∣fessed, it may leade a man, that will universally leane to it, into knowne and damnable Schisme and He∣resie. An excellent Guide, I promise you, this, is it not?

Nor secondly, are these, though A. C. calles them * 1.973 so, annexed Reasons; For hee calls them so, but to blaunch the matter, as if they fell upon the pro∣position ab extra, accidentally, and from with∣out, Whereas they are not annexed, or pinned on, but flow naturally out of the Proposition it selfe. For the Proposition would seeme to be Metaphysicall, and is applyable indifferently to any Common Beliefe of dissen∣ting Parties, be the point in difference what it will. Therfore if there be any thing Hereticall, Schismaticall, or any way evill in the Point, this proposition being neither Vniversally, nor necessarily true, must needes

cast him, that relyes upon it, upon all these Rocks of Heresie, Schisme, or what ever else followes the matter of the Proposition.

Thirdly, A. C. doth extremely ill to joyne these Ca∣ses of the Donatists for Baptisme, and the Protestant for * 1.974 the Eucharist together, as he doth. For this Propo∣sition in the first concerning the Donatists, leades a man (as is confessed by himselfe) into knowne and damnable Schisme and Heresie: but by A. C^s. good leave the later concerning the Protestants, and the Eucharist, nothing so. For I hope A. C. dare not say, That to believe the true * 1.975 sub∣stantiall Presence of Christ, is ei∣ther knowne, or damnable Schisme, or Heresie. Now as many, and as Learned † 1.976 Protestants believe and maintaine this, as doe believe possibility of Salvation (as before is limited) in the Romane Church: Therefore they in that not guil∣ty of either knowne, or damnable Schisme, or Heresie, though the Donatists were of both.

Fourthly, whereas he imposes upon the Protestants, The denyall or doubting of the true and Reall Presence of * 1.977 Christ in the Eucharist; he is a great deale more bold, then true, in that also: For understand them right, and they certainly, neither deny, nor doubt it. For as for the Luthe∣ran (as they are commonly called) their very Opinion of Consubstantiation makes it knowne to the world, that they neither deny, nor doubt of his true, and Reall Presence there. And they are Protestants. And for the Calvinists, if they might bee rightly under∣stood, they also maintaine a most true and Reall Presence, though they cannot permit their judge∣ment to be Transubstantiated. And they are Protestants

too. And this is so knowne a Truth, that a 1.978 Bellar∣mine confesses it. For hee saith, Protestants do often grant, that the true and reall Body of Christ is in the Eu∣charist: But he adds, That they ne∣ver say (so farre as he hath read) That it is there •…•…ruly and Really, unlesse they speake of the Supper, which shall be in Heaven. Well, first if they grant that the true, and Reall Body of Christ, is in that Blessed Sacra∣ment (as Bellarmine confesses they doe, and 'tis most true) then A. C. is false, who charges all the Prote∣stants with deniall, or doubtfulnesse in this Point. And * 1.979 secondly, Bellarmine himselfe also shewes here his Igno∣rance, or his Malice; Ignorance, if he knew it not: Malice, if he would not know it. For the Calvinists, at least they which follow Calvine himself, do not onely believe that the true and reall Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist, but that it is there, and that we par∣take of it verè & realiter, which are b 1.980 Calvine's owne words; and yet Bellarmine boldly affirmes, that to his reading, no one Protestant did ever affirme it. And I, for my part, cannot believe but Bellarmine had read Cal∣vine, and very carefully, he doth so frequently and so mainly Oppose him. Nor can that Place by any Art be shifted, or by any Violence wrested from Calvine's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the bles∣sed Sacrament of the Fucharist, to any Supper in Heaven whatsoever. But most manifest it is, that Quod legerim, for ought I have read, will not serve Bellarmine to Ex∣cuse him. For he himselfe, but in the very c 1.981 Chapter going before, quotes foure Places out of Calvine, in which he sayes expresly, That we receive in the Sa∣crament the Body and the Blood of Christ Verè, truly.

So Calvine sayes it foure times, and Bellarmine quotes the places; and yet he sayes in the very next Chapter, That never any Protestant said so, to his Reading. And for the Church of England, nothing is more plaine, then that it believes and teaches the true and reall Pre∣sence of Christ in the * 1.982 Eucharist, un∣lesse A. C. can make a Body, no Body, and Blood, no Blood (as perhaps he can by Transubstantiation) as well as Bread, no Bread, & Wine, no Wine. And the Church of England is Prote∣stant too. So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and reall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and then, where's any known, or damnable He∣resie here? As for the Learned of those zealous men that died in this Cause in Q. Maries dayes, they denied not the Reall Presence simply taken, but as their Opposites forced Transubstan∣tiation upon them, as if that, and the Reall Presence had beene all one. Whereas all the Ancient Christians ever believed the one, and none but moderne and superstiti∣ous Christians believe the other; If they do believe it, for I, for my part, doubt they do not. And as for the Vn∣learned in those times, and all times, their zeale (they holding the Foundation) may eat out their Ignorances, and leave them safe. Now that the Learned Protestants in Q. Maries dayes, did not denie, nay did maintaine the Reall Presence, will manifestly appeare. For when the Commissioners obtruded to Io. Frith the Presence of Christ's naturall Body in the Sacrament; and that without all figure, or similitude: Io. Frith acknow∣ledges, † 1.983 That the inward man doth as verily receive Christ's Body, as the outward man receives the Sacrament with his

Mouth: And he addes, a 1.984 That neither side ought to make it a necessary Article of Faith, but leave it indifferent. Nay, Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainely, and more home to it then Frith: For if you understand (saith b 1.985 he) by this word Really, Reipsâ, that is, in very deed and effectually; so Christ by the Grace and efficacy of his Passion, is indeed, and truly present, &c. But if by this word Really, you under∣stand c 1.986 Corporaliter, Corporally, in his naturall and Organicall Body, un∣der the Formes of Bread and Wine, 'tis contrary to the Holy Word of God. And so likewise Bishop Ridley. Nay, Bishop Rid∣ley addes yet farther, and speakes so fully to this Point, as I thinke no man can adde to his Expression: And 'tis well if some Protestants except not against it. Both you and I (saith d 1.987 he) agree in this: That in the Sacrament is the very true and naturall Body and Blood of Christ, even that which was borne of the Virgin Ma∣rv; which ascended into Heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quicke and the dead. Onely we differ in modo, in the way and manner of Being. We confesse all one thing to be in the Sacrament,

and dissent in the Manner of Being there. I con∣fesse Christ's Naturall Body to bee in the Sacrament by Spirit and Grace, &c. You make a grosser kinde of Be∣ing, inclosing a naturall Body under the shape and forme of Bread and Wine. So farre, and more, Bishop Ridley. And a 1.988 Archbishop Cranmer confesses, that he was indeed of another Opinion, and inclining to that of Zuinglius, till Bishop Ridley convinced his Iudge∣ment, and setled him in this Point. And for b 1.989 Calvine, he comes no whit short of these, against the Calumnie of the Romanists on that behalfe. Now after all this, with what face can A. C. say (as he doth) That Protestants deny, or doubt of the true, and reall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. I cannot well tell, or am unwilling to utter.

Fiftly, whereas 'tis added by A. C. That in this pre∣sent case, there is no perill of any damnable Heresie, * 1.990 Schisme, or any other Sinne, in resolving to live and die in the Romane Church. That's not so neither. For he that lives in the Romane Church, with such a Resolution, is presumed to believe as that Church believes. And he that doth so, I will not say is as guilty, but guilty he is, more, or lesse, of the Schisme which that Church first caused by her Corruptions, and now continues by them, and her power together; And of all her Dam∣nable Opinions too, in point of Misbeliefe, though per∣haps A. C. will not have them called Heresies, unlesse they have beene condemned in some Generall Councell; And of all other sinnes also, which the Doctrine and Misbeliefe of that Church leads him into. And marke it I pray. For 'tis one thing to live in a Schismaticall Church, and not Communicate with it in the Schisme,

or in any false Worship that attends it. For so Eli∣as lived among the Ten Tribes, and was not Schis∣maticall, 3. Reg. 17. And after him Elizaus, 4. Reg. * 1.991 3. But then neither of them either countenanced the Schisme, or worshipped the Calves in Dan, or in Bethel. And so also beside these Prophets, did those Thousands live in a Schismaticall Church, yet never bowed their knee to Baal, 3. Reg. 19. But 'tis * 1.992 quite another thing to live in a Schismaticall Church, and Communicate with it in the Schisme, and in all the Superstitions and Corruptions, which that Church teaches, nay to live and die in them. For certainly here no man can so live in a Schismaticall Church, but if he be of capacity enough, and understand it, he must needs be a Formall Schismatick, or an Involved One, if he understand it not. And in this case the Church of Rome is either farre worse, or more cruell then the Church of Israel, even under Ahab and Jezabel, was. The Synagogue indeed was corrupted a long time, and in a great degree. But I do not finde, that this Doctrine, You must sacrifice in the high places: Or this, You may not go and worship at the one Altar in Ierusalem, was either taught by the Priests, or maintained by the Prophets, or enjoyned the people by the Sanedrim: Nay, can you shew me when any Iew living there devontly accor∣ding to the Law, was ever punished for omitting the One of these, or doing the Other? But the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her Errours: And erring, hath yet decreed withall, That she cannot erre. And imposed upon Learned men, disputed and impro∣bable Opinions, Transubstantiation, Purgatorie, and Forbearance of the Cup in the blessed Eucharist, even against the expresse Command of our Saviour, and that for Articles of Faith. And to keepe off Disobe∣dience, what ever the Corruption be, she hath bound

up her Decrees upon paine of Excommunication, and all that followes upon it. Nay, this is not enough, un∣lesse the fagot be kindled to light them the way. This then may be enough for us to leave Rome, though the old Prophet forsooke not Israel, 3. Reg. 13. And there∣fore in this present case there's perill, great perill of * 1.993 damnable both Schisme and Herefie, and other sinne; by living and dying in the Romane Faith, tainted with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their Tyrannie to boot. So that here I may answer A. C. just as * 1.994 S. Au∣gustine answered Petilian the Dona∣tist, in the fore-named case of Bap∣tisme. For when Petilian pleaded the Concession of his Adversaries, That Baptisme, as the Donatists ad∣ministred it, was good and lawfull, and thence inferred (just as the Ie∣suite doth against me) that it was better for men to joyne with his Con∣gregation, then with the Church. S. Au∣gustine answers; We do indeed ap∣prove among H•…•…reticks Baptisme, but so, not as it is the Baptisme of Here∣ticks, but as it is the Baptisme of Christ. Iust as we approve the Baptisme of Adulterers, Idolaters, Witches, and yet not as'tis theirs; but as 'tis Christs Baptisme. For none of these, for all their Baptisme, shall inherit the Kingdome of God. And the Apostle reckons Hereticks among them. a 1.995 Galat. 5. And againe afterwards: It is not there∣fore yours (saith † 1.996 Saint Augustine) which wee feare to destroy, but Christs, which, even among the Sacri∣legious, is of, and in it selfe, holy. Now you shall see how full this comes, home to our Petilianist A. C.

(for hee is one of the Contracters of the Church of Christ to Rome, as the Donatists confined it to Africke.) And he cries out, That a Possibility of Sal∣vation, * 1.997 is a free Confession of the Adversaries, and is of force against them, and to bee thought extorted from them by force of Truth it selfe. I Answer. I doe in∣deed for my part (leaving other men free to their owne judgement) acknowledge a Possibility of Salvation in the Romane Church. But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the Foundation Christ himselfe, not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse Superstitions of the Romish Church. Nor doe I feare to destroy quod ipsorum est, that which is theirs, but yet I dare not proceed so roughly, as with theirs, or for theirs to deny, or weaken the Foundation, which is Christs, even among them; and which is, and remaines holy even in the midst of their Superstitions; And I am wil∣ling to hope there are many among them, which keep within that Church, and yet wish the Supersti∣tions abolished which they know, and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not, and which hold the Foundation firme, and live accor∣dingly, and which would have all things amended that are amisse, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a Possibility of Salvation, for that which is Christs in them, though they hazzard themselves extremely by keeping so close to that, which is Superstition, and in the Case of Images, comes too neare Idolatry. Nor can A. C. shift this * 1.998 off by adding, living and dying in the Romane Church. For this living and dying in the Romane Church, (as is before expressed) cannot take away the

Possibility of Salvation from them which believe, and repent of whatsoever is errour, or sinne in them, be it sinne knowne to them, or be it not. But then perhaps A. C. will reply, that if this be so, I must then maintaine, that a Donatist also, living and dying in Schisme, might be sa∣ved. To which I an∣swer two wayes. First, that a plaine honest Donatist, having (as is confessed) true Bap∣tisme, and holding the Foundation (as, for ought I know, the † 1.999 Donatists did) and repenting of what ever was sinne in him, and would have repented of the Schisme, had it beene known to him, might be saved. Secondly, that in this Particular, the Ro∣manist and the Donatist differ much; And that therefore it is not of ne∣cessary cōsequence, that if a Romanist now (up∣on the Conditions be∣fore expressed) may be saved; Therefore a Do∣natist heretofore might.

For in regard of the Schisme the Donatist was in one respect worse, and in greater danger of damnation then the Romanist now is: And in an other respect better, and in lesse danger. The Donatist was in greater danger of damnation, if you consider the Schisme it selfe then; for they brake from the Orthodox Church without any cause given them. And here it doth not follow, if the Romanist have a Possibility of Salvation, therefore a Donatist hath. But if you consider the Cause of the Schisme now, then the Donatist was in lesse danger of Damnation then the Romanist is; Because the Church of Rome gave the first and the greatest cause of the Schisme (as is prooved † 1.1000 before.) And therefore here it doth not follow, That if a Donatist have possi∣bility of Salvation, Therefore a Romanist hath; For a lesser Offender may have that possibility of safety, which a greater hath not.

And last of all, whereas A. C. addes, that confess∣edly * 1.1001 there is no such Perill. That's a most lowd untruth, and an Ingenuous man would never have said it. For in the same * 1.1002 place, where I grant a possibility of Sal∣vation in the Romane Church, I presently adde, that it is no secure way, in regard of Romane Corruptions. And A. C. cannot plead for himself that he either knew not this, or that he overlook'd it; for himselfe 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 therby confesse no perill of Damna∣tion in the same way Yea but if some Protestants should say there is perill of Damnation to live and dye in the Romane Faith, their saying is nothing in comparison of the number or worth of those that say, there is none. So A. C. againe, And be∣side, * 1.1003 they which say it, are contradicted by their owne more Learned Brethren. Here A. C. speakes very confusedly. But whether he speake 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 Con∣cluders for Truth Not Number; for who would be judged by the Many? The time was when the † 1.1004 Arrians were too ma∣ny for the Orthodox. Not Worth simply, for that once * 1.1005 misled, is of all other the greatest misleader. And yet God forbid, that to Worth weaker men should not yeeld in difficult and Perplexed Questions, yet so, as that when Matters Fundamentall in the Faith come in Que∣stion they finally rest upon an higher, and clearer certainty then can be found in either Number or VVeight of men. Besides, if you meane your own Par∣tie, you have not yet prooved your Partie more wor∣thy for Life or Learning then the Protestants. Proove that first, and then it will be time to tell you, how worthy many of your Popes have beene 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 perill of Damnation for any man to live and dye in the Romane perswasion. And you are not able to produce any one Protestant, that ever said the contra∣ry. And therefore that is a most notorious slander,

where you say, that they which affirme this perill of Damnation, are contradicted by their owne more * 1.1006 Learned Brethren.

And thus having cleared the way against the Ex∣ceptions [ 7] of A. C. to the two former Instances, I will now proceed (as I † 1.1007 promised) to make this farther appeare, that A. C. and his fellowes dare not stand to that ground, which is here laid downe. Namely, That in Poynt 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 doe stand to it, they must be forced to maintaine the Church of Eng∣land 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 be∣lieves * 1.1008 this Article, and withall that Hell is the place of the Damned, so doth the Church of England. In this then these distenting Churches agree: Therefore ac∣cording to the former Rule (yea and here in Truth too) 'tis safest for a man to believe this Article of the Creed, as both agree: That is, that Christ descended in Soule into the Place of the Damned. But this the Romanists will not endure at any hand. For the † 1.1009 Schoole agree in it, That the Soule of Christ in the time of his death went really no farther then 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 Ro∣manist, without Licence of either Scripture, or the Pri∣mitive Church. And a man would wonder how those Builders with untempered mortar found light enough in that darke Place to build as they have done. * 1.1010

Secondly, I'le instance in the Institution of the Sacra∣ment in both kinds. That Christ Instituted it so, is confes∣sed * 1.1011 by both Churches; that the Ancient Churches receiv∣ed it so, is agreed by both Churches. Therefore

according to the former Rule (and here in Truth too) 'tis safest for a man to receive this Sacrament in both kindes. 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 poore * 1.1012 Bohemians must have a Dispensation, that it may be lawfull for them to receive the Sacrament as Christ commanded them. And this must not be granted to them neither, unlesse they will acknowledge (most opposite to Truth) that they are not bound by Divine Law to receive it in both kindes. And here their Building with untempered Mortar appeares most manifestly. For they have no shew to maintaine 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 alwayes with the Body, of which Terme † 1.1013 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 kindes? Next, if this be true, Concomitancy accom∣panies the Priest, as well as the People; and then why may not he receive it in one kinde also? Third∣ly, 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 con∣comitantiam. And yet Christ must rather erre, or pro∣ceed I know not how in the Institution of the Sa∣crament in both kindes, rather then the Holy unerr∣ing Church of Rome may doe amisse in the Determina∣tion for it, and the Administration of it in one kinde. Nor will the Distinction, That Christ insti∣tuted this as a Sacrifice, to which both kindes were necessary, serve the turne; For suppose that true, yet hee instituted it, as a Sacrament also,

or els that Sacrament had no Institution from Christ, which I presume A. C. dares not affirme. And that Institution which this Sacrament had from Christ, was in both kindes.

And since here's mention happen'd of Sacrifice, my * 1.1014 Third Instance shall be in the Sacrifice which is offer'd up to God in that Great and High My∣stery of our Redem∣ption by the death of Christ: For as Christ offer'd up a 1.1015 himselfe once for all, a full and all∣sufficient Sacrifice for the sinne of the whole world. So did He Institute, and Command a b 1.1016 Me∣mory of this Sa∣crifice in a Sacra∣ment, even till his comming againe. For at, and in the Eucharist, wee of∣fer up to God three Sacrifices. One by the Priest onely, that's the c 1.1017 Comme∣morative Sacrifice of Christs Death re∣presented in Bread broken, and Wine

poured out. Ano∣ther by the * 1.1018 Priest & the People, joynt∣ly, and that is the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, for all the Benefits and graces we re∣ceive by the pre∣cious Death of Christ. The Third, † 1.1019 by every particular man for himself one∣ly, and that is the Sacrifice of every mans Body, and Soule, to serve him in both, all the rest of his life, for this blessing thus be∣stowed on him. Now thus farre 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) 'tis fafest for a man to believe the Commemorative, the Praising, and the Perform∣ing Sacrifice, and to offer them duly to God, and leave the Church of Rome in this Particular to her Superstiti∣ons, that I may say no more. And would the Church of Rome stand to A. C^s. Rule, and believe dissenting Par∣ties where they agree, were it but in this, and that be∣fore, of the Reall Presence, it would work farre toward the Peace of Christendome. But the Truth is; They pre∣tend the Peace of Christendome, but care no more for it,

then as it may uphold at least, if not increase their owne Greatnesse.

My fourth Instance shall be in the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme, and the things required as necessary to make it * 1.1020 effectuall to the Receiver. They in the common re∣ceived Doctrine of the Church of Rome are three. The Matter, the Forme, and the Intention of the Priest, to doe that which the Church doth, and intends he should doe. Now all other Divines, as well ancient as moderne, 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 'tis sa∣fest to believe in a controverted Point of Faith that which the dis∣senting Parties agree on, or which the Adverse Part Con∣fesses? If he will not, then why should he presse that, as a Rule to direct others, which he will not be guided by himselfe? And if he will; then he must goe profes∣sedly against the * 1.1021 Councell of Trent, which hath deter∣mined it as defide, as a Point of Faith, that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to make the Baptisme true and va∣lid. Though in the † 1.1022 History of that Councell, 'tis most apparent the Bishops and other Divines there could not tell what to answer to the Bishop of Minors, a Nea∣politane, who declared his Iudgement openly against it, in the face of that Councell.

My fift Instance is. Wee say, and can easily * 1.1023 prove there are divers Errors, and some grosse ones in the Roman Missall. But I my selfe have heard some Iesuites confesse, that in the Liturgie of the Church of England, there's noe positive errour. And being pressed, why then they refused to come to our Churches, and serve God with us? They answered, they could not doe it; Because though our Liturgie had in it nothing ill, yet it wanted a great deale of that which was good, and was in their Service. Now

here let A. C. consider againe, Here is a plaine Concession of the adverse Part: And Both agree, there's nothing in our Service, but that which is holy and good. What will the Iesuite, or A. C. say to this? If hee forsake his ground, then it is not saf∣est in point of Divine Worship to joyne in Faith as the dissenting Parties agree, or to stand to the Ad∣versaries owne Confession. If hee be so hardy as to maintaine it, then the English Liturgie is better, and safer to worship Cod by, then the Romane Masse. Which yet, I presume, A. C. will not confesse.

In all these Instances (the Matter so falling out of it selfe, for the Argument enforces it not) [ 8] the thing is true, but not therefore true, because the dis∣senting Parties agree in it, or because the adverse Part Confesses it. Yet least the Iesuite, or A. C. for him, farther to deceive the weake, should inferre that this Rule in so many Instances is true, and false in none, but that one concerning Baptisme among the Donatists, and therefore the Argument is true ut plerum{que}, as for the most, and that therfore 'tis the safest way to believe that which dissenting Parties agree on; I will lay downe some other Particulars of as great Consequence, as any can be in, or about Christian Reli∣gion. And if in them A. C. or any Iesuite dare say, that 'tis safest to believe as the dissenting Parties agree, or as the adverse Partie confesses, I dare say he shall bee an Heretick in the highest degree, if not an Infidell.

And First, where the Question was betwixt the Ortbodox, and the Arrian, whether the Son of God were * 1.1024 consubstantiall with the Father. The Orthodox said he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the same substance. The Arrian came with∣in a Letter of the Truth, and said he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of like substance. Now hee that sayes, hee is of the same substance, confesses hee is of like substance,

and more, that is, Identity of Substance; for Iden∣tity containes in it all Degrees of likenesse, and more. But hee that acknowledges, and believes, that Hee 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 'tis safest * 1.1025 for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like na∣ture with God the Father, and bee free from Be∣liefe, that Hee is Consubstantiall with him, which yet is Concluded by the a 1.1026 Councell of Nice as neces∣sary to Salvation, and the Contrary Condemned for Damnable Heresie.

Secondly, in the Question about the Resurrecti∣on, * 1.1027 betweene the Orthodoxe, and diverse Grosse b 1.1028 Heretickes of old, and the Anabaptists and Libertines of late. For all, or most of these dissenting Parties agree, that there ought to bee a Resurrection from sinne to a state of Grace, and that this Resurrection onely is meant in diverse Passages of holy Scripture, together with the Life of the Soule, which they are content to say is Immortall. But c 1.1029 they utterly deny any Resurrecti∣on 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 Ad∣verse Part, hee must denie the Resurrection of the Body from the Grave to Glory,

and believe none but that of the Soule, from sinne to Grace, which the Adversaries Confesse, and in which the Dissenting Parties agree. * 1.1030

Thirdly, in the great Dispute of all others, about the Vnity of the Godhead. All dissenting parties, Iew, Turke, and Christian: Among Christians Orthodoxe, and Anti-Trinitarian of old: And in these later times, Orthodoxe and Socinian (that Horrid and mighty mon∣ster 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, 'tis safest believing as the dissenting Parties agree, or as the Adverse Parties Confesse, namely, That there is but one God, and so deny the Trinity, and there∣with the Sonne of God the Saviour of the world?

Fourthly, in a Point as Fundamentall in the Faith, as * 1.1031 this, Namely, whether Christ be true and very God. For which very Point, most of the a 1.1032 Martyrs in the Primitive Church laid down their lives. The dissenting Parties here were the Orthodoxe Be∣lievers, who affirme Hee is both God and Man; for so our Creed teaches us: And all those Hereticks, which affirme Christ to bee Man, but denie him to bee God, as the b 1.1033 Arrians, and c 1.1034 Carpocratians, and d 1.1035 Cerinthus, and e 1.1036 Hebion, with others: and at this day the f 1.1037 Soci∣nians. These dissenting Parties agree fully and clearely, That Christ is Man. Well then. Dare A. C. sticke to his Rule here, and say 'tis safest for a Christian in this great Point of Faith to governe his Beliefe

by the Consent of these dissenting Parties, or the Con∣fession and acknowledgement of the Adverse Partie, and so settle his Beliefe, that Christ is a meere Man, and not God? I hope hee dares not. So then, this Rule, To Resolve a mans Faith into that, in which the Dissenting Parties agree, or which the Adverse Part confesses, is as often false, as true. And false in as Great, if not Greater Matters, then those, in which it is true. And where 'tis true, A. C. and his fellowes dare not governe themselves by it, the Church of Rome condemning those things which that Rule proves. And yet while they talke of Certainty, nay of Infallibility, (lesse will not serve their turnes) they are driven to make use of such poore shifts as these, which have no certainty at all of Truth in them, but inferre falshood and Truth alike. And yet for this also men will be so weake, or so wilfull, as to be seduced by them.

I told you * 1.1038 before, That the force of the prece∣ding [ 9] Argument lies upon two things. The one ex∣pressed, and that's past; the other upon the Bye, which comes now to be handled: And that is your continu∣all poore Out-cry against us, That we cannot be saved, because we are out of the Church. Sure if I thought I were out, I would get in as fast as I could. For we confesse as well as you, That a 1.1039 Out of the Catholike Church of Christ there is no Salvation. But what do you meane by Out of the Church? Sure out of the b 1.1040 Ro∣mane Church. Why but the Romane Church and the Church of England are but two distinct members of that Catholike Church which is spread over the face of the earth. Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwels, but Rome it selfe, as well as other

Particular Churches, dwels in this great Universall House, unlesse you will shut up the Church in Rome, as the Donatists did in Africke. I come a little lower. Rome and o•…•…her Nationall Churches are in this Vniversall Catholike House as so many * 1.1041 Daughters, to whom (under Christ) the care of the Hous∣hold is committed by God the Father, and the Catholike Church the Mother of all Chri∣stians. Rome, as an El∣der Sister, † 1.1042 but not the Eldest neither, had a great Care committed unto her, in, and from the prime times of the Church, and to her Bi∣shop in Her: but at this time (to let passe many brawles that have for∣merly beene in the House) England, and some other Sisters of hers are fallen out in the Family. What then? Will the Father, and the Mother, God, and the Church, cast one Child out, because another is

angry with it? Or when did Christ give that pow∣er to an Elder Sister, that She, and her Steward, the Bishop there, should thrust out what Child shee pleased? Especially when sh•…•…e her selfe is justly ac∣cused to have given the Offence that is taken in the House? Or will not both Father, and Mother be sharper to Her for this unjust and unnaturall usage of her younger Sisters, but their deare Chil∣dren? Nay, is it not the next way to make them turne her out of doores, that is so unnaturall to the rest? It is well for all Christian men and Churches, that the Father and Mother of them are not so curst as some would have them. And Salvation need not bee feared of any dutifull Child, nor Outing from the Church, because this Elder Sisters faults are discovered in the House, and shee growne froward for it a∣gainst them that complained. But as Children cry when they are waked out of sleepe, so doe you, and wrangle with all that come neare you. And * 1.1043 Stapleton con∣fesses, That yee were in a dead sleep, and over-much rest, when the Prote∣stants stole upon you. Now if you can prove that Rome is properly The † 1.1044 Catholike Church it selfe (as you commonly call it) speak out and prove it. In the meane time, you may Marke this too, if you will, and it seemes you doe; for here you forget not what the Bi∣shop said to you.

F.

The Lady which doubted (said the Bishop to mee) may be better saved in it, then you.

B.

I said so indeed. Marke that too. Where yet by the way, these words (Then you) doe not suppose Person [§ 36] only. For I will Iudge * 1.1045 no man, that hath another Master to stand or fall to. But they suppose Calling and Sufficien∣cy in the Person. Then you, that is, Then any man of your Calling and knowledge, of whom more is required. And then no question of the truth of this speech, That that Person may better be saved (that is easier) then you, then any man that knowes so much of truth, and opposes against it, as you, and others of your Calling doe. How far you know Truth other men may judge by your Proofes, and Causes of know∣ledge; but how far you op∣pose Truth knowne to you, that is within, and no man can know, but God and yourselves. Howsoever, where the Founda∣tion is but held, there for † 1.1046 ordi∣nary men, it is not the vivacity of understanding, but the simplicity of Beleiving, that makes them safe. For S. Augustine speakes there, of men in the Church; and no * 1.1047 man can be said simply to be Out of the Visible Church, that is Baptized, and holds the Foundation. And as it is the simplicity of beleiving, that makes them safe, yea safest, so is it sometimes, A quicknesse of

Understanding, that loving it selfe, and some by∣respects too well, makes men take up an unsafe way about the Faith. So that there's no question, but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church, when their a 1.1048 Leaders, unlesse they repented before death, were lost. And b 1.1049 S. Augustine's Rule will bee true, That in all Corruptions of the Church, there will ever bee a difference betweene an Hereticke, and a plaine well meaning man that is misted, and be∣lieves an Hereticke. Yet here let mee adde this for fuller Expression: This must bee understood of such Leaders and Hereticks as c 1.1050 refuse to heare the Churches Instruction, or to use all the meanes they can, to come to the knowledge of the Truth. For else, if they doe this, Erre they may, but Heretickes they are not, as is most manifest in d 1.1051 S. Cyprian's Case of Rebaptization. For here, though he were a maine Leader in that Errour, yet all the whole Church grant him safe; and his e 1.1052 Followers in danger of damnation. But if any man be a Leader, and a Teach∣ing Heretick, and will add f 1.1053 Schisme to Heresie, and bee obstinate in both, he without repentance must needs bee lost, while many that succeed him in the Errour one∣ly, without the Obstinacie, may bee saved. For, they which are missed, and swayed with the Cur∣rent of the time, hold the same Errours with their misleaders, yet not supinely, but with all sober di∣ligence to finde out the Truth: Not pertinaciously, but with all readinesse to submit to Truth, so soone as it shall bee found: Not uncharitably, but

retaining an internall Communion with the Whole Visible Church of Christ in the Fundamentall Points of Faith, and performance of Acts of Cha∣rity, not factiously, but with an earnest desire, and a sincere endeavour (as their Place, and Calling gives them meanes) for a perfect Vnion, and Communion of all Christians in Truth as well as Peace. I say these, however misled, are neither He∣reticks, nor Schismaticks in the sight of God, and are therefore in a state of Salvation. And were not this true Divinity, it would go very hard with many poore Christian soules, that have been, and are misled on all sides in these and other Distracted times of the Church of Christ; Whereas thus habituated in them∣selves, they are, by God's mercy, safe in the midst of those waves, in which their Misleaders perish. I pray you Marke this, and so, by God's Grace will I. For our * 1.1054 rec∣koning will bee heavier, if wee thus mislead on either side, then theirs that follow us. But I see, I must look to my selfe; for you are secure: For,

F.

D. White (said I) hath secured mee, that none of our Errours be damnable, so long as we hold them not against our Conscience. And I hold none against my Conscience.

B.

It seemes then you have two Securities: [§ 37] D. White's Assertion, and your Conscience. What [ 1] Assurance D. White gave you, I cannot tell of my selfe; nor, as things stand, may I rest upon your Re∣lation. It may be you use him no better then you do mee. And sure it is so. For I have since spoken

with D. White the late Reverend B. of Ely, and he avovvs this, and no other Answer. He was asked in the Conse∣rence betweene you, Whether Popish Errours were Funda∣mentall? To this he gave an Answer, by Distinction of the Persons which held and professed the Errours: Namely, that the Errours were Fundamentall reductivè, by a Reducement, if they which embraced them, did pertinaciously adhere to them, having sufficient meanes to be better informed: Nay far∣ther, that they were materially and in the very kinde and Nature of them, Leaven, Drosse, a 1.1055 Hay, and Stubble. Yet he thought withall, that such as were misled by education, or long custome, or over valuing the Soveraignty of the Roman Church, and did in simplicity of heart embrace them, might by their generall Repentance, and Faith in the Merit of Christ, at∣tended with Charity, and other Uertues, finde mercy at Gods hands. But that he should say signanter, and expresly, That none either of yours, or your Fellowes Errours were damna∣ble, so long as you hold them not against Conscience, that he ut∣terly disavowes. You delivered nothing to extort such a Confes∣sion from him. And for your selfe, he could observe but small love of Truth, few signes of Grace in you (as be told me:) Yet he will not presume to judge you, or your salvation; It is the b 1.1056 Word of Christ that must judge you at the later day. For your Conscience, you are the happier in your Errour, that you hold nothing against it, especially if you speak not against it, while you say so. But this no man can know, but your selfe, c 1.1057 For no man knowes the thoughts of a man, but the Spirit of a man that is within him, to which I leave you.

To this A. C. replyes. And first he grants, that [ 2] D. White did not signanter and expresly say these pre∣cise * 1.1058 words. So then here's his plaine Confession. Not these precise words. Secondly he saith, that neither did D. White signanter and expresly make the Answer above mentioned. But to this I can make no Answer, since I

was not present at the first or second Conference. Thirdly, he saith that the Reason which moved the Iesuite, to say D. White had secured him, was because the said Doctor had granted in his first Conference with the Iesuite these things following. First, That there must be one or other Church continually visible. Though D. White, late Bishop of Ely, was more able to Answer for himselfe, yet since he is now dead, and is thus drawne into this Discourse, I shall, as well as I can, doe him the right, which his Learning, and Paines for the Church deserved. And to this first, I grant as well as he, That there must be some one Church or other continually visible: Or that the Militant Church of Christ must alwayes be visible in some Par∣ticulars, or Particular at least (expresse it as you please.) For if this be not so, then there may be a time in which there shall not any where be a visible Profession of the Name of Christ; which is contrary to the whole scope and promise of the Gospell.

Well. What then? Why then A. C. addes, That [ 3] D. White confessed that this Visible Church had in all ages * 1.1059 taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all Points Funda∣mentall. D. White had reason to say that the Visible Church taught so; but that this or that Particular Visible Church did so teach, sure D. White affirmed not; unlesse in case the whole Visible Church of Christ were reduced to one Particular only.

But suppose this. What then? Why then A. C. telles [ 4] us, that D. White being urged to assigne such a Church, ex∣presly * 1.1060 granted he could assigne none different from the Ro∣mane, which held in all ages all Points Fundamentall. Now here I would faine know what A. C. meanes by a Church different from the Romane. For if he mean different in Place; 'Tis easie to affirme the Greeke Church (which as hath * 1.1061 before beene prooved) hath ever held, and taught the Foundation in the midst of all her Pressures.

And if he meane differenti•…•… Doctrinall Things, and those about the Faith, he cannot assigne the Church of Rome for olding them in all ages. But if he meane different in the Foundation it selfe, the Creed; then his urging to assigne a Church, is void, be it Rome, or any other For if any other Church shall thus differ from Rome, or Rome from it selfe, as to deny this Foundation, it doth not, it cannot remaine a Differing Church, sed transit in Non Ecclesiam, but passes away into No-Church, upon the Denyall of the Creed.

Now what A. C. meanes, he expresses not, nor [ 5] can I tell, but I may peradventure guesse noare it, by that which out of these Premises, he would inferre. For hence he tels us, he gathered that D. Whito's Opinion * 1.1062 was, That the Romane Church held and taught in all ages un∣changed Faith in all Fundamentall Points, and did not in any age erre in any Point Fundamentall. This is very well. For A. C^s. confesses, he did but gather, that this was Do∣ctor White's Opinion. And what if he gathered that, which grew not there, nor thence? For suppose all the Premises true, yet no Cartrope can draw this Conclusion out of them. And then all A. C'^s. labour's lost. For grant some one Church or other must still be Visible. And grant that this Visible Church held all Funda∣mentals of the Faith in all ages. And grant againe that D. White could not assigne any Church differing from the Romane, that did this; Yet this will not follow, that therefore the Romane did it. And that because there's more in the Conclusion, then in the Premises. For A. C^s. * 1.1063 Conclusion is, That in D. White's Opinion the Romane Church held and taught in all ages unchanged Faith in all Fun∣damentall Points, And so farre perhaps the Conclusion may stand, taking Fundamentall Points in their literall sense, as they are expressed in Creedes, and approved Coun∣cels. But then he addes, And did not in any age erre in any

Point Fundamentall. Now this can never follow out of the Premises before laid downe. For say some one Church or other may still be Visible; And that Visi∣ble Church hold all Fundamentall Points in all Ages; And no man be able to name another Church diffe∣rent from the Church of Rome, that hath done this; yet it followes not therefore, That the Church of Rome did not erre in any age in any Point Fundamentall. For a Church may hold the Fundamentall Point Literal∣ly, and as long as it stayes there, be without controlle, and yet erre grosly, dangerously, nay damnably in the Exposition of it. And this is the Church of Romes case. For most true it is, it hath in all ages maintained the Faith unchanged in the Expression of the Articles themselves; but it hath in the exposition both of Creeds, and Councels, quite changed, and lost the sense, and the meaning of some of them. So the Faith is in many things changed both for life and beliefe, and yet seems the same. Now that which deceives the world is, That because the Barke is the same, men thinke this old decayed Tree, is as sound as it was at first, and not weather-beaten in any age. But when they can make me believe that Painting is true Beauty, I'le be∣lieve too, that Rome is not only sound, but beautifull.

But A. C. goes on and tels us, That hereupon the Iesuite asked, whether Errors in Points not Fundamental were damna∣ble? [ 6] And that D. White answered, they were not, unlesse they * 1.1064 were held against conscience. Tis true, that Error in Points not Fundamentall is the more damnable, the more it is held against conscience: But it is true too, that Error in Points not Fundamentall may be damnable to some men, though they hold it not against their conscience. As namely, when they hold an Errour in some Dan∣gerous Points, which grate upon the Foundation, and yet will neither seeke the meanes to know the Truth,

nor accept and believe Truth when 'tis known, espe∣cially being men able to Iudge; which I feare, is the case of too many at this day in the Romane Church. Out of all which A. C. tels us, The Iesuite collected, that D. White's Opinion was, That the Romane Church held all * 1.1065 Points Fundamentall, and only erred in Points not Funda∣mentall, which he accounted not damnable, so long as he did not hold them against his Conscience; And that thereupon hee said D. White had secured him, since he held no Faith diffe∣rent from the Romane, nor contrary to his Conscience. Here againe, wee have but A C^s and the Iesuites Collection: But if the Iesuite, or A. C. will collect amisse, who can helpe it?

I have spoken before in this very Paragraph to all [ 7] the Passages of A. C. as supposing them true: and set downe what is to be answered to them, in case they proove so. But now 'tis most apparent by D. White's Answer, set downe before † 1.1066 at large, that he never said, that the Church of Rome erred onely in Points not Fundamentall, as A. C. would have it. But that hee said the contrary, Namely, that some errours of that Church were Fundamentall reductivê, by a Re∣ducement, if they which embraced them, did pertina∣ciously adhere to them, having sufficient meanes of in∣formation. And againe expresly, That hee did not say, that none were damnable, so long as they were not held against Conscience. Now where is A. C'^s. Collecti∣on? For if a Iesuite, or any other may collect Pro∣positions, which are not granted him, nay con∣trary to those which are granted him, hee may inferre what hee please. And he is much too blame, that will not inferre a strong Conclusion for him∣selfe, that may frame his owne Premises, say his Adversary what hee will. And just so doth A. C. bring in his Conclusion, to secure himselfe

of Ialvation, because he holds no Faith but the Romane, nor that Contrary to his Conscience: Presupposing it grant∣ed, that the Church of Rome erres only in not Funda∣mentals, and such Errours not Damnable, which is ab∣solutely and clearly denyed by D. White. To this A. C. sayes nothing, but that D. VVhite did not give this An∣swer * 1.1067 at the Conference. I was not present at the Confe∣rence betweene them, so, to that I can say nothing as a witnesse. But I thinke all that knew D. White, will be∣lieve his affirmation as soone as the Iesuites; To say no more. And whereas A. C. referres to the Relation of the Conference betweene D. White and M. Fisher, * 1.1068 most true it is, there * 1.1069 D. VVhite is charged to have made that Answer twise. But all this rests upon the credit of A. C. only (For † 1.1070 he is said to have made that Relation too, as well as this.) And against his Credit I must engage D. Whites, who hath avowed another Answer, as a 1.1071 before is set downe.

And since A. C. relates to that Conference, which it seemes hee makes some good account of, I shall here once for all take occasion to assure the Reader, That most of the Points of Moment in that Conference with D. VVhite, are repeated againe and againe, and urged in this Conference, or the Relation of A. C. and are here answered by me. For instance: In the Relation of the first Conference, the Iesuite takes on him to prove * 1.1072 the Vnwritten VVord of God out of 2. Thes. 2. pag. 15. And so he doth in the Relation of this Conference with me. pag. 50. In the first he stands upon it, That the Protestants * 1.1073 upon their Principles cannot hold, that all Fundamentall points of Faith are contained in the Creed. pag. 19. And so he doth in this. pag. 46. In the first, he would faine through * 1.1074 M. Roger's sides wound the Church of England, as if shee were unsetled in the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell. pag 21 And he endeavours the same in this. pag. 46. In

the first he is very earnest to prove, That the Schisme was made by the Protestants. pag. 23. And he is as earnest for * 1.1075 it in this. pag. 55. In the first he layes it for a Ground, That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation * 1.1076 from Faith, or Church. pag. 24. And the same Ground he layes in this. pag. 55. In the first he will have it, That the * 1.1077 Holy Ghost gives continuall, and Infallible Assistance to the Church. pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this. p 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Errig of the * 1.1078 Greeke Church. page 28. And as much makes he in this. page 44. In the first, he makes a great noyse about the * 1.1079 place in S. Augustine, Ferendus est disputator errans &c. page 18. and 24. And so doth hee here also, page 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe, That * 1.1080 he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sen∣tence of S. Bernard, 'Tis intolerable Pride: And that of S. Augustine, 'Tis insolent madnesse to oppose the Doctrine, or Practice of the Catholike Church. page 25. And twise he is at the same Art in this. page 56. and. 73. In the first, he * 1.1081 tels us, That * 1.1082 Calvin confesses, That in the Reformation, there was a Departure from the whole world. page 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world, and of no Uoluntary, but a forced Departure, and wrote this to Melancthon, to worke Vnity among the Reformers, not any way to blast the Reformation: Yet we must heare of it againe in this. page 56. But over and above the rest, one Place with his owne glosse up∣on * 1.1083 it pleases him extremely, 'Tis out of S. Athanasius his Creed. That whosoever doth not hold it entire, that is, (saith he) in all Points: and Inviolate, that is, (saith hee) in the true, unchanged, and uncorrupted sense proposed un∣to us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. This he hath almost verbatim in the first, page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader, under the Name of

VV. I. and then againe the very same in this, if not with some more disadvantage to himselfe page 70. And perhaps (had I leasure to search after them) more Points then these. Now the Reasons which mooved mee to set downe these Particulars thus distinctly, are two. The One, that whereas the * 1.1084 Ie∣suite affirmes, that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters, and little or nothing about the maine, and great generall Point of a Continuall, Infallible, Uisible Church, in which that Lady required satisfaction, and that there∣fore this third Conference was held; It may here∣by appeare that the most materiall, both Points, and Proofes are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences, though little bee related of the second Conference by A. C. as appeares in the Preface of the Publisher VV. I. to the Rea∣der. So this tends to nothing but Ostentation, and shew. The Other is, that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it; It cannot but appeare by this, and their handling of other Points in Divinity, that they labour indeed, but no otherwise, then like an Horse in a Mill; round about in the same Circle; no farther at night then at noone; The same thing over and over againe; from Tu es Petrus, to Pasce oves, from thou art Peter, to Do thou feed my Sheepe; And backe againe the same way.

F.

The Lady asked, Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith? Vpon my soule (said the Bishop) you may. Vpon my soule (said I) there is but one saving Faith, and that is the Romane.

B.

So (it seems) I was confident for the Faith pro∣fessed [§ 38] in the Church of England, els I would not [ 1]

have taken the salvation of another upon my soule. And sure I had reason of this my Confidence. For to believe the Scripture, and the Creeds; to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church; To receive the foure great Generall Councels, so much magnified by Antiquity; To believe all Points of Doctrine, ge∣nerally received as Fundamentall in the Church of Christ, is a Faith, in which to live and die, cannot but give salvation. And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soule upon that Faith. Besides, in all the Points of Doctrine that are contio∣verted betweene us, I would faine see any one Point maintained by the Church of England, that can be pro∣ved to depart from the Foundation. You have many dangerous Errours about the very Foundation, in that which you call the Romane Faith: But there I leave you to looke to your owne soule, and theirs whom you seduce. Yet this is true too, That there is but one saving Faith. But then every thing which you call De Fide, of the Faith, because some Councell or other hath defined it, is not such a Breach from that One saving Faith, as that he which expresly believes it not, nay, as that he which believes the Contrary, is excluded from Salvation, so his a 1.1085 Disobedience there while offer no vio∣lence to the Peace of the Church, nor the Charity, which ought to be among Christians. And b 1.1086 Bellarmine is for∣ced to grant this, There are many Things de Fide, which are not absolutely necessary to salvation. c 1.1087 Therefore there is a Latitude in the Faith, especially in refe∣rence to different mens salvation. To set d 1.1088 Bounds to this, and strictly to define it for particular men, Just thus farre you must believe in every Particular, or in∣curre Damnation, is no worke for my Pen. These two things I am sure of. One, That your peremptory establishing of so many things, that are remote

Deductions from the Foundation, to bee believed as Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation, hath, with other Errours, lost the Peace and Unity of the Church, for which you will one day Answer. And the other, That you of Rome are gone farther from the Founda∣tion of this One saving Faith, then can ever be proved, we of the Church of England have done.

But here A. C. bestirres himselfe, finding that he [ 2] is come upon the Point, which is indeed most consi∣derable. * 1.1089 And first hee answers, That it is * 1.1090 not sufficient to beget a Confidence in this Case, to say wee be∣lieve the Scriptures and the Creeds, in the same sense which the Ancient Pri∣mitive Church believed them, &c. Most true, if we onely say, and do not believe. And let them which believe not, while they say they doe, looke to it on all sides, for on all sides I doubt not, but such there are. But if we doe say it, you are bound in Charity to believe us, (unlesse you can prove the Contra∣ry) For I know no other proofe to men of any Point of Faith, but Confession of it, and Subscription to it. And for these particulars, we have made the one, and done the other. So 'tis no bare saying, but you have all the proofe that can be had, or that ever any Church required: For how farre that Beliefe, or any other sinkes into a man's heart, is for none to judge but God.

Next, A. C Answers, That if to say this be a suf∣ficient Cause of Confidence, he marvels why I make such [ 3] * 1.1091 difficulty to bee Confident of the Salvation of Romane

Catholikes, who believe all this in a faire better manner then Protestants doe. Truly, to say this, is not a suffi∣cient cause, but to say and believe it, is. And to take off A. C^s. wonder why I make difficulty, great diffi∣culty of the salvation of Romane Catholikes, who, he sayes, believe all this, and in a farre better manner then Protestants doe. I must be bold to tell him, That Romanists are so farre from believing this in a better manner then we do, that, under favour, they believe not part of this at all. And this is most manifest: For the Romanists dare not believe, but as the Ro∣mane Church believes: And the Romane Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture and the Creeds in the sense, in the which the Ancient Primitive Church received them. For the Primitive Church never interpreted Christ's descent into Hell to be no lower then Limbus Pa∣trum. Nor did it acknowledge a Purgatory in a side∣part of Hell. Nor did it ever interpret away halfe the Sacrament from Christ's owne Institutior, which to breake, * 1.1092 Stapleton confesses expresly, is a damnable Er∣rour; Nor make the Intention of the Priest of the Essence of Baptisme; Nor believe worship due to Images; Nor dreame of a Transubstantiation, which the Learned of the Romane Partie dare not under∣stand properly, for a change of one substance into another, for then they must grant that Christ's re∣all and true Body is made of the Bread, and the Bread changed into it, which is properly Transubstan∣tiation Nor yet can they expresse it in a credi∣ble way, as appeares by † 1.1093 Bellarmines

struggle a∣bout it, w^ch yet in the end cannot bee, or bee called Tran∣substantiati∣on, and is that, which at this day is a † 1.1094 scan∣dall to both Iew & Gen∣tile, and the Church of God.

* 1.1095 For all this A. C. goes on, and tels us, That they (of Rome) cannot be pro∣ved to depart frō the Foun∣dation somuch as Protestāts do. So then, We have at last a Confession here, that they may be prooved to de∣part from the Foundation, though not so much, or so farre as the Protestants doe. I do not meane to answer this, and prove that the Romanists do depart as farre, or farther from the Foundation, then the Protestants. for then A. C. would take me at the same lift, and say I granted a departure too. Briefly therefore, I have

named here more Instances then one; In some of which they have erred in the Foundation, or very neare it. But for the Church of England, let A. C. instance, if he can, in any one point, in which She hath departed from the Foundation. Well, that A. C. will do; For he sayes, The Protestants erre against the Foundation, by denying In∣fallible * 1.1096 Authority to a Generall Councell, for that is in effect to deny Infallibility to the whole Catholike Church. a 1.1097 No, there's a great deale of difference betweene a Generall Councell and the whole Body of the Church. And when a Generall Councell erres, as the second of Ephesus did, out of that great Catholike Body another may be gathered, as was then that of Chalcedon, to doe the Truth of Christ that right, which belongs unto it. Now if it were all one in effect to say, a Generall Councell can erre, and that the Whole Church can erre; there were no Remedy left against a Generall Councell erring; b 1.1098 which is your Case now at Rome, and which hath thrust the Church of Christ into more straits then any one thing besides. But I know where you would be. A Generall Councell is Infallible, if it be confirmed by the Pope; and the Pope he is Infallible, els he could not make the Councell so. And they which deny the Councels Infallibility, deny the Pope's which confirmes it. And then indeed the Protestants depart a mighty way from this great Foundation of Faith, the Popes Infallibility But God be thanked, this is only from the Foundation of the present Romane Faith, (as A. C. and the Iesuite call it) not from any Foundation of the Christian * 1.1099 Faith, to which this Infallibility was ever a stranger.

From Answering, A. C. fals to asking Questi∣ons. [ 5] I thinke he meanes to try whether he can win any thing upon me, by the cunning way A multis Interrogationibus simul, by asking many things at once, to see if any one may make me slip into a

Confession inconvenient. And first, he asks, How Protestants, admitting no Infallible Rule of Faith, but * 1.1100 Scripture onely, can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire Scripture, and Creed, and the Foure first Gene∣rall Councels, and in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitive Church believed? 'Tis just as I said. Here are many Questions in one, and I might easily be caught, would I answer in grosse to them all toge∣ther; but I shall go more distinctly to worke. Well then; I admit no ordinary Rule left now in the Church, of Divine and Infallible Verity, and so of Faith, but the Scripture. And I believe the entire Scripture, first by the Tradition of the Church; Then by all other credible Motives, as is before expressed: And last of all, by the light which shines in the Scripture it selfe, kindled in Believers by the Spirit of God. Then I believe the en∣tire Scripture Infallibly, and by a Divine Infallibility am sure of my Object: Then am I as sure of my Believing, which is the Act of my Faith, conversant about this Object: For no man believes, but he must needs know in himselfe whether he believes or no, and wherein, and how farre he doubts. Then I am infallibly assu∣red of my Creed, the Tradition of the Church indu∣cing, and the Scripture confirming it. And I believe both Scripture and Creed in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed them, and am sure that I do so Believe them, because I crosse not in my Beliefe any thing delivered by the Primitive Church: And this againe I am sure of, because I take the Beliefe of the Primitive Church, as it is expressed, and delivered by the Councels, and Ancient Fathers of those times. As for the Foure Councels, if A. C. aske how I have them, that is, their true and entire Copies? I answer, I have them from the Church-Tradition onely: And that's Assurance enough for this. And so I am

fully as sure as A. C. is, or can make mee. But if hee aske how I know infallibly I believe them in their true and uncorrupted sense? Then I answer, There's no man of knowledge, but hee can understand the plaine and simple Decision expressed in the Canon of the Councell, where 'tis necessary to Salvation. And for all other debates in the Councels, or Decisions of it in things of lesse moment, 'tis not necessary that I, or any man else, have Infallible Assurance of them; though I thinke 'tis possible to attaine, even in these things, as much Infallible Assurance of the uncorrupted sense of them, as A. C. or any other Iesuites have.

A C. askes againe, What Text of Scripture tels, [ 6] That Protestants now living do believe all this, or that all * 1.1101 this is expressed in those particular Bibles, or in the Writings of the Fathers and Councels, which now are in the Protestants hands? Good God! Whither will not a strong Bias carrie even a learned Iudgement! Why, what Consequence is there in this? The Scripture now is the onely Ordinary Infallible Rule of Divine Faith, Therefore the Protestants cannot believe all this before mentioned, unlesse a parti∣cular Text of Scripture can be shewed for it. Is it not made plaine before, how we believe Scripture to be Scripture, and by Divine and Infallible Faith too, and yet wee can shew no particular Text for it? Beside, were a Text of Scripture necessary, yet that is for the Object and the thing which we are to believe, not for the Act of our believing, which is meerely from God, and in our selves, and for which wee cannot have any Warrant from, or by Scripture, more then that we ought to believe; but not that we in our particular do believe. The rest of the Question is farre more inconsequent, Whether

all this bee expressed in the Bibles which are in Prote∣stants hands? For first, we have the same Bibles in our hands, which the Romanists have in theirs; Therefore either we are Infallibly sure of ours, or they are not In∣fallibly sure of theirs; For we have the same Booke, and delivered unto us by the same hands; and all is ex∣pressed in ours, that is in theirs. Nor is it of moment in this Argument, that we account more Apocryphall then they do; For I will acknowledge every Fundamentall point of Faith as proveable out of the Canon, as we ac∣count it, as if the Apocryphall were added unto it. Se∣condly, A. C. is here extremely out of himselfe, and his way; For his Question is, Whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which we have? All this? All what? why, be∣fore there is mention of the foure Generall Councels; and in this Question here's mention of the Writings of the Fathers and the Councels. And what, will A. C. look that we must shew a Text of Scripture for all this, and an expresse one too? I thought, and doe so still, 'tis enough to ground Beliefe upon * 1.1102 Necessary Consequence out of Scripture, as well as upon expresse Text. And this I am sure of, that neither I, nor any man else is bound to believe any thing as Necessary to Salvati∣on, be it found in Councels, or Fa∣thers, or where you will, † 1.1103 if it be Contrary to expresse Scripture, or necessary Consequence from it. And for the Copies of the Councels and Fathers which are in our hands, they are the same that are in the hands of the Romanists, and delive∣red to Posterity by Tradition of the Church, which is abundantly suffi∣cient to warrant that. So we are as

Infallibly sure of this as 'tis possible for any of you to bee. Nay, are wee not more sure? For wee have used no Index Expurgatorius upon the Writings of the Fathers * 1.1104, as you have done: So that Posterity hereafter must thanke us for true Copies both of Coun∣cels and Fathers, and not you.

But A. C goes on, and askes still, Whether Prote∣stants [ 7] bee Infallibly sure that they rightly understand the * 1.1105 sense of all which is expressed in their Books, according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church, and the Fathers which were present at the foure first Generall Coun∣cels? A. C. may aske everlastingly, if hee will aske the same over and over againe. For I pray wherein doth this differ from his † 1.1106 first Question, save only that here Scripture is not named? For there the Question was of our Assurance of the Incorrupted sense: And therefore thither I refer you for Answer, with this, That it is not required either of us, or of them, that there should be had an Infallible assurance that wee rightly under∣stand the sense of all that is expressed in our Bookes. And I thinke I may believe without sinne, that there are many things expressed in these Bookes (for they are theirs as well as ours) which A. C. and his Fellowes have not Infallible assurance that they rightly under∣stand in the sense of the Primitive Church, or the Fa∣thers present in those Councels. And if they say, yes, they can, because when a difficulty crosses them, they be∣lieve them in the Churches sense: Yet that dry shift will not serve. For beliefe of them in the Churches sense is an Implicit Faith; but it works nothing distinct∣ly upon the understanding. For by an Implicite Faith no man can be infallibly assured that hee doth rightly understand the sense (which is A. C^s. Question) what∣ever perhaps he may rightly believe. And an Implicite Faith, and an Infallible understanding of the same thing

under the same Considerations cannot possibly stand together in the same man at the same time.

A. C. hath not done asking yet: But he would farther know, Whether Protestants can be Infallibly sure [ 8] that all and onely those points which Protestants account * 1.1107 Fundamentall and necessary to be expressely knowne by all, were so accounted by the Primitive Church? Truly, Vnity in the Faith is very Considerable in the Church. And in this the Protestants agree, and as Vnisormely as you, and have as Infallible Assurance as you can have, of all points which they account Fundamentall; yea, and of all, which were so accounted by the Primitive Church. And these are but the Creed, and some few, and those Im∣mediate deductions from it. And † 1.1108 Tertullian and * 1.1109 Ruf∣finus upon the very Clause of the Catholike Church to decypher it, make a recitall only of the Fundamen∣tall Points of Faith. And for the first of these, the Creed, you see what the sense of the Primitive Church was by that famous and knowne place of a 1.1110 Irenaeus: where after hee had recited the Creed, as the Epitome or Briefe of the Faith, he addes, That none of the Governors of the Church, be they never so potent to Expresse them∣selves, can say alia ab his, other things from these: Nor none so weake in Ex∣pression as to diminish this Tradition. For since the Faith is One, and the same, He that can say much of it, sayes no more then he ought, Nor doth he diminish it, that can say but little. And in this the Protestants all agree. And for the se∣cond the immediate Deductions, they are not formally Fundamentall for all men, but for such b 1.1111 as are able to make or understand

them. And for others, tis enough if they doe not obsti∣nat•…•…ly or Schismatically refuse them, after they are once revealed Indeed you account many things Fundamen∣tall, which were never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church; such as are all the Decrees of Generall Councels, which may be all true, but can never be all Fundamentall in the Faith. For it is not in the pow∣er of * 1.1112 the whole Church, much lesse of a Generall Councell, to make any thing Fundamentall in the Faith, that is not contained in the Letter or sense, of that common Faith, which was once given (and but once for all) to the Saints, S. Lude 3. But if it be A. C's. meaning to call * 1.1113 for an Infallible Assurance of all such Points of Faith as are Decreed by Generall Councels: Then I must bee bold to tell him: All those Decrees are not necessary to all mens salvation. Neither doe the Romanists them∣selves agree in all such determined Points of Faith; Be they determined by Councels, or by Popes. For Instance. After those Bookes (which wee account Apochryphall were † 1.1114 defined to bee Canonicall, and an Anathema pronounced in the Case, a 1.1115 Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them. And after b 1.1116 Pope Leo the tenth had defined the Pope to be aboue a Generall Councell, yet many Romane Catho∣likes defend the Contrary; And so doe all the Sorbo∣nists at this very day. Therefore if these be Fundamen∣tall in the Faith, the Romanists differ one from another in the Faith, nay, in the Fundamentals of the Faith; And therefore cannot have Infallible Assurance of them. Nor is there that Unity in the Faith amongst them, which they so much, and so often boast of. For what Scripture is Canonicall is a great point of Faith. And I believe they

will not now Confesse, That the Popes power over a Generall Councell is a small one. And so let A. C. looke to his owne Infallible Assurance of Fundamentals in the Faith: for ours, God be thanked, is well. And since he is pleased to call for a particular Text of Scripture to proove all and every thing of this nature, which is ridiculous in it selfe, and unreasonable to demand (as hath beene * 1.1117 shewed) yet when he shall bee pleased to bring forth but a particular knowne Tradition, to proove all and every thing of this on their side, it will then be perhaps time for him to call for, and for us to give farther Answer about particular Texts of Scripture.

After all this Questioning A. C. inferres. That I [ 9] had need seeke out some other Infallible Rule, and meanes, by * 1.1118 which I may know these things infalli•…•…ly, or else that I have no reason to be so confident, as to adventure my soule, that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith. How weake this Inference is, will easily appeare, by that which I have already said to the premises; And yet I have somewhat left to say to this Inference also. And first, I have lived, and shall (God willing) dye in the Faith of Christ, as it was professed in the Ancient Primi∣tive Church, and as it is professed in the present Church of England. And for the Rule which governes me here∣in, if I cannot bee confident for my soule upon the Scripture, and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it, I will be confident upon no other. And secondly, I have all the reason in the world to be con∣fident upon this Rule, for this can never deceive me; Another (that very other which A. C. proposes) * 1.1119 namely, the Faith of the Romane Church) may. Therefore with A. C'^s. leave, I will venture my salvation upon the Rule aforesaid, and not trouble my selfe to seeke another of mans making, to the forsaking or weakening of this which God hath given me. For I know they

Committed two Evills, which forsooke the Fountaine of Living Waters, to hew out to themselves Cisternes, broken Cisternes, that can hold no VVater. Ier. 2. For * 1.1120 here's the Evill of Desertion of that which was right: and the Evill of a bad Choise, of that which is hew'd out with much paines and care, and is after Vselesse and Vnprofitable. But then Thirdly, I finde that a Ro∣manist may make use of an Implicite Faith (at his plea∣sure,) but a Protestant must know all these things Infal∣libly; that's A. C^s. word, Know these things; Why, but is it not enough to believe them? Now God forbid. What shall become of Millions of poore Christians in the world, which cannot know all these things, much lesse know them Infallibly? Well, I would not have A. C. weaken the Beliefe of poore Christians in this fashion. But for things that may be knowne as well as believed, nor I, nor any other shall need forsake the Scripture, to seeke another Rule to direct either our Conscience, or our Confidence.

In the next place A. C. observes, That the Iesuite was as confident for his part, with this difference, that he had suf∣ficient [ 10] * 1.1121 reason of his Confidence, but I had not for mine. This is said with the Confidence of a Iesuite, but as yet, but said. Therefore he goes on and tels us, That the Iesuite * 1.1122 had reason of h•…•…s Confidence, out of expresse Scriptures, and Fathers, and the Infallible Authority of the Church. Now truly, Expresse Scriptures, with A. C^s. patience, he hath not named one that is expresse, nor can he. And the few Scriptures which he hath alledged, I have * 1.1123 An∣swered, and so have others. As for Fathers, hee hath named very few, and with what successe, I leave to the Readers judgement. And for the Authority of the Catholike Church, I hold it a 1.1124 as Infallible as he, and, upon better Grounds, but not so of a Generall Councell, which he here meanes, as appeares b 1.1125 after. And for

my part I must yet thinke (and I doubt A. C. will not be able to disprove it) that expresse Scripture, and Fa∣thers, and the Authority of the Church will rather be found proofes to warrant my Confidence, then his. Yea, but A. C. saith, That I did not then taxe the Iesuite with any * 1.1126 rashnesse. It may be so. Nor did he me. So there we parted even. Yea but he saith again, that Iacknowledge there is but one saving Faith, and that the Lady might be sav∣ed in the Romane faith, which was all the Iesuite tooke upon his soule. Why, but if this be all, I will confesse it again. The first, That there is but one faith, I confesse with S. Paul, Esphes. 4. And the other, that the Lady might be * 1.1127 saved in the Romane Faith or Church * 1.1128, I confesse with that charity which S. Paul teacheth me, Namely, to leave all men, especially the weaker both sex and sort, which hold the Foundation, to stand or fall to their owne Master, Rom. 4. And this is no mistaken charity. As for * 1.1129 the Inference which you would draw out of it, that's answered at large † 1.1130 already. But then A. C. addes, that I say, but without any proofe, that the Romanists have many dangerous errours, but that I neither tell them which they be, nor why I think them dangerous, but that I leave them to looke to their owne soules; which (he sayes) they doe, and have no cause to doubt. How much the Iesuite and A. C. have said in this Conference, without any solid proofe, I againe submit to judgement, as also what proofes I have made. If in this very place I have added none, 'tis because I had made proofe enough of the selfe samething a 1.1131 before. Where lest hee should want and call for proofe againe, I have plainly laid together, some of the many Dangerous errours which are charg∣ed upon them. So I tell you which, at least, some of which they be: and their very naming, will shew their danger. And if I did remit you to looke to your own soules, I hope there was no offence in that, if you doe

it, and do it so that you have no cause to doubt. And the reason why you doubt not, A. C. tels us, is, Because * 1.1132 you h•…•…d no new devise of your owne, or any other mens, nor any thing contrary to Scripture, but all most conformable to Scriptures interpreted by Vnion, Consent of Fathers, and Defi∣nitions of Councels. Indeed, if this were true, you had little cause to doubt in point of your Beliefe. But the Truth is, you doe hold new devises of your owne, which the Primitive Church was never acquainted with. And some of those so farre from being conformable, as that they are little lesse then contradictory to Scripture. In which particulars, and divers others, the Scriptures are not interpreted by Vnion, or Consent of Fa∣thers, or Definitions of Councels, unlesse perhaps by some late Councels, packed of purpose to doe that ill service. I have given instances enough * 1.1133 before, yet some you shall have here, lest you should say againe, that I affirme without proofe or In∣stance. a 1.1134 I pray then whose devise was b 1.1135 tran∣substantiation? And whose Communion under one kinde? † 1.1136 And whose Deposition and Vnthron ing, nay killing of Princes, & the like, if they were not yours. For I dare say, and am able to proove, there's none of these but

are rather contrary then conformable to Scripture. Neither is A. C. or any Iesuite able to shew any * 1.1137 Scripture interpreted by Vnion or † 1.1138 Consent of Fathers of the Pri∣mitive Church, to proove any one of these: Nor any Definition of An∣cient Councels, but only a 1.1139 Lateran for Transubstantiation, and that of b 1.1140 Con∣stance for the Eucharist in one kinde; which two are moderne at least, farre downward from the Primitive Church, and have done more mis∣chiefe to the Church, by those their Determinations, then will be cured I feare in many Generations. So whatever A. C. thinks, yet I had reason enough to leave the Iesuite to looke to his owne soule.

But A. C. having as it seemes little new matter, is at the same againe, and over and over it must goe, [ 11] That there is but one saving faith: That this one Faith was * 1.1141 once the Romane. And that I granted, one might bee saved in the Romane Faith. To all which I have aboun∣dantly answered c 1.1142 before: Marry then hee inferres, That hee sees not how we can have our soules saved, without we entirely hold this faith, being the Catholike faith, which S. Athanasius saith, unlesse a man hold entirely he cannot be saved. Now here againe is more in the Conclusion then in the premises, and so the Inference failes. For say there was a time in which the Catholike and the Ro∣mane Faith were one, and such a time there was, when the Romane faith was Catholike and famous through the world. Rom. 1. Yet it doth not follow, since the d 1.1143 Coun∣cell * 1.1144 of Trent hath added a new Creed, that this Romane faith is now the Catholike. For it hath added extranea, things without the Foundation, disputable, if not false Conclusions to the faith. So that now a man may Believe the whole and entire Catholike Faith,

even as S. Athanasius requires, and yet justly refuse for drosse a great part of that which is now a 1.1145 the Romane Faith. And Athanasius himselfe, as if he meant to arme the Catholike Faith against all corrupting additions, hath in the beginning of his b 1.1146 Creed, these words, This is the Catholike Faith, This and no other: This and no Other, then here followes. And againe at the end of his Creed, c 1.1147 This is the Catholike Faith, d 1.1148 This and no more then is here deli∣vered (alwaies presupposing the Apostles Creed, as Athanasius did) and this is the largest of all Creeds. So that if A. C. would wipe his eyes from the mist which rises about Tyber, he might see how our soules may be sa∣ved, believing the Catholike Faith, and that entire, with∣out the Addition of Romane Leaven. But if he cannot, or, I doubt, will not see it, 'tis enough that by God's Grace wee see it. And therefore once more I leave him and his, to looke to their owne soules.

After this A. C. is busie in unfolding the meaning [ 12] of this great Father of the Church, S. Athanasius. And * 1.1149 he tels us, That he sayes in his Creed, that without doubt every man shall perish, that holds not the Catholike Faith entire (that is, saith A. C. in every point of it) and invi∣olate (that is, in the right sense, and for the true formall reason of divine Revelation, sufficiently applied to our un∣derstanding by the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church proposing to us by her Pastours this Revelation. Well, we shall not differ much from A. C. in expoun∣ding the meaning of S. Athanasius; yet some few

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

things I shall here observe. And first, I agree that he which hopes for salvation, must believe the Catholike Faith whole and entire in every point. Next, I agree, that he must likewise hold it inviolate, if to believe it in the right sense, be to hold it inviolate. But by A. C^s. leave, the Believing of the Creed in the right sense, is comprehended in the first branch: The keeping of it whole and entire. For no man can properly be said to be∣lieve the Whole Creed, that believes not the Whole Sense, as well as the Letter of it; and as entirely. But thirdly, for the word inviolate, 'tis indeed used by him that translated Athanasius. But the Father's owne words are: That he that will be saved must keepe the Faith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the sound and entire Faith. And it cannot be a sound Faith, unlesse the Sense be as whole and entire as the Letter of the Creed. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is compounded of the privative particle (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is, reproach or infamie. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the holding of the entire Faith in such holi∣nesse of life and conversation, as is without all infa∣my and reproach. That is, as our English renders that Creed exceeding well: Which Faith unlesse a man do keep whole and * 1.1150 undefiled, even with such a life as Momus himselfe shall not be able to carpe at. So Athanasius (who certainly was passing able to expresse himselfe in his owne language) in the beginning of that his Creed requires, That we keepe it entire, without dimi∣nution: and undefiled, without blame: And at the end, that we believe it faithfully, without wavering. But [Inviolate] is the mistaken word of the old Inter∣preter, and with no great knowledge made use of by A. C. And then fourthly, though this be true Divi∣nity, that he which hopes for salvation, must believe the whole Creed, and in the right sense too (if he be able to comprehend it) yet I take the true and first meaning

of Inviolate [could Athanasius his word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have signified so] not to be the holding of the true sense, but not to offer violence, or a forced sense or meaning upon the Creed, which every man doth not, that yet believes it not in a true sense. For not to believe the true sense of the Creed, is one thing. But 'tis quite another, to force a wrong sense upon it. Fiftly, a reason would be given also, why A. C. is so earnest for the whole faith, and bawkes the word which goes with it, which is holy or undefiled. For Athanasius doth alike exclude from salvation those which keepe not the Ca∣tholike Faith holy, as well as these which keepe it not whole. I doubt this was to spare many of his † 1.1151 holy Fathers, the Popes, who were as farre as any (the very lewdest among men without exception) from keeping the Catholike Faith holy. Sixtly, I agree to the next part of his Exposition, That a man that will be saved must believe the whole Creed for the true formall reason of divine Revelation. For upon the Truth of God thus revealed by himselfe, lies the Infallible certainty of the Christian Faith. But I do not grant, that this is within the Compasse of S. Athanasius his word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor of the word Inviolate. But in that respect 'tis a meere straine of A. C. And then last•…•…y, though the whole Catholike Church be sufficient in applying this to us and our Beliefe, not our Understanding, which A. C. is at * 1.1152 againe, yet Infallible She is not, in the proposall of this Revelation to us by every of her Pastours. Some where∣of amongst you, as well as others, neglect, or forget at least to feed Christ's sheepe, as Christ and his Church hath fed them.

But now that A. C. hath taught us (as you see) the [ 13] meaning of S. Athanasius, in the next place he tels us, * 1.1153 That if we did believe any one Article, we finding the same formall Reason in all, and applied sufficiently by the same

meanes to all) wou'd easily believe all. Why surely we do not believe any one Article onely, but all the Articles of the Christian Faith; And we believe them for the same formall Reason in all, namely, Because they are revealed from and by God, and sufficiently applied in his Word, and by his Churches Ministration. But so long as they do not believe all in this sort (saith A. C.) Looke you; He * 1.1154 tels us we do not believe all, when we professe we do. Is this man become as God, that he can better tell what we believe, them we our selves? Surely we do believe all, and in that sort too: Though, I believe, were S. Athanasius himselfe alive againe, and a plaine man should come to him, and tell him he believed his Creed in all and every particular; he would admit him for a good Catholike Christian, though he were not able to expresse to him the formall reason of that his beliefe. Yea but (saith A. C.) while they will, as all He∣retickes doe, make choice of what they will, and what they * 1.1155 will not believe, without relying upon the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church, they cannot have that one saving Faith in any one Article. Why, but whatsoever Hereticks doe, we are not such, nor do we so. For they which believe all the Articles (as once againe I tell you, we do) make no choice; And we do relie upon the Infallible Authority of the Word of God, and the whole Catholike Church; And therefore we both can have, and have that one saving Faith which believes all the Articles entirely, though we cannot believe that any particular Church is infallible.

And yet againe A. C. will not thus be satisfied, but on he goes, and adds, That although we believe the same [ 14] * 1.1156 truth which other good Catholikes doe in some Articles, yet not believing them for the same formall reason of Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by Infallible Church Autho∣rity, &c. we cannot be said to have one and the same

Infallible and Divine Faith which other good Catholike Chri∣stians have, who believe the Articles for this formall Rea∣son, sufficiently made knowne to them, not by their owne fan∣cy, nor the fallible Authority of humane deductions, but by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God. If A. C. will still say the samething, I must still give the same an∣swer. First, he confesses we believe the same Truth in some Articles (I pray marke his phrase) the same Truth in some Articles with other good Catholike Chri∣stians: so farre his pen hath told Truth against his will: for he doth not (I wot well) intend to call us Catholikes, and yet his pen being truer then himselfe, hath let it fall. For the word (other) cannot be so used as here it is, but that we, as well as they, must be good Catholikes: For he that shall say, the old Ro∣mans were valiant, as well as other men, supposes the Romans to be valiant men; And he that shall say, The Protestants believe some Articles; as well as other good Catholikes, must in propriety of speech suppose them to be good Catholikes. Secondly, as we do believe those some Articles, so do we believe them, and all other Arti∣cles of Faith, for the same formall reason, and so applied, as but just * 1.1157 before I have expressed. Nor do we believe any one Article of Faith by our own fancy, or by fallible Authority of humane deductions; but next to the Infalli∣ble Authority of God's Word, we are guided by his Church. But then A. C. steps into a Conclusion, whither we cannot * 1.1158 follow him: For he sayes, that the Articles to be believed must be sufficiently made known unto us by the Infallible Au∣thority of the Church of God, that is, of men Infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God, as all lawfully called, continued, and con∣firmed Generall Councels are assisted. That the whole Church * 1.1159 of God is infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God, so that it cannot by any error fall away totally from Christ the Foundation, I make no doubt. For if it could, the gates

of hell had prevailed against it, which, our Saviour as∣sures me, S. Matth. 16. they shall never be able to doe. * 1.1160 But that all Generall Councels, be they never so lawfully called, continued, and confirmed, have Infallible Assi∣stance, I utterly deny. 'Tis true, that a Generall Coun∣cell de post facto, after 'tis ended, and admitted by the whole Church, is then Infallible, for it cannot erre in that which it hath already clearely and truly determi∣ned without Errour. But that a Generall Councell à parte ante, when it first sits down and continues to de∣liberate, may truly be said to be Infallible in all its after∣determinations, whatsoever they shall be, I utterly de∣ny. And it may be it was not without cunning that A. C. shuffled these words together, Called, Continued, and Confirmed; for be it never so lawfully called, and continu∣ed, it may erre. But after 'tis confirmed, that is, admit∣ted by the whole Church, then being found true, it is also Infallible, that is, it deceives no man. For so all Truth is, and is to us, when 'tis once knowne to be Truth. But then many times that Truth, which being known is necessary and Infallible, was before both con∣tingent and fallible in the way of proving it, and to us. And so here, a Generall Councell is a most probable, but yet a fallible way of inducing Truth, though the Truth once induced may be (after 'tis found) necessary and Infallible. And so likewise the very Councell it selfe for that particular in which it hath concluded Truth. But A. C. must both speake and meane of a Councell set downe to deliberate, or els he sayes nothing.

Now hence A. C. gathers, That though everything de∣fined [ 15] to be a Divine Truth in Generall Councels is not abso∣lutely * 1.1161 necessary to be expresly knowne and actually be∣lieved (as some other Truths are) by all sorts: yet no man may (after knowledge that they are thus defined) doubt deliberately, much lesse obstinately deny the Truth of

any thing so defined. Well, in this Collection of A. C. First we have this granted, That every thing defined in Generall Councels is not absolutely necessary to be expresly knowne, and actually believed by all sorts of men. And this no Protestant, that I know, denies. Secondly, it is affirmed, that after knowledge, that these Truths are thus defined, no man may doubt deliberately, much lesse obstinately deny any of them. Truly, Obsti∣nately (as the word is now in common use) carries a fault along with it: And it ought to be farre from the temper of a Christian, to be obstinate against the Definitions of a Generall Councell. But that he may not upon very probable grounds, in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt, yea and upon Demonstrative grounds constantly deny even such Defi∣nitions, yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or another Councell, is that which was never till now imposed upon Believers. For 'tis one thing for a man deliberately to doubt, and mo∣destly to propose his Doubt for satisfaction, which was ever lawfull, and is many times necessary. And quite an other thing for a man upon the pride of his owne Iudgement, * 1.1162 to refuse externall Obedience to the Councell, which to doe, was never Lawfull, nor can ever stand with any Government. For there is all the reason in the world, the Councell should be heard for it selfe, as well as any such Recusant whatsoever, and that before a Iudge as good as it selfe at least. And to what end did † 1.1163 S. Augustine say, That one Generall Councell might be amended by another, the former by the Later, if men might neither denie, nor so much as deliberately doubt of any of these Truths defined in a Generall Councell? And A. C. should have done well to have named but one ancient Father of the Primitive Church, that ever affirmed this. * 1.1164 For the Assistance which God gives

to the whole Church in generall, is but in things simply necessary to eternall Salvation; therefore more then this cannot be given to a Generall Councell, no nor so much. But then if a Generall Councell shall forget it selfe, and take upon it to define things not absolutely necessary to bee expresly knowne, or actually believed (which are the things which A. C. here speakes of) In these as neither Generall Councell, nor the whole Church have infallible Assistance: so have Christians liberty modestly and peaceably, and upon just grounds, both deliberarely to doubt, and con∣stantly to deny such the Councels De∣finitions. For instance, the Councell of Florence first defined Purgatory to be believed as a Divine Truth, and matter of Faith (a 1.1165 if that Coun∣cell had Consent enough so to define it.) This was afterwards delibe∣rately doubted of by the Protestants; after this as constantly denied, then confirmed by the b 1.1166 Councell of Trent, and an Anathema set upon the head of every man that denies it. And yet scarce any Father within the first three hundred yeares ever thought of it.

I know a 1.1167 B•…•…llarmine affirmes it boldly, That all the [ 16] Fathers; both Greeke and Latine, did constantly teach Pur∣gatory from the very Apostles times. And where he brings his Proofs out of the Fathers for this Point, he divides them into two Rancks. b 1.1168 In the first, he reckons them which affirme Prayer for the dead, as if that must ne∣cessarily inferre Purgatory. Whereas most certaine it is, that the Ancients had, and gave other Reasons of Pray•…•…r for the dead, then freeing them out of any Pur∣gatory. And this is very Learnedly, and at large set

downe, by the now Learned a 1.1169 Primate of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But then in the second, he sayes, there are b 1.1170 most manifest places in the Fathers, in which they affirme Purgatory. And hee names there no fewer then two and twenty of the Fa∣thers. A great Iury certainly, did they give their Ver dict with him. But first, within the three hundred yeares after Christ, he names none but, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen. And c 1.1171 Tertullian speakes expresly of Hell, not of Purgatory. S. d 1.1172 Cyprian of a Purging to Amendment, which cannot be after this Life. As for e 1.1173 Origen, he, I think indeed was the first Founder of Purgatory; But of such an One, as I believe Bellarmine dares not affirme. For hee thought there was no Punishment after this life, but Purgatory; and that not only the most impious men, but even the Divils themselves should be saved, after they had suffered and beene Purged enough. Which is directly contrary to the Word of God expounded by his f 1.1174 Church. In the fourth and fifth (the great and Learned Ages of the Church) he names more, as g 1.1175 S. Ambrose. But S. Am∣brose sayes. That some shall be saved, quasi per ignem, as it were by fire, leaving it as doubtfull, what was meant by that Fire, as the Place it selfe doth, whence it is taken. h 1.1176 1 Cor. 3. S. Hierome indeed names a Purg∣ing by Fire; But 'tis not very plaine, that he meanes it after this life. And howsoever, this is most plaine, That S. Hierome is at Credimus, we believe eternall Pu∣nishment; but hee goes no farther then Arbitramur, we thinke there is a Purging. So with him it was Ar∣bitrary; And therefore sure no Matter of Faith then. And againe k 1.1177 he saith, That some Christians may be saved, post poenas, after some punishments indured, but he neither tells us Where, nor When. S. l 1.1178 Basil names indeed Purgatory fire; but he relates as uncertainly, to that in 1 Cor. 3. as S. Ambrose doth. As for m 1.1179 Paulinus, he speakes for Prayer for the dead, but not a word of

Purgatory. And the Place in S., a 1.1180 Gregory Nazianzen is farre from a manifest Place For hee speakes there of Baptisme by fire; which is no usuall phrase to signifie Purgatory. But yet say that here he doth, ther's a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fortassis, a peradventure in the words, which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out. And if it be a Peradventure yee shall then be Baptised with fire: why then 'tis at a Per∣adventure too, that yee shall not. Now such Casuall stuffe as this; peradventure you shall, and peradventure you shall not, is no Expression for things, which are valued to be de fide; and to be believed as Matters of Faith. Bellarmine goes on with b 1.1181 Lactantius, but with no better successe. For he sayes indeed, That some men perstringenturigne, shall be sharply touched by fire. But he speakes of such, quorum peccata praevaluerunt, whose sinnes have prevailed. And they in Bellarmine's Do∣ctrine are for Hell, not Purgatory. As for S. c 1.1182 Hilary, he will not come home neither. 'Tis true, he speakes of a Fire too, and one that must be indured, but he tells us, 'tis a Punishment expiandae a peccatis animae, to purge the soule from sinnes. Now this will not serve Bel∣larmine's turne. For they of Rome teach, That the sinnes are forgiven here, and that the Temporall Punish∣ment only remaines to be satisfied in Purgatory. And what need is there then of purging of sinnes? Lest there should not be Fathers enough, hee reckons in d 1.1183 Boetius too. But he, though not long before a Convert, yet was so well seene in this Point, that he goes no far∣ther then Puto, I thinke that after death some soules are exercised purgatoriâ clementiâ, with a Purgative Clemency. But Puto, I think 'tis so, is no expression for Matter of Faith. The two Pregnant Authorities which seeme to come home, are those of Gregory Nyssene, and Theodoret. But for g 1.1184 Theodoret in Scholiis Graecis (which is the Place Bellarmine quotes) I can finde no such

Thing: And manifest it is, Bellar∣mine a 1.1185 himselfe tooke it but upon trust. And for b 1.1186 S. Gregory Nyssen, 'tis true, some places in him seeme plaine. But then they are made so doubtfull by other Places in him, that I dare not say simply and roundly, what his Iudg∣ment was. For he sayes, Men must be purged from Per∣turbations, and either by Prayers, and Philosophy, or the stu∣dy of Wisdome, or by the furnace of Purgatory-fire after this life. And againe, That a man cannot be partaker 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Divine nature, unlesse the Purging fire doth take away the staines that are in his Soule. And againe, That after this life a Purgatory fire takes away the blots and propensity to evill. And I deny not, diverse other like places are in him. But first, this is quite another thing from the Ro∣mane Purgatory. For S. Gregory tels us here, that the Pur∣gatory he meanes, purges Perturbations, and staines, and blots, and propensity to evill. Whereas the Purgatory which Rome now teaches, purges not sinne, c 1.1187 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 d 1.1188 For he sayes expresly, That the soule is to bee punished, till the Uitiosity of it be consumed, Purgatorio igne; So the Translation renders it, but in the Originall it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, in a fire that sleeps not, which, for ought appeares, may bee understood of a Fire that is eternall; whereas the fire assigned to Purgatory shall cease. Besides S. Gregory sayes plainly: The Soule can∣not suffer by fire but in the Body; and the Body can∣not be with it, till the Resurrection. Therefore e 1.1189 hee must needs speak of a fire after the Resurrection; which

must bee either the Fire of the Generall Conflagration, or Hell, Purgatory he cannot meane. VVhere, accord∣ing to the Romish Tenet, the Soule suffers without the Body. The truth is: Divers of the Ancient, especially Greekes, which were a little too much acquainted with Plato's Schoole, † 1.1190 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 fist hundred yeare, you see here's none that constantly and perspicuously affirme it And as for S. Augustine he a 1.1191 said, and b 1.1192 un∣said it, and c 1.1193 at the last left it doubt∣full, which had it then been receiv∣ed as a Point of Faith, he durst not have done. Indeed then in S. Gre∣gory the Great's time, in the begin∣ning of the sixt Age, Purgatory was growne to some perfection. For S. d 1.1194 Gregory himself is at Scio ('twas but at Puto a little before) I know that some shall bee Expiated in Purgatory flames. And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that follow. For after this time Purgatory was found too warme a businesse to be suffered to Coole again. And in the after Ages, more were frighted, then led by proof into the Beliefe of it.

Now by this we see also, That it could not be a [ 17] Tradition; For then we might have traced it by the smoke to the Apo∣stles times. Indeed Bellarm. would have it such a Tradition. For hee tels us out of S. * 1.1195 Augustine, That that is rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall Authority, which the whole Church holds, and

hath ever held, and yet is not Instituted by any Councell. And hee addes, That Purgatory is such a Tradition, so Constantly held in the whole Church, Greeke, and Latine. And † 1.1196 that wee doe not finde any beginning of this Beliefe. Where I shall take the boldnesse to Observe these three things. First, that the Doctrine of Purga∣tory was not held ever in the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And this appeares by the proofes of * 1.1197 Bellar∣mine himselfe produced, and I have † 1.1198 before examined. For there 'tis manifest, that scarce two Fathers directly affirme the beliefe of Purgatory for full six hundred yeares after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no Matter of Faith, nor to be believed as descending from Aposto∣licall 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 bee believed as a Doctrine delivered by Apostolicall Autho∣rity by Bellarmines owne rule; For it hath a Beginning. Thirdly, I observe too, that Bellarmine cannot well tell where to lay the foundation of Purgatory, that it may be safe. For first, hee labours to found it upon Scri∣pture. To that end a 1.1199 hee brings no fewer then ten pla∣ces out of the Old Testament, and nine out of the New, to proove it. And yet fearing lest these places bee strained (as indeed they are) and so too weake to bee laid under such a vast pile of Building, as Purgatory is, b 1.1200 he flies to unwritten Tradition. And by this Word of God unwritten, he sayes 'tis manifest, that the Doctrine of Pur∣gatory was delivered by the Apostles Sure if Nineteene pla∣ces of Scripture cannot proove it, I would be loth to fly to Tradition. And if Recourse to Tradition bee ne∣cessary, then certainly those places of Scripture made not the proofe they were brought for. And once

more how can B•…•… say here, That woe finde not the B•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of this Article; when hee had said before, that hee had found it in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 places of Scripture. For if in these places hee could not finde the beginning of the Doctrine c: P•…•…y, hee is f•…•…se while be sayes he did: And if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it there, then hee is fa•…•…e here in saying, we finde no beginning of it, And for all his B•…•… of O•…•…s 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 * 1.1201 Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 P•…•…. Yet A•…•… a C•…•… * 1.1202 〈◊〉〈◊〉 honestly and plainly and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 us, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Writers is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Greeks. And he addes, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Purgatory 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. And what now, I pray, after all this, may I not so much as deliberately 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of this, because 'tis now D•…•…? and but now in a manner? and thus? No sure. So A. C. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you. Doubt? No. For * 1.1203 when you had fooled the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of S•…•… back to Rome, there you either made him say, or •…•…d it for him •…•…for in Prin•…•… and un∣der his Name. That since 〈◊〉〈◊〉 defined by the Ch•…•…, a man 〈◊〉〈◊〉 much bound to believe there is a Purgatory, as that there is a Trinity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pers•…•… in the Godhead How farre comes this short of B•…•…asphemy, to make the Trinity, and P•…•…y things alike, and equally Credible?

Yea but A. C. will give you a Reason, why no man may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, much lesse deny any thing that [ 18] * 1.1204 is defi•…•…ed by a Generall Councell. And his Reason is,

Because every such doubt and denyall is a breach from the one saving faith. This is a very good reason, if it bee true. But how appeares it to be true? How? why it takes away (saith A. C.) Infallible credit from the Church, and so the Di∣vine Revelation being not sufficiently applyed, it cannot ac∣cording * 1.1205 to the ordinary course of Gods providence breed In∣fallible Beliefe in us. VVhy but deliberately to dou•…•…t and constantly to deny upon the grounds and in the manner * 1.1206 aforesaid, doth not take away Infallible credit from the whole Church, but onely from the De∣finition of a Generall Councell some way or other missed, And that in things not absolutely Necessa∣ry to all mens salvation, For of such things † 1.1207 A. C. here speakes expresly. Now to take away Infallible credit from some Definitions of Generall Councels, in things not absolutely necessary to salvation, is no breach upon the one saving faith which is necessary, nor upon the Credit of the Catholike Church of Christ in things absolutely necessary, for which onely it had Infallible Assistance promised. So that no breach being made upon the faith, nor no credit which ever it had being taken from the Church, the Divine Revelation may bee, and is as sufficiently applyed as ever it was; and in the ordinary course of Gods pro∣vidence may breed as Infallible beliefe in things ne∣cessary to salvation, as ever it did.

But A. C. will proove his Reason before gi∣ven, [ 19] and therefore hee askes us out of Saint Paul * 1.1208 Rom. 10. How shall men believe unlesse they heare? How shall they heare without a Preacher? And how shall they * 1.1209 preach (to wit Infallibly) unlesse they bee sent, that is, from God, and infallibly assisted by his Spirit? Here's that which I have twise at least spoken to already, namely, That A. C. by this will make every Priest in the Church of Rome that hath Learning enough to preach, and

dissents not from that Church, an Infallible Preacher, which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever as∣sume to himselfe, nor the Church give him. And yet the Fathers of the Primitive Church were sent, and from God, were assisted, and by God, and did sufficiently pro∣pose to men the Divine Revelati∣on, and did by it beget and breed up Faith, saving Faith in the Soules of men: Though, * 1.1210 no one among them since the Apo∣stles, was an Infallible Preacher. And A. C. should have done very well here to have made it mani∣fest, That this Scripture, How shall they preach (to wit Infallibly) is so interpreted by Union, Con∣sent of Fathers, and Definitions of Councels, as hee a 1.1211 bragged before, that they use to interpret Scri∣pture, For I doe not finde How shall they Preach (to wit † 1.1212 Infalli∣bly) to bee the Comment of any one of the Fathers; or any other approved Author; And let him shew it, if he can.

After this (for I see the good man is troubled, and [ 20] forward and backward he goes) he fals immediately * 1.1213 upon this Question; If a whole generall Councell defining what is Divine Truth, be not believed to be sent and assisted by Gods Spirit, and consequently of Infallible Credit, what man in the World can bee said to bee of Infallible Credit? Well, first A. C. hath very ill lucke in fitting his

Conclusion to his Premises, and his Consequent to his Antecedent; And so 'tis here with him. For a Generall Councell may be assisted by God's Spirit, and in a great measure too, and in a greater then any private man not inspired, and yet not consequently be of In•…•… Credit; for all assistance of God's Spirit reaches not up to In∣fallibility. I hope the Ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted by God's Spirit, and in a plentifull measure too, and yet A. C. himselfe will not say they were Infallible. And secondly, for the Question itselfe, If a Generall Councell be not, what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit? Truly I'le make you a ready Answer, No man; Not the Pope himselfe? No: Let God and his word be true, and every man a lyer, Rom. 3. for so, more or lesse, every man will * 1.1214 be found to be. And this is neither dammage to the Church, nor wrong to the person of any.

But then A. C. asks a shrewder Question then this. [ 21] If such a Councell lawfully called, continued and confirmed, * 1.1215 may erre in defining any one Divine Truth, how can we be Infallibly certaine of any other Truth defined by it? For if * 1.1216 it may erre in one, why not in another, and another, and so in all? 'Tis most true, if such a Councell 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 himselfe a little before, to * 1.1217 speake of the Defining of such Divine Truths as are not absolutely necessary to be expresly knowne and actually belie∣ved of all sorts of men. Now there is, there can be no necessity of an Infallible certainty in the whole Catholike Church, and much lesse in a Generall Councell, of things not * 1.1218 absolutely necessary in themselves. For Christ did not intend to leave an Infallible certainty in his Church to satisfie either Contentious, or Curious, or Presumptu∣ous Spirits. And therefore in things not Fundamentall,

not Necessary, 'tis no matter if Councels erre in one, and another, and a third, the whole Church having power and meanes enough to see that no Councell 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 plainely laid downe in Scripture and the Creed, that a modest man might justly wonder why any man should run to any later Councell, at least for any Infallible certainty.

Yet A. C. hath more Questions to aske; and his [ 22] next is, How we can (according to the ordinary Course) be * 1.1219 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 Questi∣on about Generall Councels. And to all that (being large) he replied little or nothing. Now when he thinks that may be forgotten, or as if it did not at all lie in his way, he here turnes Questionist, to disturbe that businesse, and indeed the Church, as much as he can. But to this Question also I answer againe, If any Generall-Councell doe now erre, either it erres in things absolutely necessary to Salvation, or in things not ne∣cessary. If it erre in things Necessary, we can be infalli∣bly assured by the Scripture, the Creeds, the foure 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, 'tis not requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance. As for that which followes, it is notoriously both cunning, and false. 'Tis false to suppose that a Generall Councell 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 'tis cunning, because these

words (by the same Authority) are equivocall, and must be distinguished, that the Truth, which A. C. would hide, may appeare. Thus then, suppose a Generall Councell erring in one point, and not in another, it doth define both, and equally by the same delegated Authority which that Councell hath received from the Catholike Church. But it doth not define both, and much lesse 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 equall 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.

To his former Questions A. C. adds, That if we leave this to be examined by any private man, this exami∣nation [ 23] not being Infallible, had need to be examined by ano∣ther, * 1.1220 and this by another without end, or ever comming 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 lesuite a 1.1221 before, that I give no way to any private man to be Iudge of a Generall Councell: And there also I shewed the way how an erring Councell might be rectified, and the peace of the Church either preserved or restored, with∣out lifting any private spirit above a Councell, and without this processe in Infinitum (which A. C. so much urges, and which is so much declined in all b 1.1222 Sciences.) For as the understanding of a man must al∣waies have somewhat to rest upon, so must his Faith. But a c 1.1223 private man, first for his owne satisfaction, and after for the Churches, if he have just cause, may

consider of, and examine by the a 1.1224 Iudgement of discretion, though not of power, even the Definitions of a Generall Councell. But A. C. con∣cludes well, That an Infallible cer∣tainty is necessary for that one Faith which is necessary to salvation. And of that (as I expressed b 1.1225 before) a most infallible certainty we have already in the Scripture, the Creeds, and the foure first Generall Councels, to which for things Necessary and Fundamentall in the Faith, we need no assistance from other Generall Councels. And some of your c 1.1226 owne, very honest and ve∣ry Learned, were of the same Opini∣on with me. And for the peace and unity of the Church in things abso∣lutely necessary, we have the same infallible direction that wee have for Faith. But in Things not necessa∣ry, (though they be Divine Truths also) if about them Christian men doe differ, 'tis no more then they have done, more or lesse in all Ages of the Church, and they may dif∣fer and yet preserve the d 1.1227 One neces∣sary Faith, and e 1.1228 Charity too, entire, if they be so well minded. I con∣fesse it were heartily to be wished, that in these things also men might be all of one mind, and one judge∣ment, to which the Apostle ex∣horts, † 1.1229 1. Cor. 1. But this cannot be hoped for till the Church be Trium∣phant over all humane frailties which here hang thick and close about her. The want both of Vnity and

Peace proceeding too often, even where Religion is pre∣tended, from Men and their Humours, rather then from Things and Errours to be found in them.

And so A. C. tels me, That it is not therfore (as I would [ 24] perswade) the fault of Councels Definitions, but the pride of * 1.1230 such as will preferre, and not submit their private Iudge∣ments, that lost, and continues the losse of peace and unity of the Church, and the want of certainty in that one afore-said soule-saving Faith. Once againe I am bold to tell A. C. that there is no want of certainty, most infallible certainty of That one soule-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 necessary it is not, that therfore, or for prevention thereof, there should be such a Certainty, an Infallible Certainty in these things. For he understood himselfe well that said, Oportet esse Haereses, 1. Cor. 11. There must, there will be Heresies. And wheresoever that Necessity lies, 'tis out of doubt * 1.1231 enough to prove, That Christ never left such an Infalli∣ble Assurance as is able to prevent them: Or such a Ma∣stering Power in his Church, as is able to over-awe them; but they come with their Oportet about them; and they rise and spring in all Ages very strangely. But in particular for that which first caused, and now con∣tinues the losse of Vnity in the Church of Christ, as I make no doubt but that the Pride of men is one Cause, so yet can I not think that Pride is the adaequate and sole Cause thereof. But in part Pride caused it, and Pride on all sides; Pride in some that would not at first, nor will not since submit their private judgements, where, with good Conscience, they may, and ought. And Pride in others that would not first, nor will not yet mend ma∣nifest, great, and dangerous errours, which with all good Conscience they ought to do. But 'tis not Pride, not to submit to known and grosse Errours: And the

Definitions of some Councels (perhaps the Lateran, Constance, and Trent) have beene greater and more ur∣gent Causes of breach of Unity, then the Pride of men hath been, which yet I shall never excuse, where|'ere it is.

How farre this one soule-saving Faith extends, A. C. [ 25] tels me I have confessed it not a worke for my pen: But, * 1.1232 he sayes, it is to be learned from that One, Holy, Catholike, Apostolike, alwayes Visible, and Infallible Roman Church, of which the Lady, once doubting, is now fully satisfied, &c. Indeed (though A. C. sets this down with some scorn, which I can easily passe over) 'tis true that thus I a 1.1233 said: There is a Latitude in Faith, especially in reference to different mens salvation; But to set a Bound to this, and strictly to define it, Iust thus farre you must Be∣lieve in every particular, or incurre damnation, is no work for my pen. Thus I said, and thus I say still. For though the Foundation be one and the same in all, yet a b 1.1234 Latitude there is, and a large one too, when you come to Consider not the Foundation common to all, but things necessary to many particular mens Salvation. For to whom soever God hath given more, of him shall more be required, c 1.1235 S. Luc. 12. as well in Beliefe, as in Obedience and Perfor∣mance. And the gifts of God, both ordinary and extraordinary, to par∣ticular men are so various, as that for my part I hold it impossible for the ablest pen that is to expresse it. And in this respect I d 1.1236 said it with humi∣lity and Reason; That to set these bounds, was no worke for my pen. Nor will I ever take upon me to expresse that Tenet, or Opinion (the

deniall of the Foundation onely excepted) which may shut any Christian, the meanest out of heaven. And A. C. I believe you know very well, to what a nar∣row scantling, some a 1.1237 Learned of your owne side bring the very Foundation it selfe, rather then they will loose any that lay hold on Christ, the Sonne of God, and Re∣deemer of the world. And as Christ Epitomizes the whole Law of Obedience into these two great Commandements: The Love of God, and our Neigh∣bour, S. Mat. 22. So the Apostle epitomizes the whole * 1.1238 Law of Beliefe into these two great Assents: That God is. And that He is a Rewarder of them that seeke hun: Heb. 11. That seeke him in Christ. And S. Peter * 1.1239 was full of the Holy Ghost, when he exprest it, That there is no salvation to them that seeke it in, or by ano∣ther Name, Act. 4. * 1.1240

But since this is no worke for my pen, it seemes [ 26] A. C. will not say 'tis a worke b 1.1241 for his. But he tels us, * 1.1242 'Tis to be learned of the One, Holy, Catholike, Apostolike, alwaies Visible, and Infallible Romane Church. Titles enough given to the Romane Church, and I wish she deserved them all, for then we should have peace. But 'tis farre otherwise. One she is, as a particular Church, but not The One. Holy she would be counted, but the world may see, if it will not blinde it self, of what value Holinesse is in that Court and Countrey. Catholike she is not, in any sense of the word, for she is not the c 1.1243 Universall, and so not Catholike in extent. Nor is shee sound in Doctrine, and in things which

come neare up∣on the Foundati∣on too; so not a 1.1244 Catholike in Be∣liese. Nor is she the Prime Mother Church of Chri∣stianity; b 1.1245 Ieru∣salem was that, and so not Ca∣tholike as a Foun∣taine, or Originall, or as the Head, or Root of the Catholike.

And because many Romanists Object here (though A. C. [ 27] doth it not) that S. Cyprian called the c 1.1246 Romane Church, the Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church of Christ, I hope I shall have leave to explaine that difficult place also First then S. Cyprian names not Rome. That stands onely in the Margiu, and was placed there as his particular judgement led d 1.1247 him that set out S. Cypri∣an. Secondly, the true story of that Epistle, and that which led S. Cyprian into this Expression, was this. Cornelius then chosen Pope, expostulates with S. Cyprian, That his Letters to Rome were directed onely to the Clergy there, and not to Him, and takes it ill, as if S. Cypri∣an had thereby seemed to disapprove his Election. S. Cy∣prian replies, That by reason of the Schisme moov'd then by Novatian, it was uncertaine in Africk which of the Two had the more Canonicall right to the Sea of Rome; and that therfore he nam'd him not. But yet that during this uncertainty, he exhorted all that sailed thi∣ther, ut Ecclesiae Catholicae Radicem & Matricem agnoscerent & tenerent: That in all their carriage they should

acknowledge, and so hold themselves unto the Vnity of the Catholike Church, which is the Root and Matrix of it, and the only way to avoid participation in the Schisme. And that this must be S. Cyprian's meaning I shall thus proove. First, because, This could not be his meaning or Intention, That the Sea of Rome was the Root or Matrix of the Catholike Church. For if hee had told them so, hee had left them in as great, or greater difficulty, then hee found them. For there was then an Open and an Apparent Schisme in the Church of Rome. Two Bishops, Cornelius and Novatian; Two Congregations, which respectively attended and ob∣served them. So that a perplexed Question must needs have divided their thoughts, which of these Two had beene that Root and Matrix of the Catho∣like Church. Therefore had S. Cyprian meant to pro∣nounce Rome the Root and Matrix of the Catholike Church, hee would never have done it at such a time, when Rome it selfe was in Schisme. Whereas in the other sense, the Counsell is good and plaine, Namely, That they should hold themselves to the Vnity and Communion of the Catholike Church, which is the Roote of it. And then necessarily they were to suspend their Communion there, till they saw how the Catholike Church did incline, to approove, or disap∣proove the Election of the One, or the Other. And thus S. Cyprian frees himselfe to Cornelius from the ve∣ry least Touch of Schisme. Secondly, Because this sense comes home to * 1.1248 Baronius. For hee affirmes, That S. Cyprian and his Colleagues the African Bishops did Communionem suspendere, suspend their Communion, untill they heard by Caldonius and Fortunatus, whose the undoubted right was. So it seems S. Cyprian gave that Counsell to these Travellers, which himselfe fol∣lowed. For if Rome, during the Schisme, and in so

great uncertainty had yet beene Radix Ecclesiae Catho∣licae, Root of the Catholike Church of Christ, I would faine know, how S. Cyprian so great and famous an Assertor of the Churches Unity, durst once so much as thinke of suspending Communion with her. Thirdly, Be∣cause this sense will be plaine also by other Passages out of other Epistles of S. Cyprian. For writing to Iubaianus an Africane Bishop against the Novatians, who then infested those parts, and durst Rebaptise Catho∣like Christians, he saith thus. † 1.1249 But we who hold the head and Root of One Church, doe know for certaine, and believe, that nothing of this is lawfull out of the Catholike Church; And that of Baptisme, which is but One, we are the Head, where he himselfe was at first Baptized, when hee held the Ground and Verity of Divine Vnity. Now I conceive 'tis all one, or at least as Argumentative to all purpo∣ses to be Caput or Radix Baptismatis, Head or Root of Baptisme, as Head or Root of the Church. For there's but One Baptisme, as well as but One Church, and that is the entrance into this. And S. Cyprian affirmes and includes himselfe, Nos esse Caput, that we are the Head of Baptisme. Where yet (I pray observe it) he cannot by Nos, We, meane his own Person (though if he did, he were the more Opposite to Rome) much lesse can he meane the Romane Church, as it is a Particular and stands separate from others. For then how could he say, Nos esse Caput, that we are the Head? Therefore he must needs meane the Vnity and Society of the Church Catholike, which the Novatians had then left, and wher∣of he and his Church were still members. Besides most manifest it is, that he cals that Church Caput Baptisma∣tis the Head of Baptisme, where Novatian was Baptiz∣ed (they are his own words) and probable it is that was Rome, Because that Schismatick was a Romane Priest. And yet for all this S. Cyprian sayes, Nos esse Caput

Baptismatis, that we are the Head of Baptisme, though he were at Carthage. By which it is plain, That as Caput is paralell to Radix, and Matrix: So also that by Caput, the head of Baptisme, he includes together with Rome all the other members of the Church Vniversall. Again, S. * 1.1250 Cyprian writes to Cornelius and censures the schisma∣ticall Cariage of the Novatians at Rome. And tels him farther, that he had sent Caldonius and Fortunatus to la∣bour Peace in that Church, that so they might be reduced to, and composed in the Vnity of the Catholike Church. But because the Obstinate, and inflexible pertinacy of the other Par∣ty had not only refused Radicis & Matris sinum, the bosome of their Mother and embracings of their Root, but the Schisme increasing and growing raw to the worse, hath set up a Bishop to it selfe. &c. Where 'tis observable, and I think plaine, That S. Cyprian imployed his Legats not to bring the Catholike Church to the communion of Rome, but Rome to the Catholike Church. Or to bring the Novatians not only to Communicate with Cornelius, but with the Church Vniversall, which was therefore Head and Root in S. Cyprian's judgement, even to Rome it self, as well as to all other, Great, Ancient, or even Apo∣stolicall Churches. And this is yet more plaine by the se∣quell. For when those his Legats had laboured to bring those Schismaticks to the Vnity of the Catholike Church; yet he complaines their Labour was lost. And why? Why, because recusabant Radicis & Matris sinum, they refused the Bosome of the Root, and the Mo∣ther. Therefore it must needs be, that in S. Cyprian's sense, these two Vnitas Catholicae Ecclesiae, the unity of the Catholike Church. And Radicis, or Matricis Sinus, or Complexus, the Bosome, or Embracing of the Root, or the Mother, are all one. And then Radix and Matrix, are not words by which he Expresses the Romane Sea, in particular, but he denotes by them the Unity of

the Church Catholike. Fourthly, Be∣cause * 1.1251 Tertullian seemes to mee to agree in the same sense. For saith he these so many and great Churches found∣ed by the Apostles, taken all of them together, are that One Church from the Apostles out of which are All. So all are First, and all Apostolike, while they all allow and prove Vnam Vnitatem, One Vnity. Nor can any possibly understand this of any Particular Church, but subordinately. As S. Gregory Nazian. sayes the Church of Caesarea was a 1.1252 Mater, the Mo∣ther of almost all Churches: which must needs be under∣stood of some Neighbouring Churches, not of the whole Catholike Church. And where b 1.1253 Pamelius speakes of Ori∣ginall and Mother Churches, he names six, and others, and Rome in the last place. Therfore certainly no Particu∣lar Church can bee the Root or Matrix of the Catholike; But she is rooted in her own Vnity, downe from the Apostles, and no where els extra Deum. And this is far∣ther manifest by the Irreligious act of the Emperor Adri∣an. For he intending to root out the faith of Christ, took this course. Hee Consecrated Simulacrum Iovis, the Image of Iupiter in the very place where Christ suffer'd, and prophaned Bethlehem with the Temple of Adonis. c 1.1254 To this end, that the Root as it were, and the foundation of the Church might be taken away, if in those places Idols might bee worshiped, in which Christ himself was born, and suffered. &c. By which it is most evident, That either Ierusalem was the Root of the Catholike Church, if any Particular Church were so. Or rather that Adrian was deceived (as being an Heathen he well might) in that he thought the Vni∣versall Church had any particular or Locall Root of its Being. Or that he could destroy it all by laying it wast in any one place whatsoever. And S. Augustine I think

is full for this, That the Catholike Church must have a Catholike Root or Matrix too. For * 1.1255 he tels us, That all Heresies whatsoever went out de illâ, out of the Catholike Church. For de illâ there can be out of no other. For all Heresies did not goe out of any one Particular Church. Hee goes on. They were cut off de Vite, from this Catholike Vine still, as unprofitable Branch∣es. Ipsa autem, but this Catholike Church remaines in Radice suâ, in its owne Roote, in its owne Vine, in its owne Charity, which must needs bee as ample, and as Catholike as it selfe. Or else, were it any Particular, All Hereticall Branches could not bee cut off from one Root. And Saint Augustine sayes againe, * 1.1256 That the Donatists did not Consider that they were cut off from the Root of the Easterne Church∣es. Where you see againe, tis still but One Root of many Churches. And that if any man will have a Particular Root of the Catholike Church, hee must have it in the East, not in the West at Rome. And now lastly, besides this out of Saint Cyprian to proove his owne meaning (and sure hee is the best Interpreter of himselfe) and other assisting proofes, 'tis most evident, that in the prime and principall sense, the Catholike Church, and her Vnity 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 sense. For Essence and Being is first in all things. And then there is Radix Existentiae, the Root of its Existence, and formall Being, which alwayes presupposes Being, And is therefore a sense lesse Principall. Now to apply this. The Catholike or Vniversall Church is, and

must needs bee the Root of Essence and Being to Rome, and all other Particulars. And this is the Principall Root, Head, or Matrix that gives Being. And Rome, but with all other Particular Churches, and no more then other Patriarchall Churches, was and is Radix Existen∣tiae, the Root of The Churches Existence. And this agrees with that knowne and received Rule in Art: That Vniversals give Essence to their Particulars, and Particulars supply their Vniversals with Existence. For as Socrates and every Particular man borrow their Essence from the Species and Definition of a man, which is Vniver∣sall, but this Vniversall Nature and Being of Man hath no actuall Existence but in Socrates and all other parti∣cular men: so, the Church of Rome, and every other par∣ticular Church in the world, receive their very Essence and Being of a Church from the Definition of the Catholike Vniversall Church of Christ; But this Uni∣versall Nature and Being of the Church hath no actuall Existence but in Rome and all other Particular Churches, and equall Existence in all her particulars. And should all the Particular Churches in the world fall away from Christ, save only One (which God forbid) yet the Nature, Essence, and Being of the Vniversall Church would both Exist and Subsist in that one Par∣ticular. Out of all which to me most cleare it is, That for the Churches Being, the Catholike Church, and that in Vnity (for Ens & Vnum, Being, and Being one, are Con∣vertible) is Radix, the Root, Head, Matrix, Fountaine, or Originall (call it what you will) of Rome, and all other Particular Churches. But Rome no more then other Churches, the Root, or Matrix of the Catholike Churches Existence or Place of her actuall Residence. And this I say for her Existence only, not the purity or form of her Existence, which is not here considered. But if the Ca∣tholike she be not, nor the root of the Catholike Church, yet

Apostolike I hope she is. Indeed Apostolike She is, as being the Sea a 1.1257 of One, and Hee a Prime Apostle. But then not Apostolike, as the Church is called in the Creed from all the Apostles, no nor the b 1.1258 Onely Apostolike. Visible I may not deny God hath hitherto preserved Her, but for a better end doubtlesse then they turne it to. But Infallible She was never: Yet if that Lady did as the Iesuite in his close avows, or others will rest satisfied with it, who can helpe it? Sure none but God. And by A. C^s. leave this (which I said, is no worke for my pen) cannot be learned, no not of the One, Holy, Catholike, and Apostolike Church, much lesse of the Roman. For though the Foundation be one and the same, & sufficiently knowne by Scripture and the Creeds; Yet for the building upon the Foun∣dation, the adding to it; the Detra∣cting from it; the Ioyning other things with it; The grating upon it: And each of these may bee damnable to some, and not to others, according to the Knowledge, Wisdome, meanes of Information which some have, and others want: And according to the igno∣rance, simplicity, and want of Information, which some others have, and cannot helpe: And according to the Negligence, Contempt, Wilfulnesse, and Malice, with Obsti∣nacy, which some have against the Knowne 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 Schoole of Christ, to the simplest Idiot that hath beene so happy as to bee initiated into the Faith by Baptisme. Now the Church hath not this knowledge of all particulars, Men, and Conditions, nor can she ap∣ply the Conditions to the Men. And therefore cannot teach just how farre every man must believe, as it re∣lates to the possibility, or impossibility of his salvation in every particular. And that which the Church cannot teach, men cannot learne of her. She can teach the Foun∣dation, and men were happy if they would learne it, and the Church more happy would she teach nothing but that as necessary to Salvation; for certainly no∣thing but that is Necessary. Now then whereas after all this, the Iesuite tels us, that

F.

Upon this and the precedent Conferences, the Lady rested in judgement fully satisfied (as she told a con∣fident Friend) of the Truth of the Romane Church∣es faith. Yet upon frailty and feare to offend the King, she yeelded to goe to Church; for which she was after very sorry, as so•…•… of her friends can testifie.

B.

This is all personall. And how that Honourable [§ 39] Lady was then setled in Conscience, how in Iudge∣ment, [ 1] I know not. This, I think, is made cleare enough, That that which you said in this and the precedent Conferences could settle neither, unlesse in some that were setled or setling before. As little do I know what she told any confident friend of her approoving the Roman cause, No more whether it were frailty, or feare, or other Motive that made her yeeld to go to Church, nor how sorry shee was for it, nor who can testifie

that sorrow. This I am sure of, if shee repent, and God forgive her other sinnes, she will more easily be able to Answer for her comming to Church, then for her leaving of the Church of England, and following the superstitions and errours which the Romane Church hath added in Point of Faith, and the Worship of God. For the Lady was then living, when I answered thus.

Now whereas I said, the Lady would farre more [ 2] easily be able to answer for her comming to Church, * 1.1259 then for her leaving the Church of England. To this A. C. excepts and sayes, That I neither prove, nor can prove, that it is lawfull for one (perswaded especially as the Lady was) to goe to the Protestant Church. There's a great deale of cunning, and as much malice in this passage; but I shall easily pluck the sting out of the Tayle of this Waspe. And first I have proved it alrea∣dy through this whole Discourse, and therefore can prove it, That the Church of England is an Orthodoxe Church. And therefore with the same labour it is proved, that men may lawfully goe unto it, and com∣municate with it, for so a man not onely may, but ought to doe with an Orthodoxe Church. And a Romanist may communicate with the Church of England, without any Offence in the Nature of the thing thereby incur∣red. But if his Conscience, through mis-information, checke at it, he should do well in that Case, rather to informe his Conscience, then for sake any Orthodoxe Church whatsoever. Secondly, A. C. tels me plainly, That I can∣not prove that a man so perswaded as the Lady was, may goe to the Protestant Church; that is, That a Romane Ca∣tholike may not goe to the Protestant Church. Why, I never went about to proove that a Romane Catho∣like beiug and continuing such, might against his Conscience, goe to the Protestant Church. For these words (A man perswaded as the Lady is) are A. C^s.

words, they are not mine. Mine are not simply that the Lady might, or that she might not: but Compa∣rative they are, That she might more easily answer to God for comming to, then for going from the Church of England. And that is every way most true. For in this doubtfull time of hers, when, upon my Reasons given, shee went againe to Church; when yet soone after (as you say at least) shee was sorrie for it. I say, at this time she was in heart and resolution a Romane Catho∣like, or she was not: If she were not, (as it seemes by her doubting shee was not then fully resolved) then my speech is most true, that she might more easily an∣swer God for comming to Service in the Church of England, then for leaving it. For a Protestant shee had beene, and, for ought I knew, at the end of this Conference, so she was, and then 'twas no sin in it selfe to come to an Orthodoxe Church; nor no sinne against her Conscience, she continuing a Protestant, for ought which then appeared to mee. But if she then were a Romane Catholike (as the Jesuite and A. C. seeme confident she was) yet my speech is true too. For then she might more easily answer God for com∣ming to the Church of England, which is Orthodoxe, and leaving the Church of Rome, which is superstitious, then, by leaving the Church of England, communicate with all the superstitions of Rome. Now the cunning and the malignity of A. C. lies in this, he would faine have the world think that I am so Indifferent in Religion, as that I did maintaine, the Lady, being conscientiously per∣swaded of the Truth of the Romish Doctrine, might yet, against both her conscience, and against open and avowed profession, come to the Protestant Church.

Neverthelesse, in hope his cunning malice would [ 3] not be discovered, against this (his owne sense, that is, and not mine) he brings diverse Reasons. As first,

'tis not lawfull for one affected as that Lady was, that is, for one that is resolved of the Truth of the Romane Church, to goe to the Church of England, there, and in that manner to serve and worship God; Because (saith A. C.) that were to halt on both sides, to serve two Masters, and to dissemble with God and the world. Truly, I say the * 1.1260 same thing with him; And that therefore neither may a Protestant, that is resolved in Conscience, that the profession of the true Faith is in the Church of England, goe to the Romish Church, there, and in that manner to serve and worship God. Neither need I give other Answer, because A. C. urges this against his owne fiction, not my assertion. Yet since he will so doe, I shall give a particular Answer to each of them. And to this first Reason of his, I say thus, That to Believe Re∣ligion after one sort, and to practise it after another, and that in the maine points of worship, the Sacrament and Invocation, is to halt on both sides, to serve two Masters, and to dissemble with God and the world. And other then this I never taught, nor ever said that which might inferre the Contrary. But A. C. give me leave to tell you, your fellow Iesuite * 1.1261 Azorius affirmes this in expresse termes; And what doe you think, can he prove it? Nay, not Azorius onely, but other Priests and Iesuites here in England, either teach some of their Proselytes, or els some of them learn it without teaching, That though they be perswaded as this Lady was, that is, though they be Romane Catholikes, yet either to gaine honour, or save their purse,

they may goe to the Protestant Church, just as the Iesu∣ite here sayes, The Lady did out of frailty and feare to of∣fend the King. Therefore I pray A. C. if this be grosse dissimulation both with God and the world, speake to your fellowes to leave perswading or practising of it, and leave men in the profession of Religion to bee as they seeme, or to seeme and appeare as they are; Let's have no Maske worne here. A. C^s. second Reason why one so perswaded as that Lady was, might not goe to the Protestant Church, is, Because that were out∣wardly * 1.1262 to professe a Religion in Conscience knowne to bee false. To this I answer, first, that if this Reason be true, it concernes all men, as well as those that be per∣swaded as the Lady was. For no man may outward∣ly professe a Religion in conscience knowne to bee false; For with the beart man believeth to righteousnesse, and with the mouth hee confesseth to salvation, Rom. 10. * 1.1263 Now to his owne salvation no man can confesse a knowne false Religion. Secondly, if the Religion of the Protestants be in conscience a knowne false Religion, then the Romanists Religion is so too; for their Religion is the same; Nor do the Church of Rome and the Pro∣testants set up a different Religion (for the Christian Re∣ligion is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion: And the difference is in certaine grosse cor∣ruptions, to the very endangering of salvation, which each side sayes the other is guilty of. Thirdly, the Reason given is most untrue; for it may appeare by all the former Discourse to any Indifferent Reader, that Religion, as it is professed in the Church of England, is nearest of any Church now in being to the Primi•…•…ive Church: And therefore not a Religion knowne to be false. And this I both doe and can prove, were not the deafenesse of the Aspe upon the eares of seduced * 1.1264 Christians in all humane and divided parties whatso∣ever.

After these Reasons thus given by him, A. C. [ 4] tels me, That I neither doe nor can prove any supersti∣tion * 1.1265 or errour to be in the Romane * 1.1266 Religion. What none at all? Now truly I would to God from my heart this were true, and that the Church of Rome were so happy, and the whole Catholike Church thereby blessed with Truth and Peace. For I am confident such Truth as that would soone either Command Peace, or † 1.1267 confound Peace-Breakers. But is there no Supersti∣tion in Adoration of Images? None in Invocation of Saints? None in Adoration of the Sacrament? Is there no errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament, by gi∣ving it but in one kinde? None about Purgatorie? About Common Prayer in an un∣knowne tongue none? These and many more are in the Romane Religion, (if you will needs call it so.) And 'tis no hard worke to prove every of these to be Errour, or Superstition, or both. But if A. C. think so meanely of me, that though this be no hard worke in it selfe, yet that I (such is my weakenesse) cannot prove it, I shall leave him to enjoy that opinion of me, or what ever else he shall be pleased to entertaine, and am farre better content with this his opinion of my weaknesse, then with that which followes of my pride; for he adds, That I can∣not * 1.1268 prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion, but by presuming, with intolerable pride, to make my selfe or some of my fellowes to be Iudge of Controver∣sies, and by taking Authority to censure all to be Super∣stition and Errour too, which sutes not with my fancy, al∣though it be generally held, or practised by the Vniversall Church. Which (saith he) in S. Augustine's judgement is

most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. What not prove any Superstition, any Err•…•…ur at Rome, but by Pride, and that 〈◊〉〈◊〉? Truly I would to God A. C. saw my heart, and all the Pride that lodges therein. But wherein doth this Pride appeare, that he censures me so deeply? Why first in this, That I cannot prove any Errour or Superstition to be in the Romane Religion, unlesse I make my selfe or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of my fellowes Iudge of Controversies. Indeed if I tooke this upon me, I were guilty of great Pride. But A C. knowes well, that before in this Conference, which he undertakes to Answer, I am so farre from making my selfe or any of my fellowes Iudge of Controversies, that a 1.1269 I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councell Iudge of Controversies, by, and according to the Scriptures. And this I learned from b 1.1270 S. Augustine, with this, That ever the Scripture is to have the prerogative above the Councell. Nay, A. C. should remember here, that c 1.1271 he himselfe taxes me for giving too much power to a Generall Councell, and binding men to a strict Obedience to it, even in Case of Errour. And therefore sure most innocent I am of the intolerable pride, which he is pleased to charge upon me; and he, of all men, most unfit to charge it. Secondly, A. C. will have my pride appeare in this, * 1.1272 that I take Authority to censure all for Errour and Super∣stition, which sutes not with my own fancy. But how can this possibly be, since I submit my judgement in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primi∣tive Church, and upon new and necessary doubts, to the judgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councell? And this I do from my very heart, and do abhorre, in mat∣ters of Religion, that my own, or any private mans fan∣cy should take any place, and least of all against things generally held or practised by the Vniversall Church, which, to oppose in such things, is certainly (as d 1.1273 S. Au∣gustine cals it, Insolentissimae insaniae, an Attempt of

most insolent madnesse. But those things which the Church of England charges upon the Romane Party to be superstitious and erroneous, are not held or practi∣sed, in, or by the universall Church generally, either for time or place. And now I would have A. C. consider how justly all this may be turned upon himselfe. For he hath nothing to pretend, that there are not grosse Superstitions and Errours in the Romane Perswasion, un∣lesse by intolerable pride he will make himselfe and his Party Iudge of Controversies, (as in effect he doth, for he will be judged by none but the Pope, and a Councell of his ordering) or unlesse he will take Authority to free from Superstition and Errour whatsoever sutes with his fancy, though it be even Superstition it selfe, and run crosse to what hath been generally held in the Catholike Church of Christ; Yea, though to do so, be, in S. Augustine's judgement, most insolent madnesse. And A. C. spake in this most properly, when he called it taking of Authority; For the Bishop and Church of Rome have in this particu∣lar of judging Controversies, indeed taken that Authority to themselves, which neither Christ, nor his Church Catho∣like did ever give them. Here the Conference ended with this Conclusion.

And as I hope God hath given that Lady mercy: so [ 5] I heartily pray, that he will be pleased to give all of you a Light of his Truth, and a Love to it, that you may no longer be made Instruments of the Pope's boundlesse Ambition, and this most unchristian * 1.1274 braine-sick de∣vice, That in all Controversies of the Faith he is Infallible, and that by way of Inspiration and Prophecie in the Conclu∣sion which he gives: To the due Consideration of which, and God's mercy in Christ, I leave you.

To this Conclusion of the Conference between me [ 6] and the Iesuite, A. C. sayes not much: But that which he doth say, is either the selfe same which he hath

said already, or els is quite mistaken in the businesse That which he hath said already, is this; That in mat∣ters * 1.1275 of Faith we are to submit our judgements to such Do∣ctors and Pastors, as by Visible Continuall Succession, with∣out change, brought the Faith downe from Christ and his Apostles, to these our dayes, and shall so carrie it to the end of the world. And that this Succession is not found in any other Church differing in Doctrine from the Romane Church. Now to this I have given a full Answer a 1.1276 alrea∣dy, and therefore will not trouble the Reader with needlesse and troublesome repetition. Then he brings certaine places of Scripture to prove the Pope's Infalli∣bility. But to all these places I have likewise answered b 1.1277 before. And therefore A. C. needed not to repeat them againe, as if they had been unanswerable.

One Place of Scripture onely A. C. had not urged [ 7] before, either for proofe of this Continued Visible Suc∣cession, or for the Pope's Infallibility. Nor doth A. C. di∣stinctly * 1.1278 set down by which of the two hee will prove it. The Place is c 1.1279 Ephes. 4. Christ ascending gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Euangelists, some Pastors and Teachers, &c. for the edification of the Church. Now if he do mean to prove the Pope's Infallibility by this place, in his Pastorall Iudgement. Truly I doe not see how this can possibly be Collected thence. d 1.1280 Christ gave some to be Apostles for the Edifi∣cation of his Church: Therefore S. Peter, and all his Successours are in∣fallible in their Pastorall Iudgment. And if he meane to prove the Con∣tinued Visible Succession, which, he

saith, is to he found in no Church but the Romane, there's a lit∣tle more shew, but to no more purpose. A little more shew: Because it is added † 1.1281 verse 13. That the Apostles, and Prophets &c. shall continue at their worke (and that must needs be by succession) till we all meet in Vnity and perfection of Christ. But to no more purpose. For tis not said that they, or their Successors should Continue at this their worke in a Personall, uninterrupted Succession in any one Particular Church, Romane or other. Nor ever will A. C. bee able to proove that such a Succession is necessary in any one particular place. And if he could, yet his owne words tell us, the Personall Succession is nothing, if the Faith be not brought downe without change from Christ and his Apostles to this day, and so to the end of the world. Now here's a peece of cunning too, The Faith * 1.1282 brought down unchanged. For if A. C. meane by the Faith, the Creed, and that in Letter, 'tis true, the Church of Rome hath received and brought downe the Faith un∣changed from Christ and his Apostles to these our dayes. But then tis apparently false, That no Church differing from the Romane in Doctrine hath kept that Faith unchanged, and that by a visible and conti∣nued Succession. For the Greek Church differs from the Romane in Doctrine, and yet hath so kept that Faith unchanged. But if he meane by the Faith unchang∣ed, and yet brought down in a continuall visible Suc∣cession, not only the Creed in Letter, but in Sense too: And not that only, but all the Doctrinall Points about the Faith, which have beene Determined in all such Councels as the present Church of Rome allowes: (* 1.1283 as most certainly he doth so meane, and 'tis the Contro∣versie betweene us:) then 'tis most certaine, and most apparent to any understanding man that reads Anti∣quity with an impartiall eye, that a Visible Continuall Succession of Doctors and Pastors have not brought

downe the Faith in this sense from Christ, and his Apostles to these dayes of ours in the Romane Church. And that I may not bee thought to say, and not to prove, I give Instance. And with this, that if A. C. or any Iesuite can prove, That by a Visible Continued Suc∣cession 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 Inten∣tion of the Priest of Necessity in Baptisme. Or the Power of the Pope over a Generall Councell. Or his Infallibility with, or without it. Or his power to Depose Princes. Or the Pub∣like Prayers of the Church in an unknowne tongue; with di∣vers other Points have beene so taught, I, for my part, will give the Cause. Beside, for Succession in the gene∣rall I shall say this. 'Tis a great happinesse where it may be had Visible and Continued, and a great Con∣quest over the Mutability of this present world. But I do not finde any one of the Ancient Fathers that makes Locall, Personall, Visible, and Continued Succession, a Necessary Signe or Mark of the true Church in any one place. And where Vincentius a 1.1284 Li∣rinensis cals for Antiquity, Vniver∣sality, and Consent, as great Notes of Truth, hee hath not one word of Succession. And for that great Place in * 1.1285 Irenaeus, where that An∣cient 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 Proofe, 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 † 1.1286 Bellarmine boasts so much; Most manifest it is in the very same Place, that

* 1.1287 Irenaeus stood as much upon the Succes∣sion of the Churches then in Asia, and of Smyrna (though that no prime Apo∣stolicall Church) where Polycarpus sate Bishop, as of the Succession at Rome. By which it is most mani∣fest, that it is not Personall Succession only, 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 pre∣sent time; And so doubtlesse 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 selfe, and all its Fundamentals, we can shew as good, and full a Succession as you; And we pre∣tend no otherwise to it then you do, save that We take in the Greeks, which you do not. Only we reject your grosse superstitions, to which you can shew no Succession from the Apostles, either at Rome or else∣where, much less any one uninterrupted. And therfore he might have held his peace that says, It is evident that the Roman Catholike Church only hath had a Constant and un∣interrupted 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 yeares in which † 1.1288 Bellarmine confesses, and B. Iewell maintains the Churches Doctrine was Apostolicall.

And once more, before I leave [ 8] this Point. Most evident it is, That the Succession which the Fathers meant, is not tyed to Place or Per∣son, but 'tis tyed to the Verity of Do∣ctrine. For so a 1.1289 Tertullian expresly.

Beside the order of Bishops running downe (in Succession) from the beginning, there is required Consanguinitas Do∣ctrinae, that the Doctrine be allyed in blood to that of Christ and his Apostles. So that if the Doctrine bee no kinne to Christ, all the Succession become strangers, what nearnesse soever they pretend. And * 1.1290 Irenaeus speaks plainer then he. We are to obey those Presbyters, which toge∣ther with the Succession of their Bishop∣ricks have received Charisma Verita∣tis, the gift of truth. Now Stapleton be∣ing prest hard with these two Au∣thorities: first, a 1.1291 Confesses expresly, That Succession, as it is a Note of the true Church, is neither a Succession in place only, nor of Persons only, but it must be of true and sound Doctrine also. And had hee 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 beginnes to cast about, how hee may answer these Fathers, and yet maintaine Succession. Secondly, therefore he tels us, That that which these Fathers say, do nothing weaken Suc∣cession; but that it shall still be a mai•…•… Note of the true Church; and in that sense which he would have it. And his Reason is b 1.1292 B•…•…se sound Doctrine is indivisible from true and Lawfull Succession. Where you shall see this great Clarke (for so hee was) not able to stand to him∣selfe, when he hath forsaken Truth. For 'tis not long after, that he tels us, That the People are led along, and judge the Doctrine by the Pastors; But when the Church comes to examine, she judges the Pastors by their Do∣ctrine. And this c 1.1293 he sayes is necessary, Because a Man may become of a Pastor, a Wolfe. Now then let Stapleton take his choise. For either a Pastor in this Succession cannot become a Wolfe, and then this Proposition's

false; Or els if he can, then sound Doctrine is not in∣separable from true and Legitimate succession: And then the former Proposition's false, as indeed it is. For that a good Pastour may become a Wolfe, is no newes in the Ancient Story of the Church, in which are regi∣stred the Change of many a 1.1294 Great men into Hereticks, I spare their Names; And since Iudas chang'd from an Apostle to a Divell, S. Ioh. 6. 'tis no wonder to see * 1.1295 others change from Shepheards into Wolves. I doubt the Church is not empty of such Changelings at this day. Yea but Stapleton will helpe all this. For he adds, That suppose the Pastors do forsake true Doctrine, yet Succession shall still be a true Note of the Church; Yet not every Succes∣sion, but that which is Legitimate and true. Well: And what is that? Why, b 1.1296 That Succession is lawfull which is of those Pastors, which hold entire the Unity and the Faith. Where you may see this Samson's haire cut off againe. For at his word I'le take him. And if that onely be a Legitimate Succession which holds the Vnity and the Faith entire, then the Succession of Pastors in the Ro∣mane Church is illegitimate; For they have had c 1.1297 more Schismes among them then any other Church: There∣fore they have not kept the unity of the Church. And they have brought in grosse Superstition: Therefore they have not kept the Faith •…•…ntire. Now if A. C. have any minde to it, he may do well to helpe Stapleton out of these bryars, upon which he hath torne his Credit, and I doubt his Conscience too, to uphold the Corruptions of the Sea of Rome.

As for that in which he is quite mistaken, it is his [ 9] Inference, which is this. That I should therefore consider carefully, Whether it be not more Christian, and lesse braine∣sicke, to think that the Pope, being S Peter's Successour, with a Generall Councell should be Iudge of Controversies, &c. And that the Pastorall Iudgement of him should be accounted

Infallible, rather then to make every man that can read the Scripture, Interpreter of Scripture, Decider of Contro∣versies, Controller of Generall Councels, and Judge of his Judges: Or to have no Judge at all of Controversies of Faith, but permit every man to believe as he list. As if there were no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth, which were, instead of one saving Faith, to induce a Babilonicall Confusion of so many faiths, as fancies; Or no true Christian Faith at all. From which Evils, Sweet Jesus deliver us! I have Considered of this very carefully; But this Inference supposes that which I never granted, nor any Protestant that I yet know; Namely, That if I deny the Pope to be Iudge of Controversies, I must by and by either leave this supreme Judicature in the hands and power of every private man that can but read the Scripture; or els allow no Iudge 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and so let in all manner of Confusion. No, God forbid I should grant either: For I have exp•…•…esly * 1.1298 declared, That the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church, and a Law∣full and free Generall Councell determining according to these, is Iudge of Controversies: And that no private man whatsoever, is, or can be Iudge of these. Therefore A. C. is quite mistaken (and I pray God it be not wil∣fully, to beguile poore Ladi•…•…, and other their weake adherents, with seeming to say somewhat) I say, quite mistaken, to inferre, that I am either for a private Iudge, or for no Iudge; for I utterly disclaime both, and that as much, if not more then he, or any Romanist, who ever he be. But these things in this passage I can∣not swallow. First, That the Pope with a Generall Councell should be Iudge; for the Pope in ancient Councels never had more power then any the other Patriarchs: Precedency, perhaps for Orders sake, and other respects, he had. Nor had the Pope any Negative voice against the rest in point of difference. † 1.1299 No nor was he held

superiour to the Councell. Therefore the ancient Church never accounted or admitted him a Iudge; no, net with a Councell, much lesse without it. Secondly, it will not downe with me, that his Pastorall Iudgement should be Infal∣lible; especially since some of them have been as * 1.1300 Ignorant, as many that can but read the Scripture. Thirdly, I cannot admit this neither (though hee doe most cunningly thereby abuse his Readers:) That any thing hath been said by me, out of which it can justly be inferred, That there's no Infallible certainty of Faith to bee expected on earth. For there is most Infallible certainty of it, that is, of the Foundations of it in Scripture and the Creeds. And 'tis so clearely delivered there, as that it needs no Iudge at all to sit upon it, for the Ar∣ticles themselves. And so entire a Body is this one Faith in it selfe, as that the † 1.1301 Whole Church (much lesse the Pope) hath not power to adde one Article to it, nor leave to detract any one the least from it. But when Controversies arise about the mean∣ing of the Articles, or Superstructures upon them, which are Doctrines about the Faith, not the Faith it selfe (unlesse where they be immediate Consequences) then both in and of these a a 1.1302 Lawfull and free Generall Councell, determining according to Scripture, is the best Iudge on

earth. But then suppose uncertainty in some of these superstructures, it can never be thence concluded, That there is no Infallible certainty of the Faith it selfe. But 'tis time to end, especially for me, that have so Many Things of Weight lying upon me, and disabling me from these Polemicke Discourses; beside the Burden of sixty five yeares complete, which drawes on apace to the period set by the Prophet David, Psal. 90. and to the * 1.1303 Time, that I must goe, and give God, and Christ an Ac∣count of the Talent committed to my Charge; In which God, for Christ Iesus sake, be mercifull to me, who knowes, that however in many Weaknesses, yet I have with a faithfull and single heart (bound to his free Grace for it) laboured the Meeting, the Blessed Meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church, and * 1.1304 which God, in his own good time, will (I hope) effect. To Him be all Ho∣nour, and Praise for ever. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  1 Cor. 10. 15.
• b 1.2

  Quis non sine ullo Magistro, aut interprete ex se facilè cognos∣cat &c. Novat. de Trin. c. 23. Et loquitur de Mysterio Passion is Christi. Dijudicare est Mensurare &c. Unde & Mens dicitur a Metiendo. Tho. p. 1. q. 79. A. 9. ad 4. To what end then is a m nde, and an understanding given a Man, if he may not ap∣ply it to measure Truth? Et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. ab eo quod confiderat, & discernit. Quiadecernit inter verum & falsum. Damasc. l. 2. Fid. Orth. c. 22.

  And A. C. himselfe, p. 41. denyes not all Iudgement to private men; but sayes they are not so to relie absolutely upon their private Iudgement, as to adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly, which no man will deny.
• * 1.3

  A. C. p. 40.
• † 1.4

  Feritas vincat necesse est. sive Negantem, sive confitentem &c. S. Aug. Epist. 174.

  Oc•…•…ultari potest ad tempus veritas, vinci non potest. S. Aug. in Psal. 61.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. Cap. 4. §. 1. Romana particularis Ecclesta non potest errare in Fide.
• * 1.6

  Ibid. §. 2.
• a 1.7

  Navigare audent ad Petri Ca∣thodram, & Ecclesiam princi∣palem &c. Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, ad quos Perfidia habe∣re non potest accessum. Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 3.
• b 1.8

  Bin. Concil. To. 1. p. 152. Edit. Paris. 1636. Baron. Annal. an. 253. 254. 255.
• b 1.9

  Rom. 1. 8.
• a 1.10

  Ego tibi istam scelestam, Scelus, •…•…inguam abscindam: Plaut, Am∣phit. Ex hac enim parte pudor pugnat illinc petulantia &c. Cic.— Látuit plebeio tectus amictu Omnis Honos. Nullos comit at a est purpura fasces. Lucan. l. 2.
• † 1.11

  Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides A∣postolo praedican∣te, &c.
• * 1.12

  Epist. 67.
• b 1.13

  Eor so S. Cyprian begins his Epistle to Cornelius. Legi literas tuas frater, &c.

  And after: Sed enim lectâ aliâ Epistolâ tuâ frater, &c. S. Cypr. L. 1. Epist. 3.
• † 1.14

  Stephanus Frater noster Haere∣ticorum causam contra Christia∣nos, & contra Ecclesiam Dei asse∣rere conatur. Cypr. ad Pompei∣um contra Epist, Stephani Edit. per Erasmum Basil. p. 327.
• * 1.15

  Stephanus fratris nostri obstina∣tio dura: Ibid: p. 329. And it would be marked by the Iesu∣ite and his A. C. that still it is Stephani fratris nostri, and not Capitis, or summi Pastoris nostri.
• a 1.16

  Caranza in Concil. Carthag. sub Cornel. fine.
• b 1.17

  Can. 1.
• d 1.18

  Attamen scito Romanam sidem Apostolica vove laudatam ejus∣modi praestigias non recipere, eti∣amsi Angelus aliter annunciet, quàm semel praedicatum est, Pauli authoritate munitam non posse mutari. S. Hicron. L. 3. Apol. contra Ruffinum. Tom. 2. Edit. Paris. 1534. sol. 84. K. Perad∣venture it is here to be read (& jam si) For so the place is more plaine, and more strong, but the Answer is the same.
• a 1.19

  Deinde ut Epistolas contra te ad Orientem mitteret, & cauteri∣um tibi Haereseós inureret. Di∣ceret{que} libros Origenis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, à te translatos, & simplici Eccle∣siae Romanae plebi traditos, ut fi∣dei veritatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant, per te perderent. S. Hicron. ibid. fol. 85. K.
• a 1.20

  Qui cum Fidei dux esse non po∣tuit, perfidiae existat. S. Cyprian. L. 1. Epist. 7. Fidem perfidi &c. Ibid. Facti sunt ex Ovibus Vulpes, ex fidelibus perfidi. Optatus. L. 7. Quomodo iis prosit quum bapti∣zantur Parentum Fides, quorum iis non potest obesse perfidia. S. Aug. Epist. 23. Quantò po∣tiùs Fides aliena potest consulere parvulo, cui sua perfidia, &c. S. Aug. L. 3. de lib. Arbit. c. 23.
• b 1.21

  Ne fidei veri∣tatem quam ab Apostolo didice∣rant, per te per∣derent, ut suprà.
• a 1.22

  Muta titu∣lum, & Roma∣nam simplicita∣tem tanto peri∣culo libera. ibid. fol. 84. K.
• a 1.23

  Uetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam Fidem, & semper eam retinet, sicut decet Urbem, quae toti Orbt pr•…•…sidet, semper de Deo integram fidem habere. Greg. Naz. in Carmine de vità suà. Ante medium. p. 9. Edit. Paris. 1609.
• b 1.24

  The words in the Greeke, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Haec quidem fuit diu, & nunc adhuc est recti grada. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Est; So S. Gregory sayes, but of an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or a retinebit, he sayes no∣thing.
• * 1.25

  Petram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud, quàm inconcustam & fir∣missimam Discipuli fidem vocavit. In quà, Ecclesia Christi ita fundata & firmata esset, ut non laberetur, & esset inexpugnabilis inferorum portis, in perpetuu•…•… manens. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trin. l. 4. p. 278. Parisiis, An. 1604.
• * 1.26

  Et ego dico tibi) i. tuae Confessioni, quâ mihi di•…•…isti, Tu es Christus &c. Dion. Carthus. in S. Mat. 16. 18. Et super hanc Petram) i. Fidei hujus sir∣mitatem & fundamentum. Vel super hanc Petram quam confessus es, i. super Meipsum Lapidem An∣gularem &c. Ibid.
• * 1.27

  S. Matt. 16. 18.
• b 1.28

  Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 3. §. penult.
• c 1.29

  Illud non importunè commonendum puto, quod in diversis Ecclesiis aliqua in his verbis inveniunt ur adjecta. In Ecclesiâ tamen Vrbis Romae hoc non de∣prehenditur factum. Pro eo arbritror, quod neque Haeresis ulla illic sumpsit exordium, & mos ibi servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam Baptismi sus∣cepturi sunt, publicò, id est, Fidelium populo au∣diente, Symbolum reddere: Et utique adjectionem unius saltem Sermonis, eorum qui praecesserunt in Fide, non admittit auditus. In caeteris autem Locis, quantum intelligi datur, propter nonnullos Haere∣ticos addita quaedam videntur, per quae novellae Do∣ctrinae sensus crederetur excludi. &c. Ruffin. in Exposit. Symbol. (ut habetur inter Opera S. Cy∣priani) Praefat. Expos.
• a 1.30

  Baron. To. 2. An. 254. Num. 62.
• b 1.31

  Pamel. in Cy∣prian. Epist. 41. & 73.
• c 1.32

  Petavius in Epiphan. Haeres 59.
• d 1.33

  Onuph. in No∣tis ad Plat. in vita Cornelii.
• * 1.34

  Haeretici alii in morem venena∣torum serpentum in Asiam, & Phrygiam irrepserunt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quorum Dux Florinus. Euseb. L. 5. cap. 14. And in Ruffi∣nus his Translation, c. 15. And then afterwards c. 19. & 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Now this Blastus taught that God was the Author of sin.
• a 1.35

  Ruff. in Expo∣sit. Symb. p. 188. In which rec∣koning heplain∣ly agrees with the Church of England. Art. 6.
• b 1.36

  Novi, & Veteris Testamenti Vo∣lumina &c. sicut ex Patrum Mo∣numentis accepimus. Ruff. in Symb. p. 188. Et haec sunt quae Patres in∣tra canonem concluserunt. Et ex quibus Fidei nostrae Assertiones constare voluerunt. Ib. p. 189.
• c 1.37

  Si Episcopi Romani est, stultè facis ab eo Exemplar Epistolae pe∣tere, cui missa non est, &c. Vade potiùs Romane, & praesens ap•…•… eum expostula, cur tibi & absenti & innocenti fecerit injuriā. Pri∣mum, ut non reciper•…•…t Expositio∣nem Fidei tuae, quam omnis (ut scribis) Italia comprobav•…•…, &c. Deinde, ut Cauterium tibi Haere∣scôs, dum nescis, inureret. S. Hic∣ron. Apol. 3. advers. Ruffin. fol. 85. K.
• † 1.38

  Quum quis se vell•…•… persona•…•… t•…•…stium post publicationem repel∣lere fuerit protestatus. Si quid pro ipso dixerint, iis non creditur. Ex∣tra. Tex. & ibi Gloss. c. Praesen∣tium 31. de Testibus.
• a 1.39

  Bellar. L. 4. de Rō. Pont. c. 4. §. Addo etiam, Quae e•…•…si ab Haereticis contem∣nentur, &c.
• b 1.40

  Nemini in sua causa ereden∣dum, nisi conformitter ad Legem Divinam, Naturalem & Cano∣uicam loquatur. So Io. Gerson, & the Doctors of Paris cited in Lib. Anon. de Ecclesiastica & Po∣litica Potestate. c. 16. Ed. Paris. 1612. Now these Popes doe not speak here conformably to these Lawes.
• b 1.41

  L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3.
• * 1.42

  A. C. p. 42.
• † 1.43

  §. 33. Consid. 7. Num. 5. & 12
• c 1.44

  Romanae Ecclesia Particularis non potest errare, persistente Romae Apostolicá sede. Propositio haec est verissima, & fortasse tam vera quam illa prima de Pontifice. L. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. 2. And that first proposition is this: Sum∣mus Pontifex cum totam Eccle∣siam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest, Ibid. c. 3. §. 1.
• a 1.45

  Pia & probabilissima Senten∣tia est, Cathedram Petri non posse separari à Româ, & pro∣inde Romanam Ecclesiam abso∣lutè non posse errare, vel deficere. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. Quod nihilominus.
• b 1.46

  Contraria sen∣tentia nee est Hae∣retica, nee mani∣festè erronea. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. At so∣cundum.
• * 1.47

  A. C. p. 42.
• * 1.48

  De util. Cre∣dendi c. 2.
• a 1.49

  Non ex Filio, sed Spiritum Fi∣lii esse di•…•…imus. Damascon. L. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11. Et Patris per filium. Ibid.
• b 1.50

  Pluralitas in Uoce, salvat â unitate in re, non repugnat uni•…•…ati Fidei. Durand. Lib. 3. d. 25. q. 2.
• c 1.51

  Magist. 1. Sent. d. 11. D. Sane sciendum est, quòd licet in praesenti Articulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent, tamen sensu non differunt, &c. Bandinus L. 1. de Trin. d. 11 & Bonavent. in 1 Sent. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. §. 12. Licet Graecis infensissimus, quùm dixit Graeces objicere curi•…•…sitatem Romanis, addendo (I ilio{que}) Quia sine hu∣jus Articuli professione salus er at; non Respondet negando salutem esse, sed dicit tantùm opportunam fuisse Determinationem propter periculum. Et postea, §. 15. Sunt qui volunt sustinere opinionem Graecorum, & Latinorum, distinguendo duplicem modum Proce∣dendi.

  Sed fortè si duo sapientes, unus Graecus, alter Latinus, uterque ve∣rus amator Veritatis, & non propriae dictionis &c. de hac visa con∣trarietate disquirerent, pateret utique tandem ips•…•…m Contrarieta∣tem non esse veraciter realem, sicut est Vocalis. Scotus in 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. Antiquorum Graecorum à Latinis diserepantia in voce potiùs est, & modo explicandi Emanationem Sp. S. quàm in ipsá re. &c. Iodocus Clictoveus in Damase. L 1. Fid Orth. c. 11. Et quidam ex Graecis concedunt, quòd sit á Filio, vel ab eo prostu∣at. Thom. p. 1. q. 36. A. 2. C. Et Thomas ipse dicit, Sp. S. pro∣cedere mediatè à Filio. ib. A. 3. ad 1. sal•…•…em ratione Personarum Spirantium.

  Respondeo cum Bessarione, & Gennadio, Damascenum non negâsse Sp. S. procedere ex Filio, quod ad rem attinet, quùm dixerit Spi∣ritum esse Imaginem Filii, & per Filium, sed existimásse tutiùs dici per Filium, quàm ex Filio, quantum ad modum loquendi, &c. Bellarm. L. 2. de. Christo c. 27. §. Respondeo igitur. Et Tollet. in S. Iohn 15. Ar. 25. & Lutheran. Resp. ad Resp. 2. Ieremiae Patriarchae.
• d 1.52

  Eadem penitùs Sententia, ubi suprà, Clictov.
• e 1.53

  Bellarm. 4. de Notis Eccl. cap. 8. §. Quod au∣tem apud Graecos.
• a 1.54

  Lib. 3. cont. Hares. fol. 93. A. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vidcant ht, qui famile de haerest pronumiant, quā facile etiam ipsi errent: Et intel∣ligant, non esse tam leviter de Haeresi censendū. &c. In verbo (Beatitudo.)
• b 1.55

  Iunius Anim∣ad. in Bellar. cont. 2. L. 3. c. 23.
• * 1.56

  P. First righting the Sentence of S. Austine: Ferendus est Disputator errans. &c. Here A. C. p. 44. tells us very learnedly, that my corrupt Copy hath righting instead of reading the Sen∣tence of S. Austine. Whereas I here use the word righting, not as it is opposed to reading (as any man may discerne A. C. palpably mistakes) but for doing right to S. Austine, And if I had meant it for writing, I should not have spelled it so.
• † 1.57

  By which is proved, That all poynts Defined by the Church are Fundament∣all.
• a 1.58

  Your owne word.
• b 1.59

  Inconcussâ fide ab omnibus. Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 1. Art. 10. C.
• c 1.60

  Sco us 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1.
• d 1.61

  Ecclesiae Voces etiam extra Scripturam. Stap. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. Quae maturo judicio definivit &c. Solidum est, & etiamsi nullo Scrip∣turarum, aut evidenti, aut probabili testimonio confirmaretur, bid.
• e 1.62

  Et penes Cercopes Victoria sit, Greg. Naz. de Differen. vitae. Cercopes. 1. Astutos, & ve∣teratoriae improbitat is Episcopos, qui artibus suis ac dolis omnia Concilia perturbabant. Schol. ib.
• f 1.63

  Quum exim una & cadem si∣des sit, ne{que} is qui multum de ipsà dicere potest, plus∣quam oportet, di∣cit; neque qui pa∣rùm, ipsam im∣minuit. Iren. L. 1. advers. haeres. c. 3.
• a 1.64

  Resolutio Occhami est, quòd n•…•… tota Ecclesia, nec Concilium Ge∣nerale, nec summus Pontifex potest facere Articulum, quod non suit Articulus. Sed in du∣biis propositionibus potest Eccle∣sia determinare, an sint Cathili∣cae, &c. Tamen sic determinando non facit quod sint Catholicae, quum prius essent ante Ecclesiae Determinationem, &c. Almain. in 3. D. 25. Q. 1.
• b 1.65

  Regula Fidei una omnino est, so∣lailla immobilis, & irreforma∣bilis. Tertul. de Virg. vel. cap. 1. In hac fide, &c. Nihil transmu∣tare, &c. Athan. Epist. ad Io∣vin. de side.
• c 1.66

  Occham. Al∣main. in 3. Sent. D. 25. q. 1.
• d 1.67

  Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. Ar. 7. C.
• f 1.68

  Fides Divina non ideo habet certitudinem, quia toti Ecclesiae communis est: sed quia nititur Authoritate Dei, qui nec falli, nec fallere potest, quum sit ipsa Veritas. L. 3. de Justif. c. 3. §. Quod verò Concilium.

  Probatio Ecclesiae facit ut omni∣bus innotescat Objectum (Fidei Divinae) esse revelatum à Deo, & propter hoc certum & indubi∣tatum; non autem tribuit firmi∣tatem verbo Dei aliquid reve∣lantis. Ibid. §. At inqust.
• a 1.69

  Scotus in 1. Sent. D. 11. q. 1.
• b 1.70

  Bellarm. L. 2. de Conc. Auth. c. 12. Concilia cùm definiunt, non faciunt aliquid esse infallibilis ve∣ritatis sed declarant. Explicare, Bonavent. in 1. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. ad sinem Explanare, declarare. Tho 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad. 2. & 2. 2. q. 1 A. 10. ad. 1.

  Quid unquam aliud (Ecclesia) C•…•… ili rum Decretis enisa est, nisi ut quod anica simplicitèr cre∣debatur hoc idem postea diligen∣tiùs crederetur. Vin. Lyr. cont. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 32
• a 1.71

  Sent. 1. D. 11
• b 1.72

  Alb. Mag. in 1. Sent. D. 11 Art. 7.
• c 1.73

  Hoc semper, nec quicquam praete∣rea. Vin. Lyr. c. 32.
• d 1.74

  In novâ Haeresi Veritas prius erat de Fide, et si non ita de•…•… rata. Scotus in 1. D. 11. q. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fine. Haeretici multa quae er•…•… implicita sidei nostra, comp•…•… runt explicare. Bonavent. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 D. 11. A. 1. Q. 1. ad finem Tho. 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad. 2. Quam∣vis Apostolica Sedes, aut Gene∣rale Concilium de Haeresi cen∣sere possit, non tamen ideò As∣sertio aliqua erit Haeresis, qui. Ecclesia definivit, sed quia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dei Catholica repugnat. Eccle∣sia siquidèm suâ definitione 〈◊〉〈◊〉 facit talem Assertionem esse Hae∣resin, quùm etiamsi ipsa non defi∣nivisset, esset Haeresis; sed id efficit ut paeteat, &c. Alphon à Castro L. 1. Advers. Haeres. c. 8. fol. 21. D.
• e 1.75

  Ecclesia non amputat necessa∣ria, non apponit super•…•…ua. Vin. Lir. c. 32. Deut. 4. 2.
• * 1.76

  Thom. Supp. q. 6. A. 6. C.
• * 1.77

  August. Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. c. 12. Fundata res est. In aliis Quastioni∣bus non diligentèr digestis, nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate sirmatis ferendus est Disputator errans: ibi ferendus est error; non tantum progredi debet, ut eti∣am Fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quate∣re moli•…•….
• b 1.78

  Ibid. cap. 20.
• c 1.79

  Origine Pec∣cati.
• d 1.80

  Ex eâ re, unde nulla erat Quae∣stio, soluta est ex∣orta Quaestio.
• e 1.81

  Hoc de Funda∣mento Ecclesiae sumpsit ad con∣firmandum La∣pidem nut antem.
• f 1.82

  Concil. Mile∣vit. c. 2.
• g 1.83

  Rom. 5. 15.
• h 1.84

  Vt Fundamen∣tum ipsum Ec∣clesiae quatere moliatur.
• c 1.85

  1 Tim. 3. 15.
• d 1.86

  Mos fundatis∣simus. S. Aug. Ep. 28.
• e 1.87

  Staple. Rebect. cont. 4. q. 3. A. 1.
• f 1.88

  Quae quidem, si tam manifesta monstratur, ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholicâ te∣neor. Ita si aliquid apertissimum in Evangelio. S. Aug. contra Fund. c. 4.
• a 1.89

  Ezek. 13. 11.
• b 1.90

  Plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate.
• c 1.91

  1. 2. de Author. Concil. c. 5. §. A solis particula∣ribus.
• d 1.92

  Can. 1. & 4.
• * 1.93

  Concil. Mile∣vit. Can. 2,
• † 1.94

  Nay, if your owne Capellus be true, De Ap∣pell. Eccl, Afric. c. 2. n. 5. It was •…•…ut a Provinci∣all of Numidia, not a Plenary of Africk.
• * 1.95

  A. C. p. 45.
• a 1.96

  Almain. in 3. Sent. Dis. 25. q. 2. A Fide enim unà Ecclesia di∣citur una.
• b 1.97

  Aliquid pertinet ad Fidem du∣pliciter. Uno modo directè, sicut ea quae nobis sunt principalitèr divinitùs tradita, ut Deum esse Trinum, &c. Et circa haec opi∣nari falsum hoc ipso inducit Haere∣sin, &c. Alio modo indirectè. Ex quibus consequitur aliquid con∣trarium Fidei, &c. Et in his ali∣quis potest falsum opinari absque periculo Haeresis, donec Sequela il∣la ei innotescat, &c. Tho. p. 1. q. 32. A. 4. C. There are things Necessary to the Faith: and things which are but Accessory, &c. Hooker L. 3. Eccl. Pol. §. 3.
• b 1.98

  Si quis dixerit Ordines ab Epi∣scopis collatos sine populi vel pote∣statis saecularis consensu aut voca∣tione irritos esse, Anathema sit. Con. Trid. Sess. 23. Can. 7.
• * 1.99

  A. C. p. 45.
• a 1.100

  Cont. Haer. c. 31. Abdicatà enim qualibet parte Catholici Dogmatis, alia quo{que} at que item alia, &c. Quid aliud ad extre∣mum sequetur, nisi ut totum pa∣riter repudictur?
• * 1.101

  §. 30. N. 21.
• b 1.102

  Ecclesia De•…•…sitorum apud se Dogmatum Custos, &c. Deni{que} quid unquam Conciliorum De∣cretis enisa est, nisi, ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur, &c. Vin. Lir. cont. Harcs. c. 32.
• c 1.103

  Vin. Lir. cont. haer. c. 31. Impi∣orum & turpium Errorum Lu∣panar: ubi erat antè castae & in∣corrupt•…•… Sacrarium Veritatis.
• * 1.104

  A. C. p. 46.
• a 1.105

  Vin. Lir. cont. Haer. c. 32.
• b 1.106

  Relect. cont. 4. q. 1. Art. 3. Etiamsi nullo Scripturarum, aut evidenti, aut probabili Testimo∣nio, &c.
• c 1.107

  Non potest aliquid certum esse certitudine fidei, nisi, aut immedi∣atè contineatur in Uerbo Dei, aut ex Uerbo Dei per evidentem con∣sequentiam deducatur. Bellar. L. 3. de Justifica: c. 8. §. 2.
• a 1.108

  S. Matth. 4. 19
• b 1.109

  S. Matth. 16. 21
• a 1.110

  Tertull. Apol. contra Gentes, c. 47. de veland. virg. c. 1. S. Au∣gust. Serm. 15. de Temp. cap. 2. Ruffin. in Symb. apud Cyprian. p. 357.
• b 1.111

  Alb. Mag. in 1. Sent. D. 11. A. 7.
• c 1.112

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 3.
• d 1.113

  Bonavent. ibid. Dub. 2. & 3. in literam.
• e 1.114

  Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 1. Art. 7. c.
• f 1.115

  Bellar. L. 4. de Verb. Dei non Script. c. 11. §. Primum est.
• g 1.116

  Tho. 2. 2ae. q. 1. A. 7. C.
• h 1.117

  1. S. Iohn 4. 2.
• i 1.118

  Heb. 11. 6.
• * 1.119

  A. C. p. 46.
• a 1.120

  Conc. Trident. Sess. 3.
• b 1.121

  In 1. Sent. D. 11. A. 7. Regu∣la Fidei est con∣cors Scripturu∣rum sensus cum Articulis Fidei: Quia illis duo∣bus regularibus Praeceptis regi∣tur Theologus.
• * 1.122

  §. 16. N. 1.
• a 1.123

  Art. 3.
• a 1.124

  Scotus in 1. D. 11. q. 1.
• b 1.125

  Stapleton Relect. Con. 5. q. 5. Art. 1.
• c 1.126

  Bellarm, 4. de Christo. c. 6. & 12. Scripturae passim hoc docent.
• d 1.127

  Thom. 2. •…•…ae. q. 1. A, 9, ad 1.
• e 1.128

  S. Aug. Ep. 99.
• g 1.129

  Tho. p. 3. q. 52. A. 2. c. per suam essentiam.
• h 1.130

  Dur in 3. d. 22. q. 3.
• i 1.131

  Bellar. L. 4. do Christo. c. 16.
• k 1.132

  Bellar. Recog. p. 11.
• l 1.133

  Sequuntur enim. Tho. p. 3. Q. 52. A. 2.
• m 1.134

  Non est pertinaciter asserendum, quin Anima Christi per alium modum nobis ignotum potuerit descendere ad Infer∣num: Nec nos negamus alium modum esse for sit an veriorem; sed fatemur nos illum ignor arc. Durand. in 3. sent. Dist. 22. q. 3. Nu. 9.
• * 1.135

  And this was an Ancient fault too, for S. Augustine checks at it in his time. Noli colligere calumnias ex Episcoporum scriptis, sive Hillarii, sive Cypriani & Agrippini. Primò, quia hoc genus litera∣rum ab Authoritate Canonis distinguen∣dum est. Non enim sic leguntur tanquam it a ex iis testimonium proferatur, ut con∣trà sentire non liceat, sicubi fortè aliter sentirent, quàm veritas postulat. S. Aug. Ep. 48. &c. And yet these were farre greater men in their generations, then M. Rogers was.
• † 1.136

  Stapl. Cont. 5. q. 5. A. 1.
• a 1.137

  S. Mat. 16. 19.
• b 1.138

  S. Ioh. 21. 15.
• c 1.139

  S. Luk. 22. 35.
• d 1.140

  Rogers in Art. Eccle. Angl. Art. 3.
• e 1.141

  Ibid.
• * 1.142

  A. C. p. 47.
• * 1.143

  Angelici D. S. Tho. Summa.
• † 1.144

  Celebratissimi Patris Dom. Bonaventurae Doctoris Sera∣phici in 3. L. Sent. Disputata.
• * 1.145

  A. C. p. 47.
• * 1.146

  Bellar. Lib. 3. de Justificat. c. 1. & 14.
• † 1.147

  Huic Concilio Catholici omnes ingenia sua, & judicia sponte sub∣jiciunt. Bellar. 3. de Justif. c. 3. §. Sed Concilii Trid•…•…i.
• a 1.148

  Hist. Concil. Trident. Lib. 2. p. 245. Edit. Lat. Leidae. 1622.
• * 1.149

  A. C. p. 47.
• b 1.150

  Bellar. L. 3. de Iustif. c. 3.
• * 1.151

  A. C. p. 47.
• † 1.152

  And therfore A. C. needs not make such a Noise about it, as he doth. p. 48
• * 1.153

  Can. 5.
• * 1.154

  A. C. p. 48.
• a 1.155

  Can. 5.
• * 1.156

  Concil. Trident.
• * 1.157

  A. C. p. 45.
• a 1.158

  S. Basil. de verâ & piâ fide. Manifesta defectio Fidei est, importare quicquam eorum quae scripta non sunt. S. Hilar. L. 2. ad. Const. Aug. Fidem tantùm secun∣dum ca quae scripta sunt desider autem, & hoc qui repudiat Antichristus est, & qui simulat, Anathema est. S. Aug. L. 2. de Doctr. Christian. c. 9. In iis quae apertè in Scrip∣tura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent si∣dem, m•…•…res{que} vivendi. And to this place Bellarm L. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto. c. 11. saith, that S. Augustine speakes, de illis Dogmatibus quae necestaria sunt omnibus simpliciter, of those Points of faith, which are necessary simply for all men. So farre then he grants the question. And that you may know, it fell not from him on the suddaine, he had said as much before, in the begin∣ning of the same Chapter, and here he confirmes it againe.
• b 1.159

  S•…•…tus Proleg. in sent. q. 2. Scriptura sufficienter con∣tinet Doctrinam necessariam Uiatori. Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi & Apostolorum, veritas fidei est suffi ientèr explicata. And he speakes there of the written Word.
• c 1.160

  Scripturam Fundamentum esse, & columnam Fidei fatemur in suo genere, i. can genere Testimoniorum. & in materia Credendorum. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. in fine.
• * 1.161

  A. C. p. 48.
• * 1.162

  A. C. p. 49.
• a 1.163

  Habitus enim Pi∣d•…•…i 〈◊〉〈◊〉 se habet in ordine ad Theologi∣am, si•…•…ut se habit Habitus intelleclus ad Sc•…•…s hum∣nas. M. Canus. L, 2. de Loc. c. 8.
• * 1.164

  A. C. p. 49.
• † 1.165

  S. Aug. expresly of the Baptisme of Infants. l. 1. de Pec∣•…•…ato. Me•…•…. & R•…•…ss c. 30. Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. c 27. Et L. 3. de A•…•… & ejus Origine. c 13. Nay they of the Romane Party which urge the Baptisme of Infants, as a matter of Faith, and yet not to be concluded out of Scripture; when they are not in eager pursuit of this controversie, but look upon truth with a more indifferent eye, confesse as much (even the Learned st of them) as we ask. Ad•…•… •…•…dum autem Salvato, em dum d•…•…cit [Nisi quis renatus, &c.] ne•…•…ssitatem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 omnibus, at pr•…•…de Parvulos debere renas•…•…i ex aqu•…•… & Spiritu. Iansen. Harm. in Euang. c. 20. So here's Baptismo Necessary for Infants, and that Necessity imposed by our Saviour, and not by the Church onely. H•…•… n•…•…llo alio quàm hoc Scripturae testimonio probare possunt, Infantes essé baptizandos. Mald. in S. Ioh. 3. 5. So Maldonat con∣fesses that the Hereticks (we know whom he meanes) can prove the Baptisme of Infants by no Testimony of Scrip∣ture but this: which speech implies, That by this Testi∣mony of Scripture it is, and can be proved, and therefore not by Church-Tradition only. And I would faine know, why Bell•…•…. L. 1. de Baptism. C. 8. §. 5. should bring three Arguments out of Scripture to prove the Baptisme of In∣fants [Habemus in Scripturis tria argumenta, &c.] if Bap∣tisme cannot be proved at all out of Scripture, but only by the Tradition of the Church. And yet, this is not Bellar∣mine's way alone, but Sua•…•… in Tho. p. 3 q 68. Disput. 25. Sect. 1. §. 2. Ex Scripturâ possunt va•…•… Argumenta sumi ad consirmandum Paed 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Et fi•…•…, &c And G•…•…g. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 L. de Bapt s. Par•…•…um c. 2. §. 1. And the Pope himselfe, Innocent. 3. L. 3 D•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it. 42. Cap Majores. And they all jump with S. Amb. L. 10. Epist. 84. ad Dem•…•…dem •…•…nem: who expresly assirmes it, Paedobaptismum esse Con∣stitutionem Salvator is: And proves it out of S. Joh. 3. 5.
• a 1.166

  Infan•…•…s •…•…os esse Originalis peccati, & i•…•…o baptizandos esse, Antiquam Fidei Regulam vocat. S. Aug. Ser. 8. de ver. Apos. c. 8. Et n•…•…mo vobis susurret doctrinas ali•…•…nas, ho•…•… Ecclesia semper ha∣buit, semper t•…•…nuit, hoc a majo∣rum side recepit, &c. S. Aug. Ser. 10. de verb. Apost. c. 2. & S. Amb•…•…os. L. 10. Ep. 84. cir•…•…a medium. Et S. Chrysost. Hom. d•…•… Adam & Eva. Hoc praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique dis∣susa.
• b 1.167

  Egi causam corum qui pro se loqui non possunt, &c. S. Aug. Serm. 8. de verb. Apost. c. 8.
• * 1.168

  Act. 2. 38, 39.
• a 1.169

  Nullum excipit, non Iudaeum, non Gentilem, non Adultum, non Puerum &c. Ferus in Act. 2. 39.
• b 1.170

  Et ad Filios vestros: quare debent consentire, quum ad usum rationis perveniunt, ad implenda promissa in Baptismo, &c. Salm. Tract. 14. up∣on the place.
• a 1.171

  Bellar. L. 4. de Verbo Dei c. 9. §. 5.
• b 1.172

  S. Aug. Gen. ad Lit. c. 23. Consue∣tudo Matris Ecclesia in Baptizan∣dis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, nec omninò credenda, nisi Aposto∣lica esset Traditio.
• c 1.173

  Cur Antiquam fidei Regulam frangere cona∣ris? S. Aug. Ser. 8. de ver. Apos. c. 8. Hoc Ecclesia semper tenuit. Ib. Ser. 10. c. 2.
• a 1.174

  Quid necessarium habuit Infans Christum, si non aegrotat? S. Matth. 9. 12.

  Quid est quod dicis, nisi ut non acce∣dant ad Iesum? Sed tibi clamat Ie∣sus. Sine Parvulos venire ad me. S. Aug. in the fore-cited places.
• * 1.175

  S. Marc. 10. 14.
• b 1.176

  Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolo∣rum seculum pro certo referat. Calv. 4. Inst. c. 16 §. 8.
• † 1.177

  Miserrimum alylum foret, si pro Defensione Paedubaptismi ad nudam Ecclesiae authoritatem fugere cogere∣mur. Calv. 4. Inst. c. 8. §. 16.
• * 1.178

  §. 15. Num. 1. A. C. p. 49.
• c 1.179

  Orig in Rom 6 6. tom. 2 p. 543. Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Ap•…•…stolis Traditionem suscepit, etiā parvulis Baptismū dare. Et S. Aug. Ser. 10. de verb. Apos. c. 2. Hoc Ecclesia à Majorū side percepit. And it is to be observed, that nei∣ther of these Fathers (nor i believe any other) say that the Church received it à Traditione solâ, or à Majorum side sola: as if Tradition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exclude collection of it out of Scripture.
• * 1.180

  Yea, and Bellarmine himself avers, Omnes Traditiones &c. contineri in Scripturis in universali. L. 4. de verb. Det non scripto. c. 10. §. Sic etiam. And S. Basil. Serm. de fide approves only those Agrapha, quae non sunt alie∣na à piâ secundū Scripturā Sententid.
• b 1.181

  Qui conantur sidem destruere sub specie Questionis difficilis, aut fortè indissolubilis, &c. Orig. Q. 35. in S. Matth.
• c 1.182

  To know that Scriptures are Di∣vine, and infallible in every part, is a Foundation so necessary, as if it bee doubtfully question'd, all the Faith built upon Scripture fals to the ground. A. C. p. 47. Necesse est nôsse extare Libros aliquos vere Di∣vinos. Bellarm. L. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto. c. 4. §. Quarto necesse. Et etiam libros qui sunt in manibus esse illos. Ibid. §. Sexto oportet.
• * 1.183

  (1.)
• * 1.184

  (2.)
• * 1.185

  (3.)
• * 1.186

  (4.)
• * 1.187

  Rom. 1. 20.
• a 1.188

  Esse aliquas ve∣ras Traditiones demonstratur ex Scripturis. Bel∣lar. L. 4 de ver∣bo Dei non Scri∣pto. c. 5. and A. C p. 50. proves Tradition out of 2 Thes. 2.
• * 1.189

  Arist. 1. Post. c. 2. T. 16. Per Pacium. Quocirca si 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, propter prima scimus & cre∣dimus, illa quoque scimus & cre∣dimus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 magis, quia per illa scimus, & credimus etiam po∣steriora.
• † 1.190

  Eorum errorem dissimulare non possum, qui asserunt fidern No∣stram, cò tanquàm in ultimam credendi causam reducendam esse. Vt Credamus Ecclesiam esse Ve∣racem &c. M. Canus. L. 2. de Lo∣cis. c. 8. §. Cui, & tertium,
• * 1.191

  Uox Ecclesiae non est formale Obiectum Fidei. Stapl. Relect. Cont: 4. q. 3. A. 2. Licet in Articulo Fidei [Credo Ecclesiam] fortè contineatur hoc totum, Cre∣do ea, quae docet Ecclesia: tamen non intelligitur ne∣cessariò, quod Credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam Testi in∣sallibili. ibid. Vbi etiam rejicit Opinionem. Durandi & Gabr. Et Waldens. L. 2 Doctr. Fidei Art. 2. c. 21. Num. 4. Testimonium Ecclesiae Catholicae est Obje∣ctum Fidei Christianae, & Legislatio Scripturae Cano∣nica, subjicitur tamen ipsi sicut Testis Iudici, & Testi∣monium Veritati &c. Canus Loc. Lib. 2. cap. 8. Nec, si Ecclesia aditum nobis prabet ad hujusmodi Libros Sa∣cros cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est, sed ultrà •…•…portet progredi, & Solidà Dei veritate niti &c.
• b 1.192

  Omnis ergo Ecclesiastica Authoritas, cùm sit ad Testificandum de Christo, & Legibus ejus: vilior est Christi legibus, & Scripturis Sanctis necessariò post∣ponenda. Wald. L. 2. Doct. Fidei Art. 2. cap. 21. Numb. 1.
• c 1.193

  Totum est majus suâ parte. Etiamsi Axioma sit apud Eucl•…•…dem, non tamen ideò Geometricum put an∣dum est, quia Geometres to utitur. Vtitur enim & tota Logica. Ram in Schol. Matth. And Aristotle vindicates such Propositions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. from being vsurped by Particular Sciences. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Quia conveniunt omni E•…•…ti; & non alicui Generi separatim. 4. Metapb. cap. 3. T. 7.
• d 1.194

  Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicen∣di, quia non Sermonires, sed Rei Sermo est subjectus. S. Hilar. L. 4. de Trin. Ex materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus. Tert. L. de Resur. carnis. c. 37.
• e 1.195

  Uidendo differentias Similium ad Similia. Orig. Tract. 19 in S Matth.
• f 1.196

  Recolendum est unde venerit ista Sententia. & qua illam superiora pepererint, quibúsque connexa depende∣at. S. Aug. Ep. 29 Solet circumstantia Scriptura illumi∣nare Sementiam. S. Aug. L. 83. Quaest. q. 69.
• g 1.197

  Quae ambiguè & obscurè in nonnullis Scripturae Sa∣crae locis dicta videntur, per ea quae alibi certa, & indu∣bitata habentur, d•…•…clarantur. S Basil in Regulis con∣tractis, Reg. 267. Manifestiora quaeque praevaleant, & de incertis certiora praescribant. Tert. L. de Resur. c. 19 & 21. S. Aug. L. 3. De Doct Christ. c. •…•…6. Moris est Scripturarum obscuris Manifesta subnectere, & quod prius sub aenigmatibus dixerint, apertâ voce pro∣ferre. S. Hieron. in Esa 19. princ. Uide. §. 26. Nu. 4.
• h 1.198

  S. Aug. L. 3. de Doctr. Christi∣anâ.
• * 1.199

  And this is so necessary, that Bellarmine confesses, that if Tradition (which he relies upon) be not Di∣vine: He and his can have no Faith. Non habemus fidem. Fides enim verbo Dei nititur. L. 4. de verbo Dei. c. 4. §. At si ita est.

  And A. C. tells us. p. 47. To know that Scripture is Divine and Infallible in every part, is a Founda∣tion so necessary, as if it be doubtfully questioned, all the Faith built upon Scripture falls to the ground. And he gives the same reason for it, p. 50. which Bel∣armine doth.
• * 1.200

  Ecclesiam spiritu afflatam esse, certè credo. Non ut veritat•…•…m, authoritatemve Libris Canonicis tri•…•…uat, sed ut doc eat illos, non alios esse Canoni∣cos. Nec fi aditum nobis praebet ad hujusmodi sa∣cros Libr•…•…s cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquie∣scendum est, sed ultra oportet progredi, & solidâ Dei veritate niti. Quâ ex re intelligitur quid sibi volucrit Augustinus, quam ait, Evangelio non crederem, nisi &c. M. Canus L. 2. de Locis, c. 8 fol. 34. b. Non docet fundatam esse Evange∣lii fidem in Ecclesiae Authoritate, sed &c. Ibid.
• † 1.201

  Hook. l. 3. §. 9
• a 1.202

  Stapl. Relect. Con. 4. q. 3. A. 1. & 2.
• * 1.203

  A. C. p. 51.
• * 1.204

  A. C. p. 49.
• * 1.205

  A. C. p. 50.
• * 1.206

  A. C. p. 51.
• † 1.207

  Verbum Dei non est tale, nec habet ullam Au∣thoritatem, quia scriptum est in membranis, sed quia à Deo profectum est. Bellar. l. 4, de Verb. Dei. 2 §. Ecclesiasticae Traditiones.
• * 1.208

  Lex ordinata per Angelos in manu 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gal. 3 19.
• a 1.209

  S. Luk. 1., 0.
• b 1.210

  The Holy Ghost &c. which spake by the Prophets, in Symb. Nicen.
• c 1.211

  Nam Psiudoprophetae etiam viventibus ad•…•…c Apo∣stolis multas fingebant corruptelas sub •…•…oc praetextu & titulo, quasi ab Apostolis vivà veccessent traditae: & propter hanc ips•…•…m causam Apostoli Doctrinam suam coeperunt Literis comprehendere, & Ecclesiis commen∣dare. Chem. Exam. Concil Trid. de Traditionibus sub octavo genere Tradit. And so also Ians•…•…n. Comment. in S. Ioh 5. 47. Sicut enim firmius est quod manda∣tur Literis, ita est culpabili•…•…s & majus non credere Scriptis, quam non credere Verbis.
• d 1.212

  Labilis est memoria, & ideo indig•…•…mus Scripturâ: Dicendum quod verum est, sed hoc non habet, nisi ex inundantia peccatorum. Hent. a Gand. Sum. p. 1, Ar. 8. q. 4. sine. Christus ipse de pectore morituro Te∣stamentum transfert in tabulas diù duraturas. Optat. L 5. Christus ipse non transtulit, sed ex Optati sew en∣tiâ, Ejus Inspiratione, si non Iuss•…•…, Apostoli transtu∣lerunt.
• * 1.213

  Bellar. L. 4. De Verbo Dei non script.
• a 1.214

  Acts 1. 3.
• b 1.215

  Annunciare aliquid Christianis Catholicis, praeter id quod acceperunt, nunquam licuit, nusquam licet, nun∣quam licebit. Vincen. Lir. c. 14. Et prae•…•…ipit nihil ali∣u •…•…innovari, nisi quo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 traditum est. S. Cypri. ad Pom∣peium cont. Epist. Stephan. princ.
• * 1.216

  1 Tim. 6. 20. and, 2 Tim. 1. 14.
• c 1.217

  Si ipsa (Ecclesia) contraria Scripturae diceret, (Fidelis) ipsi non crederet. &c. Hen. a Gand. Sum. p. 1. A. 10. q. 1. And Bellarmi•…•…e himselfe, that he might the more safe∣ly defend himselfe in the Cause of Traditions, sayes, (but how truly let other men Iudge,) Nullam Traditi∣onem admittimus contra Scripturam. L. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Verbo Dei. c. 3. §. Deindè commune.
• d 1.218

  S. Aug. Tom. 96. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ioh. in ill•…•… Ferba, Mul∣ta habeo dicere, sed non potestis portare modò.
• * 1.219

  A. C. p. 49.
• * 1.220

  A. C. p. 50.
• a 1.221

  Hook. l. 2. §. 4
• a 1.222

  Euseb. L. 2. c. 27. fine. Edit. Basil. 1549.
• b 1.223

  Euseb. L. 3. c. 25.
• † 1.224

  Except A. C. whose boldness herein I cannot but pitie. For he denies this light to the Scripture, and gives it to Tradition: His words are, p. 52. Tradition of the Church is of a company, which by its owne light shewes it selfe to bee infallibly assisted, &c.
• b 1.225

  Isa 44. & pas∣sina.
• a 1.226

  Act. 28. 25.
• b 1.227

  2. Thess. 2. 15. Iude, vers. 3.
• c 1.228

  In your Arti∣cles delivered to D. W. to be answered. And A. C. p. 52.
• * 1.229

  A Iesuite, under the name of T S. set out a Booke, An. 1630. which he called, The Triall of the Prote∣stant private Spirit.
• d 1.230

  Ut Testimonia Scripturae certam & inaubitatam fidem praestent, necessa∣rium videtur ostendere, quod ipsae Di∣vinae Scripturae sint Dei Spiritu inspi∣ratae. Orig. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.231

  1. Cor. 12. 3. 4. Datur nobu a Deo, &c. S. Aug. in Psal. 87.
• † 1.232

  Quia homo assentiendo eis quae sunt fid•…•…i, clevatur supra Naturam suam, oportel quòd hoc in•…•…t ei ex supernatu∣rali p•…•…incipio int•…•…riùs movente. quod est Dens. Tho. 2 2 ae. q. 6. A. 1. c. And your owne Divines agree in this, That Fides acquisita is not suffi∣cient for any Article, but there must be Fides infusa, before there can be Divine Certainty. Fides ac∣quisita innititur conjecturis humanis. Ad quem modum & Saraceni suis Praeceptoribus, & Iudaei suis Rabi∣nis, & Gent•…•…s suis Philosophs, & omnes suis Maj ribus inharent: non sic Christians, sed per interius lumen infusum à Spiritu Sancto, quo fir∣missimè & certissimè moventur ad creden•…•…m, &c. Canus. L. 2. Locor. c. 8. §. I am si hac.
• * 1.233

  Symb. Nicen. The Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets, &c. Et 1. S. Pet. 2. 21. Quis modus est, quo doces animas ea quae futura sunt? Docuist•…•… enim Prophetas tuos. S. Aug. L. 11. Confess. c. 19.
• b 1.234

  Nec enim Ecclesiae Testimonium, aut Judicium prae∣dicamus, Dei Spiritum, vel ab Eccl•…•…sia doce•…•…te, vol à nobis audientibus, excludimus, sed utrobique disertè includimus, &c. Stapl. trip. contr. Whi∣tak. c. 3.
• c 1.235

  Fides quae caepit ab Ecclesia Testimonio, quatenus proponit & inducit ad Fidem, de•…•…nit in Deo intùs revelante, & intùs docente quod forts Ecclesia pra∣dicavit. Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 3. a. 2. When grave and learned men doe sometimes hold, that of this Principle there is no proofe, but by the Testi∣mony of the Spirit, &c. I thinke it is not their meaning, to exclude all outward Proofes, &c but rather this, That all other meanes are uneffectuall of themselves to worke Faith, without the speci∣all Grace of God. Hook &c. Lib. 3. §. 8.
• d 1.236

  De habitu Fidei quoad fieri ejus, & generationem, quùm à Deo immediatè solo Dono gratuito infusus est, Nihil ad Quastionem, nisi quoad hoc quod per Scriptura inspectionem, &c. Henr. à Gand. Sam. a. 10. q. 1. lit. D.
• e 1.237

  Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. Q. 3. A. 2. Doth not onely affirme it, but proves it too, à paritate ra∣tionis, in case of necessity, where there is no Con∣tempt of the externall meanes.
• a 1.238

  Quid cum singulis agitur, Deus scit qui agit, & ipsi cum quibus agitur, sciunt. Quid autem agatur cum genere Humano, per Historiam commendari vo∣l•…•…it, & per Prophetiam. S. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 25.
• b 1.239

  Gal. 1. 8.
• * 1.240

  A. C. p. 52.
• c 1.241

  Utitur tam•…•… sacra Doctrina Ratione Humanâ, non quidem ad probandum Fidem ipsam, sed ad mani∣fest andum aliqua alia, quae traduntur in hac Doctri∣na. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 2.

  Passibus rationis novus homo tendit in Deum. S. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 26. (Passibus, verū est, sed nec aequis, nec solis:) Nam Invisibilia Dei altiori modo quan∣tum ad plura p•…•…rcipitg Fides, quàm Ratio naturalis ex Creaturis in Deum procedens. Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. ad 3.
• † 1.242

  Animalis ho∣mo non percipit. 1. Cor. 2. 14.
• d 1.243

  Quia scientiae certitudinem habent ox naturali lumine Rationis humanae, quae potest errare: Theo∣logia autem (quae docet & Objectum & Notitiam Fidei, sicut & Fidem ipsam) certitudinem habet ex lumine Divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. c. Vt ipsà fide valentiores fa∣cti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur. S. Aug. cont. Ep. Manichaei, dictam, Fundamentum. c. 14. Hoc autem it a intelligendum est, ut scientia certior sit Certitudine Evidentiae; Fides verò certior Firmitate Adhaesionis. Majus lumen in Scien∣tia, majus Robur in Fide. Et hoc, quia in Fide, & ad Fidem Actus imperatus Voluntatis concurrit. Credere enim est Actus Intellectus Vero assention∣tis productus ex Voluntatis Imperio. Biel. in 3. Sent. d. 23. q. 2. A. 1. Unde Tho. Intellectus Credentis determinatur ad Unum, non per Ratio∣nem, sed per Voluntatem; & ideo Assensus hic accipitur pro Actu Intellectus, secundum quod à Voluntate determinatur ad Vnum. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad 3.
• a 1.244

  Si vobis, rationi, & veritati con∣sentanca videntur, in pretio habete, &c. de mysteriis Religionis, Iustin. Mart. Apol. 2. Igitur, si fuit dispo∣sitio Rationis, &c. Tertull. L de Carne Christi. c. 18. Rationabile est credere Deum esse Autorem Scriptu∣rae. Henr. a Gand. Sum, To. 1. Ar. 9. q. 3.
• a 1.245

  Hook. L. 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse viveret, & me interrogantem non aspernaretur &c. S. Aug. de verá Relig. c. 3. Vide amus quatenus Ratio potest progredi á visibilibus ad invisibilia, &c. Ibid. c. 29.
• b 1.246

  Si vim spectes, Deus Valentissi∣mus est, Arist. de Mundo. cap. 7. Domini & Mo∣deratores omniū. Cic. 2. de Leg.
• c 1.247

  Ipse Saturnus, & Serapis, & Jupiter, & quicquid Daemonum colitis, victi dolore quòd sunt, clo∣quuntur. Nec uti{que} in turpitudi∣nem sui uonnullis praesertim ve∣strorum assistentibus, mentiun∣tur. Ipsis testibus esse eos Daemo∣nes de se verum confitentibus credite. Adjurati enim per Deum verum, & solùm inviti &c. Ar∣nob. 8. contra Gent, Or Mi∣nutius Foelix, as is now thought,
• d 1.248

  S. Mat. 12 22
• e 1.249

  S. Mat. 16. 17
• * 1.250

  Si Libri quoquo modo se habent sancti tamen Divinarum rernm ple∣ni prope totius generis humani con∣fessione diffamantur. &c. S. Aug. de Vtil. Cred c. 7. Scriptura summà dispositione Providentiae super omnes omnium Gentium Literas, omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum Di∣vin•…•… Excellens Authoritate subje∣cit. S. Aug. 11. de Civit. Dei, c. 1.

  At in omni orbe torrarum, in omni Graciâ, & universis Nationibus, in∣numerisunt. & immensi qui relictis Patriis Legibus. &c. ad observanti∣am Mosis, & Christi. &c. Origen. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. cap. 1.
• * 1.251

  Ir•…•…idere in Ca∣tholicae Fidei di∣sciplinâ, quod ju∣berentur homi∣nes credere, non autem, &c. S. Aug. 1. Re∣trac. c. 14.
• * 1.252

  And therefore S. Aug. 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 8. would have men make themselves perfect in reading the Let∣ter of the Scripture, even before they understood it. Eas not as habeat, etsi nondum intellectu, tamen lectione dun∣taxat; No question but to make them ready against they understood it. And as Schoole-Masters make their Schol∣lers conne their Grammer-rules by heart, that they may be ready for their use, when they better understand them,
• † 1.253

  L. 1. cont. Epis. Fund. c. 5. Ego vero non crederem Evange∣lio, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas.
• * 1.254

  Occham. Dial. p. 1. L. 1. c. 4. Intelligitur solum de Ecclesi•…•… qua fuit tempore Apostolorum.
• a 1.255

  Biel. lect, 2•…•…. in C. Miss•…•…. A tempore Christi & Apostolorum, &c. And so doth S. August. take Eccles. Contra Fund.
• * 1.256

  §. 16. Nu. 6.
• * 1.257

  Sive Inf•…•…les, sive in Fide Novi∣tii. Can. Loc. L. 2. c 8. Neganti, aut omnino nescient•…•… Scripturam. Stapl. Relect. Cent. 4. q. 1. A 3.
• † 1.258

  Quid si fateamur Fideles etiam, Ecclesiae Authoritate commoveri, ut Scripturas recipiant: Non tamen in∣de sequitur eos hoc modo penitus 〈◊〉〈◊〉: aut nullâ aliâ fortioreque ratione induci? Quis autem Chri∣stianus est, quem Ecclesia Christi, comm•…•…dans Scripturam Christi, non commoveat? Whitaker: Disp. de sacrâ Scripturá. Contro. 1. q 3. c. 8. vbt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 locum hunc, S. Aug.
• a 1.259

  Et ibid. Quibus obtemperavi di∣centibus Credite Evangelio. There∣fore he speakes of himselfe, when he did not believe.
• b 1.260

  Certum est quod tenemur credere omnibus contentis in Sacro Canone, quia Ecclesia credit ex caratione so∣lū. Ergo per prius & magis tenemur Credere Ecclesiae, quam Evangelio. Almain. in 3. Dist. 24 Conclus 6. Dub. 6. And to make a shew of proof for this, he falsifies S Aug. most noto∣•…•…ously and reads that known place, not Nisi me commoveret (as all read it) but compelleret. Patet. quia dicit Augustinus, Evangelio non Crederē, nisi aa hoc me compelleret Ecclesiae Au. horitas. Ibid. And so also Gerson 〈◊〉〈◊〉, In Declarat, veritatum, quae credendae sunt. &c. part. 1 p. 414. §. 3. But in a most ancient Manuscript in Corp. Ch. Colledge Library in Cambridge, the words are, Nisi me commoveret. &c.
• c 1.261

  Canus L. 2. de Locis c. 8. fo. 34. b. §. 16. Num. 6.
• d 1.262

  Psal. 119. 105. Sanctarum Scri∣pturarum Lumen, S. Aug. L. de ve∣râ Relig. c. 7. Quid Lucem Scriptu∣rarum vanis umbris? &c. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol. c. 35.
• * 1.263

  1 Cor. 2. 14.
• † 1.264

  Orig. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. c. 1. went this way, yet was he a great deale nearer the prime Tradition, then we are. For being to proove that the Scriptures were inspired from God, he saith, De hoc assignabimus ex ip∣sis Divinis Scripturis, quae nos com∣petenter movcrint, &c.
• a 1.265

  Principaliter tamen (etiam & hîc) credimus propter Deum, non Apo∣•…•…olos, &c. Henr. à Gand. Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now, if where the Apostles themselves spake, ultimata resolutio Fidei was in Deum, not in ipsos per se, much more shall it be in Deum, then in praesentem Ecclesiam: and in∣to the writings of the Apostles, then into the words of their Successors, made up into a Tradition.
• d 1.266

  Calv. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christi∣ana Ecclesia Prophetarum scriptis, & Apostolorum praedicatione initio fun∣data fuit, ubicunque reperietur ea Doctrina, &c.
• a 1.267

  And where Hooker uses this very Argument, as he doth, L. 3. §. 8. his words are not, If there bee sufficient Light. But, if that Light bee Evident.
• b 1.268

  1 Cor. 2. 14.
• a 1.269

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.270

  Heb. 11. 1.
• † 1.271

  §. 16. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13.
• c 1.272

  Heb. 11. 1.
• d 1.273

  1 Cor. 13. 12. And A. C. confesses. p. 52. That this very thing in Question may be known infallibly, when 'tis knowne but obscurely. Et Scotus in 3. Dist. 23 q. 1. fol. 41. B. Hoc modo sacile est videre quomodo •…•…ides est cum aenigmate, & obscuritate: Quia Habitus Fidei non credit Articulum esse verum ex Evidentia Obj•…•…cti, sed propter hoc, quod assentit veracitati inf•…•…ndentis Habi∣tum, & in hoc revelantis Credibilia.
• e 1.274

  Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. Credere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse divina•…•… Scri∣pturas, non est omninò necessarium ad salutem. I will not breake my Discourse, to ris•…•…e this speech of Bellarmine; it is bad enough in the best sense, that favour it selfe can give it, For if he meane by omninò, that it is not alto∣gether, or simply necessary to believe there is Divine Scripture, and a written Word of God; that's false, that being granted, which is among all Christians, That there is a Scripture: And God would never have given a Supernaturall unnecessary thing. And if he meanes by omninò, that it is not in any wise necessary, then it is sensibly false. For the greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were, made the Scripture very ne∣cessary in all the Ages of the Church. So it was neces∣sary, because it was given; and given, because God thought it necessary. Besides, upon Romane Grounds, this I thinke will follow: That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers, as necessary to believe, is omninò necessary to salvation: But that there are Divine Scriptures, the Tradition of the present Church delivers, as necessary to believe: Therefore, to believe there are Divine Scriptures, is omninò (be the sense of the word what it can) necessary to Salvation. So Bellarmine is herein foule, and unable to stand upon his owne ground. And he is the more, partly, because he avouches this Proposition for truth after the New Testament written. And partly, because he might have seene the state of this Proposition carefully exa∣mined by Gandavo, and distinguished by Times. Sum. p. 1. A. 8. q. 4. fine.
• a 1.275

  Lib. 1. §. 14.
• b 1.276

  Protest. Apol. Tract. 1. §. 10. N. 3.
• c 1.277

  L. 2. §. 4.
• d 1.278

  L. 2. §. 7. &. L. 3. §. 8.
• e 1.279

  S. Ioh. 5. 31. He speakes of himselfe as man.
• * 1.280

  S. Ioh. 8. 13.
• a 1.281

  L. 2. §. 7.
• b 1.282

  L. 3. §. 8.
• * 1.283

  A. C. p. 52.
• * 1.284

  A. C. p. 52.
• * 1.285

  A. C. p. 52.
• a 1.286

  S. Luke 16. 8.
• b 1.287

  1. S. Pet. 5. 3.
• a 1.288

  S. Basil goes as farre for Traditions as any. For he sayes: Parem vim habent ad pictatem. L. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. But first, he speaks of Apostolicall Tradition, not of the Tradition of the Present Church. Secondly, the Learned take exceptions to this Booke of S. Basil, as corrupted. BP. Andr. Opusc. cont. Peron. p. 9. Thirdly, S. Basil himself, Ser. de Fide, professes that he uses somtimes Agrapha, sed ca solùm quae non sunt ali∣ona à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiâ. So he makes the Scripture their Touch-stone, or tryall And therefore must of Necessity make Scripture superior, in as much as that which is able to try another, is of greater force, and superiour Dig∣nity in that use, then the thing tried by it. And Stapleton himselfe confesses, Traditionem recentiorem & posteriorem, si∣cut & particularem, nullo modo cum Scripturâ, vel cum Tra∣ditionibus priùs à se explicatis comparandam esse. Stapleton. Relect. Controv. 5. q. 5. A. 2.
• * 1.289

  A. C. p 52.
• b 1.290

  Ut §. 18. Nu. 4. E•…•… S. Aug. L. 32. cont. Fau∣stum. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1•…•….
• * 1.291

  A. C. p. 53.
• * 1.292

  A. C. p. 53.
• * 1.293

  Nam multa sunt Decretales haereticae, sicut dicit Ocham. Et firmiter hoc Credo, sed non licet dogmatizare Oppositum, quoniam sunt determi∣natae, nisi manifestè constet &c. Ia. Almain. in 3. Sent. D. 24 q. unica. Conclus. 6. Dub. 6 fine. and Alphon. à Castro also both sayes and prooves, C•…•…lestinum Papam errasse, non ut pri∣vatam Personam, sed ut Papam. L. 1. advers. Har. c. 4. and the Glosse Confesses. Eum errare posse in C. 24. q. 1. C. A Recta ergo.
• † 1.294

  Nam in fide quidem Iesuitam errare non posse, at{que} adeo esse hoc unicum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cateris, qua solent à Poetis plurima commemorari, posthàc annumerandum, si nescis, mi Fronto, & puto ne∣scire, docebo te, ab Apologist a doctus, hoc ipsum disertis verbis affirmante. Sic ille cap. 3. Ejus ex∣emplaris quod ad Sereniss. Regem fuit missum pagina. 119. Iungantur in nnum, ait, dies cum necte, te•…•…ebrae cum luce, calidum cum frigido, sanitas cum morbo, vita cum morte: & erit tum spes aliqua posse in caput Iesuitae haeresin cadere. Isa. Casaubon. Ep. ad Front. Ducaum. Lond. 1611.
• * 1.295

  A. C. p. 53.
• * 1.296

  S. Luk. 10. 16.
• a 1.297

  Per quod docet quicquid per Sanctos Apostolis dicitur, acceptandum esse, quia qui illos audit, Christum audit, &c. S. Cyrillus. Et Dominus de∣dit Apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii, per quos & Veritatem, idest, Dei Filium cogno•…•…imus &c. Quibus & dixit Dominus, Qui ves audit &c. Iraeneus praefat. in L. 3. advers. Haer. sine.
• b 1.298

  Dicit ad Apostolos, ac per hoc ad Omnes Prae∣positos, qui Apostolis vicarià Ordinatione succe∣dunt. S. Cyprian. L. 4. Epist. 9. But S. Cyprian doth not say, that this speech of our Saviours was equaliter dictum, alike and equally spo∣ken and promised to the Apostles, and the suc∣ceeding Bishops. And I believe A. C. will not dare to say in plaine and expresse Termes, That this speech, He that heareth you heareth me, doth as amply belong to every Romane Priest, as to S. Peter, and the Apostles. No, a great deale of Difference will become them well.
• * 1.299

  Bee yee followers of me, even as I am of Christ. 1 Cor. 11. 1. and 1 Thes. 1. 6.
• c 1.300

  And so Vener. Beda expresly both for hear∣ing the word, and for contemning it. I or nei∣ther of these (saith hee) belong only to them which saw our Saviour in the flesh; but to all hodiè quoque: but with this limitation; if they heare, or despise Evangelii verba: not the Preachers owne. Beda. in S. Luke 10. 15. 16.
• d 1.301

  S. Mat. 28. 20.
• e 1.302

  S. Mat. 28. 19. 20.
• * 1.303

  Rabanus Manr. goes no furrher. then that to the End some will alwayes bee in the world fit for Christ by his Spirit and Grace to inha∣bit: Divina mansione & inhabitatione digni. Rab. in S. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Pergatis habentes Do∣minum Protectorem, & Ducem. saith S. Cypr. L. 4. Epist. 1. But he doth not say, How farre sorth, And loquitur Fidelibus sicut uni Corpcri. S. Chrysost. Homil in S. Matth. And if S Chrysost. inlarge it so farre, I hope A. C. will not extend the Assistance given or pro∣mised here to the whole Body of the Faith∣full, to an Infallible, and Divine Assistance in every of them, as well as in the Pastors and Doctors.
• † 1.304

  In illis don•…•… quibus salus aliorum quaeritur (qualia sunt Pr•…•…phetiae, & interpretationes Ser∣manum &c. ) Spiritus Sanctus nequaquam sem∣per in Pradicatorib us permanet. S. Greg. L. 2. Moral. c 29. prin. Edit. Basil. 1551.
• * 1.305

  S. Iohn 14. 16.
• * 1.306

  Iste Consolator non auferetur à Vobis, sicut sub∣trahitur Humaint as mea per mortem, sed aterna∣litèr erit Vobiscum, hic per Grasiam, in futuro per Gloriam. Lyra. in S. John 14. 16, You see there the Holy Ghost shal be present by Conso∣lation and Grace, not by Infallible Assistance.
• * 1.307

  S. Ioh. 16. 13.
• a 1.308

  Omnem veritatem: Non arbitror in hac vita in cujusquam mente compleri: &c. S. Augustin. in S. Ioh Tract. 96. versus fin.
• b 1.309

  Spiritus Sanctus &c. qui eos doceret Omnem Veritatem, quam tunc, cum iis loquebatur, portare non poterant. S. Ioh. 16. 12 13. & S. Augustin. Tract. 97. in S. Ioh. prin.
• c 1.310

  Omnes vel insipientissimi Haeretici, qui se Christianos vocars volunt, audacias figmen∣torum suorum, quas maximè exhorret sensus hu∣manus, hac Occasione Evangelicae sententiae colorare comentur. &c. S. Augustin. T. 97. in S. Ioh. circamed.
• * 1.311

  Num. 26. A. C. p. 52.
• * 1.312

  A. C. p. 53.
• * 1.313

  Will A. C. maintaine, that any Legate à Latere, is of as great Credit, as the Pope himselfe?
• * 1.314

  S. Iohn. 13. 13.
• * 1.315

  A. C. p. 52.
• * 1.316

  For this A. C. sayes expresly of Tradition p. 52. And then he addes, that the Promise for this was no lesse, but rather more Expresly made to the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all ages in their teaching by word of mouth, then in writing, &c. p. 53.
• † 1.317

  For the freeing of factious and silenced Mi∣nisters is termed, the Restoring of Gods Word to •…•…s Liberty: In the Godly Author of the late Newes from Ipswich p. 5.
• a 1.318

  And S. Aug. himselfe L. 13. contr. Faustum c. 5. proves by an Internall Argument the fulfilling of the Pro∣phets. Scriptura (saith he) quae fi∣dem suam rebus ipsis probat quae per temporum successiones hac impleri, &c. And Hen. a Gand. Par. 1. Sum. A. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. q. 3. cites S. Aug. Book de vera Religione. In which Book, though these Foure Arguments are not found i•…•… Termes together, yet they fill up the scope of the whole Book.
• b 1.319

  Duplici modo muniri fidē &c. Primò Divinae Legis Authori∣tate, tum deinde Ecclesia Catho∣licae Traditione. cont. Har. c. 1.
• a 1.320

  S. Ioh. 4.
• b 1.321

  Hen. à Gand. Sum. Par. 1. A. 10. q 1. Sic quotidie apudillos qui forts sunt, intrat Christus per mulierem, i. Ecclesiam, & credunt per istam famam, &c. Gloss. in S. Ioh. cap. 4.
• c 1.322

  Ibid. Plus verbis Christi in Scrip∣turae credit, quam Ecclesiae testifican∣ti. Quia propter illam jam credit Ecclesiae. Et si ipsa quidem contra∣ria Scripturae diceret, ipsi non crede∣ret, &c. Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis, secundam sub ista, Definitionibus & Consuctudi∣nibus Ecclesiae. Catholicae, post ist as studiosis viris non sub poena perfidiae, sed proterviae, &c. Walden. Doct. Fid. To. 1. L. 2. Art. 2. c. 23. Nu. 9.
• d 1.323

  In sacrâ Scripturâ Ipse immediatè loquitur fidelibus. Ibid.
• e 1.324

  S. Iohn 10. 4.
• a 1.325

  Quod autem credimus posterioribus, cir∣ca quos non apparent virtutes Divinae, hoc est, Quia non praedicant alia, quàm quae illi in Scriptis certissimis re•…•…iquerunt. Qua constat per midios in nullo fuisse vi∣tiata ex consensione concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra. Henr. à Gand. Sum. P. 1. A. 9. q. 3.
• b 1.326

  Scripturas habemus ex Traditione. S. Cvril. Hier. Catech. 4. Multa quae non inveniuntur in Literis Apostolorum, &c. non nisi ab illis tradita & commendata creduntur. S. Aug. 2. de Baptism. contra Denat. c. 7.
• a 1.327

  Non aliundè scientia Coelestium. S. Hi∣lar. L. 4. dc Trinit. Si Angelus dc Coelo annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scrip∣turis, &c. S. Aug. L. 3. cont. Petil. c. 6.
• b 1.328

  Quùm sit perfectus Scripturarum Ca∣non, sibi{que} ad omnia satis super{que} suffici∣at, &c. Vin. Lir. contra Haeres. c. 2. And if it be sibi ad omnia, then to this, To prove it self, at least after Tradition hath prepared us to receive it.
• * 1.329

  Pun. 1.
• c 1.330

  Omnis Scientia praesupponit fidem ali∣quam. S. Prosper. in Psalm 123. And S. Cynl. Hierosol. Catechesi 5. shewes how all things in the world do side con∣sistere. Therefore most unreasonable to deny that to Divinity, which all Scien∣ces, nay all things challenge. Namely, somethings to be presupposed, and be∣lieved.
• * 1.331

  Pun. 2.
• * 1.332

  Pun. 3.
• a 1.333

  Si vis credere manifestis, invisibilibus magis quàm visibilibus oportet credere. Licet dictum sit admirabile, verum est, &c. S. Chrysostom. Hom. 46. ad Pot. And there he proves it. Aliae Scientiae certitudinem habent ex Naturali Lumi∣ne Rationis Humanae, quae decipi potest: Haec autem ex Luminc Divinae Scientiae, quae decipi non potest. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. c.
• † 1.334

  Psal. 94. 10. Our old English Transla∣tion reads it, Shall not he punish? That is, shall not he know when, and why, and how to punish?
• * 1.335

  Heb. 11. 1.
• a 1.336

  S•…•…t Ratio convincens, & propter cam 〈◊〉〈◊〉. alias non crediturus, tollitur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 si•…•…i. B•…•…l. 3. D. 25. q. unic. sine. Non est dicendus credere, cujus judi∣cium sulagitur, aut cogitur, &c. Stapl. T•…•…at. contra Wintaker. cap. 6. p. 64.
• b 1.337

  Vides no•…•… sit in nobis nisi volentibus. To∣l•…•…. in S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 16. Annot. 33. Et qui vo∣luerunt, •…•…runt. S. Aug. Serm. 60. d•…•…rb. Dom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. Fides Actus est, non schus •…•…ctus, sed etiam Voluntatis, quae qinon potest. Imo magis Voluntatis quam Intelle us quatenus illa Operationis prin•…•…ium est, & Assensum (qui p•…•…oprie Actus fi•…•…i est) sola clicit. Nec ab 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Voluntas, sed à Voluntate 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Actu sidei determinatur. Sta•…•… I. T•…•…lic. cont. Whitak. c. 6. p. 64. C•…•…e enim est Actus Intellectus de∣t•…•… •…•…i •…•…unum ex Imperio Volunta∣tis 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. 2. q. 4. A•…•…c. Non potest da∣ri aliquis sidei, quinunque ille sit, non qui in suis Causis mediatè 〈◊〉〈◊〉 med•…•…e b actu Voluntatis Alm. in 3. S•…•…t D. 24. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 6. Dub. 4. A 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Aug. sayes. Fidei locum esse Cor. T•…•…. 52. in S. Ioh. Where the Heart is put to the whole soule, which equally comprehends both the Will and the Vn∣de•…•… ing. And so doth Biel also, in 3. Sunt. D. 25. q unic. Art. 1. F.
• * 1.338

  S. Mat. 11. 25.
• * 1.339

  Pun. 4.
• * 1.340

  Pun. 5.
• a 1.341

  The Apostles indeed they knew, for they had cleare Re∣velation: They to whom they preached, might believe, but they could not know without the like Revelation. So S. Ioh. 19 35. He that saw, knowes that he sayes true, that you, which saw not, might believe. Deus in Prophetis (& sic in Apostolis) quos immediatè illumina∣bat, causabat evidentiam. Iaco Aimain. in 3. Sent. Dis. 24. q. unic á. Conclus. 6. But for the residue of men, 'tis no more, but as Thomas hath it. Oportet quod credatur Authoritati eorum, quibus Revelatio facta est. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 8.
• b 1.342

  A on est evidens vel ista esse vera miracula: vel ista fieri ad il∣lam Veritatem comprobandam, I•…•…. Almain. in 3. Sent. D. 24. q. uni•…•… Concl. 6. Therefore the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles did, were fully sufficient to beget Faith to assent, but not Evidence to Convince.
• c 1.343

  Cautos nos fecit Sponsus, quia & Miraculis decipi non debe∣mus. S. Aug. T. 13. in S. •…•…oh. And he that sayes we ought not to be deceived, acknowledges that we may be deceived even by Miracles. And Arguments which can deceive, are not sufficient to Convince. Though they be sometimes too full of efficacy to pervert. And so plainly Almain. out of Ocham. Nunquam acqui∣ritur Evidentia per Medium quod de se generat falsum assensum, sunt verum. la. Alma. in 3 Sent. Di. 24. q unic. Conc. 6. And therfore that Learned Romane Catholik, who tels us, the Apostles Miracles made it evident, that their doctrine was true and Di∣vine, went too farre. Credible they made it, but not Evident. And therefore he is after forced to confesse, That the soule som∣times assents not to the Miracles, but in great timidity, which cannot stand with cleere Evidence. And after againe, That the soule may renounce the Doctrine formerly confirmed by Mira∣cles. unlesse some inward, and supernaturall Light be given, &c. And neither can this possibly stand with Evidence. And there∣fore Bellarmine goes no farther then this: Miracula esse suffi∣cientia, & efficacia ad novam fidem persuadendam. L. 4. de Notis Eccles. c. 14. §. 1. To induce and perswade, but not to Convince. And Thomas will not grant so much, for he sayes expresly: Miraculum non est sufficiens Causa inducens Fidem. Quia videntium unum & idem Miracul•…•…, quidam credunt, & quidam non. Tho. 2. 2. q. 6. A. 1. c. And Ambros. Catharin. in Rom. 10. 15. is downe-right at Nulla fides est habenda sig∣no. Examinanda sunt, &c. Anastasius Nicanus Episcopus, apud Baron. ad An. 360. num. 21, Non sunt necessaria sign•…•… vera sidet, &c. Suarez, defens. Fidei Catho. L. 1. c. 7. Nu. 3.
• d 1.344

  Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. 2. Thess. 2. 9. S. Marc. 13. 22.
• e 1.345

  Operatio Virtutum alteri datur. 1. Cor. 12. 10. (To one and ano∣ther he saith, not to al.) Damonia fugare, Mortu•…•…s suscitare, &c. dedit quibusdam Discipulis suis, quibusdam non dedit. (That is to doe Miracles.) S. Aug. Serm. 22. de Verbis Apost, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• † 1.346

  S. Ioh. 10. 41.
• † 1.347

  Here it may be observed how warily A. C. carries himselfe. For when hee hath said, That a cleare R•…•…lation was made to the Apostles, which is most true; And so the Apostles knew that which they taught simpliciter à priori, most Demonstratively from the Prime Cause. God himselfe. Then hee addes p 51. I say cleare in attestante. That is the Revelation of this Truth was cleare in the Apostles that witnessed it. But to make it knowledge in the Auditors, the same, or like Revelation, and as cleare must be made to them. For they could have no other knowing Assurance; Credible they might, and had. So A. C. is wary there, but comes not home to the Businesse: And so might have held his peace. For the Question is not, what cleare Evidence the Apostles had? but what Evidence they had, which heard them?
• a 1.348

  Esay 53. 1.
• b 1.349

  Ier, 20. 7.
• * 1.350

  Acts 17. 32. And had Zedcchiah and the people seene it as clearely as Ieremy himselfe did, that the word he spake was Gods word, and Infallible, Ierusa∣lem, for ough•…•… we know, had not beene layd desolate by the Chaldean. But be∣cause they could not see this by the way of knowledge, and would not be∣lieve it by way of Faith, they, and that City perished together. Jer. 38. 17.
• * 1.351

  Nemo pius, nisi qui Scripturae credit. S. Aug. L. 26. cont. Faustum. c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture, that doth not believe that it is the Word of God. I say, which doth not believe, I doe not say, which doth not know opor∣t•…•…t quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est. Tho p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 C c. Quod vero Animam habemus, unde manis st•…•…m? Si enim Uisibilibus credere vel•…•…, & de Deo, & de Angelis, & de mente, & de Anima dubitabis: & sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt. Et cer∣tè si manifestis credere velis, Invisibilibus magis quam Uisibilibus credere oportet. Li•…•…et enim admirabile sit dictum, verum tam•…•…n, & apud mentem habentes valde certum, vel in confesso Ex homil. 13 S Chry•…•…ost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit. Fronto: Paris. 1630.
• * 1.352

  Pun. 6.
• † 1.353

  And this is the Ground of that which I said before, §. 15. Nu. 1. That the Scrip∣ture only, and not any unwritten Tradi∣tion was the •…•…oundation of our Faith. Namely, when the Authority of Scri∣pture is first yeelded unto.
• * 1.354

  S. Luke 9. 23.
• a 1.355

  Intellectus Credentis determinatur per Voluntatem, non per Rationem. Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad tertium. And what power the Will hath in Case of mens Believing, or not Believing, is manifest, Jer. 44. But this is spoken of the Will compared with the Vnderstandin•…•… onely, leaving the Operations of Grace free over Both.
• * 1.356

  Pun. 7.
• b 1.357

  Communis enim sententia est Patrum & Theologorum aliorum, demonstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse; Sed à post•…•…riori & per effectus. Sic Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. Et Damas•…•…. L. 1. Orth. Fid. c. 3. & Almain. in 3. sent. D. 24 q. 1. But what may be demonstrated by na∣turall reason, by natural light may the same be known. And so the Apostle himselfe, Rom. 1. 20. Invisibilia Dei à Creatur â mundi per ca quae facta sunt, intellecta con∣spiciuntur. And so Calvin most clearely, L. 1. Inst c. 5. §. 1. Aperire Oculos nequeunt, quin aspicere cum co∣guntur, though Bellarmine would needes be girding at him. L. 4. de Grat. & Lib. Arbit. c 2. Videtur autem & Ratio iis quae apparent attestari: Omnes enim homines de Diis (ut ille loquitur) habent existimationem, Arist. L. 1. de Coelo T. 22.
• c 1.358

  Damasc. L. 1. Ortho. Fid. c. 4.
• d 1.359

  1 Tim. 6. 16. Et ne V•…•…stigium sic accedendi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Aug. nisi augeas imaginari ne cogitationis lucem soli•…•… innumerabiliter vel quid aliud &c. L. 8, de T•…•…in. c. 2, Solus modus accedendi, Preces sunt. Boet. de consol•…•…. Philos. L. 5. prosa. 3.
• c 1.360

  Prater Scientias Philosophicas, necesse est ut ponatur alia Scientia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 revelata de iis quae hominis cap∣tum 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Tho. p. 1. q. 1 A. 1.
• f 1.361

  And therefore Bid is ex•…•…sse, That God could not re∣veale any thing that is to come, nisi illud esset a Deo prae∣s•…•…um s•…•…u praevisum (i. e. unlesse God did fully compre∣hend that which He doth reveale) Biel in 3. sent. D. 239. 2. A. 1.
• g 1.362

  Nullus Intellectus Creatus videndo Deum, potest cogno 〈◊〉〈◊〉 om•…•…ia quae Deus sacit. vel potest saccre. Hoc enim esset Comprehendere ejus virtutem. &c. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. C.

  Ad Argumentum: Quod Deus ut Speculum est: Et quod Omnia quae sieri possunt, in co resplendent. Respon∣det Thom. Quod non est necessarium, quod videns specu∣lum, omnia in speculo videat, nisi speculum visu suo com∣pr•…•…hendat. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. a 12. (Now no man can comprehend this Glasse which is God Himselfe.)
• h 1.363

  Deus enim est Speculum voluntarium revelans quae & quod vult alicui beato: non est Speculum naturalitèr re∣praesentans omnia. Biel. Suppl. in 4. Sent. D. 49. q. 3. propos. 3.
• i 1.364

  For if Reason well put to its search did not finde this out, how came Arist. to assirme this by rationa l disqui∣sition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Restat, ut mens sola extrinsecùs accedat, eaque sola divina sit, nibil enim cum ejus Actione communicat Actio corporalis. A•…•…st. l. 2. de gen. Anim. c. 3. This cannot be spoken of the Soule, were it mortall. And therefore I must needs be of Paulus Benius his opinion, who sayes plainly, and proves it too, Turpi∣•…•…r assixam à quib•…•…sdam Aristoteli Mortalitatis Animae Opinionem. Benius in Timaeum Platonis Decad. 2ae. L. 3.
• k 1.365

  For it Reason did not dictate this also, whence is it that Aristotle disputes of the way and meanes of attain∣ing it. L. 1. Moral. c. 9. And takes on him to proove That Felicity is rather an Honourable then a Com∣mendable thing. c. 12. And after all this, he addes, Deo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tota vita est, hominibus autem catenus, quatenus similitudo quaedam ejusmodi Operationis ipsis in est, Arist. l. 10. Moral. c. 8.
• k 1.366

  S. Iohn 17. 3. Ultima Beatitudo hominis consistit in quadam supernaturali visione Dei. Ad hanc autem visi∣•…•…m Homo pertingere non potest, nisi per modum Addis∣•…•…is à Deo Doctore, Omnis qui audit a Patre & didicit. S. Iohn 6. 45. Thom. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. in c.
• * 1.367

  Deus & natu∣ra nihil frustrà faciunt. Arist. L. 1. de Coelo T. 32. frustra autem est quod non potest habere suum usū Thom. ibid.
• * 1.368

  Pun. 8.
• * 1.369

  2 Pet. 1. 16.
• a 1.370

  Quasi quidam fluvius est, planus, & Al∣tus, in quo & Agnus ambulet, & Elephas na•…•…et. S. Greg. Pr•…•…fat. in Lib. Mora∣lium. c. 4.
• b 1.371

  In Lege Domini voluntas ejus. Psa. 1. 2. Dulcior super mel & favum. Psa 18. 11. & passim.
• c 1.372

  Multa dicuntur submiss•…•…s & humirepē∣tibus animis, ut accommodatiùs per huma∣na in Divina consurgant. Multa etiam fi∣guratè, ut studiosa mens, & quaesitis exer∣ceatur utiliùs & uberiùs laetetur inventis. S. Aug. de Mor. Ec. Cat. c. 17. Sed nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur Fidei necessa∣rium, quod Scriptura per Literalem sen∣sum alicubi manifeste non tradat. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 10 ad 1.
• d 1.373

  Credimus &c. sicut ob alia multa certi∣ora Argumenta (quàm est Testimonium Ecclesia) tum propter hoe potissimum, quòd Spiritus Sanctus nobis intùs has esse Dei voces persuadeat. Whitaker, Di∣sput. de Sa. Scrip. Controvers. 1. q. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.374

  Gal. 1. 8.
• * 1.375

  Pun. 9.
• * 1.376

  Cum Fides infallibili veritati innita•…•…: Et ideo cum impossibile sit de vero de∣monstrari Contrarium: sequitur omnes Probationes qua contra fidem inducun∣tur, non posse esse Demonstrationes sed so∣lubilia Argumenta. Tho. p. 1. q. A. 1. 8. c.
• † 1.377

  Fidei ultima Resolutio est in Deum illumi∣nantem. S. Aug. cont. Fund. c. 14.
• * 1.378

  A. C. p. 53. Et vid. §. 16. N. 28.
• † 1.379

  Dixi sicut •…•…i congru•…•…, ad qu•…•… •…•…bam, &c. S Aug. l. 1. Retract. c. 13.
• a 1.380

  Nor is it such a strange thing to heare that Scripture is such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 suppose•…•…d Principle among Chri•…•…ians. Quod à Scriptura evidenter dedu•…•…itur, est evidenter verum, suppositis Scripturis. Bellarm. L. 4. de Eccl. Milit. c. 3. §. 3.
• b 1.381

  De Subjecto enim quaeritur semper; non Subjecti•…•…n ip∣sum.
• c 1.382

  L. 4. de verb. Dei. c. 4. §. Quar•…•…ò necesse est. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the le∣suite here apud A. C. p. 49.
• a 1.383

  L. 3 §. 8.
• b 1.384

  Whereas Bellarm. sayes expresly, that in the Controversies betweene you and us: Non agitur de Metaphysicis subti∣litatibus, quae sinc periculo ignorari, & interdum cum laude oppugnari possunt, &c. Bellarm. Praefat. Operibus praefix. §. 3.
• c 1.385

  His omnibus Questionibut praemitten∣da est Controversia de Verbo Dei. Ne∣que enim disputari potest, nisi priùs in aliquo Communi Principio cum Adversa∣riis conveniamus. Convenit autem inter nos & omues omninò Haereticos, Verbum Dei esse Regulam fidei, ex quâ de Dog∣matibus judicandum sit, esse Commune Principium ab omnibus concessum, unde Argumenta ducantur, &c. Bellarm. Praefat. Operib. prafix. §. ult. And if it be Commune Principium ab omnibus con∣cessum, then I hope it must be taken as a thing supposed, or as a Praecognitum in this Dispute betweene us.
• † 1.386

  Colligitur apertà ex Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. ad 1. Et Articulorum Fidei veritas non potest nobis esse evidens absolutè. Bellar. L. 4. de Eccles. Mil. c. 3. §. 3.
• * 1.387

  §. 17. & 18. Nu. 2.
• † 1.388

  And my immediate Words in the Conference, upon which the Iesuite ask∣ed, How I knew Scripture to be Scrip∣ture? were (as the •…•…esuite himselfe re∣lates it apud A. C. p. 48.) That the Scripture onely, not any unwritten Tradition, was the Foundation of our Faith. Now the Scripture cannot be the onely Foundation of Faith, if it containe not all things necessary to Salvation; Which the Church of Rome denying against all Antiquity, makes it now be∣come a Question. And in regard of this, m•…•… A•…•…ver was, That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed, and prae∣cognitae, before the handling of this Que∣stion.
• † 1.389

  Hook, L. 3; §. 8.
• * 1.390

  Hoc modo sacra Doctrina est Scientia; quia •…•…∣dit ex Principiis notis Lumine superioris Scientia, quae scilicet est Scientia Dei & Beatorum. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. a. 2. And what sayes A. C. now to this of Aquinas? Is it not cleare in him, that this Princi∣ple, The Scriptures are the Word of God, of Divine and most Infallible Credit, is a Praecognitum in the knowledge of Divinity, and proveable in a superiour Science, namely, the Knowledge of God, and the Blessed in Heaven? Yes; so cleare, that (as I told you he would) A. C. confesses it, p. 51. But he adds: That because no man ordinarily sees this Proofe, therefore we must go ei∣ther to Christ, who saw it clearely: Or to the Apostles, to whom it was clearely revealed; or to them, wholy Succes∣sion received it from the Prime Secrs. So now because Christ is ascended, and the Apostles gone into the num∣ber of the Blessed, and made in a higher Degree partakers of their knowledge; therefore we must now onely goe unto then Successours, and borrow light from the Tradi∣tion of the present Church. For that we must do; And 'tis so farre well. But that we must relie upon this Tradi∣tion, as Divine, and Infallible, and able to breed in us Di∣vine, and Insallible Faith, as A. C. adds, p. 51, 52. is a Proposition, which in the times of the Primitive Church would have beene accounted very dangerous, as indeed it is. For I would fame know, why leaning too much upon Tradition may not mislead Christians, as well as it di•…•… the Iewes. But they, saith S. Hilarie, Traditionis sa∣vore Legis praecepta transgressi sunt: Can. 14. in S. Mat. Yet to this height are They of Rome now growne, That the Traditions of the present Church are infallible: And by out-f•…•…cing the Truth, lead many after them. And as it is Jer. 5. 31. The Prophets prophesie untruths, an•…•… the Priests receive gifts, and my people delight therein, what will become of this in the end?
• † 1.391

  Non creditur Deus esse Author bujus Scientiae, quia Homines hoc testati sunt in quantum Homines nudo Testi∣monio Humano; sed in quantum circa eos effulsit virtus Divina. •…•…sa Deus iis, & sibi ipsi in eis Testimonium p•…•…buit. Hen. à Gand. Sum. P. 1. A. 9. q. 3.
• * 1.392

  Corru•…•…pi non possunt, quia in manibus sunt omnium Christianorum; Et quisquis hoc primitùs ausus esset, multorum Codicum vetustiorum collatione confutaretur. Maximè, quia non un•…•… linguá, sea multis continetur Scriptura. Nonnullae autem Codicum mendositates, vel de Antiquioribus, vel de Linguá praecedente emendantur. S. Aug. L. 32. cont. Faustum. c. 16.
• a 1.393

  S. Iohn 9. 29.
• b 1.394

  Maldonat. in S. Ioh. 9. It aque non magis errare posse eum se∣quentes, quàm si Deum ipsum se∣querentur.
• c 1.395

  S. Ioh. 5. 47.
• d 1.396

  Hom. 57. i•…•… S. Ioh. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• e 1.397

  2. S. Pet. 1. 19.
• f 1.398

  S. Chrys. ubi suprà. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.399

  Tant a hominum, & temporum consen∣sione firmatum. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Ec∣cles. Cath. c. 29. Is Libri quoquo modo se habent, sancti tamen Divinarum Rerum pleni prope totius generis humani Con∣fessione diffamantur, &c. S. Aug. de util. cred. c. 7. & L. 13. cont. Faust. c. 15.
• * 1.400

  Super omnes omnium Genti•…•… Literas. S. Aug. 11. de Civit. Dei c. 1.
• a 1.401

  Incertum esso non potest hos es∣se Libros Cano∣nicos. Wal. Doct. fid. l. 2. a. 2. c. 20.
• b 1.402

  Canus. Loc. l. 2 c. 8. facit Eccle∣siam Causam si∣ne quanon.
• † 1.403

  §. 16.
• † 1.404

  Inter omnes penè constat, aut certè id quod satis est, inter me & illos, cum quibus nunc agitur, convenit hoc &c. Sic in aliâ Causá cont. Manichaos, S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cath. c. 4.
• * 1.405

  Vin. Lir. cont. Hares. c. 2.
• * 1.406

  Contr. Epist. Fund. c. 5.
• * 1.407

  Pamel in Sum∣mar. Lib—Ui∣aens Disputatio∣nibus •…•…ihil ant parum profici.
• a 1.408

  Acts 6 9.
• b 1.409

  Acts. 9. 29.
• c 1.410

  Acts 19. 17.
• d 1.411

  Debilitaetur generosa indoles conjecta in argu∣tias. Sen. Aep. 48.
• * 1.412

  Here A. C. hath nothing to say, but that the Iesuite did not affirme, That the La∣dy ask•…•…d this Question in this or any other precise forme. No? why, the words pre∣ceding are the Iesuites own. Therefore, if these were not the Ladies words, he wrongs her, not I him.
• a 1.413

  Integritatis cu∣stodes, & recta sectantes. De ve∣ra Relig. c. 5.
• b 1.414

  Hooker l. 3. §. 1. Iunius l. de Ec. c. 17. Falluntur qui Ecclesiam ne∣gant, qui•…•… Papatus in ea est. Rey∣nold. Thes. 5. Negat tantum esse Catholicam, vel sanū •…•…jus mem∣brum. Nay the very Separatists grant it. Fr. Johnson in his Trea∣tise called, A Christian Plea, Printed 1617. p. 123. &c.
• c 1.415

  Si tamen bono ingenio Pictas & Pax quaeda men∣tis accedat, sine quá de sanctis re∣bus nihil prorsus intelligi potest. S. Aug. de V•…•…. Cred. c. 18.
• * 1.416

  A. C. p. 53.
• * 1.417

  A. C. p. 54.
• d 1.418

  And after A. C. saith againe p. 54. that the Lady did not aske the Question, as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing what I said. So belike they take Ca•…•…∣tion before hand for that too, That what ever we say (unlesse we grant what they would have) their Pro•…•…elytes shall not be satisfied wi•…•…hit.
• * 1.419

  A. C. p. 54.
• † 1.420

  §. 20. N. 1.
• * 1.421

  And though Stapleton to magnifie the Church of Rome is p•…•…eased to say: Apud veteres pro codem habit a fuit Ecclesia Ro∣mana & Ecclesia Catholica: yet he is •…•…o modest as to give this Reason of it: Quia ejus Communio erat evident èr & certissi∣mè cum tota Catholicá. Relect. Con. 1. q. 5. A. 3. (Lo, The Com•…•…union of the Romane was then with the Catholike Church, not of the Catholike with i•…•….) An•…•… S. Cyprian imployed his Legates Cal∣donius and Fortunatus, not to bring the Catholike Church o the Communion of Rome, bu•…•… Rome to the Catholike Church: Elaborar•…•…nt, ut ad Cath licae Ec∣clesiae unitat•…•…m 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Corporis membra 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c Now the Mem•…•…ers of this R•…•… and t•…•…rne Body were they of Rome then in an open Schisme betweene Corn•…•…ius and Novatian. S. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 10.
• * 1.422

  A. C. p. 54.
• * 1.423

  C•…•… infiniti Abusus, Schismata quo{que} & Haereses per totum nunc Christianum Orbem invalescant, Ecclesiam Dei legitimâ indigere Reformatione nemini non apertum erit. Pet. de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis L. de Refor. Ec∣clesiae. And if Schisme•…•… and Heresies did then invade the whole Christian world, let A. C. consider how Rome scaped free. And I thinke Cameracensis was in this Pro∣pheticall. For sixty yeares and more before Luther was borne, and so before the great troubles which have since fallen upon all Christendome, he used these words in the Booke which himselfe delivered up in the Councell of Constance: Nisi celeriter fiat Reformatio, a•…•…deo dicere quod licet magna sint, quae videmus, tamen in brevi in∣comparabiliter majora videbimus. Et post ista tonitrua tam horrenda, majora alia audien•…•…s &c. Cam. l. de Refor. Eccle. And it will hardly sinke into any mans judge∣ment, that so great a man, as Pet. de Aliaco was in that Church, should speake thus, if he did not see some errors in the Doctrine of that Church, as well as in Manners. Nay Cassander though he lived and dyed in the Commu∣nion of the Church of Rome, yet found fault with some of her Doctrines. Consulta. Artic. 21. &. 22. And Pope Iulius the third Professed at Bononia, in Sacramentorum Ecclesiae ministerium innumerabiles Abusus irrepsiss•…•…. Espen•…•…us in Tit. 1. and yet he was one of the Bishops nay the chiefe Legat in the Councell of Trent.
• * 1.424

  A. C. p. 54.
• † 1.425

  S. Mat. 13. 25.
• * 1.426

  For A. C. knowes well, what strange Doctrines are charged upon some Popes. And all Bellarmines labour, though great and full of art, is not able to wash them cleane. Bellarm. L. 4. d•…•…. Rom. Pont. c. 8. &c. Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesia Christi lu∣•…•…arius est. Et prob•…•…ur à laco. Almain. Opusc. de Autho. Ecclesiae. c. 10. And Cassander speakes it out more pla•…•…ly V•…•…inam Illi (He speaks of the Bi•…•…hops and Rectors in the Romane Church) à qu•…•…bus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…sset, non Ipsi Superst•…•…∣num Auctores •…•…∣sent: •…•…el 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Animis hom•…•…um simpli•…•…um aliquan∣do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Co•…•…sulta. Art. 21. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 finem.
• a 1.427

  Grave omninò crimen, sed defensionem longinquam non requirit, satis est enim negare; sic•…•…t pro Ecclesiâ olim. S. Aug. de Util. Cred. c. 5.
• b 1.428

  Hanc quae re∣spectu hominum Ecclesia dicitur, observare, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Communionem colere debemus. Calv. Inst. 4. c. 1
• * 1.429

  §. 7.
• c 1.430

  Rectè scias nos secisse recedendo à vobis, &c. Lucif. L. de Non conveniendo cum Haereticis. He speakes of the Ar∣rians, and I shall not compare you with them, nor give any Offence that way. I shall onely draw the generall argument from it, thus: If the Orthodoxe did well in departing from the Arrians, then the Schisme was to be imputed to the Arrians; although the Orthodoxe did de∣part from them. Otherwise if the Orthodoxe had beene guilty of the Schisme, he could not have said, Rectè scias nos fecisse recedendo. For it cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schisme. There may be therefore a necessary separation, which yet incurres not the blame of Schisme; And that is, when Doctrines are taught contra∣ry to the Catholike Faith.
• * 1.431

  S. Mat. 18. 7.
• * 1.432

  A. C. p. 55, 56.
• * 1.433

  A. C. p. 57.
• * 1.434

  A. C. p. 55.
• * 1.435

  A. C. p. 56.
• † 1.436

  Conventus suit Ordinum Imperii Spi∣rae. Ibi Decretum factum est, ut Edictum Wormatiense observaretur contra Nova∣tores (sic appellare placuit) & ut omnia in integrum restituantur (& sic nulla om∣nino Reformatio.) Contra hoc Edictum solennis fuit Protestatio. Aprilis 16. An. Ch. 1529. Et hinc ortum pervulgatum illud Protestantium nomen. Se. Calvis. Chron. ad. An. 1529. Th•…•…s Protestation therefore was not simply against the Ro∣mane Church, but against the Edict, which was for the restoring of all things to their former estate, without any R•…•…∣formation.
• a 1.437

  Quibus homo fidem suam pro∣testaretur. Tho. p. 3. q. 61. A. 3. 4. C.
• * 1.438

  A. C. p. 56.
• b 1.439

  I know Bellarm. quotes S. Ierome: Sciro Romanam Fidem, &c. suprà §. 3. Nu. 9. But there S. Ierome doth not call it Fidem Romanam, as if Fides Romana and Fides Catholica were convertible; but he speakes of it in the Concrete. Ro∣mana Fides, i. Romanorum Fides, qua lau∣data suit ab Apostolo. &c. Ro. 1. 8. S. Hie∣ron. Apol. 3. cont. Ruffin. That is that Faith which was then at Rome when S. Paul commended it. But the Apo∣stles commending of it in the Romanes at one time passes no deed of Assurance, that it shall continue worthy of Com∣mendations among the Romans through all t•…•…mes.
• † 1.440

  Quae major su∣perbia, quàm ut unus homo toti Congregationi judicium suum praeferat, tan∣quam ipse solus Spiritum Dei habeat. S. Bern. Serm. 3. ae Re∣surr.
• * 1.441

  Similiter eti∣am siquid horum tota per Orbem frequentat Ec∣clesia: Nam & hinc quin it a fa∣ciendum fit dis∣put are, Insolen∣tissimae Insaniae est. S. Aug. Epist. 118. c. 5.
• * 1.442

  A. C. p. 56.
• a 1.443

  Quaeris quid per quintam Feriam ulti∣me hebdom adis Quadragesimae fiers debet, An offerendum sit manè? &c. S. Aug. Ibid.
• b 1.444

  And so Bellarmine most expresly. But then he adds, Universam Ecclesiam non posse errare, non solùm in Credendo, sed nec in Operando: & praesertim in Ritu & Cultu Divino. L 4. de Verb. Dei. c. 9. §. 4 And if this be true, what is it to Rome?
• c 1.445

  Euseb. L. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 26, Et Socrat. L. 5. Hist. c. 22.
• * 1.446

  A. C. p. 56.
• † 1.447

  Quaestio est, An Ecclesia totalis toteliter 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 1. pro omnibus simul Electis, dum sunt Membra M•…•…∣tis Ecclesiae, possint errare, vel in totâ fi•…•…e, vel in gravi aliquo fidei puncto? Et respondemus simplicitèr, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse impossibile. Keckerm. Syst. Theol. p. 387 Edit. Han∣noviae. An. 1602. Calvinus & caeteri Haeretici conce∣dunt Ecclesiam absolutè non posse deficcre; Sed dicunt in∣telligi debere de Ecclesia Invi•…•…. Bellarm. L. 3. de Ec∣cles. Milit. c. 13. §. 1. But this Exception of Bellar∣mine's, that the Protestants, whom, out of his Libera∣lity, he cals Hereticks, speake of the In•…•…isible Church, is meerely frivolous. For the Church of the Elect is in the Church of them that are Called, and the Invisible Church in the Visible. Therefore if the whole Church of the Elect cannot erre in Fundamentals, the whole Visible Church, in which the same Elect are, cannot erre. Now that the Invisible Church of the Elect is in the Vi∣sible, is manifest out of S. Aug. Ipsa est Ecclesia quae in∣tra sagenam Dominicam cum malis piscibus natat. S. Aug. Epist. 48. Grana sunt inter illam palcam, quan∣do Area, cum videretur tota, palea putabatur. S. Aug. in Psal. 121. And this is proved at large by Hooker. L. 3. Eccles. Pol. §. 1. For els the Elect or Invisible Church is tyed to no duty of Christianity. For all such Duties are required of the Church, as 'tis Visible, and performed in the Church, as 'tis Visible. And D^r. Field speakes as plainly, we hold it impossible, that the Church should ever by Apostasie and Misbeliefe, wholly depart from God, &c. So we hold, that it never fals into Heresie. So that Bellarmine is as much to be blamed for idle and needlesse busying himselfe to prove, That the Visible Church never fals into Heresie, which we most willingly grant. Field. L. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. Taking the Church for all the Belee∣vers now living, and in things necessary to be knowne expresly. Ibid. And Bellarmine himself adds; Calvinus dicit hanc Propositionem [Ecclesia non potest errare] ve∣ram esse si intelligatur cum duplici restrictione. Prima est, si non proponat Dogmata extra Scripturam, &c. (And indeed Calvin doth say so, L. 4 Instit. c. 8. §. 13.) Secunda est, si intelligatur de solâ Ecclesiâ Universali, non autem de Representativâ. Bellar. L. 3. de Eccl. Mi∣lit. c. 14. §. 2. And I hope it is as good and a better Re∣striction in Calvin: To say the Catholike Church can∣not erre, if it keepe to the Scripture: then for Bellarmine to say: The particular Church of Rome cannot erre, be∣cause of the Pope's residing there, or the Pope cannot erre, if he keepe his chaire, which yet he affirmes. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. 2.
• * 1.448

  S. Matth. 16. 18.
• † 1.449

  Ecclesia hic tota accipi•…•…da est, non solum ex par•…•…e quà p•…•…rinatur •…•…terris, &c. v•…•…tiam ex illa parte quae in coe∣l•…•… &c. S. Aug. E•…•…hir. c 56.
• * 1.450

  Nemo ex toto Sanctus. Optat. L 7 contra, Par∣men.
• * 1.451

  Rom. 11. 16.
• † 1.452

  Dum Christus or at in Excelso, Návi∣cula (id est E•…•…clesia) •…•…tur fluctibus in profundo &c sed quia Christus orat, non potest mergi S. Aug. Serm 14 de Verb. Domi. c 2. Et B•…•…llar L. 3 ac Ec∣cle. Milit c. 13. Praesidi•…•… Christi ful•…•…i∣tur Eccl•…•…siae perpetuitas ut inter turbu∣lentas a•…•…itationes, & formi•…•…abiles m•…•…tus. &c. salva tam•…•…n maneat. C•…•…. L. 2. In∣stit. c. 15. §. 3. Ipsa Symboli 〈◊〉〈◊〉 admonemur perpetuam resid•…•…re in Eccle∣sia Christi remission m Peccatorum. Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 17. Now remission of sins cannot be perpetuall in the Church, if the Church it selfe be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perpetuall. But the Church it selfe cannot be perpetuall, if it fall away.
• * 1.453

  Spiritus Sanctificationis non p•…•…ost in∣veniri in Haereticorum mentibus. S. Hi∣erom. in Ierom. 10.
• * 1.454

  A. C. p. 56.
• * 1.455

  §. 21. Nu. 1.
• * 1.456

  A. C. p. 56.
• * 1.457

  A. C. p. 57.
• a 1.458

  Olim quod vulpes aegroto cauta Leoni Respondit, referam, Quia me vestigia terrent Omnia te adversum spectantia, nulla retrorsùm.
• * 1.459

  Horat. L. 1. Ep. 1. ex Aesop.
• b 1.460

  Though I cannot justifie all which these two men said, yet safe Conduct being given, that Publike Faith ought not to have beene violated.
• c 1.461

  Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici, debere Haereticis servari fidem, sive salvus conductus concedatur Iure communi sive speciali. Bec. Dis. Theol. de Fide Haereticis servandâ. c. 12. §. 5. But for al this Brag of (Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici) Becanus shuffles pitifully, to defend the Councell of Constance. For thus he argues: Fides non est violata Hussio. Non à Patri∣bus. Illi enim fidem non dederunt. Non ab Imperatore Sigismun∣do. Ille enim dedit fidem, sed non violavit. Ibid. §. 7. But all men know that the Emperor was used by the Fathers at Constance to bring Husse thither. Sigismundus Hussum Constantiam vocat, & missis Literis publicâ fide cavet, mense Octob. Ann. 1414. &c. Edit. in 160. Et etiamsi Primò graviter tulit Hussi in carceratio∣nem, tamen cum dicerent Fidem Haereticis non esse servandam, non modo remisit Offensionem, sed & primus accrbè in eum pro∣nunciav it Ibid. This is a mockery. And Becanus his Argument is easily returned upon himselfe. For if the Fathers did it in cunning, that the Emperor should give safe conduct, which themselves meant not to keepe, then they broke faith And if the Emperor knew, they would not keepe it, then he himselfe broke faith, in giving a safe conduct, which he knew to be invalid. And as easie it is to answer what Becanus addes to save that Coun∣cels Act could I stay upon it.

  Fides Haereticis data servanda non est, sicut nec Tyrannis, Piratis & c•…•…teris publicis praedonibus. &c. Simanca. Jnstit. Tit. 46. §. 51. And although Becanus in the place above cited §. 13. confident∣ly denyes, that the Fathers at Constance decreed, No faith to be kept with Hereticks, and cites the words of the Councell Sess. 19. yet there the very words themselves have it thus: Posse Con∣cilium cos punire &c. etiamsi de salvo conductu consisi ad locum ven•…•…rint Judicii &c. And much more plainly Simanca, Just. Tit. 46. §. 52. Iureigitur Haeretici quidam gravissimo Concilii Con∣stantiensis Judicio legitimâ flammâ concremati sunt, quamvis pro∣mi•…•…sa illis securitas fuisset. So they are not onely Protestants which charge the Councell of Constance with this. Nor can Be∣canus say as •…•…e doth, Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici, sidem Hareticis servandam esse. For Simanca denyes it. And hee quotes others for it which A. C. would be loth should not be accounted Catholikes. But how faithfully Simanca sayes the one, or Becanus the other, let them take it betweene them, and the Reader be judge. In the meane time the very Title of the Ca∣non of the Councell of Constance Sess. 19. is this. Quodnon ob∣stantibus salvis conductibus Jmperatoris, Regum. &c. possit per Indicem competentem de Haeretica p•…•…te inquiri.
• d 1.462

  For so much. A. C. confesses p. 45. For if they should give way to the altering of one, then why not of another, and ano∣ther, and so of al? And the Trent Fathers in a great point of Do∣ctrine being amazed, and not knowing what to answer to a Bi∣shop of their owne, yet were resolved not to part with their common error. Certum tamen er at Doctrinam eam non probare, sed quam antea didicissent firmitèr tenere &c. Hist. Con. Trid. L. 2. p. 277. Edit. Leyd. 1612.
• * 1.463

  A. C. p. 57.
• † 1.464

  Beseeching God to inspire conti∣nually the Vni∣versall Church with the Spirit of truth, unity, and concord. &c. In the Prayer for the Militant Church. And in the third Collect on Good-friday.
• * 1.465

  A. C. p. 57.
• * 1.466

  Campian. prae∣fat. Rationsbut praefixà.
• * 1.467

  §. 26. Nu. 1.
• * 1.468

  §. 21. N. 6.
• a 1.469

  Modò ea qùae ad Cathedrā per∣tinent recta prae∣cipiant S. Hier. Ep. 236.
• b 1.470

  L. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 13. &c. Ep. 48. A ma∣lis piscibus corde semper & mori∣bus se•…•…arantur. &c. Corporalem separationem in •…•…tore maris, hoc est, in fine saculi expectant.
• * 1.471

  Uix ullum peccatum (sol•…•… Hae∣resi exceptá) c•…•…gitari potest, quo illa Sedes •…•…urpiter maculata non fucrit, maxime ab An, 8•…•…0. Re∣lect. Cont. 1. q. 5. Art. 3.
• a 1.472

  Biel in Can. Miss. Lect. 23.
• † 1.473

  Stel. in S. Luc. c 22 Almain. in 3. Sent. d. 24. q. 1 fi∣ne. Multae sunt Decretales haere∣ticae &c. And so they erred as Popes.
• * 1.474

  Eph. 1. 23.
• † 1.475

  S. Aug. Ep. 50. Et iterum Colum ba non sunt qui Ecclesiā dissipant. Accipitres sunt, Milvi sunt: Non laniat Columba. &c. S. Aug. tract. 5. in S. Iohn.
• * 1.476

  A. C. p. 55.
• * 1.477

  A. C. p. 56.
• a 1.478

  3. Reg. 12. 27.
• b 1.479

  Hos. 4. 15.
• c 1.480

  Super Haereti∣cis prona intelli∣gentia est. S. Hi∣er. Ibid.
• d 1.481

  Non tamen cessavit Deus & populum hunc arguere per Prophetas. Nam ibi extiter unt Magni illi & insignes Prophe∣tae Elias & Elizaeus, &c. S. Aug. L. 17. de Civit. Dei. c. 22. Multi religiosè in∣tra se Dei cultum habebant, &c. De quo numero eorumvè Posteris septem illa mi•…•…ia fuisse statuo, qui in Persecutione sub Achabo Deum sibi ab Idololatriâ im∣munes reservârunt, nec genua ante Baal flexerunt. Fran. Monceius L. 1. de Vit. Aureo. c. 12.
• e 1.482

  3. Reg. 17. sub Achabo.
• f 1.483

  4. Reg. 3. sub Iehoram filio A∣chabi.
• g 1.484

  3. Reg. 19. 18.
• h 1.485

  Hos. 9. 17.
• i 1.486

  4. Reg. 9. 6.
• † 1.487

  Non oportuit ad hac cos vocare, quum Authoritas fuerit publicandi apud sia•…•… Romanam, pracipuè cùm unicuique ctiam particulari Ecclesiaeliceat, id quod Catholicum est, promulgare. Alb. Mag. in 1. Dist. 11. A. 9.
• * 1.488

  Non errare, con∣venit Papa •…•…t est Caput. Bell. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3.
• † 1.489

  L. 2. de Christo. c. 21. §. Quando au∣tem. So you cannot finde Record, of your own Truths, which are farre more likely to be kept: but when Errours are crept in, we must bee bound to tell the place, and the time, and I know not what, of their Beginnings, or els they are not Errours. As if some Errours might not want a Record, as well as some Truth.
• a 1.490

  Omninò rectè, nisi excepisset, &c. Nec consideravit quanti refer at concedere Ec∣clesiis particularibus jus condend•…•…rum Canonum de Fide, inconsult â Romanà Sede, quod nunquam licuit, nunquam fa∣ctum est, &c. Capell. de Appellat. Ecol. Africanae. c. 2. Nu. 12.
• b 1.491

  Rex confitetur se vocâsse Concilium tertium Toletanum; Quia decur•…•…s retrò temporibus Haeresis imminens in tota Ec∣clesia Catholica agere Synodica Negotia denegabat, &c. Concil. Toletan. terti∣um. Can. 1.
• * 1.492

  S. Iames 1. 20.
• a 1.493

  §. 24. Nu. 2.
• b 1.494

  Nolo tamen dicere, quin in multis par∣tibus possit Ecclesia per suas partes refor∣mari. Imò hoc necesse esset, sed ad hoc agendum sufficerent Concilia Provincia∣lia, &c Gerson, tract. de Gen. Concil. unius obedientia. parte 1. p. 222. F.
• c 1.495

  Omnes Ecclesiae status aut in Gonerali Concilio reformetis, aut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conciliis Pro∣vincialibus reformari mandetis. Gerson. Declarat. Defectuum Virorum Eccle∣siasticorum. par. 1. pag. 209. B.
• d 1.496

  Concil. Rom. 2. sub Sylvestro.
• e 1.497

  Concil. Gang. Can. 1.
• f 1.498

  Con. Carth. 1. Can. 1.
• g 1.499

  Con. Aquiliens.
• h 1.500

  Con. Carth. 2. Can. 1.
• i 1.501

  Quaedam de causis fidei, unde nunc quae∣stio Pelagianorum imminet, in hoc 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sanctissimo primitus tractentur, &c. Au∣rel. Carthaginensis in Praefat. Conc. Mi∣levit. apud 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.502

  Con. Aurausi∣can. 2. Can. 1, 2, & 6.
• b 1.503

  Con. Tolet. 3.
• c 1.504

  Que omnia in aliis Symbolis explicitè tradita non sunt. Conc. Tolet. 4. Can. 1.
• d 1.505

  Statuimus, ut saltem semel in Anno à Nobis Concilium celebretur, it à tamen, ut si Fide•…•… C•…•…usa est, aut quaelibet alia Ecclesiae communis, Generalis Hispani•…•… & Galliciae Synodus celebretur, &c. Conc. Tolet. 4. Can. 3.
• e 1.506

  §. 24. Nu. 2.
• a 1.507

  The Institution of a Christian man: printed An. 1534.
• b 1.508

  In Synodo Londin•…•…nsi Sess. 8. Die Vene∣ris. 29. Ianuarii. An. 1562.
• c 1.509

  And so in the Reformation under Heze∣kiah, 2. Chron. 29 & under Iosia, 4 Reg. 23. And in the time of Reccarcdus King of Spaine, the Reformation there proceeded thus: Quùm gloriosissimus Princeps omnes Regimin•…•… sui Pontifices in unum conve∣nire mand•…•…sset, &c. Con•…•…il. Tolet. 3. Can. 1. Cùm convemssemus Sacerdotes Domini apud urbem Toletan•…•…, ut R•…•…∣giis imperiis atque jussis commoniti, &c. Concil. Tolet. 4. in princ. apud Cara•…•…∣zam. And bo•…•…h these Synods did treat of Matters of Faith.
• † 1.510

  Quisquis occasione hujus Legis, quam Regesterra Christo servientes ad emen∣dandam vestram impietatem promulgave∣runt, res proprias vestras cupide appetit, displicet nobis. Quisquis denique ipsas res pauperum, vel Ba•…•…licas Congregationum, &c. non per Iustitiam, sed per Avariti∣amtenet, displicet nobis. S. Aug. Epist. 48. versus finem.
• * 1.511

  And this a Particular Church may doe; but not a Schisme. For a Schisme can ne∣ver be peaceable, nor orderly, and seldome free from Sacriledge. Out of which re∣spects, (it may be) as well as for the gr•…•…e∣vousnesse of the Crime, S. Aug. cals it Sacrilegium Schismatis. L. 1 de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 8. For usually they go together.
• * 1.512

  §. 21. Nu. 9.
• * 1.513

  A. C. p. 58.
• * 1.514

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Arist. Eto. c. 6.
• † 1.515

  Minui Jura quoties gliscat Potestas, nec u∣tendum Imperio, ubi Legibus agi possit. Tacit. L. 3 Annal.
• * 1.516

  Heb. 12. 9.
• * 1.517

  God used Samuel as a Messenger against Eli for his overmuch indulgence to his sonnes. 1 Sam. 3. 13. And yet Sa∣muel himselfe committed the very same fault concerning his own sonnes. 1 Sam. 8. 3. 5. And this Indulgence occasioned the Change of the Civill government, as the former was the losse of the Priest∣hood.
• † 1.518

  Coloss. 3. 21.
• a 1.519

  Crimini ci Tribunus inter eatera dabat, quod filium juvenem nullius probri com∣pertum, extorrem urbe, domo, penatibus, foro, luce, congressu aequalium prohibitū, in opus servile, propè in carcerem, at{que} in ergastulum dederit. Liv. dec. 1. l. 7.
• * 1.520

  Deut. 21. 19.
• * 1.521

  A. C. p. 57.
• * 1.522

  A. G. p. 57.
• * 1.523

  Art. 19.
• † 1.524

  Si demus errare non posse Ecclesiam in rebus ad salutem necessariis, hic sensus no∣ster est: Idco hoc esse, quia abdicatâ omni suâ sapientiâ, à Spiritu Sancto doceri se per Uerbum Dei patitur. Calv. L. 4. Inst c. 8. §. 13. And this also is our sense. Uide sup. §. 21. Nu. 5.
• * 1.525

  Nostra sententia est, Ecclesiam absolutè non posse errare, nec in rebus absolutè ne∣cessariis, nec in aliis quae credenda vel faci∣enda nobis proponit, sive habeantur expres∣sè in Scripturis, sive non. Bellar. L. 3. dc Eccl. Mil. c. 14. §. 5.
• * 1.526

  A. C. p. 58.
• * 1.527

  S. Iohn 16. 13.
• * 1.528

  §. 21. Nu. 5.
• * 1.529

  A. C p. 57.
• * 1.530

  A. C. p. 57.
• * 1.531

  A. C. p. 53.
• * 1.532

  A. C. p. 5. & 73
• * 1.533

  Staple. Relect. praef a•…•… L•…•…ctorē.
• † 1.534

  Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c. 2.
• * 1.535

  S. Mat. 16. 18.
• a 1.536

  Pugnare potest, Expugnari non potest. S. Aug. L. de Symb. ad Ca∣tecum. c. 6.
• * 1.537

  Bellar L. 3. de Eccl Milit. c. 13. §. 1. & 2.
• * 1.538

  S. Mat. 28. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.539

  S, Hil. in Psal. 124. Prosp. L. 2. de Vocat. Gent. c. 2.

  Leo. Ser. 2. de Resur. Dom. c. 3. & Ep. 31. Isidor. in Iosu. 12.
• † 1.540

  In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda. S. Leo. Epist. 91. c. 2.
• * 1.541

  S. Luke 22. 3•…•….
• * 1.542

  Bellar. L. 4. de Ro. Pont c 3. §. Est igitur tertia. Hee understood the place of both S. Peter and his Successors.
• † 1.543

  Quae Expositio falsa est, Primò quia &c. Bell. ibid. §. 2. And he sayes tis false be∣cause the Parisi•…•…ns expounded it of the Church only. Uolunt enim prosolâ Eccle∣siae esse •…•…ratum. Ibid. §. 1.
• * 1.544

  A. C. p. 57, S. Ioh. 14. 16. 17. S. Iohn 10. 13.
• a 1.545

  Field. L. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. free from all err•…•…ur and ignorance of Divine things
• b 1.546

  And Theodoret proceeds farther, and sayes, Neque divini Prophetae, neque mirabiles Apostoli omnia praesciverunt. Quae cun{que} enim expediebant, ea illis significavit gratia Spiritûs. Theod. in 1. Tim. 3. v. 14, 15.
• * 1.547

  S. Ioh. 14. 26.
• c 1.548

  §. 21. Nu. 5.
• a 1.549

  § 24 N 1, 2 &c. A. C. p. 57.
• * 1.550

  Si de modica Quaestione Disceptatio es∣set, nonne oporteret in Antiquissimas re∣currere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli con∣versati sunt, & ab its de praesenti Quae∣stione sumere quod certum & liquidum est? Quid autem si ne{que} Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne opor∣tebat Ordinem sequi Traditionis? &c. Irenaeus. L. 8. advers. Hares. c. 4.
• * 1.551

  A. C p. 58.
• c 1.552

  §. 25. Nu. 4.
• * 1.553

  A. C. p. 58.
• * 1.554

  A. C. p. 58.
• † 1.555

  And after hee saith, p. 58. that the Bishop of Rome is, and ought to bee the Iudge of parti∣cular Churches in this Case.
• a 1.556

  Summa Potestas Ecclesiastica non est data solum Pe∣tro, sedetiam aliis Apostolis. Omnes enim poterant dice∣re illud S. Pauli: Solicitu la omnium Ecclesiarum, &c. 2. Cor. 11. 28. Bellar. L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. §. Re∣spond•…•… Pontificatum. Where then is the difference be∣tweene S. Peter and the rest? In this, saith Bellarmin. Ibid. Quta hec Potestas data est Petro, ut Ordinario Pastori, cui perpetuo succederetur, Aliis verò, tanquàm Delegatis, quibus non succederetur. This is handsomely said to men easie of beliefe. But that the Highest Pow∣er Ecclesiasticall confessed to be given to the other A∣postle., as well as to S. Peter, was given to S. Peter onely, as to an Ordinary Pastour, whose Successours should have the same Power, which the Successours of the rest should not have, can never bee prooved out of Scripture. Nay (I will give them their own Latitude) it can never be proved by any Tradition of the whole Ca∣tholike Church. And till it be proved; Bellarmines hand∣some Expression cannot be believed by me. For S. Cy∣prian hath told me long since, that Episcopatus Vnus est, (for as much as belongs to the Calling) as well as Apo∣stolatus. L. de simp. Praelato.
• b 1.557

  §. 25. Nu. 12.
• c 1.558

  Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. §. Au∣gustmu; Episto∣la.
• d 1.559

  S. Aug. Epist. 162. In Roma∣ná Ecclesi•…•… em∣per Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatas.
• e 1.560

  Quia Opinio invaluit fund•…•…tam esse hanc Ecclesiam à S. Pet•…•…; Jtaque in Occidente Sedes Apostolica Honoris 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Calv. L. 4. c. 6. §. 16.
• a 1.561

  Princeps Ecclesiae S. H. lar. 18. de Trin. Prin. And he speakes of a Bi•…•…hop in gene∣rall. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 17. Ascribuntur Episcopo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Impe∣rium, Thronus, & Principatus ad regi∣m•…•…n A•…•…imarum. Et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hujus∣modi Imperium. And he also speaks of a Bishop. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 20. Nor were these any Titles of pride in Bi•…•…hops then. For S. Greg. Nazianz. who chal∣lenges these Titles to himselfe, Orat. 17. was so devout, so mild, and so humble, that rather then the Peace of the Church should be broken, he freely resigned the Great Patriarchate of Constantinople, and retired, and this in the First Coun∣cell of Constantinople, and the Second Generall.
• b 1.562

  Pergant ad Fratres & Col∣legas nostros transmarinarum Ecclesiarum E∣piscopos, &c. S. Aug. Ep 162.
• c 1.563

  An fortè non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melciades Episcopus cum Collegis trans∣marinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judi∣cium quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi Pri∣mas Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerit terminae∣tum. Quid quod nec ipse usurp•…•…vit: Ro∣gatus quippe Imperator, Iudices misit Episcopos, qui cum •…•…o sederent, & de totâ illâ Causà, quod justum videretur, statue∣rent, &c. S. Aug. Ibid.
• * 1.564

  Ad cujus Cu∣van•…•…ds quâ rati∣onem Deo reddi∣turus est, res illa maximè pertine∣bat. S. Aug. E∣pist. 162.
• † 1.565

  Nam contra horum Antistitum (de Patriarchis loquitur) Sententias, non esse locum Appellationi à Majoribus nostris •…•…itutum est. •…•…od. L 1. Tit. 4. L. 29. ex •…•…ditions Gothofredi. Si non rata habuerit •…•…traque Pars, qua judicata sunt, tunc Beatissimns Patriarcha Dioceseôs illius, •…•…ter eos audiat, &c. Nullâ parte ejus Sententiae contradicere valente. Authen. Co•…•…at. 9. Tit. 15. C. 22.
• * 1.566

  Et ille (scilicet Patriarcha) secundum Canones, & Leges pr•…•…bent finem. And there hee cites the Novell its selfe. S. Greg. L. 11. Judict. 6. Epist. 54.
• a 1.567

  Si dictum fu•…•…it, quòd nec Metropoli∣tanum habeat, nec Patriarcham: dicen∣dum est, quòd à Sede Apostolicâ, quae om∣nium Ecclesiarum Caput est, causa andi∣enda est, &c. S. Greg. Ibid.
• b 1.568

  Notitia Pro∣vinciarum Occi∣dentalium, per Guidum Panci∣rolum. l. 2. c. 48.
• c 1.569

  Hunc cunctis Liberalium Artium disci∣plinis eruditum pro Magistro teneamus, & quasi Comparem, velut alterius Orbis Apostolicum & Patriarcham, &c. Io. Capgravius de Vitis Sanctorum, in vitâ S. Anselmi. Et Guil. Malmesburiens. de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum. p. 223. Edit. Francof. 1601.
• d 1.570

  Ibi (Cantuariae id est) prima Sedes Ar∣chiepiscopi habetur, qui est totius Anglia Primas & Patriarcha. Guil. Malmes∣buriensis in Prolog. Lib. 1. de Gestis Pon∣tificum Anglorum. p. 195.
• * 1.571

  praterea & qui sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Ba•…•…barico, Episcopi à Sanctissimo Throno Sanctissima Constantinopolitanae Ecclesia Ordinentur. Codex Canonum Ecclesia universae. Can. 206. And Iustellus proves it there at large, that by in Barba∣rico, in that Canon, is meant In Solo Bar∣barorum. Annot. Ibid.
• † 1.572

  Ne f•…•…mosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Chri∣sti videatur in∣ducere, &c. E∣pist. Conc. Afric. ad Papam Coe∣lestinum pri∣mum. Apud Ni∣colin. To. 1. Con∣cil. p. 844.
• a 1.573

  Epist. Bonifa∣cii 2. apud Nicol. To. 2. Concil. p. 544.
• b 1.574

  Exemp. Precū apud Nicolin. Ibid. p. 525.
• * 1.575

  Baron. Annal. An. ad. 4 9. Nu. 93. 94.
• † 1.576

  Ualde mihi illa Epistola suspecta sunt. Bellar. L. 2. de Ro. Pont. c. 25. § Respondeo pri∣mum. Sed si for∣tè illa Epistola verae sunt, nihil enim affirm•…•… &c. Ibid. § ult.
• * 1.577

  And so the Councell of Carthage sent word to Pope Calestine plainly, that in admitting such Appeales, he brake the Decrees of the Councell of Nice. Epist. Concil. Africa. ad Calestinum. c. 105. Apud Nicolin, Tom. 1. Concil. p. 844.
• † 1.578

  Planè ex Ecclesiae Catholicae albo Ex∣p•…•…ngenda f•…•…issent S•…•…nctorum Africano∣rum Martyrum Ag•…•…ina qui in persecuti∣one Vandalica pro Fide Catholica &c. Ba∣ron. Ann. 419. Num. 93. Et Binius. In Notis ad Epist. Bomfacii 2. ad Eulalium.
• * 1.579

  §. 24. Nu. 5.
• † 1.580

  Bel•…•…. 2. de Ro. Pont. c. 25. §. 2.
• * 1.581

  A. C. p. 58.
• * 1.582

  §. 25. Nu. 10.
• † 1.583

  Quòd autem postea Vxus electus est qui cateris praporer•…•…ur, in Schismatis re∣medium fallum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclestam rumperet. Nam & Alexandriae à Marco Evange∣lista •…•…resbyteri semper unum ex secle∣ctum in excellenttori gradu col ocatum, Episcopum nominabant, &c. S. Hieron. in Epist. ad Evagrium. So even accor∣ding to S. Hiero•…•…, Bishops had a very ancient and honourable descent in the Church from S. Marke the Euangelist. And about the end of the same Epistle, he acknowledges it. Traditionem esse Apo∣stolicam. Nay mo e then so, He afhimes plainly, That Vli non est Saccrdos non est Ecclesia, S. Hiéron. advers. Luciferian. And in that place most manifelt i•…•… is that S. Icrom by Sacerdos means a Bishop: For he speaks de Sacerdote qui potestatem ha∣bet Ordinandi, which in S. Ienomes owne Iudgement no meere Priest had, but a Bi∣shop only. S. Hier. Epist àd Evagrium. So even with him, no Bishop, and no Church.
• * 1.584

  Non •…•…nim Respub. est in Ecclesià: sed Ec∣clesia in Repub. Optat. L. 3.
• a 1.585

  Conc. Calced, Can. 9. & Actio 16.
• b 1.586

  S. Cyprian. L. de Simp Pralat.
• * 1.587

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ut al∣unt sivese jaclat esse. Greg. Naz. Carm. de vitasua p. 26.
• † 1.588

  Orientalibut levitas, Occidet a∣libus arrogantia invicem objecta est. Bilius. An∣not. in S. Gregor. Naz. Vitam. Na. 153. Quid oput est Occidentali superciliolex Sā∣cto Basil. &c.
• * 1.589

  Hac una suit causa quare l'e∣lagius injussu Principis Ponti∣sex creatus sit, quùm extra ob∣sessam ab hoste vrbē mitti quis∣piā non posset &c. Postea itaque ad placandum Impe∣ratorē Gregorius Diaconus. &c. Platina in vitâ Pelagii 2. & Onuph. ibid.
• † 1.590

  Onuph. In Plat. in vi•…•…a Bonif. 3.
• a 1.591

  In hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam •…•…ntichristi esse tempora designatur. S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 78.
• † 1.592

  It may be they will say S. Gregory did not in∣veigh against the Thing, but the Person. That John of Constantinople should take that upon him, which belonged to the Pope. But it is manifest by S. Gregories owne text, that he speakes against the Thing it self, that neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any other, ought to take on him that Title. Cura totius Ecclesia & Principatus S. Petro committitur, & tamen Vniversalis Apostolus non vocatur. S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 76. (Therefore nei∣ther is his successor, Vniversall Bishop.) Nunquid ego hac in re propriam causam defendo? nunquid specialem injuriam Uindico? & non magis cau∣sam Omnipotentis Dei & Vniversalis Ecclesiae? where he plainly denyes, that he speaks in his owne Cause, or in the Cause of his Sea. Per Vene∣randam Chalcedonensem Synodum hoc Nomen Rō. Pontifici oblatum est, sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis Uocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid daretur Vni, honore debito Sacerdotes privarentur Vniversi, &c. Where he plainly sayes, the Romane Bishops rejected this Title. Ibid. And yet for all this, Pope Gregory the seventh delivers it as one of his Di∣ctates in a Councell held at Rome about the yeare 1076. Quòd solus Romanus Pontifex jure dica∣tur Vniversalis. Baron. ad An. 1076. N. 31. &. 32.
• * 1.593

  Absit a Cordibus Christianorum Nomen istud Blasphemia. S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 76. In isto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…cabulo •…•…onsentire, nihil est aliud quam fi∣dem perdere. S. Greg. L. 4. Epist. 83.
• * 1.594

  Uana tunc ha∣bebatur Cl•…•…ri & Populi Electio, nisi aut Impera∣tores, aut corum Exa•…•…chi confir∣massent. Plat. in vita Severini. 1.
• † 1.595

  Quum Theophylactus Exarchus Impe∣ratoris Itali•…•…m peteret, Milites Itali, ve∣riti ne quid mali ejus Adventus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quod superioribus temporibus f•…•…re ma∣gis cum Pontisicibus quam cum impera∣toribus sensissent, ingressurum Romam in∣terficere constituerant (And the Empe∣rors owne Governer was faine to be de∣fended from the Emperors owne souldi∣ers by the Popes power, who had got∣ten interest in them against their own Master) Platina in vita Iohan. 6. Absi∣marus was then Emperor.
• * 1.596

  Primus omnium Rom. Pontisicum Im∣peratort Graeco Philippico in os resistere pa∣lam ausus st. Onuph in Plat. in vita Con∣stantini 1.
• a 1.597

  Pla•…•…a in vita Gregor. 2. & 3.
• b 1.598

  Vt laboranti Ro∣me & Ecclesiae primo quo{que} tem∣pore auxiliū fer∣ret &c. Plati•…•…a. in vita Greg. 3.
• * 1.599

  Quares semel incaep•…•…ta cum Longobardi∣•…•… Regni excidio finit a est Onuph. in Plat. in vita Constanti•…•… primi.
• † 1.600

  Reddi•…•… ita{que} Romanis Exarchatus est, quicquid Padum & Apenninum inter∣jacet. &c. Plat•…•…. in vita Stephan. secundi.
• * 1.601

  Imperator in Gratiam cum Gregorio re∣d•…•…, cundemque in Pontificatu confirma∣vit, ut tum Imperatorum mos erat. Plat. in vita Gregor. septim.
• † 1.602

  Multi deinde fuerunt Impera∣tores Hen. similio∣res, quam Iu. Cae∣sars, quos subig•…•…∣re non suit diffi∣cile, dum d•…•…i re∣vum omnium se∣curi &c. Cal. L. 4 Instit. c. 11. §. 13.
• * 1.603

  For in a Synod at Rome about the yeare 1076. Pope Greg the seventh establi•…•…hed certaine briefe Conclusions, twenty seven in number, upon which stands almost all the Greatnesse of the Pa∣pacy These Conclusions are called Dictatus Papae. And they are reckoned up by Baronius in the yeare 1076. Nu. 31, 32, &c. But whether this Dictatorship did now first invade the Church, I can∣not certainly say. The chiefe of these Propositions follow here.

  Quòd solus Rom. Pontifex jure dicatur Vniversalis. Quòd solius Papae pedes omnes Principes deosculentur. Quòd liceat illi Imperatores Deponere. Quòd null t Synodus abs{que} praecepto ejus debet Generalis vocari. Quòd nullum Capitulum, nullusquè Liber Canonicus habea∣tur absque illius Authoritate. Quòd sententia illius à nullo debet retractari, & ipse omnium solus retractare potest. Quòd Rom. Ecclesia nunquam erravit, nec in perpetuum, Scripturâ testante, errabit. Quòd Rom. Pontifex, si Canonic è suerit ordinatus, meritis B. Petri indubit ant èr efficitur sanctus. Quòd à fidelitate Iniquorum subditos potest absolvere.
• † 1.604

  Euseb. L. 5. c. 25.
• † 1.605

  Adhanc Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem Principalitatem, necesse est •…•…mnem con∣venire Ecclesiam. 1. e. eos qui sunt un∣dique sideles: In quá semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolu Traditio. Iren. L. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.606

  A. C. p. 58.
• a 1.607

  Ed. Brierwood, of the Iurisdicti∣on and Limits of the Patriarchs, in the time of the Nicen Councel. Ad. Qu. 1. M. S.
• b 1.608

  Apud Alexan∣driam, ut in urbe Româ vetusta consuetudo ser∣vetur, ut ille Aegypti, ut hic Suburbicariarn̄ Ecclesiarum se∣licitudinem ge∣rat. Russin. L. 1. Eccles. Hist. c. 6.
• c 1.609

  Peron L. 2. of his Reply. c. 6.
• † 1.610

  Quia cùm Orientales & Gracae Eccle∣siae, & Afrcanae etiam, multis inter se Opinionum dissentionibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, haec sedatior aliis, & minùs turbu∣lenta fuerit. Calv. L. 4. Justit. c. 6. §. 16.
• * 1.611

  A. C. p. 58.
• † 1.612

  Ipse autem Dominus constituit •…•…um Primum Apostolorum, Petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei adificat a est, & portae inferorum non valebunt adversus il∣lam, &c. Juxta omnem enim modum in Ipso firmata est fides, qui accepit Clavem Coelorum, &c. In hoc enim omnes Que∣stiones ac Subtilitates fidei inveniuntur. Epiphan. in Ancorato. Edit. Paris. Lat. 1564. fol. 497. A. Edit, verò Grace. Latin. To. 2. p. 14.
• a 1.613

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For there b•…•…gins the Ar•…•…ument of Epiphanius.
• b 1.614

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• c 1.615

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.616

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• e 1.617

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. S. M•…•…. 16. 17.
• f 1.618

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Qui factus est nobis re∣ver à solida Petra firmans fidem Domini. In quâ (Petrá) aedificata est Ecclesia juxta omnem modum. Primò, quòd con∣fessus est Christum esse Filium Dei vi vi, & statim audivit super hanc Petram soli•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adisicabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉.—Etiam de Sp. Sancto idem &c. Epi∣pha. L. 2. Hares. 59. contra Catharos. To. 1. p. 500. Edit. Graeco-Lat.
• a 1.619

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• b 1.620

  Ille primus (speaking of S. Iames the Lords Brother) Episcopalem Cathedram capit, quum ei ante •…•…teros omnes suum in terris Thronum Dominus tradidisset. Epiphan. L. 3. Hares. 78. To. 2. p. 1039. Et ferè similiter. To. 1. L. 1. Hares. 29.
• * 1.621

  A. C. p. 58.
• c 1.622

  Bellar. L. 1. de Ro. Pont. c. 9. §. Respondeo Pon∣tificatum.
• d 1.623

  §. 25. Nu. 10.
• e 1.624

  Bellar. Ibid.
• a 1.625

  The Fathers gave three Prerogatives to S. Peter. Of Authority. Of Primacy. And of Principality. But not of Supre∣macy of Power. Raynold. cont. Hart. c. 5. Divis. 3. And he proves it at large.
• b 1.626

  S. Mat. 16 18.
• c 1.627

  S. Mat. 18. 18. S. Ioh. 20. 22.
• d 1.628

  Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est, non sacit hoc Ecclesia, &c. S. Aug. Tract. 50. in S. Ioh.
• * 1.629

  A. C. p. 58.
• e 1.630

  S. Luk. 22. 32.
• f 1.631

  Deum dare, ut in fide perseve∣retur. S. Prosper. L. 1. de Vocat. Gent. c. 24.
• g 1.632

  Rogavi ut non deficeret, &c. Et certè juxta vos in Apostoli erat positum pote∣state si voluisset, ut non deficeret fides ejus, &c. S. Hieron. L. 2. adversus Pe∣lagianos.
• h 1.633

  Aliquid speciale. Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Secundo, quia sine.
• a 1.634

  Vt nec ipse ut Pontifex doceret unquam aliquid contra fidem, sive ut in Sede ejus in∣veniretur qui do∣ceret. Bellar. L. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Alterum Privilegium est.
• * 1.635

  Theophylactus floruit circa An. Dom. 1072.
• † 1.636

  Quia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 habco Principem, di∣s•…•…ipulorū, confir∣ma caeteros. Hoc enim decet Te qui post me Ec∣clesia Petraes & Fundamentum. Bellar. L. 4. De Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Praeter hos. Ex Theophyl. in 21. S Luc.
• † 1.637

  Impetravit. &c. ibid. §. Est igitur tertia.
• * 1.638

  Ex quibus pri vilegiis primum fortasse non ma∣navit ad posteros, at secundum sine dubio manavit ad Posteros sive Suc∣cessores. Bellar. Ibid. §. Alterum Privilegium.
• † 1.639

  Bellar. L. 4. de Ro. Pont. c. 8.
• * 1.640

  S. Iohn. 11. 42.
• * 1.641

  Donum hoc lo∣co Petro impe∣tratum, etiam ad Successores per∣tinet. Bel. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. §. Quarto, Do∣num hoc.
• * 1.642

  S. Iohn 21. 15.
• * 1.643

  Mat. 28. 29 & S. Mat. 10. 17. The same pow∣er and charge is g•…•…en to them al. A. C. p. 58.
• † 1.644

  And this seemes to me to all•…•…de to that of S. Paul, 1 Corinth 3 2. and Heb. 5. 12. Some are sed with milke, and some with stronger meat. The Lambes with milke, and the Sheepe with stronger meate. But here A. C. followes Pope Hildebrand close, who in the Case of the Emperor then, asked this Question: Quando Chri∣stus Ecclesiam suam Petro commisit, & dixit, Pasce Oves meas, excepitne Reges? Plat. in vita Greg 7. And certainly Kings are not exempted from being fed by the Church: But from being spoyled of their Kingdomes by any Church-men, that they are.
• * 1.645

  A. C. p. 58.
• * 1.646

  A. C. p. 58.
• * 1.647

  A. C. p. 59.
• * 1.648

  Siomnes, nullum fuit hactenus Concilium Generale, neque etiam videtur deinceps suturum. Bcl. 1. de Co•…•…c. c. 17. §. 1.
• † 1.649

  §. 33. Consil 1.
• * 1.650

  And this was thought a sufficient •…•…udge too, when Christians were as humble as learned. I am sure Optatus thought so. Quae∣ren li sunt Iudices. Si Christiani de utraque parte dari non pos∣sunt, quia stud•…•…s veritas impeditur, De forts quaerendus est Iu∣dex. Si Paganus, non potest nosse Christiana Secreta. Si Iudae∣us inimicus est Christiani Baptismatis. Ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reporiri Iudiciis. De Caelo quaerendus est Iudex. Sed ut quid pulsamus ad Coelum, quum habemus hîc in Evangelio? Testamentum inquam, quia hoc loco rec•…•…e possunt terrena coele∣stibus comparari) talc est, quod quivis hominum habens numero∣sos siltos, his quamdiu pater praesens est, ipse imperat singulis; non est adhuc necessarium Testam•…•…ntū Sic & Christus, quamdiu praesens in terris suit, (quamvis nec modo desit) pro tempore quicquid necessa∣rium crat, Apostolis Imperavit. Sed quomodo terrenus Pater dum se in consinio senserit mortis, timens ne post mortem suam, ru∣ptà pace litigent fratres, adhibitis Testibus Uoluntatem suam de Pectore morituro, transfert in Tabulas diu duraturas. Et si fu•…•…rit inter fratres contentio nata, non itur ad Tumulum, sed quaeri∣tur. Testamentū; & qui Tumulo quiescit, tacitus de Tabulis loqui∣tur. Vivus, cujus est Testamentū, in caelo est. Ergo Voluntas ejus, ve∣lut in Testamento sic in Evangelio inquiratur. Opt. l. 5. adv Parm.

  This pregnant Place of Optatus, (That the Scripture is the Iudge of Divine Truth, when ever it is questioned,) though Baldwin dare not deny, yet he would faine slide both by it, and by a paralell place as full in S. Aug. in Psal. 21. Expositione 〈◊〉〈◊〉. with this shift that S. Augustine in another place had rather use the Testimony of Tradition, that is the Testimony Nuncupativi potius quâm Scripti Testamenti, of the Nuncupative, rather then the Written Will of Christ. Baldwin in Optat. L. 5. But this is a meere shift. First, because it is Petitio principii the meere begging of the Que∣stion. For we deny any Testament of Christ, but that which is written. And A. C. cannot thew it in any one Father of the Church, that Christ ever left behind him a Nuncupative obligato∣ry Will. Secondly, because nothing is more plaine in these two Fathers Optatus and S. Augustine, then that both of them ap∣peale to the Wrrtten Will, and make that the Iudge without any Exception, when a matter of Faith comes in Question. In Optat. the words are Habemus in Evangelio, we have it in the Gospell. And in Evangelio inquiratur, Let it be inquired in the Gospell: And Christ put it in tabulas diu duraturas into Written and last∣ing Instruments. In S. Augustine the words are: Our Father did not dye intestate; &c. And Tabulae aperiantur, Let his Will, his written Instruments be opened. And Legantur Uerbamortui let the words of him that dyed, be read. And againe Aperi, Legamus, Open the Will. and let us reade. And Legamus, quid litigamus? Why do we strive? Let's read the Will. And againe, Aperi Testa∣mentum, lege, Open the Will read. All which Passages are most expresse and full for his Written Will, and not for any Nuncupa∣tive Wil, as Baldwin would put upon us. And Hart who takes the same way with Baldwin is not able to make it out, as appeares by. D. Reynolds in his Conference with Hart. c. & divis. 1. p. 396. &c.
• * 1.651

  §. 28. N. 1. And so plainly S. Augustine speaking of S. Cy∣prians Errour about Rebaptization & c. sayes. Illis tem∣poribus antequàm Plenarii Concilii sententiae quid in hac re sequendum esset, t ot ius Ecclesiae Consensio confirmasset, Uisum est ei cum &c. L. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 18. So, here is first Sententia Concilii: And then the Confirma∣tion of it is totius Ecclesiae Consensio, the Consent of the whole Church yeelding unto it. And so Gerson. Concur∣rente Vniversali totius Ecclesiae consensu. &c. In Declara∣tione Ueritatum quae credenda sunt. &c. §. 4. For this, that the Pope must confirme it, or else the Generall Councell is invalid, is one of the Romane Novelties. For this cannot be shewed in any Antiquity void of just Exception. The truth is, the Pope as other Patriarchs and great Bishops used to doe, did give his assent to such Councels as he ap∣prooved. But that is no Corroboration of the Councell, as if it were invalid without it: but a Declaration of his consenting with the rest. §. 33. Consid. 4. Nu. 6.
• * 1.652

  A. C. p. 59, 60.
• † 1.653

  Christianitas in diversas Haereses scissa est, quia non er at licentia Episcopis in unum convenire, persecutione saeviente usque ad tempora Constantini &c. Isidor. praefat. in Concil. Edit. Uenetiis. 1585.
• † 1.654

  Frequens Generalium Conciliorum celebratio est prae∣cipua cultura Agri Dominici. &c. Et illorum negle∣ctus, Errores, Hareses, & Schismata disseminat. Hee prateritorum temporum recordatio & praesentium consi∣deratio ante oculos nostros ponunt. Itaque sancimus, ut amodo Concilia Generalia celebrentur; it a quod Primum à fine hujus Concilii in quin ju•…•…nnium immediatè sequens, Secundum verò à fine illius in septennium, & deinceps de decennio in decennium perpetuo celebrentur &c. Concil. Constan. Sess. 39. Et apud Gerson. Tom. 1. p. 230. Et Pet. de A•…•…aco Card Cameracensis libellum obtulit in Concil. Constant. de Reformatione Ecclesiae contra Opini∣onem eorum qui putarunt Concilia Generalia minus ne∣cessariaesse, quia Omnia benè a P•…•…tribus nostris ordinata sunt. &c. In fascic. Rerum expetendarum. fol. 28. Et Schismatibus debet Ecclesia cito per Concilia Genera∣lia provideri, ut in Primitiva Ecclesia docuerunt Apo∣stoli. Ut Act. 6. & Act. 15. Ibid fol. 204. A.
• * 1.655

  In Concil. Arimincusi multis paucorum fraude decep∣tis &c. S. Aug. L. 3. cont. Maximinum c. 14.
• a 1.656

  Non per difficiles nos Deus ad Beat am vitam Quaesti∣ones vocat, &c. In absoluto nobis & facili est aeternitas; Iesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum Credere, & Ipsum esse Dominum consiteri, &c. S. Hilar. L. 10. de Trin. ad finem.
• a 1.657

  Cyprianus & Collegae ip•…•…us credentes Haereticos & Schismaticos Baptismum non habere, sine Baptismo rece∣ptis, &c. iis tamen communicare quam separari ab Vnita∣te maluerunt. S. Aug L. 2. de Baptis. cont. Donatist. c 6. Et hi non contaminabant Cyprianum. Ibid. sine.
• b 1.658

  Recensuit cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona. Euseb. L. 5. Hist. c. 20. De Irenaeo.

  Regula Principalis de quâ Paracletus agnitus. Tert. de Monogam c. 2. And this is true, though the Authour spoke it, when he was Lapsed.

  Ipsas Scripturas apprimè tenens. S. Hieron, ad Marcel∣lum adversus Montanum. To. 2. Hoc quia de Scripturts non habet authoritatem, eâdem facilitate contemnitur, quà probatur. S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 23.

  Manifestus est fidei lapsus, & liquidum superbiae vitium, vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet, vel indu∣cere quicquam quod scriptum non est. S. Basil. S•…•…rm. de Fide. To. 2. p. 154. Edit. Basileae. 1565.

  Contra insurgentes Hareses saepe pugnavi Agraphis, ve∣rùm non alienis à piâ secundùm Scripturam sententiâ. Ibid. p. 153.

  And before Basil, Tertul. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, &c. si non est scriptum, timeat Hermogenes, Vae illud adji∣cientibus vel detrahentibus destinatum. Tertul. advers. Hermog. c. 22.

  And Paulinus plainely cals it Regulam Directionis. Epist. 23.

  De hâc Regula tria observanda sunt. 1. Regula est, sed à tempore quo scripta. 2. Regula est, sed per Ecclesiam applicanda, non per privatum Spiritum. 3. Regula est, & mensurat omnia quae continet: continet autem om∣nia necessaria ad salutem vel mediatè vel immediatè. Et hoc tertium habet Biel. in 3. D. 25. q. unicâ. Conclus. 4. M. And this is all we say. Hook. L. 5. Eccles: Pol. §. 22.
• c 1.659

  Regula Catholica sidei debet esse certa & nota. Si certa non sit, non erit Regula. Si nota non sit, non erit Regula nobis. Bellar. L. 1. de Verbo Dei. c. 2. §. 5. Sed nihil est vel certius vel notius sacrâ Scripturâ. Bellar. ibid. §. 6. Therefore the Holy Scripture is the Rule of Catholike Faith, both in it selfe, and to us also; For in things sim∣ply Necessary to Salvation, it is abundantly knowne and manifest, as §. 16. Nu. 5.
• d 1.660

  Convenit inter nos & omnes omnino Haereticos, Verbum Dei esse Regulam fidei, ex quâ de Dogmatibus judican∣dum sit. Bellarm. Praefat. To. 1. fine. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there perhaps he includes Traditions, yet tha•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proved yet. N•…•…ther indeed can he include 〈◊〉〈◊〉 For he speakes of that Word of God, upon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 re•…•…cks consent: But concerning Traditions, they •…•…ll consent not: That they are a Rule of Faith. Ther•…•… he speakes not of them.
• * 1.661

  Iudg. 6.
• * 1.662

  For so he af∣firmes. p. 58.
• * 1.663

  1. Cor. 11. 19.
• * 1.664

  A. C. p. 60.
• † 1.665

  Qua subtilissime de hoc disputari pos∣sunt, ità ut non similitudinibus quae ple∣runque fallunt, sed rebus ipsis satisfiat, &c. S. Aug. L. de Quant. Animae. c. 32. Whereupon the Logicians tell us right∣ly, that this is a Fallacy, unlesse it be ta∣ken reduplicativè. i. e. de similibus qua similia sunt. And hence Arist. himself 2. Top. Loc. 32. sayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rursum in Similibus. si similitèr se habent.
• a 1.666

  When Gerson writ his Tract De Aufe∣ribilitate Pape, sure hee thought the Church might continue in a very goo•…•… Being, without a Monarchicall Head: Therefore, in his Iudgement, the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ, Monarchicall. Gerson. par. 1. pag. 154.

  When S. Uierom. wrote thus: (Ubi∣cuaque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhe∣git sive Alexandriae, sive Tanis; ejus∣dem meriti, cjusdem est & Sacerdotii. S. Hieron. Epist. ad Evagrium) doubt∣lesse he thought not of the Romane Bi∣shops Monarc•…•…y. For what Bishop is of the same Merit, or of the same Degree in the Priesthood with the Pope, as things are now carried at Rome? Affirmamus etiam, Patribus & Graecis & Latinis, ignot as esse voces de Petro aut Papa Mo∣narcha & Monarchia. Namquod in su∣perioribus obscrvabamus reperiri obs•…•…rvabamus di∣ctiones positas pro Episco∣patu, nihil hoc ad r•…•…m facit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Casaub. Excrcitatione 15. ad Annales Eccles. Ba∣ron. §. 12. p. 378. & §. 11 p. 360. diser∣te asserit & probat Ecclesiae Regimen Aristocraticum fuisse.
• b 1.667

  Bellar. L. a. de Concil. c. 16. §. 1, 2, 3.
• c 1.668

  S. Greg. L. 9. Epist. 58. & L. 12. Epist. 15.
• d 1.669

  S. Greg. L. 9. Epist. 61.
• a 1.670

  Bellar. L. 3. de Eccles. c. 2. §. Nostra autem.
• b 1.671

  Non •…•…im R•…•…∣publica est in Ec∣clesiâ: sed Eccle∣sia in Republicâ: i. e. in Imperio Romano. Optat. L. 3.
• a 1.672

  Conc. Antioch. c. 9. p. 507.
• b 1.673

  Conc. Nic. 1. c. 5. & Antioch. c. 12.
• c 1.674

  Conc. Nie. 1. c. 4. & Antioch. can. 9.
• d 1.675

  Conc. Antioch. c. 14.
• e 1.676

  Sed praeponitur Scriptura, S. Au∣gust. L. 2. de Bapt. cont. Do∣nat. c. 3.
• f 1.677

  Nam cùm Sta∣tutum sit omni∣bus nobis, &c. & singulis Pastori∣bus portio gre∣gis &c. S. Cypr. L. 1. Ep 3.
• g 1.678

  Bellar. L. 1 de Ro. Pont. c. 8. & L. 2. de Concil. c. 16.
• h 1.679

  Bellar. L. 1. de Ro. P•…•…nt. c. 7.
• * 1.680

  A. C. p. 64, 65.
• a 1.681

  Li•…•…et sit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quòd uni Popul•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sit unus Episcopus; non expedit ta•…•…n 〈◊〉〈◊〉 toti p•…•…pulo fideli praesit unus s•…•…lus. Tum quia omnia Negotia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pop•…•…li partialis potest sustinere unus s•…•…us: Nullus au∣tem unus potest sustinere omnia Negotia etiam majora omnium Christianorum: Tum quia minus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est, ut populus partialis & parvus in•…•…iatur ab 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epis•…•…opo, quam ut totus, vel ferè totus populus Christ•…•… insici∣atur ab uno Capite, quod omnibus praesit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. L. 2. Dial. tract. 1. p. 3. c. 30. ad 8. And besides this of Ockam. To that Common Argument, That Monar •…•…call Go∣vernement is the best, and therefore und•…•…dly that which Christ instituted for his Church, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Answer, That a Monarchy is the best forme of Govern∣ment in one City or Countrey. Arist. L. 8. Mo•…•…l c. 10. But it followes not, That it is the best in respect of the whole world, where the Parts are so remote, and the Dis∣positions of men so various. And therefore Bellarm. him∣selfe confesses: Monarchiam Aristocratiae & Democra∣tiae admixtam utiliorem esse in hác vità, quàm simplex Monarchia est. L. 1. de Ro. Pont. c. 3. §. 1.
• b 1.682

  In the first Glosse ascribed to Isidore in Gen. 1. 16. 'Ti•…•… Per Solem intelligitur Regnum; per Lunam, Sacei∣dotium. But Innocent the third, almost six hundred yeares after Isidore's death, perverts both Text and Glosse. Thus. Ad firmamentum Coeli. i. e. Vniversalis Ec∣clesiae, fecit Deus duo magna Luminaria, hoc est, d•…•…us in∣•…•…ituit Potestates, Pontificalem, & Regalem, &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quantainter Solem & Lanam, tanta 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Reges differentia cognoscatur, Epist. ad Impera•…•… •…•…∣nopolitanum. Decret. L. 1. de Majoritate & Ob•…•…ntia. Tit. 33. cap. Solitae.
• c 1.683

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mili∣•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S•…•…ri∣pturis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c S. Au•…•…. •…•…pist. 119 c. 6.
• a 1.684

  Intelligimus spiritualiter Ec∣clesiam, &c. Et hic •…•…uis est Sol, nisi Sol lustits•…•…? &c. S. Aug. in Psal. 103.
• b 1.685

  •…•…p. •…•…op. L. dicto E clesia∣•…•…us, c. 145.
• c 1.686

  Igitur cùm terra sit septies major Lunâ: Sol autem octies major terra, restat ergo ut Fontificalis dignitas qua∣dragesies septics sit major Realidignitate. Gloss. in De∣cret, praedict. Where first the Glosse is out in his Latine. Hee might have said Quadragies: for Quadragesies is no word. next he is out in his Arithmetick. For eight times seven makes not forty seven, but fifty sixe. And then he is much to blame for drawing downe the Pope's pow∣er from fifty six, to 47. And lastly, this Allusion hath no ground of Truth at all. For the Emperour, being Solo Deo minor: Tertul. ad Scap. cannot be a Moone to any other Sun.
• d 1.687

  Sed illa Pote∣stas, quae praeest diebus i. e. in spi∣ritualibus, ma∣jor est; quae verò Carna•…•…ibus, mi∣•…•…or. Inn cent. 3. ubi supra.
• e 1.688

  •…•…t post ejus mortem nihil eo∣rum quae in hac vita egerit lau∣daverit, aut in∣probaverit, im∣m•…•…um sit. Platina in vita 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.689

  Rom. 13. 1.
• † 1.690

  Patres veteres, & praecip•…•… Aug. Epist. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de Potestate seculari tantum loqui, quod & ipse Textus subindicat &c. Salmer on. Disput. 4. in Rom. 13. §. Porrò per Potestatem.
• * 1.691

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Omnibus ista impe∣rantur. & Sacerdotibus & Monachis. &c. Et postea. Eti∣amsi Apostolus sis, fi Evangelista, si Propheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris. S. Chrysost. Hom. 23. in Rom. Sive est Sa∣cerdos, sive Antistes, &c. Theodoret, in Rom. 13. Si omnis Anima, & vestra. Quis vos excipit ab Universitate? &c. Ipsi sunt qui vobis dicere solent, servate vestrae Sedis hono∣rem &c. Sed Christus aliter & Iuss•…•…, & G•…•…ssit. &c. S. B. r. Epist. 42. ad Henricum Senonensem Archiepiscopum. Et Theophilact. in Rom. 13. Where it is very observable, that Theophilact. lived in the time of Pope Gregory the seventh. And S. Bernard after it, and yet this Truth obtained then. And this was about the yeare, 1130.
• a 1.692

  An fortè de Religione fas non est ut dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Imperator? cur ergo ad Imperatorem vestri ven•…•…re Legati? cur enim fecerunt Causae suae Iudicem, non secuturi quod ille judicaret? &c. S. Aug. L. 1. cont. Epist. Parmen. c. 9. Et quaestio fuit, au pertineret ad Imperatorem adv•…•… eos aliquid statuere qui prava in Religione sectan∣tur, Ibid Nor can this be said to be usurpation in the Empe∣ror. Nam S. August. alibi sic. Ad Imperatoris cur•…•…m, de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est, Res •…•…lla maximè p•…•…rtine∣bat. S. Aug. Epist. 162. & Epist. 50. Quis mente sobrius Regibus dicat: Nolite cu•…•…are in Regno vestro à quo tene∣atur, vet oppugnetur Ecclesia Domini vestri? &c. Antiqui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rectè dixit, Magistratus est custos legis, silicet primae & secundae Tabulae, quod ad disciplinam attinet. Confessio Saxonica. §. 23. & Gerardus To. 6. Locorum c. 6. §, 5. Membro 1. probat ex Deut. 17. 18.
• b 1.693

  Deut. 17. 18
• * 1.694

  •…•…ron. 29. 4.
• † 1.695

  4. R•…•…. 23. 2.
• a 1.696

  Hic Maximus Pontifex totius Ecclesi∣asticae Libertatis Vnicus Assertor. Onuph. in Plat. in Greg. 7. For taking Occasion by the warre which Henry the fourth had with the Saxons and their neighbours, and the complaint of the Saxons made to the Pope (of which Platina in the l•…•…e of Gregory the seventh) the Pope wise enough for his owne advantages sought not only to free himselfe from the Em∣peror, but to make the Emperor subiect to him, and for this the History is plaine enough.
• * 1.697

  Papa utpote Regis Regum Vicariut nunquam erat de jure subditus Imperato∣ribus terrcnis: sed quia tum Potestas ejus non erat nota:—& quia viribus tem∣poralibus destitutus erat, vellet, nollet, subjectus esse cogebatur. Bellar. in Apo∣logiac. 15. Respon. ad Mendacium, 10. And Bellarmine is at the same Argument for Deposing of Kings too. Quia deerant vires temporales Christianis, Bellar. L. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Rom. Pont 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7 §. Quoa si Christiani, Now this is a most lowd untruth as ap∣peares in Tertull•…•…an, who lived about th•…•… the yeare 200. under Severus. And the Christians then had strength enough against the Emperor, had they had right enough with it.
• † 1.698

  L. de Mo•…•…?
• a 1.699

  Revel. 12. 1.
• b 1.700

  Sic •…•…nim Alex∣ander tertius col∣lū Friderici pri∣mi pede compri∣mebat, & dixit. Scriptū est. Super aspidem & basi∣liscum &c. Io. Nauclerus Chro: Generations 40. circa An. 1170. Gen. 1. 16.
• † 1.701

  Iohn de Puente La Conveni∣entia de las d•…•…s Monarquias Ca∣tolicas la de la Iglesia Romana, y la del Imperi•…•… Espaniol. y 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de la pr•…•…∣dentia de los Reyes Catolicos de Espania a t•…•…dos los Reyes d•…•…l mund•…•…,
• * 1.702

  Luminare Ma∣jus, ut pr•…•…sit Vrbi•…•… & Orbi.
• † 1.703

  Luminare Mi∣nus, ut subdatur Vrbi, & domine∣tur Orbi.
• a 1.704

  Por Orden de los Seniores del Conseso Supremo.
• b 1.705

  Por Mandade del Rey nucstro Senior.
• c 1.706

  Quum Gallia alat 20000000 homi∣num. Ex singulis centenis sumendo unum colligit 200000. strenuorum militum stipendiatorum, commodè, perpetuoque. Propterea omnes terrae Principes metuunt nunc magis à Gallia, quàm unquam ab aliis; Paratur enim illi Regnum Vniver∣sale. F. Tho. Campanellae Ecloga in Prin∣cipis Galliarum Delphini Nativitatem, cum Annot. Discip. Parisiis 1639. cum permissu Superiorum.
• * 1.707

  A. C. p. 60.
• * 1.708

  Non est necesse, ut sub Christo sit Unus Rector totius Ecclesi•…•…, sed sussicit quòd sint plures regentes diversas provincias, sicut sunt plures Reges gubernantes plu∣ra regna. Ocham. Dial. L. 2. Tract. x. p. 1. c. 30. ad. 1.
• * 1.709

  A. C. p. 60.
• † 1.710

  Propter defectum Conciliorum Genera∣lium totius Ecclesi•…•…, qua sola audet intre∣pidè corrigere omnes, ea mala qua Vniver∣salem tangunt Ecclesiam, manentia diu in∣correcta crescunt. &c. Gerson. Declar at. Defectuum Uir•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉. To. 1. p. 209.
• * 1.711

  Sunt enim Indissolubilia Decreta, quibus reverentia debita est. Prosper. cont. Colla∣torem. c. 1. And Turrecremata, who saies every thing that may be said for the Popes Supremacy, yet dares not say, Papam pos∣se revocare & tollere omnia Statuta Ge∣neralium Conciliorum, sed, Aliqua tan∣tum. Io. de Turrecre. Summa de Ecclesiâ, L. 3. c. 55. Et postea. Papa non potest re∣vocare Decreta primorum quatuor Con∣ciliorum, quia non sunt nisi Declarativa Articulorum Fidei. Ibid. c. 57. ad 2^um.
• a 1.712

  §. 24. N. 1.
• † 1.713

  And shall we think that Christ the wi∣sest king hath not provided &c. A. C. p. 60. Where I cannot commend either A. C. his Modesty, that he doth not, or his cunning, that he will not go so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as some have done before him, though in these words (shall we think: &c) hee goes too farre. Non videretur Dominus discretus fuisse (ut cum reverentiá ejus loquar) nisi unicum post se talem Vicari∣um reliquisset, qui haec omnia potest. Fuit autem ejus Vicarius Petrus. Et idem di∣cendum est de Successoribus Petri, cum cadem absurditas sequeretur, si post mor∣tem Pet•…•…i, Humanam Naturam à se cre∣atam sine regimine Vnius Personae reliquis∣set. Extravagant. Com Tit de Majoritate & Obedientiâ c. Vuam Sanctam. In additi∣on. D. P. Bertrands Edit. Paris. 1585.
• † 1.714

  Etiamsi non confirmetur, ne probabili Testimonio Scrip∣turarum. Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. Q. 1. Ar. 3.
• * 1.715

  Here A. C. tells us, that doubtlesse the Arrians also did mislike, that at Nice the Pope had Legates to carry his messages, and that one of them in his place sate as Pre∣sident. Why but first, 'tis manifest, that Hosius was presi∣dent at the Councell of Nice, and not the Bishop of Rome, either by himselfe or his Legates. And so much Atha∣nasius himselfe, (who was present, and surely understood the Councell of Nice, and who presided there, as well as A. C.) tells us: Hosius hic est Princeps Synodorum. (So belike He presided in other Councells as well as at Nice) Hic formulam Fidei in Nicaenâ Synodo concepit. And this the Arrians themselves confesse to Constantius the Emperour, then seduced to be theirs. Apud S. Atbanas. Epist. ad solitar. vitam agentes. But then secondly I doe not except against the Popes sitting as President, either at Nice, or Trent. For that he might do, when called, or chosen to it, as well as any other Patriarch, if you con∣sider no more but his sitting as President. But at Nice the Cause was not his own, but Christs, against the Ar∣rian: whereas at Trent, it was meerely his owne, his own Supremacy, and his Churches Corruptions, against the Protestants. And therefore surely not to sit President at the Triall of his owne Cause, though in other Causes hee might sit as well other Patriarchs. And for that of Bellarmine, L. 1. de Concil. c. 21. §. Tertia conditio, Namely, That 'tis unjust to deny the Roman Prelat his Right (Ius suum) in Calling Generall Councells, and Presiding in them, in possession of which Right he hath bin for 1500. yeares: That's but a bold Assertion of the Cardinalls by his leave. For he gives us no proofe of it, but his bare word. Whereas the very Authenticke Co∣pies of the Councells, published, and printed by the Ro∣manists themselves, affirme cleerely, they were called by Emperors, not by the Pope; And that the Pope did not preside in all of them. And I hope Bellarmine will not expect, we should take his bare word against the Coun∣cells. And most certaine it is, that even as Hosius Presided the Councell at Nice, and no way that, as the Popes Legate: so also in the second Generall Councell, which was the first of Constantinople, Nectarius Bishop of Con∣stantinople Presided. Concil. Chalced. Act. 6. p. 136. apud Binium. In the third, which was the first at Ephasus, S. Cyril of Alexandria Presided. And though Pope Coe∣lestine was joyned with him, yet be sent none out of the West to that Councel, til many things were therein finish∣ed, as appeares apud Act. Concil. To. 2. c. 16. 17. In the fourth, at Chalcedon, the Legats of the Bishop of Rome had the Prime place. In the fift, Eutychius Bishop of Con∣stantinople was President. In the sixe and seventh, the Legats of the Pope were President, yet so as that almost all the duty of a Moderator or President was performed in the seventh by Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, as appeares manifestly in the Acts of that Councell. And since these seven are all the Generall Councells, which the Greekes and Latines joyntly acknowledge; And that in these other Patriarchs & Bishops Presided, as oft at least as the Bishops of Rome; what's become of Bellarmines Brag, That the Pope hath beene possest of this Right of Presi∣ding in Generall Councells for the space of 1500. yeares?
• * 1.716

  Leo 10. Bull. Inn. 8. 1520.
• † 1.717

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 5.
• * 1.718

  A. C. p. 61.
• * 1.719

  A. C. p. 59.
• † 1.720

  Ut aliqui mit∣tantur, & advc∣niant, & conve∣niant, &c. Bel∣lar. L. 1. de Con∣cil. c. 17. §. Quarta, ut sal∣tem.
• * 1.721

  §. 26. N. 1.
• a 1.722

  Here A. C. tels us, that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thought so of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Namely, that they departed from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Sense of Scripture. They said to •…•…∣deed. But the Testimony of the whole Clutch, both then, and sin•…•…, went w•…•… the Councell against the Arrian. So is it not •…•…ere against the Protestant •…•…or I r•…•…t. For they offer to be t•…•…ed by that very Councell of Nice, and all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Councells and Fathers of the Ch•…•… within the first foure hundred yeares, and somewhat farther.
• b 1.723

  So Stapl•…•… often, but the Fathers quite o∣therwise. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 extra Evangeli∣•…•…m s•…•…nt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s•…•…am. H•…•…. L. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 C•…•….
• c 1.724

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. L. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sy•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ni•…•…linum.
• d 1.725

  Ib. i•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 517. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• † 1.726

  Here A. C. is angry, and sayes: This Was no Proofe, nor worthy of any Answer, or looking into the Booke for it. First, because 'tis onely a Surmise of Adversaries. Who are apt to interpret to the Worst. Secondly, because there might be more Italian Bishops there, as being nearer, yet without any factious Combination with the Pope: As in the Greeke Councels more Grecians were present. A. C. p. 62. No proofe, or a weake one. Let the Reader Iudge that. But why no Proofe? Because a surmise of Adversaries. Is that a Surmise of Adversaries, that is taken out of the Councell it selfe? Is that Councell then become Regnum divisum, and apt to interpret the worst of it selfe? Yea but there were more Italian Bishops, as being nearer. Most true. Neater a great deale then the Gre∣cian Bishops. But the Bishops of France and of some parts of Germany were almost as neare as the Itali∣ans themselves. And why then came no more of These, that were neare enough? Well: A. C. may say what he will. But the Pope remembred well the Councels of Constance, and Basil, and thought it wisdome to make sure worke at Trent. For in later times (for their owne feares no doubt) the Bishops of Rome have beene no great friends to Generall Councels, especially Free ones. Multi suspicantur, quod hac dissimulaverit Romana Curia, & Concilia fieri neglexerit, ut possit ad su•…•… voluntatis libitum pleniùs dominari, & Iura aliarum Ecclesiarum liberiùs usurpare. Quod non assero esse ve∣rum, sed quia bujusmodi labor at infamia, ideo &c. Pet de Aliaco. Card. Cameracensis L. de Reformat. Eccles. in fascic, rerum expetend. f•…•…. 204. A.
• * 1.727

  In Concilio Nicano prime ex Occidente solùm fuerunt duo Presbyteri missi ex Italia, unus Episcopus ex Gallià, unus ex Hispanià, & unus ex Africà, Bellar. L. 1. de Con∣cil. c. 17. S. Antepenult.
• † 1.728

  Omnes qui au•…•… si fu•…•…rint dissol vere Definitio∣nem Sancti & Magnt Conc•…•…i, quod apud Nicae∣am congregatum est, Anathemati∣zamus. Concil. Rom 3. sub Syl∣vestro. apud Bi nium. p. 449.
• * 1.729

  A. C p. 62.
• * 1.730

  A. C. p. 62.
• * 1.731

  Ex iis Conciliis quae omnium consensu Generalia fuerunt, qualia sunt quatuor prima: Et ex consuetudine Ecclesiae col∣ligimus quatuor Conditiones requiri, & sufficere. Bellar. 1. de Con. c. 17. §. 2.
• * 1.732

  §. 33. Confid. 5. Nu. 1. 2. And the R•…•…son of this is, Because to have a Ge∣neral Councel deceived, is not impossible; But altogether impossible it is, that De∣monstrati•…•…e R•…•…ason or Testimony Di∣•…•…ine should dece•…•…ve. Hooker L. 2. Ec. Pol. § 7.
• † 1.733

  In which case Maldo•…•… puts in the sh•…•…ewdest Arg ment. Namely, that this way we should never have a certaine end of Controversies. For to try whether any thing were Decreed according to the Word of God by one General Councel, we •…•…ould need another Cou•…•…ll; And th•…•…n ano•…•…her to try that; And so in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. So our faith should never have where to settle and rest it selfe. Mal•…•…n S. Mat. 1•…•…. 20. But to this I answer, That the A•…•…nt Church tooke this way, as will afterward appeare in S. Augustine. Next, here is no unc•…•…rtainty at all; For no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Co•…•…cell lawfully called, and so pr•…•…ng can be questioned in another, unlesse it to tall out, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scrip∣tu•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 appeare against it. Bu•…•… e•…•…t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 th•…•…se a•…•…e •…•…o 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and man•…•…t 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 and •…•…ving the 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wh•…•… 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wi•…•…h 〈◊〉〈◊〉 without a Councell. §. 33. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 5. N•…•… 1. & 2.
• * 1.734

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. L 4. d•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉. P•…•…t. •…•…7. §. 3. &c.
• * 1.735

  A. C. p. 63. •…•…4.
• * 1.736

  A. C. p. 63
• * 1.737

  Synodum Gene∣ralem aliquoties errâsse percepi∣mus. Wald. L. 2. de Doctrin. Fidri Art. 2. c. 19. §. 1.
• * 1.738

  A. C. p. 63.
• * 1.739

  It is not long since A C. com∣pared Councels to Parliaments; it was but p. 60. And I hope a Parliament and the Acts of it must stand in force, thoughsom∣thing bemistaken in them, or found hurtfull till, ano∣ther Parliament of equal Autho∣rity reverse it and them. For I pre∣sume you will not have any in∣feriour Authori∣ty to abrogate Acts of Parlia∣ment.
• † 1.740

  §. 33. Consid. 4. N. 1.
• a 1.741

  §, 24. Nu. 1.
• b 1.742

  §. 38. Nu. 15.
• c 1.743

  Non est inferiorum judicare an Superio∣res legitimè procedant necne, nisi manife∣stiss imè constet intolerabilem Errorem committ•…•…. Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c 8. §. Alii dicunt Concilium. Nisi manifestè constet, Iacob. Almaln in 3. sent. D. 24. q. unicâ, fine.
• * 1.744

  Consid. 1.
• a 1.745

  Si Ecclesiae Vniversitati non est data ulla Authoritas, Ergo neque Concilio Gene∣rali, quaten•…•… Ecclesiam Universalem re∣praesentat. Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c. 16. §. Quòd si Ecclesia.
• b 1.746

  Concilium Generale Ecclesiam repra∣sentans. Ia. Almain. in 3. Sent, D. 24. Q•…•…unicâ. Episcopi sunt Ecclesia repra∣sentativè, ut nostri loquuntur. Bellar. L. 3. de Eccl. Milit. c. 14. §. 3.
• c 1.747

  §. 26. Nu. 8.
• d 1.748

  Omnis reprae∣sentatio virtute minor est Reip∣sâ, vel Veritate, cujus Reprasen∣tatio est. Colligi∣gitur apertè ex Tho. 1. 2. q. 101. A. 2. ad. 2.
• e 1.749

  Posset enim contingere quòd Congregati in Concilio Gene∣rali essent pauci & viles, tam in re, quàm in ho∣minum reputati∣one, respectu illo∣rum qui ad illud Concilium Ge∣nerale minime convenissent, &c. Ockam. Dial par. 3. lib. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.750

  Consid. 2.
• a 1.751

  Ecclesia est tinum Corpus mystic•…•…m per Si∣militud•…•…nem ad Naturale. Du∣rand. 3. D. 14. Q. 2. N. 5. Biel. Lect. 23. in Can. Miss.
• * 1.752

  Consid. 3.
• b 1.753

  Omnem veri∣tatem infallibili∣ter docendi, &c. Stapl. Relect. Praf. ad Lecto∣rem.
• c 1.754

  S. Ioh. 16. 13.
• d 1.755

  S. Ioh. 14. 16.
• e 1.756

  S. Mat. 28. 20.
• f 1.757

  S. Mat. 16. 18.
• * 1.758

  S. Luk. 22. 32.
• † 1.759

  S. Mat. 18. 20.
• * 1.760

  Act. 15 28.
• a 1.761

  Prosp. de vo∣cat. Gent. L. t. c. 10.
• b 1.762

  Bellarm. 2. de Conc. c. S. §. Respondeo, quidam. Where he saith, Vbi Queftio est de Facto, non de Iure, &c. In ejusmodi Judi∣ciu Concilium errare posse non est dubium.
• c 1.763

  Dubium est an illud docebit omnta, S. Ioh. 14. 26. referendum sit ad illud, Quaecunque dixi vobis: quasi non aliud docturum Spiritum Sanctum dicat, quàm quod ipse ante à docuisset, non repugnabo, si quis it a velit interpretari, &c. Maldonat. in S. Ioh. 14.
• d 1.764

  S. Ioh. 16. 14.
• e 1.765

  S. Ioh. 14. 26.
• f 1.766

  Bellarm. 2. de Con. c. 9. §. Alteram. Assistentia Sp. Sancti non est propter Concil. sed universam Ecclesiam.
• a 1.767

  S. Aug. Tr. •…•…0. in S. Ioh. Isidor. 1. Sent. cap. 14.
• b 1.768

  S. Hilar. in Psalm. 124. Iustin. Martyr. Dial. cum Triphone. Prosp. Epist. ad Demetriadem.
• c 1.769

  S Hilar. in Psal. 124. Prosper. Lib. 2. de Voc. Gent. cap. 2. Leo Serm. 2. de Resurrect. Dom. cap. 3. Isidor. in Ios. c. 12.
• d 1.770

  S. Cyril. lib. 7. Dial. de Trin. Prosper. Epist. ad Demetria∣dem.
• e 1.771

  S. Hilar. in Psal. 124. S. Cyril. L. 7. Dial. de Trin. S. Aug. 6. de Gen ad Lit. c. 8. S. Leo Serm. 10. de Nat. Dom. c. 5. Isid. in Ios. c. 12. In all which places, Vobis∣cum is either interpreted cum suis, or Fidelibus, or Uni∣versà Ecclesiâ.
• f 1.772

  Hoc colligi•…•…ur, sed quaeritur non quid colligitur, sed quid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 voluit. Mal•…•…. in S. Mat. 28.
• g 1.773

  1. Cor. 3. 11.
• h 1.774

  Eph. 2. 20.
• i 1.775

  S. Ignatius Fp. ad Philadelph. Qui suam firmavit Ec∣clesiam super Petr•…•…m, aedificatione spirituali. S. Hilar. l. 6. d•…•… Trin. Super hanc igitur Confessionis Petram Ecclesiae ad fi•…•…atio est. Et paulo pòst: Haec Fid s Ecclesiae fun∣damentum est. S. Greg. Nyss. de Trin. adversus Iudaeos. Super hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam meam, super Confessionem videlicet Christi. S. Isid. Pelus. Epist. l. 1. Epist. 235. Vt hac ratione certam omnibus Confessionem traderet, quam ab eo inspiratus Petrus tanquam Basin, ac Fundamentum •…•…ecit, super quod Dominus Ecclesiam suam extruxit. S. Cyril. Alex. de Trin. L. 4. Petram opinor per agnominationem, aliud nihil quàm inconcussam & fir∣missimam Discipuli fidem vocavit, in quâ Ecclesia Chri∣sti ita fundata, & firmata esset, ut non laberetur, &c. B. Theodor. in Cant. Petram appellat fidei pietatem, veri∣tatis professionem, &c. Et super hanc Petram adisicabo Ecclesiam meam. S. Greg. Ep. l. 3. Ep. 33. In vera side pers•…•…stite, & vitam vestram in Petram Ecclesiae, hoc est, in Confessione B. Petri Apostolorum Principis solidate. The∣ophylact. in Matth. 16. Super cum adificavit Ecclesiam, quia enim confessus erat, &c. quòd haec Confessio funda∣mentum erit, &c. S. Aug. in 1. Ep. S. Ioh. tract. 10. Quid est, super hanc Petram? Super hanc Fidem, super id quod dictum est, Tues, &c. S. Bas. Seleuc. Orat. 25. Hanc Confessionem cùm nominâsset Christus Petram, Petrum nuncupat eum qui primùm illam est confessus, donans illi hanc appellationem tanquam insigne, & monumentum hu∣jus confessionis. Haec enim est reverâ Pietatis Petra, haec sa∣lutis basis, &c. S. Iacob. Liturg. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, p. 26. &c. And some which joyne the Person of S. Pe∣ter, professe it is propter robur confessionis. Iustin. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. S. Chrysost. Hom. 2. in Psal. 50. S. Amb. L. 10. in S. Luc. c. 24. And S. Greg. gives it for a Rule, when Petra is read in the singular number (and so it is here) Christus est, Christ is signified.
• a 1.776

  Non deficit. S. Bern. Ser. 79. in Cant. And Bellarmine himselfe going to prove Ecclesiam non posse deficere, be∣gins with this very place of Scripture. L. 3. de Eccl. c. 13.
• b 1.777

  L. 3. de Eccl. c. 14. §. Quinto, si esset. Multa sunt de Fide, quae non sunt absolutè necessaria ad salutem.
• a 1.778

  Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 3.
• b 1.779

  2. 2 ae. q. 2. A. 3. Probat enim ex his verbis, Fidem Ecclesiae Vniver∣salis non posse de∣ficere.
• c 1.780

  Causa. 24. q. 1. C. A Recta. Non de Papa, quia Papa potest errare.
• d 1.781

  Testimonia propria sunt tria. Primum est Matth. 18. &c. Bellar. L: 2. de Con∣cil. c. 2. §. 4. Sed contrà, Firmitas Con∣ciliorum propriè non innititur his verbis. Stapl. Relect. Controvers. 6. q 4. A. 4 ad 4^um. Locus hio non debet huc propriè ac∣commodari. Valentia in Tho. To. 3. Dis∣put. 1. R. 1. Puncto 7. §. 45.
• e 1.782

  S. Mat. 18. 19. 20.
• f 1.783

  Additâ Argumentatione à Minori ad Majus, &c. Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c 2. §. 4. Et Stapl. Relect. Cont. 6. q. 3. A. 4.
• g 1.784

  Siduo vel tres congregati in nomine meo obtinent semper quod petunt à Deo. &c. Bellat. ibid. §. 5.
• * 1.785

  S. Chrys. Hom. 61. in S. Mat. 18. ubi duo vel tres pari spiritu & voluntate col∣lecti sunt, &c. Theoph. in S. Mat. 18. S. Cyprian. L. 4. Epist. 4. S. Hil•…•…. in S. Mat. 18.
• † 1.786

  Quemodo igitur à Patre cuncta non consequentur? Quia multae sunt Causae non impetrandi, &c. S. Chrysost. Hom. in S Matth. 18. Et Bellar. ipse. Si con∣gregari in nomine Christi sit Nota Eccle∣siae, non erit quomodocun{que} congregari. Sic enim onines Haereses, & Schismata con∣gregantur in nomine Christi. Sed, &c. L. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae. c. 2. §. Tertius non.
• a 1.787

  •…•…tsi Christus adsit in medio talium, non adest tamen ad omnem effectum, aut ad hunc qui est Iudicare de fide. Staple. Re∣lect. Controv. 6. q. 3. A. 4. Sed nec illi semper ad Deum respiciunt qui in medio eorum est. Ne•…•… Deus sic ad∣est ii•…•… qui respiciunt ad Ipsum, ut omnem veritatem doceat in Instanti & omni tem∣pore simul. &c. Iunius in Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c. 2.
• b 1.788

  Si duo Vnani∣mes tantum pos∣sunt; Quid, si Vnanimit as apud omnes esset? S. Cypr. L. 4. Epis. 4.
• c 1.789

  Non ad I•…•…fallibilem certitudinem ali∣cujus Sententiae, in quam plures in Nomine Christi consentiunt, locus hic Evangelii propriè accomodari debet, sed ad efficaci∣am consensionis plurium ad id impetran∣dum, quod unanimiter in Christi Nomine petunt, si id quidem ad eorum salutem expediat. Secùs onim non modo ex illo loco probabitur &c. Greg. de Valen. To. 2. in Thom. Disput. 1. Q. 1. Puncto. 7. §. 45. And although Stapleton approves this Argument à Minori ad Majus, vet withall he sayes. Firmitas Concilio∣rum illis Christi verbis propriè non inni∣titur; Quia nec Christus ibi de Conciliis Episcoporum loqui•…•…ur, sed de quâvis Fi∣delium unanimi Congregatione. Nec etsi &c. Staple. Rel•…•…ct. Contr. 6. q. 3 A. 4.
• * 1.790

  Act. 15. 28.
• a 1.791

  Quintum Argumentum &c. Aut sunt ergo Arrogantes, quod putandum non est, Aut infallibilitèr definiunt. Respondet Valentia concedendo neutrum, To. 3. in Thom. Disp. 1. Q. 1. Puncto 7. §. 45.
• b 1.792

  Firmit as eo∣rum nititur Ex∣emplo primi Con∣cilii Staple. Re∣lect. Contro. 6. q. 3. A. 4. ad 3.
• a 1.793

  Et Bellarm. dicit Locum hunc esse ter∣tium è Propriis. L. 2. de Concil. c. 2. §. Tertius Locus.
• b 1.794

  Conciliorum Decreta sunt Spiritus San∣cti Oracula. Stapl. ibid. Sententia Or∣thodoxa, prima.
• c 1.795

  Si illud Concilium ex quo formam acce∣perunt omnia alia Concilia asserit De∣creta sua esse Decreta Sp. Sancti, certè idem assercre possunt caetera legitima Con∣cilia. &c. Bellar. ibid.
• d 1.796

  Vide quàm prudentèr agūt, non pracipitāt Sententiā, sed singula expendunt. In rebus •…•…nim Fidei & quae conscientiā tangunt, non satis est dicere, Volumus Mandamus. Vides igitur quomodo Conveniunt Apostoli, sim∣pliciter Conveniunt, nihil nisi Deum quae∣runt, & aliorum salutem expetunt &c. Quidigitur mirum si in hoc Concilio fu∣erit Spiritus Sanctus? &c. Nos aliter Convenimus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cum magnâ pomp•…•…, n•…•…s{que} ipsos qu•…•…rimus; at{que} nobispollicemur nihil nobis non licere de Plenitudine Pote∣statis. Et quomodo Sp. Sanctus ejusmodi Concilia probare possit? Fetus in Act. 15. 7
• * 1.797

  Consid. 4.
• † 1.798

  S. Mat. 16, 18.
• * 1.799

  Ecclesia Vni∣versalis fidē ha∣bet indefectibilem &c. Non quidem in Generali Syno∣do congregata, quam aliquoties errâsse percepi∣mus. &c. Wald. L. 2. Doct. Fid. Ar. 2. c. 19. §. 1. §. 38. N. 4.
• a 1.800

  Aug. L. 2. de Bapt. contra Do∣nat. cap. 3.
• b 1.801

  Ipsa{que} Plenaria saep•…•… priora à po∣sterioribus emen∣dari.
• * 1.802

  Vox Ecclesia •…•…Word est, ut non de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 judicenius recte∣ne an secùs docu∣erit. So. Stap. Re∣lect. c. 4 q. 1. A•…•…
• b 1.803

  De Regulis Morum & Di∣sciplinâ. Relect. Con. 6. q. 3. A. 4.
• c 1.804

  L. 2. de Concil. c. 2. Princip.
• d 1.805

  Ib. cap. 7. §. Po∣test etiam.
• e 1.806

  Quando aliquo rerum experi∣mēto, quod clau∣sum erat, aperi∣tur.
• * 1.807

  Ib. c. 4. Ncbu∣lis involuta.
• † 1.808

  Sensus est, quòd Concilia posteriora emendant, id est, perfectiùs explicant fi∣dem in semine antique Doctrina laten∣tem. &c. Stapl. Relect. Contr. 6. q. 3. A. 4.
• * 1.809

  Quà in re nihil erroneum ullum Concilium docu∣it. &c.
• † 1.810

  Saepe.
• * 1.811

  Not used but either for Corrigere, or Anferre; And so S. Augustine uses the word, L. 20. cont. Faust. c. 21. and Bellar∣mine though he interpret it in matter of Fact, yet equals the word with Correx∣it. 2. de Con. c. 8. § Respond. Quaest.
• a 1.812

  Reprehend•…•….
• * 1.813

  Si qui lin iis for∣tè a veritate •…•…e∣viatum est.
• † 1.814

  Cedere.
• b 1.815

  Quùm cog•…•…∣scitur quod late∣bat.
• * 1.816

  Bellar. L. 2, de Concil. c. 7. §. Re∣spondeo primo 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• † 1.817

  §. 26. N. 1.
• * 1.818

  C•…•…sid. 5.
• a 1.819

  Ibid.
• b 1.820

  §. 32. N. 5
• c 1.821

  Praefat. p. 29.
• d 1.822

  Dialogus •…•…∣ctus, Deus & Rex.
• e 1.823

  Cordatus Pro∣testans.
• f 1.824

  Praef. p. 29. And therefore A. C. is much to blame after all this, to talk of a pretext of seeming evi∣dent Scripture, or Demonstrati∣on. As he doth. p 59.
• a 1.825

  §, 32. Nu. 2.
• b 1.826

  Praesat. p. 28.
• c 1.827

  2 de Bapt cont. Don. cap. 4.
• d 1.828

  Uni verum di∣centi, & demon∣str anti.
• e 1.829

  Cont. Fund. cap. 4.
• f 1.830

  Quae quidem si tam manifesta mon•…•…ratur, ut in dubtum •…•…enire non possit, praepo∣nen•…•…a est om•…•…i∣bus ills rebus, quiius in Catho∣lica 〈◊〉〈◊〉: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aciquid apertis∣sim•…•… in Euange∣l•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 4.
• a 1.831

  L. 2 de Concil. c. 8. §. Alii di∣cunt Cencili∣um. Nisi mani∣festissimè constet intolerabilem Errorem com∣mitti.
• b 1.832

  Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. Q. 3. Ar. 1.
• c 1.833

  Divina suo mo∣do. Ibid. And so A. C. too, who hath opened his mouth very wide to proove the Succession of Pastors in the Church, to be of Divine, and in∣fallible Autho∣rity; yet in the close is forced to add, At least in some sort, p. 51.
• d 1.834

  In altiori gene∣re, viz. in geners causae efficientis, atque adeò ali∣quâ exparte for∣malis. Ibid. Q. 4. Ar. 3.
• * 1.835

  Consid. 6.
• a 1.836

  Relect. Cont. 4. q. 2. ad Arg•…•…. 1•…•….
• b 1.837

  And herein I must needs Commend your Wildome. For you have had many Popes so ignorant, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ignorant, as that they have beene •…•…o way able to sift, and Examine the Meanes. And therefore you doe most advisedly make them infal∣lible in the Conclusion without the Meanes. §. 39. Nu. 8.
• c 1.838

  Ibid. Not. 4.
• a 1.839

  Prophetae audi∣ebant à Deo in∣teriùs inspiran∣te. Tho. 2. 24. q. 5. A. 1. ad 3.
• b 1.840

  The word of the Lord came unto me, is common in the Prophets.
• c 1.841

  Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 2. p. 473.
• d 1.842

  Propheticam Revelationem nullo pacto habe∣ri posse, vel ope Naturae, vel stu∣dio, Contra Avi∣cennam, Alga∣zalem, Averro∣cm, &c. Fran. Picus. 2. Praenot. c. 4.
• e 1.843

  1. Cor. 12. 10.
• f 1.844

  L. 2. de Conc. c. 12.
• * 1.845

  Concilia no•…•… habent, neque scribunt imme∣diatas Revela∣tiones &c sed ex Verbo Dei per ra∣tiocinationē dc∣ducunt Conclu∣siones. Bellar. l. 2 de Concil. A. 12. §. At Concilia non.
• a 1.846

  Stap. Jb. p. 374
• b 1.847

  Cont. Fund. c. 4.
• c 1.848

  Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. ad 1. Ni∣hil prohibet illud, quod secundùm se demonstrabile est, & scibile, ab aliquo acciti ut Credibile, qui Demonstratio∣nem non capit.
• a 1.849

  L. 3. Rationa∣bilu & ubique diffusa.
• b 1.850

  Ut ipsâ fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mere∣annur, non jam hominibus, sed Deo intrinsecùs mentem nostram firmante & illu∣minante. S. Aug. cont. Epist Fun∣damenti. c. 14.
• c 1.851

  Omnia genera Ingeniorum sub∣dita Scripturae. S. Aug. L. 22. cont. Faust. cap. 96.
• d 1.852

  Almain. 3. D. 24. q. 1. & Tho. 2. 2a. q. 1. A. 5. C. Id quod est scitum ab uno homine etiam in statu via. est ab alio Creditum, qui hoc Demon∣strare non novit.
• e 1.853

  Concilium Ni∣canum deduxit Conclusionem ex Scripturis. Bel∣lar. 2. de Concil. c. 12. §. Sic eti∣àm.
• † 1.854

  S. Pet. 3. 15.
• * 1.855

  Consid. 7.
• * 1.856

  Relect. Cont. 4. q. 2. Notab. 3 Exacta & Om∣nimodâ Infalli∣bilitate non indi∣get, sed satis est semel acceptis. &c.
• a 1.857

  L. 2 de Con. c. 12. §. ult. Cùm utraque sint in∣fallibilis veri∣tatis, aquè certa dici possunt.
• b 1.858

  Nam si Ecclesiae Vniversitati non est da∣ta ulla Authoritas; ergo nec Concilio Ge∣nerali, quatenus Ecclesiam Vniversalem repraesentat. Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c. 16. §. Quod si Ecclesiae.
• c 1.859

  Petrus personam Ecclesiae Catholicae su∣stinet, & huic datae sunt claves, quùm Petro datae. De Agon. Chr. c. 30.
• * 1.860

  Rel. Cont. 6. q. 3. A. 5. Sed propter Prima∣tum quem gere∣bat Ecclesiae, ideo∣que etsi finalitèr Ecclesia acce∣pit, tamen for∣malitèr P •…•…trus accepit.
• † 1.861

  Non est idem possidere, & alieno Nomine possidere. Nam possidet, cujus nomine pos∣sidetur. Procurator aliena rei praestat Mi∣nisterium. L. Quod meo. 18. in Princ. H. de acquir. Possess. Celsus.
• * 1.862

  Quando Matrimonium fit per Procu∣ratorem—Procurator est tantùm, Con∣ditio sine quâ non. Sanch. de matrim. L. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Dispat. 11. q. 4. Nu. 28. p. 128.
• * 1.863

  Non omnia illa que tradit Ecclesia sub Desinitione judiciali (i. in Concilio) sunt de Necessitate Salutis credenda, sed illa duntaxat quae sic tradit concurrente Universali totius Ecclesiae consensu, im∣plicitè, vel explicitè, verè, vel interpreta∣tivè. Gerson. Tract. de Declaratione ve∣ritatum quae credenda sunt &c. §. 4. par. 1. p. 414.
• † 1.864

  Possit tamen contingere quòd quamvis Generale Concilium definiret aliquid con∣tra Fidem, Ecclesia Dei non exponeretur periculo. Quia possit contingere quòd congregati in Concilio Generali essent pauci & viles tam in re, quàm in homi∣num reputatione, respectu illorum qu•…•… ad illud Concilium Generale minimè con∣venissent. Et tunc illorum levitèr Error ex•…•…irparetur per multitndinem meliorum & sapientiorum & famosiorum illis. Qui∣but etiam multitudo simplicium adhaere∣ret magis. &c. Och. Dial. P. 3. l. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.865

  Many of these were potent at Arimi∣num, and Seleucia.
• a 1.866

  Determinationibus quae à Concilio, vel Pontisice Summo siunt super iis dubitatio∣nibus, quae substantiam sidci concernunt, necessariò •…•…redendum est, dum Vniversalis Ecclesia non reclamet. Fr. Pic. Mirand. Theor. 8.
• b 1.867

  Artic. 21.
• † 1.868

  Bel. L. 2. de Concil. c, 16. §. Tertio, Concili∣lium sine Papâ.
• a 1.869

  Heb. 13. 17.
• * 1.870

  1 Cor. 5. 5.
• * 1.871

  S Mat. 18. 17.
• * 1.872

  Prov. 18. Uid. S. Aug. 2. Conf. e. 3. and (Prov. 6. 20.) Ecclu•…•…. 3. 3. Prov. 15. 20.
• b 1.873

  For sake not thy Mothers instru∣ction, that is, the Teaching of the Church, where in the faithfull are begotten by the incorruptible seed of Gods Word. Annot. in Prov 1. 8.
• * 1.874

  Prov. 6. 21
• * 1.875

  Ephes. 5. 27.
• * 1.876

  In id progrediuntur (Pelagiani) ut di∣cant vitam Iustorum in hoe seculo nullum omnino habere peccatum, & ex his Eccle∣siam Christi in hac mortalitate perfici, ut sit omnino sine maculâ & rugâ. Quasi non sit Christi Ecclesia, quae in toto terra∣rum orbe clamat ad Deum: Dimitte no∣bis de•…•…ita nostra, &c. S. Aug. L. de Hae∣resibus, Haer. 88.
• a 1.877

  Sess. 13.
• b 1.878

  S. Matth. 26.
• * 1.879

  1 Cor. 11. 23.
• c 1.880

  Returne of Vn∣truths vpon Mr. Ieweil. Ar. 2. un∣truth, 49.
• d 1.881

  4. De Eucha∣rist. c. 26.
• e 1.882

  Bellarm. ibid. §. Vicesimo pro∣ferunt.
• † 1.883

  And now lately in a Catechisme prin∣tedat Paris, 1637. without the Authors Name, 'tis twice affirmed thus. The In∣stitution of a Sacrament is of it selfe a Command. Conference, 14. p. 244. And againe, p. 260. Institution is a Precept.
• g 1.884

  S. Matth. 26. 1 Cor. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Liturg. S. Chrysost.
• * 1.885

  Licet Christus post Coenam instituerit, & suis Discipulis administraverit sub utrâque specie Panis & Uini hoc vene∣rabile Sacramentum, tamen hoc Non ob∣stante, non debet confici post Coenam, nec recipi nifi a jejunis. (Here Bellarmine stayes, and goes no farther, but the Coun∣cell goes on.) Et similitèr quòd licèt in Primitivâ Ecclesiâ Sacramenta recipe∣rentur sub utrâque Specie à fidelibus, tamen haec Consuetudo, ut à Laicis sub Specie Panis tantum suscipiatur, haben∣da est pro Lege, quam non licet reproba∣re, Et asserere hanc esse illicitam, est Er∣roneum, Et pertinacitèr asserentes sunt arcendi tanquam Haretici. Sess. 13.
• * 1.886

  Act. 15. In Novo Testamen∣to Exemplum ce∣lebrationis Con∣ciliorum ab Apo∣stolis habem•…•…. &c. Ioh. de Tur∣recremata Sum. de Eccl. L, 3. c. 2. Et fir•…•…it as Con∣ciliorum nititur Exemplo primi Concilii, Staple. Relect. Contr. 6. q. 3. A. 4. Ad 3^um.
• † 1.887

  This is more reasonable a great deale then that of Bellar∣mine, 2. de Conc. c. 18. Pontifi∣cem non posse se subjicere se•…•…ten∣tiae coactivae Con∣ciliorum.
• a 1.888

  Bellar. L. 2. de Conciliis, c. 16. & 17.
• b 1.889

  Canus lib. 6. de Lotis, cap. 8. §. Et quidem in. Pontifiees sum∣mi in Conclusio∣ne errare neque∣unt, Rationes autem. &c.
• † 1.890

  Relect. Con. 6. q. 3. Art. 5. & ibid. Quia ad compescendo sim∣portunos Haereti∣cos Concilii Ge∣neralis Definitio illustrior est &c. Et vulgo homi∣num magis sa∣tisfacit. &c.
• * 1.891

  4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3 §. At contra, Nam. Ex quo ap∣paret totam fir∣mitatem Conci∣liorum Legiti∣morum esse à Pontifice, non partim a Ponti∣fice, partim à Cencilio.
• a 1.892

  Et mirum est quod Adversarii non asserant cum Impiccabilem: Et credo asserc∣rent, nisi quotidi∣ana Summorum Pontificū Opera ad credendn̄ Op∣positum compel∣lerent. Almain. de Author. Ec∣cles. cap. 10. sine.
• b 1.893

  Platina & O∣nuphrius in Vitis eorum.
• c 1.894

  Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo im∣pudentem Papae Assentatorem, ut ci tri∣buere hoc velit, ut nec errare, nec in Interpretatione SS. Literarum balluci∣nari possit. Alphons. à Castro. I. 1. Advers. Hares. c. 4. And the Glosse confesses it plainely, in C. 24. q. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. C. A recta ergo.
• a 1.895

  Parding his Detection of Er∣rours against Iewell. p. 64.
• * 1.896

  Coelestinus cr∣ravit non solùm ut privata per∣sona, sed ut Pa∣pa, &c. Alph. à Castro. L. 1. adv. Haeres. c. 4. Ibid.
• † 1.897

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Li∣berius in Epist. ad Athanas. apud Atha∣nas. To. 1. p. 42. Edit. Parisuns. 1608. Et Edit. Paris. Latino-Grac. 1627.
• a 1.898

  Post Aegyptiorum supputationes & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae definitionem, Epi∣scopi quoque Romanae Ecclesiae per Lite∣ras plerique meam adhuc expectant sen∣tentiam, quid existimem de die Paschae. S. Ambros. L. 10. Epist. 83.
• b 1.899

  Ex hoc patot quòd Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione Potestatis vel Dig∣nitatis Ecclesiasticae, vel sacularis, quid multi Principes & summi Pontifices, & alii inferiores inventi sunt Apostat âsse à Fide, &c. Lyra in S. Matth. 16. 18.
• c 1.900

  Ram. Pontifices ex S. Historiâ, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Qua mendaci•…•…sima esse exitus prob av•…•…. Aventm. Anna•…•… Boicrum. L. 7. p. 529. Edit. Basil. 1580.
• * 1.901

  Baron. An. 1179. N. 13.
• * 1.902

  Apud A. C. p. 68.
• a 1.903

  The wilde Extent of the Popes Infallibi∣lity and Jurisdiction is a Mistake. These are the Words of a Great Romane Ca∣tholike uttered to my selfe. But I will spare his Name, because he is living; and I will not draw your Envy upon him.
• b 1.904

  Puto quòd ipsi etiam rideant, quum hoc audiunt, & tamen nifi hoc dicant, quod erabescant si dicant, non habent omninò quod dicant. Sed quid ad nos? N•…•…ini in∣videmus. Legant nobis hoc de Scripturis Sanctis, & credimus. S. August. de Vnit. Eccl. c. 17.
• c 1.905

  Papa non solùm Errore Persona∣li, sed & Errore Iudiciali potest errare in Mate∣ria Fidei. Al∣main. L. de Au∣thor. Eccles. c. 10.
• d 1.906

  L. 2. de Rom. Font c. 30.
• e 1.907

  Si sit à Fide de. vius. Dist. 40. Can. Si Papa.
• † 1.908

  Iure Divino Papatu priva∣tus est &c. Io. de Turrecrem. L. 4. Par. 2. c. 20. Et Bellar. L. 2. de Re. Pent. c. 30.
• * 1.909

  Papa factus Hareticus non est ipso facte, vel jure Divino, vel humano depositus. sed deponendus. Cajet. Tract. de Author. Papa & Concilii. c. 20.
• † 1.910

  Papa Hareticus manifestus per se desi∣nit esse Papa & Caput &c. Et tum potest ab Ecclesiâ Iudicari, & puniri. Bellar. L. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 30. §. Est ergo quinta.
• a 1.911

  Pighius L. 4. Ecclesiastica Hi∣erarchia. c. 8.
• b 1.912

  Communis O∣pinio est in con∣trarium. Bellar, L. 2. de Ro. Pont. c. 30. §. 2.
• c 1.913

  L. 4. de Ro. Pont. cap. 11.
• d 1.914

  Tamen non possumus negare, quin Adri∣anus cum Romano Concilio, imò & tota Synodus octava Generalis senserit, in cau∣sâ Haresis posse Rom. Pontificem judicari. Adde quod esset miserrima Conditio Ec∣clesia, si Lupum manifestè grassantem pro Pastore agnoscere cogeretur. Bellar, L. 2. de Ro. Pont. c 30. §. 5.
• a 1.915

  Staple. Relect. cont. 4. q. 2. No∣tab. 4.
• b 1.916

  Omnia Sacra∣menta tribus persiciuntur &c. Decret. Eugenii 4 in Concil. Fle∣ren.
• c 1.917

  Con. Trid. Ses. 7. Can. 1.
• * 1.918

  Bella•…•… L 4. de Ro. Pent. c. 3. § 〈◊〉〈◊〉 P•…•…vi∣legium est.
• † 1.919

  Constantinus ex Lai•…•…o Papa circa Ann. 767. ejectus Papatu. Et Steph 3. qui successit, habito Concilio statuit, ne quis nisi per Gradus Ecclesi∣asticos ascendens Pontifi•…•…atū oc∣cupare auderet sub paenâ Ana∣thematis. Decret Dist. 79. c. Nul∣lus.
• † 1.920

  Minorensis E∣piscopus suit.
• * 1.921

  L 2. Hist. Tri∣dent. p 276. 277. L•…•…idae. An. 1622
• a 1.922

  Summus Pon∣tif•…•… quum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesiam •…•…ct, in his quae al Fidem perti∣nent, nullo casu •…•…rrare potest. Bel. l. 4. De Ro. P•…•…t. c. 3. §. 1.
• b 1.923

  Concilia Gen∣•…•…ralia à Pontifi∣•…•… Consirmata 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non possunt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. L. 2. de Con. c. 2. §. 1.
• a 1.924

  Conc. Lateran. Can. 1.
• b 1.925

  Concil. Con∣stan. Sess. 13.
• c 1.926

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret. de Invotatione.
• a 1.927

  Provide in quibusdam Eccl•…•…siis obser∣•…•…tur, ut Populo Sanguis non detur. T•…•…om. p. 3. q. So. A. 12. c. So it was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in some Churches in his time, Negare non possumus etiam in Ecclesiâ Latiná suisse usum utriusque speci•…•…i, & usque ad tempora S. Thomae durasse. Uasqu. in 3. Disput. 216. c. 3. n. 38.
• b 1.928

  Refecti cibo potu{que} coelesti, Deus noster, Te supplices exoramus &c. In Proprio Missarum de Sanctis, Ianua. 15. Orat: post Communionem. Et Ianua. 21.
• c 1.929

  Ad quod Sacrificium suo loco & Ordine Homines Dei nominantur, non tamen à Sacerdote, qui Sacrificat, Invocantur. S. Aug. L. 22. Civ. Dei. c. 10.
• d 1.930

  Bellarm. L. 1. De San•…•…r. Be∣atitud. c. 20. §. Ad primum ergo locum &c.
• e 1.931

  Sunt Redemptores nostri aliquo modo & secundùm aliquid Bellar. L 1. De In∣dulgen. c. 4. Et Sanctos appellat Numina. L. 2. de Imagin. Sanctorum. c. 20. § 3. Now if this word (Numen) signifie any thing else besides God himselfe, or the power of God, or the Oracle of God, let Bellar∣mine shew it; or A. C. for him.
• f 1.932

  Ut ejus Meritis & Precibus a Gehennae Incendii•…•… liberemur. In proprio Missarum de Sanctis, Decemb. 6,
• a 1.933

  Ut Amborum Meritis aternitatis Gl•…•…∣riam consequamur. I•…•…id. Julii 6.
• b 1.934

  Ejus intercedentibus Meritis ab Omni∣bus nos absolve peccatis. Ibid. Julii 14
• c 1.935

  In Optatus his time the Christians were much troubled upon but a false re∣port, That an Image was to be placed up∣on the Altar. What would they have done, if Adoration had been Comman∣ded? &c. Et rectè dictum or at, fi talem samam similis veritas sequeretur. Opta∣tus L. 3. ad finem.
• d 1.936

  Sicut non licet cum Ethnitis I∣dela colere. Be∣can. L. de fide Haret fer•…•…anda. c. 8.
• e 1.937

  Contingit aliquando Hareticos circa plura errare quam Gentiles, ut Manicha∣os, inquit Thomas. Quòd nos possumus ver•…•… dicere de nostri temporis Sectariis, qui culpabiliter in pluribus videntur erra∣re. Valentia in 2. 2 ae. Disp. 1. Q. 10. Pun∣cto 3.
• a 1.938

  Quod quidem à Christianis melioribus non sit. S. Aug. L. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 27.
• b 1.939

  Illae quasi Parentalia superstitioni Gen∣tilium simillima. Lud Vives Ibid.
• c 1.940

  Quod ergo mortuis litabatur, utique parentationi deput abatur, quae species pro∣inde Idololatri•…•… est, quoniam & Idolola∣tria Parentationis est species. Tertull. L. de Spectaculis. c. 12.
• d 1.941

  Manifestius est, quàm ut multis verbis explicari debeat, Imaginum & simula∣chrorum Cultum nimiùm invaluisse, & affectioni, seu potiùs superstitioni popu∣li plus satis indultum esse, it à ut ad sum∣mam ador ationem qua vel à Paganis, suis simulacris exhiberi consuevit, &c. Cas∣sand. Consult. Art. 21. C. De Imaginibus. Where he names diverse of your owne, as namely, Durantus Mimatensis Epi∣scopus, Iohn Billet, Gerson, Durand, Holkot, and Biel, rejecting the Opinion of Thomas, and other superstitions con∣cerning Images. Ibid.
• e 1.942

  Non quod Cre∣datur inesse ali∣qua in iis Divi∣nitas, & veluti olim fiebat à Gentibu•…•…. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret. de Invo∣cat.
• f 1.943

  Et rudibus pe∣riculosi Erroris Occasionem, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.944

  Et ade•…•… Gens affe•…•…a est trun∣cis corrosis & de∣formibus Imagi∣nibus, ut me te∣ste, quotres Epi∣scopi, decentiores ponere jubent, veteres suas pe∣tant plorantes, &c Hieton. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 summa. p. 3. c. 3.
• † 1.945

  Imagines Chri∣sti & S: Matris ejus, & Sancto∣rum non sunt venerandae, acsi in ipsis Imagini∣bus esset Divini∣tas, secundùm quod sunt Mate∣ria Arte essigia∣ta, & non secun∣dùm quod re∣praesentant Chri∣stum, & Sanctos, &c. Sic enim adorare, vel pe∣tere aliquid ab iis, esset Idolola•…•… tria. Lamas Ibid.
• * 1.946

  Quis ferat po∣pulum in Tem∣plum irruentem, c•…•…ù in harā Su∣es? Certe non ob∣sunt populo Ce∣remoniae, sed pro∣sunt, si modus in c•…•… servetur, & Cavca•…•… nè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 loco habeantur, hoc est, ne praeci∣puam pictatem in illis colloce∣mus. Rhen. an∣not. in Tertul. de Cor. Mil.
• † 1.947

  Cave nè dum vis alium not are Culpae, ipse note∣ris Calumniae. S. H•…•…er. L. 3. ad∣vers. Pelagianos.
• * 1.948

  A. C. p. 64.
• † 1.949

  Nos fatemur sub Papaetu plurimum esse boni. imò omne bonum Christianum, at que etiam illinc ad nos de∣venisse, &c. Luther. contra Anabaptist. citante Bellar∣mine. L. 4. de Notis Eccles. c. 16. §. penult. Et Field. appendice. par. 3. c. 2. Et Ios. Hall Bishop of Exeter. L. Of the Old Religion c. t. Many holding Christ the Foundation aright, and groaning under the burden of Popish trash, &c. by a generall repentance, and assured Faith in their Saviour, did finde favour with the Lord. D. Geo. Abbot late Archbishop of Cant. Answer to Hill. ad Ration. 1. §. 30.

  For my part I dare not deny the possibility of their Sal∣vation, who have beene the chiefest Instruments of ours, &c. Hooker in his Discourse of Iustificat. §. 17. In for∣mer times a man might hold the generall Doctrine of those Churches, wherein our Fathers lived, and be saved. And yet since the Councell of Trent some are found in it in such degree of Orthodoxy, as we may well hope of their Salvation. Field. L. 3. Eccl. c. 47.

  The Latine, or Westerne Church subject to the Romish Tyranny, was a true Church, in which a saving profession of the Truth of Christ was found. Ios. Hall B. of Exe∣ter. L. Of the old Religion, fine. in his Advertisement to the Reader, p. 202.

  Non panci retinuerunt Christum Fundamentum, &c. Mornaeus Tract. de Ecclesia c. 9. fine.

  Inter sordes istas, ista quae summe cum periculo expectetur salus, non ipsorum Additamentis, sed iis quae nobiscum ha∣bent communia Fundamentis est attribuenda. Io. Pride∣aux Lectione 9. fine.

  Papa aliquam adhuc Religionis formam relinquit, spem vitae aternae non tollit, &c. Calv. Instruct. advers. Liber∣tinos. c. 4.
• a 1.950

  Here A. C. gets another snatch, and tels us, That to grant a Possibility of Salvation in the Romane Church, is the free Confession of an Adversary, and ther∣fore is of force against us, and extorted by Truth: But to say that salvation is more securely, and easily to be had in the Prote∣stant Faith, that's but their partiall Opi∣nion in their own behalfe, and of no force, especially with Romane Catholikes. I ea∣sily believe this latter part, That this, as A. C. and the rest use the matter with their Proselytes, shall be of little, or no force with Romane Catholikes. But it will behoove them, that it bee of force. For let any indifferent man weigh the Necessary Requisites to Salvation, and he shall finde this no partiall Opinion, but very plaine and reall Verity, That the Protestant living according to his belief, is upon the safer way to Heaven. And as for my Confession, let them enforce it as farre as they can against me, so they ob∣serve my Limitations, which if they do, A. C. and his fellowes will (of all the rest) have but little comfort in such a li∣mited Possibility.
• b 1.951

  L. 1. De Bapt. cont. Don. c. 3. Gravitèr peccarent in rebus ad salutem animae per∣tinentibus, &c. •…•…o solo quod certis incerta praeponerent.
• c 1.952

  Propter incer∣titudinem pro∣priae Iustitiae, & periculuminanis glori•…•…, tutissimū est fiduciam to∣tam in solá Dei misericordiâ & benignitate repo∣nere Bellar. L. 5. ae Iustif. c. 7. §. Sit tertia Propositio.
• * 1.953

  And this peece of Cunning to affright the weake was in use in Iustin Martyrs time. Quosdam scimus &c. ad Iracun∣diam suam Evangelium p•…•…ntes &c. quibus si potestas ea obtigisset ut •…•…∣los Gehenna traderent, Orbem quoque Vni∣versum consumpsissent: Iust. Martyr. Epist. ad Zenam & Serinam. (And here 'tis) ad Iracundiam suam Ecclesiam per∣trahentes &c.
• † 1.954

  §., 35. Nu. 3.
• * 1.955

  A. C. p. 65.
• * 1.956

  S. Matth. 18. 17.
• a 1.957

  And this is prooved by the Creed. •…•…n which we professe our Beliefe of the Catholike, not of the Roman Church.
• b 1.958

  This is a free Confession of the Adver∣saries Argument against themselves, and therefore is of force. A. C. p. 64. But every Confession of Adversaries, or others is to be taken with its Qualities, and Conditions: If you leave out, or change these, you wrong the Confession, and then 'tis of no force. And •…•…so doth A. C. here. And though Bell. rm. makes the Confession of the Adversa•…•…y a note of the true Church. L. 4. de Not•…•…s Ec•…•…l c. 16. yet in the very beginning, wh•…•… layes his Ground, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. he layes it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 plaine fallacie à secunaùm quid ad simpliciter.
• * 1.959

  For they are no meane Differences that are betweene us, by Bellarmines owne Confession. Agendum est non de rebus le∣vibus, sed de gravissimis Quastionibut quae ad ipsa Fidei fundament a pertinent. &c. Bellarm. in praefat. Operibus prae∣fixá. §. 3. And therefore the Errours in them, and the Corruptions of them can∣not bee of small Consequence, by your owne Confession. Ye•…•…, by your owne in∣deed. For you A. C. say full as much, if not more then Bellarmine. Thus We Catholikes hold all points, in which Pro∣testants differ from us in Doctrine of Faith, to be Fundamentall, and necessary to bee Believed, or at least not denyed. A. C. Relation of the first Conference. p. 28.
• † 1.960

  Esse verò apud D•…•…natistas Bap∣tismum, & illi asserunt, & nos concedimus &c. L. 1. de Bap. cont. Donat. c. 3.
• * 1.961

  Corpus Christi manducatur in Coena &c. tantùm caelesti & spirituall ratione: Medium autem quo Corpus Christi accipitur & manducatur in Coenâ, Fides est. Eccl. Angl. Art. 28.

  After a spirituall manner by Faith on our behalfe, and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalfe of Christ. Fulk. in 1 Cor. 11. p. 528.

  Christus se cum omnibus bonis suit in Coenâ offert, & nos eum recipimus fide &c. Calv. 4. Inst. c. 17. §. 5. Et Hooker. L. 5. §. 67. p. 176.

  And say not you the same with us? Spiritualis manduca∣tio, quae per Animam fit, ad Christi Carnem in Sacramen∣to pertingit. Cajet. Tom. 2. Opusc. de Euchar. Tract. 2. Cap. 5.

  Sed spiritualiter, idest, invisibiliter, & per virtutem Spiri∣tus Sancti. Thom. p. 3. q. 75. A. 1. ad 1^um.

  Spiritualiter manducandus est per Fidem & Charitatem. Tena. in Heb. 13. Difficultate 8.
• † 1.962

  I would have no man troubled at the words Truly and Really. For that Blessed Sacrament received as it ought to be, doth Truly and Really exhibit and apply the Body and the Blood of Christ to the Receiver. So Bishop White in his Defence against T. W. P. Edit. London. 1617. p. 138. And Calvin. in 1 Cor. 10. 3. Verè datur. &c. And againe in 1 Cor. 11. 24. Neque enim Mortis tantùm & Re∣surrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed Corpus ipsum in quo passus est, & resurrexit. Concludo Realiter (ut vulgò loquuntur) hoc est, Verè nobis in Coenâ datur Christi Corpus, ut sit Animis nostris in cibum Saluta∣rem. &c.
• † 1.963

  Hoe totum pendet ex Principiis Meta∣physicis & philosophicis, & ad Fidei Do∣ctrinam non est necessarium. Suarez. i•…•… 3. Thom. Disput. 50. §. 2.
• * 1.964

  A. C. p. 64. 65.
• * 1.965

  Bellar. L. 3. de Eucha. c. 18. §. Ex his colligi∣mus.
• a 1.966

  Sed quidquid fit de Modis loquendi, il∣lud tenendum est, Conversionem Panis & Uini in Corpus & Sanguinem Chri∣sti esse substantialem, sed arcanam & in∣effabilem, & nullis naturalibus Conver∣sionibus per omnia similem. &c. Bellar. in Recognit. hujus loci. Et Vid. §. 38. Nu. 3
• * 1.967

  A. C. p. 64.
• * 1.968

  Sed quia it a magnum firma∣mentum vanita∣tis vestrae in hâc sententia esse a∣bitramini, ut ad hoc ti•…•… termi∣nandam putares Epistolam quo quasi recentiùs in Animus Legē∣tium remaneret, brevitèr respon∣deo. &c. S. Aug. L. 2. cont. Lit. Petil. c. 108. Andhere A. C. ad hoc sibi putavit terminandā Col∣lationem: sed frustra ut ap•…•…bit. Num. 6.
• † 1.969

  §. 35. N. 3
• * 1.970

  A. C. p. 65.
• * 1.971

  A. C. p. 65.
• * 1.972

  Punct. 1.
• * 1.973

  Punct. 2. A. C. p. 65.
• * 1.974

  Punct. 3. A. C. p. 66.
• * 1.975

  Caterùm his absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad Exprimendam veram sub∣stantialemque Corporis ac sanguinis Do∣mini Communicationem, qua sub sacris Coenae symbolis, fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libeuter recipio. Calvin L 4. Inst. c. 17. §. 19.

  In Coenae mysterio, per symbola Panis & Vini Christus verè nobis exhibetur &c. Et nos participes substantiae ejus facti su∣mus, Ibid. §. 11.
• † 1.976

  §. 35. N 3.
• * 1.977

  Punct. 4. A. C. p. 66.
• a 1.978

  Bellarm. L. 1 de Euchar. c 2. §. Quin∣to dicit. Sacrame•…•… saepe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de Corpus Christian Coen•…•… adesse, sea 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adesse nunquam 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quod legerim, nifi forte loquuntur de Coenâ quae fit in Ca∣lo, &c.

  And that he meanes to brand Protestants under the name of Sacramentarii, is plaine. For he sayes the Councell of Trent opposed this word realiter, Fig∣mento Calvinistico, to the Calvinistic•…•…ll figment. Ibid.
• * 1.979

  A. C. p 65.
• b 1.980

  Calv. in 1. Cor. 10. 3. verè, &c. & in 1. Cor. 11. 24. realiter. Vids suprà. Num. 3.
• c 1.981

  Bellar. L. 1. de Eucharistia. c. 1. §. Secundo, do∣cet.
• * 1.982

  The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper (of the Lord) onely after an Heavenly and Spirituall manner. And the meanes whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten, is Faith. Eccl. Ang. Art. 28. So here's the Manner of Transubstantiation deni∣ed, but the Body of Christ twice affirm∣ed. And in the prayer before Consecrati∣on, thus, Grant us Gracious Lord so to eat the Flesh of thy deare Sonne Jesus Christ, and to drinke his Blood, &c. And againe, in the second Prayer or Thanks∣giving after Consecration, thus. We give thee Thanks, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us which have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spirituall food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Sonne our Saviour Jesus Christ, &c.
• † 1.983

  Io. Fox Mar∣•…•…rolog. To. 2. London. 1597. pag. 943.
• a 1.984

  Fox ibid.
• b 1.985

  Cranmer apud Fox. ibid. p. 1301.
• c 1.986

  I say Corporalitèr, Corporally; for so Bellarmine hath it expresly: Quod autem Corporalitèr & propriè suma∣tur Sanguis & Caro, &c. probari potest omnibus Ar∣gumentis, &c. Bellar. L. 1. de Eucharist. c. 12. §. Sed to∣ta. And I must bee bold to tell you more then, That this is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. For I must tell you too, that Bellarmine here contradicts himselfe. For he that tels us here, that it can be proved by many Ar∣guments, that we receive the Flesh and the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist Corporaliter, said as expresly be∣fore (had he remembred it) that though Christ be in this Blessed Sacrament verè & realiter, yet (saith he) non di∣cemus Corporaliter, i. e. co modo quo suâ naturâ existunt Corpora, &c. Bellar. L. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. §. Tertia Regula. So Bellarm. here is in a notorious Contradicti∣on. Or els it will follow plainly out of him, That Christ in the Sacrament is existent one way, and received ano∣ther, which is a grosse absurdity. And that Corporaliter was the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and meant by Transubstantiation, is farther plaine in the Booke called, The Institution of a Christian man, set forth by the Bi∣shops in Convocation in Hen. 8. time. An 1534 Cap. Of the Sacrament of the Altar. The words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Una•…•…r the forme and figure of Bread and Wine, the very Body and Blood of Christ is Corporally, really, &c. exhibited and received, &c. And Aquinas expresses it thus. Quia tamen substantia Corporis Christi realiter non d•…•…iditur à sua quantitate dimensivâ, & ab aliis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…bus, indè est, quod ex virealis Concomitantiae est in hoc Sacramento tota quantitas dimensiva Corporis Christi, & omnia Acci∣dentia ejus. Tho. p. 3. q. 76. Ar. 4. c.
• d 1.987

  Apud Fox ibid p. 1598.
• a 1.988

  Apud Fox ibid. p. 1703.
• b 1.989

  Tantùm de modo quastio est. &c. Et facessat calumnia auferri Christum à Coe∣nà suà &c. Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 17. §. 31. Veritatem Dei in quâ acquiescere tutò licet, sine controversia amplectar. Pro∣nun•…•…i it Ille Carnem suam esse Anima mea cibum, Sanguinem esse potum. Talibus alimentis animam Illi meam pascendum offero. In S. Coena jubet me sub Symbolis Panis & Vini Corpus & Sanguinem suum sumere, manducare & bibere. Ni∣hil dubito, quin & Ipse Verè porrigat, & ego recipiam, Calv: ibid. §. 32.
• * 1.990

  Pun. 5. A. C. p. 66.
• * 1.991

  3. Reg. 17 4. Reg. 3.
• * 1.992

  3. Reg. 19. 18.
• * 1.993

  3. Reg. 13. 11.
• * 1.994

  Petilianus dixit, Venite ad Ecclesiam populi, & ausugite Traditores (ita Or∣th•…•…doxos tum appellavit) si cum iisdem perire non vulus. Nam ut facile cog∣noscatis quod ipsi sunt rci, de fide nostra optimè judicant. Ego illorum infectos baptizo. Illi meos (quod absit) recipiunt baptizatos quae omnino non facerent, si in Baptismo nostro culpas aliquas agnovis∣s•…•…nt. Videte ergo quod damus, quam san∣ctum sit, quod destiuere metuit Sacrile∣gus Inimicus. S. August. respondet. Sic approbam•…•…s in Ha•…•…reticis Baptismum, non Haercticorum, sed Christi, sicut in For∣nicatoribus, Idololatr•…•…, Veneficis, &c. approbamus Baptismum non corum, sed Christi. Omnes enim isti. inter quos & Haerctici sunt, sicut dicit Apostolus: Regnum Dei non possidebunt, &c. S. August. L. 2. cont. Lit. Petiliani. c. 108.
• a 1.995

  Gal. 5. 19. 20. 21.
• † 1.996

  Non ergo ve∣strum est quod d•…•…struere metui∣mus, sed Christi; quod & in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 per se 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est. S. Aug. Ibid.
• * 1.997

  A. C. p. 6•…•….
• * 1.998

  A. C. p. 66.
• † 1.999

  For though Prateolus will make Donatus, and from him the Donatists, to be guilty of an impious Heresie (I doubt he meanes Arrianisme, though he name it not) in making the Sonne of God lesse then the Father, and the Holy Ghost lesse then the Sonne. L. 4. de Haeres. Har. 14. yet these things are most manifest out of S. Aug. concer∣ning them, who lived with them both in time and place, and understood them, and their Tenets farre better then Prateolus could.

  And first, S. Aug. tels us concerning them: Arriani, Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, diversas substantias esse dicunt. Donatista autem unam Trinitatis substanti∣am confitentur. So they are no Arrians.

  Secondly, Si aliqui corum minorem Filium esse dixe∣runt quàm Pater est, ejusdem tamen substantiae non negâ∣runt. But this is but si aliqui, if any so 'twas doubt∣full, this too, though Prateolus delivers it positively.

  Thirdly, Plurimi verò in iis hoc se dicunt, omnino cre∣dere de Patre, & Filio, & Spiritu Sancto, quod Cathilica credit Ecclesia. Necipsa cum illis vertitur Questio, sed de sola Communione infoeliciter litigant, &c. De sola. Onely about the Vnion with the Church. Therefore they erred not in Fundamentall Points of Faith. And

  Lastly, All that can farther be said against them, is, That some of them, to win the Goths to them, when they were powerfull, said, Hoc se Credere quod & illi Cre∣dunt. Now the Goths (for the most) were Arrians. But then, saith S. Aug. they were but nonnulli, some of them. And of this some it was no more Certaine, then sicut au∣divimus, as we have heard, S. Aug. knew it not. And then if it were true of some, yet Majorum suorum Au∣thoritate convincuntur; Quia nec Donatus ipse sic cre∣didisse asseritur, de cujus parte se esse gloriantur. S Aug. Epist. 50. Where Prateolus is againe deceived; for he sayes expresly, that Donatus affirmed the Sonne to be lesse then the Father. Impius ille asserebat, &c. But then indeed, (and which perchance deceived Prateolus) beside Donatus the founder of this Heresie, there was another Donatus, who succeeded Majorinus at Carthage, and he was guilty of the Heresie, which Prateolus mentions, Et extant scripta ejus ubi apparet, as S. Aug. confesses, L. 1. de Haere•…•…. Har. 69. But then S. Aug. adds there also, nec facilè in iis quisquam, that scarce any of the Donatists did so much as know, that this Donatus held that Opi∣nion, much lesse did they believe it themselves. S. Aug. Ibid.
• † 1.1000

  §. 21. N. &c.
• * 1.1001

  Punct. 6. A. C. p. 66.
• * 1.1002

  §. 35. N. 12.
• * 1.1003

  A. C. p. 66.
• † 1.1004

  Ingemuit totus Orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est. S. Hier. advers. Luciferian. post medium. T•…•…. 2. Arrianorum Uenenum non jam portiun culam quandam, sed penè Orbem totum contaminaverat, adeo ut propè cunctis Latini Sermo∣nis Episcopis. partim vi, partim fraude deceptis, caligo quae∣dam mentibus offunderetur. &c. Vin. Lir. cont. Haeres. c. 6. Ecclesia non Parietibus consistit, sed in Dogmatum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est, ubi fides vera est. Caterùm ante annos quindecim, aut viginti, Parietes omnes hic Ecclesiarum Hae∣retici (de Atrianis & aliis Haereticis loquitur) possidebant &c. Ecclesia autem illic erat, ubi sides vera erat. S. Hier. in Psal. 133. Constantius. Tantane Orbis terrae pars, Libe∣ri, in te residet ut tu solus homini Impio (de Athanasio loqui∣tur) subsidio venire, & pacem Orbis ac Mundi totius di∣rimere audeas. Liberius. Esto quod ego solus sim, non ta∣men propterea Causa fidei fit inferior, nam olim tres solum erant reperti, qui Rggis mandato resisterent &c. Theod. L. 2. Hist. Eccles. c. 16. Dialogo inter Constant. Imp. & Li∣berium Papam. So that Pope did not think Multitude any great note of the true Church. Vbi sunt. &c. qui Ecclesi∣am multitudiné definiunt, & parvum gregem aspernantur. &c. Greg. Naz. Orat 25. prin. Nay the Arrians were growne to that boldnesse that they Objected to the Ca∣tholicks of that time Paucitatem, the thinnesse of their number, Greg. Naz. Carm. de vita sua. p. 24. Edit. Paris. 1611. Quum ejecti tamen essent de Civitatibus, jactabant in desertis suis Synagogis illud: Multi vocati, pauci electi, Socr. L. 1. Hist. Eccl. c. 10.
• * 1.1005

  Error Origenis & Tertulliani magna fuit in Ecclesià Dei Populi tentatio, Vin Lir. cont. Har. c. 23 & 24.
• * 1.1006

  A. C. p. 66.
• † 1.1007

  §. 35. N. 4.
• * 1.1008

  Punct. 1.
• † 1.1009

  Sequuntur enim Thom p. 3. q. 52 Ar. 2. c. Verba ejus sunt. Anima Christi per suam essenti∣am descendit so∣lū ad locum In∣ferni, in quo justi detinebantur. &c.
• * 1.1010

  Ezec. 13. 10.
• * 1.1011

  Punct. 2.
• * 1.1012

  Basiliense Con∣cilium concessit Bohemis utrius∣que speci•…•…i usum: modò faterentur id sibi concedi ab Ecclesiâ, non au∣tem ad hoc tene∣ri Divino jure. Bel. L. 1. de Sa∣crament. in gene∣re. c. 2. §. 2.
• † 1.1013

  Tho. p. 3. q. 76. A. 2. c. & alibi passim.
• * 1.1014

  Punct. 3.
• a 1.1015

  Christ by his owne Blood entred once into the Holy Place, and obtained eternall Redemption for us. Heb. 9. 12. And this was done by way of Sacrifice. By the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once made. Heb. 10. 10. Christ gave himselfe for us, to be an Offering, and a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God. Eph. 5. 2. Out of which place the Schoole infers, Passio•…•… Christi verum Sacrificium suisse. Tho. p. 3. q. 48. Art. 3. c Christ did suffer Death upon the Crosse for our Redemption, and made there, by his one Oblation of himselfe once offered a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, O•…•…lation and Satisfacti∣on for the sinnes of the whole World. Eccles. Ang. in Ca∣none Consecrationis. Euchar.
• b 1.1016

  And Christ did Institute, and in his Holy Gospell Command us to continue a Perpetuall Memory of that his pretious Death, untill his Comming againe. Eccles. Ang. ibid.
• c 1.1017

  Sacramentum hoc est Commemorativum Dominicae Passionis quae fuit verum Sacrificium; & sic Nominatur Sacrifi•…•… Tho. p. 3. q. 73. A. 4. C. Christ being Offer'd up once for all in his owne proper Person, is yet said to be Offer'd up &c. in the Celebration of the Sacrament; Because his O•…•…lation one for ever made, is thereby Represented. Lambert in Fox 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Martyrolog. Uol. 2. Edit. Lond. 1597. p. 1033 Et postea 'Tis a Memoriall, or Representation thereof. Ibid. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Sentences judged truly in this Point, saying: That wh•…•… is offer'd and Consecrated of the Priest, is called a Sacrifice a•…•… Oblation, because it is a Memory, and Representation of t•…•… true Sacrifice, and Holy Oblation made on the Altar of t•…•… Crosse. Arch-Bishop Cranmer in his Answer to Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 concerning the most Holy Sacrament. L. 5. p. 377. A•…•… againe this shortly is the minde of Lombardus, That the th•…•… which is done at Gods Board is a Sacrifice, and so is that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which was made upon the Crosse, but not after one mann•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 understanding, I or this was the Thing indeed, and that is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Commemoration of the Thing. Ibid. So likewise Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 acknowledgeth incruentum & rationabile Sacrificium, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of by Euseb. De Demonstrat. Evang. L. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ie•…•…ls 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against Harding. Art. 7. Divis. 9. Againe, The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Holy Communion is sometimes of the Anc•…•…ent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 called an Vnbloody Sacrifice, not in respect of any Corpo•…•… fleshly presence, that is imagined to be there without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shedding, but for that it representeth, and reporteth to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 minds that one, and everlasting Sacrifice that Christ made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Body upon the Crosse. This Bishop Jewel disliketh not in his Answer to Harding: Art. 17. Divis. 14. Patres Coenam Do∣minicam duplici de causa vocarunt Sacrificium incruentum. Tum quod sit Imago & solennis repraesentatio illius Sacrificii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod Christus cum sanguinis effusione obtulit in Cruce: Tum quod sit etiam Eucharisticum Sacrificium, id est, Sacrifi∣cium Laudis & gratiarum actionis, cùm pro beneficiis omnibus, tum pro redemptione imprimis per Christi mortem peractâ. Zanch. in 2. Praecep. Decal. T. 4. p. 459 And D. Fulke also ac∣knowledges a Sacrifice in the Eucharist. In S. Mat. 26. 26. Non dissimulaverint Christiani in Coena Domini, five ut ipsi loquebantur, in Sacrificio Altaris peculiari quodam modo prae∣sentem se venerari Deum Christianorum, sed quae esset forma ejus sacrificii quod per Symbola Panis & vini peragitur, hoc Veteres praese non ferebant. Isa. Casaub. Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Baron. §. 43. p. 560.
• * 1.1018

  In the Liturgie of the Church of England we pray to God immediately after the reception of the Sacrament, That He would bee pleased to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving &c. And Heb. 13. 15. The Sacrifice Propitiato∣ry was made by Christ himselfe only, but the Sacrifice Com∣memorative and Gratulatory is made by the Priest and the People. Archbishop Cranmer in his Answer to Bishop Gardner. L. 5 p. 377.
• † 1.1019

  I beseech you Brethren by the mercies of God, that you give up your Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy, and acceptable unto God. Rom. 12. 1. We offer, and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our soules, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and liv∣ing Sacrifice unto thee. So the Church of England in the Prayer after the receiving of the Blessed Sacrament.
• * 1.1020

  Punct. 4.
• * 1.1021

  Con. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 11.
• † 1.1022

  Histor. Con. Trid. L. 2. p. 277. Edit. Lat. Ley•…•… dae. 1622.
• * 1.1023

  Punct. 5.
• * 1.1024

  Punct. 1.
• * 1.1025

  A. C. p. 64. 65.
• a 1.1026

  Con. Nicen. Fides vel Sym∣bolum in fine Concil.
• * 1.1027

  Punct. 2.
• b 1.1028

  Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Valentinus, Cerdon, Apel∣les, &c. Tertull. de praescript. advers. Haret. c. 46. 48. 49. 51. &c.
• c 1.1029

  Libertini rident spe•…•… omnem quam de Resurrectione habemus, idque jam nobis evenisse dicunt, quod adhuc expectamus, &c. ut Homo sciat Animam suam Spi∣ritum immortalem esse perpe•…•… viven∣tem in Coelis, &c. Calv. instructione ad∣vers. Libertinos c. 22. princ. Sunt etiam hodie Libertini qui eam irrident, & Re∣surrectionem quae tractatur in Scripturis, tantùm ad Animas re•…•…runt. Pet. Matt. Loc. Com. Class. 3. Ca. 15. Nu 4.
• * 1.1030

  Punct. 3.
• * 1.1031

  Punct. 4.
• a 1.1032

  Hebr. 11. 37. Cyrillus Alexandrinut malè audivit, quod Ammonium Marty∣rem appellavit, quem constitit temeritatis poenas dedisse, & non Necessitate negandi Christi in tormentis esse mortuum. Socr. Hist. Eccl. L. 7. c. 14.
• b 1.1033

  Optatus L. 4. Cont. Parmen.
• c 1.1034

  Tertul. L. de Prascrip. c. 48.
• d 1.1035

  Tertul. Ibid.
• e 1.1036

  Tertul. L. de Carne Christi. c. 14.
• f 1.1037

  Si ad Iesu Christi respicias Essentiam at que Naturam, non nisi Hominem eum fuisse constantèr affirma•…•…us. Volke∣lius Lib. 3. de Religione Christianâ. cap. 1.
• * 1.1038

  §. 35. Nu. 2. fine.
• a 1.1039

  Extra Ecclesiam veminem Vivificat Spiritus Sanctus. S. Aug. Epist. 5 0. ad fi∣nem. Field. L. 1. de Eccles. c. 13. Vna est Fidelium Vniversalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus salvatur. Conc La∣teran. Can. 1. And yet even there, there is no mention of the Romane Church.
• b 1.1040

  And so doth A. C. too: Out of the Catholi•…•… Romane Church there is no Possi∣bility of Salva•…•…∣on. A C. p. 65.
• * 1.1041

  And Daughter Sion was God's owne phrase of old of the Church, Isa. 1. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hyppol. Orat. de Consum. mundi. Et omnis Eccle∣sia Virgo appellata est. S. Aug. Tr. 13. in S. Ioh.
• † 1.1042

  For Christ was to be preached to all Nations, but that Preaching was to begin at Ierusalem, S. Luc. 24. 47. ac∣cording to the Prophesie, Mic. 4. 2. And the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch, Act. 11. 26. And therefore there was a Church there, before ever S. Peter came thence to settle One at Rome. Nor is it an Opinion destitute either of Authority, or Probability, That the Faith of Christ was preached, and the Sacraments admi∣nistred here in England, before any settlement of a Church in Rome. For S. Gildas the Ancientest monu∣ment we have, and whom the Romanists themselves re∣verence, sayes expresly, That the Religion of Christ was received in Britannie, Tempore (ut scimus) summo Tiberii Caesaris, &c. In the later time of Tiberius Caesar, Gildas deexcid. Brit. whereas S. Peter kept in Iewrie long after Tiberius his death. Therefore the first Conversion of this Iland to the Faith, was not by S. Peter. Nor from Rome, which was not then a Church. Against this Rich. Broughton in his Ecclesiasticall History of Great Bri∣taine, Centur. 1. C. 8. §. 4. sayes expresly: That the Protestants do freely acknowledge, that this Clause of the time of Tiberius (tempore summo Tiberii Caesaris) is wanting in other Copies of that holy Writer, and namely in that which was set forth by Pol. Virgil, and others. Whereas first these words are expresse in a most faire, and ancient Manuscript of Gildas to be seene in S^t. Rob. Cot∣ton's Study, if any doubt it. Secondly, these words are as expresse in the printed Edition of Gildas by Polyd. Virg. which Edition was printed at London, An. 1525. and was never reprinted since. Thirdly, these words are as expresse in the Edition of Gildas, by Io. Ioselin. printed at London also, An. 1568. And this falshood of Brough∣ton is so much the more foule, because he boasts (Proetat. to his Reader, fine.) That he hath seene, and dilig•…•…ntly per∣used the most, and best Monuments and Antiquities ex∣tant, &c. For if he did not see and peruse these, he is vainely false to say it: if he did see them, he is most ma∣liciously false to belie them. And lastly, whereas he sayes: The Protestants themselves confesse so much, I must believe he is as false in this as in the former, till he name the Protestants to me, which do confesse it. And when he doth, he shall gaine but this from me, That those Protestants which confessed it, were mistaken. For the thing is mistaken.
• * 1.1043

  Returne of Untruths upon M. Iewell. Art. 4. Vntruth 105.
• † 1.1044

  For I am sure there is a Romane Church, that is but a Particular. Bel∣larm. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. And then you must either shew me another Romane Church, which is The Ca∣tholike: Or you must shew how One and the same Romane Church is in dif∣ferent Respects or Relations A Parti∣cular, and yet The Catholike. Which is not yet done. And I do not say, A Particular, and yet A Cathol•…•…ke; B•…•…t A Particular, and yet The Catholike Church: For so you speake. For that which Card. Peron hath, That the Ro∣mane Church is the Catholike Causally, because it infuses Vniversality into all the whole Body of the Catholike Church, can, I thinke, satisfie no man that reads it. That a Particular should infuse Vniversality into an Vniversall. Peron L. 4. of his Reply. c. 9.
• * 1.1045

  Rom. 14. 4.
• † 1.1046

  Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit. S. Aug. cont. Fund. c. 4.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Naz. Orat. 21. Omission of Inquiry many times saves the People.
• * 1.1047

  Haeretickes in respect of the Profession of sundry Divine Verities which they still retaine in common with right Believers, &c. doe still pertaine to the Church Field. L. 1. de Eccles. c. 14. Potest aliquis Ecclesiae membrum esse se∣cundùm quid, qui tamen simpliciter non est. Hae∣reticus recedens à Fide, non dimittitur ut Pa∣ganus, sed propter Baptismi Characterem, pu∣nitur ut transfuga, & excommunicationis gladio Spiritualitèr occiditur. Stapl. Contro. 1. q. 2. A. 3. Notabili. 3.

  The Apostle pronounces some gone out. S. Ioh, 2. 19. from the fellowship of sound Beleivers, when as yet the Christian Reli∣gion they had not utterly cast off. In like sense and meaning, throughout all Ages, Haeretikes have justly beene hated as Branches cut off from the true Vine, yet onely so far forth cut off, as the Haeresies have extended. For both Haeresie, and many other Crimes which wholly sever from God, doe sever from the Church of God, but in part only. Hooker. L. 5. Eccles. Pol. §. 68.
• a 1.1048

  Ipsis Magi•…•… pereuntibus: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fortè ante •…•…∣tem resipuer•…•… Luth. de Sov. Arbit.

  Haeresiarchae pl•…•…s peccant, quam alii qui Haeresin aliquam sunt se∣cuti. Supplem. Tho q. 99. A. 4. c
• b 1.1049

  Si mihi videre∣tur unus & idem Haereticus, & Haereticis credens homo, &c. S. Aug. L. 1. de Util. Cred. c. 1.
• c 1.1050

  S. Mat. 18. 17. Qui oppugnant Regulam Veritatis. S. Aug. L. de Haeresibus: versùs finem.
• d 1.1051

  Cyprianus Beatus, & Martyr. S. Aug. L. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 18.
• e 1.1052

  Donatista verò (qui de Cypriani Au∣thoritate fibi carnaliter blandiuntur. S. Aug. L. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 18.) nimi•…•… •…•…iseri, &, nisi se corrigant; à semetipsis omninò da•…•…ati, qui hoc in tanto viro eligunt imitari. Ibid. c. 19.
• f 1.1053

  Rei falsitatis (circa accusatum Coeci∣lianum) deprehensi Donatistae, pertina•…•… dissentione firmatâ, schisma in Haeres•…•… verterunt. S. Aug. L. de Haeres. Haer. 69. Et Tales sub Vocabulo Christiano doctri∣nae resistunt Christianae. S. Aug. L. 18. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Civ. Dei. c. 51. prin.
• * 1.1054

  Qui et fi ipsi postmodum ad Ecclesiam r•…•…eunt restituere tamen eos, & seoum re∣•…•…are non possunt, qui ab iis seducti sunt, & foris morte praeventi extra Ec∣clesiam sine Communicatione & pace pe∣rierunt, quorum Animae in die Iudicii de ipsorum manibus expetentur, qui per∣ditionis Authores, & duces extiterunt. S. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 1.
• a 1.1055

  1 Cor. 3. 12.
• b 1.1056

  S Iohn 12. 48.
• c 1.1057

  1 Cor. 2. 11.
• * 1.1058

  A. C. p 67.
• * 1.1059

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1060

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1061

  §. 9.
• * 1.1062

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1063

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1064

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1065

  A. C. p. 68.
• † 1.1066

  §. 37. N. 1.
• * 1.1067

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1068

  A. C. p. 67.
• * 1.1069

  A. C. in his re∣lation of that Conference. p. 26.
• † 1.1070

  For so 'tis said in the Title∣page, by A. C.
• a 1.1071

  §. 37. Nu. 1. NUM. 8.
• * 1.1072

  (1)
• * 1.1073

  (2)
• * 1.1074

  (3)
• * 1.1075

  (4)
• * 1.1076

  (5)
• * 1.1077

  (6)
• * 1.1078

  (7)
• * 1.1079

  (8)
• * 1.1080

  (9)
• * 1.1081

  (10)
• * 1.1082

  Postquam dis∣cessionem a toto mundo facere coacti sumus. Calv. Epist. 141.
• * 1.1083

  (11)
• * 1.1084

  In the begin∣ing of the Con∣ference set out by A. C.
• a 1.1085

  S. 22. Nu. 5.
• b 1.1086

  Multa sunt de side, quae non sunt absolutè necessa∣ria as Salutem. Bellar. L. 3. de Eccles. Milit. c. 14. §. Quinto, si esset.
• c 1.1087

  Wald. Doct. Fid. l. 2. Ar. 2. § 23.
• d 1.1088

  §. 38. Nu. 8.
• * 1.1089

  A. C. p. 68.
• * 1.1090

  Pope Pelagius the second thought it was sufficient. For when the Bishops of Istria deserted his Communion in Causa trium Capitulorum. He first gives them an Account of his Faith, that he embra∣ced that Faith, which the Apostles had delivered, and the foure Synods explica∣ted. And then he adds: Ubi ergo de Fi∣dei firmitate nulla vobis poterit quastio, vel suspicis generari, &c. Concil. To. 4. p. 473. Edit. Paris. So then, that Pope thought there could be no question made, or suspition had of any mans faith, that professed that Faith, which the Apostles delivered, as 'tis explicated by those Great Councels. And yet now with A. C. 'tis not sufficient. Or els he holds the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ in such r•…•…spect of persons (contrary to the Apo∣stles Rule, S. James 2. 12.) as that professi∣on of it, which was sufficient for Pope Pelagius, shall not be sufficient for the poore Protestants.
• * 1.1091

  A. C. p. 68.
• * 1.1092

  Stapl. Returne of Vntruths up∣on B. Iewell. Art. 2. Vntruth 49 fol. 44.
• † 1.1093

  Est totalis Conversio substantiae Panis & Vini in Corpus & Sanguin•…•…m Domini. Bellar. L. 3. de Euchar. c. 18. §. 1. Substantia•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Transubstantiatio, sicut Ecclesia appellat. Greg. de Valen. To. 4 〈◊〉〈◊〉 q. 3. punct. 3. Now you shall see what stuffe Bellarmine makes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conversio Panis in Corpus Domini, nec est Productiva, n•…•… Conservat•…•… sed Adductiva. Nam Corpus Domini praeexistit ante Conversionem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non sub spe•…•…iebus Panis. Conversio igitur non facit ut Corpus Christ simplicitèr esse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus Panis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bellar. L. 3. de Euchar. c. 18. §. Ex his colligimus. So upon the whole matter, there shall be a totall Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ: And yet there shall be no Conversion at all, but a Bringing of the Body of Christ before praeexistent, to be now under the Species of Bread, where before it was not. Now this is meerly Translocation, 'tis not Tran∣substantiation. And I would have Bellarm. or any Iesuite for him, shew where Conversio Adductiva is read in any good Author. But when Bellar. comes to the Recognition of his workes, upon this place he tels us, That some excepted against him, as if this were Translocation, rather then Tran∣substantiation So in this charge upon him I am not alone. And faine would be shift off this, but it will not be. But while he is at it, he runs into two pretty Errours, beside the maine one. The first is, That the body of Christ in the Sacrament begins to be, non ut in loco, sed ut substantia sub Acciden∣tibut. Now let Bellarm. or A. C. for him give me any one Instance, That a Bodily Substance under Accidents, is, or can be any where, and not ut in loco, as in some place, and he sayes somwhat. The second is, That some Fa∣thers and others seeme (he sayes, but I see it not) to approve of his manner of speech of Conversion by Adduction. And he tels us for this, that Bona∣venture sayes expresly, In Transubstantiatione fit, ut quod erat alicubi, sine sui mutations sit alibi. Now first here's nothing that can be drawne with Cart-ropes to prove conversion by Adduction. For if there be Con∣version, there must be Change: And this is fine mutatione sui. And second∣ly, I would faine know, how a Body that is alicubi, shall be alibi, with∣out change of it selfe, and yet that this shall be rather Transubstantiation then Translocation. Besides, 'tis a Phrase of very sowre Consequence (should a man squ•…•…eze it) which Bellar. uses there even in his Recogni∣tion. Panis transit in Corpus Christi.
• † 1.1094

  A Scandall, and a grievous one. For this grosse Opinion was but confir∣med in the Councell of Lateran: It had got some footing in the Church, the two blinde ages before. For Berengarius was made recant in such Termes, as the Romanists are put to their shifts to excuse. Bellar. L. 3. de Euchar. c. 24. §. Quartum Argumentum. For he sayes expresly: Corpus Christi posse in Sacramento sensualitèr manibus Sacerdotum tractari, & frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. Decr. par. 3. de Consecratione. Dist. 2. C. Ego Berengarius. Now this Recantation was made about the yeare 1050. And the Councell of Lateran was in the yeare 1215. Bet•…•…ene this grosse Recantation of Berengarius, and that Councell, the great Lear∣ned Physitian and Philosopher Averroes lived, and tooke scandall at the whole Body of Christian Religion for this. And thus he saith: Mundum peragravi, &c. & non vidi Sectam deteriorem, aut magis fatuam Christi∣anâ, quia Deum, quem colunt, dentibus devorans. Espeneaeus L. 4. de Eu∣char. adoratione. c. 3.
• * 1.1095

  NUM. 4. A. C. p. 69.
• * 1.1096

  A. C. p. 69.
• a 1.1097

  §. 33. Consid. 4. Nu 1.
• b 1.1098

  §. 33. Consid. 7. Nu. 4.
• * 1.1099

  A. C. p. 68.
• * 1.1100

  A. C. p. 69
• * 1.1101

  A. C. p. 69.
• * 1.1102

  N•…•…n potest ali∣quid certum esse certitudire Fi∣dei, nisi aut imme∣diate contineatur in verbo Dei: aut ex verbo Dei per eviden∣tem Consequen∣tiam deducatur. Bellar. L. 3. de Iustif. c. 8 §. 2.
• † 1.1103

  Nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Arimi∣nense tanquàm praejudicaturus proferre Concilium. Nec ego hujus Authoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Scripturarum Au thoritatibus, &c. Res cum re, Causa cum causâ, Ratio cum ratione concertet. S. Aug. L. 3. cont. Maximinum. c. 14. Te∣stimonia Divina in fundamento ponenda sunt. S. Aug. L. 20. de Civ. Dei. c. 1. Quia principia hujus Doctrinae per Revelatio∣nens habentur, &c. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 2. Solis Scriptur arum Libris Canonicis did•…•… hunc honorem deferre, ut nullum Authorem corum in scribendo errâsse ali∣quid firmissimè credam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quant alibet sanctitate, doctri∣náque praepolleant, non ideò verum putem, quod ipsi it à senserunt, vel scripserunt. S. Aug. Epist. 19.
• * 1.1104

  Sixtus Senens. in Epist. ad Pi∣um quintum.
• * 1.1105

  A. C. p. 69.
• † 1.1106

  §. 38. N. 5.
• * 1.1107

  A. C. p. 69.
• † 1.1108

  Tert. praescript. adversus Haeres. c. 13. &c
• * 1.1109

  Ruffin. in Symb.
• a 1.1110

  Et neque qui valde potens est in di∣cendo ex Ecclesiae Praefectis alia ab his di∣cet &c. Neque debilis in dicendo hanc Traditionem imminuet. Quùm euim una & cadem fides sit, ueque is, qui multum de eâ dicere potest, plusquam oportet, dicit, ne∣que qui parum, ipsam imminuit. Irenae. L. 1. Adv. Haer. c. 2. & 3. Et S. Basil. Serm. de Fide To. 2. p. 195. Edit Bafil. 1505. Vna & Immobilis Regula. &c. Tert. de veland. Virg. c. 1.
• b 1.1111

  Quantum ad prima Credibilia, quae sunt Articuli Fidei, tenetur homo Explicitè credere, sicut & tenetur habere fidem. Quantum autem ad alia Credibilia &c. non tenetur Explicitè credere, nisi quando hoc ci constiterit in Doctrinâ Fidei conti∣neri. Tho. 2. 2 q. 2. A. 5. c.

  Potest quis Errare Credendo oppositum Alicui Articulo subtill, ad cujas sidem explicitam non •…•…mnis teuentur. Holkot. in 1. sent q. 1. ad quartum.
• * 1.1112

  Resolutio Ocbam est, Quod nec tota Ecclesiae, nec Concilium Generale, n•…•… suminus Pontifex potest facere Arti•…•…u∣lum quod non suit Articulus. Articulus cuim est ex co solo, qui à Deo Revelatu•…•… est. Almain. in 3. sent. D. 15. q. unica. Co•…•…∣clus. 4. Dub 3.
• * 1.1113

  S. Iude vers. 3.
• † 1.1114

  Concil. Trid, Sess 4.
• a 1.1115

  Six. Senens. Biblioth Sanct. L. 1.
• b 1.1116

  Non est necessariò credendum Det•…•…∣minatis per Sum Pontificem &c. Aimain. in 3. sent. D. 24. q. unica Conclus. 6. Du∣bio. 6. fine.
• * 1.1117

  §. 38. N. 6.
• * 1.1118

  A. C. p. 69.
• * 1.1119

  A. C. p. 72.
• * 1.1120

  Ier. 2. 13.
• * 1.1121

  A. C. p. 69.
• * 1.1122

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1123

  §. 25. N. 5. §. 33. Confid. 3. N. 1.
• a 1.1124

  §. 21. N. 5.
• b 1.1125

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1126

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1127

  Ephes. 4. 5.
• * 1.1128

  §. 35. N. 1.
• * 1.1129

  Rom. 14. 4.
• † 1.1130

  §. 35. N. 2. A. C. p. 70.
• a 1.1131

  §. 33. N. 12: §. 35. N. 7.
• * 1.1132

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1133

  §. 33. N 12. § 35 N. 7.
• a 1.1134

  Conc. Lateran. can 1.
• b 1.1135

  Conc. Constan. Sess. 13.
• † 1.1136

  Propter Haeresin Rex non solum Regno privatur, sed & filii ejus à Regni successione pelluntur. Simanca Cathol. Instit. tit 9. §. 259. Absoluti sunt Subditi a Debito fid•…•…∣litatis: Et custodes arcium &c. Ibid. tit. 46. §. 73. It was stifly avowed not long since by—That no man could thew any one Romane Catholike of note and learn∣ing, that affirmed it lawfull to kill Kings upon any pre∣text whatsoever. Now surely he that sayes (as Romanists doe) that 'tis lawfull to Depose a King, sayes upon the matter 'tis lawfull to kill him. For Kings doe not use to be long-lived after their Deposition: And they sel•…•…ome stay till griefe breake their hearts. They have Assassinates ready to make thorter worke. But since he is so confident; Ple give him an Author of note, and very Learned, that speakes it out. Rex debet occidi, si solicitet populum colere Idola, vel deserere Legem Dei. Tostat, in 2 Sam. c. 11. q. 17. And he makes bold with Scripture to prove it. Deut. 13. And Emmanuel Sa in his Aphorismes. Verbo Tyrannus, yet he is so moderate, that he would not have this done, till he be Sentenc'd: but then Quisquis potest fieri Execu∣tor. Mariana is farre worse, For he sayes it is lawfull to kill him, postquam à paucis Seditiosts, sed doctis caeperit Ty∣rannus appellari. L. 1. de Rege. & Reg. Iustitutione c. 6. Yea but Mariana was disclaimed for this by the Iesuites. Yea but for all that, there was an Apology printed in Italy: An. 1610. permissu Superiorum. And there 'tis said, They were all Enemies of the Holy name of I•…•…sus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 condemned Mariana for any such Doctrine. As for Testa∣tus no Sentence hath touched upon him at all for it.
• * 1.1137

  Corpus Christi veraciter esse in Eu∣charistià ex Evangelio habemus: Con∣versionem vero Panis in Corpus Christi Evangelium non explicavit, sed expresse ab Ecclesià accepimus. Cajetan in Th•…•…m. 3. q. 75. Art. 1.
• † 1.1138

  De Transubstantiatione Panis in Cor∣pus Christi rara est in antiquis Scri∣ptoribus mentio. Alph. a Castro L. 8. ad∣vers. Haer. Uerbo Indulgentia.
• a 1.1139

  Conc. Lateran. Can. 1.
• b 1.1140

  Conc. Constan. Sess. 13.
• * 1.1141

  A. C. p. 70.
• c 1.1142

  §. 35. N. 1. & §. 38. N 10.
• d 1.1143

  Concil. Triden. Bulla Pii 4 super formâ Iuramenti professionis Fidei ad finem Concil. Trident.
• * 1.1144

  Rom. 1. 8.
• a 1.1145

  And this is so much the more Remark•…•…∣ble, if it be true which Thomas hath. S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non composuisse hanc •…•…∣nifestationem Fide•…•…, per m•…•…dum Symboli, sed per modum Doctrinae, &c. Et deinde Authoritate summi Pontificis receptam esse, ut quasi Regula fidei habeatur. The. 2. 2ae. q. 1. A. 10. ad 3. Symbolo Apost•…•…∣rum addita sunt duo alia, scilicet Symbo∣lum Nicaenum, & S. Athanasii, admajo∣rem Fidei Explanationem. Biel. in 3. Sent. D. 25. q. unicâ. A. 1. D.
• b 1.1146

  S. Athanas. in Symb.
• c 1.1147

  And yet the Councell of Trent having added twelve new Articles, sayes thus o•…•… them also. Haec est vera Catholica Fide•…•…, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, &c. Bulla 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4. super forma Iuramenti pro∣fessionis Fidei. In sine Concil. Triaent.
• d 1.1148

  Integram Fid•…•…i Veritatem, ejus Doctri∣na breviter continet. Tho. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. q. 1. A. 10. ad 3.
• * 1.1149

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1150

  Sic Ecclesia dicitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eph. 5. 27. & in veteri Glossario, Immaculatus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.1151

  §. 33. Nu. 6.
• * 1.1152

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1153

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1154

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1155

  A. C. p. 70.
• * 1.1156

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1157

  §. 38. Nu. 13.
• * 1.1158

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1159

  §. 21. Nu. 5.
• * 1.1160

  Matth. 16. 18.
• * 1.1161

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1162

  S. 32. N. 5.
• † 1.1163

  S. Aug. L. 2. de Bapt. cont. Do∣nat. c. 3. Ipsaque plenaria, sape priora à posteri∣oribus emendari.
• * 1.1164

  S. 21. N. 5.
• a 1.1165

  I know the Greekes subscribed that Councell, Sed in illo Concilio Graeca Ec∣clesiae diu restitit. Pet. Mart. Loc. com. clas∣se tertiâ. c. 9. nu. 13. Et in ultimâ Sessione istius Concilii Graeci dixerunt se sine Au∣thoritate totius Ecclesiae Orientalis Quae∣stionem aliam tractare non posse praeter il∣lam de processione Sp. Sancti. Postea verò; consentiente Imperatore, tractârunt de ali∣is, &c. Florent. Concil. Sess. ult. apud Nicolinum. To. 4. p. 894. &c. This sa∣vours of some art to bring in the Greeks. Howsoever this showes enough against Bellarmine, That all the Greekes did not constantly teach Purgatory, as he assirms. L. 1. de Purgat. c. 11. §. De tertio modo.
• b 1.1166

  Con. Trid. Sess. 25. & in Bullâ Pii 4. super formà Iuramenti professionis Fidei.
• a 1.1167

  Omnes veteres Graeci & Latini ab ipso tempore Apostolerū con∣stanter docuerunt Purgatorium es∣se. Bel. L. 1. de Purg. c 11 §. De tertio modo.
• b 1.1168

  Bel. Lib 1 de Purg c 6 §. 1.
• a 1.1169

  la•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. In 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answer to t•…•… suites Ch•…•… c. 7 p. 19•…•….
• b 1.1170

  Sun•…•… aper•…•…∣ma L•…•…ca 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tribus ubi •…•…∣runt Purg•…•…∣um. Bel. L 1 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Purg. c. 6 § De inde sunt.
• c 1.1171

  Tert. L. de Ani. c. 17. Internum.
• d 1.1172

  Cypr. L 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. Emendari •…•…∣ne.
• e 1.1173

  Orig. Lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cap 6 S. Hieron. in •…•…∣nae 3 Bellar. L. de Purg. c. 2. §. Por•…•…o non. S. Aug. L 21. civ. Dei. c. 17
• f 1.1174

  S Aug L 21. civ. Dei. c. 17
• g 1.1175

  S. Amb. in Psa. 36. 14.
• h 1.1176

  1 Cor. 3. 15. S. Hieron in 66. Isai. sine.
• k 1.1177

  S. Hieron. L 4 cont. Pelag. ultra medium.
• l 1.1178

  S. Basil. in I∣sai. 9.
• m 1.1179

  Paulin. Ep•…•….
• a 1.1180

  Greg. Naz O∣rat. 39. fine.
• b 1.1181

  Lact. L. 7. c. 21
• c 1.1182

  S. Hilar. in Ps. 118. v. 20.
• d 1.1183

  Boetius L. 4. Pros. 4.
• g 1.1184

  Theo. in 1 Cor. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.1185

  Bellarmin. L. 1. de Purgato c. 4 Ex Graecis habemus.
• b 1.1186

  S. Greg. Nyss. Orat. de Mortuis. p. 1066. Edit. Paris. 1615. Tom. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. ibid. p. 1067. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. ibid. p. 1068.
• c 1.1187

  Item definimus, si ver's poenitentis in Ded eharitate decesserint, antequam dignis poe∣nitentiae fructibus de Commissis & Omis∣sis satisfecorint, poen•…•… Purgatorius post mortem purgari. Concil. Floren. circa. Prin. per Bin. Edit. Colon. 1618.
• d 1.1188

  S. Greg. Nyss. de Animâ, & Resur Tom. 2 p. 658.
• e 1.1189

  S. Greg. Orat 3. de Resurrect. Christi.
• † 1.1190

  No•…•… expedit philosophari al•…•…s &c. Orig. L. 6 cont. Celsu•…•….
• a 1.1191

  Constat Animas p•…•…rgari post banc vi∣tam. S. Augustin. Lib. 21. Civ. D•…•…i. c. 24. vide.
• b 1.1192

  Justorum flagella non i•…•…nt post mor∣tem, sed definunt. Et Anima mix in Pa∣radisum &c. S. Aug. Contr. Foelicia•…•…. c. 15. Et duo tantum loca esse. &c. S. Aug. Ser. 10. ae verb. Apost. c. 15. Et L. 21. de Civ. Dei. c. 16 fine, Negat, nisi sit Ignis il∣le in Consummatione saculi.
• c 1.1193

  Quari potest &c. S. Aug. in Enchirid. c. 69. Forsitan verum est &c. S. Aug. L. 21. de Civ. Dei c. 26. Quid S. Paulus senserit 1 Cor. 3. de Igne illo, malo intelli∣gentiores, & d•…•…ctiores audire. S. Aug. L. de Fide & Oper. c. 16.
• d 1.1194

  S. Greg. in Psal. 3. Poenitentialem princ.
• * 1.1195

  Quod Vniversa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conci∣liis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissimè creditur S. Aug. L. 4. de Bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 24 Nec ad Summ•…•…s Pontifices referri potest. Addit Melch. Ca∣nus L. 3: de Locis c. 4. prin.
• † 1.1196

  Non inveni∣mus initium hu∣jus dogmatis, sed omnes veteres Graeci & Latini. &c. Bellar. L. 1. de Purg. c. 11. §. De tertio mode.
• * 1.1197

  L. 1. de Purg. c. 6.
• † 1.1198

  §. 38. N. 16.
• a 1.1199

  Bellar. L. 1. de Purgat. c. 3. &. 4
• b 1.1200

  De tertio modo perspicuum est. &c. Bel. L. 1 de Purgat. c. 11. §. Tertiò ex Verbo &c. & §. De tertio modo. &c.
• * 1.1201

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.1202

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• * 1.1203

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.1204

  A C. •…•…7
• * 1.1205

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1206

  §. 38. N. 15.
• † 1.1207

  Though every Thing Defined to bee a Divine Truth in Gene∣rall Councels is not absolutely necessary to bee expresly known, and actually be∣lieved by all sorts. &c. A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1208

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1209

  Rom. 10. 14. 15.
• * 1.1210

  Ali•…•…s (ab 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Se ri∣p•…•…) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 leg•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sa•…•…ctitate 〈◊〉〈◊〉; prapo•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ver 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p•…•…tē, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ipsi ita 〈◊〉〈◊〉, vel scrips•…•…. Tho. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 q 1. A. 8. ad. 2. Ex S. Aug. Ep. 19. Mi•…•…i 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Demonstr 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accipias ex sa•…•…ris Li•…•…eris. S. Cyril. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ca•…•…. 4.
• a 1.1211

  A. C. p. 70.
• † 1.1212

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostoli 〈◊〉〈◊〉 possunt intel∣ligi ae Fide infusa, illa 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Deocreata est, & non est ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haec. apertissimè colligitur ex B•…•… 3. sent. D. 23 q. 2. A. 2. Conclus. 1. Ergo Fides acquisiea necessaria est. •…•…d. sed pra∣ter Acquisitam, Infusa etiam requiritur, & non solum propter Intentionem Act us, sedetiam propter Assensum & Cert•…•…∣nern. Quia non potest esse firmus Assen∣sus à Fide acquisita. Quia per cam nul∣lus credit alicui, nisi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 scit posse f•…•…lli & fallers, licet cred•…•… cum non Uelle fal∣lere. Scotus in 3. sent. D. 23. q. unica. Therefore in the judgement of your owne Schoole, your Preachers can both deceive and be deceived. And therefore certainly are not Infallible. And M. Canus very expresly makes this but an Introduction to Infallible faith. Primum ergo id statno juxta Comm•…•…em Legem aliqua exteri∣or a & hum•…•…a inci•…•… •…•…ta 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 es∣se, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad Evangelii fidem 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Quomodo enim cr•…•…nt ei, quem non au∣dier•…•…t &c. Canus L. 2. de L•…•…is. c. 8. §. Primum ergo. Et iterum. St Fides infu∣sa ita Fidei acquisitae niteretur, tan∣quam suo fundamento; ipsum Funda∣mentum Fia•…•… nostra non esset Divina sed Humana Veritas. Ibid § Cut & tertium. Therefore surely A. C. ab•…•…ses this place of the Apostle very boldly.
• * 1.1213

  A. C. p. 7•…•…
• * 1.1214

  Rom. 3. 4.
• * 1.1215

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1216

  §. 10. N. 15.
• * 1.1217

  A. C. p. 71.
• * 1.1218

  §. 21. N. 5.
• * 1.1219

  A. C. p. 72.
• * 1.1220

  A. C p. 72.
• a 1.1221

  §. 32. N. 5. §. 33. Consid. 7. Nu. 4.
• b 1.1222

  Arist. 1. Post Tex. 6 & 4. Metaph T. 14.
• c 1.1223

  §. 38 Nu. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.1224

  Hic non loquimur de Decisione, seu De∣terminatione Doctrinali, quae ad unum∣quemque virum peritum spectare dignos∣citur; sed de Authoritativâ & Iudiciali, &c la. Almain. L. de Author. Eccl. c. 10. princ.
• b 1.1225

  §. 38. Num. 1.
• c 1.1226

  Sunt qui nescio quà ducti ratione senti∣unt non esse opus Generali Concilio (De Constantiensi loquitur) dicentes, omnia bene à Patribus nostris Ordinata ac Con∣stituta, modò ab omnibus legitimè & fide∣liter servarentur. Fatemur equidem id ipsum esse verissimum. Tamen cùm nihil fere servetur, &c. Pet. de Aliaco. L. de reformat. Eccles. fine. So that after-Councels are rather to Decree for Obser∣vance, then to make any new Determi∣nations of the Faith.
• d 1.1227

  Non omnis Error in his qua fidei sunt, est aut Infidelitas, aut Haeresis. Holkot. in 1. Sent. q. 1. ad 4. K.
• e 1.1228

  Scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec proposstum suum facilè mutare, sed salvo inter Collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria quae apud se semel sint usurpata, retinere. Quâ in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, &c. S Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 1. Concordia quae est Charitatis effectus, est •…•…nio Voluntatum, non Opinionum. Tho. 2. 2 9. 37. Ar. 1. c. Dissensio de Minimis, & de Opinionibus repugnat quidem paci perfectae, in quá plenè veritaes cognosce∣tur, & omnis appetitus complebitur. Non tamen repugnat paci imperfectae, qualis habetur in via. Tho. 2. 2a. q. 29. A. 3. ad 2.
• † 1.1229

  1 Cor. 1. 10 Phil 2 2.
• * 1.1230

  A. C. p. 72.
• * 1.1231

  1. Cor. 11. 19.
• * 1.1232

  A. C. p. 72.
• a 1.1233

  §. 38. Nu. 1.
• b 1.1234

  §. 38. Nu. 8.
• c 1.1235

  S. Luc. 12. 48. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 secundùm proportionem suam, secundùm differenti∣am Scientiae vel Ignorantiae, &c. Et po∣stea. Extenditur doctrina hac, non solum ad Donum Scientia, &c. Cajetan. in S. Luc. 12. Ecce quomodo Scientia ag∣gravat Culpam. Unde Gregorius, &c. Gorran. in S. Luc. 12. Therefore many things may be necessary for a Knowing mans Salvation, which are not so for a poore Ignorant soule. Si quis de Ante∣cossoribus nostris vel ignorantèr, vel sim∣plicitèr non hoc observavit, & tenuit, quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & magiste∣rio suo docuit, potest simplicitati ejus de Indulgentiá Domini Venia concedi. Nobis verò non poterit ignosci, qui nunc à Do∣mino admoniti & instructi sumus. S. Cy∣prian. L. 2. Epist. 3.
• d 1.1236

  § 38. Nu. 1.
• a 1.1237

  Articuli Fidei sunt sicut Principia per se nota. Et sicut quadam corum in aliis implicitè continentur, ita omnes Articuli implicitè continentur in aliquibus primis Credibilibus, &c. secundùm illud ad Heb. 11. Tho. 2 2a. q. 1. A. 10. c. In absoluto nobis & facili est aternitas: Iesum susci∣tatum à mortuis per Deum credere, & ip∣sum esse Dominum consiteri, &c. S. Hilar. L. 10. de Trin. ad finem.
• * 1.1238

  S. Matth. 22. 37.
• * 1.1239

  Heb. 11. 6.
• * 1.1240

  Act. 4. 12.
• b 1.1241

  And yet before in this Conference, & apud A. C. pag. 42. the Iesuitè whom he defends hath said it expresly, That all those points are Fundamentall which are necessary to salvation.
• * 1.1242

  A. C. p. 72.
• c 1.1243

  Romana Ecclesia particularis. Bellar. L. 4. de Ro. Pout. c. 4. §. 1. Catholica autem est illae quae diffusa est per univer∣sum Orbem. S. Cyril. Hiero•…•…ol. Ce∣tech. 18.
• a 1.1244

  Catholica enim dicitur Ecclesia illa quae universalitèr docet sine ullo d•…•…ctu, vel differentia dogmatum. S. Cyril. Hierolol. Ca∣tech 18. Unde Augustinus subscripsit se Episcopum Catholicae Ecclesiae Hipponiregicusis. L. 1. de Act is cum Foelice Mani•…•…h. c. 20. Ft l 2. c. 1. Et Catholica Alexandrinorum Soz. l. 1. Htst. c. 9. Et l 2. c. 3. And so every particular Church is or may be called Catholike, and that truly, so long as it teaches Catholike Do∣ctrine. In which sense the Particular Romane Church was called Catholike, so long as it taught all and onely those things to be De Fide, which the Catholike Church it selfe maintain'd. But now Rome doth not so.
• b 1.1245

  Supra. §. 35. Nu 9. Other Churches beside the Romane are called Matres, and Originales Ecelesiae, as in Tertul. de praescrip. advers. hares. c. 21. Et Ecclesiae Hi•…•…rosolymitana quae aliarum om∣nium Mater. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Theodoret. L. 5 Hist. Eccl. c. 9. ex L•…•…bello Synodico à Concil Constantinop. 2. transmisse ad Con∣cilium sub Damaso tum Romae coactum. Et Constantinopolitana Ecclesiae dicitur omnium aliarum Capus. Cod. L 1. Tit. 2. Leg. 24. That is, not simply of all Churches, but of all in that Patri∣archate. And so Rome is the Head of all in the Romane Patri∣archate.
• c 1.1246

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesiae Ca∣tholike 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Matricem agn•…•…rent & tencrent. S. Cyp. L. 4. Epist. 8.
• d 1.1247

  Edit. Basiliens. 1530. And Si∣manca also ap∣plies this speech of S. Cyprian to Rome. 'Tis. 24. §. 17. And to also P•…•…lius upon this place of S 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But they wrong him.
• * 1.1248

  Baron. Annal. 254. Numb. 64. where hee cites this Epistle.
• † 1.1249

  Nos autem qui Ecclesiae Unius Caput & Rad•…•…∣cem tenemus, pro certo scimus, & credimus, nihil extra Ecclesiam licere, & Baptis∣matis quod est u∣num, Caput nos esse, ubi & ipse Baptizatus pri∣ùs fuerat, quan∣do Divinae Vni∣tatis, & Ratio∣nem & veritatē t•…•…bat. S. Cypr. ad Iubain. Epist. 73. Edit. Pamel.
• * 1.1250

  Elaborarent ut ad Catholica Ec∣clesiae unit atē sci∣ssi corpores mem∣bra componerent & Christianae Charitatis vin∣culū copularent. Sed quoniam di∣versae partis ob∣stinata & inflex∣ibilis pertina i•…•… non tantum radi∣cis & Matris si∣num atque com∣plexum recusa∣vit, sed etiam gliscente & in pejus recrude∣scente discordiâ, Episcopum sibi constituit. &c. S. Cyprian. L. 2. Epist. 10.
• * 1.1251

  T•…•… at tanta Ecclesia Vna est illa ab Apostolis prima ex quà Omnes. Sic omnes 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & omnes Apostolica, dumunam omnes probant Vnitatem: Tert de praes ad∣vers. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 20. Porro Vnam esse primam Apostolicam, ex quâ reliquae. Hanc nulli let a assigit B. Rhenanus Annot. in Ar∣gumento. Tertul, de praescript. &c. Nulli loco. Therefore not at Rome. But these words [Hanc nulli loco assigit] delean∣tur, sayes the Spanish Inquisition upon Rhenanus, printed at Madrid An 1584.
• a 1.1252

  Gregory Naz. s•…•… the Church of Casaria was Mater prope omni•…•… Ecclesia∣rum. Epist. 18.
• b 1.1253

  Pamel in Ter∣tul. de praescript. advers. Haeres. c. 21. Nu. 129.
• c 1.1254

  Vi quasi Radix & Fundamentū Ecclesiae tollere∣tur, si in iis locis Ia•…•…la colerentur in quibus Chri∣stus natus est. &c. S. Paulinus Epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ad Se∣•…•…um.
• * 1.1255

  Hareses omnes de illà 〈◊〉〈◊〉: tanquam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tainutilia de Vi∣te prae•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 autem maner 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Radice suâ &c. S. Aug. de lymb. ad Catechumer. L. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.1256

  Pars Donati non considerat se proectsam esse à Radice Orienta∣lium Ecclesiarū. &c. S Aug. Ep. 170. prin.
• a 1.1257

  Not as Bellarmine would have it, with a Hinc dicitur Apostolica, quia in e•…•… Successio Episcoporum ab Apostolis d•…•…∣ducta est usque ad nos. Bellar. L. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 8. §. 1. For by this Rea∣son neither Ierusalem, nor Antioch were in their times Apostolike Churches; Be∣cause Succession of Bishops hath not suc∣ceeded in them to this day. Dc Collegis agebatur qui possent &c. Iudicio Apo∣stohcarum Ecclesiarum causam suam in∣tegram reservare. S. Aug. Epist. 162. Io: de Turrecrem: enumerat sex Verbi hujus significationes. Quarum prima est. Apostolica dicitur quia in Aposto∣lis &c. initiata est. Hos enim instituit quasi fundamenium Ecclesiae, &c. Io: de Turrcer. L. 1. Summae, c. 18. Et quia Originem sumpsit ab Apostol•…•… &c. Ibid: Vbi dicit etiam S. Patres apposu∣isse hanc Uocem [Apostolicam] in Sym∣bolo suo, supra symbolum Apostolorum, ibid
• b 1.1258

  Ecclesiae Apostolicae, ut Smyrnaeorum, & reliquae ab Apostolu sundatae. Tertul. de praescrip: advers. Haret: c. 32. Per∣curre Ecclesias Apostolicas &c. Habes Corinthum, Philippos, Thessaloni•…•…s Ephesum, Romam. ibid. c. 32. Et Pame∣lius enumerat Hicrosolymitanam, Anti∣ochenam, Corinthiam, Philippensem, Ephesinam, Romanam. Pamel. ib. c. 21. Nu. 129. And it may be observed, that so long agoe Tertullian, and so lately Pamelius should reckon Rome last. Quin & aliae Ecclesia quae ab bis. Apostolicae etiam deputantur, ut soboles Ecclesiar•…•… Apostolicarum &c. Tertul. 16. c. 20.
• * 1.1259

  A. C. p. 73.
• * 1.1260

  A. C. p. 73.
• * 1.1261

  Quintò quaeritur, An ubi Catholici unà cum Haereticis versantur, licitum sit Ca∣tholico adi•…•… Templa ad quae Haeretici con∣veniunt, eorum interesse Conventibus, &c. Respondeo: Sirei Naturam spectemus, non est per se malum, sed suà naturâ in∣differens, &c. Ec postea. Si Princeps haeresi laboret, & jubeat subditos Catholi∣cos sub poena Mortis, vel Confiscationis bonorum frequentare templa Haeretico∣•…•…, quid tum faciendum? Respondeo: si jubeat tantum, ut omnes Mandato suo obediant, licitum est Catholicis facere: Quià praestant solum Obedientia officium. Sin jubeat, ut eo Symbolo fimul Religio∣nem Haereticam profiteantur, parere non debent. Quares iterum, An liceat Ca∣tholico obedire, modò publicè asseveret se id efficere, solùm ut Principi suo obediat, non ut sectam hareticam profiteatur I Re∣spondeo: Quidam id licere arbitrantur, ne bona ejus publicent•…•…r, vel Vita eripia∣tur. Quod sanè probabiliter dici vide∣tur. Azorius Instit. Moral. p. 1. L 8. c. 27 p. 1299. Edit. Paris. 1616.
• * 1.1262

  A. C. p. 73.
• * 1.1263

  Rom. 10. 10.
• * 1.1264

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 58. 4.
• * 1.1265

  A. C. p. 73.
• * 1.1266

  I would A. C. would call it the Romane Per∣swasion, as some understanding Romanists do.
• † 1.1267

  For though I spare their Names, yet can I not agree in Iudgement with him that sayes in Print: God be praised for the disagreement in Religion. Nor in Devo∣tion with him that prayed in the Pulpit: That God would teare the Rent of Religi∣on wider. But of S. Greg. Naz. Opini∣on I am. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Non stu∣demus paci in detrimentum verae Doctri∣nae—ut facilitatis, & Mansuetudinis famam colligamus.—Et rursum, Pa∣cem colimus legitimè p•…•…gnantes, &c. Orat. 32.
• * 1.1268

  A. C. p. 73.
• a 1.1269

  §. 33. §. 26. Nu. 1. & 11.
• b 1.1270

  Praeponitur Scripturae, &c. S. Aug. L. 2. de Bapt. cont. Do∣nat. c. 3.
• c 1.1271

  §. 32. Nu. 5. A. C. p. 63.
• * 1.1272

  A. C. p. 73.
• d 1.1273

  S. Aug. Epist. •…•…8. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• * 1.1274

  §. 33. Nu 6.
• * 1.1275

  A. C. p. 73.
• a 1.1276

  §. 57. Nu. 3, 4.
• b 1.1277

  §. 25. Nu. 5.
• * 1.1278

  A. C. p. 73.
• c 1.1279

  Ephe•…•…. 4. 11.
• d 1.1280

  Pontificatus Summus disertè positus est ab Apostolo in illis verbis Eph. 4. 11. & in illis clarioribus, 1. Cor. 12. 28. Ipse po∣suit in Ecclesia primùm Apostolos, &c. Bellar. L. 1. de Ro. Pont. c. 1. §. Respondeo Pontificatum. And he gives an excellent reason for it. Siquidem summa potestas Ecclesiastica non solùm data est Petro, sedetiam aliis Apostolis. Ibid. So belike by this Reason the Apostle doth clearely expresse the Popedome, because all the rest of the Apostles had as much Ecclesiasti∣call Power, as S. Peter had. But then Bel∣larmine would salve it up with this, That this Power is given Petro, ut Ordinarie Pastori, cui succederetur, aliis verò tan∣quam Delegatis, quibus non succederetur. Ibid. but this is meere Begging of the Question, and will never be granted un∣to him. And in the meane time, we have his absolute Confession for the other, That the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Power was not in S. Peter alone, but in all the Apostles.
• † 1.1281

  Eph. 4. 13.
• * 1.1282

  A. C. p. 73.
• * 1.1283

  Aud so also Bellarm. Sexta nota est Conspi∣ratio in Doctri∣nâ cum Ecclesiâ Antiquâ. L. 4 de Notis Eccle. c. 9. §. 1.
• a 1.1284

  Vin. Lir. cont. Har. c. 4.
• * 1.1285

  Hâc Ordinatione & Successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ Traditio, & ve∣ritasis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos. Et est plenissima haec Ostensio, Vnam & eandem Vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit con∣servata, & tradita in veritate. Iren. L. 3. Advers. Haer. c. 3.
• † 1.1286

  Per hanc Successionem confundi omnes Haereticos. Bellarmin. L. 4. aé Notis Ec∣cles. c. 8. §. 1. There's no such word round in Irenaeus.
• * 1.1287

  Testimonium his perh•…•…bent quae sunt in Asiâ Ecclesiae Omnes, & qui usque adhuc Successerunt Polyc•…•…po Iren. I. 3 advers. Haere. c. 3. Constat omnem Doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis, Matrici∣bus, Originalibus Fidei conspiret, Veritati doputandam. Tettul. de praescript. advers. Haeret. c. 21. Ecclesia posteriores non mi∣nùs Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguii∣nitate Doctrinae. Ibid c 32. Ecclesia non in Parietibus consistit &c. Ecclesia autem illic erat, ubi fides verae erat. S. Hieron. in Psal. 133.
• † 1.1288

  Antiqua Eccle∣sia primis quin∣gentis Annis ve∣ra Ecclesia fuit, & proinde Apo∣stolicā Doctrinā retinuit. Bel. L. 4. de Notis Ec∣cles. c. 9 §. 1.
• a 1.1289

  Ad hanc formam provocabuntur ab il∣lis Ecclestis, quae lic èt nullum ex Aposto∣lis, vel Apostolicis Authorem suum pro∣ferunt, ut multò posteriores quae denique quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minùs Apostolicae depu∣tantur pro consanguinitate Doctrine. •…•…er∣tul. de praescript. c. 32.
• * 1.1290

  Illis Presbyteris obediendum est, qui cum Episeopatus Successione Charisma ac∣•…•…perunt Ueritatis. Iren. Lib. 4. cap. 43.
• a 1.1291

  Successio nec Locorum tantum est, nec personarum, sed etiam vera & sana Do∣•…•…rinae. Stapl. •…•…elect. Controver. 1. q. 4 A. 2. Notab 1.
• b 1.1292

  Quia Doctri∣na Sana est ab ipsa verà & le∣gi•…•…ima Successi∣one indiv•…•…lsa. Stapl. Ibid.
• c 1.1293

  Nam è Pastore L•…•…s fieri po∣t•…•…st. Stap. ibid. N•…•…tab. 4.
• a 1.1294

  Vincent. Lit. cont. Har. c. 23. 24.
• * 1.1295

  S. Ioh. 6. 70.
• b 1.1296

  Legitima au∣tem est illorum Pastorum, qui Vnitatem tenent & Fidem. Stap. ibid. Notab. 5.
• c 1.1297

  In their owne Chronologer O∣nuphrius there are Thirty ac∣knowledged.
• * 1.1298

  §. 26. Nu. 1.
• † 1.1299

  Patrum & A∣vorum nostro∣rum tempore, pauci audebant dicere, Papam es∣se supra Concili∣um. Aeneas Syl∣vius, sen Pius 2. L. 1. de Gestis Concil. Basil. Et ill•…•… imprimis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, •…•…nes qui aliquo numero s•…•… Concilio subjici•…•…nt. Ibid. in fascic. rerum Expetend. fol. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 autem, Papam esse non solùm supra Concilium Ge∣nerale, sed & V∣niversam Eccle∣siam, est propo∣sitio ferè de Fi∣de. Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c. 17. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1.
• * 1.1300

  Quum hoc tempore nullus sit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (〈◊〉〈◊〉 f•…•…nd est) qui sacras; Lit•…•…ras d•…•…dicerit, qu•…•… fronte aliquis eorum docere audebit, quod non didicerit? Arnulph. in Concil. Rhe∣•…•…nsi. Nam c•…•… constet plures eorum adeò illiteratos esse, ut Grammaticam pe∣nitùs ignorarent, qui sit ut Sacras Lite∣ras interpretari possint? Alphons. à Ca∣stro. L. 1. advers. H•…•…. c. 4. versùs medi∣um. Edit. Paris. 1534. (For both that at Antwerpe, An. 1556. and that at Pa∣ris, An. 15•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 beene in Purgato∣rie.) And such an Ignorant as these was Pope Iohn the foure and twentieth. Plati∣•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vitae ejus. Et § 33. Nu. 6.
• † 1.1301

  Resolutio Occham est, Quod nec tota Ecclesia, net Concilium Generale, nec Summus Pontifex potest facere Articu∣lum, quod non fuit Articulus. Sed Eccle∣sia bene determinat de Propositionibus Ca∣tholicis, de quibus erat dubium, &c. Ia. Almain. in 3 Sent. D. 25. q. unicâ Dub. 3. Sicut ad ea quae spectant ad Fidem nostram, & nequaquam •…•…x voluntate hu∣mana dependent, non potest Summus Pon∣tifex, nec Ecclesia ae Assertione non verâ, veram: nec de non falsâ falsam facere: it à non potest de non Catholicâ Catholi∣cam facere, nec de non Haretica Hareti∣cam. Et ideo non potest •…•…ovum Articu∣lum facere, nec Articulum Fidei tollere. Quoniam sicut Veritates Catholicae abs∣que omni approbatione Ecclesiae ex naturâ rei sunt immutabiles, & immutabilitèr verae, it à sunt immutabilitèr Catholica reputandae. Similitèr sicut Hareses abs∣que omni reprobatione, & damnatione sunt falsae, it à absque omni reprobatione sunt Haereses reputanda, &c. Et posteà. Pa∣tet ergo quod nulla Veritas est Catholica ex approbatione Ecclesiae vel Papae. Gab. Biel. in 3. S•…•…nt. Dist. 25. q. unica. Art. 3. Dub. 3. versùs sinem.
• a 1.1302

  §. 26. Nu. 1.
• * 1.1303

  Psal. 90. 10.
• * 1.1304

  Psal. 85. 10.