A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church, Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 16 · Commentary 5
A. W.
In propounding theſe matters againſt vsus (of your proofe I will ſpeake afterward) there are a few things worthy obſeruation, that your dealing may be manifeſt to all men. Firſt, you talke of the Proteſtants Church, as if we (like you) fancied to our ſelues ſome one church, beſide which there ſhould be none in the whole world: whereas we acknowledge ſeuerall Churches in diuers countries to be entire in themſelues, without dependance of any one vponupon any other. Yet do we not denie, that there is a certaine communion betwixt and among all true Churches, which conſiſts in their agreement in doctrine, about all matters of the foundation, and the mutuall helpes of prayer, and of other Chriſtians duties to be performed by one congregation to and for another. In this reſpect there is one Church of Proteſtants; and whatſoeuer company holdeth not the foundation, is no true Church, nor to be counted a member of the Proteſtants Church.
Secondly, I would know why you require that our Church ſhould be perfectly one: ſince you mentioned no ſuch matter, in ſetting downe & expounding the firſt propertie of the Church. If you anſwer, that to be one, and to be perfectly one, is all one: I pray you remember, that this terme perfectly ſhould either hauehave bin put in before, or bin left out now. Otherwiſe, ſeeing you neuer tell vsus, that it is all one, whether a Church be one, or perfectly one, why ſhold we not make our aduantage of your words, and preſume that our Church is held by you to be one, though it want ſomwhat of I know not what perfectiō imagined by you: which yet you forget, when you come to ſhew that your church is one.
Thirdly, how doth this ſtrange ſpeech, vniforme in dogmaticall points of faith, agree with that plainneſſe which you profeſſe, for inſtructing of the ſimple? But in good earneſt, what meane you by dogmaticall points? It had bin very fit you ſhould hauehave vſed other termes, or atleaſt hauehave expounded theſe for the vnderſtāding of the ignorant. But this dark ſpeech makes more for you, becauſe it may perhaps affoord you ſome ſtarting hole, if you be hard driuen. Yet a man may geſſe at your meaning, becauſe when you come to proue that the Church of Rome is one, you ſeeme to interprete dogmaticall points to be matters of faith defined by the Church. If we take it in this ſenſe, I maruel how you can charge our Churches with variableneſſe in this reſpect? What one point was euer defined by the generall conſent of our Churches, which hath bin ſince altered by like conſent? If you can ſhew none, as I may well preſume you cannot; till you do, then are our Churches in dogmatical points of faith, as perfectly one, as yours ſo much bragged of.
Now to your argument, which is thus to be concluded:
That Church which is variable, according to the varietie of times and perſons, &c. the learned men whereof are at iarre among themſelues in matters of faith, &c. and hauehave no means to end their controuerſies, is not one.
But ſuch is the Proteſtants Church.
Therefore the Proteſtants Church is not one.
I denie your maior: varietie of opinions, differences of learned To the propoſition.men, without meanes to end their controuerſies, do not proue any Church, not to be one, vnleſſe the matters, about which they differ, be of the foundation: ſo that the ignorance of them, or error in them, be in it ſelfe damnable. To make my anſwer plaine, I wil handle as ſhortly as I can, the ſeuerall points of your propoſition. The Apoſtles, diſciples and other beleeuers, in our Sauiours time were (doubtleſſe) the true Church, and ſo alwayes continued in generall, though ſome of them haply fell away: being the true Church, they were alſo one by your owne confeſſion; yet did they not always hold the ſame dogmaticall points of faith, but varied in matters of very great moment. For a time, yea all the time of our Sauiours Chriſts life, qAct. 1. 6.till his aſcenſion, they beleeued that his kingdome was not onelyonly ſpiritual, but alſo of this world. rMark. 16. 11.They were ignorant of that high point concerning his reſurrection, ſRom. 4. 25. 1. Cor. 15. 14. 17without which there is no iuſtification. Yea after the deſcending of the holy Ghoſt vponupon them, tAct. 10. 15.they held it vnlawfull to impart the Goſpell to the Gentiles. Put caſe now, that ſome of thoſe who followed our Sauiour, had continued in theſe opinions, and that you had bin to giuegive ſentence, whether they & their companie had bin the true church, or the Apoſtles and people that claue to them: ſurely you muſt needs, according to this firſt part of your reaſon, hauehave condemned the innocent, and iuſtified the wicked. For the Apoſtles Church was not one, becauſe it had varied from ſome opinions formerly held by it, which the other companie ſtill retained. As for your odious manner of propounding the point, according to the varietie of times and perſons, it is but a froth of words, and might in regard of the change, hauehave bin charged in like ſort vponupon the Apoſtles.
As for the diſſent of learned men one from another, neither was the Church euer ſo happie as to be without it, and you acknowledge it among your owne writers, though not in matters of faith; the contrary whereof I will ſhew when I come to that place. But if by matters of faith, you meant ſuch points as are fundamental, I could ſomewhat the rather hearken to you. And yet what ſhall it hinder a Church from being one, that the learned men of it make queſtion of ſuch maine matters, as long as the Church is not tainted with their priuate errors? Did the Churches of Corinth or Galatia ceaſe to be true Churches, becauſe ſome among them (and as it ſhould ſeeme no ſmall number) u1. Cor. 15. 11in the former denied the reſurrection of the fleſh; xGal. 3. 4. 5.in the other ioyned the workes of the law with faith to iuſtification? yet were both theſe fundamētall errors, the continuance wherin without repentance, muſt needs bring certaine damnation. But your matters of faith are all points, though neuer ſo friuolous or falſe, that your Church hath determined by her lawleſſe tyrannie: whereas many matters of farre greater importance, not ſo decreed, are left free for eueryevery man to erre in, or to be ignorant of, without any danger of damnation, or breach of vnitie.
This laſt point (as you ſay) is the principall matter appertaining to vnitie, that there be meanes in the Church to end controuerſies. But why, or how ſhould this be ſo principall, when as the Church may agree in the ſame points of doctrine, though priuate men diſſent from each other? Indeed to the procuring of an outward peace, it is very requiſite that particular men be not ſuffered to preach or write one againſt another. But neither is this peace ſo much worth, as that for it the Church ſhould be corrupted with errors: and the chiefe power for the remedying of this inconuenience, is in the hands of the chiefe Magiſtrate, whoſe dutie it is to prouide that his ſubiects y1. Tim. 2. 2.may leade a quiet and a peaceable life, in all godlineſſe and honeſtie. Therefore neither doth this diſagreement among the learned, make the Church ceaſe to be one, though there be no meanes to end it; which yet are not wanting in the true Churches.
Your minor alſo is falſe in eueryevery part of it. Ʋariableneſſe in points of faith according to the variety of times and perſons, is when To the Aſſumption.(in regard of theſe two) the doctrine of the Church is altered. Now who is ſo ſhameleſſe as to charge vsus with hauing altered, and dayly altering our iudgements in reſpect of either of theſe? What neceſſitie or occaſion can varietie of time bring for the change of doctrine? But for perſons, what ſect, profeſſion, church or companie in the world, euer was or could be freer from depending on any mans perſon, then we are, who abſolutely diſclaime all mens authority ouer our faith? Are not you they, that z12. Art. Part. 1. art. 2.charge vsus with leauing the interpretation of Scripture, and conſequently the beliefe of euerie man to his owne priuate humour? And yet you are not aſhamed, to accuſe vsus for variableneſſe in our doctrine, according to the varietie of perſons. If malice were not blind, it were vnpoſſible you ſhould ſlaunder vsus, with ſo manifeſt contrarieties. You are the men, whoſe faith dependeth vponupon the perſons of your Popes, whom you follow blindfold, whither ſoeuer any of them leadeth you. We attribute to our teachers no impoſſibilitie of erring, though we hauehave a reuerend opinion of their knowledge and faithfulneſſe; in regard whereof we do not lightly reiect any doctrine, or expoſition deliuered by them, vnleſſe it be apparently falſe. Yet doe we not tie our ſelues to take whatſoeuer they teach, as a matter of faith, though we are readie to yeeld to any thing which is plainly prooued to vsus out of the word of God, how contrary ſoeuer it be to our former opinions. For we know, that men are ſubiect to error, and that God doth not miraculouſly reueale all truth at once to any man; but as it ſeemes good to his gracious wiſedom, peece by peece enlighteneth the vnderſtanding of his ſeruants with the knowledge of his will and word, according to their ſinceritie in depending on him, faith in calling vponupon him, & diligence in ſearching the Scriptures, the only ſufficient meanes of inſtruction. The ſecond part of your ſlander is, that our learned men ſo iarre in matters of faith, that it is hard to find three in all points of one opinion. Remember what you call matters of faith, points of doctrine defined by the Church: and forbeare bluſhing if you can, when you reade this your accuſation againſt vsus. What other refutation ſhal I need to vſe, then the bare naming of the harmonie of our confeſſions, wherein the moſt partial Reader of your ſide may diſcerne your ſhameleſſe hyperbole, that I may giuegive it a cleanlier terme then it deſerueth. To requite your kindneſſe, I challenge you to name me (if you can) any one of your ſchoole-men, that hath not refuted ſome of his owne fellowes in ſome points, or bene refuted by them. I confeſſe there are many of them, that I hauehave not read: but I am ſo well acquainted with their courſes, and contradicting of one another, that I may venture without aduenture, to make this challenge.
Laſt of all your minor affirmes, that aSee my anſwer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 5.our learned men hauehave no meanes to end their controuerſies. If you ſpeake of the euent, that our meanes are not ſufficient de facto, to make them that ſtriue, to agree in one opinion, or to make all men to be of one mind: I graunt that you ſay to be true; but I adde withall, that we may hauehave, when we will, as good meanes to this purpoſe, as your Church hath. For it is no more but to appoint ſome man, to whoſe iudgement we will ſtand in all matters of controuerſie. What hereticall Church may not hauehave the ſame meanes of vnitie, if it pleaſe? But if you denie that, de iure, wee hauehave meanes ſufficient for the ending of all queſtions: I ſay your minor is vtterly falſe, becauſe we hauehave the Scriptures appointed and bleſſed to that end by God himſelfe. Now as the miniſterie of the word is moſt ſufficient for the begetting of faith, and ſauing of men, though it hauehave not this excellent effect in all: ſo the Scriptures are of abſolute ſufficiencie to cut off all controuerſies, howſoeuer men will not alwayes be ruled by them.
Your minor (as we hauehave ſeene) containes a grieuous accuſation of vsus in three points of no ſmall importance. To which we pleade not guiltie, and looke to heare what euidence commeth againſt vsus, to proue the enditement. But you, rather like the foreman of the grand enqueſt, then the plaintiffe that endites vsus, inſtead of prouing, come in with I find that the Proteſtants Church is not perfectly one. This will not ſerue the turne: we muſt know how you finde it, or at leaſt be aſſured that you hauehave found it. Who would not laugh at ſuch an euidence? But though you leaue the two former points to the credulouſneſſe of your Popiſh followers, yet you attempt the proofe of the laſt by this Syllogiſme.
They that admit no rule of faith but onelyonly Scriptures, and allow no infallible interpreter thereof, to whoſe iudgement they will ſtand, hauehave no meanes to end their controuerſies, and returne to vnitie.
But the Proteſtant Churches admit no rule of faith, but onelyonly Scriptures, and allow no infallible interpreter thereof, to whoſe iudgement they will ſtand.
Therefore the Proteſtant Churches hauehave no meanes to end their controuerſies, and returne to vnitie.
I denie your maior: for the Scripture alone containes all truth neceſſarie to be beleeued, and that ſo plainly, that without any To the propoſition.ſuch ſoueraigne iudgement of any man, it is poſſible for a reaſonable man to diſcerne truth from falſhood. But if any man will be contentious, we hauehave the ſword of the magiſtrate, and the cenſure of excommunication to bring him into order, or to cut him off if he be incurable, that the vnitie of our Churches be not diſſolued either by hereſic or ſchiſme.
But to confirme your propoſition: you alledge bHieron. adu. Iouin. lib. 1.Ieromes authoritie, that there muſt be a head or chiefe ruler, that occaſion of ſchiſme may be taken away. The danger of ſchiſme that Ierome ſpeakes of in his firſt booke againſt Iouinian (not as your Printer quotes it, in the ſecond) was not in reſpect of doctrine, but of outward peace. Neither was this courſe held from the beginning (as Ierome ſaith) but in diſcretion appointed vponupon occaſion. Before that, by the malice of the diuell (ſaith cHieron. ad Tit. cap. 1.Ierome) the Church was deuided into factions, and one man held of Paul, another of Apollo, another of Cephas, Churches were gouerned by common conſent of the Preſbyters; but after that eueryevery man began to thinke, that thoſe which hee had baptized were his and not Chriſts: it was decreed ouer all the world, that one choſen from among the Preſbyters, ſhould be ſet ouer the reſt, to whom the whole care of the Church ſhould appertaine, and that the ſeeds of ſchiſmes might be taken away. Out of which ſentence of Ierome, we may obſerue theſe points: Firſt, that this meanes of procuring vnitie, belongeth not (neceſſarily) to the nature of the Church: for then it muſt needs hauehave bene as auncient as the Church. But Ierome telleth vsus, that there was a time when the Church was without it, and that in her beſt eſtate while the Apoſtles liued. By little and little (ſaith dHieron. vbi ſupra.Ierome afterward) that the plants of diſſention might be plucked vp, the whole care was layed vponupon one. Secondly, whereas in the place alledged by you, Ierome acknowledgeth ſuch a ſuperioritie in Peter aboue the other Apoſtles, in reſpect of age, for which (as he ſaith) he was preferred before Iohn: yet there is more heede to be taken to his iudgement in this place, where he diſputes the queſtion without all paſſion, then to that which hee ſpeakes in the heate of diſputation againſt Iouinian. But what neede we any better proofe of this point, then Saint Paul affoords vsus? He blameth the Corinthians, becauſe ſome held of Paul, ſome of Apollos, ſome of Cephas. Cephas or Peter is the laſt: why not the firſt rather, if he were (as you ſay) the head? Or why ſhould the Corinthians be reproued for cleauing to him eſpecially, if he were appointed to be the chiefe? It might be a fault to depend on Paule or on Apollos, who were (in your iudgement) vnderlings: but it was a great vertue to hang vponupon Cephas the head. How forgetfull was the Apoſtle Paul both of his dutie to Peter his head, and of ſo readie a meanes to end that ſchiſme, that would not tell them that Peter was appointed head, to the end all occaſion of ſchiſme might be taken away? Thirdly, we are not ſo to vnderſtand Ierome, as if he had ſaid, that there was one head appointed ouer the whole world, but that in all places where there were multitudes of Presbyters, order was taken that ſome one choſen from among the reſt, ſhould be chiefe and principall in that Dioceſſe, as I may ſpeake, and ouer all them which were in ſome ſort accounted to be but one bodie. This agreeth with the practiſe of thoſe times, and with that of fCypr. ad Corn. epiſt. 55. §. 6. Vide ibi Goulact. ad annot. 17.Cyprian: Here of ſpring hereſies, and ſchiſmes ariſe, that the Prieſt of the Lord is not obeyed. Which Cyprian ſpeakes of eueryevery ſeuerall Biſhop in his Dioceſſe. Whereunto alſo belongs that of gHieron. ad Ruſticum.Ierome: There be ſeuerall Biſhops of Churches, ſeuerall Archbiſhops, and ſeuerall Archdeacons, and all the Eccleſiaſticall order is ſtayed by the gouernours. Whereby (ſaith hGloſſ. ad 7. q. 2. c. in apib…sthe Gloſſe) Ierome proueth that there may not be two or more Biſhops in one Church: but that there muſt be a ſeuerall Biſhop in eueryevery ſeuerall Church. To which purpoſe I may farther alledge another place of Ierome: Ʋnleſſe (ſaith iHieron. contra Luciferian.Ierome) the Biſhop hauehave a ſpeciall power aboue other, there will be as many ſchiſmes in the Church as there be Prieſts. This courſe then of authorizing ſome one of the Presbyters aboue the reſt, was for the preſeruing of order, and keeping out of ſchiſme, not for the determining of controuerſies in Religion, as if all muſt hauehave ſtood to one mans iudgement in queſtions of Diuinitie: which either may be ended by the authoritie of the Scriptures, if they be neceſſary to be determined, or if they be not, may be forbidden to be proceeded in, without any danger to the Churches libertie. So that the Proteſtant Churches fully agree in matters of ſubſtance, and want not meanes to ſettle peace in queſtions of leſſe importance: or if they did, might eaſily hauehave as good meanes as your Church, by appointing a Pope ouer themſelues, as in policie you hauehave done. But as yet they finde no ſuch need, eſpecially where the remedie is worſe then the diſeaſe, as it muſt needs be in ſo lawleſſe a tyrannie. Is it not more for the glory of God, & good of the Church, as I hauehave ſaid kAnſwer to 12. Art part. 1. art. 5.otherwhere, that there ſhould be continuall diſagreement in ſome matters of Religion, then that all ſhould beleeue & maintain falſe doctrine? Were not our Sauiour Chriſt better hauehave a troubled church, thē none at all? Honorable war is to be preferred before diſhonorable peace, in the iudgement of any wiſe ſtates-man. And can it be more glorious to God, to hauehave outward quietneſſe in the Church with hereſy, yea with Antichriſtianiſme, then truth with contention? True Chriſtian vnitie conſiſts principally in truth of religion, without which the greateſt agreement is but a conſpiracy againſt God.
We are now come to the principall point of your Minor, wherein it ſtands you vponupon to play the man, and to make good thoſe foure properties on the behalfe of your Church of Rome. I muſt needs ſay, it would grieue a man to take ſo much paines to ſo little purpoſe; becauſe if you prooue all that now you vndertake, all that is as good as nothing, till your Maior and your former ſyllogiſmes be better confirmed. But yet if you quit your ſelfe well in this, your Church ſhall be more beholding to you, then it was euer yet to any of your fellowes, in this queſtion. To begin withall, you propound the queſtion ſomwhat fauorably, that the Romane Church holds not any dogmaticall points contrary to that, which in former times, frō the beginning it did hold. It were much indeed, your Church ſhould teach contrarie doctrines to thoſe it hath heretofore taught, & I think you can hardly name me any hereſy ſo groſſe, as to fall frō one contrary to an other. Your ſchoolmen hauehave ſet vp a mint, wherin they coine vsus eueryevery day new diſtinctions, to colour matters in ſuch ſort, that your new opinions ſhall neuer appeare to be cōtrary to your old doctrine. Hauing thus pitcht the ſtate of the queſtion, it ſeemeth you thought there needed no proofe therof; once it is apparent you offer not (directly) to bring any in this whole diſcourſe: but rather endeuour to ſhew vsus the reaſon of this their agreement, becauſe forſooth they acknowledge, that the definitiue ſentence of the Pope, (either alone, or at leaſt with a generall Councell) muſt needs be alwaies an vnfallible vndoubted truth. Of which in due place. But to take your matter as it lies.
That Church (ſay you) which holdeth no dogmaticall point contrarie to that, which informer times from the beginning it did hold, is alwaies one.
But the Church of Rome holdeth no dogmaticall point contrarie to that, which informer times, from the beginning, it did hold.
Therefore the Church of Rome is alwaies one.
The queſtion is not, which Church is alwaies one, in regard of To the propoſition.not varying from that, which firſt it held, but which is alwaies one, according to the meaning of the Nicene Creed, that is, which Church continueth in the truth of the Goſpell. For otherwiſe an hereticall Church might be acknowledged to be one, and ſo a true Church, becauſe it remaineth obſtinate in that hereſie, which at firſt it embraced. Therefore your Maior is not true ſimply, but onelyonly vponupon this ſuppoſition, that your Church at the firſt held the truth. But becauſe we gladly acknowledge, that the Church of Rome was at the firſt ſound in faith, I will leaue your Propoſition, and come to your Aſſumption.
Your Minor is excepted againſt by vsus (as you cannot chooſe but knowe) in verie many points, and ſome of them concerning To the Aſſumption.the foundation of Chriſtian Religion. For triall whereof we appeale to the Epiſtle to the Romanes, about matters of Faith, Grace, Iuſtification, Free will, Predeſtination, and other that neceſſarilie depend vponupon theſe. Here are you as dumbe as a fiſh, and like a man that had neither eares nor eies, paſſe by this exception, without taking any knowledge of it. Is this a direct way (according to your promiſe in your title) to ſettle mens minds in all doubts, queſtions and controuerſies, concerning matters of faith? You might as well without all this ado, hauehave told them in one word, that the Church of Rome is the true Church, and cannot erre. For in effect what do you elſe, when after many circumſtances, the queſtion is brought to this iſſue, whether the Church of Rome hold the ſame doctrine, which in the Apoſtles time ſhe profeſſed? You tell vsus ſhe doth, without any proofe of that you ſay, or anſwer to our manifold exceptions. I will not enter into particulars, as well becauſe I ſee my anſwer growes greater then I intended or like of, as alſo for that the ſeuerall controuerſies betwixt you and vsus, are ſo many ſeuerall exceptions againſt this Aſſumption.
For verie pure ſhame, you are driuen to confeſſe, that there are differences of opinion, among the learned of your ſide. But to helpe the matter withall, you qualifie it with ſometimes. Sometimes ſay you? Either your reading muſt be verie little, or your boldneſſe exceeding great, that you mince the matter in this ſort, with ſometimes. Anſwer my former challenge, if you can, concerning the warres among your ſchoolemen; or doe but look into Cardinall Bellarmines controuerſies, and then tell me, whether theſe differences be but ſometimes, or no. What learned writer almoſt is there of any fame on your part, whom Bellarmine doth not diſſent from, in one point or other? I might giuegive many inſtances, but there is no man that reads him, ignorant of that I ſay, and you hauehave found a ſhift for this matter, by interpreting dogmaticall points of Faith, to be matters defined by the Church. Wherein we are firſt to conſider how abſurdly you limit matters of faith: Secondly to ſhew, that euē in theſe matters ſo limited, there is not alwaies agreement amongſt your writers.
The vſe and office of faith (as it is onelyonly an aſſent) is to giuegive vndoubted credit to the whole truth of God, by acknowledging it both to be from God, and to be true. For proofe of this, if any man deſire it, I referre him, lChap. 3. & 4.to the third and forth Chapters of this treatiſe, where you ſpeake of the infallibleneſſe and entireneſſe of faith. But though this be the dutie of faith, it hath pleaſed God to deale graciouſly with men, touching the meanes of their ſaluation, and not to exact vponupon abſolute neceſſitie, an acknowledging, or knowledge of eueryevery particular point of his truth. Some things are ſuch, as I ſhewed before, as that without them there is no poſſibilitie of ſaluation, but that whoſoeuer is ignorant of them, mIgnorantia. Pr…uatiua. Negatiua.either by neglecting the meanes of knowledge, or by hauing no poſſibility to attaine vntounto it, he is vtterly ſhut out (for ought we know) from the kingdome of heauen. Other points there are, which euerie man muſt labour to know, and beleeue, becauſe they are to that end reuealed by God; but yet the ſimple ignorance of them, ſo it be without contempt or careleſneſſe, doth not depriue a man of ſaluation by Chriſt. The former of theſe two kindes are more properly matters of faith, being abſolutely neceſſarie to ſaluation. You ſpeake of matters of faith, as though not the points in thēſelues, but the determination of the Church ſhould make a neceſſitie of them to ſaluation. So that the not beleeuing of the leaſt matter of ceremonie enioyned by the Church, ſhall be more damnable then the ignorance of the greateſt point of Diuinitie, being not ſo determined. But I would faine know of you, how I ſhall vnderſtand what is to be accounted determined by the Church? You confeſſe afterward, that it is queſtionable whether the chiefe Paſtor, that is the Pope alone, or he with a generall Councel, be the Church which cannot erre. Doubtleſſe, if it be (as you nChap. 4.taught vsus before) of neceſſitie to ſaluation, that we beleeue entirely all points of faith, without miſbeleeuing any one; what hope of ſaluation ſhall be left to any Papiſt, who cannot by any meanes know what is determined by the Church, and what is not? Or if he may be ſure that matters defined by the Pope and a Councell, are decided by the Church; yet ſince it is not ſo determined, whether the Pope alone be ſufficient to determine of points in controuerſie, he may refuſe to obey ſome conſtitutions of the Pope, or to beleeue ſome queſtions decided by him; and thereby ſhut himſelfe out of heauen, for not giuing credit to the determination of the Church, if that authoritie of determining be in the Pope, and he commaund men ſo to beleeue. But if this determination of the Church be ioyntly in the Pope and Councels, and that nothing is a matter of faith, but that which is ſo determined to be, then was there almoſt no matter of faith at all in the Church, till within theſe laſt 800 yeares. For it is more then euident to any man, that will not be wilfully contentious, that the Pope neuer bare any extraordinarie ſway in Councels, till he had proclaimed himſelfe vniuerſall Biſhop, which was by the grant of the murtherer Phocas, ſix hundred yeares after the beginning of the Goſpell. What ſhall we thinke of the Churches in the Apoſtles times, and ſo forward, oAnno. 325.till the Councell of Nice, in which the Popes ſupremacie was not heard of? Had Chriſtians then no matters of faith to beleeue? How ſhould they, if all depend vponupon the Pope and a general Councel? Let me grant that thoſe Councels in pAct. 15. 29.the Acts were generall: what was there determined, but that the Gentiles were to abſtaine from things offered to Idols, and bloud, and that which is ſtrangled, and from fornication? VVas nothing a matter of faith, but theſe few points: which alſo till this time were not matters of faith? Either ſhew ſome good reaſon, why matters of faith were not, at this time of the Apoſtles liuing, to be tied to generall Councels and the Pope, & yet now muſt be; or confeſſe the truth to the glorie of God, that matters of faith hauehave their authoritie, to be matters of faith, from the word of God, and not from the determination of Pope or Councell, or both. Neither thinke to ſhift of the matter, by ſaying they are indeed matters of faith in themſelues, but not to vsus. For ſo it will come to paſſe, that we ſhall ſay, the firſt Chriſtians had no points that were matters of faith to them, becauſe they had none determined by the Church in a Councell, which opinion is I know not whether of more abſurditie or impietie.
Now that you agreement in matters of faith, after the determination of the Church, is not ſo great, as you would make the world beleeue; it may appeare by the verie ground of religion, the Canon of the Scripture: which was determined of (by your iudgement) in qConcil. Carthag. can. 47.the Councell of Carthage: wherein the Apocryphall bookes (ſay you) were allowed for Canonical: yet (ſaith rBellarm. de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 7. Sect. Hactenus.Bellarmine) Nicholas Lyra, Denys the Carthuſiā, Hugo de ſancto victore, & ſCardinalis Caietan.Thomas de Vio, both theſe (at leaſt the laſt) Cardinals, follow Ierom in reiecting thē, as Apocryphal. But if this Councel may be excepted againſt, ſure (in your iudgment) the Councell of Trent may not, tConcil. Trident. Seſſ 4.which hath receiued thoſe books into the canō of the ſcripture. Yet for all that, uSixtus Senē ſis. biblioth. ſanctae. lib. 1. & 8.Sixtus Senenſis keeper of the Popes library, maketh bold to deny thē ſuch authority, euen ſince that Coūcel, as xBellar. vbi ſupra.Bellarmine himſelf confeſſeth. And yArias Mōtanus praef ad biblia interlin.Arias Montanus, ſince that time, doubteth not to ſay, that the Orthodoxe or true Church, following the Canon of the Hebrewes, accounteth thoſe bookes of the old Teſtament, written in Greeke, to be Apocryphal. What ſay you to your Biſhop Catharin, who being one of the Councell of Trent, after the determination of the Councell, againſt aſſurance of ſaluation, zSotus in Apolog. contra Catharin.defendeth that ſuch aſſurance, (notwithſtanding that decree of the Councell) may ordinarily be had by them that beleeue? You would perſwade vsus, that it is a ruled caſe of your Church, long ago, that the Scriptures are not ſufficient without tradition. What ſaith aScotus prolog. in 1. ſenten. q. 2.Scotus in this caſe? Whatſoeuer pertaineth to heauenly and ſupernaturall knowledge, and is neceſſarie to be knowne of men in this life, is ſufficiently deliuered in the holy ſcriptures. The holy ſcripture (ſaith bIoan. Gerſon. ſerm. in die circumciſ. cōſid. 1.Gerſon) is ſufficient for the gouernment of the Church: or elſe was Chriſt an vnperfect Lawgiuer. I might runne on in the like courſe, touching other points, but theſe ſhal ſerue for a taſt: and ſo I paſſe ouer to your proofe, that the learned on your ſide, cannot poſſibly diſſent one from another.
They which acknowledge, that the definitiue ſentence of the Pope is to be rested vponupon, as an vndoubted truth, cannot poſſibly diſſent in matters of faith.
But all Catholick learned men acknowledge, that the Popes ſentence is ſuch.
Therefore no Catholicke learned men can poſſibly diſſent in matters of faith.
All you conclude is, that in matters determined by the Pope and a Councell, your learned men cannot diſagree, To the ſyllogiſme.becauſe they hold, that ſuch a determination is certainly true: yet for all this (as I hauehave ſhewed) your Church may be rent in peeces with contrarie opinions in matters of as great moment, as moſt are in religion: & if, for all this, it ceaſe not to be a true Church, why ſhould not the Proteſtants hauehave the like priuiledge, who hauehave the ſame opinion of the Scriptures, that you hauehave of the Pope? Be not ſo iniurious to reaſon, or blaſphemous againſt God, as to auouch that no controuerſie can be ended by the word, becauſe diuers men will expound it diuerſly. For it is contrarie both to religion and ſenſe, to imagine that the Lord would giuegive his people ſuch a Scripture as cannot be certainely vnderſtood in all points neceſſarie to ſaluation, but by I know not what reuelation to ſome one man.
More particularly I denie your Maior. They that acknowledge To the propoſition.ſuch an authoritie in the Pope, may yet differ in opinion about matters of faith. I bring you example in that point of aſſurance, wherein Catharin diſputed againſt that doctrine, which Sotus and your writers generally ſince the Councell of Trent, affirme to hauehave bene the certaine decree of the Councell. Yet were they both preſent in the Councell, and none of the meaneſt there aſſembed. The reaſon of that their diſſent, and the poſſibilitie of the like betwixt other men, ariſeth from this, that decrees of Councels and Popes, being ſet downe in writing, may be diuerſly interpreted, and ſo the meaning of them miſtaken, as cCatharin. tract. 2.Catharin ſaith, that he foreſaw ſome men would miſunderſtand the Councell of Trent in that point. This is all the inconueniences, you can alledge in admitting the Scripture for Iudge, and this followeth the decrees of Councels and Popes at the leaſt, as much as the writings of the holy Ghoſt: who was as able, and as carefull to ſpeake ſo, that all whom it concerned, might vnderſtand him, as the holieſt of your Councels or Popes.
I can hardly perſwade my ſelfe, that any man of learning, let To the Aſſumption.him be neuer ſo Catholicke, as you tearme him, can beleeue, that the Pope alone, or the Pope, and a Councell cannot erre. But it is an opinion deuiſed and retained in politicke diſcretion, to keepe things in an outward quietneſſe, & to aduance the eſtate of your Cleargie. I may not enter into the diſcuſſing of this priuiledge you claime: for it would aske much time, and a long diſcourſe, but I wil touch it, as farre as you giuegive me neceſſarie occaſion, and ſo proceed to that which followeth. And firſt concerning the Popes owne perſon; which ſeemeth to be your beſt plea, being alledged in the firſt place, and almoſt wholly ſtood vponupon: you cannot be ſo ignorant, as not to know that diuers learned men on your ſide, confeſſe and maintaine, that the Pope may erre. Many Popes (ſaith dLyra. ad Mat. 16.Lyra) hauehave bene found to hauehave bene Apoſtataes from the faith. The Pope (ſaith cAmbroſ. Catharin. ad Galat. 2. concluſ. 1Catharin) may erre, and fall vtterly from the faith. And although in fConcluſ. 2.his ſecond concluſion he tels vsus, that the Pope, as Pope, that is ſitting (you call it ex Cathedra, out of his chaire) and lawfully, (according to the rite of vſing the key of knowledge particularly committed to him) determining a matter of faith, cannot erre; ſo that he ſhall define any thing againſt faith: yet he addeth afterward that the Pope may decree, by way of a commaundement, or Law, ſome falſe, or vniuſt thing: ſo that (ſaith he) there are many decrees of Popes found to be diuers, and contrarie one to another. And can euerie learned man, thinke you, iudge, which decrees the Pope made, as Pope, and which as a man? What idle and vncertaine fooleries are theſe diſtinctions? I do not beleeue (ſaith gAlfons à Caſtro. contr. haereſ. lib. 1. cap. 4. Chriſtoph. de ca. font. de neceſſ. cor. theol. ſchol. fol. 53. b.Alfouſus) that the Pope hath any flatterer ſo impudent, to grant him this prerogatiue, that he can neuer erre, nor be deceiued in expounding Scripture. I hauehave learned of the ſchoole Doctors (ſaith a late Archbiſhop of yours) that any Pope may erre as a Doctor, or as a man, but not as a Iudge. And this he ſpeaketh of a decree of Pope Eugenius the fourth, which many Diuines (as himſelfe confeſſeth) take to be a decree of the Councell of Florence. Yet Biſhop Catharin boldly affirmeth, that there are many things, in the ſaid decree, which if they be ſtrictly taken, and according Apud Chriſtoph. vbi ſupra.to the proper meaning of the words, wil be found to be falſe, and therefore (as he ſaith) need a fauourable interpretation. Yea the ſame Archbiſhop is not afraid to refute (as he pretendeth by the authoritie of the Councell of Trent) the iudgement and determination of three Popes, Eugenius the fourth, Clemens the Eugen. in decr. Clew. & Pius. in praefat. ad. Miſſa. Roman.eight, and Pius the fift: the two laſt hauing ſet out their Miſſals ſince the Councell of Trent, and yet (as he thinketh) reſoluing concerning the words of conſecration, contrarie to the iudgement of the Councell. It may appeare alſo by his Epiſtle dedicatorie, that a fourth Pope Sixtus the fift, to whom he writeth that Treatiſe, was of the ſame opinion in that matter, with thoſe his predeceſlors, from whom the Archbiſhop maketh bold to diſſent, as he doth from Thomas of Aquine and all his followers. But what name I priuate men, although excellently learned? Let vsus heare a whole generall Councell ſpeake. We condemne and depoſe (ſaith hConcil. Baſil. ſeſſ. 34.the Councell of Baſil,) Pope Eugenius a deſpiſer of the holy Canons, a diſturber of the peace, and vnitie of the Church of God, a man notoriouſly ſcandalous to the vniuerſall Church, a Symoniack, a for ſworne man, incorrigible, aſchiſmaticke, fallen from the faith, and an obſtinate heretick. And for the auowing of this their act, they ſpeake thus iConcil. Baſil. inter epiſt. Syn.in another place: We hauehave heard and read, that many Popes hauehave fallen into error and hereſie: it is certaine that the Pope may erre. The Councell hath often condemned and depoſed the Pope, both for his hereſie in faith, and his leudneſſe in life. I might adde hereunto the authoritie of the kConcil. Conſt. ſeſs. 4.Councel of Conſtance, which bindes the Pope to be obedient to the decrees of Councels. But that which I hauehave ſaid, may ſuffice to ſhew, that all learned Papiſts do not know, the Pope cannot erre. But you vndertake to proue they do know it, becauſe of certaine places of Scripture, wherein our Sauiour makes a promiſe of not erring to Peter and his ſucceſſors. To all which I anſwer in generall, that thoſe learned men and Councels before alledged, did know that theſe places were brought to proue the Popes priuiledge of not erring, and notwithſtanding held it for an vndoubted truth, that he might erre: you may beare with vsus then, though we make queſtion of it.
In particular I anſwer to the places alledged, concerning Saint Peters priuiledge. lMath. 16. 19.The keyes ſignifie nothing but power to open and ſhut heauen, to bind and looſe, by retaining or remitting the ſins of men. The plaine ſenſe of thoſe words (ſaith mBellar. de Rom. Pont. li. 1. cap. 12. §. Verū.Bellarmine) is this, that firſt the authoritie is promiſed, or the power noted out by the keyes; then the actions and office are expounded by thoſe words, to bind and looſe. And in the verſe before, he finds fault with nCaiet. de inſti. & autor. Rom. Pont. cap 5.Caietan for endeuouring to ſtretch that grant, to I know not what farther matter. I forbeare to ſet downe any proofe of this expoſition, becauſe it is cleare enough of it ſelfe, if we compare this promiſe with the performance of it in Iohns Goſpell: oIoa. 21. 22. 23Receiue the holy Ghoſt (ſaith our Sauiour) whoſe ſinnes ſoeuer ye remit, they are remitted vntounto them: and whoſe ſinnes ſoeuer ye retaine, they are retained. Secondly I ſay, that pBellar. vbi ſupra. §. Dices.this power was not peculiar to Peter, but common to him with all the Apoſtles, yea with all miniſters, who are their ſucceſſors in preaching the Goſpell, ſhutting and opening, binding and looſing. Wee affirme (ſaith qBell. vbi ſupr. §. His igitur.Bellarmine) that in thoſe words, Math. 18. (which are of the ſame nature with the other, Math. 16.) nothing is graunted, but onelyonly it is there declared and foretold, what power the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors were to hauehave. Thoſe things (ſaith rMaldonat. ad Math. 18.Maldonatus) that are here promiſed to Peter, agree not onelyonly to him, but to all Apoſtles, Biſhops, and Prieſts. Whereupon ſTheophyl. ad Mat. 18.Theophylact ſaith, that although it was ſaid to Peter onelyonly, I will giuegive thee the keyes: yet the keyes were granted to all the Apoſtles: when? when he ſaid, whoſe ſins you forgiue. Therefore this promiſe of giuing the keyes, conueyes no other priuiledge to Peter then to all the Apoſtles, yea to all true miniſters of the Goſpell, by the iudgement of your owne Ieſuits.
But tLuc. 22. 32.Chriſt prayed eſpecially for Peter, that his faith might not faile. And good reaſon, not without need: for he knew that Satan would tempt him ſhreudly, and giuegive him a fouler foyle then euer he gaue any of his other Apoſtles. Yet uAuguſt. de verb. Dom. ſecund. Lucam. ſerm. 36.Auſtin brings in our Sauiour ſpeaking in generall: I hauehave prayed the Father for you all, that your faith might not faile. As for your Gloſſe, that our Sauiour prayed for him, that his faith ſhould not faile, (at leaſt ſo far, as to teach the Church a falſe faith:) what one word is there in the text, to anow any ſuch conceit? Beſide it is apparent, that our Sauiour ſpake not xLuc Brugenſ. ad Luc. 22.of his Apoſtleſhip, but of his faith, as he was a Chriſtian, wherein he had failed finally, if our Sauiour had not mightily vpheld him: and in this faith was he fit to confirme his brethren, as yHeb. 4. 15. & 2. 17.hauing had ſo extraordinary experience of Satans temptation. But if this prayer were made for Peter, that he might not teach falſe doctrine, belike either he was more ſubiect to that danger then the reſt of the Apoſtles, or they were left by our Sauiour in a continuall danger of erring: which opinion is a very neare neighbour to blaſphemie. But what a pitifull conſequence is this, Our Sauiour prayed that Peters faith might not faile; therefore the Pope cannot erre? All the hold you hauehave left, is in the charge giuen to Peter, zIoan. 21. 15.to feede Chriſts ſheepe: that is, to be painfull and faithfull in preaching of the Goſpell. And this interpretation is agreeable to reaſon, that our Sauiour requiring a proofe of Peters louelove, ſhould charge him to make it manifeſt, by taking paines to feede his ſheepe. But your expoſition is abſurd, whereby you would hauehave liuery and ſeiſin of ſoueraigne authoritie in the Church giuen to him by theſe words: If thou louelove me (ſaith our Sauiour, according to your expoſition) take vponupon thee the ſoueraigne gouernement of the Church. This were a poore proofe of Peters louelove, which is there demaunded. You will ſay, the charge of feeding was common to all the Apoſtles; but here the Lord ſpeaketh particularly to Peter. He doth indeed. And do you not ſee the reaſon of it? Peter, becauſe of his grieuous fall, had need of ſuch a charge, both for his better autorizing, and his greater care. He ſpeakes chiefly to Peter (ſaith your frier aIoan. Ferus ad Ioan. 21. 19Ferus) and to him eſcecially commends his ſheepe, that he might vtterly aboliſh the remembrance of his deniall. For becauſe he had fallen more grieuouſly then the other, and had more obſtinately denied Chriſt, he ſtood in need of peculiar charge, leſt by the remembrance of his deniall, he might ſuſpect that the common charge of the Apoſtleſhip belonged not to hm. He remedies his denying thrice, by his confeſſing thrice, ſaith bTheoph. ibi.Theophylact: the like hath cAug. in. Ioan. tract. 123. Hieron. in epit. Fabiola.Auſtin. Peter blatted out his three denial. (ſaith Ierome) by his three confeſſions. So then all that you hauehave ſaid of Peters not erring in matter of doctrine, is nothing worth: yet do we thankfully acknowledge that Peter could not erre in matter of faith: but we ſay, that this was no priuiledge peculiar to him, but common alſo to the other Apoſtles, by vertue of their Apoſtleſhip. Wherein if no man ſucceed them, as queſtionleſſe there are now no Apoſtles, no man can claime a priuiledge of not erring by any right from them, or any promiſe made to them.
It is needleſſe therefore to make many words concerning any ſucceſſor of S. Peter: onelyonly I will ſignifie how vncertaine your Religion muſt needs be, that depends vponupon ſuch points as theſe. You tell vsus the Pope cannot erre. We beleeue you not, becauſe we know he is (at the beſt) but a learned man, oftentimes not ſo much, ſometimes dAlfonſ. á Caſtro.ſcarce able to vnderſtand his grammer. You proue he cannot erre, becauſe he is Peters ſucceſſor. We deny the conſequence. Becauſe he may ſucceed Peter in place, and yet not in office of Apoſtleſhip, whereby Peter had that priuiledge. But principally we deny your antecedent, that the Pope is Peters ſucceſſor. Now we looke for ſome certain & euident proofe. But alas there is none to be had. We therfore thus except againſt this imagined ſucceſſion: Firſt we ſay, there is no word of ſcripture to proue that euer Peter came at Rome. How then can it be a matter of faith, to hold that he was Biſhop of Rome? Do not ſay, you muſt beleeue the Church: for the queſtion is, whether you be the true Church or no. Secondly, we ſay farther, that it is ſomewhat vncertaine, euen in humane ſtories, whether euer Peter were at Rome or no: and if it were certaine, yet it were nor a certaintie of faith, but of opinion. But that the force of your argument, and the truth of my anſwer may the better appeare, I wil propound your reaſon in forme, and my exceptions againſt it.
Peters ſucceſſor cannot erre.
The Pope is Peters ſucceſſor.
Therefore the Pope cannot erre.
To the Maior I anſwer, that he which ſucceeds Saint Peter To the Propoſition.in his whole right, or in all his priuiledges, and namely that of his Apoſtleſhip, cannot erre; but any other ſucceſſor of his may erre, becauſe his priuiledge of not erring is a propertie of his Apoſtleſhip. The proofe of your Maior is thus to be framed:Proofe of the Propoſition.
He to whom the keyes are promiſed, for whom Chriſt prayed, that his faith might not faile, whom he charged to feed his ſheepe cannot erre.
But to Peters ſucceſſor Chriſt promiſed the keyes, for him he prayed that his faith might not faile, him he charged to feed his ſheepe.
Therefore Peters ſucceſſor cannot erre.
I denie the Maior, if you take it in ſuch ſenſe, as though the To the propoſition.power of not erring had bene conueyed to Peter, by reaſon of this promiſe, prayer and charge: otherwiſe notwithſtanding by him, Peter, I grant that he to whom this promiſe was made, that is Peter, could not erre; yet was he not free from errour by vertue of this promiſe, prayer or charge, as I ſhewed before.
The Minor is vtterly falſe: the promiſe was made in generall to all the Apoſtles; the prayer and charge were peculiar To the Aſſumption.to Peters perſō, for ſuch eſpecial reaſon as I ſhewed before, concerning his temptation to denie Chriſt, and his deniall of him. But you tell vsus, that you doe not apply that charge of feeding the ſheepe to Saint Peters ſucceſſors, without ſufficient authoritie and reaſon. Then queſtionleſſe you muſt be able to ſhew vsus ſome warrant for your doing out of the Scriptures. For the teſtimonie or opinion of man, is too weake a ground to build a matter of faith vponupon. And yet you bring vsus nothing but the word of a man to perſwade vsus, and ſcarce that too. For whereas you alledge dChryſoſt. li. 2. de Sacerdot.Chryſoſtome to countenance the matter, it is but a copie of your countenance, rather to feare then hurt vsus. Chryſoſtome ſaith, that our Sauiour ſhed his bloud to purchaſe thoſe ſheepe, the care whereof he committed to Peter and his ſucceſſors. But who are theſe ſucceſſors? All miniſters, or (at the leaſt) all Biſhops. If you hauehave read the place, I need not proue it to you. Chryſoſtome had cauſed Baſil to be preferred to a Biſhopricke againſt his will. Hereupon Baſil complaines of vnkind dealing. The other to excuſe himſelfe, vndertakes to ſhew that he had not onelyonly not hurt him, but alſo done him a pleaſure, becauſe he had thereby giuen him occaſion and oportunitie to manifeſt his louelove to Chriſt, by feeding of his flocke, which he had committed to Peter and his ſucceſſors. Now if Baſil (in Chryſoſtoms iudgement) had not bene one of Peters ſucceſſors, this had bene a poore reaſon to perſwade him that Chryſoſtome had not done him wrong. For then had he not receiued that charge, nor diſcharged that dutie, to teſtifie his louelove to Chriſt, ſince the louelove was to be teſtified by feeding the flocke committed, according to that charge of our Sauiour.
eLeo ſerm. 1. de anniuerſ. aſſump. ſua ad Pontif.Leo indeed makes the Biſhop of Rome Peters ſucceſſour. But he is too partiall a man to be iudge in his owne cauſe. I denie not, but that he was auncient and learned, and I am perſwaded, a holy man too; but yet there appeare in him eueryevery where apparent marks of ambition, for the aduancing of his owne ſea: which may perhaps be excuſed by humane frailtie, but cannot ſerue to proue a matter of ſo great importance.
Your principall minor is falſe alſo, that the Pope is Peters ſucceſſor. To the principal aſſumptiōIt was true of the firſt Biſhops of Rome, that they were Peters ſucceſſors in the miniſtery of the Goſpell, wherein they laboured faithfully and carefully. But this point of ſucceſſion died long ſince, with the care to diſcharge that dutie. For theſe laſt 800 yeares and vpward, the Popes (generally) hauehave ſucceeded the firſt reuealed Antichriſt, Boniface the third, in pride, tyrannie, idlenes, riot, and all kind of exceſſe, no way reſembling Saint Peter, either in truth of doctrine, or painfulneſſe in preaching.
That which you adde, of I wot not what neceſſitie lying vpō God, to teach the Church all truth, and preſerue it from erring, becauſe he hath enioyned all men to heare it, without excepting or doubting, is an idle fancy of your own, without any likelihood of truth; as hath appeared in my former anſwers.
But howſoeuer the Pope alone may erre, yet in a generall Councell he cannot. I heare you ſay ſo, but I ſee no proofe of it, not indeed any ſhew of reaſon for it. Whence ariſeth this impoſſibilitie of erring? Not from the Pope: For no man will flatter him ſo ſhamefully (ſaith fAlfonſ. à Caſtro. lib. 1. ca. 4.Alfonſus) as to make him beleeue he cannot erre. Perhaps then it reſteth in the Councell. That cannot be neither. For gBellar. de Cō cil. lib. 2. ca. 11.Bellarmine tels vsus, that Councels, be they neuer ſo generall, and neuer ſo lawfully aſſembled; may erre, but onelyonly ſo farre as they follow inſtructions giuen them by the Pope. But the Pope may erre in giuing inſtructions: and how can freedome from erring enſue vponupon his inſtructions, if he himſelfe were not certainly freed from erring in giuing them? And that this power of not erring, is wholy from the Pope, no way from the Councell, it is euident by this, that hBellar. de Cō cil. lib. 2. cap. 5.particular Councels are as free from error as generall, if they follow the Popes direction, or be confirmed by him. But this will be yet more euident, if we conſider the courſe that is to be held in Popiſh Councels. Firſt, the Pope ſends his Legates (ſaith iBellar. vbi ſupra. cap. 11. §. Quod vt melius.Bellarmine) inſtructed concerning the iudgement of the Apostolicke ſea (that is, with knowledge of his mind, in all points that ſhal be handled) and that vponupon condition, that if the Councell iumpe in opinion with the Pope, then they may proceed to make decrees; if it do not, then no decree may be made vntill the Popes pleaſure be further knowne. Secondly, kConfirm. Concil. Trident. Vide Concil. Tria. Seſs. 25. c. illuſtriſsim.when the Councell is ended, certaine of the Cardinals bring the decrees thereof to the Pope, and intreate him, that it wil pleaſe his Holineſſe to confirme them; which, if he like them, he doth; if not, they are vtterly daſht. This being the courſe, how can it be imagined, that the Pope ſhould be any more exempted from erring with a Councell, then without one? I graunt he hath better helpes to diſcerne of the truth, if matters be orderly and throughly debated; but we looke for an impoſſibilitie of erring, which cannot be conueyed from the Councell to the Pope, becauſe it is not in the Councell, but ſo far as they follow the Popes inſtructions: neither can it be imparted to the Councell by the Pope, becauſe he hath it not in himſelfe alone: neither laſtly can it be in Councell and Pope together, becauſe then neither can be aboue other; but all Papiſts are of opinion, that there muſt needs be a ſuperioritie in the one, though they cannot agrtee in whether, howſoeuer lBellar. de Concil. lib. 2. ca. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.Bellarmine takes vponupon him to determine it. I ſay then, it is meerly impoſſible, that any Papiſt, learned or vnlearned, ſhould know that the Pope with a Councell or without a Councell cannot erre, as well becauſe the thing in it ſelfe is falſe, as alſo for that there is no agreement about the point amongſt them: and therefore the Papiſts hauehave no certaine meanes to keepe them in any true vnitie.
If you will aſſigne a difference betwixt ſects of hereticks and the Romane Church, you muſt ſay, betwixt other ſects of heretiks and the Romane Church, which is of all other, indeed, the moſt hereticall. But your difference is nothing worth. For many ſects of hereſies hauehave at leaſt for a time bin a flocke cleauing to their paſtor, and holding certaine grounds true or falſe, whereby their Church was to be determined. As for vsus, whom you ſtrike at, we hauehave the moſt ſure bond that may be, to tie vsus all together, euen the truth of God, and are in our ſeuerall Churches people cleauing to our paſtors: and ſuch muſt eueryevery true church be, where there is a true Paſtor: without whom how far a company may hauehave the name of a Church, and in what reſpect, I ſhewed before.
The teſtimonies alledged out of mCypr. ad Pupian. epiſt. 68. ſect. 7.Cyprian, are not deliuered by him, concerning your Romane Church, but ſpoken of himſelfe and his flocke, and ſo generally to be applied to all other Churches in like ſort. Pupianus, to whom he writes that epiſtle, charged Cyprian with diſperſing the flocke of Chriſt, by his ouer great ſeueritie againſt them, that had fallen into idolatry in time of perſecution. Cyprian anſwers in his owne defence, that though ſome ſtubburne and diſobedient people, refuſing to ſhew themſelues truly penitent for ſo grieuous a ſinne, left his communion and congregation: yet the true Church was not thereby ſcattered, but continued ſtedfaſtly, cleauing to their paſtor, namely himſelfe. The chaffe onelyonly (as nCypr. ad Cornel. epiſt. 55. ſect. 6.he ſaid before) not the wheate, can be ſeuered from the Church, for ſaking their lawfull Paſtor, without any iuſt cauſe. The other place alſo is of particular Biſhopricks, not of your imagined vniuerſall Church, as before.