that in Recognition thereof it decreed that all Constitutions of Councils and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vigour But what sayes his Reserve his Master-Allegation the Fourth Council of Toledo just as much as the rest It added sayes the Bishop some things to the Creed which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds So they might well do for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before and in opposition to Heresies already condemn'd by the whole Church Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church or of the Sea Apostolique which is the question in hand and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church provided it were done with due Subordination to the Sea Apostolique For that thus a National Synod may proceed the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth sufficiently declare which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church Thus does he prove that Provincial and Particular Councils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Doctrine without yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you when in all the instances he brings there is not the least glance or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority but express mention of it and of due regard towards it He urges again that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter or peradventure he perswaded himself the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them 9. Yet after so many lost proofs with a confidence as great as if they had been all Demonstrations he asks us the question And if this was practis'd so often and in so many places why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like Truly I know no reason why it may not provided it be a True National Council and a True Church of England as those recited were true Churches and Councils and provided also that it do no more But seeing as his following words declare by the Church of England he menas the present Protestant Church there and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition and tell him the Church of England in that sense signifies no true Church neither is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod duly representative of the true English Church For is it not notorious that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers Is it not manifest that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England or lawfully to represent the English Church who never had any lawful that is Canonical and Just Vocation Mission or Jurisdiction given them to and over the English Nation But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did that they acted directly contrary to them Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them as this Synod of London did Not one of them contradicted the doctrine of the Roman Church as this did None of them convened against the express will of the Bishop of Rome as this Conventicle did None of them deny'd the Popes Authority or attempted to deprive him of it as these did so far as 't was in their power What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods or Councils of Rome Gangres Carthage Aquileia c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562. What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did is known and confess'd not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign who was the learnedst Prelat then in England but even by Protestant Authors to have been extorted from them rather by threats force then otherwise and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops as we may call them for distinction seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England I mean that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons Prescription and other title of humane Right and gave it to the King yet they never renounc'd or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at was to get the Power into his hands and to have those Authorities Prerogatives Immunities annexed to his Crown which the Pope enjoyed and had exercised here in England time out minde in Ecclesiastical Causes that is in the Goverment and Discipline of the English Church and to this the Bishops yielded but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catholique Church for ought appears clearly to the contrary both the Bishops and the King too left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph onely I observe that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition which yet he is ready to excuse telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation But we ask What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformation Was it for any thing else that they sack't and demolisht so many Monasteries and Religious Houses alienating their Lands and Revenues but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person or to live a Monastical life Was it for
yet Faith which is the Foundation of all our Supernatural Building remain firme But if one part of the Foundation be shaken the whole ground-work will be but in a tottering condition and as A. C. sayes in a certain manner shaken By which kinde of speech I conceive he onely means that by questioning or denying one point of Faith though we do not eo ipso deny all others directly yet indirectly we do to wit by taking away or denying all Authority to Gods Revelation and for that reason rendring our selves at the same time uncapable of believing any thing else with Supernatural and Divine Faith 9. His Lordship must be pardoned if he dissent from A.C's. Assertion that all Determinations of the Church are made some to us by one and the same Divine Revelation which in the sense we have declared his Lordship doth not disprove but in the pursuance of his Discourse he brings in Doctor Stapleton as contradicting Bellarmin because Bellarmin sayes that nothing can be certain by the certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the word of God or deduced out of it by evident consequence whereas Stapleton is vouched to affirme that some Decisions of the Church are made without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Scripture I have sought this place in Stapleton and finde his words to be onely these We ought not to deny our Assent in matters of Faith though we have them onely by Tradition or the Decisions of the Church against Heretiques and not consirmed with evident or probable Testimony of Holy Scripture His meaning is we must submit to the Determinations of the Church and the Traditions she approves though they be not expresly contained in Scripture which questionless may very well stand with Bellarmins Doctrine that nothing can be believ'd with Divine Faith unless it be either contain'd in the word of God or drawn from thence by evident consequence For that Bellarmin by the word of God understands not onely Gods written but his not-written word also or Tradition is manifest because he makes all our Faith even of Scripture it self to be grounded upon it as is clear by his very words Itaque hoc Dogma 〈◊〉 necessarium quod scilicit sit aliqua Scriptura Divina non potest sufficientèr haberi ex Scripturâ proinde cum Fides nitatur verbo Dei nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum nulla nobis erit Fides Therefore this so necessary Maxime viz. that there is any Divine Scripture at all cannot sufficiently be had by Scripture alone Wherefore seeing Faith relyes upon the word of God unless we have a word of God not-written we shall have no Faith at all Many like instances he gives in the same Chapter of other matters pertaining to Christian Faith which can onely be believ'd for the word of God not-written Now in the place cited by the Bishop he teaches that we cannot be certain of our Salvation with certainty of Faith because this is not reveal'd by the word of God either written or unwritten nor is evidently deduc'd from either of these which is a good Argument but no way contradicted by Stapleton Besides a Proposition may be not so much as probably expressed in Scripture and yet be inferred by necessary consequence from something contained in Scripture I mean inferred at least from such general Principles and Rules as the Scriptures recommend to us and command us to follow But the reason the Bishop brings to prove that Bellarmin speaks onely of the written word is very strange For Bellarmin sayes he treats there of the knowledge a man can have of the certainty of his own Salvation and I hope that A. C. will not tell us that there is any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Thus he Now first we say not that Bellarmin speaks of the word unwritten and Stapleton of the word written but that Stapleton speaks of the unwritten word onely and Bellarmin of both the written and unwritten word which he calls the compleat word of God Secondly Bellarmin was not to affirme there was any unwritten Tradition by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations but the contrary That there was no such unwriten Tradition to be found For had he intended to prove any such unwritten Tradition he should have consequently proved the foresaid assurance to be Infallible and equal to the Certainty of Faith which he there professedly labours to prove fallible and not of the Certainty of Faith which had been a Turn like one of his Lordships the quite contrary way And for Stapleton he purposely proves that the Church hath not power to make new Articles of Faith but onely to declare and explain those already delivered His Lordship cannot believe that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church saith he though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the power it commits to General Councills lawfully called yet it is not alwayes of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and Integrity c. To this I answer that these Ornaments of Knowledge Sufficiency Conscience and Integrity are not the Causes of Infallibility either in the Church or Councils for that proceeds onely from the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost which is of the same power in weaker and stronger Instruments as it appear'd by the Apostles who being of themselves persons altogether ignorant of Divine matters yet by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost became not onely able to Teach them but also Infallible in their Teaching Neither doth the want of Conscience or Integrity in some particular persons deprive either the Church or a General Council of this promised Infallibility any more then the same want deprived the Scribes and Pharisees in old time of their Authority concerning whom notwithstanding their manifest and great defects in point of Conscience and Integrity c. our Saviour himself pronounceth Matth. 23. 2. Upon the Chaire of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees all things therefore they shall say to you observe you and do The Relatour again repeats that all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are not alike Fundamental in the Faith But this is answer'd by the Doctrine we have so often delivered to clear his often mistaking touching Fundamentals that some are in this sense Fundamental to wit of necessity to be believ'd by all and known expresly of all others not Fundamental that is not of necessity to be known and believed expresly by all In this sense I say we agree with his Lordship and his party touching the Distinction of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals Our onely controversie is whether there be in the Catholique Church any points of Faith not-Fundamental in this sense that is such as
of Holy Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Praying for the Dead that they might be eased of their pains and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practis'd by all Christians Was not Freewill 〈◊〉 of good Works and Justification by Charity or Inherent Grace and not by Faith onely universally taught and believ'd in all Churches of Christendom Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholique this doth not justifie at all his reformation he should prove that it may not onely adde but take away something that is Catholique from the doctrine of the Church for this the pretended Reformers did as well in England as elsewhere 5. It is not a thing so evident in Antiquity when or where the word Filioque was added to the Creed that his Lordship should so so easily take it for granted without proof that the Roman Church added it in quality of a particular Church All that can be gathered from Authours so far as I can yet learn concerning this point is that in the Councils of Toledo and Luca assembled against the Hereticks call'd Priscillianists the word is found inserted in the Creed which is suppos'd to have been done upon the Authority of an Epistle they had receiv'd from Pope Leo the first wherein he affirms the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be both from the Father and Son I confess Hugo Eterianus in his Book written upon this Subject about the year 1100 affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome but he names not the Pope Whether it were because in his time 't was generally known what Pope it was I cannot certainly say but of this I am sure that by reason of his silence we now know not with any certainty whom he meant Card. Perron directly affirms that it was first added by an Assembly of French Bishops But perhaps that may be more probable which Stanislaus Socolovius tells us in his Latin Translation of the Answer of Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople to the Lutherans pag. 8. viz. that the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople which is the second General sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome the Pope and Council at Rome approv'd of their said Confession but yet added by way of explication the word Filioque to the Article which concern'd the Holy Ghost and this they did to signifie that the Holy Ghost as True God proceeded from the Son and was not made or created by him as some Heretiques in those times began to teach Neither doth he affirm this without citation of some credible Authority adding withall that this Definition or Declaration of the Pope was for some hundreds of years generally admitted and embrac'd by the whole Church neither Greeks nor Latins dissenting or taking any exception at the word Filioque till about the time of the Eighth Synod where the Greeks first began publiquely to cavil against it more out of pride and peevish emulation against the Latins then for any urgent Reasons they had to contest it more then their predecessours before them But of this I need not contend further with his Lordship 6. To return therefore to our business of Reformation we grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does to particular Churches to National and Provincial Councils in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice onely we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastour of the Church and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledg'd to be Catholique Truths For this even Capellus himself by the Relatour here cited requires and the practise of the Church is evident for it in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils which as St. Austin witnesses sent their decrees touching Grace Original Sin in Infants and other matters against Pelagius to be confirm'd by the Pope who was not esteem'd by St. Austin and those Fathers the Disease of the Church a tearm very unhandsome from an inferiour but rather the Physician of it to whose Care and Government it was committed Neither do I think it convenient to stay for a General Council when the errours and abuses to be redressed are such as call for speedy remedy and threaten greater mischief if they be not timely prevented When the Gangrene endangers life we do well to betake our selves to the next Chyrurgeon that is a Provincial Council This in such a case with the Popes assistance is acknowledg'd a Physician competent and able to apply all due remedy to the Churches infirmities although I confess the most proper Expedient specially for all matters that concern the Church in general is an Oecumenical Council Such as the Council of Trent was whatever the Bishop without any reason given sayes to the contrary nor can any thing be objected against it which upon due examination will not be found as easily applyable to all other approved Councils which the Church hath yet had so that by disowning this we should in effect disown all others But suppose it had not been General yet sure it was for Number Learning and Authority far surpassing any National Council or Synod which the Protestants either of England or any other Nation ever had Wherefore if their Assemblies or Synods so inconsiderable as they were are yet esteem'd of sufficient Authority to make reformation in matters of Faith and correct what doctrine they imagin'd erroneous in the Catholique Church shall not the Council of Trent be as sufficient to assure us that the said pretended errours are indeed no errours at all but Divine Truths and the perpetual universally receiv'd Traditions of Christs Church 7. But it is yet more strange that our Adversary should also object want of Freedom to this Council seeing that even by the relation of their own partial and malevolent Historian it sufficiently appears that neither the Prelates wanted full liberty of Suffrage nor the Divines of Disputation and maintaining their several assertions in the best manner they could His Lordship had done well to have lookt nearer home and consider'd how matters were carried in England much about that time If the Council of Trent were not a free Council what was that Protestant Synod of London Anno 1562. in which the thirty nine Articles that is the summe of the Protestant Faith and Religion in England were fram'd Was that a Free Synod First at Trent all the Prelates in Christendome that could be invited and were concern'd in the Resolutions of that Council being solemnly call'd did come and assist either in their persons or proxies both at the Deliberations and Determinations of the Assembly I adde that the Protestants themselves were
likewise invited with full security to come and go if they had pleas'd but of this we have spoken already Whereas at London to that Synod of English Protestants not one of the lawfull English Prelates were call'd or permitted to come who yet of all others were most concern'd and ought to have been there present as well by reason of their Authority and Function as of their just interest What speak I of the Prelates not so much as one of the English Catholiques how numerous soever they were at that time were call'd to that Assembly but all both Pastours and people were condemn'd together without being heard or allow'd to speak one word for themselves At Trent there were no Bishops illegally depriv'd of their Bishopricks purposely to cashier their Votes in Council nor any others included into their places contrary to the Canons of the Church purposely to vote down the said Churches established Doctrine and Canons In England it is notorious that all the lawful Prelates of that Nation were most illegally and arbitrarily depriv'd of their Bishopricks for no other end but to evacuate their Authority in the Nation and Lay-Bishops thrust into their places purposely to vote down and abolish Catholique Religion by some colour of Authority and seigned shew of a pretended Ecclesiastical Synod At Trent nothing had been done or was done in matter of Religion by the Pope or any other person in way of Determination or New Decree but by and upon the most unanimous and general resolutions of that Council In England 't is too notorious to be deny'd Religion was already chang'd by the Queen and a few meer-lay-persons in Parliament scarce enough to make a legal vote had the matter been proper for them and this Synod of London call'd apparently not to debate matters of Religion as they ought to be debated in a Free Ecclesiastical Synod but to serve designs and to boulster up by their pretended titular and usurp'd Authority what before-hand had most Uncanonically been resolv'd upon by the State This his Lordship should have a little reflected on when he objected want of Freedom to the Council of Trent But it seems he could more easily see a Mote in another man's eye then a Beam in his own 8. Our desire is not that any man should rather be blinde then open his owneyes God forbid we would have him onely clear them to see that Catholiques approve of National Provincial and also Diocesan Synods and onely disapprove of such Assemblies as Convene and Act contrary to the Canons in opposition to the chief Pastour of the Church universally receiv'd Doctrines and General Councils The Bishop therefore might very well have spar'd his pains of proving so industriously that many Reformations have been made by particular Councils for who denyes it Bellarmin had sufficiently shew'd it already who also observes out of St. Austin that for the Defining of easie things 't is not convenient to trouble all Christian Provinces Non omnis Haeresis est talis ut propter eam debeant vexari omnes provinciae We deny not but matters of less moment such as concern Rites and Ceremonies onely or Abuses in Manners and Discipline may be reform'd by particular Councils and that without asking express leave of the Pope for who knows not that the Discipline of the Church allows this Who knows not that the Pope is so far from being a hinderance to such Assemblies that it is no small part of his Apostolical vigilancy for the good of the Church to encourage and stir up the Bishops of other Nations and Provinces to the frequent holding of them But we affirm that in matters of greater moment which concern the Faith and publique Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolique and the Popes consent either expresly granted or justly presum'd The Bishop indeed all along pretends the contrary viz. that National and Provincial Councils did reform in matters of Faith and Doctrine both without and against the Popes consent and it concerns him so to do for without this granted his Lordship knew well enough it would be impossible for him to justifie the pretended Reformation of his English Church But let us examine his proofs First Gerson speaks nothing expresly touching matters of Faith but onely that he would have all the States or Degrees of the Church reform'd which may be understood as well of personal abuses or corruption in Manners and Discipline as in matters of Faith Besides writing his first-alledg'd Treatise upon this subject de Concilio unius obedientiae and pleading hard for such a General Council as should acknowledge one Head 't is manifest he allow'd of no Schismatical Reformations nor any thing to be done in that kinde contrary to the Authority and good liking of the Churches Head Secondly the Bishop cites Concilium Romanum sub Sylvestro but here the very title confutes his pretence for the Council was held sub Sylvestro under the Pope therefore not without or against him And at the Council of Gangres Osius was Popes Sylvesters Legate and the Canons of this Council as Pope Symmachus related by Baronius affirms were enacted by the Authority of the Sea Apostolique His third proof is Concilium Carthiginense primum which was indeed assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage but no new Article Defined in it onely the perpetual Tradition of the Church touching Non-rebaptization was confirm'd therein having been defined long before by sundry Popes and also by the Council of Nice For this Council therefore of Carthage no man can be so hardy as to deny but that the Popes consent if it were not expresly had yet might be justly presum'd In the Synod of Aquileia which is his fourth proof the Bishop himself findes nothing but only that Palladius and Secundinus were therein condemn'd for embracing the Arian Heresie which having been already condemn'd by the Council of Nice and St. Ambrose with other Bishops of Italy being present at Aquileia who can doubt but every thing was there done by the Popes Authority and consent His fifth proof is the second otherwise call'd the third Council of Carthage which was so far from being held against the Popes consent that in the forty eighth Canon 't is expresly resolv'd by the Council to consult Pope Syricius concerning the matter of that Decree His sixth proof is the Council of Milevis in Africa condemning the Heresie of Pelagius But was not I pray the Sea Apostolique consulted in that grand affair Sure it was St. Austin above cited will avouch as much His seventh proof is the second Council of Aurange which was assembled by means of Felix Bishop of Rome so far was it from being held without the Popes consent After this comes the third Council of Toledo which was so devoted to the Authority of the Sea of Rome
any thing else that they pluckt down Altars burnt Images defac'd the Monuments of the Dead brake the Church-windows threw down Crosses tore the Holy Vestments in pieces c. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship as they tearm it was it for any thing else that they possest themselves of Ecclesiastical Benefices took upon them Spiritual Jurisdictions and Pastoral Charges by force of Secular Power and Authority from those that were in lawful and quiet possession of them according to the Canons of the Church but because according to the Maximes of their new Belief they held the old Pastours of the Church to be False Teachers and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians 'T is clear then that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation differ onely as the Tree and its Fruit they are not altogether the same but yet the one springs connaturally from the other the one begets and bears the other as naturally as a corrupt Tree bears bad fruit Nor can his Lordship so easily wash his hands of the guilt as he seems willing to do by saying they are long since gone to God to answer it as if none could be involv'd in this crime but onely the first Actors Are the Successors then Free No such matter Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entail'd upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings since they have no better ground nor title to enjoy them then those who first acted But I shall not prosecute this Theam any further Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Paragraph where he pretends to minde us of the General Church forced for the most part under the Government of the Roman Sea By what force I pray Is it possible or can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man in good earnest to believe that a single Bishop of no very large Diocess if it reacht no further then most Protestants will have it should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes power when the pretended Reformation began Force implies resistance of the contrary part and something done against the will and good liking of the party forced But can his Lordship shew any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claim'd and exercis'd confessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom when the Reformers first began their resistances Does any Classick Author of present or precedent times mention or complain of any such force 〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us that whensoever any Novellist started up and preacht any thing contrary to the Popes Authority the Bishops of other Provinces were as ready to censure and forbid him as the Pope himself Are not all Eeclesiastical Monuments full of examples in this kinde This therefore is as false a calumny as any and serves onely to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉 but false Pasquils CHAP. 14. Protestants further convinc'd of Schisme ARGUMENT 1. A. C's Parallel defended 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justifie the Churches proceeding against them 3. No danger in acknowledging the Church Infallible 4. Points Fundamental necessary to be determinately known and why 5. The four places of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility weigh'd the second time and maintain'd 6. Why the Church cannot teach errour in matter of Faith 7. How she becomes Infallible by vertue of Christs prayer for St. Peter Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trippings and Windings observ'd MR. Fisher askt his Lordship QUO JUDICE doth it appear that the Church of Rome hath err'd in matters of Faith as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Roman Church The Relatour in answer to this confesseth that no man in common equity ought to be suffer'd to be Accuser Witness and Judge in his own cause But yet addes there is as little reason or equity that any man who is to be accused should be the accused and yet Witness and Judge in his own cause If the first may hold saith he no man shall be innocent and if the last 〈◊〉 will be nocent To this I answer We have already prov'd the 〈◊〉 Church in the sense we understand Roman Infallible and therefore she ought not to be accus'd for teaching errours Neither can she submit her self to any Third to be judg'd in this point both because there is no such competent Third to be found as also because it were in effect to give away her own right yea indeed to destroy her self by suffering her Authority to be question'd in that whereon all Certainty of Faith depends for such is the Catholique Churches Infallibility 1. Again I make this demand Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon or some other Heretique of the Apostles times separating themselves from the Apostles and Christians that adhered to them should have accus'd them of false doctrine and being for such presumption excommunicated by the Apostles would it have been a just plea think you for the said condemned Heretiques to have pretended that the Apostles were the party accused and that they could not be Witnesses and Judges too in their own cause but that the trial of their doctrine ought to be resert'd to a Third person I suppose no man will be so absurd I say then Whatever shall be answer'd in defence of the Apostles proceeding will be found both proper and sufficient to defend the Church against her Adversaries For if the Apostles might judge those Heretiques in the Controversies abovesaid then the persons accused may sometimes and in some causes be Judges of those that accuse them and if the Infallibility of the Apostles judgement together with the Fullness of their Authority were a sufficient ground and reason for them to exercise the part and office of Judges in their own cause seeing both these do still remain in the Church viz. Infallibility of Judgement and Fullness of Authority doubtless the lawful Pastours thereof duly assembled and united with their Head may lawfully nay of duty ought to judge the Accusers of their doctrine whoever they be according to that acknowledged Prophesie concerning Christs Church Isa. 54. 17. after our Adversaries own Translation Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement or that accuses thee of errour thou shalt condemn Protestants indeed having neither competent Authority nor so much as pretending to Infallibility in their doctrine cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church much less Judges in their own cause Wherefore A.C. addes that the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church and that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges 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 witness judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children To this the Bishop replies that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument but addes withall that no moderate Prince ever thought it just or took upon him to be Accuser Witness and Judge in any case of moment against his Subjects I answer that a Prince being liable many wayes to errours and mistakes in judgement ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge in all matters of personal and private interest between him and his Subjects though in matters of publick concern as of Treason or the like where the business is evident and admits not the delayes of legal Formality I think it would not be accounted unjust for the Prince to be Accuser Witness and Judge too againct a Traiterous Subject However the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith and hath full Authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature As for Parents the Bishop grants that while Children are young they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then themselves and the Children are not withstanding such correction to give them reverence But saith he when Childen are grown up and come to some full use of reason there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother if she forget all good nature and turn stepdame unto them which I willingly grant and leave such injur'd Children for remedy to the Magistrate and the Law to both which the Children may lawfully appeal and the Mother ought to submit as to her Superiours But the Catholique Church duly and compleatly represented in a General Council hath no superiour on earth neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians upon any pretence to appeal from her to any Third Person in causes of Faith the case therefore is not alike Secondly I deny the Bishops supposition viz. that the Roman Church taken in the sense we take it is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children or so far forget her duty both to God and them as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants her undutiful and rebellious sons bring against her and therefore towards them as well as towards the rest of her children she still retains the rights of a Mother and they must not take it ill if as occasion serves she exercise towards them some part of her Motherly Authority but rather bethink themselves of returning to their Due Obedience and conforming themselves to that holy Exhortation of St. Peter which for their better content I shall give them out of their own Bible viz. that laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and evil speakings as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word that is the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine that they may grow thereby to salvation 2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith her proceedings towards Protestants will be found upon due examination most just For though a Prince or Parents may not in all cases be Accusers witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children because it may possibly be evident that they tyrannize over them or treat them injuriously yet when matter of fact is so evident that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children or Subjects when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evidently declare the things criminal for which they are punish'd what need is there absolutely speaking of any further Witness or Judge to punish them Now this is our case The things for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants are clearly matter of Fact viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught actual disobedience to her Canons separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion c. all which are criminal actions and clearly punishable not onely by the Canons of the Church but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholique Countrey No need surely of Accusers and Witnesses where the Offence is notorious Well therefore might the Pastours of the Church who were their proper Judges proceed to Canonical Sentence against them seeing as I said it was notoriously evident and by themselves not deny'd that they oppos'd and contradicted not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world but also the Laws both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Statutes Decrees Customs and Practises universally in force in all Nations where they began their pretended Reformations When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible nor to act by any Infallible Rule for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State and their Rule not the Scripture which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves but either the Book of Common Prayer or the thirty nine Articles or the Queens Injunctions and Book of Canons Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles Did they not for this reason ordinarily summon Anabaptists Brownists Familists and other Separatists to appear at their Spiritual Courts as they call them did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication and other Censutes as the case requit'd and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do Nay did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches did they not bring us into Sequestrations Imprisonments and a thousand other troubles Would they hear us when we appeal'd either to Scripture Fathers Church Councils or any other third person to be Judge between them and us Behold a very just proceeding When they fall foul either upon us or their own Separatists they are content to be Accusers Witnesses and Judges but when they are call'd to justifie their actings against the Roman Church then forsooth 't is an unjust and unreasonable thing then they call for a Third Person to judge not because they are indeed willing to be judged or regulated by any authority under heaven except themselves but because they know that a competent Judge between the Roman Church and them distinct from the Roman Church is impossible to be found A. C. therefore had reason to tell the Bishop that never any competent judge had so censured the Church as he had done and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self could so far prevail against the
even after our Saviours Ascension had they no promise of Divine Assistance in the delivery of those Truths Thus the promises of Christ come to nothing But if one should ask some of this Bishops Disciples how their Master proves that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truths necessary to Salvation they must answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipse dixit just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old when they were urg'd to give a Reason of their Masters Philosophy For where I pray hath Christ so limited his promises where do the Apostles teach us to understand them with such limitation Neither do we extend them to Truths wholly unnecessary or to curious Truths as the Bishop seems willing to insinuate No We tell him there is a medium a middle sort of Truths between those which are absolutely necessary for all mens Salvation and those which are simply unnecessary or curious We extend these promises to all Truths of this middle sort that is to all such Truths as the Church findes consonant to Catholique Faith and Piety and necessary to be defin'd for the preventing of Heresies Schismes and Dissentions among Christians But I pray observe our Adversaries unparallel'd Subtlety in the close of all Christ saith he hath promis'd that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth but he hath no where promis'd that the Church should follow her leader What a rare Acumen is here Then belike to lead and to follow are not Relatives in Protestant Logick But let them take heed 't is to be fear'd they will be found Relatives and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresie and other sins nothing will help but they must infallibly follow him And I wish that all his Lordships party would duly consider this as often as they interpret Scripture after this manner CHAP. 15. Of the Roman Churches Authority ARGUMENT 1. Whether Protestants beside reforming themselves did not condemn the Church of errour in Faith 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ then the rest of the Apostles 3. The History or matter of Fact touching the Donatists appealing to the Emperor related and how little it advantages the Bishop or his party 4. St. Gregories Authority concerning the question of Appeals and the Civil Law notably wrested by the Bishop 5. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York twice appealed to Rome and was twice restor'd to his Bishoprick by vertue of the Popes Authority 6. The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peters placing his Sea at Rome no ground of his Successors Supremacy 8. Why the Emperours for some time ratified the Popes Election 9. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome 10. The Pope never accus'd by the Ancients of falsifying the Canons and that he might justly cite the Canons of Sardica as Canons of the Council of Nice BY the precedent Discourse it appears that the Bishops main task for a long time hath been to prove that the General Church may erre and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith this being the thing which A. C. most constantly denyes But his Lordship finding the proof of this not so easie by little and little was fain to slide into another question concernig the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves thinking by this to Authorize the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage Rome Gangres Toledo c. § 24. num 5. which how they succeeded the Reader may easily have perceiv'd by our Answers in the precedent Chapter 1. He goes on with his wonted Art which is to alledge his Adversary with not overmuch sincerity A. C. treating the abovesaid question touching the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves and not denying but in some cases particular Churches may reform what is amiss even in matter of Faith for greater caution addes these express words pag. 58. WHEN THE NEED of Reformation IS ONELY QUESTIONABLE particular Pastours and Churches may not condemn others of Errour in Faith But these words when the need is onely questionable the Bishop thinks fit to leave out to what end but to have some colour to contradict his Adversary and abuse his Reader Let us now see whether his Lordships party be far from judging and condemning other Churches as he seems to make them by his simile A man that lives religiously sayes he doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers But yet while he is silent his very life condemns them First of all Who are these men that live so religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry Wives contrary to the Canons and bring forsooth Scripture for it Non est bonum esse hominem solum and again Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi Who are these men I say that live so religiously They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women They who cast Altars to the ground They who partly banish Priests partly put them to death They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even after they are dead These are the men who live so religiously But who are according to his Lordship prophane Livers They who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors They who for the Catholique Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations Imprisonments Banishments Death it self They in a word who suffer Persecution for Righteousness These in his Lordships opinion are Prophane Livers I return now to the Relatours men that live so religiously Do these men never condemn the Catholique Church but by their vertuous lives which you have seen Surely they condemn her not onely by quite dissonant lives but also by word of mouth by their pens nay by publick and solemn Censures Witness to go no further the Protestant Church of England Artic. 19. where she condemns of errour not onely the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria but even of Rome it self Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and Comment upon the said Article pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not onely shamefully err'd in matters of Faith but that the whole visible Church may likewise erre from time to time and hath err'd in doctrine as well as conversation Do they not say Artic. 21. that General Councils may erre and have err'd even in things pertaining to God Do they not pronounce of Purgatory Praying to Saints Worship of Images and Reliques c. Artic. 22. of Transubstantiation Artic. 28. and of the Sacrifice of the Mass Artic. 31. respectively that they are fond things vainly invented by men contrary to Gods Word Blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits Though it be as clear as the sun at noon-day that both these and many other points deny'd and rejected by Protestants were the doctrine and
of Argument to disprove it but knowing it to be the sense of all Antiquity windes about and falls upon that odious question of Killing and deposing Kings wherein he presum'd it would be more easie for him to choak his adversary But it shall not serve his turn For we say first he commits a gross fallacy arguing à negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kinde of Logick For what is it else to inferre the Pope has no Universal Power or Supremacy at all over the whole Church because he hath not such or such a particular power over Christian Kings and Princes His Lordship should have remembred that we were yet upon the question An sit whether or no the Pope hath an universal Power and Authority over the whole Church which till it be fairly determin'd 't is but to make too much haste and pervert due order to fall upon the Question Quid sit and dispute wherein it consists and how far it extends Secondly we answer the point of killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation For what Pope ever kill'd or gave Command Warrant or Authority for the killing of any King or what Catholique Author ever taught that he had power from Christ so to do And as for deposing them I answer 't is no point of our Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore it is no part of my task to dispute it But what Protestants have both done and justifi'd in the worst of these kindes is but too fresh in memory 4. A. C. does not beg the question when he sayes The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock of Christ in such sort as no particular man or Church shall have just cause to make a separation from it seeing it is the clear inference of his precedent discourse it is rather a begging the question in his Lordship to tell us onely while he ought to prove it that Protestants have made no Separation from the General Church but onely from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now mis-call themselves THE WHOLE CATHOLIQUE CHURCH It is also in this case a begging the question to affirm the Roman-Catholique Church to be in errour since no man did ever grant his Lordship that she was so or hath he any where convinc'd her of errour He hath often said it and suppos'd it I know but where he hath prov'd it I know not 'T is therefore yet to be prov'd that the Roman-Catholique Church hath err'd in any Doctrine publiquely defined by her Again we deny there is any hazard in adhering to the Roman Church she being the unshaken Rock of Truth and solely able to shew a continual Succession of lawfully-Sent Pastors and Teachers from Christ to our present times who have hitherto taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly according to Christs promise continue so teaching it unto the worlds end From this onely Catholique Church Protestants have unhappily sever'd themselves as I have already prov'd and are through their own fault so absolutely depriv'd of all Communion with her that they can no more be esteem'd members of this Church in the condition they now stand then a wither'd branch can be accounted a part of the Tree from which it was broken In vain therefore doth the Relatour pretend that Protestants have not left the Church in her Essence but in her Errours The Essence of the Church consists in her Faith Sacraments Discipline In all these 't is too manifest to be deny'd Protestants have forsaken the Church yea and perpetually fight against her wherefore they have left her in things essential or pertaining to the life and being of the Church And yet they have the confidence to call these Essentials Errours which is a bold and erroneous presumption wherein they imitate no less the old Heretiques in the Primitive times of the Church viz. the Novatians Arians Nestorians c. then the Swarms of new Sectaries among themselves For which of all these did not or would not upon occasion plead they forsook not the Essence of the Church but her Errours they separated not from her Communion but Corruption 5. Well But after all disputes a man would imagine that our learned Antagonist would at length submit to a General Council For first he thus professes speaking to A. C. What greater or surer judgement you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted then a General Council I do not see And immediately after he cites a long Text of A. C's which speaks to this purpose That if all the Pastours of the Church be gather'd together in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Faith and hearing each Pastour declare what hath been the Ancient Tradition of this Church shall thereupon Decree some particular point or matter to be held for Divine Truth if the Pastours of the Church or General Council may erre in such a Decree what can be firm or certain upon Earth In answer to this he both professes that it seems fair and also freely grants that a General Council is the best Judge on Earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted This would make a man think the Bishop intended to conform himself to such a Decree But to the end all the world may see how unwillingly he yields to reason especially when it comes from an Adversary he presently again begins to quarrel with A. C. telling us there was never any such General Council call'd nor indeed possible to be call'd as A. C. speaks of viz. in which all Pastours were gather'd together As if A. C. were so simple as by all Pastours to understand Numerically and Individually ALL that is every one of them without exception and that a Council could not be thought sufficiently General nor an Obligatory Decree of Faith be made by it unless all the Pastours of the Church in this sense were gather'd together especially he having so clearly declar'd his meaning to the contrary in defending the Council of Trent to have been a true General Council where 't is manifest all Pastours whatsoever did not convene though there were as many as had met in some other General Councils esteem'd even by Protestants for such And strange it is to see how long the Relatour skirmishes with meer shadows and what inferences he makes meerly upon this most salsly-suppos'd and wholly-improbable sense of A. C's words All Pastours then in that Text of A. C. signifie no more then all that are requisite or so many of all as are in the judgement of Reason and Christian Prudence duly sufficient to constitute a True and Lawful General Council If so many lawfully call'd be gather'd together 't is the ALL that A. C. intends and
against this Monarchical Government they rather prove our Assertion being ordain'd by Sixtus the first in favour of such Bishops as were call'd to Rome or otherwise forc'd to repair thither to the end they might without scruple be receiv'd into their own Diocess at their return having also decreed that without such Letters Communicatory none in such case should be admitted Now what can more clearly prove that the Pope had power over all Bishops and all Diocesses in the Church then the making of such a Decree We deny not but the like Literae Communicatoriae were mutually sent from one Patriarch to another But as for that even equal and Brotherly way whereby the Bishop pretends that these Letters were sent reciprocally from other Patriarchs and Bishops to the Bishop of Rome for admitting any into Episcopal or Priestly Office that went from them to him as I finde nothing of it in Baronius who yet handles the matter at large so I doubt not but it is a meer Chimaera And had the Bishop pleas'd with all his professed diligence in the search to have afforded us any instance in a business of such importance there would doubtless have appear'd a manifest difference and inequality between them viz. that those sent to the Pope from other Prelates were meerly Testimonial to assure him that the person bringing them was capable of his Communion whereas those from the Pope to other Bishops were not onely Testimonial but Mandatory or such as enjoyn'd the reception and restitution of the Bringer to such place and office in the Church as he pretended to Witness beside many other examples in Ecclesiastical Story the case of St. Athanasius and those other Catholick Bishops persecuted and expell'd their Seas by the Arrians and restor'd by vertue of the Popes Letters Communicatory But should the Pope voluntarily submit to the Equity of his own Law that is not onely allow such Letters to be written from others to him as he writes to them but also permit them to be so far of force as equity requires what would this prejudice his just Authority It might argue indeed the Humility of his Spirit but could surely be no Argument against his Right and Power to do otherwise if he saw cause CHAP. 18. A Continuation of the Defence of the Popes Authority ARGUMENT 1. Gersons Book de auferibilitate Papae proves nothing for the Bishop or his Party 2. St. Hierome and Optatus expounded 3. The Popes Spiritual Sovereignty not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes 4. Bishops of Divine Institution yet Subordinate to the Pope by the Law of Christ. 5. Pope Innocents Simile of the Sun and Moon in relation to the Spiritual and Civil Government an usual Allegory 6. Why the Book of the Law was anciently deliver'd to the Prince 7. The Pope never pretended to Subject the Emperour to himself in Temporals 8. The Jesuites unjustly charged by the Bishop 9. Occham no competent Judge in the question of the Popes Authority 10. The Definition of the Council of Florence touching that matter 1. BUt before we pass any further it will not be amiss to look back and examine more narrowly the Bishops Marginal Allegations Gerson that famous Chancellour of Paris and undoubted Catholique writ a Book in troublesome times intituled De auferibilitate Papae whence the Relatour concludes that the Authour was of opinion the Church might continue in very good being without a Monarchical Head A strange Illation and contrary to what Gerson expresly teaches in the very treatise the Bishop cites The drift of Gerson's discourse is to shew how many several wayes the Pope may be taken away that is depriv'd of his Office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But he no where teaches that the Government of the Church settled in a Monarchical way or rul'd by a Pope lawfully chosen can be absolutely abolisht by any power on earth but his judgement is clear even beyond all dispute for the contrary Hear Gersons own words and you will see to what great purpose and with what Fidelity our Adversary sometimes alledges Authours Auferibilis est saith he aut mutabilis LEGE STANTE quaelibet Politia Civilis Monarchica seu Regalis ut fiat Aristocratica at non sic de Ecclesiâ quae in UNO MONARCHA SUPREMO per universum fundata est à Christo quia nullam aliam Politiam instituit Christus IMMUTABILITER MONARCHIC AM quodammodò Regalem nisi Ecclesiam In English thus Any Civil Monarchy or Regal Government may be taken away or changed into an Aristocracy the Law still continuing in force But it is not so in the Church which was founded by Christ in one Supream Monarch throughout the world Because Christ instituted no other Government unchangeably Monarchical and as it were Regal besides the Church Can any words be more express in proof of the Authority of one over the whole Church And yet forsooth from the bare title of the Book the Relatour will inferre that in Gerson's judgement the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ Monarchical 2. Neither hath the Bishop much better success in his Allegation of St. Hierome who in his Epistle to Evagrius enveighing as his manner is somewhat vehemently against one that seem'd to preferre Deacons before Priests proceeds so far in vindication of the dignity and honour of Priesthood that he almost equalizes it with the office of Bishops plainly asserting that Diocesan Bishops have no more belonging to them jure Divino or by the Institution of Christ then Priests save onely the Power of Ordination that the riches wealth and amplitude of their respective Diocesses make not one Bishop greater then another but that all Bishops where ever they be plac'd are of one and the same merit and degree in regard of Ecclesiastical Priesthood which speaking precisely of the Office and Power Episcopal in it self is very true for a larger or lesser Diocess makes not one man more or less a Bishop then another St. Austin was as much a Bishop at little Hippo as Aurelius was at great Carthage But this is no impediment to the additional or accessory collation whether by divine or humane Institution of some special and more eminent Power and Authority upon the Bishop of one Diocess then of another as we say there is conferr'd jure Divino upon the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and jure Ecclesiastico upon many other Bishops viz. Archbishops Metropolitans Primates c. who by the Canons of the Church exercise authority over many Bishops who in regard of the power meerly Episcopal are equal to them St. Hierome therefore when he sayes ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii speaks not of the
Pope as he is Pope or in respect of that Supereminent Authority which belongs to him as Saint Peters Successour but onely compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer Character or power of a Bishop as Bishop onely And as he doth not de facto speak of the Pope as Successour of St. Peter so is it certain that de jure he could not speak any thing to the prejudice of that part of the Bishop of Rome's Authority without contradicting and condemning himself not onely in his Epistle to Pope Damasus already cited where he professeth that to be out of the Popes Communion is to be an Alien from the Church of Christ but also in his Commentaries on the 13. Psalm where he calls St. Peter Head of the Church and Epist. ad Demetriad Virg. where he stiles the Pope Successour of the Apostolick Chair and speaks to the same purpose in divers other places of his works But now the Bishop to give a home-blow as he imagin'd to the Popes Authority over the whole Church pretends to bring a great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus who tells us the Church is in the Commonwealth not the Commonwealth in the Church whence he positively concludes it impossible that the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For saith he no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominions to be greater then himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch But the force of this Argument will presently vanish if we but consider that these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one Spiritual the other Temporal the one exercis'd onely in such things as concern the Worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of Souls the other in affairs that concern this world alone and consequently do not of their own nature hinder but help one another where they are rightly administred Neither must it come under debate whether the administration of the spiritual Monarchy ought to be endur'd or not seeing Christ hath so ordain'd it nor would the Relatour I suppose have urg'd this argument had he well reflected on the person of our Saviour who as the Bishop himself would not deny was whilst he lived on earth most truly and properly the visible Monarch of the whole Church his Kingdom whether the Kings of the earth would endure it or not Again is it not in a manner the same thing in regard of Temporal Kings to have had the Apostles Universal Governours over all Christians as if some one had been a Monarch or chief amongst them and yet the Bishop cannot in his own principles deny but Temporal Kings were bound to endure this and did actually endure it without unkinging themselves thereby Nay is it not as prejudicial to their Temporal Crowns Titles and Prerogatives to have all their people together with themselves subject to the decrees of a lawful General Council which the Bishop denyes not as to be subject to the Decrees of some one chief Bishop 3. Lastly who sees not that the force of this Argument is utterly broken by the daily experience we have of the contrary to what our Adversary pretends For instance do not the Two great Christian Kings of France and Spain endure it Nay do's not all the world see that they do not onely endure it but maintain the Authority and Government of such a Spiritual Monarch as we speak of in the very midst of their Dominions and is it not evident they prosper so well under it that it would be no less then Dotage to contend that the enduring it is a Diminution of their Majesty Our Adversaries reflection upon this particular by way of Answer is not onely injurious to those Two great Monarchs but destructive of his own Argument For he tells us the Popes power is of little esteem in the Kingdoms of these Two Catholique Princes further then to serve their own turns of him which they do saith he to their great advantage Thus what the two great Catholique Princes of Christendom profess to do upon the Account of Faith and Conscience the Relatour hath the confidence to tell us they do it meerly on the score of policy and for temporal ends though he plainly contradicts himself in this assertion since he told us but just now the enduring such a Monarchy made him that endur'd it no Monarch You see at once both his Civility towards Christian Princes and his Constancy to himself Moreover I wonder the Relatour could not see that this Argument The Church is within the Commonwealth ergo Subordinate unto it had it any force would conclude as much against the Aristocratical Government of the Church for which he so much pleads as the Monarchical For how I pray could the Bishops of so many different Kingdoms and States when the good of the Church did necessarily require it Convene in a General Councel or authoritatively Declare what ought to be believ'd when matters of Faith were question'd or how should they otherwise then precariously cause their Decisions to be receiv'd through the whole Church if either there were no Supream Spiritual Governour at all or he bound as it were to ask Princes leave to do what belongs to his Office Is not a General Council as much within the Commonwealth as the Pope If therefore the Pope in the administration of his Office be any way subject de jure to the Authority of Temporal Princes how can a General Council be absolute and independent of the same Authority in the execution of theirs Thus you see how by impugning the Monarchical Government of Christs Church he in effect overthrows all Church-Government whatsoever even that which himself would seem to approve It remains therefore fully prov'd that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical not purely and absolutely but mixed as hath been already declar'd Neither do we stile the Pope Monarch of the Church but the Deputy or Vicar General of Christ that is his Chief Bishop by whom he governs his Church in chief He is neither King nor Lord of the Church but the Chief-Servant of it a Steward of Christs Family yea a Fellow-Servant with other Bishops to one and the same Master Yet the Care of the whole Family is committed to him and but part of it to other Bishops who govern by Commission from Christ with him but under him 4. This duly consider'd what the Relatour objects out of the Council of Antioch St. Cyprian and Bellarmin for the power of Bishops comes just to nothing For we acknowledge Bishops to have a portion jure Divino in the Government of Christs Flock They are no less Chief Officers of Christ then the Pope though not in all respects equal to him or so absolute as to govern without dependance on him And it seems strange the Bishop should attempt to prove out of Bellarmin that the Government of the Church Militant is not Monarchical in the sense
all the visible Hierarchical Congregations of Christians in the World had Mass used Prayer for the Dead invoked the Saints reverenced Holy Images and Reliques believed Purgatory the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist and generally acknowledg'd all other Sacraments declar'd for such by the said Council As yet therefore there appears no Disparity between the Councils of Trent and Nice But he tells us the consent of the whole Church was that Scripture stood for the Council of Nice against the Arians which he denies it to have done for the Council of Trent To omit that the Bishop proves not his Assertion which therefore may as easily be deny'd as he affirms it if we extend nor the Church beyond its due limits can it be said the consent of the whole Church was that Scripture stood for the same Council in all that they defin'd to be Heretical Had they Scripture for the condemnation of the Quarto-decimani and Rebaptizers both which the said Council condemn'd together with the Arians If our Adversaries cannot shew us the particular Texts of Scripture by which the Council confuted these Heresies will it not be manifest they did it by sole Tradition 7. The Relatour having insinuated that the Pope made Bishops purposely for his side does here disclaim it upon this account that none can know the Popes intention but God who is the Surveyour of the heart Is not this to be religiously impertinent first to possess his Reader with a strong presumption of the Popes corrupt Designe and then to come no better off then by saying he could not see the secrets of his heart But he will have it that there were valuable Presumptions of making Bishops purposely to maintain his party I answer the Bishop should not have put us off with Ifs and And 's in that whereon he grounds an Accusation of so great importance but have sufficiently prov'd that there was de facto an extraordinary creation of Supernumerary and meerly Titular Bishops made about that time and sent to the Council to serve the Popes designs which we deny to have been done Secondly his pretence that the Council of Trent could be no competent judge in matters of Religion because the Pope had made himself a strong party in it is disprov'd by the very Argument he brings to assert it viz. the multitude of Italian Prelats For who knows not that the Italians are more divided in point of Interest and Dependence then any other Nation in Christendome by reason of the many Sovereign Principalities and States into which Italy is divided Though therefore we should surmize that the Italian Prelats in this Council were not guided by true principles of piety yet surely there is little reason to think they should combine with the Pope to serve his designs which in all probability would not suit so well with their own or Princes Interest on whom themselves and hope of advancement depended This Argument therefore hath so much in it of the Chimaera that certainly no solid judgement will esteeme it considerable To what the Relatour sayes touching the number of Bishops in the said Council that there were in it a hundred and four Italian Bishops more then of all the rest of Christendome I answer first that having viewed the Council of Trent with some diligence I cannot reconcile the numbers there set down with what is here avouched to be taken thence Secondly supposing his computation true what do's it prejudice our cause 'T is manifest the farre greater number of Italian Bishops were of the Domions of other Princes and had not the least shadow of any Temporal Dependance on the Pope and consequently no stricter tye upon them to serve his Interests then all the rest of the Bishops in that Council The reason why there might be more Bishops of Italy then other places is evident in regard that Countrey was in a far more quiet condition then either Germany or France which at that time were both infected with Heresie and imbroiled in Civil Wars so that the chief Pastours of those Provinces could not so well be spared from their Charge as these of Italy and for other Countries no wonder if they were thinner as being more remote To which I might adde that there are more Bishopricks in Italy then in any Nation of Christendome of no greater extent Now these concurring reasons might well increase the number of Italian Bishops without any such Design as Protestants and the Relatour here rashly surmizes Again what private Interest had the Pope to look to at the Council of Trent which was not common to him with all the Bishops in that Council nay indeed with all the Catholique Bishops of Christendom Was it not the Interest of all the Bishops in Christendome except those of the new stamp to keep Heresie out of their respective Diocesses and Provinces Was it not their Interest to preserve the Authority of the Canons and the free Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction What other Interest but this and the like had the Pope to prosecute in the Council But the Relatour urges this Disparity between the Councils of Trent and Nice viz. that at the same time the Council sate at Nice Pope Sylvester held a Council at Rome in which he with two hundred seventy five Bishops of the West confirm'd the Nicen Creed and Anathematiz'd all those who should dare to dissolve the Definition of that Holy and Great Council whereas no such thing was done by the Greek Church to confirm the Council of Trent This we confess is some Disparity but very little to the purpose for though it happen'd that this was done de facto in confirmation of the Nicen Definitions yet had they not been of less Authority without such an Accessory Assembly provided the Pope had ratify'd them in such manner as he did the Decisions of the Council of Trent Did ever any of the Ancients attribute the Authority of the Nicene Council to the approbation given it by these Western Bishops surely no. Neither was this Roman Synod held at the same time with the Concil of Nice as the Relatour to amuze his Reader pretends but after it as the Acts themselves testifie Nor was the like done in other General Councils admitted by Protestants who cannot therefore in reason make this objection against the Council of Trent Lastly the Doctrine of Faith declared by the Council of Trent was universally receiv'd by the whole Catholique Church which was a confirmation incomparably greater then that of two hundred seventy five Bishops and the same Faith hath been far more constantly held ever since none of the Catholique Provinces of Christendom represented in that Council ever deserting the Faith there declar'd whereas many Provinces either in whole or part deserted the Faith defin'd at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie 8. Here for want of solid reasons the Bishop falls again to his surmizes by which he would fain insinuate to his
of the sayd Infallibility shee may euer bee aseuredly preseru'd in the Beleefe and Profession of the true Fayth But the principall thing the Bishop would haue vs consider here is that Jnfallibility resides according to power and Right of Authority in the whole Church and in a Generall Council only by power deputed To which purpose hec cites St. Austin Petrus personam Ecclesiae Sustinet et huic datae sunt claues quum Petro datae Peter sayes hee beares the person of the Catholique Church and to her were the Keyes giuen when they were giuen to Peter I answer there is a twofold representing or bearning the person of an other to bee obseru'd The one Parabolicall or by way of meere Figure and supposition only Thus Agar Abrahams bondwoman Galat. 4. 25. 26. represents the nation or people of the Iewes yet liuing vnder the bondage of the Mosaicall law and Mount-Sion or Hierusalem the Churh of God The other Historicall and Reall viz. when the person representing has right or relation aparterei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it doth in the rust and and necessary interpretation of Reason beare the person or stand for the thing represented Now St. Peter Sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense I meane Historicè non Parabolicè really and in verity of fact not in Figure or Parabolicall supposition only hee beeing such a principall and cheife member of the Church as did ratione officij virtually and truly containe in himselfe the fullness of Ecclesiasticall Power in the same manner as a King receiues the keyes of a town whereof hee takes possession for himselfe though he representeth the whole kingdome and receiues the keyes for the good thereof Thus Isay St. Peter receiu'd the keyes for himselfe as hee was Head of the Church though that Reception were indeed ordain'd for the good of the whole Church To receiue a thing in this manner is not to receiue it in the others right but in his own not withstanding it bee finally meant for the good of the other This is so cleere euen to common sense that wee haue no need of turning ouer many Classique Authours to proue it wherfore the example of an Attorney taking possession of land for a Purchaser and of one who hauing a Proxy receiues a woman with the Ceremonies of Marriage in the name of an other are not to the purpose because in such cases the person of an other is Sustain'd only Parabolicè or by way of voluntary supposition pro tempore as when a Legate receiues the keyes of a town meerly as substitute for and in the name of his King But in our case the keyes were receiued Historicè and in way of reall propriety as by the King himselfe Head of the Common-wealth so by St. Peter Head of the Church This Answer is grounded in St. Austin himselfe who teaches St. Peters receiuing the souereign Authority of the gouerning the whole Church signified hero by the keyes as hee was a Figure of the Church and represented the person of the Church to haue been propter Primatum c. by reason of the PRIMACY which hee had amongst the Apostles The like hee hath in other places So cleerly does hee explicate his own meaning and confirm the answer wee haue giuen to the text the Bishop brings Why therfore doth the Relatour labour in vayne to wrest the Keyes out of St. Peters hands and to bestow them hee knows not where They must remaine where Christ has left them St Peter and his successours know best how to vse them and how to turn them in their proper wards as the Bishop speaks In his Third Consideration hee supposes that though a Generall Council bee granted lyable to errour yet so long as the whole Catholique Church Diffusiue bee exempt from it in the Prime Foundations of Fayth absolutely necessary to saluation there is still a sufficient Meanes to preserue and reduce vnity and to preuent all inconueniences that vsually trouble the Church One of the greatest inconueniences that can possibly fall vpon the Church is errour in fayth which vpon supposition that a Generall Council may erre in such matters does vnauoydably befall the whole Church as wee haue already shew'n and that without any hopes of euer beeing certainly cleer'd of it For as one Generall Council fell into Errour so may an other and a third and a fourth etc. Vnless therfore Generall Councils bee granted infallible in matters of Fayth where is the Bishops remedy against Jnconueniences How shall the Church bee freed from Perplexity How shall vnity bee preseru'd or reducd Hee tells vs the Church vpon discouery of the errour of a former Council may represent herselfe in an other body or Council and take order for what was concluded amiss But who shall warrant that the remedy shall not proue as bad as the disease or perhaps worse who shall secure vs that the second Council shall rightly condemne the supposed errour of the first or if it happen so shall not broach two other for that one and thereby bee an occasion of fresh Jnconueniences Perplexities Contentions in and to the Church Againe how shall the whole Church vpon euidence found of the miscarriage of a Generall Council represent her selfe in an other body must euery particular member of the Church first except against the sayd errours and concurre to the election and holding of an other Council That will neuer happen For in such a multitude very many will bee of the same minde with the precedent representatiue of the Church If not all but some part only of the Churches members bee conuinced of the pretended errour and would call an other Council to 〈◊〉 it then not the whole Church in Generall but only a part of it should take vpon them to remedy the abuses of a Generall Council which is absurd Moreouer if the power of calling Generall Councils reside only in the whole Church Diffusiuely taken as the Bishop here supposeth what likelyhood is there that there should euer bee such a Council called it beeing not to bee done but by the generall consent of all Christians whose interests are so diuided and for the most part so repugnant to each other that it cannot bee doubted but when one Nation or Countrie is willing to haue a Generall Council called some other will bee found as vnwilling When will all Christians thinke you agree that both Protestants Catholiques Grecians Lutherans and all other Sectaries should meete in Councill and haue equall power and libertie to vote there which if they haue not who can expect that the excluded party will hold it a Generall Council and thinke themselues bound to submitt to it The Bishop tells vs that the Church heeretofore vsed to reforme the errours of former Councils by calling and representing her selfe in a new Councill and that this is euident in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus and in
must necessarily for ought hee can see bee referred to both clauses in the words following because both clauses went before it and hath as much force against receiuing vnder both kindes as against receiuing after supper yet I see no reason but hee might haue taken it for a full satisfaction For to mee it seemes cleere let the Bishop fancy what hee pleases that the non obstante can haue no reference but to the time of receiuing after supper For the words that follow a non obstante in any sentence haue neuer reference to any thing but what hath some opposition with it Now to consecrate and receiue fasting which the Council opposeth to what was done by Christ hath no opposition at all with the Apostles receiuing vnder two kindes For it were an absur'd and senseless proposition to say though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples vnder both kindes yet it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting wherfore the Consecrating and receiuing fasting which is only opposed by the Non obstante to what was done by Christ hath not reference to the receiuing vnder both kindes but only to the receiuing after supper But the Relatour adds that the after-words Et similiter and likewise couple both together in this reference as if the Council by saying AND LIKEWISE though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiued by Laymen only vnder the kinde of Bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused should signifie that Laymen ought to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kinde not only though it bee contrary to Christs institution but also to the practise of the Primitiue Church But how will he proue that this is the signification of the words And likewise may not a man say properly though the Iewes might haue plurality of wiues yet the Christians may not and likewise though the Iewes were allowed to desire eye for eye tooth for tooth c. yet notwithstanding the Christians are not Here the words And likewise couple both sentences together and yet the Notwithstanding of the latter sentence hath no reference to the words of the first part since it were ridiculous to fay Though the Iewes might haue plurality of wiues yet Christians are not allowed to require eye for eye and tooth for tooth As the Decrees of the aforesayd Council are not contrary to the institution and ordination of Christ so neither is the practise of the Church in receiuing vnder one kinde contrary thereto To shew that the practise of the Church were contrary to Christs institution the Bishop should haue made it appeare that Christ did so institute this Sacrament of his last supper that hee would not haue one part to bee Sacrament without the other or that hee would not haue one part bee taken without the other Now neither of these two can bee proued Not that one kinde alone is not sufficient to the Sacrament for if nothing bee requisite to the essence of a Sacrament but Matter forme and a diuine promise of Grace to those that shall receiue it the words of Consecration Hoc est corpus meum is a true forme the element of bread alone is a true matter vsed by our Sauiour Hee hath also promised Grace to those that shall receiue his Body vnder the forme of bread as appeares by these words Joan. 6. Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in 〈◊〉 with what reason therefore can any one deny that the Body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is a true Sacrament Neither can it bee prou'd that Christ commanded Laymen to receiue vnder both kindes Not by these words Drinke yee all of this For if this were a command and not a Counsell as when hee sayd if J your Lord haue washed your feete you also ought to wash one an others feete it was giuen to the Apostles who all drunke of the Chalice Now as it doth not follow that Laymen are bound to baptize and preach to all nations because the Apostles were commanded to doe so so neither doth it follow that Laymen are bound to drinke of the Chalice because the Apostles were Nor can this obligation viz. that Laimen should receiue vnder both kindes bee inferred out of those other words of our Sauiour except you 〈◊〉 my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall haue no life in you Joan. 6. for if this were a precept of receiuing vnder both kindes and did generally binde all persons without restriction it would follow that all children especially such as haue the vse of reason are bound to receiue this Sacrament as well as men and women and that all such children as dyed without hauing receiu'd it would bee lyable to eternall damnation If Protestants themselus therfore doe not extend this command to persons of all ages notwithstanding that the words haue no restriction more to one age then to an other how will they proue from thence that all Laymen are bound to receiue vnder both kindes Beside wee will shew hereafter that euen in the Primitiue Church when the custome was to receiue vnder both kindes the Sacrament was many times administred vnder one kinde only 6. But the Relatour pretends wee are vnreasonable in holding Generall Councils infallible because sayth hee no Body collectiue whensoeuer it assembled it selfe did euer giue more power to the representing Body of it then a binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe nor euer did it giue this power otherwise then with this reseruation in nature that it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance vpon iust cause made euident that the Representing Body had failed in trust or truth But this is only to suppose and take for granted what hee neuer yet proued viz. that a Generall Council hath no authority but what is meerly delegate from the Church vniuersall which it represents whereas wee maintaine its authority to bee of diuine institution and when lawfully assembled to act by diuine right and not meerly by deputation and consent of the Church as wee haue also prou'd in the precedent chapter True it is the calling of such assemblies was taken vp and hath for its pattern the example of the Apostles Acts. 15. yet surely there 's as little doubt to bee made but the Apostles had both direction and precept too for doing it so often as iust occasion requr'd from Christ himselfe Though therfore a Generall Council bee the Church representatiue and doe not meete or assemble together hic et nunc but by order and deputation from Man yet it followes no but the power and authority by which they act when they are 〈◊〉 bee from God as doubtless it is Jn the first Council of the Apostles the Body Collectiue as the Bishop calls it that is the People that beleeu'd did neither send nor chuse the persons to sit in it neither
was their consent asked whether a Council should bee conuened or not but the Apostles concluded this amongst themselues as beeing a particular and speciall branch of that Power they had receiued from Christ for the Gouernment of the Church Neither at this day is their consent or concurrence any more required de iure to the conuening of such assemblies then it was in the Apostles time but the Pastours of the Church doe act and determin all things pertaining to this affayre solely amongst themselues without requiring the Peoples consent Generall Councils then are a principall and necessary part of that Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which Christ instituted for the Gouernment of his Church and not an humaine Expedient only brought in or taken up by the Church her selfe meerly upon prudentiall considerations as the Bishop will needs conceiue and their Power beeing wholy from aboue as the Church Diffusiue properly speaking giues it not so neither can shee take it away or annull any thing in point of doctrine which the Pastours in such Councils assembled shall by full authority decree I sayd in point of doctrine because that is ex natura rei unchangeable The Gospell of Christ and true Christian Fayth which Generall Councils are by Christs Institution appointed to teach admitts not of yea and nay now the Affirmatiue then the Negatiue as the Bishop by his correcting and abrogating Power left to After-Councils would haue vs belccue but only yea It is alwayes the same if once declared and settled by those who haue the authority and assistance from God that is requisite thereto as Councils haue euen by the Relatours own confession here It must stand and bee professed without alteration or abrogation for euer His pretense therfore of the Churches representing her selfe againe and by a new Council taking order for what was decreed amiss signifies nothing in this case saue only that our aduersarie holds still to his first and false supposition that Generall Councils may erre which was neuer yet granted him nor can wee grant it without offering violence to the nature and propertie of true Christian Fayth which is to bee invariable and to admitt no change not without derogating both from the institution and honour of Christ. For a Generall Council beeing of diuine institution and euen in the Bishops own style and profession the Supreme Externall Liuing Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies in Fayth if any errour contrary to true Fayth could bee incident to the definition of such a Council what Certainty or Vnchangeableness could there bee in the Fayth it sefle or how can it bee thought not to reflect vpon Christs honour to haue instituted in his Church no other Power to correct and repeale the errours of such a Council but what is lyable to the same or the like errour 〈◊〉 The Bishop himselfe in this Paragraph attributes such power authority and high prerogatiues to Generall Councils that I see not how they can stand with the possibility of errour 〈◊〉 calling in question any point of doctrine defined by them First he tells vs a Council hath power to order settle and define differences arisen concerning Fayth Then that a Council lawfully called and proceeding orderly and concluding according to the Rule the 〈◊〉 the whole Church cannot but approue the Council That the decrees of it shall binde all particulars and it selfe Lastly that because the whole Church can meete no other way the Council shall remaine the Supreme Externall Liuing Temporary Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Does hee not now plainly destroy these prerogatiues and contradict himselfe when speaking of such a Council hee sayth presently after only the whole Church and shee alone hath power when scripture or demonstration is found and peaceably tender'd to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Council and in it to order what was amiss A while since hee granted that the definitions of a Generall Council were to bee held and obserued till such euident scripture and demonstration were brought against them as beeing propos'd and vnderstood the minde of man cannot chuse but assent to it But here hee supposeth the whole Church is made acquainted with euident scripture and demonstration against the definitions of a former Council and yet by his own doctrine but a few lines aboue all particulars are bound to stand to those definitions till such time as an other Council of equall authority called by the whole Church hath ordered and amended what was decreed amiss in the former Againe how can the whole Church when scripture and demonstration is found contrary to a former Council represent her selfe in a new one to order by it what was formerly defind amiss but shee must cleerly vnderstand that what was determined by the former Council was false and erroneous vpon this supposition 〈◊〉 Eyther the sayd former Councils false and erroneous definitions are still binding or they are not if they are binding it would bee sinne to beleeue the contrary or at least outwardly to oppose the sayd definitions Now let any body 〈◊〉 how its possible for the whole Church to call an other Council to reforme those errours of the first but it must outwardly shew some dislike of them and therby declare in effect the doctrine of the precedent Council to bee false and consequently oppose its decrees euen while they are supposed to binde If you answer they are binding to particulars not to the whole Church I reply it is impossible the whole Church should euer 〈◊〉 agree to represent her selfe in an other Council to reforme the 〈◊〉 of the precedent but that very many nay almost all particulars must 〈◊〉 and also 〈◊〉 those errours before the whole Church 〈◊〉 and declare them If therfore the definitions of the precedent Council though 〈◊〉 binde all particulars till an 〈◊〉 Council lawfully called reuerse them and define the control truth as the Bishop confesseth how can the 〈◊〉 Church which consists of particulars and acts nothing but by 〈◊〉 call in question the doctrine of any precedent Council but very many if not all particulars must committ sinne by some kinde of 〈◊〉 opposition or not conforming themselues where they were as yet bound to yeeld obedience And how I 〈◊〉 had the former Council power to settle and define differences of sayth and to binde all particulars if 〈◊〉 and euery particular person as the case now supposeth may lawfully thinke and profess that for ought kee knows both scripture and demonstration may bee brought against it and that in case they bee the errours of the precedent Council ought to bee reform by calling an other Againe I aske to what purpose should there bee an other Council called to reforme the errours of a former For eyther the whole Church hath euident scripture or demonstrations against the definitions of the former Council or it hath not If it hath not the Church her selfe committs sinne in the Bishops owne principles by imputing errour to the precedent Councill
whose definitions according to him must stand in force and bee obeyed by all particulars and consequently by the whole Church till euident scripture or demonstration bee brought against them If it hath then the whole Church cannot but cleerly perceiue the sayd errours of the former Council and know them to bee such and then what need of an After-Council what good can it doe shall it bee called to declare that which euery man sees already or to define that about which there is no controuersie nor can bee any so long as men continue in their right mindes and doe but consider what they say or thinke You will say a Council ought to bee called in this case to abrogate the law or definition of the precedent Council which erred I answer that supposes the definition of the sayd precedent Councill to bee still in force which is false first because it is vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue anything as matter of Fayth solely upon the authority of a Council that is lyable to errour both against scripture and demonstration Secondly because 't is more vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue what wee cleerly see to bee errour and contrary both to scripture and demonstration and yet in no other case but this euen by the Bishops leaue can the whole Church call an other Council to reuerse the decrees of the former Thirdly because as it did not binde the whole Church from prosessing her dislike of the errours defin'd and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to prosess outwardly a disbeleefe or doubt thereof Wherfore it is euident that his Lordship vpon this subiect says and vnsays the same and what hee seemes to attribute to Generall Councils in one proposition hee takes away in an other The Bishop pretends the Catholique opinion touching infallibility to bee yet more vnreasonable because wee make not only the definitions of a Generall Council but the sentence of the Pope also infallible For a Generall Councill sayth he may erre with vs if the Pope confirm it not So vpon the matter the infallibility wee contend for rests not in the representatiue Body the Council nor in the whole Body the Church but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome and if this bee so to what end sayth he so much trouble for a Generall Council and wherein are wee neerer to vnity if the Pope confirm it not wee answer first the Bishop stumbles at the thresholde a Generall Council is not held by vs to bee infallible at all vnless it inuolue the Pope or his confirmation and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our aduersary to compare together viz. of the Council and the Pope but One infallibility only to witt of the Pope presiding in and confirming the votes of a Generall Council or if you will a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope Secondly wee confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Popes infallibility The first and the more con men is that the Pope euen without a Generall Council is infallible in his definitions of Fayth when he teaches the whole Church The second is that he is not infallible in his definitions faue only when he defines in and with a Generall Council Now had the Bishop as he 〈◊〉 to haue done taken due notice of this second opinion and proceeded in the point accordingly these Doctours would quickly haue satissy'd his obiection and told him that as the Ccuncil is not infallible without the Pope so neither is the Pope infallible without the Ccuncil and that infallibility proceeds ioyntly 〈◊〉 both and is the prerogatiue of both not separately consider'd but as vnited and making vp the compleate representatiue of the Church But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence framing his argument wholy against the other as if it were the opinion of all Catholique Doctours But of this wee haue sayd enough hauing prosesled at the begining that wee intended not to meddle much with any matters of priuate dispute or opinion Wherfore I shall briefly pass cuer what his Lordship hath further touching this matter and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his 7. His first is that if the Pope bee infallible then the Council is called but only in 〈◊〉 to heare the Pope giue his sentence in more state I answer 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time viz. that 't was con only to heare St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state in regard it will not bee deny'd but St. Peters definition alone had been as infallible and as much binding as that of the whole Council Secondly I answer more directly this followes not with any the least shadow of consequence in their opinion who hold the Pope to bee fallible out of a Generall Council as is manifest and in the other opinion 't is easily answer'd For seeing the Pope when euer he defines matters of Fayth ought to proceed maturely and vse all meanes morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth and seeing that the deliberations and notes of a Generall Council are the most proper and efficacious in that kinde it followes euidently enough to all vnpreiudic'd and impartiall iudgements that the Council is called really to help and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affaire and which equally concerns the whole Church also that the aduice of the Councill in such cases is not only a profitable and fitt but speaking in a morall sense a Necessary medium to this Holyness wherby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton here alledged by the Bishop affirms according to his own principles viz. that the Pope acquires no new power or authority or certainty of iudgement by beeing ioyned to the Council For though he acquires no new power authority or certainty of iudgement which in this Doctours opinion he hath whether he be with or without a Councill yet he may acquire some thing which doth connaturally worke and conduce to the due exercise of that power authority and certainty of iudgement to witt counsell aduice and conuenient information touching the matters in Controuersie The like is to be sayd to that of Cardinal Bellarmin when he asserts that the firmeness of a Council to which the Relatour adds of his own Infallibity comes from the Pope only For he intends to shew how the matter passes in regard of vs who are assured no other way of the firmeness of the Councils definition then by the Popes confirmation alone You will obiect that if the Pope be infallible without the Council and the Council subiect to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the infallibility of Generall Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council I answer the Assertours of that opinion
Protestants to note it only in a word by the way haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church not that wee are vnable or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth Religion Church and all things pertaining thereto by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession iustly prescribe against our aduersaries and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they who are our aggressours in this case doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew that our possession is not bonafidei but gain'd by force or fraude or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes A Gentleman that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours is not to be outed of it because an other say's and perhaps beleeues he has a better title to it neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence but the other is bound to euict him and demonstrate that his possession is not good and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe that his own clayme is better otherwise in stead of gaining an estate he will get nothing but a checke In like manner the Lady beeing in possession of a Fayth which for many ages together had been professed by her ancestours and generally by the whole Christian Church 't is not the Bishops telling her that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome or iustly moue her to beleeue that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church but he must make it appeare to be so by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter is to be accounted folly and his confidence rashness I adde how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church English Protestants for example beleeue the Popes power iure diuino is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Bishops witness Tertullian and this long before the Canons of the Church or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority The Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians was not from men but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of St. Clement St. Anaclet St. Sixtus the first St. Pius the first St. Anicet St. Victor with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer So as euen the Centurists themselues and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity are forc'd to confess it They pretend indeed that these Epistles are counterfeite and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes A weake plea for beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them 't is certain that Isidorus Hispalensis who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time and professes that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops to make his collection out of them as well as out of other Epistles and writings which Protestants doe not question Not to vrge that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them and Rufinus himselfe others who was contemporary with St. Hierome nor yet the absolute conformity in point of doctrine and style that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church viz. Iulius the first Pope Damasus Syricius Innocentius Leo and others which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe nor can pretend to be forged but only say that the Popes of those times were arrogant men and began to take too much vpon them The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not according to Gods commandement acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing Vicar of Christ in the Church The Primitiue Church professed that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull to witt in matter of Religion and Fayth the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their Epistle to Pope Marcus that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things witness St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church Witness optatus Mileuitanus that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed to which all must repaire for the waters of life that she is the Rock vpon which the Church is built that to be out of her Communion was to be an Alien from the houshold of God to be out of the Church to be as a profane or vncleane person who might not come into the Campe or Congregation of Israel in briefe it was to belong not to Christ but to Antichrist witness St. Hierome The Bishops of the Primitiue Church beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome as to their proper and lawfull Judge for iustice and reliefe and were likewise by him righted and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe Witness the examples already alledged of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians also of St. Chrysostome The odoret and diuerse others Lastly not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise the Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer Witness St. Austin the Councils
without defaulking of any part And did they not intend that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer And how can the Church performe this if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them How can she be accounted in those respects the Pillar and Foundation of truth as 't is certain euen by the exposition of Protestants St. Paul doth style her 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be J say how is it possible the Church should be accounted eyther a sure Foundation Faythfull Depositary Guardian or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion as she is by Scripture and all Antiquity generally if eyther through ignorance and ouersight she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often euen where Religion is pretended from men and their humours rather then from things and errours to be found in them J grant it to be very true in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture which is the practice of Protestants and all Heretiques before them and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise lett them fairly make it appeare that the disagreement which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents but meerly from the Sectaries who it cannot be deny'd alledge scripture abundantly and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition both in doctrine discipline and worship no less then they accuse vs of the same faults 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense although euen by his own supposition they be diuine truths and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules His reason is because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse c. there must be Heresies whence he concludes 't is out of doubt Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance as is able to preuent them or such a mastering power in his Church as is able to ouer-awe them But J answer what consequence is here There must be 〈◊〉 there will vnauoydably be Heresies crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them and to vindicate the contrary truth To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp amongst Christians therefore the Pastours of the Church haue and ought to haue all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose should eyther themselues happen to crre or to determine the truth withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty But as to the obiection it selfe the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies it is not mean't that they shall not be at all but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church Heresies may be but the Faythfull members of the Church hauing due care of themselues and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours shall be euer fully secured against their snares and none deceiued by them at least not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence suffer themselues to be misted by them Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes on her part when she certainly declares the truth and rightly determins the matter about which Christians began to contend and to be diuided in opinion one from another when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them This is preuention both necessary and also sufficient on the Churches part and this beeing done if the effect follow not it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church but only to the incorrigible pride obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children which nothing but the hand of God can ouerrule and master A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's prudently instituted wherein when seditions and rebellions happen to arise and they doe happen sometimes in the very best wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate or state to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature are incident to mens mindes and which can neither be foreseen nor quelled in an instant by any power on earth J adde that the Relatours obiection oportet Haereses esse c. has as much force to proue the Church not infallible euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church to preuent errours contrary to such points which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions For the words of St. Paul ther must be Heresies are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points as other and there will be Heresies more or less in all ages in matters absolutely necessary as well as in things not necessary Yea surely according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points in regard they say that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer So that if because Heresies must be or will be the Bishop will conclude there is neither infallible certaintie nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth in such points as are contested by Heretiques as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude by his allegation of this text he must in consequence also confess there is noe infailible
certainty nor meanes of infallible certainty less in the Church for the teaehing and beleefe of any points at all euen of the most absolutely and vniuersally necessary In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride who will not 〈◊〉 their private iudgements where with good conscience they may and ought Wee may easily diuine whom he meanes but are sure he could not exempt himselfe and his adherents from the sting of that censure though he endeauours it by saying 't is noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errouts Very good But wee aske what Sect or company of Heretiques in the world vses not this plea Doe not euen the Artans Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselues vrge it as earnestly against Protestants as Protestants doe against vs So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the conuocation of English Prelates and Clergie adherent to them should 〈◊〉 Dictatours in the business of Religion ouer all Christendome beside and determin vncontroulably what is what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous errour I see not what his discourse here signifies But whereas himselfe obiects errour to three Generall Councills at once viz. those of Lateran Constance and Trent yea such errour as in his opinion gaue a greater and more vrgent cause of breaking the vnity of the Church then any pride of men wee shall not for the present taxe him with want of modesly wee only tell his followers 't is as yet only saying without prouing and they cannot but acknowledge that in point of morality 't is oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man barely to deny a crime that is obiected to him but it is neuer sufficient nor euer honest barely to obiect it Beside wee haue much more reason to think that he a priuate Doctour is mistaken in his censure then that those three Generall Councils were deceiued in the matters of Fayth which they defin'd 10. His acknowledgement that it is noe worke for his pen to determin how farre the necessary points of soule-sauing Fayth extend would haue been ingenuous enough had he not made it intricate and meander-like by applying it to different persons but kept it in its absolute nature viz. what is simply necessary for all in which sense he hath treated the point all this time Now sure it the determining this maine and as I may say Cardinall difficulty be not worke for his pen neither was it of any right worke for his pen to draw vpon himselfe and his party a necessity of at least beeing call'd vpon and requir'd to doe it who counsells them contrary vnto and without the example of any Orthodox Christians to restraine the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controuersies of Religion to they know not what or to such points as they neither doe nor euer will be able certainly to know and determin For as 't is that only which brings our vnanswerable demand vpon them so till they haue answer 〈◊〉 and cleerly determin'd what those simply or absolutely necessary points are in which the Church cannot erre wee must proclayme they leaue all Christians that well consider what and vpon what grounds they beleeue vnsatisfy'd vncertaino and doubtfull how farre or in what matters they are oblig'd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue what is declar'd by the Church to be diuine truth and yet withall teach them that they neither can with true infallible Fayth nor ought nor lawfully may belecue her in all she teacheth because in much of it she cyther erres or is subiect to erre and teach them falsehood yea gross and dangerous errour in stead of diuine truth which if it be iust or reasonable in our Aduersaries to doe or tending to any thing else but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the mindes of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader iudge Nor can he to any purpose help himselfe here by what St. Thomas and our Authours teach concerning points precisely necessary necessitate medij For neither will the Bishop stand to that scantling as he calls it that is he will not dare to teach there are no more Fundamentall points in his sense then our Diuines teach there are points necessary necessitate medij nor is the case alike For that doctrine hath place only where inuincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express beleefe whereas here both sufficient proposition and actuall knowledge of all articles defin'd by the Church is supposed so as noe Jgnorance can be pleaded in excuse of the partie that erres and yet they teach that of these articles all equally so farre as concerns the Church defin'd and propounded some may be refused but all the rest must of necessity vnder paine of damnation be beleeu'd with diuine and infallible Fayth neuertheless giuing no certaine rule to know eyther the one or the other Is not this Daedalus-like to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth and there leaue them 11. Jn the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else but dally with his Reader in the equiuocation of words Catholique Roman Church particular vniuersall one holy Mother-Church etc. vpon all which he makes a briefe descant at pleasure But wee answer much is sayd nothing prou'd nor so much as offer'd to be prou'd to any purpose The Church of Rome in the sense that wee maintaine and haue often declar'd is not only one but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that wee maintaine she is holy all her doctrine defined all her Sacraments all her institutes are holy and tend to Holiness In the sense that wee maintaine she is Catholique or vniuersall both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine with continued succession of Pastours There is no Christian Countrie in the world where there are not some that acknowledge the Popes Authority and profess the Roman Fayth Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Fayth which is contrary to what the Catholique Church hath euer taught Lastly wee haue shewed that euen in the Primitiue Church or first siue-hundred yeares after Christ the Faythfull owned subiection to the Roman Church and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine Wee acknowledge the Church of Hierusalem is sometimes by Antiquity styl'd a Mother-Church and the Head of all other Churches But wee say withall 't is meerly a title of honour and dignity giuen her probably for this reason viz. because the first Foundations as it were of Christian Religion were layd there by the preaching and Passion of our Sauiour and because from thencë the first sound and publication of the Gospell was made by the Apostles to all the Churches of the Gentiles It was noe title of Authority and power properly so called as it was in the Roman Church Jf our Aduersaries thinke it was let them shew what Authority or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Church or Bishop of Hierusalem exercised ouer all other Churches eyther before it was
obserues againe Epist. pag. 19. that noe one thing hath made conscientious men of his party more wauering in their mindes and more apt to be draw'n beside from the Religion professed in the Church of England then want of of vniforme and decent order c. therevpon taking occasion to enlarge himselfe on the subiect of ceremonies shewing their vsefulness and necessity in the publique exercise of Religion wherin I haue noe reason to contradict him Only this I must note by the way that whereas out of indulgence to his ordinary humour he taxes the Roman Church with thrusting in many that are vnnecessary and superstitious he might haue know'n that the Councill of Trent it selfe not only inables but inioynes all particular Bishops in their respectiue Dioceses and all Archbishops and Metropolitans in their respectiue Prouinces to reforme what euer they may finde amiss in this kinde And this his crimination is no more then was obiected to himselfe by his owne people Wee shall in due place shew in what sense it is wee maintaine that out of Rome that is out of the communion of the Roman-Catholique Church there is no saluation At present it may suffize to say that wee doe not shut vp saluation in such a narrow conclaue as the Bishop would haue his Reader beleeue when he parallels vs with the Donatists Wee teach no other doctrine concerning the attainement of saluation then what hath been held in all ages in all times and in all places and is now visibly taught and professed throughout the Christian world viz. that out of the true Catholique Church saluation is not to be expected Nor doe wee shut Heauen-gates as the Relatour insinuates to any that are willing to enter prouided they be willing to enter and goe that way which Christ hath appointed But 't is the Bishop and his party that doe really shutt Heauen-gates to those who otherwise might enter euen whilest they pretend to open them For by teaching the way to Heauen to be wider then it is and that Saluation may be attained by such meanes and in such wayes as according to Gods ordinary Prouidence it cannot what doe they but putt men into a false way and in stead of leading them in that straite path to eternall happiness which the Gospell prescribes trace out that broad way to them which leads to death I shall close my Preface with an Aduertisement to such as are apt to quarrel at words beyond the meaning of those that vse them The infallible which in treating of the Church and Generall Councils I haue had frequent occasion to make vse of is cunningly raised by our Aduersaries to so high a pitch of signification as though it could import no less then the ascribing of an intrinsecall vnerring power in all things to those wee account infallible which is cleerly to peruert our meaning wee intending to signifie noe more when wee say the Church or Generall Councils are infallible then that by vertue of Christ's promise they haue neuer erred nor euer shall in definitions of Fayth In fine Good Reader that thou mayst see and embrace the truth is the hearty wish of him that bids thee noe less heartily Farewell Labyrinthus Cantuariensis OR Dr. LAWD'S LABYRINTH BEING An Answer to his Lordships Relation of a Conference between Himself and Mr. Fisher c. CHAP. I. Stating the Conference between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher for Satisfaction of a Person of Honour ARGUMENT 1. The Introduction 2. The Bishops Artifice in waving a direct Answer to the Question 3. His pretended Solutions to certain Authorities referr'd to a fitter place for Answer 4. His maintaining the Greeks not to have lost the Holy Ghost and that they are a true Church 5. The Modern Greeks in Errour not the Ancient 6. why FILIOQUE inserted into the Nicene Creed 1. THough Dedalus that ingenious Artificer might possibly shew no less skill in contriving his Cretan Labyrinth then did the principall Architect employ'd by Salomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jerusalem yet their Labours were of a different nature For whereas the latter exercis'd his Art in raising a noble elevated lightsome Structure the former Dedalus us'd all his Inventive industry in framing a Subterraneous darksome Prison with such redoubled Turnings perplexed Windings and tortuous Meanders that who ever entred into it might indeed wander up and down within its involved and recurring paths but never be able to get either back or thorow it Now alluding to these different Works we may not unfitly compare the learned Labours of the Fathers Doctors and worthy Divines of Gods Church to this stately Temple of Salomon being the rich and illustrious Monuments of their Piety Zeal and Erudition Whereas by the Cretan Labyrinth are fitly Symboliz'd the Artificiall but Pestiferous Works of all Hereticall Authors who forsaking the ever-visible and conspicuous Church of Christ and known Consent of Christendome induce themselves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Phanatick Brains These mens Labours are so farre from being lightsome Monuments that they are rather Labyrinths or intricate Dungeons for poor seduced Souls who being once ingag'd in the perplexities of their intangled flexures see not the radiant light of Gods Church some few onely excepted whom of his great mercy he is pleas'd to shew the way out and reduce into his Fold Now it hath already been shew'n by others that the Works of many late Protestant Writers of this Nation are of the aforesaid intangling Nature and I doubt not by Gods help but to evidence that this their Grand Authors Book I am now about to answer is very liable to the same Reproach For to describe it rightly it is a Labyrinth most artificially compos'd with as many abstruse Turnings ambiguous Windings and intricate Meanders as that of Dedalus and therefore equally inextricable But a more sure and stronger Clew then Ariadne's the Line of the Catholique Churches Authority and Tradition joyn'd with Holy Scripture hath not onely carried me through it but by Gods good assistance enabled me to render it pervious to all by the Discoveries and Directive Marks I have set on the Leaves that compose this present Volume Yet before I descend to particulars I must advertise the Reader that I designe not the Defence either of Mr. Fisher or any other Author further then they deliver the generally received Doctrine of the Catholique Church which is that I undertake to maintain The three leading pages of the Bishops Book contain the occasion of the Conference between himself and Mr. Fisher viz. for the satisfaction of an Honourable Lady who having heard it granted on the Protestant part in a former Conference that there must be a continuall visible Company ever since Christ teaching unchanged Doctrine in all points necessary to Salvation and finding it seems in her own Reason that such a Company or Church must not be fallible in its Teaching was in Quest of a Continuall Visible and Infallible Church as
not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church which point of Infallibility the Bishop sought to evade saying That neither the Jesuit nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly if she said she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church because an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible 2. Here already you may observe the Bishop falling to work on his projected Labyrinth by making its first Crook which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective For though he could not be ignorant that the Lady sought not any one Particular Infallible Church in opposition to another Particular Church not Infallible but some Church such as might without danger of Errour direct her in all Doctrinall Points of Faith call it an or the Infallible Church as you please for she had no such Quirks in her head yet the Bishop will by no means understand her sincere meaning but instead of using a charitable endeavour to satisfie her perplexed Conscience vainly pursues that meer Quibble on purpose to decline the difficulty of giving her a satisfactory Answer in his own Principles Neither indeed does that expression an Infallible Church denote a Particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible but positively signifies a Church that never hath shall or can erre in Doctrine of Faith without connotating or implying any other Church that might erre Nor can it be pretended that the Particle a or an is onely appliable to Particulars seeing the Bishop himself applies it to the whole Church For omitting other places see page 141. where speaking of the whole Militant Church he sayes And if she erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then she may be a Church of Christ still Here sure he cannot mean a Particular Church by this expression A true Church but the whole Catholique or Universal Church unless he intended to speak non-sense viz. That the whole Militant Church is a Particular Church And what Learned Interpreter ever understood those words of Saint Paul Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit to himself A glorious Church c. of any other save the Universall Church of Christ And seeing the Lady made enquiry after that Church IN WHICH one may and OUT OF WHICH one cannot attain Salvation as the Bishop sets down the words of Mr. Fisher page 3. it is evident that really and in effect she sought no other save the Universall Visible Church of Christ which A. C. to take away all doubt of her meaning expresses pag. 1. by saying that she desired to depend upon the judgement of THE TRUE Church Why then might not the Lady express her self as the Bishop himself does in the place above cited by the Particle a or an and yet not speak so improperly that he must needs mistake her meaning The truth is it was an affected mistake in his Lordship as any man may easily perceive that has not lost his discerning faculty But the Bishop having now entred his hand and willing to shew his dexterity betimes immediately redoubles the Crook he had made while to countenance his former trisling with the Lady touching an Infallible Church he craftily attacks Bellarmin for maintaining an Infallibility in the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholiques which it is not and by confuting it to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholique Church Now though Bellarmins opinion is indeed That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot erre in Faith and desert the Pope so long as his Chair remains in that City yet the Bishop knew very well that the Catholique Church doth not restraine the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin it being sufficient for a Catholique to believe that there is an Infallibility in the Church without further obligation to examine whether the Particular Church of Rome be Infallible or not By what has been hitherto faid a man may easily perceive the candour of the Bishops proceeding and what he is to expect from him throughout his whole Work which will I assure you for the greater part be found to correspond with that you have already seen 3. From the fourth page to the twentieth he goes on disputing against severall Opinions of Bellarmin as whether the Popes Chair may be removed from Rome and in case of such Removall whether that Particular Church may then erre which seeing they are but Particular Opinions I shall not expostulate them with the Bishop as being no part of the Province I have undertaken And as to the Authorities here quoted by Bellarmin out of St. Cyprian St. Jerom St. Gregory Nazianzen c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Articles held de Fide among Catholiques nor impugned by the Bishop but as insufficient to make good those particular Opinions though he hoped the Reader would make neither of these reflections I cannot hold my self oblig'd to take notice of his pretended Solutions till I finde them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholique or Roman Church in its full Latitude as Catholiques ever mean it save when they say expresly the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as here Bellarmin doth However I intend to examine them when I come to treat the Question of the Infallibility of the Universal Church Where I make no doubt but I shall clearly evince against his Lordship and the whole party these particulars following First that to draw the word perfidia which St. Cyprian useth to his own sense the Bishop leaves out two parts of the Sentence which he ought necessarily to have expressed Secondly that by glossing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alledged he makes that Father give no more Priviledge to Rome then what was due to every particular Church yea to every Orthodox Christian of those times quite contrary to St. Cyprians intent Thirdly how he presses St. Cyprians not being tax'd by the Ancients for holding a possibility of the Popes teaching Errour in matter of Faith but never reflects that he was as little tax'd by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universall and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization embrac'd and practised against him by the whole Church Fourthly I shall shew that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is meerly Nugatory making him advertize Ruffinus that the Apostolicall Faith first preach'd at Rome could not in it self be any other then what it essentially is that is it could not be changed so long as it remained unchang'd Fifthly that he trifles as much in the allegation of St. Gregory Nazianzen For though that Father useth the word Semper retinet as
yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick Arguments against them affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so small and inconsiderable that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome for many hundred years quite blinde and themselves onely clear and sharp-sighted which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learn't from St. Augustine that pride is the mother of Heresie will easily collect But though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and Personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denial of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct Person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son onely and not from the Father would he not be highly guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not onely an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient mattter of Heresie which being here most manifestly found either in the Affirmative maintained by the Latins or in the Negative embraced by the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son there must also be found sufficient matter to constitute the erroneous Tenet Heretical And seeing Protestants acknowledge with the Bishop here that the Greeks in this are the erring party how can they possibly excuse them from Heresie 5. But before I fall upon a particular examen of his proofs we must distinguish between Greeks Some are Ancient other Modern The Ancient Greeks though they did indeed in this question of the Holy Ghosts procession express themselves sometimes by the word per Filium by the Son yet the sense they gave them was Confignificative with à Filio from the Son Whereas the Modern Greeks since they rais'd this Dispute against the Latin Church will not admit that expression à Filio but per Filium onely and that too in a sense Dissignificative to à Filio For they so affert the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father by the Son that he proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son at all thereby making the words perrFilium to signifie the Medium onely not the Principle from which he is Originiz'd as truly as from the Father And that this is the erroneous perswasion of the Modern Greeks is manifest not onely by those long Discourses between the Greeks and Latins set down at large in the Council of Florence but by the free acknowledgement of Hieremias late Patriarch of Constantinople in his Book intituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae cap. 2. where expounding the Belief of the Modern Greek Church he hath these express words Spiritum verò Sanctum Dominum vivificantem EX PATRE SOLO procedentem Now after this distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks and their different meanings even under the same expression it will be seasonable to give solutions to all the Bishops proofs To the first therefore however the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamental errour he takes a wrong course to effect it and in stead of excusing them directly overthrows and condemns them nay renders those whom he endeavours to excuse incapable of that favourable exposition which the Authors he alledges in their behalf have made for some of the Greek Church For pag. 24. § 9. num 1. he acknowledges that errour of denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity and pag. 26. § 9. num 3. that the Greeks think a diverse thing from the Latins in this point as I have noted above Now to prove that these who erre thus grievously and differ from the Latin Church in re not in the words onely but in the thing do yet not erre Fundamentally he brings Testimonies from our Authors who speak of such Grecians even as he cites them which erre not at all in the opinion of those alledged Authors and which differ from the Latin Church onely voce in words and not in the thing or matter of their Doctrine Thus he cites Durandus Pluralitas IN VOCE salvata unitate IN RE non repugnat unitati Fidei Magist. Sentent Dist. 11. Sanè sciendum est quod licet in presenti Articulo à nobis Graeci VERBO difcordent tamen SENSU non differunt and the like sayings are in all the following Authors there cited by the Bishop But what a strange Medium is this to prove his intent He was to prove that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity erred not Fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity He was to prove that such as differ in re in the thing it self from the Latin Church about the Procession of the Holy Ghost erre not Fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as differ onely from us voce in words but not in the thing controverted Is not this strong Logick Let his Lordships Defender then prove from the said Authorities his Assertion viz. That those Greeks who erre grievously in Divinity and differ in re from the Latin Church erre not Fundamentally and he will have done more then my Lord himself has done or any other I presume can do In the mean time every half eye will discover how inappositely the Relatour hath reasoned hithertó and brought no Authority at all to make good his Assertion For the Master of Sentences he speaks only of such Ancient Authors as differed onely in voce in words and not in Substance from the Latin Church or at least who spake not so clearly against it but that their words might admit some tolerable interpretation But how proves this that those of the Greek party say now no more nor otherwise then the others did in those Ancienter times seeing it is manifest from the Council of Florence and from Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople that their Doctrine cannot admit of that Exposition which those Authors give to the Doctrine of the Ancient Grecians For they flatly and in express terms deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son and understand per Filium by the Son in that sense which excludes à Filio from the Son This difference of times was long since observed by St. Bonaventure in that very place wherein his Lordship cites him to wit in 1. Sentent dist 11.
quest 1. art 1. ad 3 um 4 um His words are these Ad illud quod objicitur de Damasceno dicendum quod non est in istâ parte ei assentiendum Sicut enim intellexi ipse fuit in tempore quando orta est contentio Vnde non est in hoc sustinendus quia simpliciter fuit Graecus tamen ipse cautè loquitur Unde non dicit quod Spiritus non est a Filio sed dicit NON DICIMVS A FILIO quia Graeci non confitebantur nec tamen negabant Sed modò eorum maledicta progenies addidit ad paternam Dementiam dicit quod non procedit à Filio nisi temporaliter ideo tanquam Haereticos Schismaticos Romana eos damnat Ecclesia To that sayes he which is objected from Damascen it is to be answered that we are not to assent to him in this particular For as I understand he lived in the time when this Controversie was sprung up Wherefore we are not bound to maintain him in this point because absolutely speaking he was a Grecian yet himself speaks warily For he doth not say the Holy Ghost is not from the Son but he saith we say not from the Son For the Grecians as they did not confess so neither did they deny to wit the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son But now their accursed off-spring hath added to the madness of their Fore-fathers and professeth that the Holy Ghost doth not at all proceed from the Son otherwise then Temporally and therefore the Roman Church condemns them both as Heretiques and Schismatiques But let us adde a word or two more in particular to his Authorities cited Durandus his words give onely a general Doctrine which is most true viz. That difference IN WORDS is not repugnant to the unity of Faith The Master of Sentences we said but even now speaks of those Ancienter Greeks who spake moderately and warily in this point Bandinus is cited but no words of his alledged St. Bonaventure is quite against his Lordship For in that very place which he cites St. Bonaventure brands the Greeks of his time who had deserted the Roman Church with the note of Hereticks and Schismatiques Now the Bishop uses some cunning in not giving notice of those precedent words and thereby perswading his Reader that St. Bonaventure by not answering to the Objection pressed by the Greeks viz. That Salvation might be had without that Article A PATRE FILIO QUE PROCEDIT but onely saying that such a determination was opportune by reason of the danger tacitly grants that Salvation may be had without it And consequently was of opinion that the Greeks who separated from the Church of Rome in his time were capable of Salvation even in that Separation Whereas it is most manifest in that very Paragraph that St. Bonaventure as is said holding them Heretiques and Schismatiques excluded them from Salvation And this would have appeared had not St. Bonaventures former words been concealed by the Bishop But this is not all the Art he useth in this Citation He was to prove that according to St. Bonaventure the Grecians opposite to the Roman Church notwithstanding their Errour and Separation were capable of Salvation even supposing the Declarations and Decrees of the Roman Church in his time against them and to prove this he alledges an Answer of St. Bonaventure to an Objection about the addition of the word Filioque to the Creed Now this addition was made before the succeeding Declarations of the Church against the Grecians and consequently seeing for many hundred years the Creed was without this addition it was most evident that Salvation might be had and was had without it nay even after the addition was made till the necessity of it was sufficiently declared by the Church and the point fully defined against the Grecians who opposed it it was not happily so necessary but some might be saved without it But by what reach of Logick will the Bishop be able to prove this Consequence St. Bonaventure tacitly grants that Salvation might be had without that Article before it was added and decreed by the Church to contain a Point of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation Ergo St. Bonaventure holds that even after such decrees were made Salvation might be had without it and even by those who obstinately contradicted the Truth contained in it For before it was added and at the first addition before the said Declarations Christians might be excused by ignorance but after such Declarations were made those who knew them as the Greek Church did could by no ignorance be excused Jodocus Clictoveus is cited to small purpose For the question is not whether quidam ex Graecis some of the Grecians hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Sou for that is true even at this day but whether those who violently oppose the Church of Rome that is to say the Patriarchs Bishops Clergy and people who take part with them which we now term the Greek Church hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son Scotus is of as little force as Clictoveus For the Bishop was to prove from this Author as he undertakes that the present Greek Church errs not Fundamentally And to prove this he alledgeth him saying That the Ancient Greeks differed rather in Words then in Substance from the Latin Church which was not at all touched in the Controversie between them For all of ours grant that the Ancient Grecians were guilty of no real errour at all land so of no Fundamental errour But how does that excuse the present Greeks from Fundamental errour His Lordship should have shew'n this And Bellarmin is as far from proving the present Greek Church not to erre as his words point from the time of it For he speaks of St. John Damascen who flourished six hundred years before Bellarmin was born and who spake so warily and moderately in the point that as St. Bonaventure observes his words may be taken in a favourable sense to wit as not denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as the latter Grecians now do but onely saying non dicimus we use not to say ex Filio but rather per Filium neque affirmando nec negando formalizing as 't is evident at the manner of expression but not at the thing Lastly when the words of Tolet and of the Lutherans to Hieremias the Patriarch shall be cited they shall receive answer Onely this is most certain that Tolet holds with all Catholique Doctors that the Modern Grecians are Hereticks and so do erre Fundamentally and the Lutherans oppose Hieremias who denyes in express terms the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as we have already shew'n His second and Theological Argument is that since their forme of speech is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons they
Term Fundamentall all strangers to the Question 3. What must be understood by Fundamentall Points of Faith in this Debate 4. His flying from the Formall to the Materiall Object of Faith 5. The distinction of Points of Faith into Fundamentall and not-Fundamentall according to Protestan Principles destroyes it self 6. No Infallibility in Church-Authority no Faith 7. How Fundamentals are said to be an Immoveable Rock 8. How the Churches Authority renders us certain of Divine Revelations 9. How Superstructures may become Fundamental and how Fundamentals must be known to all 10. Scotus vindicated from one foul corruption and St. Augustin from another THe Bishop in the end of the ninth § parting friendly with the Greeks before he enters into war again with the Roman Church in the tenth § he scoureth up his best Defensive weapon the Point of Fundamentals having hitherto given us but a glimpse of it He tells of Mr. Fisher that he read a large discourse out of a Printed Book saying 't was his own his Lordship would seem to mistrust it written against Dr. white concerning Fundamentals The Bishop sayes not what he answer'd to this Discourse but puts all off with an I do not remember might he not have call'd to his Chaplain for Mr. Fishers Book if he had minded an Answer But I see him now drawing up his great Artillery of Fundamentals to attack his Adversary for saying All Points Defined by the Church are Fundamentall yet this proves but a Squib for he presently goes out of the question to disport himself with a fancy of his own a piece of Policy forsooth which he hath spied in the Roman Church 1. Rome sayes he to shrivel the credit of its Opposers blasts them all with the name of Heretique and Schismatique and so by that means grew into Greatnesse To make good which proceeding this course was taken The School must maintain that all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the Substance of Faith and then saith he leave active Heads to determine not what is truest but what is fittest for them Now what a weak discourse have we here from a grave Primate of England Thinks he all the world is turn'd mad or Heathen No truth left upon earth but all become Juglers Is the whole business of Religion but a Legerdemain to serve the Popes Ambition a puff of winde Is it credible so many learned and Venerable Prelates and other Holy men whose eminent Sanctity it hath pleased God to illustrate by the Testimony of glorious Miracles so many famous Doctors and Heads of Schools so many Austere and Religious Persons as have secluded themselves from all Temporal Concernments to attend wholly to the Service of God and Salvation of their Souls is it credible I say that all these were such egregious dissemblers as to prostitute their own Salvation to the Popes Greatness by determining not what they conceived Truest but what they esteemed fittest for his Temporal ends Such stuff as this might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble to deceive the giddy multitude and to cast a mist before their eyes that they might not see the Impurity of their own English-Protestant Church even in its first rise under Henry the eighth and the People-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth as may be seen in History But who could have imagined his Lordship would betray so great a weakness of Judgement nay so much want of Charity as to affirm so groundless so impossible a slaunder But let it pass for one of the Bishops Railleries Yet I must confess it becomes not one that would be esteem'd a grave Doctor of the English Church an alterius orbis Patriarcha as the Ancient Primates of England have been called 2. After his Lordship has sported thus a while with all that can be serious upon earth Mans Salvation he returns again to the question Whether all Points Defined by the Church be Fundamental and like one that provides for a Retreat or Subter-fuge he cuts out a number of ambiguous Distinctions as so many Turnings and Windings to fly away by when he shall be put to it He blames Mr. Fisher for not distinguishing between a Church in general which he supposes cannot erre and a general Council which he sayes he grants not that it cannot erre Would he have Women and Children come to determine Doctrines you will finde he alwayes perplexes the Question he staggers in the delivery of his own judgement he sayes he is slow in opposing what is concluded by a Lawful General and consenting Authority this must needs be a Church in General It seems then sometimes he opposeth it or staggers at it as those sometimes do that go slowly One while hee 'l take Fundamental for a point necessary to be believed explicitè as distinguish't from a point that is necessary to be believed onely implicitè Another while he takes it for a Prime and Native Principle of Faith as contradistinguish't from what he calls a Superstructure or Deducible from it Now he takes Fundamental for a point common to all and contain'd expresly in the Creed then for a point necessary to be known of all in order to Salvation as distinguish 't from a point necessary onely to some particular mens Salvation and thus by shifting from one acception to another he carries on the design of his Labyrinth with so much Art that the Reader is in great danger to be lost in following him 3. Having therefore seen the word Fundamental used in so many different senses we will first deduce even from the Bishops own Discourse the right sense in which for the present we ought to take the word Fundamental His Lordship and Mr. Fisher fell upon this Dispute about points Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation occasionally from what was touched in their Debate concerning the Greek Church where the Bishop affirmed that though they had grievously erred in Divinity yet not in a point Fundamental sufficient to un-church them which must needs have happened had they erred in a point necessary to Salvation Wherefore the Bishop in his 25 th page takes it for the same to put the Greeks out of the Church and to deny to them Salvation We have also seen how in the words lately cited he calls Fundamental what ever is necessarily to be believed Nor can the Lady be thought to have required satisfaction concerning Fundamentals in the Bishops sense For she is to be supposed to have understood what both Catholiques and Protestants usually mean in this Dispute and Mr. Fisher pag. 42. even as the Bishop § 2. pag. 2 cites his words gives an express Advertisement that by points Fundamental neither he nor the Lady understood any other then Points necessary to Salvation when he sayes thus in all Fundamental Points that is in all Points necessary to Salvation The question then in Controversie between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher was Whether all Points
defined by the Church were Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation that is whether all those Truths which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes The one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self that not onely the disbelief of it when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express Knowledge and Belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti in regard of the matter which they contain But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti onely conditionally that is by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formall object or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense is a thing so manifest that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability thought it his onely course to divert it according to his ordinary custome by turning the Difficulty which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality or necessity derived from the formall Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that point to the materiall Object that is to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the formall object whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation The Major is evident For to refuse to believe Gods revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition For though his Lordship say he grants it not yet for the present he sayes that though it were supposed he should grant that the Church or a lawful General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamental that is as we have proved necessary to Salvation Supposing therefore that the Church and a lawful General Council be taken in this occasion for the same thing as he affirms they are saying in the beginning of num 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general and a General Council which is her representative and admitting this he proceeds in his argument Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre I prove the Minor thus Whosoever refuses to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre refuses to believe that which is revealed from God But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre Ergo Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God The Major is evident ex terminis For if the Authority which testifies it is revealed from God cannot erre that which it testifies to be so revealed is so revealed The Minor is the Bishops supposition viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre as is proved Ergo c. And this I hope will satisfie any ingenuous Reader that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation as Mr. Fisher took it Yet to deal freely with the Bishop even taking Fundamental in a general way as he in this present Conference mistakes it for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion it is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal object or Infallible Authority propounding them though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain Whoever deliberately denies or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point delivered as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church For whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other Now I subsume But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church erres Fundamentally Ergo c. This Subsumptum is evident For if he believe none at all he neither believes God nor Christ nor Heaven nor Hell c. with an Infallible Divine Christian Faith and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine Infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous or fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority It is manifest that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point
there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
Masters veracity and authority but yet it gives assurance to me that his Master said so neither believe I that the thing spoken is morally true because the Servant tells me his Master said so but because his Master said it whom I know to be a man of that credit that he would not say a thing that were not true though I am not certain that his Master said it save onely because the servant tells me so whom I know also to be an honest man 9. But the Bishops difficulty about points Fundamental when he sayes that the Churches Definition cannot make Superstructures to become Principles or Foundations is easily solved according to my former distinction The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure to become a Foundation quoad materiam or rem attestatam according to the Thing or matter attested I grant it for in this sense neither the Church nor the Aposties no nor Christs Definition can make a Superstructure a Foundation for what they are in themselves they must alwayes be The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure a Foundation quoad formam or Authoritatem attestantis according to the form or Authority of the persons attesting or witnessing that it is a Divine Revelation I deny it For such a Testimony or Authentical Declaration makes it both necessary to Salvation in which sense onely Fundamental is to be taken in this present Dispute as I have proved and also reductively or consequently belonging to the Foundation of Religion according to the Authority of Christ testified to reveal it which will be dissolved by the disbelief of it as is already shewed When he sayes that every Fundamental point must be known to all I distinguish in the same manner Every Fundamental point according to the material object must be known to all I grant it every Fundamental point that is every point necessary to Salvation to be believed when it is sufficiently propounded according to the attestation made by the Church of it must be known to all I deny it and this distinction solves all his other difficulties propounded in this page 10. Scotus cited by his Lordship Num. 6. pag. 30. delivers nothing in behalf of his party but affirms the same thing which we have already asserted namely that St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and other learned Greeks differed not from the Latins viz. St. Hierome Augustin St. Ambrose c. but onely in manner of speech because otherwise either the Greeks or the Latins had been Heretiques Yet hence it follows not that Scotus thought they could be Heretiques unless they denied or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God But it onely followes that if they knew this as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it they might well be esteemed Heretiques before any special Declaration of the Church although it be more clear that he is an Heretique who denies to believe that Doctrine after he confesses that it is defined by the Church Wherefore Scotus doth well adde that however it was before yet ex quo c. from the time that the Catholique Church declared it it is to be held of Faith Wherefore we deny not but that a learned man who oppugnes the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church may be accounted an Heretique before he be AS SUCH condemned by a General Council But we say that there are many things which in themsolves are matters of Faith yet so obscure in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons that before the Decree of the Church we are not Heretiques though we should either doubt of them or deny them because as yet there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other Whence it appears likewise that Scotus is much wronged by his Lordship For first he would perswade his Reader that this Authour supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost whereas Scotus because neither the one nor the other of them can be esteemed Heretiques declares that there was no real difference in this point between them which the Bishop very handsomely leaves out Verisimile igitur est sayes Scotus quod non subest dictis verbis contrariis contrariorum Sanctorum Sententia Discors It is therefore likely that there is no disagreeing opinion contained in the contrary words of those contrary Saints and then proves by a very probable Argument that it is so Secondly as he left out the said words in the midst of the sentence so to induce his Reader to think that Scotus as he would have him understood in the matter of belief should say that what was not of the substance of Faith before was made to be of the substance of the Faith by the Churches Definition and thereby inferres a contradiction in this Authours assertions he adds words and fathers them upon Scotus in another part of the sentence saying first that Scotus sayes howsoever it was before referring his words to the thing controverted that is to say in his position whether the point in question were of the substance of Faith or Fundamental before the Churches Definition or no whereas Scotus speaks not of the Thing but of the Persons viz. the Greek and Latin Fathers as appears by his words quicquid sit de eis whatsoever may be said of them Now I think he will have much ado to finde any Dictionary or Grammer wherien eis signifies it This done he makes Scotus say by adding to his Text thus yet ex quo from the time that the Catholique Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith Now Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes onely thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quòd Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Thus he windes his Authours through as many Meanders as he finds subservient to his own turn Now to clear the difficulty the former distinction is here also to be used that That which was not Fundamental in it self before becomes not Fundamental in the matter or thing attested but onely by reason of the attestation of the Church obliging to the acceptation of it and to be embraced as Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as a Divine Truth and therefore Scotus doth not say that ex quo after it was declared by the Church it becomes to be of the substance of Faith which it was not before but that it is necessarily to be held or believed which necessity was not before By this Doctrine 't is manifest that there is no contradiction in Scotus his Discourse which his Lordship endeavours to put upon him Now
as for that expression of Scotus Declaravit the Church hath declared c. out of which the Bishop would infer that Scotus makes for his party Because every thing which belongs to the exposition or Declaration of another INTUS EST is not another contrary thing but is contained within the Bewels or Nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erroneous because in stead of Dealaring it it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Council either that which she declares was INTV'S or EXTRA viz. In the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were EXTRA without the nature of the Thing Declared then the Declaration of the Thing is false and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith If it were INTVS within the compass and nature of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is Declared For that which is INTVS cannot be larger and deeper then that in which it is If it were it could not be INTVS Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church Declares Thus far his Lordship I answer therefore to this Argument That his expression is learnedly solid and good and that the Declaration of the Church gives not the thing Declared this extrà viz. that is altered from intùs or its internal being which it had before it was declared Wherefore in this sense Those which were not intùs of themselves prime Articles of our Faith before the Declaration change not their nature nor do they become prime Articles by their Declaration and in this manner even afterwards they have no extraneous mutation to become Fundamental But this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute that is such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration as not being so clearly proposed to us as that we were bound to believe them Neither does this take away any thing from their intùs or that being which they had of themselves but onely gives a certainty of their being so and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos as well as quoad se and internally And it is no evasion but a solid distinction That the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self but quoad nos in its respect to us For though he sayes true in this sense that no respect to us can vary the Foundation quoad rem attestatam that is make those to be prime Articles which are not such in themselves yet it can binde us not onely to peace and external obedience as he would have it but also oblige us not so much as internally to doubt or deny any Articles after they are declared by the Church to be of Faith which is to be Fundamental in the sense we now Dispute that is necessary to Salvation to be believed Neither can the Bishop inferre that if the Church can make any thing to be in this sense Fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take away something from the Foundation and make it to be declared not to be Fundamental This I say he cannot inferre because to do this were to define a Thing not to be of Faith which was before defined to be of Faith which were to make the Church subject to errour For as the Church cannot Define any thing to be of Faith which she had Defined before not to be of Faith so can she not Define any thing not to be of Faith which she had defined before to be of Faith But yet she can define something to be of Faith which she had not Defined before to be so because she never before had defined any thing about it For in this Third case which is ours there is no contradicting of her self as in the Two former Wherefore Vincentius Lirinensis sayes very well as the Relator cites him pag. 32. The power of adding any thing contrary or detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden Now to all this discourse A. C. said nothing because perchance it was not in that Disputation urged against him But I having found it in his Lordships Book have said something and that which I hope will abundantly satisfie any judicious Reader It remains now that we return to Mr. Fisher who as his Lordship sayes endeavoured to prove the Doctrine we have delivered out of St. Augustin who speaks thus Fundata res est In aliis questionibus non diligentèr digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis ferendus est Disputator errans ibi ferendus error non tamen progredi debet ut etiam Fundamentum ipsum Eclesiae quatere moliatur In english thus This is a thing founded An erring Disputant is to be born with in other questions not diligently digested nor yet made firm by full Authority of the Church There errour is to be born with But it ought not to proceed so far that it should labour to shake the very Foundation of the Church By these words of St. Augustin it appears that though a man may be admitted to dispute freely in other things yet he is not to be born with when he goes so far as to question Doctrine digested and confirmed by the full Authority of the Church for this is to shake the foundation Now all things that are defined by the Church are both digested and confirmed by the Churches full Authority Therefore to dispute against such points is to shake the very foundation of the Church and by consequence all such things are Fundamental according to St. Augustin Let us now consider what his Lordship brings to weaken this Argument First he sayes this Doctor St. Augustine speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not of a Definition of the Church But here the Relatour commits the same offence against St. Augustin for which he blamed Mr. Fisher that is he wrongs both the Saint and the Place For I appeal to any indifferent judge whether St. Augustin speaks any thing here of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture and not rather against those who impugne the Doctrine of the Church whether it be expresly in Scripture or not His words are these in the same Sermon Detrahunt nobis ferimus Canoni Detrahunt veritati non detrahant Ecclesiae Sanctae pro remissione peccati originalis parvulorum quotidiè labor anti non contradicant They detract from us sayes he we suffer it They detract from the Canon too let them not detract from the Truth Let them not contradict Holy Church daily labouring for the remission of the original sinne of little Children Where you see that he will endure any thing spoken against his Person or Authority but
nothing against the Truth practised in the Church The Bishop goes on and endeavours to shew that St. Augustin speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture because immediately before he sayes There was a question moved to St. Cyprian whether Baptisme was tyed to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no question was moved that question that was made was answered And again That St. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking But all this proves nothing against us but for us because St. Cyprian might answer the question that was made by that which was granted by all and questioned by none although the thing granted and not questioned were the Doctrine of the Church For this Doctrine of the Church or Foundation as the Bishop calls it might be given in answer to confirm a Stone that was shaking that is some particular matter in question Although whatsoever is taught by the Church may be granted without contradicting Catholique Principles to be some way or other infolded or contained in Scripture Wherefore all the Definitions of the Church may be said to be Foundations of Doctrine in Scripture although many times they be so involved there that without the Definition of the Church we could not be bound expresly to believe them nay without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture it self as St. Augustin tells us in the words formerly cited Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas So that it cannot be doubted but that St. Augustins judgement was that all our Faith depended upon the Authority of the Church and therefore that he who opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work and Foundation of all Divine and Supernatural Faith Now whether the Bishop or Mr. Fisher hath wronged the Text of St. Augustin we shall presently see For first the Bishop sayes that St. Augustin speaks of a doctrine founded in Scripture not a Church-Definition How untrue this is viz. that St. Augustin speaks not of the Churches Definition let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited where speaking of Christs profiting of Children Baptized he useth these words Hoc habet Authoritas Matris Ecclesiae Hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon contra hoc robur contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur This saith he hath the Authority of our Mother the Church this hath the well founded Canon or Rule of Truth against this invincible Rampart whoever runneth himself is sure to be broken in pieces And again speaking of St. Cyprian he tells us that he will shew quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptisme of Infants or rather what he demonstrated the Church had alwayes taught concerning it and many such like places are in this very Sermon It is therefore manifest that St. Augustin here speaks of the Churches Definition nay and that so fully that he acknowledges in another place that the Baptisme of Infants was not to be believed but because it is an Apostolical Tradition His words are these Tom. 3. De Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 13. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaquam spernenda est neque ullo modo 〈◊〉 deputanda NEC O M NINO CREDENDA nisi Apostolica esset Traditio The custom of our Mother the Church to Baptize Infants is by no means to be despised or counted in any sort superfluous nor yet at all to be believed if it were not a Tradition of the Apostles Though therefore St. Cyprian in those few lines which St. Augustin referres to doth not expresly mention the Definition of the Church as the Bishop objects yet a man would think St. Augustins Authority should be sufficient to assure us that in those very words St. Cyprian shews what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church in the same manner as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 't is true to say he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture though himself doth not expresly say at the propounding of it it is in Scripture Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point which he sayes was not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition which is in effect to say that it cannot be proved by sole Scripture how can he be understood to say that Scripture is the Foundation of the Church But that he may one way or other draw St. Augustin to speak in appearance for him he gives a most false Translation of his words For he translates these words of St. Augustin ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur thus He shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded all in a different letter Whereas in the Latin Text of St. Augustin there is nothing that answers to any of those words which the Bishop thrusts into his English upon which or whole Church or is grounded so that all this latter part is meerly an Addition of his own and no part of St. Augustins sentence But such fraudulent dealing was necessary to give a gloss to his interpretation For he would make St. Augustin speak of a foundation different from the Churches Authority no wit the Scriptures whereupon sayes he the Authority of the Church is grounded which is farre from St. Augustins meaning For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea the very foundation of the Church he means nothing else but the Church it self or her Authority which is the foundation of Christianity as when St. Paul sayes superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum c. being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets he means nothing else but that we are built upon the Apostles and Prophets as upon a foundation or as if one should say of a destroyer of the Fundamental Laws of a Nation Fundamentum ipsum begum quatere molitur he endeavours to shake the very foundation of our Laws or of one that rejected the Authority of Scripture fundamentum ipsum Scripturarum quatere molitur he labours to shake the very Foundation of holy Scripture no man would understand him to mean any other Foundation then what the Laws and the Scriptures themselves are Now that nothing but this can be the meaning of St. Augustin is evident For in this very sentence he allows of Disputes held in such things as are not yet establish't by the full Authority of the Church nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis Wherefore all consequence and coherence of discourse requires that when he disallows of those disputes which go so far as to shake the foundation of the Church he must mean those
disputes which properly and directly question matters fully establish't by the Authority of the Church His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him recurrs to a second much weaker then the first For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spake he denyes it to follow thence that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith But against this I thus argue out of St. Augustin All those points the disbelief whereof shakes the Foundation are Fundamental in Faith But all the points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is defined by the Church are such as the disbelief of them shakes the foundation Ergo all points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is Defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith If he distinguish the Major that they shake some foundation of our Religion but not every foundation I disprove him thus Whoever shakes the foundation St. Augustin speaks of which is the Church shakes consequentially every foundation of our Religion This I have above proved because nothing can be infallibly believed when the Churches foundation is shaken But the denial of points defined by the Church shakes the Foundation St. Augustin speaks of that is the Church as the Bishop now supposes foundation to be taken Ergo the disbelief of points defined by the Church shakes every foundation of Religion His proving that some things are founded which are not Fundamental in Faith is very true for St. Pauls Steeple is well founded yet is no Fundamental point in Faith but as little to the present purpose as can be for who ever asfirmed that all things founded even upon the Authority of the Church are Fundamental in Faith and as little concludes that which follows about Church Authority For I have already proved that the Authority of the Catholique Church in defining matters of Faith whereof onely we now treat as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is either Divine in it felf to wit as informed with that Assistance or so necessary for the giving infallible assent to Divine Revelation that no man rejecting it can give an infallible assent to any point of Christian Faith For seeing upon that Authority only we are infallibly certified that the Articles of our Faith are revealed from God if in any thing we oppugne the firmness of that Authority we cannot believe infallibly that any one of them is revealed from God Though therefore it were granted that Church-Definitive Authority were not simply Divine yet is it so necessary to salvation that if it be rejected it destroyes salvation which is to be Fundamental in our present debate CHAP. 3. A Continuation of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. All Definitions of the Catholique Church concerning Doctrine Infallible and by many of the learned held Divine 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several wayes 3. NO MANS opinion confuted by his Lordship Bellarmin miscited 4. The Pope alwayes included in the Church and Councils 5. A. C's words cited by halves 6. How the Churches Definition is said to be her Foundation 7. A. C. corrupted the second time 8. Vincentius Lirinensis falsified thrice at least 9. Stapleton and Bellarmin good Friends notwithstanding the Bishops endeavour to make them jarre IN the first place we grant what is here set down viz. that Things may be founded upon humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith for we say nothing that hath any shadow of contradicting this But our Assertion is that those Things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church because this is according to St. Augustin to shake the Foundation Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority Definition Declaration or Determination use what tearm you please of the Church are Fundamental to wit in respect of the formal object of Gods revelation contained in them as we have often said 1. Now concerning what is added that full church-Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply Divine I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from Gods Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that This or That is revealed by God but onely the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith This Discourse may be granted I say and yet the Church be denyed to be of Divine Authority notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be tearms Convertible And Stapleton whom the Bishop cites in the Margin is farre from denying it as would have better appeared if his words had been fairly cited For I finde him thus to write Si quaeratur quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus quia DEUS PER ILLAM loquitur If it be asked why the Church is so certain a witness of Truth we answer because God speaks by her Thus he Now if God speaks by the Church certainly she is of Divine Authority The same doctrine we finde elsewhere taught by him Deum per Ecclesiam loqui non ex solo Ecclesiae testimonio sed ex ipsis maximè Scripturis Fidei Symbolo ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat That God speaks by the Church is most certain not onely by the Testimony of the Church but by the Scriptures themselves the Greed and the common perswasion of Christians The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church that no erring Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in general Councils layes yet he adds that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring disputant may not be allowed it Must have room that is must be allowed to shake the Foundation which the Church in General Councils layes For that is the necessary sense of his words An Assertion truly worthy of a Protestant Primate But I shall not here insist upon the manifold inconveniences of it I onely tell his Lordship at present that it begs the question and supposes what never was nor ever will be proved viz. that there can be plain Scripture in the true sense thereof or a full Demonstrative Argument brought against the Definition of a lawfull Generall Council We deny that any such case can happen or that the Definitions of a General Council in points of Faith can ever be so ill founded 2. Here therefore if we observe it the
Bishop frames a notable Turn in his Labyrinth winding in the words of St. Augustin quite contrary to St. Augustins meaning to make them speak for himself For having affirmed in his own Text as we heard but now that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling Disputant may not be allowed just over against these words in his own Margent at Litera F. he puts these Latin words of St. Augustin Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor In English thus Which truly if it be shewed so clear that there can be no doubt of it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholique Church Now by citing these words and no more but leaving out those immediately precedent he leaves it also doubtful to what the word quae which in St. Augustins Text is to be referred but yet by putting plain Scripture c. in his own Text right over against it he supposed doubtless his Reader would not judge that Quae could be referred to any thing else save Scripture and that which follows it in his Text and consequently would conclude that St. Augustin and he were of the same opinion viz. that plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument is to be preferred before all the Definitions of the Church Whereas St. Augustin in the place cited hath nothing at all either of plain Scripture or evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manichaeans he writes th us Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat VERITATIS POLLICITATIO and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit c. But with you saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretiques who have nothing at all of those Things which may invite and hold me onely a promise of Truth makes a noise WHICH Truth if it be Demonstrated to be so clear as it cannot be called in doubt is to be preserred c. where it is plain Quae which is relative onely to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else Nay it is Relative onely to that Truth in this place which the Manichees bragg'd of and promised which was so far from being plain Scripture c. that it was no other then what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus intituled Fundamentum which St. Augustin at that present confuted as appears by the following words Neither indeed could St. Augustin be understood to speak of plain Scripture in this place as though that were to be preferred before the Definition of the Catholique Church or a General Council and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholique Church or of General Councils to be contrary to plain Scripture understanding by plain Scripture Scripture truly sensed and interpreted for he Disputes ex professo against that supposition or perswasion and proves that no clear place of Scripture can be produc'd against the common received Doctrine of the Church from this grand inconvenience necessarily following upon it viz. That if such a Thing could happen that the Doctrine of the Catholique Church could be contrary to Scripture or the Gospel he should not be able to believe rationally and infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because he receives them onely upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the Plain Scripture which is supposed to be brought against her Though therefore St. Augustin had said in express terms as 't is manifest he doth not that clear Scripture is to be preferred before all things which he had named before yet he is so far from supposing as the Bishop here supposes that evident Scripture can be contrary to the Churches received Doctrines that he professedly teaches and proves the contrary and uses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. onely ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo c. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed Saint Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from Heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel yet so he speaks And the same may be said in answer to the evident Reason or full Demonstrative Argument which the Bishop talks of for neither can that truly and properly speaking be any more brought against the Churches Authority and Doctrine then plain Scripture The Relatours supposition then has no more ground in St. Augustin then if one should prove that an Angel from Heaven can preach against the doctrine of the Apostles because St. Paul sayes Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed Now if the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugne it so long at least as he is so farre from seeing his errour that he is fully perswaded he erres not and that the Church erres in Defining against him as those Heretiques were perswaded against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place His second winding is that he labours to prove from the fore-cited words of St. Augustin that plain Scripture is to be preferred before the Definitions of the Church and may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Now St. Augustin speaks as little of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain in this sentence as he doth of Scripture For by those words Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor there is not once named the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental or any comparison or contrariety mentioned betwixt them For the question was not whether St. Augustin might reject some of the Churches Definitions which by plain Scripture he found to be erroneous in matters of small moment and yet remain still a member of the Church submitting to her in all Fundamental points but the question was this whether St. Augustin were to forsake the Catholique Church and become a profest enemy of her as he once had been in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine if plain and undenyable Truth should be brought against the Church and for Manichaeus So that the Truth mentioned by him in this place was to have been so Fundamental that it had been able utterly to overthrow the Church and establish Manichaeisme if any such Truth could have been undoubtedly demonstrated If therefore this Text could prove any thing it must prove that the whole visible Church can erre Fundamentally and so become no Church which is clearly against his Lordship
pag. 65. But why joyns he a wrangling to an erring Disputer are these think you Synonyma's I esteem his Lordship an erring Disputer yet he had reason to think me uncivil if I should call him a wrangling Disputer If they be not of the same signification why ha's he added in the exposition of St. Augustins words the word wrangling seeing in the sentence here debated there is neither wrangler not any thing like it Oh! I see now it is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Catholique Church when they are ill founded But where findes he any such Disputer in St. Augustins words upon whose Authority he grounds his Position Seeing that most holy and learned Doctor is so far from judging that any one can proceed solidly aud demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholique Church and Occumenicall Councils that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod Universa Ecclesia senti which is held by the whole Church and that they have hearts not onely of stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenicall Council for of that he speaks 3. After this the Bishop makes mention of one who should say That things are Fundamentul in Faith two wayes one in the matter such as are all things in themselves The other in the manner such as are all things which the Church hath defined and declared to be of Faith 'T is not set down who it was that spake thus But whoever he was I am not bound to defend him neither was his speech so proper He might have said some thing like it and have hit the mark viz. That Things are Fundamentall in Faith two wayes one in regard of the material object such as are the prime Articles of our Faith which are expresly to be believed by all The other in regard of the formal object such as are all Things that the Church hath defined to be of Faith because he that denies his assent to any one of these when they are sufficiently proposed does in effect deny his assent to the authority and word of God declared to him by the Church and this being to take away or deny the very formal object of Divine Supernatural Faith by consequence it destroyes the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever Wherefore let any man with the Bishop view as long as he pleases the Morter wherewith this Foundation is laid and if he consider it rightly he will finde it well tempered Our assertion is That all points defined by the Church are Fundamental because according to St. Augustin to dispute against any thing settled by full Authority of the Church and such are all things defined by her is to shake the Foundation Hence the Relator would inferre we intend to maintain that the point there spoken of the remission of original sin in the Baptizing of Infants was defined when St. Augustin wrote this by full sentence of a General Council But I deny that from urging that place of St. Augustin we can be concluded to have any such meaning For by Authority of the Church we mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena Authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima full though not the fullest and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in St. Augustins sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it Wherefore although one grant what Bellarmin sayes That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in an Oecumenical Council but onely by a National yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresie would be justly condemn'd without calling a General Council as one that oppos'd himself against the full Authority of the Church and did shake its foundation But the Bishop sayes Bellarmin was deceived in this business and that the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd in the first Ephesine Council which was Oecumenical I answer first 'c is not credible that Bellarmin who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his concealing the matter had he found it there because it would make nothing against the Catholick Church but rather for it However till the Councils words be brought I desire to be pardoned if I suspend my Assent to what the Bishop sayes Truly I have my self viewed that Council upon this occasion but cannot finde it there I fear therefore his Lordship hath been misinformed But suppose all were there which he pretends yet would it conclude nothing against Bellarmin who onely sayes that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in any General Council and the Bishop to disprove him shewes that some who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresie and Nestorianisme also were condemned in the Ephesine Council But how does this contradict Bellarmin Certain Pelagians were indeed condemned in the Ephesine Council but it was not for Pelagianisme but Nestorianisme that they were condemned Had they been condemned for Pelagianisme his Lordship had hit the mark but now he shoots wide He should have observed that Bellarmin denyed onely the condemnation of the Heresie and not of the persons for holding another Heresie wholly distinct from that of Pelagianisme 4. As for St. Augustins not mentioning the Pope when he speaks in the place before cited of the full Authority of the Church which the Bishop tearms an inexpiable omisson if our Doctrine concerning the Popes Authority were true It is easie to answer there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwayes chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church His Lordships followers might as well quarrel with me because I many times speak of the Authority of the Church without naming the Pope though I do ever both with that great Doctor and all other Catholiques acknowledge and understand the Popes Authority compris'd in that of the Church When my Lord of Canterbury findes in ancient Lawyers and Historians that such and such things were decreed by Act of Parliament without any mention of the King by whose Authority and consent they were decreed would he not think you condemn those Authors also of an inexpiable omission and thence conclude that the King in those dayes had not the prime Authority in Parliament and that whatsoever was said to be decreed by Act of Parliament was not eo ipso understood to be done by Authority of the King 5. We grant what is urged that it is one thing in nature and Religion too to be firme and another to be Fundamental For every thing that is Fundamental is firme but every thing that is firme is not Fundamental Wherefore we distinguisht before in the material
object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firme and close joyn'd to a sure foundation but not Fundamental But here his Lordship misconceives or rather misalledges A. C's Argument For it is not as he frames it All points defined are made firme ergo all points defined are Fundamental but thus All points defined are made firme by the full Authority of the Church ergo all points defined are Fundamental And his reason is because when any thing is made firme by the full Authority of the Church it is so firme that it cannot be denyed without shaking the whole foundation of Religion and consequently is Fundamental 6. But the Bishop proceeds further and makes this Argument Whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in her absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid This Argument will lose all its force by putting the Reader in minde of the Distinction between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals which we admitted in the material object of Faith for if this be reflected on there will be a foundation for the Church without supposing her to be in perfect being before her foundation be laid We have often declared what we understood by Fundamental viz. That to which we cannot refuse our assent by denying or doubting of it when it is proposed to us by the Church as a matter of Faith without damnation and without destroying the formal object of Faith and without making our selves during that deliberate doubting or denying uncapable of believing any thing with Divine and Supernatural Faith For surely whatever is of this nature must needs be Fundamental in Religion So that we admit the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in respect of the material object of Faith but not in respect of the formal that is as we have often said some matters of Faith are more universally necessary to be expresly known and believed by all then others and yet the Authority revealing that is God and declaring them infallibly to be revealed that is the Church is truly Fundamental in both As in the Scripture it self this Text John 1. And God was the word according to the matter it contains viz. the Divinity of our Saviour is a Fundamental point universally to be known and believed expresly to Salvation and that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas according to the matter it contains is no Fundamental point nor of any necessity to Salvation to be universally known and believed expresly yet the formal object revealing both these truths being the Authority of the Holy Ghost is equally Fundamental in both and doubtless if any one to whom it is as clearly propounded to be affirmed in Scripture that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas as that it is affirmed in Scripture that the word was God should yet deny or doubt of the first he could neither be saved so long as he remained in that misbelief nor believe the second with divine infallible Faith as all Christians both Catholiques and Protestants must grant Had this been well considered by his Lordship we should not have been forced to so frequent repetitions of the same Doctrine The Bishop thinks he has got a great advantage by pressing A. C. to this That the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation But what absurdity is it to grant that the Definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the foundation of the Church diffusive who can doubt but the Pastours in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every winde of Doctrine Ephes. 4. are a foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not St. Paul expresly affirm it Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum c. Did not the Bishop just now pag. 34. except the Apostles as having in their Definitions more Authority then the Church had after their times yea even so much as was sufficient to make their Definitions Fundamental and the opposing of them destructive of the Foundation of Religion their Authority being truly Divine which he sayes that of the Church after them was not Now this doctrine of the Bishop supposed I urge his own Argument against himself thus Whatever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church in the time of the Apostles be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition in the Apostles time is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church in their time could lay her own foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation was laid Who sees not here how the Bishop fights against himself with his own weapons and destroyes his own Positions by his own Arguments And whatever may be answered for him will satisfie his Argument in defence of us Now the answer is plain to any one who hath his eyes open for the Prime foundation of the Church are the Doctrines delivered by our Saviour and inspired by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whereby it took the first being of a Church and the Prime foundation to the insuing Church after the Apostles is the most certain Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by our Saviour to his Church By these two Prime foundations the Church is in being and so continues the Definitions of the Church grounded in these are a secondary foundation whereby Ecclesia docens the Church teaching established upon that promised assistance of the Holy Ghost fundat Ecclesiam doctam founds and establishes in every age the Church taught in the true Faith 7. But what shall we say in defence of A. C whom we finde blamed for these words That not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or prime Articles of Faith but all that which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church The answer is these are not the precise words of A. C. and therefore no wonder if the Bishop easily confute him whom he either mistakes or makes to speak as himself pleases A. C's words are these By the word FUMDAMENTAL is understood not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or Prime Principles which do not depend upon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as the Bishop and Dr. White say they are FUNDAMENTAL points but
all which do so pertain to Supernatural Divine Infallible Christian Faith by which Faith Christ the onely PRIME FOUNDATION of the Church doth dwell in our hearts and which Faith is so to the Church the Substance Basis and Foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for as that being thus confirmed or made firm by the Authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especicially obstinately denyed or questioned all the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all Supernatural Divine Christian Faith is shaken Thus he But who sees not that there is a main difference betwixt these words of A. C. and those which he is made to speak by the Bishop for he joyns the words as that to these thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts whereas in A. C's discourse they are joyned to these if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately questioned c. that of Faith whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts c. being onely a Parenthesis added for greater explication and not belonging to the substance of his discourse as the Relatour no less corruptly then cunningly makes it belong which is an other Dedalian Turn in this his Labyrinth Now let us hear the Accusation First sayes the Bishop A C. is mistaken because all that pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by Fundamental in the Faith to all men But A. C. does not say it is he speaks onely of those to whom such points are propos'd and who deny or question them when so propos'd Although in some sense they may be said Fundamental to all because all are to believe them implicitely and explicitely all such as have sufficient reason to know they are declared by the Church Secondly A. C. is accus'd for confounding the Object with the Act of Faith But if his words be rightly penetrated there will appear no confusion For A. C. having first named Prime Principles and then going on with others which pertained to Supernatural Infallible Divine Christian Faith it is apparent he understood by those points which so appertain not the Act of Faith it self but the Object Wherefore A. C. doth here no more but explicate the nature of the Object by the Act and that onely upon the By and in a Parenthesis as appears by his words in which there is no Confusion but Clarity for as the Act of Faith is the Foundation of Hope Charity and all other Supernatural Acts so is the Object on which Faith is grounded the Foundation of Faith and in such a manner as whoever denyes or questions one point of Faith doth in effect question all Now I wonder the Bishop should urge as an Argument the Definition of the Council of Trent That Orders Collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent of the people or any secular power and yet saith we can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition to be Fundamental in the Faith I wonder I say he should urge this when all Catholique Authors who maintain that whatsoever is defined by the Church is Fundamental do in effect hold that this Decree is Fundamental For they all affirm that this is a lawful General Council confirmed by the Pope and therefore of the same Authority to command our Belief that any other ever was Wherefore this Argument of the Bishop is not Argumentum ad hominem as he pretends but petitio principii Now if he mean that this Decree of the Council is no Fundamental point of Faith according to the precise material Object it is true but nothing against us who have often granted it the question being onely about Fundamental points in the formal Object of Faith as we perpetually inculeate A. C. further urgeth That if any one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may do it against another and another and so against all since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakened in one cannot be firme in any other Thus far A. C. And here the Bishop will needs have A. C. to have horrowed this doctrine out of Vincentius Lirinensis and that he might have acknowledged it I hope it is no errour against Faith if he did borrow it and not acknowledge it although two wits may sometimes hit on the same thing or at least come near it which is all he here allows to A. C. without taking it one from another However the Doctrine both of A. C. and Vincentius Lirinensis is true For the same reason that permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maximes of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because as I said it is not the greatness or smallness of the matter that moves us to give firme Assent in points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church Wherefore all points of Faith whatsoever may be said to be deposited with the Church For all that the Church doth even in things of least seeming concernment is but ut haec 〈◊〉 quae anteà that the same things may be believed which were before delivered but now with more light and clearness that is to say now explicitely before implicitely So that in either sense if we give way to every cavilling disputant to deny or quarrel them the whole foundation of Faith is shaken Moreover the Church being Infallible 't were meerly vain to examine her Decrees which the Relatour requires to be done to see if she have not added Novitia veteribus new Doctrines to the old For the Holy Ghost as hereafter shall be proved when we speak of this point having promised so to direct her as she cannot erre will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith which was not before either expressed or infolded and implyed in the word of God 8. But why does the Relator print Catholici dogmatis in great Letters in this sentence of Lirinensis is there any such great mystery in these words yes surely For sayes he Vincentius speaks there De Catholico Dogmate of Catholique Maximes Well But though Dogma signified a Maxime yet surely it cannot signifie Maximes unless he will here have the singular number signifie the plural as before he made the plural signifie the singular eis it But it was for his Lordships purpose to translate it in the plural number and that was sufficient for had he put it in the singular thus the Catholique Maxime that is as he expounds it the properly Fundamental and prime Truth deposited in the Church there would have seem'd to be but one Fundamental point which would have marr'd his whole designe Now because he holds there are many Fundamental points of Faith Catholicum Dogma in his Grammar could signifie nothing less then Catholique Maximes that is properly
Prime and Fundamental Points But in what Author learn't he that Dogma fignifies only Maximes were it in the plural number Dogma according to our common English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received opinion whether in prime or less principal matters But as the Grammatical so the Ecclesiastical signification of this word extends it self to all things establisht in the Church as matters of Faith whether in Fundamentals or Superstructures Thus Scotus calls Transubstantiation Dogma Fidei and I would gladly know one Authour who ever took the word Dogma for onely Fundamental points And as for Vincentius Lirinensis first he declares in other places that he means by it such Things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction cap. 23. Vocum inquit id est DOGMATUM rerum sententiarum novitates And cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet DOGMATE eodem sensu eademque sententia The like he hath cap. 24. where he affirms that the Pelagians erred in dogmate Fidei who notwithstanding erred not in a Prime Maxime but in a Superstructure And for this place cited by the Bishop 't is evident that by Catholicum dogma he must understand the whole Complex of all the points of Catholique Faith whether Fundamental in their matter or not whereof if an Heretick deny any one part whatsoever sayes this Authour he may by the same rule deny all the rest Nay 't is evident that Lirinensis could not understand onely such points as are Fundamental in respect of their matter For seeing this Catholicum dogma contains the whole Systeme of the Catholique Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures even according to Protestants it must necessarily contain both and Vincentius makes it clear in the instances he gives that he also understood points not Fundamental in the Protestant sense For in the Systeme of Catholique points which he there enumerates is contain'd the observation of Easter decreed by Pope Victor and afterwards defined in the Council of Nice and the not-Rebaptizing of those who had been Baptiz'd by Heretiques maintained by Pope Stephen against St. Cyprian and Firmilian and likewise afterwards confirmed in the same Council Now what I say of Catholicum Dogma in the first sentence cited out of Lirinensis I say the same of Depositorum Dogmatum custos in the second For what rational man can imagine that no other Christian verities or revealed Doctrines were deposited by our Saviour and the Holy Ghost with the Apostles and by them with the Church save onely the Articles of the Creed wherein are expresly contained all points of Faith that are Fundamental in respect of their matter as the Bishop presently affirms was not the whole Canon of Holy Scripture with every chapter verse and sentence contained in it the matter and form of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church the Baptisme of Infants the not-Rebaptizing of Heretiques the perpetual Virginity of the ever Blessed Mother of God and many other such like points Deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles whereof no one is expresly contain'd in the Creed nor esteemed Fundamental by Protestants Did not think you the Church perform the Office of a faithful Keeper of all these as well as of the Articles of our Creed and were not those who pertinaciously erred in these particulars esteemed throughout all Christendome as Heretiques above 1200. years ago Here then in his wresting and winding Catholico Dogmate he gives us no less then a Turn and half in his Canterburian Labyrinth The Church then ever did and ever will so keep those sacred Depositums be they or be they not Prime and Fundamental in their matter as that hoc idem quod antea what she receives she delivers to all succeeding ages the very same in Substance it ever was only unfolding what was before wrapp'd up when any thing comes to be call'd in question by Novellists whom she judges to impugne either directly or indirectly and covertly the Faith that Catholicum Dogma which she hath received Upon which occasions she sometimes declares certain Truths as necessary to be expresly believ'd by all to whom that Declaration is sufficiently propounded and commands certain errours to be expresly rejected both which were before believ'd or rejected onely implicitely to wit by the Belief of those Known and Receiv'd Divine Truths in which these other were contain'd tanquam in radice or in semine as Vincentius speaks For the Church is so tenderly careful of every Iota and Tittle of these Sacred Doctrines in whatever matter they consist great or small which were delivered to her by the Divine Authority of Christ and his Apostles that she uses all possible industries not onely to keep unblemished what was clearly and plainly expressed in the Doctrine delivered to her but whatever else she findes necessary for conserving them in their Primitive integrity and purity Thus hath she us'd all possible diligence to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire not onely in the prime Articles of Faith but in every the least truth delivered in them Thus from what she had received concerning Christs being both God and Man yet but one Christ she declared against Nestorius that he had but one person against Eutyches that he consisted of two distinct Natures the Divine and the Humane and against the Monothelites that he had Two Wills all which particulars though they were not so fully express'd and reflected on before those Heresies arose yet were they virtually and implicitely included in the Doctrine first received and afterwards became necessary to be expresly believed by the Declaration of General Councils I take no notice of the Relatours Translating Disputator errans 〈◊〉 Disputer and Dogmata Deposita the principles of Faith Such errata as these as they may seem perhaps too minute so are they too frequent to be reflected on But when he would have either the Church her self or some appointed by her to examine her Decrees to wit in matters of Faith for of those onely is the controversie lest for want of it she be chang'd in Lupanar errorum a thing so foul he dares not English it though I wonder not much that 't is said by him yet can I not but wonder that he ventures to father it on Lirinensis citing a lame sentence of his in the Margin for proof of it whereas this Authour in that very place is so far from entertaining the least thought or letting fall the least word importing that the Church should adde Novitia veteribus Novelties to Ancient truths and consequently alter and corrupt her own Doctrine that as if he had foreseen such a perversion of his meaning at the end of the chapter cited he seems purposely to explicate his own meaning and to point out the persons guilty of such practices in these words Sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus Divina pietas sisque hoc potius
English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christs Descending into Hell But the Bishop will needs have the English Church resolved in this point I will not much trouble my self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours But Mr. Fisher grounded his speech upon those words of Mr. Rogers viz. In the interpretation of this Article there is not that consent that were to be wished Thus he Whereupon the Relatour also confeffeth That some have been too busie in Crucifying this Article As for Catholiques upon whom the Bishop would lay the same charge they all believe it as it lyes in the Creed and is proposed by the Church But it being not defined by the Church whether we have this Article from Tradition onely or also from Scripture I hope Divines may be permitted to hold different opinions about it without prejudice to the Unity or Integrity of Faith Durand may also be suffered to teach though somewhat contrary to the common opinion that the Soul of Christ in the time of his death did not go down into Hell really but virtually and by effects onely The like may be said of that other question whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in its Essence into the Lower Pit and place of the Damned or really onely into that place or Region of Hell which is called Limbus Patrum but Virtually from thence into the Lower Hell Our Adversaries may know that all Catholique Divines agree Durand excepted that Christ our Saviour in his Blessed Soul did really descend into Hell our School Disputes and Differences being into what part of Hell he really descended as likewise touching the manner of exhibiting his Divine Presence amongst the Dead and of the measure of its effects to wit of Consolation and Deliverance towards the Good or of Terrour Confusion and Punishment towards the Bad. And though they should differ in their opinions more then they do in this or any other question concerning Religion yet they all submitting their judgements as they do to the Censure and Determination of the Church when ever she thinks fit to interpose her Authority and define the matter all these seeming Tempests of Controversie amongst us will end in a quiet calme I could wish his Lordship had been in his time and that his Followers would now be of the same Temper for then all Disputes and Differences in matters of Faith would cease yet School-Divinity remain entire Wherefore to what the Bishop asserts That the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without further Dispute and in that sense which the Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in I answer all Catholiques profess to do the same so that the question can onely be touching the sense of the words as they lye in the Creed and the sense of the Primitive Church concerning them Now as for Stapletons affirming That the Scripture is silent in the point of Christs descending into Hell and in mentioning that there is a Catholique and Apostolique Church suppose we should grant that Christs Descent into Hell were not exprest in Scripture yet his Lordships party will not deny it to be sufficient that it is in the Creed And for the other point Stapleton was not so ignorant as to think there was no mention of the Church of Christ in Scripture for every ordinary Scholar knows that place of Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Nor that she was to be even by the testimony of Scripture both Catholique and Apostolical for how often and invincibly doth this most worthy Doctor prove both these points from Scripture in several parts of his works wherefore in the place alledged 't is evident his meaning was onely to deny that the words Catholique and Apostolique were expresly in Scripture though they be there in sense and effect as I presume our Opponents themselves will not be so hardy as to deny So that his Lordships facetious discourse here upon Stapleton and some Texts of Scripture may rather be taken for a jeast to please his own humour then for an Argument against us This Incidental quarrel with Stapleton being over the Bishop fiercely again falls to expostulate both with Mr. Fisher and A. C. for citing Mr. Rogers Authority for the Doctrine of the Church of England But with how little reason it appears by the very Title of Mr. Rogers's Book which as the Bishop himself acknowledges runs thus The Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England and for this gives him a jerk that possibly he might think a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title Truly I conceive it of small importance to bestow much time upon this Subject either in relation to the Bishops Disagreement with Master Rogers or the pretended variance between Vega and Soto touching mens certain assurance of Justification or Salvation which jarre is denyed by Bellarmin who cites both of them for the Common opinion that a man cannot be certain of his Justification or Salvation by certainty of Faith without an especial Revelation 5. However I cannot but observe that though Catharinus disagrees from Bellarmin and the Common opinion concerning the foresaid point as the Bishop objects yet he dissents not formally from the Decree and Doctrine of the Church whose sense he professeth to follow submitting himself in that and all other his opinions to her Censure So that though I grant him to have fallen into an errour yet he is not accusable of Heresie as not being obstinate in his mistake 6. The Bishop is our good friend in saying that all Protestants he might have added all other profest enemies of the Catholique Church do agree with the Church of England in the main exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and onely one by unity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions Now that our Authours disagree not in Faith we have shewed a little before The Relatour doth much perplex himself about the Catholique Churches pronouncing Anathema But this is not done so easily as he imagined For this Anathema falls onely upon such as obstinately oppose the Catholique Church And if in such cases it should not be pronounced we should be so far from being in peace and quietness that all would be brought to confusion as appears by the concord we finde in our own Church and those sad Dissentions and Disorders most apparent in theirs Wherefore I believe that reason will rather ascribe the troubles of Christendome to the freedom which others take and give in matters of Faith by permitting every one to believe what he
but in them who answer it ill And truly the question hath done this good that it hath made the weakness of their cause appear who have deserted the Catholique Church Wherefore we will give our Adversary leave to say that we draw him to it rather then omit so necessary a Disputation The Bishop therefore proposeth diverse wayes of proving Scripture to be the word of God and in the first place falls to attaque our way who prove it by the Tradition and Authority of the Church For he urgeth that it may be further asked why he should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered that we believe it because the Church is Infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost he proceeds and demands how that may appear where he thinks we are brought to those straits that we must either say we believe it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit we object to others or else must attempt to prove it by Scripture which were a vicious Circle and yet he affirms we all do so But with his Lordships favour he conceives amiss and I desire his Followers to give us leave hereafter to answer for our selves and that they would not do it for us 1. Wherefore to this last demand in which onely there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost we answer that we prove it first in general not by the Scripture but by the Motives of credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner as the Infallibility of Moyses and other Prophets of Christ and his Apostles was proved which was by the Miracles they wrought and by other Signes of an Infallible Spirit Direction and Guidance from God which appeared in them Whence it is clear that we incurre no Circle 'T is true after we have prov'd the Churches Infallibility by these Signs and Motives namely by Sanctity of Life Miracles Efficacy Purity and Excellency of Doctrine Fulfilling of Prophesies Succession of lawfully-sent Pastours Unity Antiquity and the very Name of Catholique c. I say after we have prov'd in geneneral her Infallibility by these and the like Motives then having received the Scripture by this Infallible Authority proved as we see another way and independently of Scripture we may and Authours commonly do without any shadow of a vicious circle confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture-proofs are onely secondary and ex suppositione not Prime and absolute and most usually contain a proof ad hominem or ex principles concessis against Sectaries who denying the Infallibility of the Church and questioning many times or cavilling about our Motives of Credibility yet admitting the Divine Authority of Scripture are more easily convinced by clear Texts of Scripture then by the other proofs And in this we do no otherwise then St. Augustin hath done before us writing against Heretiques 2. But because we have often promised to prove the Infallibility of the Church it will be necessary to insist some what longer upon this point and declare the matter at large We say then that the Church is proved in general to be Infallible the same way that Moyses with other Prophets Christ and his Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible For the Israelites seeing Moyses to be a person very Devout Milde Charitable Chaste and endowed with the gift of working Miracles were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet and to believe him Infallible by acknowledging as true and certain whatever he proposed to them from God They believed our Lord and Moyses saith the Scripture Moreover for the Testimony of Moyses the Israelites believed the Scripture and other things more clearly and in particular concerning Moyses himself that in the House of God he was most faithful and that God spake to him mouth to mouth and the like The same we may say of Christ our Saviour For there appear'd in him so great Sanctity of life such Grace of speech and Glory of Miracles that all to whom he preached were bound to acknowledge him for the great Prophet and Messias as St. Andrew with the rest of Christs Disciples did when they said we have found the Messias Thus they were bound at first to receive him as Infallible and afterwards to believe whatsoever he taught them as that he was true God and Man that he was to redeem the world with his blood upon the Cross c. Neither can any man justly here reply that the Disciples and first Christians were obliged thus to receive our Blessed Saviour for the Scripture which gives Testimony of him Thus I say no man can justly reply For the Gentiles receiv'd not that Scripture and yet they were bound to acknowledge Christ and believe him Infallible And though some learned Jews might perhaps gather this out of Scripture yet even without the Scripture the works of Christ were of themselves abundantly sufficient to prove who he was both to the learned and unlearned Wherefore our Saviour alwayes referred them to his works as giving abundant Testimony of him I have said he greater Testimony then John for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect them the very works which I do give Testimony of me that the Father sent me The like we finde him saying elsewhere The works that I do in the Name of my Father give Testimony of me And if you will not believe me believe my works By these places it appears that the works of Christ without Scripture proved him to be the true Messias and Infallible This Doctrine is also verified in the Apostles who receiv'd Commission from Christ to preach every where and TO CONFIRME THEIR WORDS with Signs that followed by which signs all their Hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them and to acknowledge their words for Infallible Oracles of Truth as the Apostles themselves testified Acts 5. 28. Where we finde that a Controversie arising in those Primitive times among the Christians the Apostles and Ancients assembled together and having first concluded by themselves what was to be held for Truth in the matters controverted imposed their Decree as Infallible Doctrine upon all others in these words It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and Us c. As therefore Moyses our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles were prov'd Infallible by their works signs and miracles without Scripture so is the Church without help of the same sufficiently prov'd to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which being the effects and properties of the Church do Declare 〈◊〉 and Demonstrate her immediately and the Scriptures onely as they are found in her and acknowledged by her Wherefore though Heretiques have the Scripture yet being out of the true Church they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility of which see Bellarmin and other Catholique Authours discoursing more at large De notis Ecclesiae 'T is sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholiques
fall not into a Circle as his Lordship here pretends they do For they primarily and absolutely prove the Infallibility of the Church by the Motives of 〈◊〉 and not by Scripture though afterwards and as it were secondarily as we said before they prove it also especially to those who admit Scripture as Protestants do by the Scripture it self which we acknowledge with the Relatour to be a higher proof especially against them then the Churches Tradition Yet we deny that those other proofs from the Motives of Credibility can be in reason questionable as he sayes they are until we come to Scripture Neither do any Catholique Authours disagree in this because they unanimously teach that the Motives of Credibility make our Church EVIDENTLY CREDIBLE and by consequence she is sufficiently proved to be True by them alone Now as concerning that Assertion which the Bishop urges that the principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit then the Conclusion it self and his inference thereupon viz. that the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest being Conclusions and the Principles by which they are concluded being onely Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the Tradition is more Infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony I answer the ground of all this Discourse is the Authority of Aristotle whose words the Bishop thus cites in the Margent 1. Poster c. 2. T. 16. Quocirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia PER ILLA scimus credimus etiam posteriora Wherefore saith he if we know and believe all other things for or by vertue of the First Principles we know and believe them to wit the First Principles themselves much more because by them we know and believe all other things In which words we confess the Philosopher doth very well declare the proceeding of the Understanding or Minde of Man when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence or clearness of its Object but not when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and Free Acts 〈◊〉 or at least principally from the Impulse and Inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxime holds not viz. That the Principles of a Conclusion must be of more Credit then the Conclusion it self Now the Act of Believing is such an Act that is which the Understanding Elicites rather by a Voluntary and Free inclination and Consent of the will then from any Evident Certainty in the Object whereto it assents 3. That this may further appear I distinguish a double proceeding in Probations the one is per principia intrinseca by intrinsecal principles that is such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves The other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the Thing proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the Understanding to Assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such Probations are made And this kinde of proof is called Probatio ab Authoritate an Argument from Authority which Authority is nothing but the veracity knowledge and vertue of him to whom we give assent when we receive such or such an affirmation from him Now as I said above we our selves either hear immediately what he affirms and then we assent immediately and solely for his Authority or we hear it mediately from the report of others who if of unquestionable credit we assent that he did affirm it upon the Authority of the Reporters yet so as we should not give an undoubted assent to the thing it self but for the undenyable Authority of the First Deliverer To apply this doctrine when we believe any thing with Divine Faith it proceeds not from any probation per principia intrinseca from any thing that hath natural connexion dependence or inference of or with the thing believed but is purely propter principia extrinseca for and from extrinsecal principles to wit the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it Now the Prophets and Apostles assented to what God spake immediately unto them And the like is Affirmable in some proportion of their immediate Hearers But succeeding Ages had it viz. Gods Revelation both from Christ and his Apostles onely mediately and immediately from their respective Pastours Now that we may be assured hereof Infallibly we must have some infallible Testimony to ascertain it unto us which can be no other then the Church 4. Neither will it be necessary precisely for this reason to affirm in the Resolution of our Faith That the Churches Declaration in matters of Faith is absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions or that our Faith is Resolved into the voice of the Church as into its formal object but it is enough to say our Faith is Resolved into Gods Revelations whether written or unwritten as its formal object and our Infallible Assurance that the Things we believe as Gods Revelations are revealed from him is Resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations Seeing therefore our Faith in this way of proceeding is not resolved into the Churches Authority as the formal Motive of our Assent but onely as an assured Testimony that such and such Articles as the Church defines to be matters of Faith are truly revealed from God as she assures us they are it is not necessary the Churches Testimony should be a new immediate Revelation from God but onely Supernaturally Infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed If then it be demanded why we believe such Books as are contain'd in the Bible to be the word of God we answer because it is a Divine Unwritten Tradition that they are his word and this Divine Tradition is the formal object whereon our Faith relyes But if it be further demanded how we are certain that it is a Divine Tradition we answer the certainty we have thereof is from the Infallible Testimony of the Church teaching us it is such a Tradition Thus the Articles of our Faith are delivered from God but kept by the Church they spring from God as the Fountain but run down in a full Stream through the Channel and within the Banks of the Church they are sowed by the hand of God but grow up in the field of the Church They are spoken by the mouth of God but we hear them by the voice of the Church assuring us
that God spake them which we could never elevate our hearts to believe with Divine Faith but by the Testimony of Gods Church which gives us a full assurance of his Revelation Thus then the Church being supernaturally Infallible in all her Definitions of Faith will be a sufficient ground to ascertain us of those Holy writings which God by unwritten Tradition revealed to the Church in time of the Apostles to be his written word For if her Definition herein be absolutely infallible then what she defines as reveal'd from God to be his written word is undoubtedly such insomuch that Christians being irrefregably assured thereof by the Churches Infallible declaration believe this Article with Divine Faith because revealed from God who cannot deceive them that Revelation being the onely formal object into which they resolve their Faith and the Churches Assurance the ground to perswade them that it is infallibly a Divine Revelation or Tradition The Churches Definition therefore is like Approximation in the working of natural causes to wit a necessary condition prerequired to their working by their own natural force yet is it self no cause but an application onely of the efficient cause to the subject on which it works seeing nothing can work immediately on what is distant from it Thus Gods Revelations delivered to the Church without writing were and are the onely formal cause of our assent in Divine Faith but because they are as it were distant from us having been delivered that is revealed so many ages past they are approximated or immediately applyed to us by the Infallible Declaration of the present Church which still confirming by her doctrine and practice what was first revealed makes it as firmly believed by us as it was by the Primitive Christians to whom it was first revealed So a Common-wealth by still maintaining practising and approving the Laws enacted in its first Institution makes them as much observ'd and esteem'd by the people in all succeeding Ages for their Primitive Laws as they were by those who liv'd in the time of their first Institution Hence it appears our Faith rests onely upon Gods immediate Revelation as its formal object though the Churches voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that formal object without it By which Discourse the Bishops Argument is solv'd as also his Text out of Aristotle For seeing here is no Scientifical proof per principia intrinseca there can be no necessary and natural Connexion of Principles evidencing the Thing proved as is required in Demonstrative Knowledge the thing it self which is believed remaining still obscure and all the Assurance we have of it depending on the Authority of Him that testifies it unto us Lastly hence are solved the Authorities of Canus cited also by his Lordship who onely affirms what I have here confessed viz. That our Faith is not resolv'd into the Authority of the Church as the formal object of it and that of pag. 65. where he contends that the Church gives not the Truth and Authority to the Scriptures but onely teaches them with Infallible Certainty to be Canonical or the undoubted Word of God c. the very same thing with what I here maintain The Churches Authority then being more known unto us then the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their Prerogative above the Church For being Gods Immediate Revelation they require a greater respect and reverence then the meer Tradition of the Church Whence it is likewise that our Authours do here commonly distinguish Two Sorts of Certainty the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other ex parte subjecti The first proceeds from the Clearness of the Object the other from the Adhesion as Philosophers call it of the Will which makes the Understanding stick so close to the Object that it cannot be separated from it This latter kinde of Certainty hath chiefly place in Faith a thing unknown to Aristotle Whence it is that when we believe we do adhere more firmly to the Articles of Faith then to any Principle whatsoever though evident to natural reason which firme Adhesion of ours is grounded partly on the Greatness and Nobleness of the Object and partly on the importance of the matter which is such that our Salvation depends upon it For that Immediate Revelation namely the Scripture being in it self of so much greater Worth and Dignity then the Churches meer Tradition doth worthily more draw our affection then the other notwithstanding the other be more known to us and the Cause of our admitting his Thus we have shew'n that we hold not the Churches Definition for the formal object of Faith as the Relatour by disputing so much against it would seem to impose on us though our present Faith 't is true relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten word of God which is the Formal Object Wherefore when we say we believe the Catholique Church we profess to believe not onely the Things which she teacheth but the Church her self so teaching as an Infallible witness and the contrary we shall never believe till it be prov'd otherwise then by saying as the Bishop here does it were no hard thing to prove By what hath been said it appears that there is no Devise or Cunning at all as the Relatour would have it thought of us either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our Adversaries party But they must pardon us if we preferre the general Interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extoll it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living Infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other then the Present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applyed to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the Assistance and Direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. The Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church This being the Substance of our Doctrine concerning the Resolution of Faith as we have osten intimated 't is evident the cunning of the Device the Bishop speaks of is none of ours but his own while he falsly chargeth us that we finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman Church whereas in points of Faith we ever resolve them finally into Gods word or Divine Revelation though we must of necessity repair to the Catholick Church to have them Infallibly testified unto us But
the Bishop thought this injury not great enough unless he redoubled it by any additional false Imputation of other two absurdities which he avers to follow evidently from our doctrine To the first viz. That we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholique Church as we do to the whole I answer there follows no such thing from any Doctrine of ours but from his Lordships wilfully-mistaken Notion of the Catholique Church which he most desperately extends to all that bear the name of Christians without exception of either Schismatiques or Heretiques that so he might be sure to include himself within her Pale and make the Reader absurdly believe that the Roman Church taken in her full latitude is but a 〈◊〉 or Parcel of the Catholique Church believed in the Creed This indeed to use his Lordships phrase is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in all things For it is to pretend an Addition of Integral parts to a Body already entire in all its Integrals seeing the Roman Church taken in the sense it ought to be as comprising all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholique Church as is evident in Ecclesiastical History which clearly shews throughout all Ages that none condemn'd of Heresie or Schisme by the Roman Church were ever accounted any part of the Catholique Church And this I would have prov'd at large had his Lordship done any more then barely suppos'd the contrary If any man shall object that the Bishop charges the absurdity upon us in respect of the Roman Church that we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of it as we do to the whole viz. In our General Councils I answer that is so far from being an absurdity that it were absurd to suppose it can be otherwise which the Objecter himself will clearly fee when he considers that the like must needs be granted even in Civil Governments For instance the Parliament of England is but a handful of men compar'd with the whole Nation yet have they greater Authority in order to the making or repealing of Laws then the whole Nation were they met together in a Body Men Women and Children which would produce nothing but an absolute confusion The Application is so easie I leave it to the Objecter himself to make The second accusation which the Bishop layes to our charge is this That in our Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of our Church our proceeding is most unreasonable in regard we will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers Propriety of Language Conference of Places c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholique because she professeth it to be such which sayes he is to prove Idem per Idem Whereas truly we most willingly embrace and have frequent recourse to all the Bishops mentioned helps and that with much more Candour then Protestants can with any ground of reason pretend to considering their manifold wrestings both of Scripture and Fathers when they either urge them against us or endeavour to evade their clear Testimonies for us Neither are we in any danger of committing a Circle or proving Idem per Idem because his Lordship sees not how we can possibly winde our selves out The business is not so insuperably difficult in our Doctrine For if we be asked how we know the Church to be Infallible our last answer is not as he feigns because she professes her self to be such but we know her to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which sufficiently prove her to be such So the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were in their time known to be Infallible Oracles and Teachers of Truth by the like signs and Motives onely this difference there is that these viz. Christ and his Apostles c. confirming their Doctrine gave Infallible Testimony that what they taught was the Immediate Revelation and Word of God whereas the Motives which confirme the Declarations and Authority of the Church do onely shew that she Infallibly delivers to us the same Revelations I mean the same for sense and substance of Doctrine which the other received immediately from God And that to rest in this manner upon the Authority of the present Church in the Resolution of our Faith is not to prove Idem per Idem as the Bishop falsly imputes to us I clearly shew by two several Instances which even those of his party must of necessity allow 5. The first Instance is of the Church in time of the Apostles For who sees not that a Sectary might in those dayes have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same Method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholique Church might he not have taxed those Christians of unreasonable proceeding in their belief and have set it forth as the Bishop does thus For if you ask them why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole True Catholique Faith their answer is because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them how they know it to be so they will produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time by what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them and their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or doctrine but their final answer is they know it to be so because the present Apostolique Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove Idem per Idem Thus the Sectary By which it is clear that the Bishops objection against the present Roman Church wherein he would seem to make a discovery of her Corruptions and Politique Interests is equally applyable to the Primitive Apostolique Church in its undeniable purity But at once to answer both the Bishops and Sectaries objection I affirm that the prime and precise reason to be given why we believe the voice of the present Church witnessing or giving Assurance of Divine Revelation to us is neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers no nor the Oral Doctrine of Christ himself but the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility which moved both the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Not that we are necessitated to resolve our Faith into the Motives as its Formal Object or ultimate Reason of Assent for that can be no other then the Divine Authority Revealing but as into most certain Inducements powerfully and prudently inclining our will to accept the present Church as the Infallible Organ ordained by Divine Authority to teach us the sure way of salvation The second Instance is ad hominem against the Bishop in relation to those Fundamental Truths wherein he confesses the whole Church neither doth nor can erre For suppose a Separatist should thus argue with his Lordship your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility
of the Church in Fundamentals is most unreasonable For if a man ask you why you believe all those points which you hold for Fundamental for example the Resurrection of the Dead and life everlasting your answer will be because they are agreeable to the Doctrine and Tradition of Christ. And if you be asked how you know them to be so you will no doubt produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental points But if he ask you a third time by what means you are assured that those Testimonies do make for you or are indeed the Words Sentences and Works of Christ you will not then have recourse to the Testimonies and Words themselves that is to the Bible but your final Answer will be you know them to be so and that they do make for you because the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much to you from Tradition and according to Tradition which is to prove Idem per Idem as much as we And if the said Separatist further enquiring about the precedent Authorities of Scriptures Councils Fathers Apostles and Christ himself while he lived on Earth shall ask why such Fundamentals are believed upon the sole Authority of the Present Church as the last Testimony Infallibly assuring that those Fundamental Points and all the precedent Confirmations of them are from God 't is evident the Bishops party has no other way to avoid a Circle but by answering they believe the Scriptures Councils c. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church as the Infallible Organ Ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us Which Infallibity must come from the Holy Ghost and be more then Humane or Moral and therefore must be truly 〈◊〉 and proceed from Gods most absolute and Divine Veracity in fulfilling his Promises as from its Radical Principle and from the Operation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate Cause preserving the Church from errour in all such points Thus we are easily got out of the Circle leaving the Bishop still tumbling himself in it For we do not finally rest on the Present Church as consisting of men subject to errour as his Lordship vainly suggests Nor do we rest upon the Motives of Credibility as the Formal Object of our Faith but as inducing us to rely on the said Church ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us and is consequently Infallible Whereas the Bishop does but dance in a Round while enquiring for some Infallible warrant of the Word of God he thus concludes pag. 66. 'T is agreed on by me it can be nothing but the Word of God which must needs end in an apparent Circle as proving Idem per Idem And whereas immediately after he runs on prolixly in Distinguishing between Gods written and unwritten Word as though he would make the latter serve for Infallible proof of the former he never reflects that the said latter viz. Gods unwritten Word does necessarily stand in as much need of proof as the former Now as concerning the Authority of the Church of which the Motives of Credibility do ascertain us 't is not necessary that it be esteem'd or stiled absolutely Divine as the Bishop would have it yet as to this purpose and so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self I mean in respect of the precise Infallibility and absolute veracity of whatsoever it Declares and Testifies to be matter of Divine Faith though in many other respects we do not deny but the Authority of the Church is much inferiour to that of Scripture For first the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth because there not onely every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believ'd by all that know it to be a part of Scripture but in the Definitions of the Church neither the Arguments Reasons nor Words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but onely the Thing Declared to be such Besides the Church has certain limits and can Define nothing but what was either Reveal'd before or hath such connexion with it as it may be Rationally and Logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before Revealed Moreover the Church hath the Receiving and Interpreting of Scripture for its End and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it Hence it is that Holy Scripture is per Excellentiam called the Word of God and Divine whereas the Testimony of the Church is onely said by Catholique Divines and in particular by A. C. IN SOME SORT or IN A MANNER Divine By which manner of speaking their intention is not to deny it to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility but onely to shew the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church Adde that although we hold it necessary and therein agree with our Adversary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God upon DIVINE Authority yet standnig precisely in what was propounded by Mr. Fisher pag. 59. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture there will be no necessity of Defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine For if it be but Infallible by the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost it must give such Assurance that whatever is Defined by it to be Scripture is most certainly Scripture that no Christian can doubt of it without Mortal Sin and shaking the Foundation of Christian Faith as hath been often Declared And the immediate reason why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely Infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church has Defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be Reveal'd or taught by Divine Authority this also must be so revealed and consequently no Authority less then Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith Now it is to be remembred and A. C. notes it pag. 49 50. that the Prime Authority for which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which moves us as the formal Object of our Faith to believe that Scripture is the Written Word of God and the Definition of the Present Church assuring us Infallibly that there is such a Tradition applies this Article of our Faith unto us as it does all the rest whether the Voice or Definition of the Present Church in it self be absolutely Divine or no. Neither can there be shew'n any more difficulty in believing this as an Apostolical Tradition upon the Infallible Declaration of the Church then in believing any other Apostolical Tradition whatsoever upon the like Declaration His
Lordships Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points Wherefore he must needs agree with us in this that the perfection of Infallibility may be applied to the whole Church though not to every particular Member thereof Now further concerning the Churches Infallibility though she be so tyed to means as that she is bound to use them yet in her Definitions she receives not her Infallibility from the Means as the Bishop must also affirm of his Fundamentals but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Church which makes her Definitions truly Infallible though they be not New Revelations but onely Declarations of what was formerly Revealed For as the immediate Revelation it self is for no other reason Infallible but because it proceeds from God and in case it should happen to be not true and Certain the Errour would be ascribed to God So in the Definitions of the Church if she should fall into Errour it would likewise be ascrib'd to God himself Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is Gods immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false Gods Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averre that Gods promise would be infring'd as truly it would in that Supposition For did he not so preserve his Church in her Definitions of Faith by Assistance of the Holy Ghost as that she should never Define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not Revealed from God it would imply a destruction of Gods veracity and make him deny himself All which Doctrine is so well grounded on Christs Promise assuring us he will alwayes assist his Church that the Bishop has little reason to accuse us of rather maintaining a party then seeking Truth as though we set Doctrines on foot to foment Division and were rather lead by Animosity then Reason CHAP. 6. No unquestionable Assurance of Apostolicall Tradition but for the Infallible Authority of the Present Church ARGUMENT 1. Apostolical Traditions are the unwritten word of God and eight Instances concerning them witnessed by St. Augustin 2. Many things spoken by our Saviour not deliver'd by way of Tradition to the Church and many Church-Traditions not the word of God 3. Tradition not known by its own light any more then Scripture to be the word of God 4. The Private Spirit held by Calvin and Whitaker for the sole Motive of Believing Scripture to be the word of God 5. A Dialogue between the Bishop and a Heathen Philosopher 6. The case of a Christian dying without sight of Scripture 7. Occham Saint Augustin Canus Almain and Gerson either miscited or their sense perverted by the Bishop 1. THe Bishop having been hardly put to it in the precedent Chapter to finde some way whereby to prove Scripture to be the Word of God he continually treading on the brink of a Circle at length falls on the unwritten Word It seems he is afraid he shall be forc'd to come stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority But being loath to trust her he grows so wary that hee 'l admit no unwritten word but what is shew'n him deliver'd by the Prophets and Apostles Would he read it in their Books Now if you hearken to his Discourse he presently cryes out he cannot swallow into his belief that every thing which his Adversary sayes is the unwritten word of God is so indeed Nor is it our desire he should But we crave the indifferent Readers Patience to hear reason According to which it is apparent that there must be some Authority to assure us of this main Principle of Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This our Ensurancer is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition Declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God We do not pretend as the Bishop objects that every Doctrine which any particular Person as A. C. Bellarmin or other private Doctour may please to call Tradition is therefore to be receiv'd as Gods unwritten Word but such Doctrinal Traditions onely as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently Gods unwritten word Of which kinde are those which not I but St. Augustin judged to be such in his time and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first Apostolical Tradition named by Saint Augustin is that we now treat that Scripture is the Word of God He affirms he would not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto and sticks so close to her Authority that he sayes If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church Nay that he as much believed the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel it self because the same Authority of the Church assured him both of the one the other A second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other Person A third that the blessed Virgin Mary was and remained alwayes a Virgin both before in and after the Birth of Christ St. Augustin terming Helvidius his opinion who denied it a Blasphemy and for that reason inserting him in his Catalogue of Hereticks The fourth That those who are Baptized by Hereticks are not to be Rebaptized The fifth That Infants are to be baptized The Sixth that Children Baptized are to be numbred amongst the faithful The seventh that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting The eighth that Sunday the first Day of the Week is to be kept holy by Christians It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds that they cannot enter into a question without supposing a Falshood so his Lordship here feeds his humour and obtrudes many He makes Bellarmin and all Catholique Doctours maintain that whatever they please to call Tradition must presently be received by all as Gods unwritten Word After he keeps a fluttering between Tradition and the unwritten Word asking if they be Convertible Terms and then whether any Word of God be unwritten c. Which digressive Discourse is nothing but a new Turn in his Labyrinth to avoid the foil he foresaw himself in danger of in case he did here grapple with Bellarmin who clearly delivers his Doctrine in the place cited by the Bishop cap. 2. viz. That the word Tradition is general and signifies any Doctrine communicated from one to another whether it be written or unwritten By which 't is evident he makes not Tradition and the unwritten Word of God Convertible Afterwards he divides Traditions into Divine Apostolical and Ecclesiastical and again into Traditions belonging to Faith and Traditions belonging to Manners So that
according to Bellarmin 't is clear there are some Traditions which are not Gods unwritten word Nevertheless Bellarmin A. C. and all Catholiques agree against the Bishop that we believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is Gods Word and that there is no other Word of God to assure us of this point but the Tradition deliver'd to us by the Church and that such Tradition so delivered must be the unwritten Word of God I say such Tradition for that we admit in practise divers Ecclesiastical Traditions but neither in quality of Gods Word or Divine Traditions nor are any of them contrary to the Word of God whether written or unwritten 2. Now to return to his Lordship we grant there are many unwritten Words of God never deliver'd over to the Church for ought appears and that there are many Traditions of the Church which are not the unwritten word of God yet not contrary to it Wherefore his Lordship might herein have spared his labour since he proves but what we grant And if the Church hath received by Tradition some Words of Christ not written as well as written and hath delivered them by Tradition to her Children such written and unwritten Word of God cannot be contrary to one another For as the Church was Infallible in Defining what was written so is she also Infallible in Defining what was not written And so she can neither tradere non traditum as the Bishop urgeth that is make Tradition of that which was not deliver'd to her nor can she be unfaithful to God in not faithfully keeping the Depositum committed to her Trust. Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary as he insinuates they may but are bound to believe her Tradition because she being Infallible the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father Now whereas the Bishop so confidently averrs that whereever Christ held his peace and that his words are not registred no man may dare without rashness to say they were THESE or THESE his Lordship must give me leave to tell him I must binde up his whole Assertion with this Proviso But according as the Church shall declare for it is her Authority whereon we depend to know when and in what Christ held his peace or whether his words some or none were registred as much as we depend on her to know whether Scripture be the Word of God or not This our proceeding does unqestionably free us from all shadow of rashness Neither doth St. Augustin say any thing in contradiction hereof For he onely speaks against determining of a mans own head what was spoken by Christ without ground or warrant from the Church In like manner we grant there were many unwritten Words of God which were never deliver'd over to the Church and therefore never esteem'd Tradition As there are many Traditions according to Bellarmin which we cannot own for Gods unwritten Word yet all such as the Church receives are conformable at least not contrary to his Word written or unwritten Such are the Ceremonies used in Baptisme of which the Relatour here speaketh For the party to be baptiz'd is Anointed to signifie that like a Wrestler he is to enter the list So St. Chrysostom Inungitur baptizandus more Athletarum qui stadium jam ingressuri sunt Spittle is applied to their Ears and Nostrils as St. Ambrose saith in Imitation of that our Saviour did Mark 7. who spitting touched the tongue and put his Fingers into the ears of the deaf and dumb man before he cured him The like he did John 9. 3. to the blinde man Wherefore these Ceremonies are conformable to Scripture Three Dippings were used in Baptisme to signifie the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or our Saviours remaining for three dayes in the Sepulcher as St. Gregory teacheth But this Ceremony is not us'd at all times nor in all places as being not absolutely commanded by the Church Wherefore Bellarmin who proveth the Ceremonies us'd in Baptisme to be Apostolical Traditions sayes not that every Tradition is Gods unwritten Word but that we must necessarily believe Scripture to be the Word of God which seeing we cannot believe for any written Word of his we must either admit some Word of God not written to ground this our Belief on which can be no other then Apostolical Tradition applied to us by the voice of the Church or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of this point because all Divine Faith must relie upon some Word of God The Bishop therefore hath no reason to go on with his Enquiry but must either fix here or he will finde no firm ground whereon to rest his foot as will appear both by the other wayes of Resolving Faith by him confuted and by his own which is every whit as confutable 3. For the second way of proving Scripture to be the Word of God to wit that it should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony lumine proprio by the sole resplendency of the light it hath in it self and by the witness it can so give to it self this the Relatour himself sufficiently confutes and we agree with him in the confutation However though the Bishop knew full well that we deny this Doctrine of knowing Scripture for Gods Word by its own light as much as himself or any of his party can do yet as it were to justifie the more my late accusation of his obtruding Falshoods to asperse us he will needs suppose another here viz. that the said Doctrine may well agree with our grounds in regard we hold if you will believe him That Tradition may be known for Gods Word by its own Light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture Which Inference indeed would be true were it not drawn from a false supposition as most certainly it is For all Catholicks hold it ridiculous to believe that either Scripture or Tradition is discernable for Gods Word by its own Lustre Nor is A. C. justly accusable in this point as the Bishop would make him by misconstruing his words to signifie that Tradition is discernable by its own Light to be the Word of God For A. C's words even as they are lamely cited by the Bishop do sufficiently vindicate him from having any such meaning as his Lordship would impose on him The cited words are these Tradition of the Church is of a company which by its own light shews it self to be Infallibly assisted c. where any man may easily see that the word which must properly relate to the immediate preceding word company even to make sense and not to the more remote word Tradition 'T is therefore clear that A. C's Intention is onely to affirm that the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light As concerning the Question propounded by Mr. Fisher to be answered by Dr.
My Lord having been sufficiently informed of your eminent Authority and great Learning I desire to receive some satisfaction from you in matter of Religion but being not verst in your Christian Principles I am uncapable of accepting of any save what can be evidenc'd to me by the light of Natural Reason Bishop I willingly condescend to your request and doubt not to render you fully satisfied by the means you require Heath I understand by your learned Relation of a Conference c. that the sole Foundation of your Faith is a Certain Book called by you the BIBLE which contains many different Tracts and Histories written in very distant times by several Authours and bound up together in one volume And this you say must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of your Religion as it ought to be believed Now I have employed sometime in perusing this your Bible and am no way inclined by the light of Reason to assent that it is Gods word in such manner as you believe it Bish. Surely you have not employed the Talent of Reason as reason required you should have done otherwise you would have discerned this Book to be the very Word of God For our Faith contains nothing against Reason neither is Grace placed but in a Reasonable Soul Heath But yet your Faith is above Reason and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature so that by Reasons light I can reach neither of them nor can my reason without Grace say you see my way to heaven nor believe this Book Bish. I confess it is so yet Natural Reason is cleared by Grace to see what by Nature alone it cannot Heath Tell not me of Grace I understand nothing of that and believe as little Unless therefore you satisfie me that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being Gods word by conviction of naturall Reason my search is at a stand Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the Question yet I must tell you you may not think that this Principle of Religion That Scriptures are the Word of God is so indifferent to a natural eye that it may as justly lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other for 't is strengthned abundantly with Probable Arguments even from the light of Nature it self Heath A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthned with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may be also said to be but probably false Wherefore I fear Naturall Reason goes not very far in the decision of this question Bish. Say not so For Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason then any thing in the world which any Infidell or meer Naturalist can adhere unto against it Heath This your assertive Answer is doubly defective as I conceive First because it is not enough for one to prove his Religion to stand upon surer grounds then another mans since 't is possible there may be a third Religion resting on surer grounds then either of the other two Secondly because in your own Principles you are not to prove your Bible by your Religion as you here seem to endeavour but your Religion by your Bible which must therefore be first proved and that by Naturall Reason too for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it Bish. This Canon of Scripture the Container of Christs Law is or hath been received and believed for infallible Verity in almost all Nations under Heaven which could never have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason Heath Did the Nations you speak of receive the Scriptures on the sole Account of Reason and thereupon by diligent reading and conferring of Texts became Christians or were they first made Christians and after upon the Churches Authority received them for Gods undoubted word The Authors by you cited in your Book averre not their reception of them for Gods word before they were made Christians What wonder then if I who am yet no Christian see not sufficient reason to receive them for such Truly to me by what has hitherto been said it seems impossible to prove by Reason that your Bible is Gods Infallible Truth Bish. Nay it is not impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth Infallible or make you deny some apparent Principle of your own Heath Evidence me that and your Lordship will accomplish a great work Bish. 'T is an apparent Principle with those of your perswasion that God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of possession since if he could he were neither Absolute nor God in your own Theology But your Gods have been forced out of possession viz. out of the Bodies they possessed by the name of the true God and Christ whom the Scriptures teach and we believe to be the onely true God Therefore Heath Therefore what By what kinde of Logick can you inferre even out of your own premises which yet I might well question that therefore the Scripture is Gods word Bish. Does it not follow that you must either deny your own Gods or your own Principle in Nature And if it be reasonable to deny him for God who is under command why is it not also reasonable to believe that the Scripture is Gods word since there you finde Christ doing that viz. dispossessing Bodies and giving power to do it after Heath My Lord I cannot a little wonder to see you swerve so grosly from the known Rules of Logick as to beg the Question which here you do most palpably while you rest on the sole Authority of Scripture for proving the same Scripture to be the word of God If this be not a meer petitio principii I know not what is Bish. I perceive you are willfull and self-conceited for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard However I shall adde this more that if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if even in the Mathematiques where are the exactest Demonstrations there be quaedam postulata some things to be first demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed who can justly deny that to Divinity a Science of the highest object which he easily 〈◊〉 to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach There must therefore in Reason some principle be supposed in Divinity viz. the Text of Scripture as a Rule which Novices and weaklings may be taught first to believe that so they may come to the knowledge of the Deducibles out of this rich Principle I see not how right Reason can deny this ground Heath I did not think to finde your Lordship so disingenuous as not onely to contradict your self by unsaying all
that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Naturall Reason but to put so gross a fallacy upon me That because Naturall Sciences admit some Principles without proof as being so clear in themselves that there needs no more then the bare apprehension of their tearms therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for Gods word and admitted without probation for an unquestionable Principle May not any Religion pretend the like The Turks for example may they not say their Alcoran is the Rule and Principle of their Religion and consequently unquestionable You know very well and confess it too elsewhere That the Principles of Naturall Knowledge appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding And you know as well that there is an infinite disparity in the case between such Principles and your Bible The later having exercis'd the wit and learning of a world of Expositors in regard of its obscurity and the former being uncapable of proof by reason of their evident clearness I may therefore rationally conclude that your Bible cannot justly challenge an infallible Belief of being Gods word by conviction of Natur all Reason This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordships discourse of whom I take my leave By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen wherein I have not wrong'd him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his Arguments a man may easily discern how irrationall it is to take the Bible for the sole Rule and Guide in matters of Faith A Doctrine which had it been held in the Primitive Church would have laid the World under an impossibility of ever being converted to Christianity But now 't is high time to return to our Church-Tradition which I press a little further in this manner 6. A Child is brought up and instructed in the Roman Church till he arrives to some ripeness of years Amongst other things he is commanded to believe the Bible is the True word of God that he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith receiv'd universally amongst Christians He gives therefore the same Infallible assent to the Scriptures being the word of God that he gives to the other Articles of Faith and so without once looking into the Scripture departs this life I demand had this Christian saving Faith or not if he had then upon the Churches Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God Ergo the Churches Authority was sufficient to ground an Infallible Faith in this point If he had not saving Faith in this Article he could not have it in any of the rest for he had them all from the very same Authority of the Church Therefore he had no saving Faith at all Ergo such a Christian could not be saved Would his Lordship have ventured to affirm this But let us suppose now that this young Christian yet lives and applies himself to study makes progress in learning becomes a profound Philosopher a learned Divine an expert Historian then betakes himself upon the Churches recommendation to the reading of Scriptures discovers a new light in them and by force of that light discerns also that the Faith he had before was onely a humane perswasion and that he had no divine Faith at all before he found by that light in Scripture that they were the undoubted word of God and sole foundation of Faith and consequently that not having that foundation he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian Belief and for want thereof was out of the state of Salvation What gripes and torture of spirit would spring out of such a Doctrine amongst Christians Moreover either the Church whereof he is suppos'd a member taught that he was to believe Scripture infallibly to be the word of God upon her sole Tradition as an infallible Testimony thereof as we before supposed or not If the first then he reflects that this Church has plainly deceiv'd him and if she have deceiv'd him in assuming that Infallibility to her self and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith when he had nothing but humane and uncertain perswasion she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself and consequently expos'd them all to the hazard of eternall damnation by following her Doctrine and therefore was no true Church but a seducer and deceiver Hence he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole letter of Scripture without any credible voyce of the Church and then must either gather the Divine Authority of Scripture from sole Scripture which the Bishop denies or there will he no means left him to believe even according to the Bishops principles infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God If the Church teach him onely that her testimony of Scripture is no more then Humane and Fallible but that the Belief it self that Scripture is Gods word rests upon sole Scripture as his Lordship speaks he begins presently to consider what then becomes of so many millions of Souls who both in former and present times either were uncapable to read and examine Scripture by reason of their want of learning or made little use of that means as assuring themselves to have infallible Faith without it Had such Christians a morall and fallible perswasion onely and no divine Faith then they were all uncapable of salvation This consequence seems very severe to our supposed Christian. Wherefore he begins to make a further reflection and discourses in this manner Is the Tradition and Definition of the Church touching the Divine Authority and Canon of Scripture onely Humane and Fallible how then can I rationally believe that my single perswasion of its being the word of God is Divine and Infallible The Bishops Pastours and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition and thereby discover'd its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly then I alone am able to do If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness their perswasion concerning Scriptures being Gods word was onely Humane and Fallible what reason have I to think I am Divinely and Infallibly certain by my reading of Scripture that it is Divine Truth He goes on If the light of Scripture on the other side be so weak and dim that it is not able to shew it self unless first introduc'd by the recommendation of the Church how came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Huss Wickless c. to be so sharp-sighted as to discover this light of Scripture seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world coexistent with them or existent immediately before them and consequently of the true Church Hence he proceeds to a higher enquiry Had not sayes he the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years
after Christ as much reason and ability to finde this light in Scripture as I can pretend to Yet many Books which seem to me to discover themselves to be the word of God by that divine light which shines in them sent no such light to their eyes but were under question amongst them whether they were the word of God or not till they were declar'd such by the Catholique Church And I wonder much how Protestants receive the Books of the Old Tement upon the Authority of St. Hierome and the Jewish Synagogue and press no other reason notwithstanding they hold the Church may deceive us in the whole Canon of Scripture Further sayes this discoursing Christian If one who hath not yet examin'd the light of Scripture it self but onely taken it upon the account of Church-Tradition should deny for example St. Matthew's Gospel to be the written word of God he could not in this opinion be counted an Heretique because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be Gods word Nay hence it follows that even our Blessed Saviour who is Wisdom it self would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostour For had he not framed think you a strange and chimericall Common-wealth were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power which all other well-ordered Republiques enjoy to give an Authentical and unquestionable Declaration which is the genuine and true Law Now he comes closer to the matter it self and examines how this pretended light should be Infallible and Divine supposing the Churches Testimony of the Scriptures being Gods word was Humane onely and Fallible When I came discourses he with himself first to settle my thoughts to a serious reading of Scripture I had no more then a fallible Authority recommending Scripture to me That fallible Authority could be no Foundation much less a Formall object for a Divine and Infallible assent to rest upon Therefore before I thus began to read Scripture I had no Infallible and Divine Faith that it was the written word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church to me was no more then a Tradition of wise prudent and honest men who had no such assistance from God as was sufficient to preserve them from Errour Suppose therefore that as the Church might so she had err'd in testifying some Books of Scripture to be Gods word which really are not such in this supposition I should have them all equally recommended to me as Gods word by the very same Authority of the Church Then I fall to reading seriously and peruse all those which are call'd Canonicall Books in the Bible shall I ever think by my diligence in reading to discover that the light of Gods word shines not in those Books wherein the Church err'd as it shines in the rest Shall I discern Canonicall Books wherein she err'd not from the not-Canonicall by the light I finde in them when the whole Church and so many thousand learned Bishops who had read them more studiously and knowingly then I can do never discern'd any such different light more in the one then in the other But put case I were able to discern this difference in Scripture by the sole light of Scripture what follows seeing the Church ha's as universally recommended also very many unwritten Traditions for Apostolicall and Divine whereof some at least as the not-rebaptizing of those who were Baptized by Heretiques c. are most certainly true and as properly the word of God in their first delivery from Christ and his Apostles which the Bishop confesses as Scripture it self why can I not by that light which shines in a true Apostolicall Tradition as well distinguish it from a false one as by the light that shines in a true Book of Canonicall Scripture distinguish that from a false one Since God speaks equally in both why should there not be an equal light shining in both Nay seeing the Church in the Definition of Superstructures wherein his Lordship makes her fallible very often defines aright why may not I finde by the light which shines in such a definition that it is a Divine Truth and distinguish it from that which is not the true voyce of God and so take no other guide or judge to my self in Divine matters then onely my own knowledge of God speaking to me After this he examines a while of what perswasion the Holy Fathers were in this matter and findes that St. Irenaeus and St. Augustin in many places held that the Tradition of the Church is sufficient to found Christian Faith even without Scripture and that for some hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was written At length he returns again to your hidden light in Scriptures and discourses thus If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how can I ever be infallibly certain that she has not err'd de facto and defin'd some Book to be the word of God which really is not his word These you may imagine were the thoughts of our perplexed Christian who wearied out with speculations and reflections fell in the close upon this result That either the Church must be Infallible in the Tradition of Scripture or there is no possible means to be infallibly certain which is Scripture nay which is more whether there be any true Scripture at all Now we return to his Lordship Here his Dedalian windings are disintricated and his Reasons easily solv'd For first Church-Tradition appears far from being too weak by advancing the Proposition I did before viz. that to give an Infallible Testimony of the Scriptures being the true word of God it is not necessary that Church-Tradition should be absolutely Divine Secondly I agree with our Antagonist in the Authority of the Prime Christian Church that it was absolutely Divine and yet averre it is not necessary to the solving of his Arguments to assert the like Divine Authority in the present Church 7. When he sayes that some of our own will not endure that the often mentioned words of St. Augustin Ego vero Evangello non crederem c. should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and in proof of this cites Occham in the margent I ask the Relatour how can one single Author be aliqui some of our own in the plurall number Had he said onely some one of our own it might have pass'd but to say some of ours and then cite but one was to make an extreme narrow passage in his Labyrinth Should Julian the Apostata to lay an aspersion upon the whole Colledge of the Apostles have said that some of them betray'd their Master and then have nam'd Judas onely and that some others deny'd him and in proof thereof had cited onely St. Peter or should a Catholique to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury say that some of them carried a holy Sister of the Reformed Gospel lockt up in a chest
as a precious Jewel in a Cabinet about with them and name Cranmer onely in the Margent or should any other Author to discredit Protestants affirm that some of them turn'd Turks and were burnt for such and cite onely in the margent Bernardinus Ochinus would not this be esteem'd a Rhetoricall Hyperbole or rather a most unjust way of writing But what if this Singular-Plural sayes no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie would not this be a notable Turn Intelligitur so are Occhams words cited by the Bishop in his margent SOLUM de Ecclesiâ quae fuit tempore Apostolorum It viz. the sentence of St. Augustin I would not believe the Gospel c. is understood saith he ONELY of the Church which was in the Apostles time Now in that whole place which I have perused very diligently there are neither those cited words nor any thing like them What is there then marry the quite contrary For he sayes expresly that the Church whereof St. Augustin speaks in that Sentence contains not onely the Apostles and those of their times but also the Church successively from the times of the Apostles to that very time wherein St. Augustin wrote those words as Occham himself shews out of another Text of St. Augustin and affirms that he understood the Church in the very same sense in this sentence that he exprest in the other and so concludes that St. Augustins words there are not to be understood of the times of the Apostles onely quite contradictorily to what his Lordship makes him speak Is this fair dealing think you to juggle in this manner what is this but to go about to perswade us 't is not day though the Sun shines That St. Augustins meaning jumps right with Occhams interpretation 't is evident For he must speak here of the Church in his time and not of the Primitive or Apostolicall Church onely because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo do not believe Manichaeus which if he had affirmed of the Primitive or Apostolicall Church had neither been true nor to the purpose the Primitive and Apostolicall Church having said no more against Manichaeus then the Scripture it self said Moreover he speaks of that Church wherein as he taught in the former Chapter the succession of Bishops from St. Peter to the present time had kept him c. but that must needs be the present Church succeeding the Primitive and not the Primitive onely Nay further he sayes that if any evident place could be alledged out of the Gospel in confirmation of Manichaeus his Doctrine he would neither believe the Church nor the Gospel because both of them should in that case have deceiv'd him which must necessarily be meant of the present Church because the Church in the Apostles time had not deceiv'd him in forbidding him to follow Manichaeus Now though it be a point of Faith that the Church is Infallible in delivering the Scripture unto us yet is it not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is prov'd out of the cited place of Saint Augustin 'T is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self His Lordships objection That the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive I distinguish If he means the one must be as truly and really Infallible quoad substantiam as the other I grant it but if he mean the one must be as highly and as perfectly Infallible as the other quoad modum I deny it For the voyce of the Church need not be suppos'd simply Divine to give an Infallible Testimony of this Tradition as we have shew'd because we need not assert it to be any more then an Authenticall Testimony preserv'd by the Holy Ghost from Errour Those two ends alone mentioned by the Relatour fall short of the end of Tradition which not onely induces Infidels and instructs Novices and weaklings but founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors in the Church St. Augustin was neither Infidell Novice Weakling nor Doubter in the Faith but the very learnedst of Bishops and Doctors yet it serv'd him so much that he would not have believ'd no nor could believe Scripture without it as he himself testifies of himself in the place above cited contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. As concerning Jacobus Almaynus his opinion cited by the Relatour viz. that we are first and more bound to believe the Church then the Gospel it is not altogether true For though we are first bound to believe the Church non prioritate temporis sed naturae to use Philosophicall tearms because the Authority of the Church is the means by which we are infallibly assur'd that Scripture is the word of God yet the Authority of the Church being ordain'd to the Scripture as the end and more noble object it cannot be properly said that we are more bound to believe the Church then the Scripture Touching his and Gersons reading the fore-cited place of St. Augustin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas where for commoveret they read compelleret concerning this I say I had rather charitably think they had found it so in some copies then judge with his Lordship that they did most notoriously falsifie the Text. And I am perswaded he had the like charitable opinion for Mr. Perkins who puts credidissem for crederem and movisset for commoveret Neither is this Apology of mine for Almaynus and Gerson without ground For both Occham and Biel quoted by his Lordship serve themselves of the very same word compelleret so that it seems the School-men of those dayes cited St. Augustin in this manner And though for my part I preferre commoveret before compelleret yet in St. Augustins perswasion express'd in that place it signifies as much as compelleret For he confesses that the Authority of the Church not onely mov'd him to believe the Gospel but commanded him and so strongly that it necessitated him to acknowledge the Scriptures for the Divine word of God which is as much as compelleret To the Authors cited in his Margent I answer Canus libr. 2. de Locis cap. 8. treats as St. Augustin did how one comes to believe who hath no belief in the Scripture and resolves that this must be done by the Authority of the Church and that such as reject the Churches Authority can never believe the Scripture Hence he consequently asserts sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii c. that Infidels and Novices in the Faith are brought to the belief of Scripture by this means But here 's the Turn He cites sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii lamely without a Verb or any full sense thinking thereby to perswade his Reader that the Church induces onely such to read Scriptures by a fallible authority and that all their Infallible Faith of Scripture streams
from the pretended light that is in Scripture Whereas if he had cited the whole Sentence it would have appear'd most clearly that Canus makes Infidels and Novices in Faith so convinc'd to believe Scripture for the Infallible word of God by the authority of the Church that the said authority is not a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it For he asserts that an Infidel is victus convinc'd by that Authority that it is via certa a sure and certain way and that we take argumentum certum a certain and assured argument of this from the Churches Authority Again by this citing of Nominatives without Verbs he puts off by a nimble Turn the esteem that Infideles Novicii make of the Churches Authority in regard of Scripture sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii ad sacras literas ingrediantur the Churches Authority is a sure way and none but that Observe I pray you those words None but that whereby he excludes all others and consequenly this pretended Light of Scripture it self from being a sure and infallible way of entring into the Scriptures that is of beginning to believe them expresly to be the word of God This Verb therefore ingrediantur which was omitted would have given light to 〈◊〉 his full meaning For though the greatest Doctours of the Church believe Scriptures upon this sole Authority as a certain and infallible foundation yet onely Infideles Novicii Infidels and Novices in Faith enter into Scriptures that is make their first beginning to believe them by the same authority As for Stapleton he never so much as mentions in the cited place this Text of St. Augustin but onely averres that nothing can be prov'd from Scripture against such an one as is either ignorant of Scripture or denies it St. Augustin therefore in this place speaking according to those cited Authors of a sure way for believing Scripture to be the word of God cannot possibly favour the Bishops assertion who makes the Authority of the Church in this case to be but fallible and unsure Neither doth this great Doctour any where affirm that this way of Church authority is onely for Infidels as the Bishops explication of him seems to insinuate but both affirms and proves that neither Infidels nor Believers can be any other way convinc'd When therefore his Lordship cites St. Augustins Text Quibus ergo obtemper avi dicentibus CREDITE EVANGELIO c. Whom therefore I have obeyed saying BELIEVE THE GOSPEL c. and thence gathers that St. Augustin speaks of himself when he did not believe I see very little consequence in this his Illation unless he suppose that Saint Augustin never obeyed this command of Gods Church but onely at his first Conversion from Infidelity For certainly his meaning was that he had and did alwayes even till that instant from his first Conversion obey that command of the Church One thing I am sure may be far better inferr'd from those words against the Relatour then this was against us For St. Augustin sayes not Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus LEGITE EVANGELIUM vel INSPICITE EVANGELIUM c. whom I obeyed saying Read the Gospel or persue the Gospel but Credite Evangelio believe the Gospel The Church commanded St. Augustin to believe the Gospel Ergo The Church in St. Augustins time esteem'd her self most undoubtedly certain that the Gospel and by consequence all other Scriptures which she recommended to her children to believe were the Infallible word of God For otherwise to impose a command of so high a nature in that wherein she might be deceiv'd her self and deceive them had been to expose her Authority to the hazard of commanding Christians to do that which had been a grievous injury to God namely to believe that to be his Divine Word which was onely the word of man CHAP. 7. The prosecution of the former Question ARGUMENT 1. No means sufficient in the Bishops Principles to be assured what Tradition is Apostolical or what Scripture Divine 2. St. Augustins Text concerning Church-Authority examin'd 3. That the Bishop yields at last to the Private Spirit mask'd under the title of Grace 4. His way of Resolving Faith demonstrated to faile 5. That no man with him can be a true Christian unless he be a good Grammarian and Logician too 6. How the Scripture is said to be a Light 7. His falling again upon the Private Spirit 8. Bellarmine vindicated 9. Brierley defended Hooker shamefully mangled miscited and misconstrued by the Bishop 1. HItherto our Antagonist hath endeavour'd with all the engins of his wit to shake the Infallible Authority of the present Catholique Church but in vain Let 's now see whether he can build better then he destroyes The ground on which he builds our Faith is Primitive Apostolical Tradition I demand how comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible or why cannot we as well being induc'd and prepar'd by the voice of the Church if fallible believe with Divine Faith and rest upon Apostolical Tradition as a Formal Object for it self as believe the Scriptures for themselves If it be answer'd we have no other certainty that the Church now delivers that Primitive Tradition which the Apostles deliver'd but the voyce of the Church I reply We have also no other certainty that the Scripture we now have is the very same which was recommended by Apostolicall Tradition but the Voyce and perpetual Testimony of the Church Yes sayes our Adversary we have the more ancient Copies which confirm ours But the same Difficulty returns upon those ancienter Copies What infallible certainty have we of them beside Church-Tradition They may replyes his Lordship be examin'd and approv'd by the Authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles But first how many of those are now extant Secondly how few will be able to come to the sight of them Thirdly what certainty have we that they are the Authenticall Autographa's but by Tradition Fourthly may not every Universall Tradition be carried up as clearly at east to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authors who wrote in their respective succeeding ages If therefore when he sayes there 's a double Authority c. he mean onely that in the Apostles time Christians had a double Authority to believe Scripture viz. Tradition and Scripture it self he brings nothing to the present purpose for our dispute is not of that but of Our present time If he say we have now that double Authority he contradicts himself and puts a foundation of our Faith beside Scripture and so denies that Scripture alone is the foundation of our Faith Yet it seems by speaking in the present Tense Here 's a double Authority that confirms Scripture to be the word of God he means that we have now both Apostolicall Tradition and Scripture it self as two Authorities and each containing the Formal Object of Faith to believe Scripture to be
the word of God which is also sutable to his words § 16. num 22. We resolve saith he meaning Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scriptures it self and yet confesses we have no means to be infallibly certain that Scripture is the word of God but by the Testimony of Church-Tradition He would fain have the difference betwixt us to consist onely in this that we affirm Church-Traditions to be the Formal Object Prime Motive and last Resolution of Faith and that they deny it to be so But the difference as it appears in the Resolution we have already given is not in that For we are now both agreed that it is not necessary to say the Faith of Scripture is resolv'd into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formall Object or Prime Motive c. but the onely substantiall Difference is this We say the Tradition of the present Church is Infallible and that necessarily to the end it may infallibly apply the Formal Object to us you say 't is Fallible Grant us once that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible and the controversie in this is ended How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith as here he speaks into the Prime Apostostolical Tradition Infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church I see not unless he could tell how to be infallibly certain of that Tradition without it which he knows not well how to compass as appears in the next number So that now he abandons his Fort again by not shewing how we can know infallibly that Apostolicall Tradition is Divine otherwise then by the Tradition of the present Church For as to what he asserted num 21. that there 's a double Authority and both Divine viz. Apostolical Tradition and Scripture even in respect of us it doth not satisfie the difficulty as I have prov'd but serves onely to make one contrary Turn upon another in his Labyrinth so that you know not where to follow him For if Church-Tradition fail to ascertain us infallibly of that Divine Apostolicall Tradition we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture it self be the Infallible word of God or no. That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible may be thus sufficiently prov'd We cannot be infallibly certaine that Scripture is the word of God unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible For we acknowledge many Books for Canonicall Scripture which Protestants admit not and they now hold some for such which have not been alwayes approv'd for such And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have are said by Catholiques to be corrupted Others also cry up some Books for Canonicall Scripture which both Catholiques and Protestants disallow If therefore the Church can erre in this point with what shadow of truth can Protestants pretend to bring an Infallible ground that Scripture is the word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church serves to assure us infallibly that Scripture is the word of God and not onely as his Lordship would have it to work upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to read and consider the Scripture or among Novices Weaklings and Doubters of Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scriptures 2. Neither can the often cited place of St. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. be rationally understood of the foresaid Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith For it is clear that St. Austin by those words gives a reason why he then a Bishop would not follow the Doctrine of Manichaeus and why no Christian ought to follow it As if a man should say he that believes the Gospel believes it onely for the Authority of the Church which condemning Manichaeus it is impossible rationally proceeding to admit the Gospel and follow Manichaeus Neither is the contrary any wayes deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop § 16. num 21. If thou shouldst finde one who did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldst thou do to make him believe For the holy Doctor there speaks to Manichaeus and shewes how neither Infidels nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus Not Infidels because Manichaeus proves this onely out of Scriptures which they not admitting might rationally enough slight his proof Not Christians because they receiving the Scripture upon the sole Authority of the Church could no more approve of the Apostleship of Manicheus condemned by the Church then if they admitted not of Scripture at all Wherefore A. C. had no reason to pass by this place of St. Austin which his Lordship sayes pag. 82. he urged at the Conference unless it were because he did not then remember it As for the Catholique Authors cited by the Relatour certainly they all hold that the Authority of the present Church is an Infallible proof that Scripture is the word of God And though they teach that the fore-mentioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels Novices and those who deny or doubt of Scripture yet they averre not that it is of less force for all others But their meaning is that the Authority of the Church appears more clearly necessary against Infidels and those who doubt of the Faith For suppose a learned man be an Infidel or doubt of Scripture he will say if the Church may erre he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is Gods word If you tell him the Church though subject to errour is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture and read it diligently and that then he will finde such an inbred light in it as will assure him infallibly that 't is the word of God he will reply he hath done what you require and yet findes no more inbred light in those Books which Protestants receive for Canonical then he doth in others which Catholiques admit but Protestants reject as Apocryphall no no more then he doth in other counterfeit pieces disapprov'd both by Catholiques and Protestants 3. Who doth not here most clearly see that we cannot deal with such a man without the unerring or Infallible Authority of the Church unless we will have recourse to the Private Spirit from which though the Bishop would seem so free that he excludes it from the very state of the Question yet he falls into it and palliates it under the specious title of Grace and where others us'd to say they were infallibly resolv'd that Scripture was the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83 84. averres that he hath the same assurance by Grace so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular he onely changeth their words 4. The Relatour is very much out when he maintains on the one side that the Church is fallible in her Tradition of Scriptures and yet still supposes throughout his whole discourse that whoever comes to read Scriptures deliver'd by the Church findes
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
not dissenting from it Again as Christ and his Apostles shew'd they had Divine Authority to all who had the Grace to believe them and none to whom their preaching was sufficiently propounded could disbelieve them without damnable sin so also if the Scripture hath light enough after the recommendation of the Church to be seen by all that have Grace whoever dissents from that light commits a damnable sin in not believing it to be the word of God Now to affirm that all who dissent from that light commit damnable sin were to condemne not onely all the Luther an Protestants but many of the holy Ancient Fathers of damnable sin who read some of those Books which other Protestants account Scripture even upon the recommendation of the Church and yet dissented from their being the word of God at least accounted it not infallibly certain that they were 6. Thus we have seen quite contrary to the Bishops Doctrine that Scripture gives not so great and high Reasons of Credibility to it self that the Believer may rest his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority upon that Divine light which Scripture hath in self For there appears no such light to any but to the Bishop and those who pretend to the private Spirit 'T is true the Scripture is said by the Royal Prophet to be a Light because after we have once receiv'd it from the Infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe Therefore David saith not Verba scripta in Bibliis lumen pedibus meis but Verbum tuum THY WORD is a light to my feet so that he first believ'd the Scripture to be the word of God and then said it was a light c. But without this Authority 't is neither lumen manifestativum sui nec alterius neither a light that evidences it self nor any thing else because without this we may with just reason doubt as well of Scripture as of the true sense thereof Wherefore though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspir'd from God yet he doth never avow that this could be prov'd out of them unless they were receiv'd by the Infallible Authority of the Church And Henricus a Gandavo quoted by his Lordship for affirming that Christians in the Primitive Church did principally believe for the Authority of God and not of the Apostles means onely that Christians were not mov'd to believe for any humane Authority of the Apostles but for the Authority of God speaking by them So that this argument must be solv'd as well by the Bishop as by us for he has already granted that the Authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as we And Origen whom he cites in the Margent speaks to such as believ'd that Scriptures were the word of God whom by those proofs out of Scripture he endeavour'd to confirm and settle in their Faith by shewing how Scripture it self testified as much We may therefore assert that 't is not any humane or fallible Authority of the Church that moves us to embrace the Scripture as the Infallible word of God but the voyce of God speaking by the Church or the Authority of God declar'd to us infallibly by the present Church And this Infallible Authority is no less requisite to the knowledge of the first Apostolicall Tradition of the Scriptures then it is to know the Scripture it self But I finde another handsome Turn or two in this discourse of the Bishop He undertook to evince that the Scripture hath such light in it self that being introduc'd by the Tradition of the Church it can shew it self to be the most undoubted Divine word of God which to perform he assumes this medium The Scripture is a light Therefore it can manifest not onely other things but also it self by it self to be a light Ergo it can manifest it self to be the word of God This must be his consequence if he will conclude his intent But what windings are here The Scripture is a light I grant it Ergo 't is able to manifest it self to be a light I grant that too Ergo it can manifest it self to be an infallible light or the undoubted word of God That I deny and this which was the onely thing to be prov'd he never so much as goes about to prove For unless he could shew that there are no other lights save the word of God and such as are Infallible he can never make good his consequence In Seneca in Plutarch in Aristotle I read many lights and those lights manifest themselves to be lights Ergo they manifest themselves to be Infallible lights or the very Divine word of God what consequence is this The Scripture teacheth that there is one God this is a light and manifests it self to be a light Ergo it manifests it self to be the word of God how follows that May not the same light be found in hundreds of Books even in the Talmud of the Jews and Alcoran of the Turks as well as in Scripture The same may be said of a thousand Moral Instructions which either the very same or much like to them may be sound in other Moral Writers as well Christians as Jews and Heathens which all manifest themselves to be lights but follows it thence that they manifest themselves to be Divine lights or lights undoubtedly proceeding from the mouth of God The intricacy therefore of this Meander consists in making a sly Transition from the light to the person who is cause of this light I finde for example a candle lighted in a room it is a light and enlightens all the room and shews it self to be a light by its own light but it shews not by that light who lighted it I see some good sentence written on a wall it manifests it self by it self to be good but it manifests not whether it were written by Man Angel or God himself this must be evinc'd some other way Thus the words and sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves by themselves to be lights yet because the very same or such as are perfectly like and so the same in substance and sense may have been conceiv'd and express'd not onely by God but by good Men or Angels it follows not as he would have it they shew themselves to be lights by their own light Ergo they shew themselves to be Gods-lights or Infallible lights produc'd by none but God himself We have made I hope a pretty good progress through this Meander But no looner is one past over but we fall into another He was to prove that Scripture has light enough in it self to give Divine Infallible proof that 't is the word of God so as our Faith may rest upon that light as on its proper formall object and to evince this he cites here and there Authorities of the Fathers where they took some proofs out of Scripture to conclude Scripture to be the word of God
We grant they did so but what follows thence Ergo Scripture gives sufficient Divine proof to it self before it be believ'd infallibly to be Gods word This he was to inferre from it but how proves he this consequence which is the onely difficulty He doth it thus or no way at all The Fathers who precedently to the reading of Scripture believ'd infallibly that Scripture was the word of God prov'd by Scripture that it was such Ergo those who believe not infallibly that Scripture is Gods word may evince by Scripture that 't is the word of God Is not this a strong inference The difficulties occurring in this his Lordships Doctrine though slighted by him are as many as in that of the private Spirit the odium of which opinion he will never be able to avoid by desiring not to have it so much as nam'd in the state of the question For if the Church may erre yea and hath err'd according to Protestants in this point how can we have Infallible assurance either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition or of the Scripture it self We read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture yet see we not such convincing and infallible arguments as can give us assurance that those Books are infallibly the word of God which Protestants admit and no other Now when he sayes they resolve their Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolical and in the next number knows not how to be certain of that Tradition he dissolves what he resolv'd before and makes one part of his Resolution impossible Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolicall Tradition he would quite undoe what he said before that Scripture is the onely foundation of our Faith and not Tradition Thus he turns quite opposite wayes in his Labyrinth 7. Here therefore to averre without any further proof that there appears such light to Protestants and no others is in effect to challenge the Private Spirit to himself and his party which is something more then onely to allow it in general For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self why do not we see it as well as they seeing we read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as they do To say that all are blinde besides themselves or that all beside themselves have such perverse eyes such unsanctified understandings that they cannot see nor reach that light which Protestants most easily discern is very great presumption and the same may with as much reason be challeng'd by every Heretique for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them as shall occurre to his fancy Nor can he upon any just ground make the Scripture to be like those Principles which are known of themselves so soon as the Terms are understood For such Principles are either evidently or probably known of themselves Of the former sort are these and others of like nature The whole is greater then a part thereof The same thing cannot be and not be at the sametime Of the latter sort is this and such others Every mother loves her childe from which 't is probably concluded that Katharine for example loves her childe by this argument Every mother loves her childe But Katharine is a mother Therefore Katharine loves her childe Now if we speak of principles of the first kinde the Relatour grants that Scripture is no such principle and 't is manifest in it self that it is not otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God as all agree in those Metaphysicall Principles above-named Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort for of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God then some other Book which is not truly such And though it had some probability that it were such yet were it not sufficient for we must have certainty and infallible certainty too as his Lordship grants But how that can be had without the infallible Authority of the Church I am confident neither he nor any of his party will ever be able to shew But if we betake our selves to the infallible Authority of the Church we may be as certainly and infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God as those who heard the Apostles say that Scripture was Gods word For as the Signs and Motives which accompanied the Apostles prov'd them to be Infallible so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible insomuch that we can no more erre in taking the Scripture from the Church then the Christians of the Primitive Church could erre in taking it from the Apostles And yet as their Faith was of things not seen both in regard of the Object which is not seen and of the Subject that sees onely in aenigmate enigmatically and darkly so is ours Will the Bishop then account the greatest part or rather all the Fathers either blinde or sensual men who saw no such light for some hundreds of years after Christ as Protestants with his Lordship here pretend they see in some Books of Scripture Were all those of the Roman Church for so many ages before blinde when you of the new-found Church first began who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture as could evince it self to be the word of God to such as before believ'd it not to be so with Divine certainty Or will Protestants be content that we upon this their own principle account them all blinde and sensual men because they see not the light of many other Books which our Church recommends to them and us and which we believe to be Divine Scripture as a great part of the Ancient Fathers did before us What do any Sectaries in the world more then this either against us or them or one against another in asserting the Private Spirit For the Bishop and his party affirm themselves to be so enlightned that they can see and discover that in Scriptures which no other Christians beside themselves ever did or could even before they believe it infallibly to be Scripture 8. As for Bellarmin whom the Bishop will needs have to be 〈◊〉 and unable to stand upon his own ground for teaching lib. 3. De Ecclesia cap. 14. that 't is not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that which in it self hath no shadow of difficulty it being as Bellarmin asserts it a truth so evident that the Bishop himself could not have deny'd it And if his Lordship had not too hastily run over Bellarmin he would have found that he distinguishes times as well as Gandavo cited in the same page For he saith that to believe there are any Divine Scriptures 't is not absolutely necessary to salvation for his omnino signifies no more because many were saved who lived before Divine Scriptures were written and since
they were written some may and 't is not unlikely have been saved without any knowledge of Divine Scripture Such they are as have alwayes lived among Barbarous Nations where they have never heard of Divine Scripture for having invincible ignorance of this and believing other necessary points sufficiently propounded to them if they offend not God mortally in other things they will undoubtedly be saved Had some ignorant Calvinist cavill'd against this it had been no great marvell but I wonder so great a Scholar and so wise a man as the Bishop is presum'd to be should pick so deep a quarrell with nothing And questionless had it been so necessary a point the Apostles would have inserted the Belief thereof into their Creed Nay St. Irenaeus and St. Austin whom Bellarmin cites would have been in as deep an errour as he Seeing therefore Bellarmin and all Catholiques with him hold that Christians may sufficiently arrive to a Divine Belief of all the Fundamental Mysteries of Faith without an explicite Belief of Scripture what errour could he commit in his Assertion But it was some secret Project or other which made the Bishop here inveigh and argue so hotly against Bellarmin and by conjecture most likely this Scripture in his principles is the Sole soundation of Faith Therefore none can be saved without express belief of Scripture I think I have hit the nail on the head Let them first convince Bellarmin of this and then I le confess he deliver'd a great errour What he addes asterwards that being granted which is among all Christians that there is a Scripture is a meer cavill the question being not understood onely of Christians For I urge is it also granted amongst all Heathens that there is a Scripture What if a Heathen should be brought to believe all that is contained in the Apostles Creed and being Baptized should dye before he hear there is any Scripture cannot he be saved Questionless he may Bellarmin therefore speaks onely in such rare cases as these When his Lordship subjoyns God would never have given a supernatural unnecessary thing who sayes he would May not many supernatural things be necessary for the whole Church or for many states therein which are not necessary to salvation for every particular person What thinks he of Holy Orders Vowes Virginity c Again are there not hundreds of Histories and thousands of Sentences in Scripture which for every one in the Church to believe expresly is not necessary to salvation Who denyes the Scripture to be very necessary in all ages The question is whether it be absolutely and simply necessary for every one to Salvation to believe expresly that there is Scripture The Bishop here imagines he has given a great defeat to Bellarmin and that as he sayes upon Roman grounds in this his Marginall Syllogisme That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omnino 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 omnino necessary to Salvation The fallacy of this Argument lies in the words necessary to believe there being some Articles of Faith so absolutely necessary to be believ'd that a man cannot be sav'd without an express belief of them which therefore School-Divines call necessary necessitate medii whereas there are other Articles of Faith which in some cases 't is enough to believe implicitely though all men are bound to an explicite belief of them when they are sufficiently propounded to them by the Church and these Divines tearm necessary necessitate praecepti This distinction suppos'd I answer thus in form That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary necessitate medii is omnino necessary to salvation I grant the Major That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe necessitate praecepti onely is omnino or absolutely necessary to salvation I deny the Major To the Minor I apply the very same distinction and deny the consequence By which you may easily perceive that Bellarmin stands firm upon his feet and with a wet finger wipes off all that the Bishop here layes to his charge 9. In his number 25. there is much adoe about Hooker and Brierley the latter of which the Relatour is pleased to call the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and seem well read Truly persecution hath deprived them of that plenty of Books which Protestants have so that in this respect they have more need of a Store-house yet I believe Catholique Priests are as industrious and learned as Protestant Ministers for the most part and daily experience testifies as much Now concerning Mr. Hookers Authority which the Bishop affirms to be cited with want of fidelity and integrity by Brierley I answer it is not Brierley but his Lordship who wants both these in quoting Hookers words For first Brierley cites Mr. Hookers words most faithfully as they stand in the places mentioned by him Secondly what he affirms Hooker to acknowledge viz. that the motive which assures us that Scripture is the word of God is the Authority of Gods Church is likewise true For that Author first speaks thus Finally we all believe the Scriptures of God are sacred and that they proceeded from God our selves we assure that we do right well in so believing We have for this point a demonstration SOUND AND INFALLIBLE But it is not the word God c. as it follows in his words cited by Brierley Now seeing Hooker affirms that this sound and infallible Demonstration that Scripture proceeds from God is not the word of God or Scripture it self he must either settle no infallible ground at all even in his Lordships principles or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground For seeing he assigns no other save the Authority of man which as the Bishop here acknowledges is the name he gives to Tradition it must necessarily follow that either we have no infallible ground at all to believe Scripture to be the word of God or it is Tradition Now that it is Tradition onely which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the word of God Hooker delivers clearly enough in that place where he addes these words Yea that which is more utterly to infringe the force of MANS AUTHORITY that is Tradition were to shake the very Fortress of Gods Truth by which Fortress he means the Scriptures as the following words declare Now how can this Fortress be shaken by infringing Mans Authority were not that Authority esteem'd by him the ground of that Fortress And presently after he inferres Some way therefore notwithstanding mans infirmity his Authority may inforce assent If mans Authority may inforce assent it must necessarily be the ground of our assent to assure us as Hooker afterward affirms it doth that Scripture is the word of God But now let us
see the dextrous Windings the Bishop makes to turn Hookers words another way He first would inferre from these words of Hooker So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing that might assure c. that therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition supposing that Hooker spake of proving Scripture to be the word of God But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus Mr. Hookers adversaries the Puritans had affirmed that Scripture prov'd it self to be the word of God by its own light and authority Mr. Hooker asserts it impossible for Scripture to be its own proof After he had demonstrated this he tells his Adversaries that unless besides Scripture there be another proof c. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God Ergo sayes the Bishop he himself against himself holds Scripture to prove it self when every one that has his eyes open may see that Hookers meaning is there must be some other thing different from Scripture to prove the Scriptures to be Gods word and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture c. was occasioned by his adversaries opinion As if he had said unless beside Scripture which you Puritans have ungroundedly put for its own proof there be some other it can never be prov'd sufficiently to be Scripture because I have demonstrated that Scripture which you falsly suppose to be that proof is no such proof at all But let us hear Mr. Hooker make his Apology for himself in his own words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his word For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way So that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure us that we do well we could not think we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy Rule of doing well Hooker lib. 2. § 4. Is there any thing here which proves Scripture to be a ground to it self that 't is the word of God Nay is not the impossibility hereof clearly asserted Is not Hooker in search after an assuring ground upon which Scripture must stand But the Bishop will have this ground whether Mr. Hooker will or no onely concomitant with Scripture that is Church-Tradition onely to lead in and help in assurance which assurance we get by the sole light of Scripture whereas Mr. Hooker will have that assurance both that Scripture is a rule of living well and that we do well in holding it to be so and also that it is the word of God as his words now cited declare to be precedent to Scripture and no other then Church-Tradition If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to it self that it is the word of God in his own opinion he maintains the very same in effect that we say and the quite contrary to the Bishop viz. that supposing we are assured by a proof precedent to Scripture that Scripture is the word of God this I say presupposed Scripture as by a secondary proof can confirm its own Authority viz. either where it teacheth that we are to believe the Church which so assures us primarily or that it self is the word of God This Turn being ended he begins another and that a double one and endeavours to shew that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to shew that Scripture is the word of God is the Tradition of the Church For that Author sayes he states the question in these words The Scripture is the ground of our Belief the Authority of man that 's the name Hooker gives to Tradition is the key which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture Now see his Meanders Hooker sayes the Bishop affirms that Scripture is the ground of our Belief But are those all Hookers words in that Sentence No for I finde amongst them a therein which is neatly hidden in a dark corner Although sayes Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief This one concealed word relates to something which would have quite spoil'd the Bishops market had it been fairly express'd What means he by Therein The words immediately going before tell us Whatsoever sayes Hooker we believe concerning Salvation by Christ although the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief Whence it appears that Hooker rather excludes Scripture from being a ground of our Belief concerning that which the Bishop here pretends viz. that Scripture is the word of God For the word therein which Hooker useth is in this place clearly relative and restrictive and tyes his speech to the particular matter precedent viz. to all things concerning Salvation by Christ. As if Hooker should say Good assurance being presupposed by some antecedent proof that Scripture is the word of God Scripture it self may then be a ground of our Belief touching all other things which concern our Salvation by Christ. How does this place of Hooker now fully and faithfully cited favour his Lordship There is no man that has his brains about him to use his own words but sees how little it makes to his purpose But let us go on The Authority of man sayes Hooker cited by the Bishop is the Key which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter and shew what he means by opening the knowledge of Scripture He speaks thus The Scriptures do not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things Stay a while By this Key therefore which opens the entrance into the knowledge of Scriptures is not meant in this place that Church-Tradition fallibly assures us that Scripture is the word of God as the Bishop would fain interpret Hooker but that it teaches us the meaning of the words of Scripture and thereby opens to us the knowledge of Scripture By what hath been said 't is evident his Lordship had very little reason to fall so hotly upon Brierley as to tax him of falsification as he does num 25. For Hooker clearly teaching that besides Scripture we must have the Authority or Tradition of the Church to assure us that Scripture is Gods word and Brierley affirming no more of him then this I wonder that for speaking truth he should be thought to deserve so sharp a censure from his Lordship CHAP. 8. A further discovery of our Adversaries indirect proceedings in the Question ARGUMENT 1. The Question declined by the Bishop 2.
polishes and perfects what was begun before He tells us next he will grant to A. C. that Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other provided that A. C. will grant his Lordship that they do it not equally This is kindely done But what if A. C. will not be so good natur'd as to grant so much What would the Relatour do in that case Call you this answering or rather making Meanders He 'l grant to A. C. what he cannot deny by reason of its evidence if in return thereof A. C. will acquiesce to that which is so apparently false that he had already refus'd to grant it and in the mean time his Lordship gives no absolute answer to the difficulty 8. To A. C's similitude of the Words and Letters Credential of an Embassador he sayes that the Kings Letters confirm the Embassadors Authority infallibly and the Embassadours word probably onely But to whom do those Letters confirm it infallibly To all that know the Seal and hand sayes the Bishop That 's pretty Suppose then he go to a Forreign King who neither knows Seal nor Hand how will those Letters confirm infallibly the Embassadours authority To this here 's not a word of answer yet this is the question For we now dispute how we come to know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word and this is neatly put off by a dexterous Turn 'T is true the Kings Letters may give some moral Testimony to purchase credit to the Embassadour supposing that he who gives himself out for an Embassadour do either by private Letters Informations or other Motives gain so much credit as to merit the repute of a person of worth and honour and therefore not likely to wrong his King and himself in a matter of so high concern Wherefore standing in this similitude the Kings Letters are Letters of Credence because they are written in the usual form of such Letters and deliver'd from the hand of such a person as for other reasons deserves the repute of an honest man so as according to the style of all Royal Courts he is not to be receiv'd as Embassadour without those Letters Where we see to fit this instance to our present purpose that the first Motive inducing the Forreign King to receive either the Person or the Letters are those reasons whereby the King is perswaded the Embassadour is a person of credit to which correspond our Motives of Credibility for receiving the Church as most deserving all credit with us who afterward affirming her self in her Prelates to be Christs Embassadour we receive her as such and give credit to what she sayes or does next she producing also Christs Letters of Credence the holy Scriptures which affirm that her Prelates are his Embassadours we are yet further confirm'd in the whole affair But in case we should so far give way to the Relatours answer in this particular as to yield that the Letters infallibly give credit to all that know the Seal and Hand sure he must say that if this make them infallibly certain they must also know infallibly that Seal and Hand for by knowing them onely probably they can never be infallibly certain of the Letters Now if they know that Seal and Hand infallibly they will also infallibly know that they are true Letters of Credence even independently of the Embassadours assertion Whence it follows that if we can be infallibly certain of any thing corresponding to the Seal and Hand of God in the Scriptures we likewise shall be infallibly certain that they are his Letters whether the Church as Gods Embassadour attest them or not So that this way reduces all to the sole light of Scripture which is against his Lordship and already rejected by him But after all how can one be infallibly certain of that Seal and Hand unless he be as certain of the Embassadours sincerity who brought them otherwise there can be no Infallibity of his Embassie How many wayes are there of counterfeiting both Seal and Hand Nay how many wayes of obtaining them surreptitiously May not the Embassadour himself or some other interessed person procure them by some artificial practice May they not combine with the Secretary of State to impose upon his Majesty by drawing him to sign one thing for another But enough of this it being a matter so obvious to the understanding Let us now follow the Bishop page by page who stomacks very much at this Assertion of A. C. That these Letters the Scriptures do warrant that the people may hear and give credit to those Legates of Christ as to Christ himself Soft sayes the Bishop this is too high a great deal no Legat was ever of so great credit as the King himself Durst I be so bold I might soft it to his Lordship too and tell him he sayes too much a great deal Where I beseech him doth A. C. say in the forecited words that a Legat is of as great credit as the King himself I 'm sure in his words there is no such sentence He averres indeed that we may give credit to those Legats as to Christ the King himself but he sayes not that we may give as much or as high credit to the one as to the other This was the Bishops Turn onely There is therefore a more eminent degree of credit to be given to a King then to his Legate and yet we give credit to the Legate as to the King himself that is we doubt no more of the one then of the other And I would gladly know if his Lordship had heard our Saviour speak in his life time and his Apostles preach after our Saviours death whether he would have doubted of the truth of the Apostles doctrine any more then of the doctrine of Christ himself whose Legates they were To give credit therefore to them as to Christ himself is as undoubtedly to believe them as Christ himself though with a higher degree of respect and regard to Christ then to them And our Saviour affirm'd as much when he said He that hears you hears me Luke 10. 16. Next he tells us that A. C. sayes that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition hath in them Divine and Infallible Authority and consequently are worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Has he not here plaid the Divine and Rhetorician both at once What means this Rhetorical repetition thrice together But the worst is A. C's words are misapply'd and miscited by an artificial Turn in the Labyrinth He accuses A. C. of attributing Divine Authority twice over and that absolutely without any restriction or modification to that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition and then sayes their Divine Authority and credit is so great that 't is sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Now Reader judge whether A. C. applies
this Divine Authority to that company of men or to the Holy Scriptures A. C. there discoursing of one who considers Church-Tradition as 't is deliver'd from a company of men assisted by the Holy Ghost speaks thus He would finde no difficulty in that respect to account the Authority of Church-Tradition to be Infallible and consequently not onely able to be an Introduction but also an Infallible motive or reason or at least a condition EX PARTE OBJECTI to make both it self and the Books of Scripture appear infallibly though obscurely to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith These words in them are clearly referr'd to Books of Scripture not to any company of men and those words sufficient to breed in us divine Faith have relation to the Authority of the Books of Scripture and not to those men For though he put before two Antecedents it self that is Church Tradition and Books of Scripture to both which in them may seem to have relation yet it is one thing to affirm that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine and Infallible Authority and another to affirm that those men so assisted have in them Divine and Infallible Authority as he accuses A. C. to have said For seeing that in Church-Tradition is included Apostolical Tradition in A. C's principles and that even according to our Adversary Apostolical Tradition is of Divine Authority it will be true to assert that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine Authority even though those men delivering it had not in them any absolute Divine but onely Infallible Authority Our Apology for A. C. being ended let us see how his Lordship goes about to prove Scripture to be Gods Word For the better understanding whereof 't is necessary to know what he is to prove He tells us that this his Method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the Ancient Church ever held c. Now his Lordships Method and manner of proving this includes two particulars The first that Church-Tradition is onely a humane moral and fallible inducement able onely to found a moral perswasion that Scripture is the Word of God but insufficient to conveigh infallibly to us the Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures-being Gods word whence he concludes that before the reading of Scripture we cannot in vertue of that Apostolical Tradition thus conveighed to us believe with Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This is the first part of his Position The second is that Scripture by the internal light which is in it founds a Divine Faith that it is the Word of God when we frame a high Moral esteem of it and are induc'd to read it as a thing most likely to be Gods Word by the fallible Testimony of the Church While therefore he here undertakes to prove that his Method and Manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is according to the use of the ancient Church let us have an eye to these two points and see whether his Authorities prove them or no. First then his Authorities must prove that before we read Scripture it self we have not Divine Faith but onely a Moral perswasion by Church-Tradition that it is the Word of God He cites first Vincentius Lirinensis lib. 1. cap. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholique Church The Faith he here speaks of is not any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian and Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it Sound Faith and his Faith Fidem suam the Faith of a Christian nay he sayes the Tradition of the Catholique Church must needs as truly munire fidem confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture does it in a more high and noble manner as being the immediate prime Revelation of God This then proves not his intent but the quite contrary Secondly Henricus à Gandavo sayes expresly Credunt per istam famam they believe by this Relation of Church-Tradition and this is such a Belief that Christ is said to enter their hearts by means of the Church Christus intrat per mulierem id est Ecclesiam But Christ cannot enter into a Soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith onely A Gandavo goes on Plus verbis Christi in Scripturis credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti ergo credit Ecclesiae He believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith A little after à Gandavo sayes Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis secundam subistâ Definitionibus Consuetudinibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Here 's prima secunda fides But yet both of them are properly and truly Faith And to the end all may understand he means no other but Supernatural and Divine Faith as to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church he addes a third manner of giving credit to others Post istas studiosis viris non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae After these two viz. Scriptures and Church-Definitions he sayes we believe also learned men but in a far other degree of assent from that which was given to the Scriptures and to the Church non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae For the credit we give to them obliges not under pain of Infidelity or errour in Faith if we dissent from them but under pain of pertinacious pride in preferring our selves before them Seeing therfore he addes this limitation to the third kinde of belief onely he tacitely grants that if we contradict either Scripture or Church it is sub poenâ perfidiae under pain of Infidelity and not of Proterviousness onely Ergo he accounts the Definitions of the Church sufficient to assure us infallibly of Divine Truths otherwise it would not be Infidelity Errour in Faith or Heresie to contradict them Lastly à Gandavo is cited in these words Quod autem credimus posterioribus c. Here is credimus again and that with a Divine Faith in regard of the Church for he asserts presently that it is clear constat that the writings of the Scripture and other Articles of Faith preach'd by the former Pastours are not changed by their Successours and this does constare ex consensione concordi in 〈◊〉 omnium Succedentium 〈◊〉 ad tempor a nostra by the unanimous consent of all Succeeders even to our present times But sure a thing that is fallible uncertain and questionable cannot be said constare to be clear and unquestionable as he affirms the unanimous consent of succeeding ages to be Now the Bishop minces it in his Translation of the word constat turning it now it appears For a thing may be said to appear either clearly or obscurely He should therefore have rather translated it now it evidently appears had he not intended to make some pretty Turn by his Translation Hence is evinced that every
one of his Authorities brought to prove that Church-Tradition founds onely a probable humane perswasion that Scripture is Gods Word rather evince the quite contrary The second point to be concluded is that Scripture thus led in by the Church proves it self Infallibly and Divinely by its internall light to such as had no supernatural Faith precedently This he labours to evince from some expressions of the Fathers who use sometimes the like proofs to shew that Scripture is the Word of God But first do they alwayes bring these proofs to such as had no Divine Faith before of Scriptures-being Gods Word Do they not use them both for themselves and others who precedently had a Divine Faith of that point Secondly do the Fathers say that those proofs of theirs are the Primary Infallible and Divine proofs of Scriptures-being the word of God 〈◊〉 do they not rather use them as Secondary arguments perswasive onely to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word precedently to them Thirdly do they use onely such proofs as are wholly internal to Scripture it self All these conditions must be made good to make a full proof for his purpose out of them Now touching the two first conditions 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point not used they them as such And for the third condition viz. of the proofs being internal to Scripture they are not all such For first that of Miracles is externall The Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the word of God Secondly the Conversion of so many people and Nations by the doctrine contain'd in Scripture is also external to Scripture unless haply it came by reading the Scripture and not by the declaration and preaching of the Church which he proves not and the contrary is rather manifest Again many other Books beside Scripture contain the same doctrine yet are not thereby prov'd to be Gods Word Were not many thousands converted to that humble doctrine of Christ before divers of the Canonical Books were written Nay many whole Nations as St. Irenaeus already alledged witnesses some hundreds of years after the said Books were written who knew nothing at all of Scripture But suppose these four proofs mentioned by the Bishop viz. first Miracles secondly Doctrine nothing carnal thirdly performance of it Fourthly The Conversion almost of the whole world by this Doctrine had been all of them internal to Scripture yet how prove they Infallibly and Divinely that Scripture is the Word of God Perswade truly they may but convince they cannot Touching the first how will it appear that Miracles were ever wrought in immediate proof of the whole Bible as it is receiv'd in the Canon As for the second how many Books are there beside Scripture which have nothing of Carnal Doctrine at all in them Concerning the third and fourth how can it ever be prov'd that either the performance of this Doctrine or the Conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be deny'd but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applyable to the Church then to Scripture For first Miracles have most copiously and familiarly confirmed the Authority and lawful Mission of the Pastours Secondly the Doctrine of Gods true Church hath nothing of Carnal in it The Performance or verifying of this Doctrine is onely found in the Members of the Church Lastly it is the Church that hath preach'd this humble Doctrine of Christ and that hath converted and still doth convert Nations to the belief of it and submission to it Who sees not by this that while he disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it CHAP. 9. An End of the Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. St. Austins words explicated 2. The Bishop cannot avoid the Circle without mis-stating the Question 3. He waves the difficulty 4. St. Cyril and St. Austins words examined 5. The Bishops eight Points of Consideration weighed and found too light 6. According to his Principles no man can lawfully say his Creed till he have learnt the Articles thereof out of Scripture 7. His Synthetical way one of the darkest passages in his Labyrinth 8. Scripture when and by whom to be supposed for Gods Word 9. His Lordship argues a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 10. Brings non-cognita for praecognita and proves what he affirms ought not to be proved 11. The Jews Resolved their Faith into Tradition as the Church of Rome now doth 12. Moral Certainty not absolutely Infallible 1. 'T is now high time to put a Period to this Controversie touching the Churches Infallibility and Resolution of Faith which I should have done long since had not our Antagonist led us so long and so intricate a Dance through the redoubled Meanders of his Labyrinth St. Austins proving Scripture by an internal Argument lib. 13. cap. 5. contr Faust. makes little for the Bishops purpose unless St. Austin either affirm that Argument to be such as Faith may fully rest upon as its primary formal Motive and Object for proof of Scripture or that he himself prove it to be so For St. Austin often urges Arguments which are onely Secondary and probable yea sometimes purely conjectural in this kinde See an example of this in the margin What the Bishop quotes out of Thomas Waldensis Doct. Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Art 2. cap. 23. num 9. that if the Church should speak anything contrary to Scripture he would not believe her is most true but it is likewise as true what St. Austin said above contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. that if the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither The truth is both the one and the other that is both Waldensis and St. Austins expressions proceed ex suppositione impossibili and are wholly like that of St. Paul Gal. 1. If an Angel from heaven preach any thing otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed 2. But for all these Turns and Windings it will be hard to free the Bishop from a vicious Circle For if he allow not Scripture to be believ'd with Divine Faith by vertue of the Churches Testimony and Tradition what answer can be made to this Question Why believe you infallibly that Scripture is Gods Word If he say for the Tradition of the Church it will not serve seeing he is suppos'd to have no Divine Faith that
Scripture is Gods Word from the sole Testimony of the Church Yet when both partles press this Circle against each other they alwayes suppose that Scripture is Infallibly and Divinely believ'd for Gods Word in some true sense by means of the Churches Testimony Otherwise it were as impertinent to press this Question to a Christian why believe you the Scripture to be the Word of God that has no further certainty of it then what is drawn from a probable and humane Testimony of the Church as if it were propounded to a Heathen who had onely heard Scripture recommended for Gods Word by persons very worthy of credit For both of these were equally to answer that they deny'd the supposition of an Infallible Belief since they did not believe as Christians take the word Belief that it is Gods Word And then no marvel if there be no Circle committed when there is no Christian Belief which both sides presuppose as a ground of this Circle where ever it is found When therefore the Relatour speaks of proving Scripture by the Church unless he mean proving it by a Medium sufficient to assure us infallibly that it is the Word of God which he constantly refuses to grant though he fall not into a Circle yet he falls into a Semi-Circle that is a Crooked Turn in his Labyrinth by mis-stating the question and bowing it another way then it ought to be and alwayes is propounded in this Controversie as I said above Wherefore if the Church give onely a humane Testimony to induce 〈◊〉 a fallible assent that Scripture is the Word of God and Scripture afterwards by its own light gives me an infallible Certainty that the Testimony of the Church was true there could never have been the least ground for wise and learned men to move this difficulty of a vicious Circle one against another no more then when I believe it probable that to morrow will be a fair day because Peter tells me so and after I know certainly that Peter told me true because I see the next day to be fair by its own light His Lordship therefore was either to suppose that those Beginners and Weaklings he speaks of have some degree of Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God by means of the Churches Tradition antecedently to the reading of Scripture or he commits the fallacy term'd ex falso supposito of making a false supposition and so by avoiding one errour falls into another For unless he believe infallibly that Scripture is Gods word upon the Testimony of the Church as a true Cause and Motive of his Infallible Belief he doth not answer the question seeing all that affirm they believe this for the Churches Testimony understand it so and if he do he forsakes his own principles falls to us and consequently into that pretended Circle he objects against us if his objections be of force His Lordships Resolution of Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition we have above evinced to be impossible supposing the immediate or present Church-Tradition to be fallible but were it possible we have also evidenced that it destroys his own grounds viz. of sole Scriptures-being the Foundation of our belief When therefore he averres that we may resolve our Faith into Prime Tradition when it is known to be such if he means by known as he must such a knowledge as may suffice to make that Prime Tradition an object of Faith he wheels quite about to amuse his Reader and sayes in effect we may then resolve our Faith into Tradition when that comes to pass which himself holds impossible ever to happen For if Prime Tradition can be onely gather'd by the perpetual succeeding Tradition of the Church as 't is certain it can onely be and that Tradition be fallible as the Bishop perpetually contends how shall any Prime Tradition be known sufficiently to make it self an object of Faith since nothing can do that but an Authority Infallible 〈◊〉 us Infallibly certain of that Tradition Hence he runs two contrary wayes at once desirous on the one side to resolve Faith into Prime Tradition that he may not seem repugnant to the Ancient Fathers and yet on the other so willing to be repugnant to us that by his grounds he makes that Resolution wholly impossible and to blinde these contrarieties pretends that Church-Tradition being not simply Divine cannot be such as may suffice for a formal object of Faith whereinto it is to be resolv'd when yet he knew full well the difficulty lay not there and that his Adversaries never affirm'd it was simply Divine or the formal object of Faith but spake alwayes warily and reservedly abstracting from that question as not necessary for the solving of his arguments or defence of the Catholick Faith against him Let the Bishops Adherents but confess that the Testimony and Tradition of the Church is truly infallible and we for the present shall require no more of them For that Infallibility suppos'd we have made it manifest that Prime Tradition is sufficiently derived to us in quality of the formal object of our Faith whereon to rest which in his Lordships principles is impossible to be done 4. Concerning the Relators endeavor to reconcile the Fathers whom he conceives to speak sometimes contrary to one another touching Scripture and Tradition though he doth not much oblige us in the number of those he brings in favour of our assertion for he names onely two and one of them somewhat lamely cited with an c. yet surely we are to thank him for his fair and candid exposition of those he quotes against us For he professes that when ever the Fathers speak of relying upon Scripture onely they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition wherein doubtless his Lordship delivers a great truth and nothing contrary to us But as for his challenge which follows we cannot but say that 's loud indeed but the sound betrayes its emptiness He will oblige us to shew that the holy Fathers maintain that which we need not affirm to be held by them For we never yet said that our Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word is resolved into the Tradition of the present Church but into Prime Apostolical Tradition of which we are infallibly certified by the Tradition of the present Church it being a condition or application of Prime Tradition to us And by this manner of defending our Tenets we have both gone along with A. C. and those Divines who affirm the voice of the Church not to be so simply and absolutely Divine as is the holy Scripture and given a full solution to all the Relatours arguments the most of which suppose us upon a false ground necessitated to acknowledge the voice of the Church to be so absolutely and simply Divine that our Faith is to rest upon it as its ultimate Motive and formall Object which must be no lesse then absolute Divine Authority But supposing we held our Faith to be
so resolv'd would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms resolving of Faith c. in the Ancient Fathers it being a School-term not used in their times It seems he would by his false citation of St. Austin in these words Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. contr Fund cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found nor any where else I am confident in all St. Austin For us it is sufficient that the Fathers frequently say We believe Scripture for Tradition we would not believe Scripture unless the Authority of the Church moved us that Traditions move to piety no less then Scripture c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms in the Fathers we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father who saith that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God infallibly for the Churches authority but must resolve it into the light of Scripture 5. I come now to his Considerations and begin with the first point touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology that must be pre-suppos'd without proof because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed I answer first he confounds Theology a Discursive Science with Faith which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will for Gods Authority revealing and not deduced by discursive Principles and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever in this particular Secondly I say I have already answered this matter to the full chap. 7. num 7. and chap. 6. num 5. in the Dialogue to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith which has further principles and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them He himself acknowledges that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition how was it then a Principle which cannot ought not to be proved but must be presupposed by all Christians Concerning his second point the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge For there the thing assented to remains obscure which in Sciences is made clear and all the difficulty is to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us and seeing he denies the Church to be it and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture we must have some further light clearer quoad nos then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition His third point contains no more in summe then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration I shall not therefore quarrel with it As to his fourth point we grant that the Incarnation of our Saviour the Resurrection of the dead and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church nor did we ever do it but into the Infallible Authority of God as we have often confessed In his fifth point recommended to Consideration there are also divers things which the Relatour himself should have better considered before they fell from his pen. For first he asserts on the one side that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence and that had it been clear in its own light to the Hearers of the Apostles that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge and not by Faith Yet on the other side almost with the same breath avoucheth that it appeared clear to the Prophets and Apostles that what ever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth and that they had clear Revelation What is this in effect supposing the Truth of his first Proposition but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful and make them in that respect like the Blessed in Heaven Comprehensores while they were yet in the way Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions that they walked by Faith not by Sight and that they saw onely per speculum in aenigmate Secondly in point of Miracles he avers that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing but what is actually converting which is a great mistake For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs since in themselves they deserve belief whether they actually convert or not and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said Had I not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned and again Woe be to thee Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida for had the Miracles done amongst you been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes Likewise The works which I do in my Fathers name bear witness of me and though you believe not me believe my works Thirdly the Bishops reasons brought in disparagement of Miracles seem as strange as his Doctrine First saith he the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested because forsooth there may be Counterfeit Miracles just as if a man should say Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not Secondly they are not convincing proofs because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Is not this a strange Paradox Do not all Divines even Protestants themselves confess that true Miracles are not feasable but by the special and extraordinary power of God That they are Divine Testimonies and that by them God sets as it were his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm that God bears witnesse to a Lye See the Margin It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other then false and feigned Miracles The sixth Point concerning the light of Scripture hath nothing but what is already answered chap. 7. num 5 6 and 7. Were Scripture by its own light capable of being the Prime Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge yet at least it must have something in it to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent Which in the Relatours Principles is not found The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows
that Scripture was held to be Gods Word for the Authority of the Church So that though it be against Art and Reason to question the Subject or put our Adversary to prove Scripture to be the Word of God when we dispute whether Transubstantiation Purgatory or the like Predicates be contain'd in Scripture yet against one that denies the necessity of Tradition we require a proof of Scripture it self as knowing he could not have any other good ground of supposing Scripture to be Gods Word besides the Tradition of the Church which he now denying doth either contradict himself or deprive the Scripture of all Authority Wherefore I make no difference at all in this point between a natural man and a man newly entring or doubting in Faith and those who pretend to be grown up in Faith and yet impugne the Tradition of the Church For all these are after one and the same Method to be dealt with that so they may be brought to admit the true grounds of proving Scripture to be the Word of God It was therefore no familiarity with impiety nor desire to catch advantage that mov'd Bellarmin and A. C. to demand how Scripture could be prov'd the Word of God for they were forced to it by their Adversaries denying the Necessity of Tradition And the advantage is to your selves that by this Medium which Protestants ever decline you may discern the weakness of your own Foundation In the very Porch of this Paragraph the Bishop as if he had untied the Gordian knot of Mr. Fishers Arguments brags he set him to his Book again But I am confident it was rather the not untying this knot that mov'd him to repeat what he had writ before For this repetition shew'd clearly the Bishop said no more then what Dr. White had said before him and consequently that Mr. Fishers words spoken to the Doctour were sufficient to solve all the Bishop had said Wherefore as the Bishop did actum agere do onely what was done by the Doctour before so he made Mr. Fisher dictum dicere to say again what was said before since there needs no new Solution where no new difficulty is propounded And when we hear him talking of Metaphysical Principles it seems they are too clear to be answered and therefore he waves them as too quaint niceties to be reflected upon by the Reader Neither does Bellarmin artificially cited in his Margin any way favour his Lordship For when he gives an Advertisement that all Hereticks suppose with Catholicks as a general Principle that the Word of God is a rule of Faith he speaks not of the sole written Word as the Bishop will needs misinterpret him but of the Word of God abstractively or as it embraces both the written and unwritten Word His omnibus Quaestionibus sayes he praemittenda est Controversia de VERBO DEI c. even as our Adversary cites him he sayes not de VERBO DEI SCRIPTO but de VERBO DEI. The Bishop and Hooker avoid not the difficulty by calling it a supposed Principle amongst Christians For if they suppose this with any ground they must suppose it founded upon Tradition And therefore A. C's Argument has still the same force even in this supposition of a Praecognitum as before For when a thing is admitted as a Principle by both parties in any particular Debate touching Religion 't is presupposed onely as a Praecognitum to that difficulty not as an absolute Prime Principle in Religion and is left in that Order of Priority or Posteriority of Principles which its proper nature requires Wherefore though both the Relatour and Mr. Fisher had supposed Scripture as a Principle agreed on by both parties in order to some further Question depending of Scripture which notwithstanding could not be done in this present Controversie where the Question was about the Priority of Tradition in order of Principles before Scripture yet Scripture is then to be presupposed onely as a Principle to that particular Dispute and cannot be thereby made a Prime Principle absolutely and universally in Faith Suppose for example the Dispute were whether Extream Unction were a Sacrament in this Dispute 't is to be supposed as a Principle granted by both parties that there are some Sacraments But hence follows not that it is supposed as an absolute prime Principle in Religion which neither can nor ought to be proved by other precedent Principles to wit Scripture or Tradition that there are some Sacraments His Lordship confesseth again that Tradition must lead the way like a preparing Morning-light to Sun-shine but then we settle not for our direction upon the first opening of the Morning-light but upon the Sun it self His meaning is that although Tradition must go before yet we ought not to rely upon it as the ground for which we admit Scripture but we are to fix our eyes onely upon the brightness of Scripture it self But I demand how knows the Relatour this Light is rather a Beam then a Dream by which he is deceiv'd by the watchful Enemy of Mankinde who transforms himself into an Angel of Light 'T is true the Scripture is called a Light but 't is like a Candle in a dark Lanthorn or the Sun under a Cloud in regard of all those who deny the Infallibility of the Church and appears in full light onely to them who acknowledge it After some flourishes the Bishop mindes us that there is less light in Principles of Faith then those of Knowledge But A. C. urgeth thus Though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknown in a Science must be primo cognitum needing not another thing pertaining to that Science prius cognitum known before it so if in Faith Scripture be the first and onely Foundation and consequently the first thing foreknown primum praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum needing not any other thing pertaining to Faith prius cognitum known before it This supposed Church-Tradition which is one thing pertaining to Faith could not as the Bishop saith it is and as indeed it is be known first and be an Introduction to the Knowledge of Scripture These are A. C's words pag. 51. not those set down by his Lordship and therefore he had no reason to say he is sorry to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes but had rather cause to employ his sorrow for himself since he could not otherwise avoid the difficulty then by corrupting his words whom he pretends to answer For by omitting the Parenthesis and changing the words he makes A. C. teach not his own but in part the Bishops Doctrine A. C. therefore mistook not at all but prest home his Argument in this manner which the Bishop solves not by saying he consesseth every where Tradition to be the Introducer to the knowledge of Scripture For the primum
St. Chrysostome in the place above cited it imports not evident or Scientificall Knowledge properly so called but a firm and perfect assurance onely otherwise our Faith would neither be free nor meritorious His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one both because the Royall Prophet intimates that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors Psalm 77. 6. and because they that heard Moyses the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles speak knew as perfectly by that hearing as could be known in matters of Faith and likewise because St. Paul saith Rom. 10. 17. Fides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing and lastly because his Lordship himself asserts that Scripture is known in this sense to be the word of God by hearing from the mouthes of the Apostles Now to averre that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle then an ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition is a truth delivered by me all along this debate For I have always held the voice of the present Church to be onely an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures for which prime Tradition onely we believe Scripture to be the word of God as for the formal motive of our Belief To his Quere therefore touching the Jewes proceeding in the like controversie I answer when it shall be shewn that any of the Jewes held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith to the exclusion of Tradition I shall then be ready to shew what the Bishop here demands viz that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove that the Old Testament was Gods word But to return to their resolution of Faith certain it is they had alwayes at least very often Prophets amongst them insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth that God promised to provide there should never be wanting a Prophet in Israel Moreover besides these 't is well known there was in the Jewish Church a permanent infallible Authority consisting of the High Priest and his Clergy to which all were bound to have 〈◊〉 in doubts and difficulties of Religigion as is expressed in Holy Writ Wherefore we have not the least reason to doubt but the Jews would have proceeded the same way in all difficulties concerning Scripture and Tradition that we do though his Lordship would perswade us the contrary 12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in as he was once before for averring that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being Gods word but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point to which the Relatour replies that the Argument would have been stronger had he said to assure us of this point by Divine Faith But certainly Mr. Fisher meant such an assurance and no other as appears by the expression he uses viz. to assure us in this point What point That Scriptures are the Word of God which being a point of Faith he could not be thought in reason but to require an assurance proportionable to a point of Faith that is infallible assurance sufficient to breed in us Divine Faith though it be also true that no certain assurance at all touching this matter could be had without admitting the infallible Authority of the Church For as it hath been urged heretofore many Books of Holy Writ have been doubted of upon very good grounds and the rest questioned as corrupted So that without the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost it were impossible in this case to come to any certain determination at all much less could we arrive to an infallible certainty Sure I am the School doth not maintain with his Lordship here that Moral certainty is infallible Philosophers are so far from this as to admit that even Physical certainty falls short of infallibility as being lyable to deception As for example when I have my eyes open and look upon the wall I have Physical certainty that it is the wall which I see but I have no infallible certainty of it for by the power of God it may be otherwise Now the reason why a moral and humane authority so long as 't is fallible can never produce an infallible assurance is because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority can be no greater then the Authority that grounds it Since therefore according to the Relator all humane Authority is absolutely fallible 't is impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty This Doctrine is expresly delivered by the Bishop § 16. num 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THEN DIVINE then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are contained are not objects of Divine Belief which once granted will inforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance then humane and moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then SIMPLY DIVINE must make good the Scriptures infallibity at least in the last resolution of our Faith in that point This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone for the Church consists of men subject to errour Thus he No humane testimony therefore in the Bishops opinion can make good the Scriptures infallibility that is give us an infallible assurance of that or any other point of Faith But how this can stand with what he delivers § 19. num 1. when speaking of the very same question viz. of Scriptures-being Gods Word he positively affirms we may be even infallibly assured thereof by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof I see not let the Reader judge This is not the first contradiction we have observed in his Lordships discourses Nor will it serve his turn to say as he doth that by infallible assurance may be understood no more then that the thing believed is true and truth QUA TALIS cannot be false For however he playes with the word infallible yet that cannot touch assurance For the infallibity he there talks of is onely in the object and that in sensu composito too viz. onely so long as the object remains so But assurance relates to the subject or person believing and his act which is the thing we chiefly mean when we teach that Faith is of divine and infallible certainty For otherwise in the Bishops sense of infallibility there is no true proposition how contingent and uncertain soever in it self of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain So for example should I say meerly by guess The Pope is now at Rome or in the Conclave and it were so de facto I might be said to be infallibly certain of it which is extreamly absurd as confounding verity with infallibility which no true Philosophy will admit Wherefore it is ridiculous to distinguish as the Bishop does here one infallibility cui non subest falsum viz.
which is not de facto false yet may be false and another cui non potest subesse falsum which neither is false nor can be false since all Infallibility is such cui non potest subesse falsum To obtain therefore an infallible assurance of Scriptures-being the Word of God we must of necessity rely upon the never-erring Tradition of Gods Church all other grounds assignable are uncertain and consequently insufficient to breed in us supernatural and divine Faith But enough of this Yet before I go further I cannot omit to observe the Bishops earnest endeavour to possess the Reader that the Scriptures both the old and new are come down to us so unquestionably by meer humane Authority that a man may thereby be infallibly assured that they are the word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith when he could not be ignorant that there is hardly any Book of Scripture which hath not been rejected by some Sect or other of Christians and that several parts even of the new Testament which most concerns us were long doubted of by divers of the Fathers and ancient Orthodox Writers till the Church decided the Controversie Nay that their great reformer Luther himself admits not for Canonical Scripture the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Saint James the Epistle of Saint Jude nor any part of the Apocalypse or Revelation Call you this candid dealing is it not rather to say and unsay or indeed to say any thing in defence of a ruinous Cause After this the Relatour pretending to come close to the particular sayes The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ that you and wee were all of one belief I wonder whom he means by that WEE of his before the Rent seeing the said WEE began with and by that Rent not made by us but by those that went out from us and deserted the Catholique Church and Faith in which they were bred up and so became a WEE by themselves which before the Rent so made had no other then a meer Utopian or Chimerical Being Yet as it seems by his Lordships discourse they are pleas'd in fancying themselves Reformers of our Corruptions while they themselves are the Corrupters They think themselves safe in holding the Creed and other common Principles of Belief but so did many of the ancient Heretiques who yet were condemn'd for such by lawfull oecumenical Councills They glory in ascribing as he sayes more sufficiency to the Scripture then is done by us in that they affirm it to contain all things necessary to Salvation while by so doing in the sense they mean it they contradict the Scriptures themselves which often sends them to Traditions Call you this giving honour to the Scritures This indeed is not onely enough but more then enough as the Bishop expresses it himself He tells us that for begetting and settling a Belief of this Principle viz. that the Scripture is the Word of God they go the same way with us and a better too He means they go some part of the way with us and the rest by themselves But certainly he ought rather to have continued in our way to the end then for want of a good reason why he left it to pin this falshood upon us That we make the present Tradition alwayes an Infallible Word of God unwritten Apostolicall Traditions we hold for such indeed since to be written or not-written are conditions meerly accidental to Gods Word but the Tradition of the present Church by which we are infallibly ascertain'd of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves we oblige not any man to receive it for Gods unwritten Word as the Bishop would make you believe Their way sayes the Bishop is better then ours because they resolve their Faith touching this Principle into the written Word which is in plain English that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word into no Word of God at all since there is not any written Word of God to tell them that this or that Book or indeed any Book of their whole Bible is the Word of God They therefore ultimately resolve their Faith of this point into little more then their own fancies and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all which neverthelesse is by them laid for the Basis or ground-work of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion Behold the excellency of their better way then ours who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into Gods unwritten Word viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own dayes And of this Apostolical Testimony Tradition or unwritten Word of God all the succeeding Christians of Gods Church even to this day have been rendred certain by the Infallible I say not Divine Testimony or Tradition of the said Church of Christ. Lastly the Bishop to close this Dispute speaks again to that well known place of St. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas which he attempts to solve by telling us that the Verb commovere is not applyable to one Motive alone but must signifie to move together with other Motives To this I answer that he must be a mean Grammarian who knows not this to be a great mistake when no plurality of Motives is expressed Secondly that in case St. Austins word commoveret were to be taken in the sense the Bishop gives it viz. to move together with Scripture yet his Lordship would gain little by it since his Faith were consequently to be resolv'd into it as being a Partial Motive of his Faith Now it cannot be denyed in true Philosophy that if one partial Motive be fallible the Act produced by that Motive must of necessity have a mixture of Fallibility in it every effect participating the nature of its cause So even in Logick should a Syllogism have for one of its Premises a Sentence of Scripture and for the other but a probable Proposition the Conclusion could be no more then probable And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited when speaking of the Churches Authority he sayes Quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio oredere potero which being weakened or call'd in question I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel it self Thus by Gods favour we are come to the end of this grand Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith wherein I have not onely shewn the insufficiency of the several wayes and methods propounded by the Bishop but cleared and established our own Catholick way of Resolving Faith The Infallible Tradition of the present Church is the sole Clew that guides us through the dark and intricate Meanders of our Adversaries Labyrinth 'T is the onely expedient by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object Gods Revelation This thred is
fastened to the undeniable Motives of Credibility accompanying and pointing out the true Church which Motives are the ground or reason why we believe the Church to be Infallible independently of Scripture whereby we avoid even the shadow of a Circle Now our Adversary on the other side though he grants true Christian Faith to be essentially Divine and Infallible and that Divine Revelation or Gods Word is the ultimate Foundation or Formal Object of Faith as also that we cannot believe with true Divine Faith unless we have some infallible ground and Authority to assure us of the said Divine Revelation or Word of God yet does he not 't is therefore to be suppos'd he could not shew any such infallible Authority or ground for his believing Scripture or any other point of Faith to be Divine Revelation or the Word of God The private Spirit however mask'd under the title of Grace hath been found to come far short in that respect the inbred Light of Scripture it self has been evidenc'd to be too weak and dimme for that purpose Neither can these defective means viz. of private Spirit and inbred Light of Scripture be ever heightened or improved to that Prerogative to wit of giving Infallible assurance by the Tradition of the present Church unless that Tradition be granted to be Infallible which the Bishop absolutely refuses to admit and thereby leaves both himself and his own Party destitute of such an Infallible ground for beleeving Scripture to be Gods Word as himself confesses necessary for attaining Supernatural and Divine Faith The consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his Eternal Felicity CHAP. X. Of the Universal Church ARGUMENT 1. The Ladies Question what it was and how diverted by the Bishop 2. In what sense the Romane Church is stiled THE Church 3. Every True Church a right or Orthodox Church and why 4. The Ladies Question and A. C's miscited 5. How THE Church and how Particular Churches are called Catholique 6. Why and in what sense 't is not onely true but proper to say the Romane-Catholique Church 7. The Bishops pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities referr'd Chap. 1. to a fitter place here more particularly answered 1. THe Lady at length cuts off the the thred of his Lordships long Discourse and by a Quere gives a rise to a new one Her demand according to Mr. Fishers relation was Whether the Bishop would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church What was the Bishops answer to this He granted that it was But since it seems he repented himself for granting so much For afterwards in his Book he deny'd that either the Question was askt in this form or that the Answer was such Had we the Ladies Question in some Authenticall Autography of her own hand it would decide this verbal Controversie However 't is very likely the Lady asked not this Question out of curiosity since she desired onely to know that which might settle her in point of Religion being at that time so deeply perplexed as she was Now what satisfaction would it have given her to know that the Church of Rome was a particular and true Church in the precise Essence of a Church in which she might possibly be saved if it were neither THE true Church that is the Catholique Church out of which she could not be saved nor the right Church in which she might certainly be saved This onely was her doubt as appears by the whole Dispute this having been inculcated to her by those of the Romane Church and 't is likely she fram'd her question according to her doubt But whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Romane were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none could be saved for herein she had from the beginning of the Conference desired satisfaction See Mr. Fishers Relation pag. 42. wherein it is said The Lady desired to have proof brought to shew which was that Continual Infallible Visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attain Salvation 2. To our present purpose 't is all one in which of these terms the Question was demanded For in the present subject the Romane Church could not be any Church at all unless it were THE Church and a right Church The reason is because St. Peters Successor being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as I shall fully prove anon that must needs be THE Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all In like manner if it were not a right Church it might be a Synagogue or Conventicle but not a True Church of Christ. For that implies a company of men agreeing in the profession of the same Christian Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments under the Government of lawfull Pastours and chiefly of one Vicar of Christ upon Earth 'T is evident this Church can be but One and therefore if it be a True Church it is a Right Church This notwithstanding hinders not the Universal Church from being divided into many Diocesses all which agreeing in the same Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments and in the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ make up One and the same Universal Church But where there is difference in any of these the Congregation that departs from the abovesaid One Faith Communion and Obedience of necessity ceases to be a Church any longer Why so Because Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu 'T is true THE Church signifies most properly either the whole Catholique Church or if it be applied to a particular Church the Chief Church and by consequence the Church of Rome St. Peter having fixed his Chair to that place and by that means made his Successor Bishop of Rome But had St. Peter placed his Chair elsewhere that Church where ever it had been would have been called THE Church as the Roman Church now is The Roman Church therefore is stiled THE Church because 't is the Seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastour of the Church Universal yet all other Churches are true right and Orthodox Churches of Christ otherwise they would be no Churches at all In a word I would fain see some grave Ancient Father who ever maintained a Congregation of Christians to be a true Church and yet held it not to be Orthodox 3. This being so all his Lordships subtleties fall to the ground which suppose that some Congregation of Christians may remain a True Church and yet teach false Doctrine in matters of Faith For how can you call that a True Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternall perdition Such needs must be all false Doctrine in matters of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denyes that to be his Word which is
that City Whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops that is saith he with the Romane Church And in this sense the Church of Alexandria according to St. Hierome made it her glory to participate of the Romane Faith And John Patriarch of Constantinople wrote thus to Pope Hermisda We promise saith he not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of those who are sever'd from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not in all things with the Sea Apostolick Thus Saint Austin addresses himself to the Donatists telling them that the Succession of the Romane Bishops is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell overcome not thereby 〈◊〉 that the very Succession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catholique Church So Optatus Milevitanus after he had said St Peter was head of all the Apostles and that he would have been a Sohismatick who should have erected another Chair against that singular one of St. Peter as also that in that Chair of St. Peter being but one unity was to be kept by all he addes that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion with whom the whole world saith he meaning the whole Catholique Church agrees by COMMUNICATORY LETTERS in one Society of Communion See here how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church which the Bishop calls a Jesuitisme and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church because he was in Communion with the Sea of Peter St. Herome professes the Church is built upon St. Peters Sea and that whoever eats the Lamb that is pretends to believe in Christ and 〈◊〉 of the Sacraments out of that House that is out of the Communion of that Church is profane and an alien yea that he belongs to Antichrist and not to Christ whoever consents not with the Successor of St. Peter St. Fulgentius stiles the Roman Church The top of the world and Eulalius Bishop of Syracusa tells the same Fulgentius that it would avail him nothing to go into those Countreys which he desired to visit because saith he the Inhabitants thereof certain Religious men were sever'd by a faithless Dissention from the Sea of Peter Lastly Gratian the Emperour made a Decree that the Churches formerly possessed by Heretiques should be restored to those Bishops who were of Pope Damasus his Communion understanding thereby the Communion of the Catholique Church The Communion therefore with the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was the measure and distinctive badge whereby to know who were and who were not of the Catholique Church 6. Hence it appears that what his Lordship is pleas'd to tearm a perfect Jesuitisme in A. C. is a perfect mistake of the Bishop and a losing himself in his own Labyrinth Neither is that vulgar exception against Romane Catholick any better For as all Countreys how distant soever from one another under the Command and Obedience of the Roman Emperour were called the Romane Empire taken collectively because the chief Seat of their Emperour was at Rome So all the Churches subject to the Romane Bishop are call'd the Romane Church because their Supream Head and Pastour under Christ sits at Rome And seeing in the Law of Moses the whole Church of the Israelites was properly called the Jewish Church which name strictly taken belong'd onely to the Tribe of Juda because the chief City of it appertained to that Tribe where the High Priest resided and officiated why may not also the whole Orthodox Christian Church be nam'd the Romane Church because its Supream Bishop keeps his Residence in the Romane City The truth is in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine recourse is to be had to St. Peters Successor who at least with a Generall Council can infallibly resolve all difficulties This Infallibility is independent of all places insomuch that as St. Peter had been infallible though he had never been at Rome so though his Successor should leave to reside in that City yet should he not leave to be Infallible in the manner specified and should as well then as now judge both the Roman Faith and the Faith of all other Churches This I have said to shew how the Faith of every particular Church is to be examin'd and prov'd to be Catholique to wit by its conformity to the Faith of the Romane Church concluding nothing whither the Pope can transferre his Chair from Rome or not and whether the Clergy of Rome can desert him and the true Faith or not for these Questions make nothing to our present purpose 7. By way of Appendix to this Chapter since so fair an occasion is presented us it will not be amiss to perform what we promis'd chap. 1. viz. to examine a little more fully his Lordships pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities which the Bishop brings § 3. num 3. But my intention is to maintain them so far onely as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church or of the Pope Defining Articles of Faith in a General Council for we are obliged to no more The first Authority is out of St. Cyprian who shall here speak a little fuller then either the Bishop or Bellarmin cites him to the end the force of his words may the better appeare This holy Martyr writes thus to Cornelius Bish 〈◊〉 of Rome Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab Haereticis constituto navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est à Schismaticis 〈◊〉 literas ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos perfidia habere non 〈◊〉 accessum Why calls he St. Peters Chair Ecclesiam principalem the chief Church but because 't is the Head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of Doctrine The words following signifie as much Unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est from which Chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived Why brings he the Apostle himself as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith Quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudataest Is it forsooth because no malicious 〈◊〉 in matter of Trust or Errour in Fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the Sea Apostolique Certain it is Perfidia in this sentence is Diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary viz. Misbelief or Errour in Faith Hence his other Explication also vanishes into smoak viz. when he asserts that 〈◊〉 non potest may be taken Hyperbolically for non facile potest because this
interpretation suits not with those high Elogium's given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church as being the Principal Church the Church whence Unity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches Nay this interpretation gives no more Prerogative to the Church of Rome then to that of Alexandria or 〈◊〉 c. to none of which in those Primitive times Errour in Faith could have easie access At length after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for Errour in Faith or for perfidious Misbelievers and Schismaticks who had betray'd their Faith but then he cavils with the word Romanos This must be limited onely to those Christians who then lived in Rome to whom quatales as long as they continued such Errour in Faith could have no access Is not this a great praise As if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters Sea could not erre so long as it continued constant in the Truth What Nationall Church nay what faithfull Christian then living might not have challenged as much priviledge as this Finally he concludes St. Cyprian meant no Infallibility in the Roman Church by the sentence alledged because he himself had some Contrast afterward with Pope Stephen touching the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Heretiques But his Lordship should have remembred that common distinction of Divines whereby they consider the Pope sometimes as a Private Doctour and sometimes as the Doctour or Pastour universall of all Christians and that St. Cyprian might very well be suppos'd to think the Pope err'd onely in the first sense For Pope Stephen did not properly define any Doctrine in that contestation which was between them but onely commanded that those in Africa should alter nothing that was observed in the ancient practice about receiving such into the Church as had been Baptized by Heretiques Nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est neither had the Council of Carthage any just cause to mention it as an errour in St Cypirian for thinking the Pope might erre in quality of a Private Doctour Again if this be a good Argument against the Infallibility of Popes viz. St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith it will be good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd even whilst he maintain'd an universal immemorial Tradition receiv'd and practis'd as such by the whole Catholick Church ever since the Apostles ergo the Pope may erre even whilst he follows such an Universal Immemorial Tradition By this manner of arguing not onely the Popes infallible Authority but the infallible Authority of the most Universal Immemorial Traditions in the Church will be infring'd through St. Cyprians erroneous judgement and if it be plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman infallibility as the Relatour here sayes it is it will be also plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the infallibility of such an Universal Tradition which is altogether absurd The Bishops exceptions therefore to this Text of St. Cyprian being of no force it remains that his meaning must be this and no other viz. that the Sea of St. Peter which is the principall of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church which is a School-question and as such disputed here by Bellarmin yet at least as the Head of the Universal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Unity which St. Cyprian here plainly affirms that Church and Sea to be The second Authority is out of St Jerome who speaks in this manner to Ruffinus Scito Romanam fidem Apostolica voce laudatam cjusmodi praestigias non admittere etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mutari I will not here dispute whether Bellarmin by Romanam Fidem means Romanos Fideles or no yea I most willingly agree with his Lordship in this that by Romanam Fidem St. Jerome understands the Catholique Faith of Christ. But by the way 't is worth noting how inconsequently our Adversaries speak who usually condemn us for joyning as Synonyma's Roman and Catholick together viz. when we say the Roman-Catholick Faith or the Roman-Catholick Church and yet the Bishop has no other way to avoid the force of St. Jeromes words but by acknowledging in this place that the Roman and Catholick is all one Well then be it granted that in St. Jeromes time the Roman was accounted the Catholique Faith what will this advantage the Bishop Very much as he imagins at least For thus he discourses The Roman being here taken for the Catholique Faith and the Catholique Faith being uncapable of any change or of admitting any praestigias that is Illusions or Alterations it will of necessity follow that Saint Hieromes words evince not the perpetuall unchangeableness of the Faith as taught and professed in the Church of Rome Excellent But did not his Lordship see how easily this exposition of his might be blown away Can it be thought a thing any way suitable to Saint Hieromes wisdom to tell Ruffinus so great a Scholar as he was known to be that the Catholique Faith in abstracto in its own precise nature can never be any other then what it is knew not Ruffinus as well as St. Hierome himself that neither Faith nor any thing else can change its essence would he make St. Hierome so simple as to perswade Ruffinus not to go about to undermine the people of Rome for such a reason as this because the Catholique Faith abstracted from those who teach and maintain it can never be but what it is essentially Seeing that notwithstanding any such Immutability it might easily enough be extirpated out of the hearts of the people of Rome and the contrary errours admitted how unalterable soever the Faith in it self be The unchangeableness therefore of the Catholique Faith in this sense could no way hinder Ruffinus from spreading such Books among the Romans as might endanger their perversion but rather the Immutable Faith of the Sea Apostolique so highly commended both by the Apostle and St. Hierome which is founded upon such a Rock that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it The third Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nazianzen whose Elogium in behalf of the Roman Church is very Emphatical Vetus Roma sayes he ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem semper eam retinet sicut decet urbem quae toti orbi praesidet semper de Deo integram 〈◊〉 habere For the clearing of which passage I say first the Bishop is not faithful in his Translation of him for he leaves out the word Ever in the latter part of the sentence whereas St. Gregory speaking of the sound and entire Faith of the Roman Church sayes that Rome alwayes holds it as becomes
builds the Catholique Church upon the Faith onely and not upon the Person of St. Peter professing that Faith But first this assertion of the Bishop is refuted by the words of St. Cyril himself who calls the Faith upon which he sayes the Church is founded c inconcussam firmissimam Discipuli Fidem the invincible and most firm Faith of Christs Disciple which words clearly include St. Peters Person with his Faith For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm but onely in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it We our selves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peters Shoulders but upon his Faith viz. as 't is constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person and the person of his Successors as occasion requires Secondly 't is no less contrary to the words of Holy Scripture Matth. 16. 18. I say unto thee Peter Thou art A ROCK and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church c. where 't is plain that by these words This Rock Christ meant no other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the preceding words Thou art a Rock For our Saviour spake in the Hebrew or Syriack Language Thou art CEPHAS which signifies a Rock and upon this CEPHAS that is upon this Rock will I build my Church The same is in the Greek Translation For even there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisies a Rock as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the Catholique Translators of the New Testament who follow the vulgar Latine Translation render it thus Thou art PETER and upon THIS ROCK will I build my Church yet have they noted that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our Blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word to wit Cephas which signifies a Rock when he made that promise to Saint Peter To make this plain by an instance drawn from our own affaires Suppose Matthew Parker presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied with John Scory Miles Coverdale William Barlow Jobn Hodgskins c. his Associates and Consecrators as Mr. Mason will have have it should have addressed themselves to the Queens Presence-Chamber to kiss her hand and the Queen should have asked them Quid dicitis vos de Filiâ Henrici octavi what say you of the Daughter of Henry the Eighth and Matthew Parker as chief among them answering according to the then-newly-enacted Belief Tu es Elizabetha Supremum Caput Ecclesiae c. Thou art Elizabeth Supream Head of the Church of England if the Queen thereupon should have return'd him this gracious Answer Et ego dico tibi TU ES PRIMAS super HUNC PRIMATEM aedificabo Ecclesiam meam And I say to thee Thou art Primate and upon this Primate I will build my English Church had this I say happened would any one have been so simple as to doubt whether by hunc Primatem this Primate she meant any other then Matthew Parker to whom onely she then spake Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referr'd to the Confession of St. Peter For that being a remote Antecedent mention'd onely in the verse before and Peter or Rock the immediate mention'd in one and the same verse with hanc Petram the words in question had our Saviour understood by hanc Petram This Rock not St. Peter himself but the Confession he made of Christs Divinity he should not have said super HANC Petram but super ILLAM Petram not upon THIS Rock will I build my Church but upon THAT Rock viz thy Confession because I say that was the remote Antecedent mention'd in the former verse and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour Super hanc Petram c. Seeing therefore our Saviour sayes not That but This Rock he must be understood according to strict rules of Grammar by the Demonstrative hanc or This to mean the immediate or next Antecedent viz. St. Peter himself not that which was further off viz. his Confession of Christs Divinity I adde that if our Saviour had meant St. Peters Confession onely without his Person he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And saying Thou art Peter AND upon this Rock c. but he should have us'd the Conjunction Discretive or Exceptive But saying Thou art Peter that is a Rock in name BUT upon that Rock of thy Confession will I build my Church Wherefore seeing our Saviour doth not so speak but uses the Conjunction Copulative And he plainly tyes his speech to the Person of St. Peter to whom onely he spake in the words immediately precedent and this as necessarily as the subsequent And in the next following sentence AND to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. doth shew the said words or sentence to belong to St. Peter onely Beside what coherence do you think our Saviours discourse will have if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peters person onely and the middle of a quite different thing Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion that he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different maner from that which the Church of Rome doth now adayes And therefore sayes he either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome Infallible or else the Church of Rome this day reckons up more Books in the Canon then heretofore she did If she do so then she is changed in a main point of Faith viz. the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible But this Argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing For though it should be granted that the Catholick Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon then she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could prove no errour in her unless it could be likewise shew'd which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those Books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine and Canonical For as now she defines some Truths which in former times were left under dispute without the least shadow of errour so without errour may she now admit some Books for Canonical and Divine Scripture which before she left under dispute that is so undeclared by her for Canonical that Christians were not obliged to receive them for such Books which now after her Declaration they are obliged to do What he says here of the Church of Rome will not I conceive be found very pressing viz. that she is driven to a hard strait for using the Authority of her Adversary meaning Ruffinus to prove her Infallibility For though it should be granted that Ruffinus was an Adversary of the Romane Church yea a condemned Adversary rejected and branded by her as the Bishop speaks yet certainly this is so far from
driving the Church of Rome to a hard strait that it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it Neither did the Roman Church reject all that Ruffinus writ even in that Book wherein he exprest his Heresie but onely such parts of it as were dissonant to the received Doctrine of the Catholique Church And if one condemned of errour by another may not be cited in any thing wherein he favours the party that condemned him why does the Relatour so often cite our Authours whom he condemns of errours in Faith when they seem to favour him The Bishop having examin'd Bellarmins Authorities in the manner you see returns again to A.C. and the Jesuit telling us in very positive terms that no Jesuit nor any other is able to prove any particular Church Infallible But to this I have often answer'd that it was neither to the Ladies purpose nor ours to dispute concerning a particular Infallible Church it sufficeth that the Pope is infallible at least with a General Council which question as I have often observ'd the Relatour wisely declines and diverts another way namely to an unnecessary dispute with Bellarmin about the Infallibility of the particular Church or Diocess of Rome viz. whether the Roman Clergy can at any time forsake the Pope and his Doctrine or not or whether the Chair of St. Peter can be transferred to another place and the Roman Church upon that account be left subject to errour as being no longer the Sea Apostolique both which are matters of that nature that they do no way engage me to contend with his Lordship about them further then to tell him that they are nothing at all to his purpose nor to the satisfaction of the Lady and seem to have been thrust into his book onely to fill up some vacant pages and to avoid the question which he was obliged but not able directly to answer In the same page I observe the Bishop charges the Romane Church with erring in the Worship of Images in altering Christs Institution in the Blessed Sacrament by taking away the Cup from the people and divers other particulars but because he endeavours not in any sort to prove his charge I presume I may take liberty to answer in a more convenient place to wit where the Bishop disputes formally against them But his Lordship will not part without another fling at Bellarmin he thinks he hath spy'd a great inconsistency in some words of the Cardinal The matter thus Bellarmin lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. § 2. as the Bishop cites him of this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith so long as St. Peters Chair is at Rome sayes 't is A MOST TRUE Proposition but presenty after speaking of it sayes onely PERADVENTURE 'T IS AS TRUE AS THIS viz. the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre At this the Bishop exclaims as at a great absurdity of speech What sayes he A Proposition MOST TRUE and yet but PERADVENTURE as true as another That 's not possible with him But soft and fair What needs so much noise Let 's see what grounds the Relatour has for this Criticisme First he should have reflected that in such expressions as this there is alwayes a latitude of moral sense and meaning to be allow'd even by common right and custom of speaking When I say for example such a man is vir prudentissimus or vir optimus a most wise and most honest man I am not presently thought to prefer him in those respects before all the men in the world nor shall I be counted I hope a lyar though some other men be found as wise and honest as he Bellarmin therefore might have been excus'd with indifferent Judges for saying what he did upon no other ground but this But I shall not here use this plea let the word Verissima be taken in the strictest rigour of Scholastical sense that can be yet may not a Proposition be rightly said most true viz. in its proper Rank and order of such Propositions and yet be but peradventure as true as a Proposition of another and higher rank for certainty or infallibility of Truth 'T is manifest Bellarmin held his first Proposition touching the Popes Infallibility when he teaches the whole Church to be true Veritate fidei for he holds it to be a proposition of Faith but this other touching the Roman Clergies not erring or not departing from the Popes Doctrine so long as the Sea Apostolique continued there to be true onely Veritate Theologiae as other Theological Propositions are True which are not Divinely revealed but meerly by humane Discourse and way of Argument deduced from other Theological Propositions and Principles whose Truth consequently is never so absolutely infallible as that of matters of Faith but onely more or less certain according as the Principles or Propositions whence we deduce them are more or less Infallible and the Deduction of them from such Principles more or less evident and necessary What absurdity then was it for Bellarmin to say this Proposition viz. of the Roman Clergies never forsaking the Popes Doctrine c. is most true meaning in the quality of a Theological Conclusion and yet but peradventure as true as that other viz. of the Popes not erring when he teacheth the whole Church which latter Proposition Bellarmin undoubtedly held to be a Proposition of Divine Faith but did not hold the other to be such Truly just as much absurdity as 't is to say of a little man that in comparison of a Pygmie he is a tall Fellow but in comparison of some Yeoman of the Guard he is but a Dwarf Thus having acquitted my self of what I stood obliged by promise at the beginning of this Treatise I return again to the Bishop in pursuit of his present Discourse CHAP. II. Protestants Schismatiques ARGUMENT 1. No pure Church in the world since the Apostles time if the Roman Church corrupt 2. Petrus de Alliaco favours not the Bishop Card. Bellarmin most falsly quoted by him Almainus Cassander c. not for him 3. Schismes and Heresies in Rome but not in the Roman Church 4. who made the present Schisme Roman-Catholiques or Protestants 5. St. Bernards and St. Austins words rightly urged by A. C. and Bellarmins as wrongfully by the Bishop 6. Protestants though they will have the Church unerrable in Fundamentals onely yet can never be brought to give a list of them 7. Christs Church by inseparable property both Caththolique and Holy THe Relatour is still making personal reflexions upon A. C. Here he will have him troubled again about the form of the Ladies question but I see no reason he had to be troubled whether the Lady askt her question by Be or Was because if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shew'n in her Doctrine
If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made For the same reason also if it be now the true Church it was ever so having alwayes adhered to St. Peters Successor and the Doctrine by him delivered 1. But the Relatour asserts that the Church of Rome was and was not a right and Orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For in the prime times of it it was a most right and Orthodox Church but if we look upon the immediate times before Luther then it was a corrupt and tainted Church In this I say the Relatour begs the question for the Roman Church remained alwayes the same it was from the beginning because in this dispute the Roman signifies the Catholique Church according to that of Dr. Stapleton Apud veteres pro eodem habita fuit Ecclesia Romana Ecclesia Catholica amongst the Ancients saith he the Roman Church and the Catholique Church were taken for the same We adde they are now also to be held for the same and the reason given by Stapleton whatever the Bishop thinks doth not at all destroy the said Identity His reason is quia ejus communio erat evidenter certissimè cum totâ Catholicâ because the Communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholique and by consequence the whole Catholique with it Wherefore as the Catholique Church continued ever the same and incorrupt so did the Roman which is the same with the Catholique This A. C. sufficiently express'd when he mention'd the Roman Church not onely as it contain'd the City and Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it in Doctrine and Communion For 't is clear by Roman Church in that sense he could understand no other but the Catholique We deny then that any abuses or errours did at any time more corrupt or taint the Roman Church then they did the Catholique Wherefore it seems very strange to hear his Lordship say that the Roman Church never was nor ever can be THE RIGHT or the HOLY CATHOLIQUE Church For when it was a right Church as he himself grants it once was if we take it in A. C's sense viz. not onely for that Church which is within the City or Diocess of Rome but for all that agree with it what difference will he finde betwixt the Holy Catholique Church and all others agreeing with the Church of Rome What he asserts of the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that then the Roman Church was a corrupt and tainted Church and far from being a right Church sounds very harshly in a Christians ears For if in all those ages the Roman Church that is the Church of Rome and all other Churches agreeing with her were wrong corrupted and tainted and all those likewise that disagreed from her viz. Hussites Albigenses Waldenses Wickleffists Greeks Abyssins Armenians c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages as 't is certain they had neither could the Relatour deny it I say if the Roman Church was thus corrupt it follows that not onely for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one visible Church untainted incorrupt right Orthodox throughout the whole world And consequently that during the said ages every good Christian was in conscience oblig'd in some point of Christian belief or other to contradict the Doctrine and desert the Communion of all visible Churches in the world since no Church not confessedly Hereticall can be shew'n that did not communicate both in Doctrine and Discipline with the Roman during all that time Whence it would further follow that Schisme or Separation from the externall Communion of the whole Church might be not onely lawfull which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers as Dr. Hammond well proves in his Book of Schisme but even necessary which is impossible as being contrary to the very essentiall Predicates of Schisme which is defined to be a voluntary or wilfull Departure such as no just cause or reason can be given of it from the Communion of the whole Church 2. His great Marginal Note out of Petrus de Alliaco signifies but little For as it mentions not any false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church so neither doth it threaten that any shall be taught by it after his time but clearly speaks of Schismes and Heresies rais'd against the Church not foster'd by her in all parts of Christendom Otherwise we must esteem that learned Cardinal a man either very ignorant or very impious to make the Church it self Ecclesiam Dei as he speaks guilty of Schismes and Heresies which even in our Adversaries opinion are held to be incompatible with the Church of God and destructive of it 'T is certain Bellarmin acknowledges no errours in Popes but onely as they were private Doctours he admits not any errours to have been defined by them by Authority properly Papall or ex Cathedrâ for Christs Doctrine or to be believ'd by the whole Church And indeed he even clears them of Errours in the first kinde so far as to shew that they did never so much as personally or in quality of private Doctors erre or teach any errour in matter of Faith publiquely defined and admitted for such by the whole Church which though it be a very pious opinion yet no man is oblig'd to embrace it as a point of Faith For Catholique Faith in this particular onely obliges us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines with a General Council To what good purpose then does the Relatour in his Margin pin this following assertion upon Bellarmin Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminasse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est there being nothing like such a Proposition in the whole Chapter cited by the Bishop Almainus speaks not of Errours in Faith at all much less doth he say the Popes taught the whole Church such errours but onely of errours or rather abuses in point of Manners which might happen by the bad examples of Popes or their remissness in the execution of their Pastoral office But what if some of them should be prov'd to have taught errours in Doctrine as private men that destroyes not the Infallibility of the Church nor of the Pope as we maintain it no more then his permitting or suffering others through his negligence to teach such errours Hence also his Simile of Tares sow'n among Wheat is nothing to the purpose For if he means by Tares sow'n false Doctrine publiquely and definitively taught by the Pope or receiv'd by the Church in this sense we absolutely deny that ever any Tares were sow'n or ever shall be sow'n in the field of Gods Church But if he mean sow'n onely by private persons and growing up but for some time through negligence of particular Pastours until the Supreme Pastour either by himself or assisted with his Council
take due notice of them and weed them up 't is a thing we confess and the Bishop gains nothing by it No more doth he gain by alledging Cassander whose credit among Catholiques is so little that his testimony would be of no great weight were it positive and home to the purpose whereas 't is manifest he speaks doubtfully and dares not absolutely averre the Bishops had taught any Superstitions all he ventures to say is that through their covetousness he was afraid such Superstitions were continued and even this he ascribes rather to particular and inferiour Bishops then to the Pope 3. 'T is true there have been Schismes at Rome as it happened in the time of St. Cyprian when Novatus leaving Africk went to Rome and there raisd troubles Yea after him Novatianus proceeded so far as to cause himself to be made Antipope against Cornelius and had many followers by which means a Schisme sprung up but still a great part stuck to Cornelius the true Pope Wherefore even during the Schisme as well as before the Roman Church rightly and truly so called continued the Catholique and as incorrupt as ever And why because they that left the Communion of the true Pope and made the Schisme corrupted themselves but not the Roman and Catholique Church which adhered to him and were for the time of their separation of no Church at all but of the Synagogue of Satan Whence it appears that St. Cyprian could not imploy Caldonius and Fortunatus to bring the Roman Church to the Communion of the Catholique as the Bishop pretends but onely to reclaim the Schismatiques and bring those divided Members which followed Novatian to their due Obedience to Cornelius their lawful Bishop and thereby to the unity and communion of the Roman Catholique Church Still therefore the Roman or Catholique Church remained free and exempt from errour either of Schisme or Heresie and so shall ever continue maugre the malice of Hell and whatever vain objections to the contrary 4. A. C. further charges the Relatour to have confes'd that Protestants had made a Rent and Division from the Roman or Catholique Church here the Bishop is not a little nettled and flatly denies that ever he affirm'd or thought that Protestants made it For my part I think it an unprofitable dispute to question much what was said it more concerns us to see what could or can be said in this point Our Assertion is That Protestants made this Rent or Schisme by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholique Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a Separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawfull and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully empower'd to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently receiv'd throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective Seas Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living These and the like practices not the calling for truth and redress of abuses as the Bishop vainly pretends we averre to have been the True and Real Causes of Protestants-being thrust out of the Church For as Almighty God leaves no man who leaves not him first so neither doth the Church separate her self from any man or thrust him from her Communion who doth not first depart and separate himself from her by obstinate adhering to novel opinions contrary to the true Faith or by his wicked and enormous demeanour contrary to true Charity or by both together The Orthodox therefore did very well in departing from the Arrians as the Relatour notes in the Margin because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine and we are so far from denying that the sin of Schisme is theirs who depart first that we charge it upon our Adversaries for as the Arrians then departed first from the Church not the Church from them so did the Protestants now of late and the Faithful did well in both cases to avoid all Communion in matters of Religion both with the one and the other Nor does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying the cause of Schisme was ours and that we Catholiques thrust Protestants from us because they called for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schisme this has been granted already even by Protestants and to his calling for Truth c. I answer what Heretiques ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for Truth and redress of Abuses But he should have reflected that the Church of God is styled a City of Truth by the Prophet and a Pillar and Foundation of Truth by the Apostle and by the Fathers a rich Depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines or 〈◊〉 so that to charge her either with the want of Truth or opposition to the preaching of it and upon that ground to forsake her Communion as Protestants did is an inexcusable impiety and presumption That Woe therefore of Scandal mentioned by the Bishop whether Active or Passive falls most heavily upon his own party who first took effence without just Cause and afterwards gave just cause of offence by departing from the Church and making a Schisme A thing so clear and undeniable that to use the Relatours own expression our Adversaries may better defend their cause before a Judge and a Jury then before an Assembly of learned Divines After this the Bishop quarrels with A. C. for vindicating the Jesuit But what 's the subject of their quarrel The Jesuit averr'd the Bishop to have said That Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church The Bishop denies he said any such thing A. C. proves he said it either 〈◊〉 or aequipollentibus verbis because the Jesuit writ down his words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the passage Hereupon the Bishop falls into exclamations and admirations as if A. C. stood upon the brink of a Contradiction But I answer there is not here the least shew of a contradiction For though his Lordships words were very few though writ down by the Jesuit in fresh memory and upon special notice taken yet might the Jesuit well enough be said to quote them either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis For timorous and tender Consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a
findes no difficulty to do Thirdly his Lordship excepts against the Application of the places brought by A. C. out of St. Bernard and St. Austin But we answer his Exceptions do not weaken the force of the said places For first concerning that of St. Bernard let us suppose as the Relatour contends that St. Bernard by those words Quae major superbia c. What greater pride can there be then for one man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation as if he alone had the Spirit of God mean't onely that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching yet is his saying not unaptly apply'd by A. C. to our present purpose by an Argument à minore ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who preferre their private fanatick opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholique Church This certainly Protestants did by their Solemne Protestation and obstinate maintaining their private opinions What the Relatour addes That it is one thing for a private man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation and another thing for an intelligent man in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholique Church is of no advantage to him For first though we should grant his Lordship that Martin Luther Ulrick 〈◊〉 John Calvin Theodore Beza John Knox and the rest of that crew were to be accounted Intelligent Persons yet will he or can he say they propos'd their Doubts modestly to the Church surely not and whoever sayes so will easily be convinc'd of ignorance in their opinions or practices But put case a more modest propounding of Doubts had been used as the Bishop seems to wish yet unless the Doubts were in points undecided by the Church the modest proposall of them could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their Doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholique Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful Heretical and damnable His exceptions against A. C's interpretation of St. Austin are no less weak The Holy Doctor affirms that it is a most insolent madness for a man to dispute whether that ought to be to be done which is usually held and done by the whole Church The Bishop first excepts that there is not a word of the Roman Church but onely of the Catholique yet having often shew'n that the Roman Church and the Catholique are all one and seeing A. C. adds to Roman Faith the practice of the Church this Authority remains still entire against him Next he sayes A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith whereas 't is spoken of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church But first I answer A. C. applies the place both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church of which practice the place is most properly understood even in that sense which the Bishop himself gives to the words Secondly if it were madness to dispute against the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church much greater would it be to dispute against any point of Faith held by the Church so that the Application of the place is still good by the Rule à minore ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God The reason may be because there is alwayes some point or matter of faith involv'd in every universally-practis'd Rite and Ceremony of the Church Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholique Church teacheth is by St. Austin tearm'd a most insolent madness We deny not but a right-sober man modestly proceeding may in some case dispute a point with the Roman either Church or Prelate as Irenaeus did with Pope Victor in the Controversie which arose toward the end of the second Century provided it be done with Submission and profession of Due Obedience to that Church and Prelate which can never be unless the dispute be about matters as yet undecided by the Church 6. Touching A. C's illation I answer since it is certain the whole Catholique or Roman Church in the sense often explicated cannot erre A. C. doth well inferre that there can be no just cause to make a divorce or Schism from it The Relatour grants that the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolute fundamental Doctrine and blames Bellarmin for needlesly busying himself to prove that the visible Church can never fall into Heresie But I answer Bellarmins labour was not needless since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errours save onely in Fundamentals as they call them whereas Bellarmin proves it equally of all Fundamentals or not-Fundamentals Moreover Bellarmin well observes that Protestants generally grant this onely to the Invisible Church whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible and though the Bishop in the Margent endeavours to shew they hold the same also of the Visible Church yet this onely proves that Protestants contradict one another which we deny not and Bellarmin likewise observes it elsewhere yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop when he saith the Church cannot erre addes this restriction if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture So that if she do it seems according to him she may erre But I must confess I have often desired and do yet much long to know which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all mens salvation according to the opinion of Protestants I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down Our Tenet is that the Catholique Church is Infallible in all points of Faith and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholique Church cannot be denied under pain of damnation and consequently is Fundamental to us and to all true Christians So that these following words of the Bishop viz. That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule are injurious to the Church and inconsistent with that Prerogative of Holiness which as he himself in this very place confesses alwayes accompanies the true Church 7. This Holiness consists chiefly in the verity of Faith So the Relatour himself professes in these words The Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners c. Insomuch that if the Church failed in the verity of Faith she could be no longer Holy nay it would follow that the Gates of Hell had prevailed much against her contrary to the promse of Christ. I assert therefore that the present Church is no more liable to errour through curiosity or weakness then was the Primitive nor the Vicar of Christ with a General Council more subject to erre upon that account then were the Apostles of Christ. In the following words the Relatour to
remain obliged in any thing having done what lieth in him What I pray doth this signifie Nothing else but that even in the sense and intention of the Council it self the person that promises or grants Safe-Conduct in cases not proper for him is yet in conscience bound to do what lieth in him that his said promise or Safe-Conduct may take effect and that otherwise manet in aliquo obligatus he is not altogether free of the Breach of Faith Had the Relatour therefore not mangled the words of this Council to deceive the Reader but set down the Decree fairly and fully as it is the business had been so clear that it would scarce have admitted any dispute Neither could John Huss being a learned man a Doctour of Divinity and writer of some Volumes be ignorant what the force of a Safe Conduct was granted by a Secular Prince in a matter so clearly appertaining to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or not know the difference between a Safe Conduct given jure communi onely with the clause salvâ justitiâ and one granted jure speciali Wherefore the Bishop hath little ground to averre that he was deceiv'd by the Emperour in this But put case John Huss were ignorant both of the one and the other it was his own fault and could be no impediment to the proceedings of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Justice against him His Lordship has no better success in the allegation of Simancha whom he wrongfully cites as holding absolutely and universally that Faith is not to be kept with Heretiques whereas he teaches it onely in cases wherein that which is promis'd cannot be lawfully perform'd And this were as well true if the promise were made to Catholiques For as it was unlawful first so to promise so it is more unlawful to perform such a promise Hence it is that Simancha hath these words Veruntamen ut Marius Solomonius ait promissa contra Christum fides si praestetur utique perfidia est If faith be given against Christ that is to the dishonour of God or contrary to the precepts of true Religion it were perfidiousness to observe it Wherefore Simancha's meaning is clearly this that no private man can be obliged by vertue of any promise more to countenance and protect an Heretique contrary to the law then he can be oblig'd to do the same to High-way men or Pyrats because such a promise being against the publique good and forbidden by the law as 't is in Spain where Simancha wrote and where the Law strictly obliges all persons to detect Heretiques as much as it doth Felons and Murtherers cannot be observed without sin Which meaning of his is also further confirm'd by what he writes afterward Si tamen fides Haereticis data est à Principe vel publicâ Potestate exactè servanda est c. But saith he if Faith be given to Heretiques by the Prince or by those that have Publique Authority it must be exactly observed save onely when the thing promised is against the Law of God or of Nature By which it appears how insincere or unadvised the Bishop was in quoting this Author Nor deals he any better with the Jesuits they are likewise accus'd in general to teach that Faith given is not to be kept with Heretiques whereas neither himself nor all his gang are able to name one of them for that opinion 4. But if you please let us take yet a Turn or two with his Lordship in this part of his Labyrinth First John Huss sayes he and Hierome of Prague were burnt for all their Safe-Conduct by which manner of speaking he seems to insinuate that both their Safe-Conducts were granted jure speciali viz. to preserve them not onely from unjust violence but even from process and execution of Justice which in that of Hierome of Prague is apparently false for the clause Salvâ tamen justitiâ is expresly inserted in it and till our Adversaries have prov'd the contrary we must suppose that the like and no other was granted to Huss Secondly he takes for granted that publique Faith was violated in the persons of those two Delinquents which in relation to Hierome of Prague is notoriously false the Council observing most punctually towards him whatever it promised and for Huss it promised him no security at all If what the Emperour promis'd him were jure speciali which our Adversaries cannot prove yet being granted by a Secular Prince in a cause so clearly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual we have said above it could not impede the proceeding of that Supreme Ecclesiastical Tribunal If it were jure communi onely to an obstinate Heretique as he was it signified nothing But all men know sayes he that the Emperour was us'd by the Fathers of the Council to bring Huss thither which he pretends to prove by a Latin Authority of I know not whom for he cites onely Edit in 16o. and afterwards ibid. leaving us to guess who his Authour should be But we will shew his Lordship all the respect we can and suppose he meant to cite some Authour of Credit What doth he say onely this Sigismundus Hussum Constantiam vocat missis literis publicâ side cavet Which no way intimates whether it were done by the Councils instigation or meerly of his own motion How then can his Lordship hence prove any secret Compact between the Emperour and the Council or any underhand dealing of the Council by the Emperours means to bring Huss within their power by his relying upon an unsufficient caution The Bishops Dilemma therefore is easily solv'd who argues thus If the Fathers did it in cunning that the Emperour should give Safe Conduct which themselves meant not to keep then they broke Faith If the Emperour knew they would not keep it then he himself broke Faith in giving a Safe Conduct which he knew to be invalid This is his Argument But I answer Neither did the Council use any such deceitful practice with the Emperour nor did the Emperour give Huss any Security but what he thought might be good and effectual yea he did make the Security good at least to the utmost of his power that is so farre as in such a case it either beseem'd or concern'd him to do We have already told his Lordship that the Council onely declar'd that when promise is made by Secular Power to the prejudice of Ecclesiastical Proceedings in causes of Heresie it is not of force This is the whole intent of the Council and the Relatour is much to blame for imperfectly citing the Decree with so many c's to dazzle the eyes of his Reader and make him believe what he pleases Whereas that which the Council ordains is not onely of most undeniable right in regard of the Church but also of evident necessity For if Temporal Princes may claim a Power by their Safe-Conducts or other promises made to Heretiques to impede and frustrate the Churches lawful and Canonical proceedings in such causes what
Priestly Function to have any commerce with Rome and a capital crime even to hear Mass or but harbour a Priest And what I pray is true piety in Gods sight if all these be capital offences But enough of this Parallel His Lordship even during the Schisme of Jeroboam will yet needs have Israel a True Church But I answer They were no true Church because they rejected the Authority of the High Priest refused to communicate in the Sacrifices and Worship of God at Jerusalem and adored the golden Calves of Jeroboam 'T is true there were many holy persons inhabitants of the same Countrey with the rest who kept themselves undefiled from those Idolatries and Divisions who though they were not perhaps suffered to go up to Jerusalem to worship yet never consented to go to Dan or Bethel These we acknowledge remained parts of the True Church notwithstanding the Schisme as many Catholiques do now continue true members of the Roman Church though living dispersedly in Heretical Countreys And the Prophets who were amongst them were also a part of the True Church at Jerusalem for which reason for the most part the Kings of Israel persecuted them as Catholiques also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen Mahumetan and Heretical Princes The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church then it would argue the Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church if some Roman Catholique should be found among them having the spirit of Prophesie But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture that the ten Tribes continued a Church notwithstanding their Schisme and Idolatry But to that of 〈◊〉 9. 17. I answer first this Prophet prophesied both against Juda and Israel and the word Israel being an Appellative common to all the seed of Jacob 't is not certain he alwayes means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes onely and not sometimes the Tribe of Juda also Secondly I say the Relatours Gloss addes to the Text. God doth not there threaten to cast Israel away in non Ecclesiam as the Bishop speaks that is to un-church them as if forsooth before that threatning they had been a true Church this is the Relatours own voluntary addition or fiction rather but he threatens simply to deprive them of his wonted protection to deliver them into their enemies hands and as the very next words shew to make them wanderers among the Nations that should take them captive To that of 4. Reg. 9. 6. where they are called the people of the Lord I answer in a general sense all Abrahams seed according to the flesh are styled the people of God by reason of that promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 18. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee but Abraham's seed only according to the spirit that is the faithful make the True Church To his last Argument which he advanceth as ad hominem that Multitude is a note of the Church I answer we do not contend that of Christians the greater multitude is an infallible mark of the true Church There was a time when the Arrians were reported to be more numerous then the Orthodox 3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father was a Truth alwayes acknowledg'd in the Church of God and receiv'd in General Councils long before the Controversie touching that point arose between the Latins and the Greeks Witness that Epistle of St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria which he wrote as Bellarmin tells us from the Council of Alexandria to that of Ephesus wherein are these words Spiritus appellatus est veritatis veritas Christus est unde ab isto similiter sicut ex Patre procedit The Holy Ghost saith he is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth whence follows that he proceeds as well from him as from the Father Thus he Now this Epistle of St. Cyril and the Council of Alexandria as Bellarmin likewise shews was receiv'd not only by the Council of Ephesus which was about the year of our Lord 434. but also by four other General Councils held in Greece it self and consequently the Doctrine of the Holy Ghosts Procession was a Truth so anciently known in the Church that it could not well seem a novelty to any when the express confession of it came to be more frequent and publick in the Latin Church It matters not much in what capacity it was promulgated by the Church of Rome whether as a particular Church as the Bishop contends or as Head of the Church Universal as we think For either way it could not but be very lawful for that Church to do it nor can it help his Lordships cause which way foever it was done For supppose a particular Church may in some case promulgate an Orthodox Truth not as yet Catholiquely receiv'd or defined by the whole Church doth it thence follow that a particular Church or Churches may repeal and reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and Definitively received Surely no. Yet this is his Lordships and the Protestants case 4. Hence the Relatours egregious Fallacy is manifest while from the adding of a Word onely by some particular Church for Explication of a known ancient and generally received Truth such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son he pretends to inferre both these Propositions viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholique where the whole Church is negligent or will not For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormious as the latter because it supposes not any actual errour contrary to Catholique Doctrine to be maintained by the whole Church but onely a Non declaration or at most some negligence to promulgate a Catholick Truth whereas the other supposes errour of something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church yet are they both utterly Paradoxical and False and no way to be inferr'd from the example or practise of the Roman Church in declaring the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son for that was of a point anciently and generally received in the Church Much 〈◊〉 can it justifie the Protestants proceedings whose Declarations Promulgations Confessions or what ever you will call them made upon their several pretended reformations were onely of new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholique Truths For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the Real Presence of our Saviours Body and Blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the Real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believ'd Was not Veneration
General Church as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith which is contrary to divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith could be needful in the General Church but onely in particular Churches citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us how unwilling he is in this troublesome and quarrelling age to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral he addes though the Church of England professeth that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent It matters not what she sayes or sayes not in this but our question is what she must say if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise For this is certain that many of those particular points of Faith which are rejected as errours by the English Protestant Church were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christendom when this pretended Reformation began If therefore they be dangerous errours as the Bishop with his English Church professes they are by good consequence it must follow that the English Protestant Church holds that the whole Catholique Church hath erred dangerously But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general yet at last he meddles with it and that very freely too for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If saith the Bishop he means no more then this viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary but his 〈◊〉 fiction What is this but tacitely to grant that the whole Church of Christ may universally erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salvation Is not this great modesty towards the Church Nay a great satisfaction to all Christians who by this opinion must needs be left in a wood touching the knowledge of Points absolutely necessary to their salvation 3. But the Bishop suspects a dangerous consequence would be grounded upon this if it should be granted that the Church could not erre in any point of Divine Truth in general though by sundry consequences deduced from principles of Faith especially if she presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as he affirms Bellarmin to say she may I answer When God himself whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd and Verasity such that he cannot deceive speaks by his Organ the Holy Church that is by a General Council united with its Head the Vicar of Christ what danger is there of Errour As concerning Bellarmin who is falsly accus'd I wonder the Relatour should not observe a main difference between defining matters absolutely without Scripture and defining without express Scripture which is all that Bellarmin affirms For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures yet they may be there implicitly and rightly deduc'd from Scripture As for example no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity as 't is declar'd by the Council of Nice and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves expresly in Scripture it is not there said in express terms that he is of the same substance with the Father or that he is God of God Light of Light and True God of True God c. and yet who doubts but the sense of this Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture and consequently that the Defining of this and other points of like nature by the Church was not done absolutely speaking without Scripture Besides who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions Wherefore if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith be according to Tradition though it be not express'd in Scripture yet the Church does not define it without Scripture but according to Scripture following therein the Rule which is given her in Scripture But 't is further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church may be ignorant of some Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture or otherwise Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre and teach her errour yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not nay perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth He addes to this that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuit can produce for her not erring in any Thus the Bishop To which I answer The Argument were there any force in it would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles as of the present Catholique Church For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths though the promise intimated by the Bishop of being taught all truth John 16. 13. was immediately directed to them and yet 't is granted by Protestants that the Apostles could not teach that to be Divine Truth which was not much less could they teach that as matter of Divine Truth which was contrary to it Ignorance therefore of some Divine Truths and for some time onely when they are not necessary to be known doth not inferre errour or possibility of erring in those Truths when they are necessary to be known The Apostles Matth. 10. 19. were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand what they should answer to Kings and Presidents being brought before them because it should be given them in that hour what to speak In like manner with due proportion is it now given to their Successours what to answer that is what to define in matters of Faith when ever emergent occasions require it Secondly I say that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour but taught and informed by a master that is infallible he may become infallible So that his Lordships Argument from bare ignorance concluding errour or an absolute possibility of erring is it self as erroneous as this A young Scholar of himself alone is ignorant and apt to mistake the signification of words Ergo he can do no otherwise then mistake while his Master stands by him and teaches him 4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself and puts in a Proviso Provided alwayes saith he that this erring of the Church be not in any point simply Fundamentall for of such points even in his own judgement the whole Church cannot be ignorant nor erre in them To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other answer but this We desire to know what
those points are which he calls simply fundamental or simply necessary to all mens salvation Bellarmin from very good Authority tells us that some barbarous and ignorant people have been saved without believing Scripture at all and if trial were made I believe it would be found the more common opinion even amongst Protestants themselves that the Explicite Belief of the Trinity or Incarnation it self as the Catholique Faith and Oecumenical Councils declare it is not simply necessary to all mens salvation So that if the Church be exempt from errour onely in such points the promises of Christ will be brought to little more then nothing and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk into so narrow a compass that most of the Hereticks she ever yet condemned will be found to have been out of her reach and may require her if not to reverse yet at least to review her sentence against them since his Lordship will have it Fallible lest perhaps she might erre in pronouncing it Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing onely in general that the Church cannot erre in matters simply necessary to all mens Salvation if he be not withall determinately inform'd which are those points For so long as he knows not what is or is not so universally necessary how can he be assur'd whether the Church may not erre or hath not err'd in Defining such and such a particular matter Let it therefore be first established either by a determinate Catalogue of such simply necessary and Fundamental points or by some certain and determinate Rule whereby we may undoubtedly know them otherwise we speak at random 5. The strength of the places formerly alledg'd by A. C for the Churches Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate telling us first that they are known places and cited by A. C. three several times and to three several purposes What matters this They lose nothing of their force for being thrice cited by A. C. and more then thrice by Stapleton Bellarmin and other Champions of the Catholique Faith circumstances so requiring it And does it seem strange to his Lordship that A. C. should apply them to several purposes he should have remembred how often Scripture it is stiled by the Fathers gladius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a two-edged sword which surely cuts-several wayes Bellarmin Stapleton and A. C. following the receiv'd assertion of most Catholiques viz. that the Pope is Infallible even without a General Council when he defines any thing ex Cathedrâ and with intention to oblige the whole Church urge the places to that purpose as with very great probability they may yet because some Catholique Divines deny it the matter it self being not yet clearly De Fide I shall be content that the said places prove at least the Infallibility of the Church in general or of the Pope and a General Council which in this question are to be accounted all one For if the Pope and a General Council may erre the whole Church might erre as being oblig'd to follow the Doctrine and Definitions of such a Council and if the whole Church be fallible what infallible certainty can we have of any Tradition Wherefore seeing the Infallibility of the Church Councils and Tradition depend so necessarily upon each other whatever Authorities prove the Infallibility of any one do in effect and by good consequence prove the same of all the rest 6. But let us come to the places in particular The first assures us that Hell gates shall never prevail against the Church Here the Bishop speaks loud and sends us a challenge There is no one Father of the Church sayes he for twelve hundred years after Christ that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this place And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can St. Austin had he been more fully cited by the Bishop would alone have been able to answer this challenge Let us hear him speak Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta sayes he Ecclesia una Ecclesia vera Ecclesia Catholica contra omnes haereses pugnans Pugnare potest expugnari tamen non potest She is the Holy Church the onely Church the true Church the Gatholick Church WHICH FIGHTS AGAINST ALL HERESIES therefore yields to none complyes with none Fight she may but she cannot be overcome All Heresies depart from her as unprofitable branches cut off from the Vine But she remains still in her root in her Vine in her Charity the Gates of Hell shall not overcome her Thus Saint Austin Can any man doubt but this holy Doctour in the precedent words doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible when he sayes she perpetually fights against all Heresies or Errours in Faith and that she can never be over come by them Doth he not clearly prove this truth by the allegation of this Text in the close of them But I shall adde one or two Authorities more to this purpose First St. Cyrils Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri c. According to this promise saith he the Church Apostolique of St. Peter abides alwayes immaculate or free from all spots of Heretical Circumvention and Errour The Text hath been cited already You may observe the like sense in St. Epiphanius Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum PETRAM FIRMAM supra quam c. Our Lord saith he speaking of St. Peter ordained him chief of the Apostles A FIRM ROCK upon which the Church is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her which Gates of Hell are Heresies and Arch-heretiques 6. For the better understanding of which Texts 't is necessary to know that every errour contrary to Divine Faith is Heresie as St. Austin and all Divines generally teach Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has reveal'd she should teach Heresie and contradict these Fathers who all clear the Church from that aspersion by vertue of this promise of Christ Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and withall tacitly at least acknowledge that if she did teach Heresie at any time the Gates of Hell in that case would be found to have prevail'd against her Seeing therefore every errour in Faith or against Divine Revelation is Heresie and since the Church in the judgement of these Fathers grounded upon this promise cannot teach Heresie it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fathers she cannot erre in any point of Faith whatever by vertue of the same promise How the Infallibility of the Church is gather'd out of the second place hath been shew'd already and is here confirm'd even by his Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is that Christ in that place promis'd to be present with his Ministers in all those things which he committed
to their execution But surely one and a chief one of those ALL was to teach Infallibly the whole doctrine of Christs Gospel Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers inabling them to perform this so important a work when 't is necessary to be executed that is when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversie among Christians to be determined Nor will that conclusion hence follow which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastour of the Church would be Infallible for 't is no wayes necessary that every particular Pastour should be Infallible but 't is absolutely necessary that the Church in general or a General Council should be Infallible because otherwise there would no means be left in the Church sufficient to determine Controversies of Faith or prevent the spreading of Schismes and Heresies To the end my Reader may the better conceive this he is to understand there are divers degrees of Christs presence and assistance in reference to the Ministers of his Church All of them cannot challenge all priviledges but must be content with those that properly belong to their respective state and condition in the sacred Hierarchy And yet as all the said degrees are grounded upon this and the like promises of our Saviour so 't is necessary they be all verify'd according to the respective necessities of the Church The Supream Degree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance and therefore assign it onely to those who have Supream Authority in the Church and in cases onely of most urgent necessity for preventing of Heresies and Schismes In all other cases and in reference to all other Ministers of the Church we profess that so long as the Teaching and Governing part of them is continually so assisted by Christ that it generally leads not his Flock into errour in Faith nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded the promise is sufficiently perform'd on Christs part and St. Leo's words In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda rightly enough explicated though every private Pastour become not a Prophet and every Pulpit an Oracle as the Relatour vainly surmizes The third place urged by A. C. is out of St. Luke 22. 32. where Christs prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church against all errours in Faith whatsoever The words are these Simon Simon Behold Satan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have prayed for Thee that thy Faith fail not and thou once converted confirm thy Brethren 'T is clear that Christ here prayed that Faith in the Church might not fail either by praying for St. Peter as he was a Figure of the whole Church which is the exposition of the Parisians or by praying immediately for St. Peters person and mediately for the whole Church which he represented Aud thus at least that our Saviour in that Taxt prayed for the whole Church Bellarmin expresly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the Bishop It seems strange therefore that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviours praying here for the Church The prayer then of Christ extended it self to St. Peter and his Successors and by them to the whole Church according to those words of St. Bernard Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est aliquando Ego rogavi pro Te ut non deficiat fides tua c. I think it fitting saith he that the damages in Faith should be there chiefly repaired where Faith can suffer no defect For to what other Chair was it ever said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Take therefore which of these Expositions you please if an Infallible Assistance of Christ be once granted whereby his Church is sufficiently preserv'd from all errour in Faith whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors as Supream Teachers of the Church or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter yet still the Church will be Infallible by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour 8. The fourth place named by A. C. is that of St. John chap. 14. 16. to which he addes a consequent place John 16. 13. both of them containing another promise of Christ to his Apostles and in them to his Church viz. that the Comforter the Holy Ghost shall come and abide with them for ever teaching them all things c. and guiding them into all Truth We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Churches Infallibility So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishops various Trippings and Windings in his review of them First he sayes these promises if you apply them to the Church consisting of all Believers and including the Apostles are absolute and without any restriction which certainly is but a loose assertion taking it in the Bishops sense which is that the Apostles were free not onely from all errour but from all ignorance in Divine Things for so his Authour a Dr. Field speaks whom he cites in the Margin Were the Apostles not ignorant of any Divine matters why then doth St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 13. 9. We know in part Did the Apostles understand the whole counsel of God concerning mankinde why then doth the same Apostle cry out Rom. 11. 33 35. O the depth of the Wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements c. and who hath known the minde of our Lord Secondly if these promises of Christ be so absolute and without any restriction in regard of the Apostles to what purpose is that Text of Theodoret cited in his Margin which sayes expresly they ought to be limited in regard of them and that they did not signifie the Apostles should be led simply into all Truth but into all Truth necessary or expedient to Salvation Thirdly the Bishop having limited the promises of being taught and led into all Truth as they relate to the present Church onely to Truths necessary to Salvation he is not yet satisfied but addes another limitation to that viz. Direction of Scripture Against this Truth saith he meaning Truth necessary to Salvation the whole Catholique Church cannot erre keeping her self to the Direction of Scripture as Christ hath appointed her But I ask what Priviledge then has the Catholique Church in these promises of Christ more then every private Christian Surely with this condition of following the direction of Scripture there is none of the faithful but may pretend to be as Infallible as the Church Fourthly they must be limited sayes he to all such Truths as our Saviour had told them But the Apostles were taught divers things of principal concernment in order to Salvation by the Holy Ghost
practise not onely of the Roman but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together even by the confession of Protestants Is this onely to reform themselves and not to condemn other Churches otherwise then by silence and example Do not all other Protestant Confessions of Faith speak the same language Do they not all take upon them with a more then censorious presumption to condemn the Doctrine and practise of the Roman Catholique that is of the whole true Church of Christ in the same and divers other contested points 2. A. C. therefore well mindes us that in all matters of difficulty belonging to Faith particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome as Irenaeus intimates which hath a more powerful Principality and to her Bishop who is chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour to whom Christ promis'd the Keyes Math. 16. for whom he pray'd that his Faith might not fail Luke 22. and whom he charg'd to Feed and Govern his Flock John 21. which saith A. C. he shall never refuse to do in such sort as that his neglect shall be a just cause for any particular man or Church under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Schisme or Separation from the whole General Church In answer to this the Bishop tells us the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality then any other particular Church but not from Christ which is contrary to St. Austin or rather to the whole Council of Milevis who in their Epistle to Innocent the first professe that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. Secondly he sayes the Patriarchs were all as even and equal for any Principality of Power as the Apostles were But this is first Equivocal the Apostles themselves were not in all respects equal or of even Authority They had a Superiour among them viz. Saint Peter 'T is true indeed except St. Peter they were are all equal among themselves every one of them had equal mission unto and Jurisdiction over the whole Church and none of them any Authority preceptive or coercive over another whereas St. Peter together with his Authority Apostolical over the whole Church which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles had also Jurisdiction and Authority over the Apostles themselves as being in the number of Christs sheep committed to his charge by our Saviour John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity Secondly 't is contrary to the Council of Nice In the third Canon whereof which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs the Authority or Principality if you will of the Bishop of Rome is made the patern or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which the Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops The words of the Canon are these Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub potestate ejus sunt sicut ille qui tenet Sedem Romae CAPUT ESTET PRINCEPS OMNIUM PATRIARCHARUM The Patriarch say they is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as He who holds the Sea of Rome is Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward stiled Petro similis Autoritate par resembling Saint Peter and his equal in Authority This also the practise of the Church shews which is alwayes the best Expositour and Assertour of the Canons For not onely the Popes Confirmation was required to all new-elected Patriarchs but it belong'd likewise to him to depose unworthy ones and restore the unjustly deposed by others We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie On the contrary Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas having been unjustly expell'd by Hereticks The same might be said of divers others over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority which he could never have done upon any other ground then that of divine Right and as being generally acknowledg'd St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church St. Austin therefore said well in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus in the Roman Church the Principality of the Apostolique Chair hath alwayes flourisht Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolique Chairs like this of Rome viz. equal to it in Authority But this he does partly to level the Dignity of the Roman Sea contrary to St. Austin and all Antiquity and partly to make way to some other pretty perversions of the same Father For we must know he is now entring upon that main question concerning the Donatists of Africk of whose proceedings the whole forecited Epistle of St. Austin treateth and therefore to make our answer to his objections more compendious and clear it will not be amiss in the first place to state that business by way of Narrative and matter of Fact onely which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin and Optatus Milevitanus Thus then it was 3. The Donatists of Africk finding themselves sharply oppos'd by Caecilianus Arch-bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa by way of revenge accuse him of having in time of Persecution deliver'd up the Holy Scriptures with other Sacred Utensils of the Church into the possession of the Heathens which was accounted a most capital crime amongst Christians They added to their accusation that he was made Bishop by one guilty of the same crime viz. by Felix Bishop of Aptung and they prosecuted the business so hotly that by a Synod of seventy African Bishops Caecilian was condemn'd and outed of his Bishoprick But he making no great reckoning of the sentence as being condemn'd absent and unheard and knowing himself to be in Communion with the Roman Church the Donatists are forced to prosecute their charge against him in other Churches beyond Sea But not daring to appear at Rome or at least knowing it would be to little purpose they address themselves to the Emperour Constantin and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gaules in France where the Emperour then resided But the Emperour was so far from favouring them that he shew'd a great dislike of their proceedings telling them exprefly that it belong'd not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops Nevertheless knowing very well the turbulent disposition of Schismatiques and perceiving they meant not to acquiesce in the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Tribunal to which they were immediately subject he thought good to take a middle way which was to send them to Rome there to be heard and judged by the Pope to whom the cause did most properly belong but yet
way of Authority or Command but of Mediation as using his Interest with the Pope which he might do without breach of the Canons What he did afterward he openly protested to be in it self unlawful and not belonging to him he did it therefore onely in condescendence to the Donatists importunity and would have askt the Bishops pardon for it as S. Austin witnesses whose sentence here lamely cited by the Bishop is far from proving his intent viz. that the judgement of this cause was a thing properly belonging to the Emperours Authority Nor doth it concern us at all that the Emperour gave sentence in the business since being wrought to it by the importunity of the Donatists he was bound in conscience to act the part of a just Judge and pronounce a right sentence which as he finally did in condemning these Schismaticks as we said above so no doubt it is all St. Austin means by the words alledged 4. His Deductions from the Civil Law are no better For first suppose that an inferiour Prelate could not appeal from the sentence of his Patriarch yet when the Patriarchs themselves have differences one with another must there not according to the rules of good Government be some higher ordinary Tribunal where such causes may be heard and determined I say Ordinary For it would be a manifest defect if that which is the extraordinary High Court of Ecclesiastical Justice viz. a General Council should be of necessity assembled for every particular difference between Patriarchs Secondly what the Law sayes is rightly understood and must be explicated of Inferiour Clerks onely who were not of ordinary course to appeal further then the Patriarch or the Primate of their Province for so the Council of Africk determines But 't is even there acknowledg'd that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome The same explication is to be given to the Text of St. Gregory viz. that he speaks of Inferiour Clerks since Bishops were ever accustomed to appeal to the Pope But I wonder his Lordship would expose to view the following words of St. Gregory Where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch even Inferiour Clerks when they appeal must have their recourse to the Sea Apostolique Then surely it follows the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction is not onely over the Western or Southern Provinces as the Relatour limits it pag. 168. but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Patriarchs never extended Neither could such Appeals be just if the Bishop of Rome were not the Lawful Superiour and Judge of all the Bishops of Christendome it being confest that no Juridical Appeal can be made but from an inferiour to a superiour Judge To those words of St. Gregory quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est wherein he intimates the reason why Appeals should be brought from all parts of Christendome to the Sea Apostolique his Lordship thinks it best to use this evasion I have said enough to that saith he in divers parts of this discourse But in what parts hitherto I cannot finde though I have us'd some diligence in the search I could therefore wish he had spoken something to it here where he had so fair an occasion I onely say this If the Roman Sea be the Head of all Churches as St. Gregory sayes it is surely it hath Authority over all Churches His Lordship as long as he stands upon the Roman ground stands upon thorns and therefore makes a step or rather a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England with whose Encomiums given heretofore by Antiquity he is much pleas'd But what those Antient times of Church Government were wherein Brittain was never subject to the Sea of Rome we desire should be prov'd and not meerly said I should not have envy'd his Lordships happiness much less the honour of his Sea had he and all his worthy Predecessours as he calls them since St. Austin been enobled with the Eminence of Patriarks yet I see no reason why a velut Patriarcha pronounc'd by the Pope by way of Encomium onely upon a particular occasion should be of force to make Canterbury a Patriarchal Sea Similies fall alwayes short of the thing it self Again it imports little that there was a Primate in Brittain for that onely proves that inferiour Clerks might not ordinarily appeal from him to Rome but that Brittain was not subject to the Roman Sea or that the Brittish Bishops did not as ocsion requir'd freely and continually appeal to Rome it doth not prove yea the contrary is manifest by all the monuments of the Brittish Church What ever is meant by the words in Barbarico cited by his Lordship out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae certain it is that whoever were under the government of the Patriarch of Constantinople were not exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of Rome neither ought the Relatour to suppose it unless he had first prov'd that the said Patriarch had been himself legally exempt or not subject to the Pope which he neither offers to do nor can it be done nay the contrary is evident 5. To me truly it seems very strange his Lordship should be so little acquainted with the Ecclesiastical History of England as to affirm so confidently that in ancient times Brittain was never subject to Rome meaning in Ecclesiastical matters For to instance in the very business of Appeals doth not Venerable Bede tell us that in King Egfrids time which was about the Year of our Lord 673. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York being unjustly depriv'd of his Bishoprick appeal'd to the Sea Apostolique was heard by Pope Agatho in the presence of many other Bishops and by their unanimous Sentence was pronounced innocent Was he not restor'd again to his Bishoprick by vertue of that sentence Doth not the same Authour affirm that being the second time expell'd his Sea he did the second time also appeal to Rome and was likewise acquitted upon a full hearing of his cause in the presence of his adversaries Was there not upon his second return into England a Synod of Bishops call'd in obedience to the Popes order in which by the general vote of all the good Bishop was again restor'd Is this no Evidence of Romes Authority over England in ancient times 'T is now almost a thousand yeares since Bede wrote and doubtless his History is one of the most Authentick we have he being a most holy and learned man Again is it not manifest out of him that even the Primitive Original Institution of our English Bishopricks was from Rome See the Letter of Pope Gregory the first to St. Austin our English Apostle which Bede reports in these words Quia nova Anglorum Ecclesia ad omnipotentis Dei gratiam codem Domino largiente et Te labor ante perducta est c. Seeing by the goodness of God saith he and your industry the new English Church is brought
the ancient Bishops of Constantinople never intended by this usurped Title to deny the Popes Universal Authority even over themselves They never pretended to be either Superiour or Equal to the Roman Bishop in regard of Spiritual Jurisdiction but onely to be next after or under him and above all other Patriarchs For touching that matter the Emperour Justinian had long since by an express Law decreed that the Bishop of Rome was to be held supream Judge of all Ecclesiastical causes and Head of all the Prelats of God And Anthimus even while he usurped the Sea of Constantinople protested obedience to the Bishop of Rome and wrote to all the other Patriarchs that he follow'd in all things the Sea Apostolique Menas also his Competitour made publique profession in the same Council to do the like and to obey in every thing the Sea Apostolique Yea John himself Bishop of Constantinople even whilst he contended so eagerly for the title of Universal Bishop neither could nor durst hinder the Appeal of a certain Priest of Chalcedon a City under the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of Constantinople to Pope Gregory by whom it was admitted the Priest righted and the judgement of that Patriarch formerly given against him reversed by the Popes Sentence which was also accepted as valid by the said Patriarch of Constantinople I adde that St. Gregory himself even whilst he inveigh'd most sharply against the title of Universal Bishop expresly avoucheth that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople professed continually that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the Sea Apostolique And whereas some carp at this Epistle of St. Gregory because it names the Bishop of Constantinople Eusebius there being as they say no Bishop of Constantinople of that name in St. Gregories time it is answer'd that Amularius Fortunatus an approved Authour that wrote but two hundred years after St. Gregories time cites the whole Epistle as Authentique without the name Eusebius So that the subjection of the Sea of Constantinople to that of Rome being a thing so confessed in all antiquity this will seem but a weak objection Lastly it may be observ'd that although the Patriarchs of Constantinople challeng'd the title of Oecumenical or Universal yet when either the Pope or his Legats were with them at Constantinople or any other City they usually forebore it and remitted it wholly to the Pope This appears by the Subscriptions in the third General Council of Constantinople under Constantinus Pogonatus in the next age after St. Gregory where Pope Agatho is styled Universal and the Bishop of Constantinople subscribes himself only George by the mercy of God Bishop of Constantinople 3. Thus we see in brief how matters have passed de facto concerning the title of Universal Bishop Now to answer the Relatours Objection we are to take notice that the term Universal Bishop is capable of two senses the one Grammatical the other Metaphorical In the Grammatical sense it signifies Bishop of the Universal Church and of all Churches in particular even to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops and consequently displaceable at his pleasure as being onely his not Christs Officers and receiving Authority from him and not from Christ. In the Metaphorical sense it signifies onely so high and eminent a Dignity above all other Bishops throughout the whole Church that though he who is stiled Universal Bishop hath a real and true Superintendency Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops yet that they be as truly and properly Bishops in their respective Provinces and Diocesses as he himself For who doubts but a meer Diocesan Bishop is as truly a Bishop and chief Officer of Christ in his Diocess as an Archbishop Metropolitan Primate or Patriarch in their several Districts though it cannot be deny'd but every one of these have respectively true Ecclesiastical Authority over him The like is visible in the Subordination of different Tribunals in the Commonwealth where the Inferiour Judge is as truly an Officer of the State and a Magistrate as the Superiour and yet the Inferiour is subject to the Superiour and must be content in case of Appeals to have both the Causes of his Court and himself too judged by the Superiour when Justice shall require it 4. This being clear'd 't is evident that St. Gregory when he inveighs against the title of Universal Bishop takes it in the Literal and Grammatical sense in which we confess it contains a capital Errour and grand Heresie destructive of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Christs Institution and therefore not undeservedly censur'd by the Holy Zeal of St. Gregory as Monstrous Blasphemous and in some sort Antichristian I say 't is evident out of St. Gregory himself even in those Epistles cited by the Bishop that he takes the word in the literal and worst sense when he declaims so vehemently against it For he sayes expresly If there be one who is UNIVERSAL Bishop all the rest are no more Bishops So that in St. Gregories meaning whoever assumes to himself the title of Universal doth not content himself as all the Stewards of Christs Family ought to do viz. in being a Servant over his Fellow Servants but pretends in effect to be himself their Master and to make them all his own Servants receiving and holding their respective Charges not from their true Master Jesus Christ but from him But some perhaps will object The Bishop of Constantinople did not actually aspire to such a height of pride nay 't is scarce credible he either did or could pretend to make himself the onely Bishop in Christendome degrading as it were all others from the degree of Bishops I answer admit he did not pretend to this yet seeing he did so unwarrantably usurp a Title which in the best sense could not possibly belong to him but being construed in the other to which it is very liable it must needs contain so poysonous and prodigious an Arrogance that what ever his actual pretensions might be St. Gregory had just reason both to suspect and smartly rebuke him as aiming thereat Just as if a Subject of the King of Spain for instance should contrary to the Kings consent take upon him the Title of Vice-Roy of Naples or Sicily though perhaps he really intended no more yet doubtlesse he would be soon suspected nay charged with a trayterous designe of making himself absolute King But as for the Metaphorical signification of the word which allows all other inferious Bishops to be true Bishops and to have true Episcopal Jurisdiction as Officers ordained by Christ though subordinate to the Popes Supream Authority St. Gregory was so far from thinking it Blasphemous or Antichristian pride that though indeed he did not claim the Title even in this sense yet was it the constant practise both of his Predecessors and himself to exercise the substance of it that is Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over all other Bishops and Patriarchs throughout
the whole Church when necessity required and particularly over the Bishops of Constantinople who were then risen to the Highest Patriarchall Dignity in the Church next the Pope In those very Epistles where Saint Gregory so much inveighs against the Title of Universal Bishop and him that arrogantly assum'd it 't is manifest that Pope 〈◊〉 St. Gregories Predecessour annull'd the Decree of the Council of Constantinople wherein this Title had been given to the Bishop of that City And did not St Gregory himself repeal it again and threaten to excommunicate John Bishop of Constantinople in case he desisted not from the usurpation of it Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 sayes St. Gregory I will use the Churches Authority against him Another Argument that St. Gregory takes not the word Universal in the Metaphorical sense when he calls it Antichristian and Blasphemous is that even in the Epistle here cited by the Bishop he teaches that the Care and Principality over the whole Church was committed to St. Peter which is all that the Metaphoricall sense of Oecumenicus or Universal contains and yet denies he was ever call'd Universal Apostle He grants likewise that the High Priest was supream Ecclesiasticall Governour of the whole Jewish Church yet was not call'd Universal Priest all which evidently shews that St. Gregory quarrels not the word in that signification Why because he acknowledges the lawfulness of the thing signified by it This premised it will not be hard to answer all the Bishop objects against us in this particular To his first objection we grant that according to the Literal sense of the word in which St. Gregory took it the assuming such a Title argued so great a pride in the Assumer as might portend the nearness of Antichrists time To his second taking the word Universal in the sense disclaimed by St. Gregory and the word Monarch in its rigorous propriety whereby it answers to the literal sense of Oecumenicus or universalis Episcopus I deny that there was ever any Vniversal Bishop or Monarch over the whole Militaut Church either for the first 600. years before St. Gregory or at any time since For to be a Monarch over the Church in propriety of speech or such an Vniversal Bishop is in effect to un-bishop all other Prelates of the Church and make them onely Officers ad placitum and Delegates of the said Vniversal Bishop or Monarch placeable and displaceable at his sole pleasure like the Officers of Temporall Monarchs To what he alledges out of Baronius of Gregory the seventh his giving the Title of Vniversal to the Bishop of Rome in a Councill about the year 1076. I answer it signifies no more then this that anciently the said Title still understood in the Metaphorical and lawful sense was due to the Bishop of Rome and to no other which is undeniably true Neither are we to think that those seven and twenty Dictatus Papae as they are call'd recounted by Baronius and objected here by the Bishop are all matters of Faith but as it were a Catalogue or Abridgement of such Priviledges as partly by Divine Institution partly by long Custom and Prescription partly by Canon and partly by probable consequences drawn from Principles of Faith were found agreeable to the Supream Authority of the Roman Bishop 5. What he sayes of Phocas the Emperour's conferring the Title of Universal Bishop upon Boniface the Third thereby intimating that it was never given to Popes before is most false For all that Phocas did was but to declare that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome onely which is a sufficient evidence that before the said Declaration it had been given to the Bishop of Rome Neither was there of this any question all the Dispute was whether it might not be also extended to the Bishop of Constantinople and this indeed was declar'd in the Negative by Phocas Now who seeth not that 't is a far different thing to declare a Title or Dignity to be of right due and another to conferre it de Novo upon any one If his late Majesty of glorious memory had been pleas'd when time was to have declar'd W. L. Patriarch of England we may well suppose his Lordship would not have granted the Title had been de Novo conferr'd on him seeing he has already contended that long before viz in Vrban the second 's time it was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury But put case Phocas had indeed conferr'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop upon Pope Boniface as a new Dignity not formerly belonging to him yet would it make but little to his Lordships purpose For we say again 't is not all one to have a Title conferr'd by another and to assume or use it ones self The Bishop should have prov'd that Pope Boniface us'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop in his ordinary style as the Bishops of Constantinople are prov'd to have done of late times and as anciently the said John and Cyriacus his Successour attempted to do which was the thing St. Gregory inveigh'd against The Bishop therefore makes here a fallacious Turn when he shifts the question from taking to giving and passeth from ones self to another person Let it be shewen that Boniface the Third or any other Popes his Successourss assum'd this Title as the Bishops of Constantinople did for till this be prov'd it will not follow that either Pelagius and St. Gregory erred in reproving and condemning the Bishop of Constantinoples undue assuming that Title to himself or that Pope Boniface and his Successours did erre by having it declar'd due to them by another Why may not the same person be very unwilling to take an extravagant Title upon himself and yet for good reasons be well content that another give it him Who knows not that anciently the Bishop of Rome was styled Caput Ecclesiae Custos Vineae and Vicarius Christi they being Titles due to his place and Office and though the Popes gainsay'd them not yet Christian Humility ever taught them to forbear the use of such titles themselves The Relatour here professes to give an Historical account how the Popes grew under the Emperours and by degrees attained the heighth they are now at To which I answer We deny not but that in Temporal Power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours But what is this to the purpose If he would have said any thing material he should have prov'd that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholique Church which is the onely thing they claim jure divino and which is so annexed to the Dignity of their Office by Christs Institution without the least dependance of any Emperours or Secular Powers that were the Pope depriv'd of all his Temporalties which can never be done by any Secular Power without committing a most enormous Sacriledge and reduc'd to the
poverty of St. Peter himself the first of them yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least Diminution by it Wherefore to make short it concerns us not to take further notice of his many Historical Criticismes and meer Conjectures upon this subject unto num 13. And whereas he again en passant touches upon the Popes Election approv'd and 〈◊〉 by the Emperour it hath receiv'd a full answer above 6. His next endeavour is to infringe A. C.'s proof of the Popes Supream Pastoral Authority out of St. Irenaeus To which purpose we are told by way of Caveat how unlikely a man St. Irenaeus was being a Gallican Bishop to captivate the Liberty of that Church under the Principality of Rome As if forsooth the so much talk'd of liberties of the Gallican Church had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus's time But Irenaeus sayes the Bishop reprehended Pope Victor for excommunicating the Asian Churches citing for this in the margin Euseb l. 5. c. 25. it should be c. 24. We answer Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner as reflecting on the Popes Dignity and clearly shews that the Pope had of right some authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces had he believ'd as Protestants contend he did that the Pope had no power at all to cut them off Just as if a man should entreat the Bishop of Rochester for example not to excommunicate the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of his Province over whom he hath not any the least pretence of Jurisdiction But admit St. Irenaeus had indeed reprov'd Pope Victor for what he did in the case of the Asian Bishops it being a matter of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction onely in the exercise whereof 't is not deny'd but the Pope through misinformation incident to humane frailty may sometimes go too far what does it prove more then that possibly the Pope proceeded a little too severely or hastily with those Christians whose fault did not in the judgement of St. Irenaeus and some others deserve so heavy a censure But who sees not that all this rather confirms the Popes power Doth St. Irenaeus or any other beside him complain of the Popes usurpation in this case Do they charge him with taking more upon him then he had authority to do Do they tell him he had no authority to excommunicate those Asian Bishops or use any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them as Protestants tell him in reference to themselves And yet who can doubt but this they would have told him and with great bitterness too considering the provocation had they had just ground to do so or could have done it without proclaiming themselves ipso facto Schismatiques and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Unity But these are onely his Lordships light Skirmishes he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self alledg'd by A. C. out of S. Irenaeus whose words though faithfully cited by him in the Latine yet in rendring them English he cunningly windes about in his Labyrinth For first he translates UNDIQUE round about as if St. Irenaeus spake onely of those neighbouring Churches round about Rome and not the Churches throughout the World whereas undique as naturally signifies every where and from all parts witness Thomas Thomasius where the word undique is thus Englished from all places parts and corners every where which is also seconded by the Greek Lexicons where these Adverbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which undeniably signifie from all parts universally are rendred by the word undique And that here it must needs signifie every where or from all parts is clear from the very scope of St. Irenaeus's discourse which was to prove that the Tradition of the Roman Church was a full Evidence plenissima ostensio of the Doctrine preach'd by the Apostles all over the world in toto mundo And this he evinces from the necessary recourse which in all doubts of Faith all Churches or all the Faithful were to have from all parts to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem for her more powerfull Principality as to their constant Guide therein and by vertue of which recourse all the Faithful every where had alwayes conserv'd the Integrity of Apostolicall Tradition In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio This Argument did Irenaeas use in confutation of the Hevetiques he disputed against in France which taking his words in the True and Genuine sense was a very pregnant one and given as a Rule to teach not onely Heretiques but all Christians that the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was as it were the Touch-stone of all Apostolical Doctrine If now we turn the Medal and look upon this Holy Doctors argument in the sense the Bishop takes his words we shall finde it speak little more then non-sense His Lordship to avoid the Prerogative ascrib'd by St. Irenaeus and all Catholiques to the Roman Church will needs as I have said make undique to signifie no more then round about thereby restraining that more powerful Principality St. Irenaeus speaks of to the Provinces of Italy and Islands about it as the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome beyond which the power of that Church extended not In which supposition 〈◊〉 will be found to argue thus against the Heretiques of his time 'T is necessary that all the Churches or the Faithful round about Rome viz. those onely of Italy and the Islands adjacent which make up the Roman Patriarchate should have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem that is for its Bishops precedence of place or in regard of his Patriarchal Power within the aforesaid Precincts Therefore the Gnosticks and other Heretiques in France or any other part of the world are convinced of Heresie for not having recourse to the Church of Rome Is not this fine Meandrick Logick well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth But let us observe how the Relatour deals with the latter part of this Fathers Text In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio which he thus translates In which Church is conserved that Tradition which was deliver'd by the Apostles and not according to his Authour who sayes alwayes conserved The word alwayes was not to appear in English for fear it might induce some impartial Readers to entertain too worthy an opinion of the Roman Church Neither did he think it fit to give his Reader the English of these words ab his qui sunt undique though inserted among the former which would too much
have opened the Fathers meaning viz. that not onely the Church of Rome as 't is a particular Church kept intirely the Apostolical Tradition but that in it all the Faithful every where did keep the same Apostolical Tradition by being in unity and Communion with her Thus you may see to what shifts and upon what shelves even learned men are often driven by maintaining errour From the Premises I argue thus All the Faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem by reason of her more powerful Principality This is St. Irenaeus his Proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful Principality if her said power exended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful Principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the Faithful every where and not onely to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocess of Rome as the Bishop pleads 7. Little therefore is it to his advantage what he pretends to shew out of Ruffinus viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contain'd within the Islands and Precincts of Italy since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity and gives St. Irenaeus the lye Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less then any of the other Patriarchal Churches yea of much less extent then many Metropolitan Churches To which I add 't is contrary even to the common compute of Protestants themselves who often grant the Bishop of Rome to have been Patriarch of the West which undeniably contains many vaste Provinces and Nations beside Italy and the Islands about it Wherefore as the Bishop could not altogether deny but the word Suburbicary was unduly added by Ruffinus in the Translation of the Nicene Canon so I say 't is necessary to understand it unless we will contradict all the world not in the Bishops sense as signifying onely the Churches of Italy and the Islands thereto belonging but as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any way suburdinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known as also to this day by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Prefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded onely those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this Subject This exposition of Ruffinus his term Suburbicary wants not ground even in his own Text who makes as it were a contradistinction between Egypt and the Suburbicary Churches Now under Egypt he comprehends Lybia Pentapolis and Ethiopia which being without the Precincts of the Empire were committed to the power and care of the Patriarch of Alexandria but all Suburbicary Cities that is such as were under the City of Rome as it was Imperial were left under the Bishop of Rome and he by reason of his Seat at Rome was still to be their chief Prelat and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them then he had over those other Cities which were out of the Empire though as St. Peters Successour he had the universal care of the whole Church and that full Potentiorem Principalitatem which St. Irenaeus ascribes unto him 8. Touching Calvin's conjecture that recourse was therefore had to Rome because at that time the Roman Church was more constant to the Truth and less distracted with dangerous opinions it is wholly inept For 't is false that before St. Irenaeus's time Rome was more constant in the Faith then the other Churches of Greece and Africk had been seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresie as Rome 9. The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest from us a Text or two of Epiphanius touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successours wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wonted reservedness that St. Peters person is understood in that Text of the Gospel Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be perswaded to extend it any further then his person But we affirm 't is clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter is derived to his Successours For first after the words Et Portae inferorum c. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it this Father immediately addes Quarum Portarum nomine Hereses Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authours of Heresies are understood that is to say All Heresies and all Authours of Heresies whatever shall arise Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal True it is the Bishop omits these last words by his wonted Et caetera However since he acknowledges that by the Firm Rock whereon our Saviour according to Epiphanius promised to build his Church St. Peter is personally understood we shall easily make good our Argument from it and solve his objections For he must consequently acknowledge the Church so founded on St. Peter as by vertue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies and Inventors of Heresie that should at any time impugne the Churches Faith which could not possibly be verified in case Christs promise were to be limitted to St. Peters person alone For else why might not Heresies and Heretiques after St. Peters death prevail against the Church yea so far prevail as utterly to extinguish the true Faith Wherefore the Bishops long discourse by way of Gloss on this and some other Texts of the same Father concerns us not at all For it being once granted that St. Peter was personally to uphold the Church in the profession of the true Faith as its principal Foundation under Christ we have our desire Nevertheless we deny that he hath any ground to limit to St. Peter onely those Elogiums given him by St. Epiphanius and not allow them extendible to his Successours so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith Wherefore as St. Peters Authority is by the Bishops own confession rightly urg'd by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Hereticks that deny'd it so doubtless by vertue of the same promise and institution of Christ may and ought the Authority of his Successors be urg'd in time to come in proof of any other contested Article or point of Faith Though therefore we affirm not as the Relatour is frequently imposing upon us that St. Peter and his Successours are by vertue of this Text to governe the Church as Princes and Monarchs yet we say that by vertue
thereof they so govern the Church as we may securely relie on them in matters of Faith at least in such as they definitively teach and promulgate to the whole Church But in the close the Bishop undertakes a strange task He will prove that Epiphanius in most express terms and that twice repeated makes not St. Peter but St. James Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church But he every way mistakes For first in the places he alledges there 's not a word of the Churches Principality Secondly he meerly equivocates in the words ante caeteros omnes which signifie onely priority of time because St. James was the first of the Apostles that was ordain'd Bishop of any particular place viz. at Jerusalem as both Eusebius and St. Hierome witness which is call'd Christs Throne because our Saviour himself had there preach't the Gospel and was principally and immediately sent thither Nor is it unusual in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to give the title of Christs Throne to any Episcopal Chair or Seat whatsoever To the Relatours assertion that we all say but no man proves that the Bishop of Rome succeeded in all St. Peters Prerogatives which are ordinary and belong'd to him as a Bishop though not in the extraordinary which belong'd to him as an Apostle I answer Bellarmin beside many Catholique Divines doth not onely say but prove that the Pope succeeds St. Peter not onely in the Prerogatives that belong'd to him as a Bishop but in all Prerogatives Apostolical which were of Ordinary necessity to continue in the Church for its Government and preservation of the True Faith as his Disputations upon this Subject sufficiently shew to any man that reads him with an unbyassed judgement For can any thing be more express then these words lib. 1. De Rom Pont. cap. 9. Mortuis autem Apostolis Apostolica Authoritas in solo Petri Successore permansit When the Apostles were dead the Authority Apostolical resided onely in St. Peters Successor Is this to say the Pope succeeded St. Peter onely in his Episcopal Prerogatives I adde that Bellarmin in the same chapter goes on shewing the difference between St. Peters Successour and the Successours of the rest of the Apostles viz. that they were Bishops onely and that their Authority reached not to a Jurisdiction over the whole Church as that of St. Peters Successours did who were therefore stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolical Bishops and their Sea the Sea Apostolique and their Office The Apostolate See his words in the Margin all which he there proves by the Authority of the Ancient Fathers Wherefore the Bishop 〈◊〉 very largely upon his Readers Credulity while he quotes Bellarmin for this Assertion that the Pope succeeds not St. Peter in any Prerogative that belong'd to him as an Apostle 10. However the Relatour is so kinde to St. Peter as to allow him a Primacy of Order but that is not so much as the Fathers allow him For by his own Confession Doctor Reinolds against Hart chap. 5. proves at large that the Fathers allow St. Peter and that in the way of Prerogative above the rest of the Apostles not onely Primacy of Order but Authority and Principality too which surely imply Power and I would have any man shew us some good Authour of ancient times in whom either the Latine word Primatus or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to it are attributed to any Ecclesiastical person as signifying onely Precedency in order and place and not a true Superiour Authority and Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom such a person is said to have Primacy or to be Primate Is not the contrary most evident viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes signifies Preheminence in Authority and Primatus more especially Preheminence or Superiority in Ecclesiastical Government Is the Primate of any Christian Nation no more then one that hath Precedence in place Doth that Title signifie no more in England then that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury ought to have the chief place in the Convocation-House Have not all Catholique Authours yea and many Protestants too ever thought they signified the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome both sufficiently and properly by the word Primatus Are there not many Volumes extant on both sides De Primatu Romani Pontificis Were their Authors ever tax'd for speaking ambiguously in using that terme wherefore if St. Peter had Primacy he had also Supremacy and if his Primacy were Universal over all his Supremacy was so too Since they both signifie the same thing viz. an eminency of Authority and Power in one above the rest Again St. Hierome speaking of this very subject saith Primatus Petro datur ut Capite constituto ' Schismatis tollatur occasio Can any man in his wits think that by Primatus he mean't onely Precedency of Order was that sufficient to prevent Schisme If therefore a True and Proper Primacy be granted by Protestants to St. Peters Successour also before and above all other Bishops and Patriarchs of the whole Church as divers of them grant the Fathers did it must be also granted that Supremacy of Power over all Bishops and Patriarchs of the Church is due unto him Now that Primacy or Supremacy of right belongs to St. Peters Successour no less then to himself I evince by this following Argument Whatsoever Power or Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schismes and procurement of Unity must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages But the Power and Jurisdiction of One viz. St. Peter or his Successour over all Christians whatsoever not excepting even the Apostles themselves was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schisms and procurement of Unity Ergo the Power and Jurisdiction of One viz. St. Peter or his Successour is à fortiori necessary in all succeeding Ages The Major viz. that whatsoever Power and Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church c. must needs be necessary in all succeeding Ages is clear from meer Inspection into those succeeding Ages to this present where it is visible by what degrees the great zeal of the Primitive Christians has decay'd and cooled even to this day to the production of infinite Schismes and Heresies which must needs ere this have overwhelm'd and utterly confounded the Church had not our Blessed Saviour that Divine Law-giver laid that original Platform of Church-Government which was to serve us as a pattern to the end of the world our Saviour Christ not so much regarding the need of it during the Apostles lives as the necessity his all-seeing wisdom foresaw would be of it in all future Ages The Minor is prov'd effectively by the precedent Discourse where St. Peters Primacy that is as we there shew his Supremacy over all
is confest by his Lordship and other Protestants The Conclusion therefore is undenyable viz. that 't is necessary for the Due Government of the Church that one should be endow'd with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages Adde hereunto that so long as the End is but in Acquisition and not compleatly gained the Necessary Means to obtain it is alwayes necessary But the End in our present case viz. the Due Government of the Church the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholick Faith and Christian Charity is and ever hath been since the Apostles time but in Acquisition and shall not be compleatly gained till the end of the world Ergo the Necessary Means viz. the Supreme Authority of One over All in the Government of the Church is hath been and ever will be necessary to the Worlds End CHAP. 17. The Popes Authority asserted and vindicated ARGUMENT 1. Our Saviours prayer for St. Peter extended to his Successours 2. What it effected for St. Peter and what for them 3. PASCE OVES AGNOS John 21. 15. 17. a Special charge to St. Peter and not common in all respects to the rest of the Apostles 4. A.C. begs not the question but proves it 5. The Bishop willingly mistakes him about the Notion of a General Council 6. Optatus and St. Austins words cited nothing to the purpose 7. The Popes Ancient and undoubted right to confirm General Councils 8. The Bishops Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies examin'd and shew'n to be vain 9. The Popes Authority duly acknowledged sufficient to prevent Schismes and Heresies 10. The Government of the Church not purely Monarchical but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope and other Catholique Bishops differ'd 1. THe Bishop himself in his Answers to the Argument drawn from our Saviours Prayer for St. Peter Luke 22. 32. Ego rogavi pro Te c. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not shews the insufficiency of his Evasions Card. Bellarmin by the Testimony of seven Popes most of them very Ancient proves that our Saviour by that Prayer obtain'd both for St. Peter and his Successours this priviledge namely that they should never teach the Church any thing contrary to True Faith What sayes the Bishop to this As for St. Peter himself he tells us it will be easily granted that such a priviledge was obtain'd for him but that it should be obtain'd or intended for his Successours also that never came within the compass of ROGAVI PROTE Petre. Yea Bellarmin's proof according to the Relatour is its own Confutation And why because forsooth all his proofs are from witnesses in their own Cause and from Interessed persons I answer first that all his proofs are not from Popes fot he gives several pregnant reasons for his Assertion drawn from the Text it self had the Bishop been pleas'd to answer them Secondly I ask How interressed so far as to assert a manifest untruth in a matter of so great importance to the whole Church Surely no. Can our Adversaries have the Confidence Temerity rather to affirm that Felix the first a most Holy Martyr about the year 273. that Lucius the first another most Holy Martyr as some think or as others say a Confessour about the year 337. and Leo the first a most Holy Pope as all Antiquity acknowledg'd about the year 440. would dare pervert and mis-alledge Scripture onely for Interest and to advance their own Authority had they not known it to be the just Authority of their Sea and rightly grounded on this Text Truly I could never yet understand this proceeding of Protestants who make so many publick professions to stand to the Fathers Authority of the first Five or Six hundred years yet when such Fathers are alledged fly presently back and reject their Authority upon such weak pretenses as these And though Pope Agatho were something after those ages viz. about the year 678. yet I see not how they can refuse his Testimony in this matter unless they be resolved to contemn not onely him but all the Fathers in the sixth General Council where the Epistle of this Pope was read and approv'd who could much better judge whether his words were written out of proper Interest then the Relatour or any of his party The other Three 't is confest are of somewhat a later standing yet the latest of them flourisht above four hundred years since and we desire to know what Authour of good repute ever taxed any of them as by assed with proper interest when they publish't that St Peter does in his Successours still teach the Church and confirm his Brethren in the True Faith by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour His assertion that Bellarmin upon the matter confesses there is not one Father in the Church before Theophylacts time that understands this Text as Bellarmin doth is wholly groundless Must he needs confess there are no more Authours citable in any subject but what he cites himself Certainly though Bellarmins Learning was great and his Reading much yet was he known to be a person of too great modesty and humility to pretend to this But suppose he had confest as much as the Bishop desir'd what follows onely this that till Theophylacts time none had given so full an Exposition of those words Ego rogavi pro Te c. as those seven Popes which is no wonder at all considering how few of the Fathers have purposely commented upon the place and how many of them do in effect deliver the same Doctrine drawn from other Texts of Scripture as Bellarmin also shews in other Chapters The force therefore of Bellarmins proof out of Theophylact is this If our Saviours prayer was to have a special effect in St. Peter because he was to be the Churches Foundation under Christ it must also have the like effect in those who were to be such Foundations in succeeding ages that is in all his lawful Successours Neither doth this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith belong to him precisely as an Apostle which the Relatour insinuates but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him 2. To what he addes touching the two Effects or Priviledges our Saviours prayer obtain'd for St. Peter and their descending to his Successours I answer Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his did effectively so descend But I confess 't is a disputable question whether every thing which Christ by this prayer intended and obtain'd for St. Peter was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours That some special priviledge both intended and obtain'd by this prayer was to descend to them is manifest both by the Authorities and Reasons brought by Bellarmin in proof thereof and this Priviledge was that none of St. Peters Successours should ever so far fall from the Faith as to teach Heresie or any
if these lawfully assembled pray for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost they questionless shall obtain it seeing our Saviour cannot fail of his word Another Exception against that cited passage of A. C. is that he speaking of Points decreed by a General Council makes Firm and Infallible to be Synonyma's But here again the Bishop fails in his observation A. C. onely tells us that the Decree of such a General Council was Firm and Infallible that is not onely Firm but also Infallible Is this to make them signifie the same thing Neither doth he speak so much of what is Infallible in it self as what is Infallible in order to us So that this and the Premises considered there must needs be some other visible and Infallible Judge viz. a General Council beside Scripture for setling Controversies in the Church and making all points of Faith not onely Firm but Infallible 6. What the Relatour brings in his swelling Margent out of Optatus and St. Austin serves onely to amuse his Reader We grant that Christ did not dye Intestate but left behinde him a Will which was afterwards written So that in rigour of speech he left onely a Nuncupative Will which was after deliver'd to the Church partly by Writing partly by Tradition However we stand not upon the terms but the thing it self and have recourse with St. Austin and Optatus to the Written Word or Will in matters of Faith We urge and plead it in almost all matters controverted in Religion between us and them But we demand what was to be done by those first Christians who liv'd before this Will was written or at least before it was generally receiv'd or known for such Again what are we now to doe when either this written Word is call'd in question or the matter in Controversie not so clearly set down therein as to put a period to contention Do the forecited Authours deny that in such case we must have recourse to Tradition Nothing less Certainly St. Austin believ'd the necessity of Infant-Baptism the unlawfulness of rebaptizing the duly-Baptiz'd by Heretiques with many other points which no man can evidently prove out of the written Word alone nay the Scripture it self he believ'd for no other reason then the Authority of the Church and Tradition Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder at those words of his Lordship to A. C. in the Margent where by way of defiance he tells him he could shew no Father of the Church who taught that Christ ever lest behinde him a NUNCUPATIVE OBLIGATORY WILL. First what means he by that restrictive expression a Nuncupative Obligatory Will Could any Will left by our Saviour whether Nuncupative or by Writing not be Obligatory Secondly how was it possible the Bishop should challenge us to prove by the Fathers that our Saviour left behinde him a Nuncupative Will since 't is in it self most evident and undeniable Did he leave I pray any other then a Nuncupative Will Was any part of the Gospel written either by himself or by any other at his command in his life time Did he not make his whole Will by word of mouth to his Disciples But we shall not insist wholly upon the self-evidence of the thing Is it not to be shewn out of the Fathers that Christ left a Nuncupative Obligatory Will First touching the word Nuncupative Will we hope it will be held sufficient if we prove the thing viz. an unwritten yet Obligatory Declaration of Christs Doctrine which is equivalent to a Nuncupative Will. And as to this we say that Bellarmin and all Catholique Divines who write of the word of God written and unwritten do effectually prove it not onely by the Authority of St. Austin and the unanimous consent of the Fathers but even by the very Text of Scripture it self Does not Saint Paul command us 2 Thess. 2. 14. TO HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS we have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Doth not this in effect signifie a Nuncupative Will and Obligatory Does not Saint Irenaeus teach us the same Oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis c. We must saith he follow the order of Tradition which they have deliver'd to us to whom the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches Doth he not tell us in the same Chapter of whole Nations of Christians even in his time which was somewhat above two hundred years after Christ who most perfectly believ'd the Christian Faith though they had not any part of the Scripture to direct them Doth not Tertullian teach the same together with Saint Cyprian St. Basil Epiphanius St. Hierome and divers others But we have spoken too much in a matter so evident let us pass on to that which follows 7. His next Marginal Exception against A. C. is for requiring the Popes Confirmation to a General Council telling us 't is one of the Roman Novelties to account that necessary for the validity of a General Council But surely he is not a little mistaken For in the first 〈◊〉 Councils do we not finde the Confirmations of the several Popes who then sate clearly acknowledged See the Acts and Synodical Epistles of the six first Councils and Gelasius epist. 13. ad Episcop Dardan Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 Neither can it rationally be thought that the Decrees of a Council should be taken for the Decrees of the whole Church Representative if the consent of the acknowledged chief Pastour and Head of the Church were wanting And whereas the Relatour brings St. Austin's Authority to prove that the Sentence of a General Council is confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it we answer his Allegation might well have been spar'd for we say so too We acknowledge the Acceptation of the Universal Church to be an Acoessory and Secondary Confirmation of the Decrees of a General Council and as the whole Church Representative or a General Council cannot erre in defining so neither can the whole Church Diffusive and Formal erre in accepting and believing whatever is defined So that ordinarily speaking we acknowledge a Double Confirmation of the Decrees made by a General Council the one of the Pope as Head of the Church the other of the Church it self extended throughout the several Provinces of Christendom But the Popes Confirmation is Primary Essential and absolutely necessary because without it what the Council declares neither is nor can be esteem'd the Act or Judgement of the whole Church Representative the Pope being the chief Member both of Church and Council The Churches Acceptation is as I have said a Confirmation also but this is onely Accessory for the further satisfaction of particular persons that may haply doubt either of the Authority or Proceedings of this or that Council in particular And there is no other ordinary means to assure private persons throughout the Church that such or such a Council was lawfully assembled proceeded duly voted freely and was Authentically confirm'd by the chief Bishop
but this viz. that its Decrees are universally receiv'd as obligatory by all particular Churches or the whole Church Diffusive Neither is this Confirmation so simply and absolutely necessary but that the Decrees of a General Council lawfully assembled and duly confirm'd by the Pope are obligatory without it and antecedently to it But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop cites him for viz. to prove that 't is the consent of the whole Church Diffusive that confirms the Decrees of General Councils and not the Popes Authority His words are these Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ quid in hâc re sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset visum est ei c. where 't is evident the Father speaking of St. Cyprians errour the whole drift of his speech is to tell us it was the more excusable in him because he defended it onely before the consent of the whole Church had by the sentence of a General Council established what was to be held in that point Is this to say that the Decrees of a General Council are to be confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it and not otherwise as the Bishop will needs perswade us Surely no. To conclude therefore we think the Bishop could not well have more effectually justifi'd our assertion concerning the Authority both of the Church and a General Council then by citing this Text of St. Austin Since it clearly signifies that the Church doth settle and determin matters of Controversie by the sentence of a General Council in which the whole Churches consent is both virtually included and effectually declared 8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his angry exceptions against him for interposing as he tells us new matter quite out of the Conference But how can it be called new matter as not pertinent to the question debated in the Conference if A. C. urg'd and prov'd by what reasons he could the necessity of the Popes Authority for ending Controversies in Faith that being the point his Adversary most especially deny'd A. C. desires to know what 's to be done for reuniting the Church in case of Heresies and Divisions when a general Council cannot be held by reason of manifold impediments or being call'd will not be of one minde Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this case provided no Rule no Judge Infallible to determine Controversies and procure unity and certainty of Belief Yes sayes the Bishop He hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture But this Answer A. C. foreseeing prevented by his following words had the Relatour pleas'd to set them down which shew the inconvenience of admitting that Rule as Protestants admit it since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain What sayes the Bishop to that First he cunningly dissembles the objection takes no notice of A. C. s discourse to that purpose and yet finding it necessary to apply some salve to the sore he addes in the second place as it were by way of Tacit prevention In necessaries to Salvation the Scripture by the manifest places of it which admit no dispute nor need any external Judge to interpret them is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief amongst Christians and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermin'd they be But surely here the Bishop went too farre and lost himself in his own Labyrinth For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands onely such as are of absolute necessity to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians necessitate medii as Divines speak though we should grant they were so clear in Scripture as not to fall under dispute among Christians yet to affirm as he does that there ought to be no contention to a separation about any other points is to condemn the perpetual practice of the Catholique Church which hath ever oblig'd her Children under pain of Anathema to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretiques as namely from the Montanists the Quarto-Decimani the Rebaptizers Monothelites Pelagians Semi-Pelagians Vigilantians Iconoclasts and the like who held all those foresaid necessary matters and err'd onely in such as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians whatsoever But if by necessaries to salvation he mean any of those which Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti he should have assign'd them in particular for till that be done such General Answers as the Bishop here gives signifie nothing either to the just satisfaction of us or security of their own proceedings since they cannot possibly know in what points they ought to hold contention to a separation and in what not Moreover we having already prov'd at large Chap. 2. and in other places that 't is necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church whether clearly contain'd in Scripture or not it follows there must be some other Infallible Rule beside Scripture whereon to ground our Faith of such Things as are not clearly deliver'd in Scripture The Holy Scripture alone is not qualifi'd for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is For though it may be granted to be certain and Infallible in it self yet is it not so in order to us nor so much as known to us for Gods Word without the Authority of the Church assuring us of that truth and he is very much mistaken when he supposes the Ancient Church had no other Additional Infallible Rule viz. Tradition by which to direct their Councels Nor is there any thing alledgeable out of Bellarmin contrary to this sense if his words be candidly interpreted Tertullian indeed calls Scripture the principal rule and we if we have not sufficiently acknowledg'd it already upon sundry occasions will now say so too it is the principal not the onely Rule He adores the fulness of Scripture so do we as to that particular point about which he then disputed We confess the Scriptures do most fully prove against Hermogenes the Heretique that the world or matter whereof this world consists was not eternal but created by God in time Again 't is no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fulness of Seripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition which in other parts of his works he maintains more expresly then many other of the Fathers What 's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus but to shew that Heretiques cannot be confuted by Scripture alone without Tradition Now we say both with him St. Hierome and St. Basil that to superinduce any thing contrary to what is written is a manifest errour in Faith and that it hath a woe annexed to it but to superinduce what is no way dissonant but rather consonant and agreeable to Scripture hath no such curse
laid upon it For St Basil himself even as the Bishop quotes him professes to fight against Heresies by unwritten Doctrine or Tradition yet such as was not contrary but according to Scripture Lastly we say with Biel that Scripture is a Rule which applied by the Church and that is Biels express caution though it might not appear in English measures all things yea and contains all things necessary to salvation either mediately or immediately Wherefore to take notice by the way of the Bishops conceit upon Gedeon's Fleece we averre that Scripture hath not onely Dew upon it but water in it and that enough not onely for a Lamb to wade thorow but for an Elephant to swim but whosoever shall presume to wade or swim there without help of Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradition will surely perish by his presumption He asks what warrant we have to seek another Rule beside Scripture but considers not how groundless his own assertion is that God hath left us Scripture as the onely Infallible Rule which is contrary to the common belief of all true Christians contrary to express Scripture and the constant judgement and practise of the Church in all ages and according to the example of none but confess'd and condemn'd Heretiques 9. But the Bishop tells us that though the Pope should be granted a living Infallible Judge yet would it not suffice against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in Doctrine of Faith or to soder the rents which are made His reason is because oportet Haereses esse c. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith I answer the Church is at all times sufficiently and effectually secur'd from such Rents by the Authority of its chief Pastour where 't is duly acknowledg'd The malice of the Devil and impious men by inventing Heresies hurt not the Church but themselves and their Adherents who by their Heresie and Schism make a divorce from the Church that is either sever themselves or are justly cut off from her for their errours the Church to speak properly remaining still as pure and incorrupt as she was before Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents or Schismatical party which stand in need of Sodering are not found amongst the true Members of the Church who continue still united in Faith and due obedience with their Head and in all necessary Communion with one another but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adher'd to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations And herein truly if passion did not too much blinde us experience would tell us that had not the Pope receiv'd from God the power he challenges of Governing the Church as Supream Head thereof under Christ he could never have been able to preserve that Peace and Unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church there being upon other Accounts so many Feuds and Animosities among the Professours of that Religion or to have subsisted thus long had his pretension to it been grounded on meer Policy and Interest as Protestant Ministers continually suggest to their Disciples especially in these latter ages wherein the wit and malice of his enemies have been sharpened to the utmost and every thing objected even with notorious calumny that might possibly serve to render his Authority suspected and contemptible even with those who acknowledg'd it But leaving him to the execution of his Pastoral Charge let us see how matters go between the Bishop and his Adversary 10. A. C. tells us there is no earthly Kingdom that when matters cannot opportunely be compos'd by Parliament which upon all occasions and at all times cannot be summoned hath not beside the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Supream Magistrate and Judge to determin emergent Controversies and preserve peace in Temporal affairs and thence à paritate rationis or rather à fortiori inferrs that Christ the wisest of Kings hath in like manner provided in his Kingdom the Church beside the Law-Books of Holy Scripture some visible Magistrates and Judges and above all one chief Magistrate and Judge sufficiently impower'd and assisted by his Spirit as to put an end to all Controversies concerning Ecclesiastical affairs and preserve his Church in the Unity and Certainty of Faith To which the Relatour thinks it sufficient to say all this is but a Simile and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing The Similitude upon which A. C. grounds his discourse is that the whole Militant Church is a Kingdom which the Bishop denyes telling us they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or mixt Government But I answer though A. C. urges the Argument in the Similitude of a Kingdom onely yet is it of force in any other kinde of settled Government In a Common-wealth beside the Law-Books 't is requisite there be a living Judge or Judges invested with Supream Authority to determin all matters in difference amongst the people What the Relatour brings against the Monarchy of the Militant Church shews onely that it is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy participating somewhat both of Aristocracy and Democracy I call that a Pure Monarchy in which all the Sovereign Power is so in one alone as that no other person or persons in the Kingdom govern but in vertue of the Monarchs Authority and meerly as his Substitutes A mixt Monarchy is that in which one indeed is Supream and in some cases commands all yet so as others within the Monarchy are Princes and do govern both Towns and Provinces as their own and with rights of Sovereignty though not absolute but holding and depending on the Monarch in chief Now the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical Seeing the Pope as Vicar of Christ and St. Peters Successour hath a Supream Authority over the whole Church yet is not his Monarchy pure but mixt because Bishops within their respective Diocesses and Jurisdictions are Spiritual Princes also that is Chief Pastours and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right and not meerly his Vicars and Substitutes placeable and displaceable at his pleasure In this respect therefore the Government of the Church hath something of the Aristocratical in it And because any man if sufficiently qualified for it may be promoted to a Bishoprick it hath something also of Democratical 11. But since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect what wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern his Church by one Viceroy as the Bishop is pleas'd to tearm him then Aristocratically or by many as he would have it And as for the Literae Communicatoriae which himself alledges
often declar'd because he teaches 't is to be govern'd by Bishops since in the place alledg'd he declares the Government of the Church onely as 't is contradistinct from the government of Temporal Princes not as inferiour Bishops are distinguisht from the Supream or Chief Bishop that 's another question and treated by him in another place it being sufficient to his purpose there to shew that the Church was to be govern'd by Ecclesiastical not Temporal Princes without disputing whether the said Ecclesiastical Governours were Subordinate or not one to another But the Bishop proceeds in his objections and tells us the Church Militant remaining spread in many earthly Kingdoms cannot so well be order'd by one Monarch as a particular Kingdom may by one King For how saith he will this one Supream execute his Office if the Kings of those several Kingdoms will not give leave I answer first this Difficulty makes as much against the Aristocratical form of Church-Government as the Monarchical For how will a General Council to use his own term enter to execute their Office when the necessities of the Church require such a Convention if the Kings of those several Kingdoms from whence the Prelates are to come will not give leave Nay how can the Bishops of any one Christian Kingdom meet in Synods if their respective Sovereigns to whom the Relatour will have them subject even in Spirituals will not give leave 5. As to his Surmize that we would have one Emperour over all Kings as well as one Pope over all Bishops I answer it was a Chimaera of his own Brain and as impossible for him to know as for any of his party to deny with Truth that we pray for Peace and Unity amongst all Christian Princes wishing nothing more then that every one of them may enjoy and rest satisfied with his own right But here the Bishop takes occasion to fall foul upon Innocent the Third because forsooth comparing the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power to the Two great Lights the Sun and the Moon he made the Sun a Symbole of the Ecclesiastical and the Moon of the Civil Power which the Relatour interprets for us to signifie the Pope and the Emperour I answer First did not men love contention there would be no quarrelling about such Conceipts as these which are never taken for Argumentative but meerly Allusive Applications of the Sacred Text touching these Two Powers which diversely considered give ground to different Allegories In times of persecution both the Church and Pope may not unfitly be compar'd to the Moon by reason of their declining condition but in time of prosperity if we consider the same Church in relation to the extent and greatness of her Power beyond the Imperial it reaching to all places and persons in the world professing Christian Faith as also in respect of the Dignity of its Object viz. Things Caelestial whereas the Object of the Imperial Power are onely the Things of this world there 's little question but the Ecclesiastical Power excells the Imperial no less then the Soul does the Body or Eternity the Things of this life In this regard therefore it could be no just matter of offence for the Pope to be understood by the Sun and the Emperour by the Moon But the Pope forsooth makes too much odds between his own power and the Emperours abasing that of the Emperour so far as to make it forty seaven times less then that of the Pope which the Bishop proves from the Gloss upon this Decretal We answer the Allegory led the Glosser to it and that being rather a flourish of wit and pious conceipt then matter of solid Argument it was but lost time for our Adversary to make inferences from it and would be the like in us to answer them The matter we stand upon is that the Pope is Supream Pastour of the whole Church Let our Adversaries disprove this and not trifle about Allegories We confess also that the Emperour is Supream over his Subjects in all Civil affairs in fuch sort as neither of these Powers can of right hinder the other in the due execution of their charge They are both of them absolute and Independent Powers though each in their proper orbe the one in Spirituals the other in Temporals By which it appears we are far from depressing the Imperial power lower then God hath made it as the Relatour most injuriously chargeth us No we honour and very willingly acknowledge the Emperour in Tertullians style Hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem viz. in the administration of all Civil affairs in which doubtless all persons within his Dominion ought to be subject to him Yet does it not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church resolve Controversies of Faith or interpret Scripture in any sense contrary to the judgement and doctrine of the lawful Pastours of the Church he hath no power to do any thing of this nature neither shall we ever read that any of them took upon them to be Supream Governours of the Church or reform Religion on their own account without or contrary to the said Pastours 6. A Book of the Law 't is true was anciently by Gods special command to be given to the King Deut. 17. 18. But to what intent was it given To govern the Church by reading it or expound the sense of the Law when it happen'd to come in Controversie Surely no It was given him to govern himself and Kingdom by it that by reading it he might learn to fear God and keep his words and statutes commanded in it as the Text it self declares Neither is it to be doubted but in case of Notorious and Gross Abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastours of the Church Christian Princes may both lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastours as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove alledged by the Bishop But they prove not that Princes may themselves take upon them the Priests Office either in whole or part they prove not that they may reform Religion in the Substance of it or enact any thing pertaining thereto by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent They prove not that Princes may determine the Controversies of the Law God having expresly reserv'd them to the Priests judgement and commanded all to submit to it under pain of death Nay point blank to the contrary we read 2. Paralip 26. 20. that Osias though a King was stricken by God with a sudden Leprosie for but attempting to usurp the Priests Office which if it were so unlawful then must needs now be yet more by how much the Functions of the Evangelical Priesthood are more Sacred Spiritual and participatively Divine then those of the Mosaical Law 7. Nor did the Popes ever attempt or so much as pretend to bring the Emperours under them in
Civil affairs which is another aspersion the Bishop layes upon them Gregory the Seventh and Innocent the Third were indeed very prudent men and worthy Champions of the Church to assert her just liberties but they never endeavour'd to subject the Emperour to themselves in Temporal matters and it had been more for our Adversaries credit instead of falsly pretending it to be plain in History that they did so to have given us at least some one good proof of it Can any such thing be solidly concluded from the Allegory of the Sun and Moon upon which the Relatour so long insists and makes so many unsignificant reflections that they would better become a person the Moon had particularly wrought upon then a Primate of England 8. The Relatour could not leave his digressive Discourse without giving a lash to the Jesuites by willing them to leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour But I wonder he could so easily believe that men of understanding as he sticks not to acknowledge Jesuites to be should by Vow deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of this world with design to make the Pope and Emperour great especially seeing that without breach of an Oath peculiar to their Order they can neither seek nor so much as accept of any Ecclesiastical preferment as other Church-men and Religious may unless by way of Obedience when expresly thereto commanded by the Pope under pain of Sin He skips from the Jesuites to the Friers A certain Frier at Madrid John De Puente by name in the Year 1612. printed a Book in the Frontispiece whereof he painted the Sun and the Moon so as they clearly signified the Pope and the King of Spain Here the Scene changes 't was just now the Pope and the Emperour There were also divers other Emblematical Phansies added by which was intimated that his Catholique Majesty should be content to be under the Pope so he might rule all the world beside Lastly for fear the Scutcheons and Devises should not sufficiently discover the Design the Title of the Book layes all open 'T is called LA CONVENIENTIA DE LAS DOS MONAR QUIAS CATOLICAS in English The Agreement of the Two Catholique Monarchies viz. of the Pope and of Spain To all which the Bishop addes his own particular reflection that the Book had all manner of License that a Book could have For answer to it we deny not but such a Book was both licensed and printed but doubtless who ever peruses the contents of it impartially will judge it was both licensed and printed rather for its witty conceit and divertisement for the King and his Courtiers then for a solid Foundation whereon to build any serious and Dogmatical Assertion And as this Spanish Frier stood for his own King so Campanella another Frier is objected to have stood as much for the late Dolphin now King of France publishing about the time of his Birth a certain Eclogue concerning him wherein the said Dolphin was promis'd the Universal Monarchy of the world and all other Princes represented as now more afraid of France then ever before What such men speak partly out of Flattery to Princes an Epidemical infirmity incident to men of all conditions and partly as delighted with their own Conceipts makes nothing at all to the cause of Religion nor can we be thought responsible for any such personal Actions or Assertions of private men 'T is sufficient for us to have prov'd that the Pope is Universal Pastour of the Church what the Kings of Spain or France are or would be in reference to other Christian Kings and Princes concerns not us either to know or examine 9. But leaving these Digressions the Relatour does here acknowledge it high time to return to his Adversary and think of Answering A. C. s Argument which proves that in the Church beside the Law Book of the Bible there must be a living Magistrate and Judge so assisted by the Holy Ghost as he may be able rightly to determine all Controversies of Religion and preserve Unity and Certainty of Faith in the Church To this he answers in brief that for determining Controversies in Religion and preserving Unity and Certainty of Faith it is not necessary to have one Bishop over the whole Christian Church more then 't is necessary for determining Civil Differences and preserving Civil peace and unity among Christians to have one Emperour over the whole world To confirm this the Authority of Occham is cited saying that it is not necessary there should be one Governour of the whole Church under Christ but 't is sufficient there be many Bishops governing divers Provinces as there are many Kings governing divers Kingdoms I answer first that besides that these Dialogues which the Bishop here alledges are in the Index of forbidden Books Occham himself is no such unquestionable Authour among Catholiques that we should think our selves oblig'd to defend what ever he sayes especially in a question that concerns the Popes Authority it being too well known how factiously he sided with an Enemy of the Church Secondly had Christ instituted such a Government of his Church as Occham fancies viz. a Government consisting of many not Subordinate to any One as Head and Supream over them it would have been requisite that all those Independent and Coordinate Governours in the Church should have been Infallible otherwise the Government of the Church would have been little less then a meer Anarchy without Unity or Certainty in any thing which must have destroy'd the very end of Government and expos'd the whole Body of the Catholique Church which yet is and must be One by the Institution of Christ to as many Schisms and varieties of Faith as there are several Provinces in 〈◊〉 Experience shews us this Truth in all Countries where no Infallibility is acknowledg'd Again Occham speaking onely de possibili of what our Saviour might have done had he pleas'd his doctrine cannot evince any thing in disproof of what we maintain to have been de facto established in Gods Church that is one Universal Pastour appointed by Christ over the whole Flock 10. Remain it therefore a settled Catholique principle that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God according to the Declaration of the Occumenical Council of Florence in which both the Greek and Latin Church concurred and that to teach the contrary is undoubted Heresie The words of the Council are these Definimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in Universum orbem tenere Primatum c. We define saith the Council that the Holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome have Primacy over the whole world and that the said Bishop of Rome is Successour of the Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles that he is also the True Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that to him in the person of Blessed Peter FULL
the Kings inclination and the English Catholiques consent Is not this a gross delusion He tells us for a wonder That A. C. marvels what kinde of General Council he would have and what Rules observed in it that were Morally like to make an End of Controversies better then our Catholique General Councils Was this to express any backwardness to a lawfull General Council or could any thing be more reasonably demanded of him Could the Relatour expect an End of Contention between us by means of a General Council unless the Conditions and Rules by which the said Council should proceed were first known and consented to by both parties Are not Protestants themselves a sufficient proof of the Negative in their Cavillings against the Authority and Proceedings in the Council of Trent But what particular Conditions or Rules for the legitimating of a future General Council could he assign which had not been competently observ'd in former General Councils nay even in that of Trent whose Authority and Decrees nevertheless the Bishop with the whole party utterly rejects As to his profession that any General Council shall satisfie him that is called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observ'd in the Primitive Church it is too general to be ingenuous or give real satisfaction to the demand signifying nothing at all in relation to a finall End of our Controversies seeing Catholiques hold those general conditions as much as the Bishop or any of their opposers and yet our Differences are still the same as to particulars To as little purpose save onely to deceive the Reader cites he the Latin Text of Bellarmin in his Margent as though he concurr'd with him in the requisite conditions of a General Council whereas by those conditions are clearly excluded all Excommunicated Bishops Heretiques and Schismatiques from being any necessary part of a General Council But to come yet closer to the point who should call this his wished General Council If we follow the example of those most Ancient Councils which himself acknowledges for General and lawfully called then the Pope must be the Summoner of it or at least the Emperour with the Popes consent in both which cases we are not to divine with what contempt the Protestant party would look upon such a Council especially if it insisted in the steps of those Primitive Councils in which the Pope as we have shewn presided To call therefore for a General Council in the Protestants sense is a meer nothing an empty name to amuse silly people with since morally speaking 't is impossible there should ever be such a General Council as they fancy to themselves viz. an Oecumenical Council that should consist as well of Schismatiques Heretiques and Desertors of the Catholique Church as of true Catholique Bishops But if it were never thought reasonable in a Civil Commonwealth which yet the Bishop makes the pattern of his Spiritual one in point of Authority that Out-Laws and condemned persons should be admitted to sit with their Lawful Judges to determine whether they were Delinquents or not how instantly soever they might demand it how can it be thought to stand with any colour of Reason that Spiritual Out-Laws and Desertors of the Catholique Church that maintain many anciently condemned Heresies should be admitted to Sit and Vote in Council among their Lawful Judges whether they were guilty or not What Rebel would ever be found Criminial if he might be allow'd to be his own Judge 2. Here Mr. Fisher to shew the Bishop to how little purpose he called for a General Council asked him Whether he thought a General Council might erre viz. in its Decisions and Determinations of Faith To which the Relatour having answer'd in the Affirmative that it might erre Mr. Fisher thus further Queried If a General Council may erre what nearer are we to Unity after a General Council hath determined What the Bishop reply'd to this I shall not deliver out of the mouth of either Mr. Fisher or A. C. because he quarrels with them though to little purpose touching the precise words he used in the Conference wherein his memory might as well fail him as the other You shall have them from his own pen upon more mature deliberation But first hear how he disputes pro and con touching Mr. Fishers first Querie Whether sayes he a General Council may erre or not is a question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church without remedy against an errour once determined To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely disrespect former Councils of the Church but to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine To each member of this discourse I answer thus in order To say and but meerly to say it without good proof that a General Council cannot erre may leave the Church indeed without remedy against an errour But to say it cannot erre and prove it too both from Reason Authority and Gods Word as Catholiques do is so far from leaving the Church without remedy against an errour that it secures all the adhering members thereof from erring in any matter of Faith Now for the latter branch or member To say it can erre does not onely seem to expose as the Bishop hath it but does actually expose and abandon all the Adherents of that opinion to an inevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith and makes them utterly contemn all former and future Councils when ever they determine any thing contrary to these mens fancies Now to Mr. Fishers second Querie wherein are we nearer to Unity if a General Council may erre the Bishop thus positively answers The Determination of a General Council erring is to stand in force and to have external obedience at least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary make the errour appear and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority do reverse it Is not this a strange not to say an impious doctrine to be advanc'd without Authority either of Gods Word or of Antiquity nay contrary to all solid Reason that men should be tyed up by an Erring Conciliary Decision in points of Divine Truth against Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration of the Errour For till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it the errour is still to be submitted to by all men even when they know it This indeed is a rare effect of a General Council to oblige all the members of the Church to Unity in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had as I have already shewn And to mend the matter that is to make us still at a greater loss this
pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority who shall determine or how shall men satisfie themselves whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent The Bishop gives us no light in this particular but leaves us to grope in the dark But let us indulge so much to our Adversary as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have General and of Equal Authority yet Maldonats Argument which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one evinces clearly that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word there would need another Council and then another to try that and so in infinitum The result of which would be that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self To this the Bishop answers that no General Council lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM which is either as ambiguous as the rest or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity But this is neither to exclude possibility nor fear of erring c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 Here the Bishop sayes I might have returned upon you again If a General Council not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Council He tells us we may say yes because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer But let this piece of Disingenuity pass and let us examine how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader while he insinuates to him that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope alone as Head of the Church is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions which is but an opinion of particular Doctours and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer as the Bishop does for us viz. That a General Council is necessary because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre but rather the contrary That a General Council is needfull because it is not De fide or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council as all Catholiques unanimously believe he ever does when he defines with it What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us 3. But the Bishop foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity and unless it the Council erre manifestly and intolerably In which cases you may see the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity to fall into another as great viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity nor what manifestly intolerable but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy to exclaim as warranted by the Bishop against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity or manifestly intolerable in both which cases they may with the Relatours license spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom or Commonwealth The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching Declaring and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable and changing according to Circumstances of Time Person Place c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good and necessary to be repealed which can never happen in Decisions of Faith The truth of this is evident even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment Corporal or Pecuniary whereas the Spiritual viz. a General Council layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions Witness the first Four General acknowledg'd for such by Protestants which were they fallible as the Bishop contends they are would be the greatest tyranny not to say Impiety imaginable Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts against Catholique Doctrine 'T is true some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him not for him But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd which is that National or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour if the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council and examine it Sure the Bishop had very ill luck or a bad cause to maintain otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities in so little a Compass as he does For first he leaves us to divine what those Errours are which we must esteem intolerable Secondly he forgets to tell us whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church or its Representative while as is supposed there 's no General Council yet in being Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a
instructed his Apostles touching all points absolutely necessary to Salvation especially considering what himself professeth in his Prayer for them to the Father John 17. 8 14. I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me and they have received them c Can those words in any Protestants opinion signifie less then all points absolutely necessary to Salvation His Lordship here stumbles in the plain way endeavouring to impose this absurd Disjunctive upon his Reader viz. that all Truth must either signifie simply All whatsoever matter of Fact as well as Faith or be restrained to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation that is without which no man can in any circumstance be saved the apparent falsity whereof a man half blinde may perceive it being in effect to say that either All men are wise and learned or none but Socrates and Plato To as little purpose is his other limitation viz. that a Councill is then onely Infallible when it suffers it self to be led by the Blessed Spirit by the word of God By this again it seems that in things absolutely necessary to Salvation a General Council is not absolutely Infallible but may possibly refuse to be led by the Spirit and Word of God and consequently fall into Fundamental Errour in which the Bishop is not constant to himself professing the contrary when it makes for his turn But if it may so erre what a sad condition might the whole Church be in since what a General Council teaches is as obligatory to the whole Church as what the Parliament enacts is obligatory to the whole Kingdom His last shift to evade the force of those words leading into All Truth is that the promise of Assistance was neither so absolute nor in such manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles nor directly to a Council at all Who contends it was who makes it a question whether the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost were not more absolutely and directly intended to the Apostles then to the Church or not more absolutely and directly to the Chureh then to General Councils It sufficeth us if it were in any sort truly and really intended to them all and that so it was the very nature of the promise evinceth since otherwise neither the said succeeding Pastours northe Church of their times could infallibly decide any arising Controversies touching the sense of Scriptural Texts which are not onely ambiguous but lyable to damnable Interpretations as the Scripture it self averrs 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expresly deliver'd in Scripture as many are not But note that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever the Bishop sayes not any thing The truth is their clearness is not easily eluded To the second proof which is from Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you 〈◊〉 unto the end of the world the Bishop answers the Fathers are various in their Exposition and Application of this Text. We grant they are various in words but agreeing in sense and that the same in effect we here plead for The Fathers by the Bishops own Confession understood a presence of Aid and Assistance to support the weakness of the Apostles and their Successours against the Difficulties they should finde for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them no part of the Difficulties Christs Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel Sure they are And if this be the Native sense of the words as 't is in the Relatours opinion it follows necessarily that the said Ministers or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promis'd them in this place as effectually inables them to withstand and overcome those Difficulties which in reason cannot be more conveniently effected then by a General Council so assisted Declaring against them But sayes our Adversary few of the Fathers mention Christs presence in Teaching by the Holy Ghost What matters that The reason is because this is but one Special kinde of presence and the Fathers usually in their expositions of Scripture unless some particular occasion carries them to the contrary content themselves to express the general importance of the Sacred Text without descending to particulars And yet some of them as even the Bishop himself observes do expresly interpret this place of Christs presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost But they do not extend it saith he to Infallible Assistance further then the Succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit No more do we We confess the Succeeding Church could not be Infallible should it depart from or teach contrary to the word of the Apostles no more then the Apostles themselves could have been Infallible had they departed from the guidance of the Spirit But as the Infallibility of the Apostles consisted in their constant adhering to and following the guidance of that Holy Spirit in all matters concerning Faith and Religion so is there and the Fathers teach such a presence of Christ with the Succeeding Church as causeth her in all Definitions of Faith constantly to adhere to the word of the Apostles and as need requires infallibly to expound it all which we have sufficiently prov'd and could it otherwise happen Christ would not be alwayes found so present with his Church as to keep her from incurring ruine by erroneous Doctrines which this his promise must at least imply Lastly whereas Maldonat proves that this kinde of presence by Infallible Teaching is rightly gathered from this Text though not expresly signified by it the Bishop by his mis-translation makes him deny it to be the intention of Christ which learned Authour does not onely assert the Truth of this Exposition but brings in proof of it the testimonies of St. Cyril St. Leo and Salvianus To the Third Matth. 16. 18. touching the Rock on which the Church is founded the Bishop sayes first he dares not lay any other Foundation then Christ. We answer all the Apostles are styl'd Foundations of the Church witness St. Paul who was one of them Eph. 2. 20. Christ indeed was and is the Principal Foundation the Chief corner stone in the Churches building as the Apostle there speaks yet Ministerially and by Authority Derived from Christ not onely the Apostles but the Successours of the chief of them St. Peter may be and are in a true sense Foundations of the Church Secondly the Bishop sayes and he does but say it that St. Peter was onely the first in order whereas the Fathers teach and we have sufficiently prov'd that he was not onely the first in order but in Authority Thirdly he tells us that by the Rock is not meant St. Peters person onely but the Faith which he professed and for this saith he the Fathers come in with a very full consent I answer we pretend not to understand by the Rock
infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But he does not finde he sayes that any General Council since did ever take upon them to say punctually and in express terms of their Definitions VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS acknowledging even thereby a great deale of difference as hee conceiues in the Certainty of those things which After-generall Councils determined in the Church and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sate in Council I answer there 's no Essentiall difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a Generall Councill confirm'd by the Roman Bishop Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops in respect of Personall Prerogatiues and graces but none at all between the Certainty of what eyther the Apostles by themselues or succeeding bishops in a lawfull Generall Council assembled define for Truth seeing what is completely determin'd therin is no lesse determin'd by Apostolicall Authority then what was determin'd by the Apostles in that first Council at Hierusalem And if After-Councils vse not the same Expression punctually and in terms it is not materiall since they doe it in effect by vniversally enioyning the Beleefe of their Decisions vnder paine of Anathema And this the Holy fathers well vnderstood when they averr'd the Decrees of a Generall Council to bee a most Holy and Diuine Oracle a sentence inspir'd by the Holy Ghost not to bee 〈◊〉 not to bee question'd without errour that it is the last sentence that can bee expected in matters of fayth What the Relatour meanes by alledging Valentia I vnderstand not that Author cleerly speaking of Councils not yet ratify'd by the Pope The Bishop therfore hath sayd nothing in disproofe of what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirme viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proofe of the Jnfallibility of Generall Councils which considered Dr. Stapleton is so farre from beeing iustly Censurable for styling the Decrees of Generall Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost that his Lp. is rather blameable for pretending such words to bee little short of Blasphemie Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to giue them such like Attributes Does not St. Athanasius terme the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever Does not St. Cyrill aboue cited call it likewise a Diuine and most Holy Oracle Doth not Constantin the Emperour style the same Definition a Celestiall mandate Doth not St. Gregory with the applause of all true Christians professe to reuerence the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councils as hee reuerences the foure Ghospells Doth not St. Leo St. Gregory Naziazen Pope Nicolas the first with others speake to the same sense Bellarmins Argument deduc'd from this Apostolicall Council as 't was a President to all future Councils oecumenicall holds good for their Jnfallibility since otherwise they must haue been ineffectuall as to the principall purpose of calling them Viz. so to determin Controuersies of fayth as to put an end to all debates of that nature in the Church which can never bee effectually done where Infallibility is not acknowledg'd as hath been proued To what hee obiects that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils where no man Sate that was inspired as was in this of the Apostles where all that sate as iudges were inspired I answer 't is sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelats concurring with their Head in any other lawfull Generall Council were ioyntly infallible in any kinde of reall infallibility whether like to the former or not So in the Bishops own principles a Generall Council or at least the Catholique Church is infallible in fundamentalls or Things absolutely necessary to saluation though hee would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to haue that prerogatiue of infallibility As touching Ferus hee avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility though his Authority would bee of no greater force then if hee were none of ours His Comment vpon the Acts which the Bishop here cites beeing listed with most of his other works in the ROLL of Prohibited Books Thus haue I gone thorough all the forecited passages of scripture and in euery one of them solv'd the Bishops obiections for rendring them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of Generall Councils which yet I needed not haue done since what is cleerly prou'd by any one Text of scripture is as vndoubtedly true as what is prou'd by more But the Bishop tells us hee easily grants a Generall Council cannot erre in Things necessary to 〈◊〉 suffering it selfe to bee led by the spirit of Truth in scripture wherein hee seems but to trifle saying no more in effect then that a Generall Council cannot erre so long as it doth not erre This is a very small Prerogatiue and might bee affirm'd of any kinde of Council nay of any particular person of how meane capacity soever The question is whether a lawfull Generall Council can ever bee presumable to fall into the Bishops hinted disorder of leauing scripture or defining any thing contrary to its true sense But to speake truth there can bee no question of it as beeing inconsistent with the veracity of Diuine Promises to permitt the whole Church to erre in any Doctrinall point she finds necessary to define by a Generall Council for preuenting of schisms and settling of mens minds in the Truth To what hee adds as the Result of his discourse vpon these several Texts that supposing they promisd Assistance even to Infallibility yet they are to bee understood of the whole Church principally and of its Representatiue but by consequent nor any further then the sayd Representatiue consents and eleaues to that vpon which it is consequent viz. the Catholique Body of the Church This I say is but a weake cuasion For seeing the Catholique or Diffusiue Body of the Church is bound to beleeue and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representatiue if the Church Diffusiue haue an Infallible Assistance for her Beleeving the Council or Church Representatiue must also necessarily haue Infallible Assistance in Teaching To which of these this Assistance is promised principally is but a vayne speculation since they both haue it as beeing absolutely necessary for them both Here the Bishop falls againe to his Considerations and wil haue vs to obserue fourthly that there is not the like consent that Generall Councils cannot erre as there is thatthe Church in Generall cannot erre from the fayth necessary to Saluation since in this all agree but not in the former J answer all that haue not deserted nor adher'd to the Desertors of the Catholique Church doe vna nimously agree that a lawfully-call'd and confirm'd Generall Council can no more erre in point of fayth then the Church in general and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the
other Councils named by Bellarmin But I answer our dispute is about lawfull Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope such as neither of these were nor any of those other which Bellarmin mentions in the place quoted by the Bishop neither can it bee sayd that those subsequent Councils which reformed the errours concluded at Ariminum and Ephesus were called by the Authority of the whole Church in generall but by the Pope in the same manner as that of Trent and others were Hee grants that the Church though it may erre hath not only a Pastorall power to teach and direct but a Pretorian also to controule and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamentall or of great consequence Are not the Reall Presence Purgatory praying to Saynts the fiue Sacraments of seauen which Protestants denie and diuerse other points wherein they differ from us and the Church things of great consequence And did not the whole christian Church generally teach and profess these points both long before and at the time of Luthers departure from the Roman Church why was it not then in the power of the Church to controule and censure him with all his followers for opposing her Doctrine in the sayd points Againe if wee ought to obey the Church in points Fundamentall and of great consequence as the Bishops doctrine here cleerly implies why must wee not obey her likewise in taking those points to bee Fundamentall and of great consequence which shee holds to bee such and by her definition declares to bee such Certainly Heretiques will neuer want reason to iustifie their disobedience to the Church if allowing her authority to controule and censure only in points Fundamentall and of great consequence wee allow them the liberty to iudge and determin what points are such what not His instance of a mothers authority viz. that Obedience due to her is not to bee refused vpon her falling into errour holds not in the Church because the authority of a naturall mother is not in order to Beleefe but to Action and it does not follow that because shee hath commanded amiss in one thing that her child is not to obey her in an other which it shall not know to bee vnlawfull But the authority of the Church ouer her children consists not only in directing them what they are to doe but in obliging them to beleeue firmly and without doubt what euer shee shall esteem necessary to difine and propound to them as matter of Beleefe Now its impossible that the vnderstanding which can assent to nothing but what it apprehends to bee true nor infallibly beleeue but what it apprehends to bee infallibly true should bee mou'd with any respect due to the Church to beleeue without doubt any defined point which it did not before so long as it giues way to this opinion viz. that shee may and has defin'd and also commanded vs to beleeue as a point of Fayth a thing false in it selfe As to his citing St. Austins authority in the margent touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not hauing Spot nor wrinckle c. it maks nothing against vs. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to bee vnderstood of the Church Militant but only that they are not to bee vnderstood of her in the sense giuen them by the Pelagians my meaning is hee doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholique Church vniuersally receiu'd or defin'd as matter of fayth to bee without Spot of errour but hee denies the liues of Christians euen of the most iust and perfect in this life to bee altogether without Spot of sin Neither doth St. Austin read vs any such lesson as this that the Church on earth is no freeer from wrinckles in doctrine and discipline then it is from Spots in life and conuersation but it is the Bishops own voluntary scandalous and inconsiderate assertion if hee speaks of doctrine vniuersally receiu'd and approu'd by the Church if only of doctrine and errours taught by priuate persons what is it to the purpose An other thing considered is that if wee suppose a Generall Council infallible and that it proue not so but that an errour in fayth bee concluded the same erring opinion which maks it thinke it selfe infallible makes the errour of it irreuocable and so lenues the Church without remedy I answer grant false antecedents and false premisses enough and what absurdities will not bee consequent and fill vp the conclusion an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility euen of the Bible it selfe in the Bishops own style thus This Booke which you call the Bible and suppose to bee Gods word immediate Reuelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it sayes IF IT PROVE NOT SO but that it were written only by man and containes errours THE SAME ERRING OPINION that makes you thinke 't is Gods word c. makes all the sayd errours contain'd in it wholy irreuocable and of necessity for euer to bee beleeu'd as Gods word and Diuine Reuelation Can any man deny this consequent granting the Bishops antecedent if it proue not so The inconuenience therfore which the Relatour here obiects beeing only conditionall and the condition vpon which it depends such as wee are neuer like to grant nor our aduersaries to proue wee pass it by as signifying else nothing but how willing his Lordship was to heap vp obiections against vs though such as hee and his party must answer 5. But how does the Bishop proue that a Generall Council hath erred Thus. Christ sayth hee instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To breake Christs institution is a damnable errour this errour was committed by the Council of Constante whose words are these cited and englished by the Bishop LICET CHRISTVS c. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples after supper vnder both kindes of bread and wine yet NON OBSTANTE notwithstanding this it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faythfull vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiu'd by Laymen only vnder the kinde of bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused And to say this is an vnlawfull custome of receiuing vnder one kinde is erronious and they which persist in saying so are to bee punished and driuen out as Heretiques The force of the obiection depends wholy on the words NON OBSTANTE which the Bishop conceiues to import that the Council defin'd receiuing vnder both kindes not to bee necessary NOTWITHSTANDING that our Sauiour so instituted it viz. in both kindes I answer Bellarmin rightly obserues that the words non obstante haue no reference to receiuing vnder both kindes but to the time of receiuing it after supper which though the Bishop bee not satisfy'd with but obiects that the NON OBSTANTE
NO LONGER that which Nature fram'd viz. bread and wine but that which the Benediction of Consecration hath made it to be What 's that but the Body and Bloud of Christ adding further thus you will say perhaps I see an other thing Why do you tell me Jreceiue the Body of Iesus Christ How many Examples haue wee to proue that the force of Benediction is greater then that of Nature seeing that by Benediction euen nature it selfe is often changed Againe also This bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but when Consecration comes OF BREAD IT IS MADE THE FLESH OF CHRIST They that desire to see more testimonies to confirme this truth may finde them in Bellarmin libr. 3. de Eucharist cap 20. and in diuerse other Catholique Authours Euen the words of scripture it selfe taken in their proper and literall sense doe euidently shew that the only substance which is deliuer'd in this Sacrament is the Body of Christ and that the substance of bread is no more there For as he that pointing to an hogs-head of wine sayes this is wine and he that holding vp a purse-full of money says this is gold if he intends to speake truth must signify that the only liquour contain'd sub propria forma in the hogs-head is wine and all the money in the purse gold so our Sauiour Christ by saying this is my Body must giue vs to vnderstand that all the substance contained vnder the accidents he shew'd was his Body which could not be true vnless the substance of bread were changed into Christs Body or ceased to be in the Sacrament There 's a great deale of difference between these two propositions here is gold and this is gold He that holds a handfull of money of which halfe is gold and halfe syluer may truly say here is gold but he cannot truly say this is gold So is it in the B. Sacrament If there were both the substance of bread and of the Body of Christ in it wee might truly say shewing the Sacrament here is the Body of Christ or this is bread and the Body of Christ but not this is the Body of Christ. Seeing therfore our Sauiour at this last supper speaking of the Sacrament sayd this is my Body the meaning of his words must needs be that in what he then shewed there was no other substance but that of his Body whence it followes that there was a true conuersion of the substance of the bread which ceased to be any longer vnder the species of bread into the Body of Christ. 4. An other pretended errourof a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope is that of administring the B. Sacrament to the Layty vnder one kinde only of which wee hauc already spoken what may suffice in the precedent chapter Neuertheless to that little which the Relatour adds here wee answer briefly The authority of St. Thomas brought by the Bishop makes rather for vs then against vs. For he tells vs 't was a custome prouidently obserued in some Churches not to giue the Sacrament in forme of wine to the Laity His words are Prouidè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo Sanguis non detur This Prouision was made to auoyd the danger of spilling and other inconueniences which likewife mou'd the Council of Constance to make a Generall Decree to the same purpose although it be certain that not only in St. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it were both publiquely allowed and commonly by some practised euen in Churches to receiue vnder one kinde only For otherwise how is it possible that the Manichees who by the principles of their Heresie neuer dranke wine nor communicated vnder the Forme of wine should yet finde liberty and opportunity to Communicate amongst Catholiques in Catholique Churches without beeing perceiu'd as 't is certaine they frequently did in St. Leo's time and after Likewife t is euident that all Heremites in the wildernefs communicated often vnder one kinde only So did trauellers in their iourneyes Sicke persons in their beds and others at home in their howses Lastly Children in the Church and little infants at home in their cradles in forme of wine only Wee grant that in ancient times when the number of Christians was but small it was the ordinary custome for all that would the Laity as well as others to receiue the Eucharist in both kindes but wee auerre this custome proceeded meerly out of free denotion and not out of any beleefe that it was absolutely necessary so to doe by vertue of Christs precept or that it was contrary to the substance of Christs institution to doe otherwise This therfore euinces not that which the Bishop was obliged to proue namely that receiuing vnder one kinde only is an errour contrary to the institution and intention of Christ but rather the contrary to that is manifest from the practice of the Church which always euen in the first fiue or six hundred years allowed it publiquely to be taken vnder the forme of bread only and that as well in the Church as out of it as Bellarmin likewise more largely shews lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 24. Whose authorities the Bishop shoul haue taken notice of and not thought it sufficient only to say this and that is an errour and contrary to Christs institution without shew of proofe For wee tell him the vniuersall practice of the Church is a better interpreter of Christs institution then the Bishop or any priuate person whatsoeuer and so wee doubt not but all sober-minded Christians not too much peruerted with Hereticall preiudice will in time acknowledge Howeuer the Relatour by his silence as to this particular giues vs leaue to goe on and consider his fourth obiected errour viz. Inuocation of Saynts to which he adds a fift also Adoration or worship of Images both of them wee confess beeing points admitted and defin'd by the Council of Trent which the Pope confirm'd 5. Against the Jnuocation of Saynts he tells vs in the first place that what the Fathers haue in fauour of it is only Rhetoricall flourishes for the stirring vp of deuotion as they thought Very good When the Fathers deliuer Propositions soe cleerly for vs that it is not possible for our aduersaries to wrest them to any contrary sense then all 's but Rhetorique and Hyperbolicall straines of 〈◊〉 but when they speake any thing that beares some shew against vs then they are dogmaticall that 's positiue Diuinity and the reall sense of the Fathers Is not this faire dealing But in the meane time how can it seeme to any that duly considers it but most extreamely partiall and strange to terme so many exhortations so many plaine and positiue assertions so many instances examples histories reports and the like which the Fathers frequently vse and afford in this kinde and that vpon occasions wherein dogmaticall and plaine deliuery of Christian doctrine and truth is expected
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
cleerly in this case His fifth instance is that Catholiques and Protestants agree that in the English Lyturgie there is noe positiue errour but both parties doe not agree that there is no errour in the Roman Missal Therfore says the Bishop according to A. Cs. rule it should be better and more safe to worship God by the English Lyturgie then by the Roman Missal which he is sure wee will not grant I answer first all Catholiques doe not agree that there is no positiue errour in the English Lyturgie neither dares the Relatour affirme they doe but only that some Iesuits confess 't so much in his hearing Secondly though they did that is though all Catholiques did grant there were no positiue errour in the English seruice-booke yet it followes not that therfore the English Lyturgie is better or more safe to be vsed in the seruice of God then our Missal Why because Catholiques doe not agree that it is so much as positiuely safe or consistent with Saluation to vse it as Protestants doe that is out of Hereticall persuasion and with Hereticall contempt of the Roman Missal For though it containes no positiue errour yet to vse it out of any such principles is certainly damnable sin and destructiue of Saluation The Arian Creeds contain'd no positiue errour against Fayth yet because they did not containe all that was necessarily to be beleeu'd and confessed by Christians and were sett forth by such as were know'n enemyes of the Catholique Fayth which was wanting in them they were always anathematiz'd and condemn'd by the Church as much as if they had contain'd positiue and express errour Did Catholiques grant that those who both vse the English Lyturgie and reiect the Roman Missal as Protestants doe were for all that in state of Saluation though they neuer repented and did sufficiently know the grounds and reasons why the Church forbids the vse of it the argument would haue force but seeing 't is otherwise our maxime stands yet good and 't is safer in order to Saluation to worship God according to the Roman Missal rather then according to the English seruice-booke notwithstanding it were granted which wee doe not that the English booke contain'd no positiue errour To his Sixth of the Arians confessing Christ to be of like substance with the Father and the Catholiques consessing him to be of the same substance J answer the Catholiques neuer granted possibility of Saluation to the Arians vpon the account of that Confession but always withstood and condemn'd it as an Hereticall False and impious assertion taken in their know'n sense that is restrictiuely and as importing no more then like For in this sense that Maxime holds good nullum simile est idem and to say the son of God was of like substance with the Father in that sense was plainly to deny him to be true God and of the same substance with the Father The like is to be sayd of his seauenth grounded vpon the agreement of dissenting parties in the Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule from sinne whence the Bishop would gather that by A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue only the sayd Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule and lett that of the body alone But most vntruly For did euer any good Christian allow possibility of Saluation to any that deny'd the Resurrection of the body If not how is this instance within the rule which supposeth that both parties must agree in granting Saluation to one in his way or contested opinion The same Fallacy is apparent in his Eighth and Ninth For did euer any Catholique Christian allow Saluation to a Turke or a Jew in his Religion because they beleeued one God or to a Nestorian Heretique because he beleeu'd that Christ was true man what gross impertinences are these But no maruaile For 't is too apparent our aduersarie has quite forgotten the rule and fram'd another thing of it A. Cs. rule speakes precisely this andnomore viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion 't is in prudence safest to take that way wherein both parties grant Saluation to be obtainable or to containe nothing in it opposite or inconsistent with Saluation whereas the Relatour presents it in an other dress and makes it speake thus viz. that when parties disagree as abouesayd 't is safest to resolue a mans Fayth into that in which the dissenting parties agree and to beleeue no more then they doe agree in which is farre from truth and a thing which neuer came into A. C. s thoughts and yet vpon this mistake 't is euident to any that will consider them most of the Bishops instances runne Tlius all the Relatours examples duly weighed are found too light and discouer'd to be indeed rather amusements then proofs A. Cs proposition that 't is safest in Religion to goe that way which is confessed by both parties to afford possibility of Saluation or to containe no damnable sinne in it remaining in the meane while a firme and vnshaken truth notwithstanding all our aduersaries endeauours to vndermine it If any thing yet be wanting to the due iustifying of it it shall be declar'd in the following chapter At present the Bishop hauing made soe many assaults in vaine seems to retire and put himselfe vpon the defensiue pleading he is not out of the Catholique Church though out of the Roman because the Roman is not the Catholique but a member of it as the Church of England he sayes is and requiring vs to shew how one and the same Church can be in different respects and relations both a particular and also the Catholique Church But I answer how often hath this been shew'n already by all Catholique writers had his Lordship been more willing to vnderstand the truth from them then to cauill about words and also by vs in this treatise namely that the Roman Church as it signifies the Christians of the Diocess or Prouince of Rome only is a particular Church but as it signifies the Society of all such Christians as professing the Catholique Fayth doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for St. Peters Successor and Head of the whole Church vnder Christ so it is formally and properly speaking not a particular but the very Catholique and vniuersall Church of Christ they beeing all eyther Hereticall or Schismaticall Churches or both that doe not acnowledge this Our aduersary therfore might flourish as much as he pleas'd with his vain and feigned Allegorie of an elder and younger sister but wee tell his followers such Rhetorique may serue to palliate but shall neuer iustifie nor excuse Schisme The Roman Church will be found in the day of account to haue been not an elder sister but a mother and such a mother whose Law and Authority was not so lightly to haue been forsaken and reiected by any of her petulant and disobedient Daughters Nor matters it much whether Brittains first Conuersion were before St. Peters coming to
to say he is scarce prouided He giues a hint at the difference between Errour and Heresie but dares not so much as apply the distinction for feare he should be forc'd eyther to acquit our Leaders too manifestly or otherwise pass such a censure vpon them as he should not be able to maintaine But the wary Reader will easily discouer by his timorousness and hesitancy here his vncharitable temerity and forwardness in the precedent passage He tells vs likewise that a teaching Heretique if he adde Schisme to his Heresie is lost Very good Wee grant it no less willingly then himselfe but wonder his Lordship would not first make it cleere that our teachers added Schisme and obstinacy to their errours as he is pleased to call them before he gaue sentence vpon their persons by saying that they were lost But that which he adds concerning St. Cyprian and his followers giues a plaine aduantage against him and his followers namely to proue that all Leaders of Protestant Religion are guilty both of Heresie and Schisme and by consequence lyable to damnation except they repent St. Cyprian he sayth was a maine Leader in the errour of Rebaptization yet that the whole Church grants him safe and his followers only that were after him in danger of damnation And why this but only because St. Cyprian did not refuse the Churches instruction did not obstinately and formally oppose the Churches authority which had not as yet defined the contrary doctrine But after the Churches determination those that followed St. Cyprians errour and misled the people were iudged both Heretiques and Schismatiques and that iustly too by the Bishops own confession and so by consequence were lost without repentance But is not this a conuincing instance against Luther Caluin and all other ringleaders of the Protestant profession doth it not euidently proue them also to be both Heretiques and Schismatiques did not they refuse to heare the Churches instruction as much as any of those post-nate followers of St. Cyprian did was not the contrary doctrine to what these Protestant Leaders taught as much and as solemnly defined by the Church as that which was contrary to the errour of rebaptization T is euident therfore if St. Cyprians followers were iustly accounted Heretiques and in danger of damnation for not hearing the Churches instruction giuen them by the voyce of a Generall Council and for teaching contrary to what the Church had solemnly defin'd and declar'd as by the Bishops own discourse they were neyther Luther nor Caluin nor any that succeed them in their doctrine and profession can be iustly acquitted of the like crime If you answer the whole Church of Christ condemned the errour of rebaptization but the doctrine of Protestants was condemn'd only by the particular Church of Rome I aske what you meane by the whole Church If all such people and all such particular Churches as beleeue in Christ and hold all Fundadamentall points in Protestant sense that will comprehend the rebaptisers themselues or those followers of St. Cyprians errour whome the Bishop here confesses to haue been Heretiques For doubtless they beleeu'd in Christ and held all points which according to the Relatours principles can be accounted Fundamentall or absolutely necessary to Saluation otherwise St. Cyprian himselfe had erred in a point Fundamentall Therfore the whole Church in that sense did not condemne the doctrine of rebaptization And to say it was the whole Church in any other limited sense makes it in effect but a particular Church in regard of the Church Catholique and also according to the Bishops doctrine no less fallible and subiect to errour in defining vnfundamentall points as this of rebaptization was then was the Church which condemned Protestant doctrine whatsoeuer Church that was Besides how often shall wee be forc'd to reminde our aduersaries that when Luther first began to oppose the Roman Church the Protestant doctrine concerning Reall Presence Inuocation of Saynts Prayer for the dead two Sacraments only etc. was contrary to the Generall beleefe of the whole Christian world whereof the farre greater part also were such as professed obedience to the Sea of Rome 2. The greatest part of his 〈◊〉 paragraph is taken vp with personall matters and matters of fact viz. what A. C. what Doctor White and the Bishop in their respectiue conferences with Mr. Fisher sayd in which kinde of differences I shall not interpose That which I shall obserue here is that the Bishop formalizeth without cause vpon those words of A. C. different from the Roman which he vseth pag. 67. where he tells vs that Doctor White expressly granted that he could assign no Church DIFFERENT FROM THE ROMAN which in all ages held all Fundamentall points The Relatour will not seem to vnderstand what A. C. meanes by a Church different from the Roman whether he meanes different in place or different in doctrine whereas if he had perus'd neuer so little Doctor Whites answer where 't is first reported pag. 22. he would haue found in express terms different in doctrine twice ouer for failing Beside the very acception wherein A. C. in that place takes the word Roman Church towitt for the whole visible Catholique Church euinces that he could not meane any Church different from it in place seeing the Roman Church in that sense comprehends all places in Christendome and all particular true Churches throughout the Christian world Nor can it with truth be auouched that the Greeke Church hath euer held and taught the Foundation in all ages as the Bishop pretends seeing all or most of those Primitiue Heresies Arianisme Eunomianisme Nestorianisme Eutychianisme etc. haue been anciently embrac'd and professed respectiuely by the Greeke Patriarchs and their Churches at some time or other Neyther doth euen the present Greeke Church hold and teach it so entirely and soundly as it ought euen by the Relatours own confession touching their errour about the Procession of the Holy Ghost Lastly wee haue prou'd chap. 1. of this treatise that the Greeks errour in that point is Fundamentall and sufficient to vnchurch them By a Church different from the Roman then the Relatour should haue here vnderstood without making any scruple about it a Church different from her not in place but in doctrine and differing also not in points Fundamentall only which is an other scruple too as needlessly added but in points not Fundamentall also in Protestant sense that is a Church differing from the Roman in any point of doctrine which the Roman Church now teacheth or in any of those points which Protestants reiect and for which they separate themselues from the Roman Church This wee say was the sense of Mr. Fishers demand to Doctor White and consequently must be the sense of Doctor Whites answer and concession to him viz. that noe Church differing in any points of doctrine what euer Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall from the present Roman could be assign'd which held in all ages all Fundamentall points And
if our aduersaries like not his answer wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church Moreouer wee auerre that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned A. C. inference is rightly gathered namely that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle then solid when to make good his denyall of it he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point granting the first of these viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points to follow out of Doctor Whites concession but not the second viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall But with what ground or consonancy to himselfe and truth lett the Reader iudge His precense is that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression as he calls it or bare letter of the Article but hath err'd in the exposition or sense of it J answer if she hath err'd in the exposition and sense of an Article how can she be truly sayd to haue held it Can any man with truth say that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity or the Antitrinitarians the doctrine of three diuine Persons because they allow and hold Scriptures in which these Mysteries are contain'd who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold in a question of Fayth to signifie no more then profession or keeping of the bare letter of the Article and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense Is it not all one to say Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say they beleeue the sayd doctrines Jf then it be true that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points 't is likewise true that she hath euer beleeu'd them and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any there beeing noe other way properly and truly speaking wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth but only by disbeleeuing it If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points it is by necessary consequence likewise granted that she neuer erred in any such points how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so He tells vs indeed but his accusation has noe proofe that our Church hath erred grossly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them lastly that her beauty in this respect is but meere painting as preseruing only the outside and bare letter of Christs doctrine but in regard of inward sense and beleefe beeing neither beautifull nor sound Thus he But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd Let our aduersaries shew in what one Article of all the three Creeds the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense or err'd in her exposition of it Beside they must likewise shew how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe and not in the bare letter how can those which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion beleeuing all things as she teacheth and noe otherwise attain Saluation 3. The Lady here asks a second question whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats vpon my soule sayes the Bishop you may vpon my soule sayes Mr. Fisher there is but one sauing Fayth and that 's the Roman You see their mutuall confidence but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes and condition also of Saluation viz. Catholique Fayth which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed saues none witness St. Athanasius in his Creed admitted by Protestants The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils so much magnifyed by Antiquity to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation This in fine is the ground of the Bishops confidence But I answer his Lordship failes in two things The first that he doth not shew that such a Fayth as he here mentions is sufficient to Saluation notwithstanding whateuer errour or opinion may be ioyned with it The second that he doth not shew that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth that is in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 For as to the first of the pariculars did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme that St. Cyprians followers were lost without repentance because they opposed the authority of the Church which in and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous Put case then that in after-times the whole Church or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice should declare some other opinion to be erroneous which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so eyther by Scripture Creeds or those Fowre first Generall Councils were not he that should hold it after such definitiue declaration of the Church or Council in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils If not lett our aduersaries shew why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church or the Councils definition and other people who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority should not Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne to oppose the definition of a Generall Council when he auerrs that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience and submission till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times and inconsistent with the Churches peace How can this possibly be made good if to beleeue Scripture and the
Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church with all Fundamentall points generally held for such and to receiue the fowre first Generall Councils only and noe more be a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation Did our Sauiour meane the Primitiue Church only or only the fowre first Generall Councils and noe others when he sayd Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not heare the Church lett him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And if it be to be vnderstood as without doubt it is of the Church and Generall Councils in all ages how could the Bishop how can Protestants thinke themselues secure only by beleeuing the fowre first Councils and the Church of Primitiue times if they oppose and contradict others or contemne the authority of the true Catholique Church of Christ that now is And for the second viz. that the English-Protestant Fayth is not really and indeed such a Fayth as the Bishop here professeth will appeare vpon examination thus You beleeue say you Protestants the Scripture and the Creeds and you beleeue them in the sense of the Primitiue Church J aske first doe you meane all Scripture or only a part of it if part of it only how can your Fayth be thought such as cannot but giue Saluation seeing for ought you know there may be damnable errour and sinne in reiecting the other part If you meane all Scripture you profess more then you are able to make good seeing you refuse many books of Scripture that were held Canonicall by very many in the Primitiue Church and admitt for Canonicall diuerse others that were for some time doubted of and not reckoned for any part of the Canon by many ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church more then those were which for that reason chiefly you account Apocrypha 4. You pretend to beleeue both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church But when will this be prou'd wee bring diuerse testimonies from the Fathers and Doctours of those ancient times vnderstanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholy agreeable to vs and contrary to your doctrine Must all our allegations be esteem'd apocryphall and counterfeite or mis-vnderstood because they impugne your reformed beleefe must nothing be thought rightly alledged but what suites with your opinions you pretend conformity with the fowre first Generall Councils too but the proceedings of those Councils cleerly shew the quite contrary The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Syluester to confirm their decrees Doe Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope The great St. Athanasius with the Bishops of Egypt assembled in the Council at Alexandria profess that in the Council of Nice it was with one accord determined that without consent of the Bishop of Rome neither Councils should be held nor Bishops condemned Doe not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon by one common voyce profess that St. Peter spake by the mouth of Leo that the sayd Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter deposed Dioscorus Doe they not call him the vniuersall Bishop the vniuersall Patriarch the Bishop of the vniuersall Church Doe they not terme him the Interpreter of St. Peters voyce to all the world Doe they not acknowledge him their Head and themselues his members and consets that the custody or keeping of Christs vineyard which is the whole Church was by our Sauiour committed to him Js this the dialect or beleefe of English Protestants Did not likewise the whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first Bishop of Rome to confirme what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresie with the authority of the Sea Apostolique pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the sauing of many and for correcting the peruerse wickedness of some and did they not with all reuerence and submission receiue the Popes answer sent to them in these words In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you haue made it appeare sayth he not only by vsing all diligence as is required of a true and Catholique Council in examining matters of that concernment but also in referring your debates to our iudgement and approbation how sound your Fayth is and that you are mindefull to obserue in all things the examples of ancient tradition and the discipline of the Church knowing that this is a duty which you owe to the Apostolique Sea wherein wee all desire to follow the Apostle from whome both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is deriued and following him wee cannot be ignorant both how to condemne what is ill and also to approue that which is praise-worthy oYou doe well therfore and as it becometh Priests to obserue the customes of the ancient Fathers which they grounded not vpon humane but diuine authority that nothing should be finally determined in remote Prouinces without the knowledge of this Sea by whose full authority the sentence giuen if it were found to be iust might be confirm'd this Sea beeing the proper Fountaine from which the pure and vncorrupted waters of truth were to streame to all the rest of the Churches Will English Protestants consent to this Doe not the Prelats in the Council of Ephesus heare with like attention and approbation Philip the Priest one of the Popes Legats to that Council auouching publiquely in full Council the authority of St. Peters Successour in these words noe body doubts sayth he nay it is a thing manifest and acknowledged in all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter PRINCE AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES AND FOVNDATION OF THE CHVRCH receiued from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and that to this day he still liues in his Successours and determines causes of Fayth and shall euer continue so to doe With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend that Protestants conform themselues to the doctrine of the fowre first Generall Councils Those Councils submitt their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome Protestants disclayme from him as from an enemy of Christs Gospell Those Councils acknowledge him vniuersall Pastour and Head of the Church Protestants cry out against him as an Vsurper and Tyrant ouer the Church Those Councils confess him St. Peters Successour who was Prince and Chiefe of the Apostles Protestants call him and esteem him Antichrist The Councils own his authority ouer the whole Church as proceeding from Christ Protestants allow him noe more power by diuine right then they allow to euery ordinary Bishop Lastly these Councils with all submission profess that the Pope was their Head and themselues his members Protestants giue vs in contempt and derision the nickname of Papists for doing the same that is for owning subiection to the Pope and Sea of Rome I might instance in many other points wherein Protestants disagree from the fowre first Generall Councils but I pass them ouer to take notice of what followes There is sayth the Bishop but one sauing Fayth But then euery thing which you call
DE FIDE of Fayth because some Council or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Fayth as that he which expressly beleeues it not nay as that he which beleeues the contrary is excluded from Saluation so his disobedience therenhile offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor the charity that ought to be amongst Christians Wee doe not say that euery thing is de Fide that some Council or other indefinitely speaking be it generall or particular hash defined but that euery thing is de fide which is defined by a Lawfull Generall Council And for this how contemptuously soeuer he is pleas'd to speake of it because some Council or other hath defined it wee challenge all his adherents to shew what one Generall Council acknowledg'd for such eyther by themselues or vs did euer define any point of doctrine which they did not require all Christians to hold and beleeue as matter of Fayth after it was so defined as likewise to shew how 't is possible for Christians to disbeleeue what such a Generall Council hath defined without making themselues guilty of that sentence of our Sauiour Matth. 18. 17. He that will not heare the Church lett him be as an Heathen or Publican yea of that other Luc. 10. 16. He that despiseth you despiseth me Why shall not such a man be excluded from Saluation seeing that by the Bishops own doctrine the decrees of all Generall Councils are binding till they be reuers'd by an other Council of like authority why did he account it damnable sin to adhere to the condemned errour of St. Cyprian after it was condem'd by a Generall Councill seeing 't is manifest disobedience in that particular did of it selfe neither offer more violence to the peace of the Church nor to the charity that ought to be amongst Christians then disobedience in points determined by other Generall Councils is apt to doe and hath euer done as experience witnesseth So that in truth to suppose a disobedience to Generall Councils in point of defined doctrine which shall offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor to charity that ought to be amongst Christians is to suppose an impossibility and in effect to thinke that rebellion may consist with the peace of the state and that to cast of obedience to superiours is not to contemn their authority Wee doe not deny but there is a Latitude in the Fayth as the Bishop speakes that is all things pertaining to the doctrine of Fayth are not necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all persons in order to Saluation and this Bellarmin's authority cited by the Bishop rightly proues But it follows not from hence that any man may deny or doubt of any point whatsoeuer that he knows is defin'd and propos'd by the Church to be beleeued as the Bishop and all Protestants doe It is not in it selfe absolutely necessary to Saluation to know or expressly beleeue many things reported in Scripture as for Example that Iudas hang'd himselfe that St. Paul was thrice beaten with rods that he left his cloake at Troas etc. but yet for any man to deny or doubt of these knowing them to be testifyed in Scripture I doe not doubt but euen Protestants themselues will acknowledge to be a great sin and without repentance inconsistent with Saluation In like manner though it be not absolutely necessary to know or beleeue expressly all verities defined by the Church as Bellarmin truly teaches yet it may be and is absolutely necessary not to disbeleeue or doubt of any one point that is know'n to be so defined As for our aduersaries beeing sure that our peremptory establishing so many things that are remote deductions from the Foundation to be beleeu'd as matters of Fayth hath with other errours lost the peace and vnity of the Church 't is but a partiall and groundless faney which all Heretiques and Schismatiques will plead as well as himselfe when they are put to it and may with as much right Was there not more disturbance and tumults in the Church during those Primitiue ages by reason of Arianisme Pelagianisme Manicheisme and other Heresies that then raged then there was for many hundred of years together before Luther began in which time neuertheless eyther all or most of the points now contested by Protestants were as fully defined by the Church and as generally beleeu'd by Christians as now they are With what truth or conscience then can it be sayd that the defining or establishing such points haue lost the peace of the Church True it is the Greekish Church hath opposed the Roman for a long time but what does that help Protestants seeing the world know's it is not for such points as Protestants doe now condemne in the Roman Church but for such errours as they themselues for the most part doe as much condemne in the Greeks as the Roman Church doth 'T is euident the Greeke Church consents with the Roman in all the chiefe points of controuersie betwixt the Roman Church and Protestants and this generall peace of the Church might still haue continued had not the pride arrogancy and temerity of Protestant Predicants first opened the gap to dissention by reuiuing and setting on foote condemned Heresies and by cooperating to so many other wicked Schismaticall and vnchristian disorders under pretense of reformation and obedience to the Gospell A C. tells his aduersarie it is not sufficient to beget a confidence in this case to say wee beleeue the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeued them What says the Bishop to this He confesses 't is most true to witt that which A. C. told him if he ' did only SAY so and did not beleeue as he sayd But sayth he if wee doe say it you are bound in charity to beleeue vs vnless you can proue the contrary For I know no other proofe to men of any point of Fayth but confession of it and subscription to it J reply the Bishops answer falls short of A. Cs. demand For who can doubt but A. C. when he told the Bishop it was not sufficient in this case to say wee beleeue Scripture etc. mean't that beside verball profession and giuing it vnder his hand that he doth beleeue so and so he should proue it by solid and conuincing arguments that the sense in which he beleeues the Scripture and the Creeds is the same with that in which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeu'd them for otherwise he can neither be sufficiently assured himselfe nor can he giue sufficient assurance there of to others Just reason I fay had A. C. to demand this of the Bishop namely that he should proue his Fayth to be agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church obsignatis tabulis as they say that is by speciall vndenyable euidence and not thinke it sufficient only to profess and affirm it to be so But
Prouinces of Christendome so publiquely auouch it to haue been a Tradition of the Apostles to worship Images if it had not been a thing confessedly practis'd amonge Christians euer since the Apostles times and with their knowledge and allowance Is it credible that so many Catholique and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceiue the world with such a lowde vntruth if it had been otherwise As for Transubstantiation which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitiue Church did not beleeue wee haue already shew'n that what is signifyed by the word to witt a true and reall change of the substance of bread into Christs body was cleerly held and taught by diuerse ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church His bare saying 't is a scandall to both Iew and Gentile and the Church of God signifies but little Christ crucifyed was a scandall both to Iew and Gentile but yet a true obiect of our Fayth nor are they the Church or any part of the true Church that are scandaliz'd at it but Infidells and Heretiques who will be scandaliz'd at any thing that suites not with their own fancies As little can he inferre against vs from the difficulty which Catholique Diuines haue to explicate Transubstantiation Js not the Mystery of the B. Trinity in the Bishops own opinion as inexplicable and yet firmly to be beleeu'd why then must Transubstantiation be reiected or disbeleeu'd meerly vpon that ground or because 't is hard to be explicated Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely which bred that pretended scandall in Auerroes but the Reall Presence as his words shew cited by the Bishop Yet the Relatour himselfe and his master Caluin too sometimes make profession to beleeue the Reall Presence After so many vnaduised assertions our aduersarie falls at last to quibble vpon those words of A. C. Roman Catholiques cannot be prou'd to depart from the Foundation so farre as Protestants telling vs 't is a confession that Romanists may be prou'd to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so farre as Protestants doe A doughty inference I promise you But what gaines he by it Doth not the Bishop himselfe num 1. of this very Paragraph vse the like speech of vs when he sayth you of Rome haue gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Fayth then can euer be proued wee of the Church of England haue done If this must not be accounted a Confession that the Church of England hath departed from the Foundation why must that of A. C. be see interpreted as the Bishop will haue it what euer explication be giuen to the Bishops words will serue A. C. as well whose meaning only was that there cannot be brought any arguments to proue our Churches departing from the Foundation but more and better may be brought to proue that Protestants doe likewise depart from it in more and greater points It is not to grant that the arguments which Protestants bring to proue our departing from the Fonndation are solid and conuincing or doe really proue that for which they are brought This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himselfe and to insinuate which A. C. absolutely denyes And as the Bishop had noe reason to inferre any such Confession cut of A. 〈◊〉 words so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalfe of his Church of England Let A. C. instance if he can in any one point wherein she hath departed from the Foundation etc. For that was already done to his hand A. C. had already giuen him this very errour for instance viz. the Church of Englands denying infallible authority to lawfull Generall Councils this beeing in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church and by consequence to subuert the ground of all infallible beleefe in any articles or points of Fayth whatsoeuer Nor does it help him to say there 's a greate deale of difference betwixt a Generall Council and the whole body of the Catholique Church For what euer difference may be in other respects in this viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Fayth and infallible beleeuing what is so taught there is no difference betwixt the Catholique Church and a Generall Councill For if such a Council may erre the Church hath noe infallible meanes to rectifie that errour or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholique doctrine to be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a Generall or oecumenicall Council shewes nothing but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintaines That which was neuer styled or esteem'd by Catholique antiquity but Praedatoria Synodus and Latrocinium not Concilium Ephesinum a den of Robbers and Free-booters a Conuention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretiques that euer troubled or dishonoured the Church by their vnlawfull actings where nothing but secular violence rage and cruelty bore sway euen to bloud-shed and murther of the B. Prelate St. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople this his Lordship brings for an example of a Generall Councils erring Very worthily indeed lett his friends make their benefitt of it Jn the meane time they may know that as on the one side wee readily confess it very necessary the Church should haue remedy against such Councils as this so on the other side wee auerre that the infallibility of Generall Councils truly and rightly so called is such a Foundation of the Roman that is the Christian Catholique Fayth that without it wee know not what can be nor has the Bishop as yet shew'n how any thing can be certaine in the Fayth 6. A. C. after this endeauours by interrogatories to draw from his Aduersarie the confession of truth in answer whereto seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already consuted especially in the 7th and 8th Chapters of this treatise it will oblige vs to avoyd tediousness to be more briefe in our replie A. 〈◊〉 first Querie is how Protestants admitting noe insallible rule of Fayth but Scripture only can be infallibly sure that they beleeue the same entire Scripture Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitiue Church beleeu'd them The Relatour in answer to him tells vs that he beleeues Scripture 1. by Tradition 2. by other motiues of Credibilliy 3. by the Light of Scripture it selfe But first this is not to make a direct answer to the question which is not whether Scripture can be any way beleeu'd or no standing to the Bishops principles but whether and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does beleeue concerning it Secondly 't is vndenyable in the common principles of all Protestants and prou'd already that the two first of these viz. Tradition and the motiues of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Fayth or assurance concerning Scripture and for the third viz. Light of Scripture it selfe it is not only petitio principij a begging of the
question for none of vs euer yet granted him that there was such light but also contrary to experience there beeing noe man that meerly by reading such books as are called Canonicall and others that are accounted Apocryphall can come to know which are Canonicall which not as may appeare by the example not only of such as were neuer taught the maximes of Christian Religion but also of many Christians who though they be able to read yet beeing neuer taught which books were Apocryphall which not know them not by reading Whence it followes likewise that all the insuing discourse which the Bishop makes touching his infallible beleefe of Scripture falls to nothing seeing what he layes as its principall Foundation apparently sinks vnder the weight For a meerly-humane and infallible assurance will neuer support an infallible Fayth of Scripture as euen our Aduersary himselfe grants Nor can he in any better sort make good what he affirm's concerning the Creed and fowre first Generall Councils namely that he beleeues them infallibly in their true incorrupted sense and knowes that he beleeues them so in points necessary to Saluation For seeing he has no infallible certainty that the words or text of the Creed and the acts of the Councils or the books of the ancient Fathers haue not been corrupted how can he haue infallibility in the true sense of them and their conformity to Scripture He pretends indeed to be sure that he beleeues Scripture and the Creed in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitrue Church beleeu'd them because he crosseth not in his beleese any thing deleuered by the Primitiue Church and this againe he is sure of because he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express'd and deliuer'd by the Councils and ancient Fathers of those times But how true this is and how sincerely he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express't by Fathers and Councils may appeare to any that duly considers by the testimonies wee haue already alledg'd against him vpon seuerall occasions out of the Councils and Fathers particularly in this very Chapter and shall yet further alledge in those which follow A. C. asks againe what text of Scripture assures vs that Protestants now liuing doe beleeue all this to witt the Scriptures Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in their incorrupted sense or that all this viz. all that Protestants take to be the true sense of Scripture Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Acts of Councils or writings of the Primitiue Fathers which are now in the Protestants bands and at this his Lordship will needs seeme to wonder But lett them wonder that will The Querie will euer be found both rationall and pertinent notwithstanding such wondering For can any man deny but this is a good consequence Protestants admitt Scripture to be the only infallible rule of Fayth therfore they cannot beleeue infallibly all this aboue mentioned without some particular text or texts of Sripture to be shew'd for it And had not A. C. iust cause to aske whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are now in Protestants hands For seeing it is not in our Bible if it were not likewise in theirs it would be J hope sufficiently euidenc'd to a reasonable Aduersary that it can be found in none But sayth he it is not necessary that this should be shew'd by any particular text because t is made plaine before how wee beleeue Scripture to be Scripture and by diuine and infallible Fayth too and yet wee can shew no particular text for it But how wee pray was this made plaine He told vs indeed that he beleeu'd the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church then by other credible motiues lastly by the light of Scripture it felfe But the two first of these are by his own confession of no infallible authority and the third in effect no more then the Priuate spirit as wee haue often demonstrated to him But admitt the Bishop were sure that the Primitiue Church expounded Scripture in the same sense as Protestants beleeue it yet how will he be able to make good what he adds standing to his own principles this Rule meaning the Scripture as expounded by the Primitiue Church can neuer deceiue mee Did Christ promise infallibility to the Primitiue Church and not to the succeeding Church and if no such infallibility be promised or signifyed in Scripture how can he be certaine they could not erre or deceiue him in their expositions 7. The Bishop tells vs they haue the same Bible with vs but I see not how this can be affirm'd with any truth For Protestants both leaue out many books which wee esteeme part of our Bible and those which they haue with vs are corrupted both in Originalls and Translations Neither doe they admitt and receiue the Bible vpon the same motiue or reason that wee doe Wee admitt it for the infallible authority of the Church propounding it to vs as a diuine booke which infallible authority Protestants deny and by consequence seeing they assign noe other in lieu of it cannot in reason be so infallibly sure of their Bible as wee are of ours Much less could the Bishop iustly say that all is expressed in their Bibles that is in ours vpon this ground only because all Fundamentall points are as proueable without the Apocrypha as with it For who sees not that the same may be affirm'd with exclusion of diuerse other books admitted into the Protestants Canon noe less then ours for example the Epistle of St. Iude the two last Epistles of St. Iohn the Epistle to Philemon the books of Ester Ruth Paralipomena yea perhaps all or very many of the small Prophets it beeing scarce credible the Relatour or any other Protestant should maintaine there were any Fundamentall points of Fayth in their sense to be prou'd out of those books which cannot be prou'd out of any other books or parts of Scripture Soe that if this reason were good an Heretique that reiects vpon the matter one 〈◊〉 or one third part of the old and new Testament shall yet be allow'd to pretend that he has the same Bible with Catholiques and deliuer'd to him by the same hands and that all is expressed in his that is in the Catholique Bible Sure with very much truth and modestie Wee agree with Bellarmin that all matters of Fayth speaking properly are reueal'd only by the word of God Written or vnwritten but wee auerre that they are infallibly declar'd and testify'd to vs to be so reueai'd by the authority of the Church or Generall Councils Nor doth St. Austins text against Maximinus the Arian any way cross or preiudice our 〈◊〉 although it be manifest he speaks there 〈◊〉 by way of condescension and voluntary yeelding to his aduersary and not as forced there to by any necessity of reason St.
Austin knew that Maximinus refus'd though very vniustly the Council of Nice as much as himselfe did that of Arimini 〈◊〉 that he might dispute effectually with him he thought fitt for the present to waue the argument taken from the authority of Councils and to vrge him only with such common principles as were admitted by them both such as were chiefly the holy Scriptures but yet not them alone for 't is euident he vsed other reasons against him beside Scripture founded vpon and deduced from such maximes of Christian religion as were not disowned by his Aduersarie And might not I pray any Catholique disputant at this day argue with a Protestant in some particular question only out of Scripture and tell him in these or the like words I will not vrge you with the Councils of Lateran or Trent I will conuince you of errour by Scripture only yea by your own Bible etc. might not I say a Catholique in some case speake thus to a Protestant but he should be thought presently to rerect the authority of those Councils or to esteem them not infallible in their definitions of Fayth 8. The Index Expurgatorius J consess is through misunderstanding such a common stumbling-blocke with all sorts of Protestants that wee doe not much wonder the Bishop himselfe should trip at it as he doth here obliquely and by way of insinuation at least accusing vs of hauing expunged some things out of the true and authenticall writings of the Fathers A heauy charge doubtless but our comfort is no less iniuriously imputed then heauy For how does he proue it What authours or places of authours does he alledge thus expunged by vs why nam'd he not the Index in which such expunctions are registred why cited he not some of his purer and more authentique Copies different from ours and where those texts are restor'd or standing vpon record which our Indexes are pretended to haue expung'd How came 〈◊〉 to finde out the true genuine and authenticall thenticall writtings of the Fathers if they were not so extant and preseru'd amongst vs and by vs of any thing to this purpose which yet alone could be to purpose in the present case the Relatour brings not the least syllable of instance thinking it enough only to accuse For as to what he pretends to alledge out of Sixtus Senensis his Epistle to Pope Pius Quintus whoeuer obserues it well will finde it really to speake the cleane contrary to what the Bishop would seeme to proue by it and directly to accuse not vs but Protestants of corrupting the works of the Fathers The Reader may see the whole text here in the margent at large whereof the Bishop thought not good to giue vs so much as one word but only to make vse of the authors name and therby cleerly perceiue that it was not to purge the ancient texts of the Fathers writtings but only the false readings spurious notes commentaries and interpretations of Heretiques vpon their sayd writings and texts that the Index Expurgatorius was commanded to be made by the authority of Pius Quintus while he was yet Cardinall and President of the holy Inquisition not to speake of their alike false and corrupt translations of them which were also forbidden J say therfore lett all our Jndices expurgatorij pass the sorutiny euen of our most rigid aduersaries and lett them shew vs if they can wherein any authenticall writings of the ancient Fathers haue been eyther purg'd or clipt by vs or any thing of the text alter'd in point of reading but vpon iustifyable and auowed reason namely the authority of some more ancient and better copie and if they cannot lett them here after for shame at least be silent and obiect the Index expurgatorius no more A. C. asks further whether Protestants be infallibly sure that they rightly vnderstand the sense of all that is expressed in their books according to that which was vnderstood by the Primitiue Church and the Fathers that were present at the fowre first Generall Councils and for this the Bishop finds great fault with him as asking the same thing ouer and ouer againe Wee answer first his Lordship might see by this how earnest A. C. was for a direct and punctuall answer to his Querie Secondly the Relatour should haue reflected that as yet A. C. had receiu'd no satisfactory answer to the demand and till satisfaction be giuen in such cases 't is consonant enough to the rules of arguing to repeate and vrge the demand and to doe otherwise were but to run from one thing to an other without end and neuer sift out the certaine truth in any question whatsoeuer The truth is the Querie is such that it will be matter of eueriasting vexation to all that follow or goe about to defend the Bishops assertions it beeing euidently impossible to giue a satisfactory answer to it without hauing recourse to the infallible authority of the Church as wee Catholiques doe when the like demand is made to vs by our Aduersaries The Relatour indeed out of his wonted liberalitie in this kinde is pleas'd to call it a dry shift but the reason he giues is no better then a gross mistake For the Churches authority does not always beget an implicite Fayth as the Relatour thinks but very often an explicite one to witt when eyther the definition it selfe expounds to me the sense of Scripture or that Church-Tradition concerning it is soe cleere that it needs not the definition or declaration of a Council to make it certainly know'n Whersore seeing Generall Councils by reason of their already-prou'd infallibility are always to be presum'd to speake in that sense which is agreeable to the doctrine of Christ and that the vniuersall tradition of the present Church is also an infallible witness of that doctrine wee Catholiques doe euidently shew according to our grounds how wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand the texts of our Bibles conformably to the sense of those fowre first Generall Councils and of the Primitiue Church of their times For why the sense of the Primitiue Church is necessarily inuolued in that of the Councils and if there happens to be obscurity in the words of any Councils by beeing infallibly sure that that only can be their sense which is conformable to the present Church-Tradition and that the opposite sense cannot possibly be theirs howeuer the words themselues may perhaps be wrested to it by consequence wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand Scripture in the same sense now which the sayd Generall Councils and Primitiue Church anciently did to witt by the infallible authority and Tradition of the present Church I answer to A. Cs. fourth Jnterrogatorie which is whether Protestants can be infallibly sure that all and only those points which they count Fundamentall and necessary to be expressly know'n by all were so accounted in the Primitiue Church the Bishop would seeme at last to tell vs which points are Fundamentall and
were esteem'd such in the Primitiue Church A question hitherto often askt in vaine and which himselfe once plainly declin'd the answering * as beeing no worke for his pen. But let vs heare what he says vpon second thoughts Fundamentalls sayth he so accounted by the Primitiue Church are but the Creed and some sew and those immediate deductions from it But this leaues vs 〈◊〉 in the darke Who shall resolue which those sew and immediate deductions are And what does he meane by immediate deductions only such as 〈◊〉 in themselues euident and necessary If so it were in effect to deny both the Diuinity and Incarnation of Christ to be Fundamentall points Jf in euident and only probable who shall infallibly assure vs that the deduction is true and certaine what shall wee thinke of Scripture Is not that a Fundamentall point in the Relatours beleefe can any man be sau'd that reiects Scripture prouided he admitts the Creed and some few immediate deductions from it Nay wee are told that euen the immediate deductions themselues are not formally Fundamentall for all men but only for such as are able to make and vnderstand them and that for others 't is enough if they doe not obstinately and Schismatically refuse them after they are once reuealed But had not preiudice troubled his eye-sight our Aduersarie might easily haue seen as much reason to say 'T is Fundamentall in the Fayth not to question or deny Schismatically and obstinately any thing at all that is sufficiently propos'd to vs as reuealed by God Let him cite what he can out of the Fathers he shall neuer proue that a man cannot fall from the true fayth by an act of disbeleefe so long as he beleeues the Articles of the Creed seeing the Apostle teaches that some fall from the Fayth by forbiding Marriage and certaine meates as absolutely vnlawfull and many haue been condemned for Heretiques in those ancient times who neuer oppos'd the Creed Now if a man may beleeue the Creed and yet be damned for Heresie and mis-belcefe in other matters how can Protestants assure themselues of Saluation or be accounted Orthodox Christians meerly by this pretended conformity with the Primitiue Church in the beleefe of the Creed vnless it could be prou'd withall that they held no other vnlawfull doctrine But certaine it is that to deny Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and diuerse other points as Protestants doe is most vnlawfull and was so held by the Primitiue Church 9. As for Tertullian Ruffinus St. Irenaeus and St. Basil here alledged by the Bishop they neither seuerally nor all together make an infallible authority to assure Protestants that all and only those points which they account Fundamentall were soe esteem'd by the Primitiue Church which yet was the only thing that A. C. in his Interrogatorie requir'd him to shew The doctrine by vs deliuer'd stands very well with the resolution of Occham here cited that it is not in the power of the Church or Council to make new Articles of Fayth For the Church neuer tooke vpon her to doe this but only to declare infallibly what was expressed or inuolued eyther in Scripture or the word of God not-written viz. Tradition And 't is a meere vntruth to affirme that Catholiques agree not in this that all points determined by the Church are Fundamentall in the sense declared For neither Sixtus Senensis nor any other Catholique did euer doubt or make scruple of those books of holy Scripture which they acknowledg'd to haue been defin'd by the Church for Canonicall they only question some other books concerning which wee haue not had as yet the resolution of any Generall Council such as are the third and fourth of Machabees the third and fourth of Esdras the prayer of Manasses etc. 'T is true Sixtus Senensis hath something about those chapters of the booke of Ester which Protestants count ` Apocryphall wherby he may be thought not to hold them for Canonicall Scripture euen after the decree of the Council of Trent But the reason was because he iudged that the decree of the Council touching Canonicall Scriptures did not comprehend those loose vncertaine peices as he calls them Beside his opinion therein was both singular and disallowed as may appeare euen by the booke it selfe where ouer against the place whence the Bishop takes his obiection there stands printed in the margent this note or censure Non est haec Sententia Sixti probanda cum repugnet sess 4. Concilij Tridentini quam ipse detorquet ne videatur ei repugnare This opinon of Sixtus sayes the note is not to be allowed seeing it is contrary to the fourth session of the Council of Trent which Sixtus wresteth that he may not seeme to be contrary to it The edition of Sixtus Senensis his booke where this Censure is found is that of Paris 1610. in folio which 't is hardly credible that the Bishop himselfe should not haue seen and if he had seen and did know it with what conscience or ingenuity towards his Reader could he make the obiection To what he sayth touching Pope Leo the tenths defining in the last Council of Lateran that the Pope is aboue a Generall Council I answer our Aduersaries know that those Catholique Authours that hold the negatiue doe likewise deny that the point was there defined as a matter of Fayth but only that by way of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall Constitution it was declar'd that the right of calling translating from one place to another and likewise dissoluing of Generall Councils did entirely and solely belong to the Bishop of Rome Successour to St. Peter those beeing the things which had been formerly contested by the Councils of Constance and Basil against the Pope likewise the sayd Authours deny that the last Council of Lateran was a full Generall Council After so many questions none of which as yet haue been sufficiently answer'd A. C. inferrs that his Aduersary had need seeke out some other infallible rule or meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or else that he hath noe reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule vpon it that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth What sayes the Relatour to this His answer is that if he cannot be confident for his soul vpon Scripture and the Primitiue Church expounding and declaring it he will be confident vpon no other But this is still to begg the question For the difficulty is how he comes infallibly to know Scripture and the exposition of the Primitiue Church or that the Primitiue Church did not erre in her exposition without certaine knowledge of which his confidence in this case cannot be well grounded He might more truly and ingenuously haue answer'd if I cannot be confdent for my soule vpon the Scripture and exposition of the Primitiue Church receiu'd and interpreted according to my own priuate sense and iudgement J will be confident vpon noe other For this in effect
he doth say and with truth can say noe more standing to his own principles 10. The implicite Fayth of Catholiques at which the Relatour againe glanceth in points they are oblig'd to know only implicitely giues them sufficient infallibility in their Fayth but hath noe place in this present debate For wee now treate only of such points as are Fundamentall quoad rem attestatam as wee haue formerly distinguish't them that is according to the importance of the matter they containe such as are the prime radicall Articles of our Fayth which euery one is oblig'd necessitate medij or praecepti to know expressly in so much that where ignorance of these points is culpable and through our owne default wee are soe farre from thinking that implicite Fayth can be sufficient for the attaining of Saluation that wee teach the cleane contrary asserting likewise that in those of the first kinde viz. which are necessary by necessity of meanes euen inuincible ignorance will not serue the turn So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells vs by way of Irony and scoff that a Roman-Catholique may vse implicite Fayth at pleasure As to his carping at the word know vsed by A. C. the Relatour should haue know'n that his aduersary takes it not in the most proper sense for demonstratiue or scientificall knowledge as some speake but only for certaine assurance and for infallible beleefe as it is frequently taken by others But as for Protestants standing to the Bishops grounds it is impossible they should haue infallible Fayth eyther explicite or implicite of any thing they bleeue because the authority of the Church beeing in his opinion fallible they can neuer by force thereof be infallibly certain that the books of Scripture which it commends are all or any of them the word of God or that the exposition of Scripture made eyther by the Church or any priuate man is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost Now so long as he is not infallibly certaine of this it may happen for ought he knowes to the contrary that some of them may proue not to be Gods word and seeing the Churches authority attests them all alike he may if he please conceiue a like feare of every one of them What he further adds in this page viz. 337. is only matter of references to what himselfe hath formerly deliuer'd so as I thinke it also sufficient to referre my reader to what I haue answer'd in those places viz. § 25. num 3. § 33. Consid. 3. num 1. § 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to heare him affirme here that he holds the authority of the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. does This surely must be accounted a Paradox or nothing can be iustly taken for such For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himselfe and A. C. toutching the extent of the Churches infallibility and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustaine and endeauour to proue that she is fallible both in the deliuery of Scriptures and in the defining of all points in his opinion Not-Fundamentall and also in her Traditions euen immemoriall and vniuersall And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him maintaine and assert the Churches infallibility in all these But J wonder yet more at the proofe he brings for this assertion to witt his referring vs to § 21. num 5. of his owne booke For there pag. 139. he expresly limits the Churches infallibility to absolute Fundamentall doctrines which A. C. neuer doth and in the progress of his discourse explicating the sayd infallibility euen in Fundamentalls too he falls so low and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church that he brings it down at last to this pittifull state and if she erre sayth he in some ONE or MORE Fundamentall points she may be a Church of Christ still but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. doth not to vrge here the dangerous consequence and also inuolued implicancy of the assertion it selfe which I haue already noted in my answer to that place The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating obiections which haue been more then once sufficiently answer'd viz. concerning Transubstantiation Communion vnder one kinde etc. wherein wee cannot thinke our felues oblig'd to follow our Aduersaries example but rather to remitt the Reader to the places where wee haue already giuen satisfaction touching those matters As little notice shall wee take of his obiecting againe to vs the doctrine of deposing and killing of kings This was added to inuenome the rest of his arguments which he knew otherwise would not be mortall to vs. Wee hope our demeanour in these late dismall distracted times of tryall hath sufficiently cleer'd vs from all such aspersions in the iudgement of indifferent persons nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemyes For who knowes not that vnder the late vsurping powers the greatest crime layd to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Souereign in so much as 't was held by all that partie a thing almost impossible for a man to be a profess't Catholique and not a Caualier too But to this obiection wee haue likewise already spoken what may suffice To summe vp all in briefe wee vtterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoeuer preiudiciall vnto or destructiue of that loyall obedience and Fidelity which is due to all Souereign Princes and Magistrates And if any thing of that nature hath perchance dropt srom the pen of any of ours wee owne it not but censure it deeply prohibite it strictly and in case it be obstinately maintained punish it seuerely and lastly command all books to be corrected that containe any such doctrine CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point touching the vnchangedness of the Roman Fayth with a defence of Purgatory ARGVMENT 1. A. C. Argument that the Roman Fayth is still the ONE SAVING CATHOLIQVE Fayth made good 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruauerit etc. vindicated from the Bishops Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeuing the Creed in its true sense and forcing a wrong sense vpon it vayn and impertinent 4. Protestants are chusers in point of beleefe noe less then all other Heretiques 5. They are not guided by the Church further then they please themselues 6. Church-infallibility to what it amounts according to the Bishops measure 7. In what sense Generall Councils may be sayd to be infallible euen a parte antè or at first sitting down 8. All the ancient Fathers generally speaking beleeu'd Purgatorie 9. Prayer for dead as vsed by the ancients necessarily inferres Purgatory 10. The Relatour labours in vayn to auoyd the Authorities of the Fathers in this point 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret euen by his owne confession cleere for Purgatory 12. St. Austin not wauering
Fayth to the Pope and a Councill of Bishops held at Rome whither he had been called vpon occasion of some things layd to his charge by Heretiques and with the acts of the sayd Councill was it registred and preseru'd till in tract of time it came to be publiquely and generally vsed in the Church Now the latin copie reads 〈◊〉 and anciently euer did so lett our Aduersaries shew any thing to the contrary and 't is euident by the Creed it selfe that it was not this Fathers intention to exhorte to good life or to teach how necessary good works were to Iustification or Saluation but only to make a plaine and full Confession of the Catholique Fayth concerning those two chiefe and grand Mysteries of Christian Religion viz. of the B. Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God 3. What the Relatour's reachis is in affirming that 't is one thing not to beleeue the Articles of Fayth in the true sense and an other to force a wrong sense vpon them intimating that this only is to violate the Creed and not the other I must confess I doe not well vnderstand For supposing I beleeue that is giue my assent to the Creed sure I must beleeue or giue my assent to it in some determinate sense or other Jf therfore I beleeue it not in the true sense I must necessarily beleeue it in a false and what is that but to offer violence or put a foreed sense vpon the Creed vnless perhaps he would haue vs thinke the Creed were so composed as to be equally or as fairly capable of a false sense as a true But this is not the first time our Aduersaries acuteness hath carryed him to inconueniences It is therfore a naturall and well-grounden inference and noe straine of A. C. to assume that Protestants haue not Catholique Fayth because they keep it not entire and inuiolate as they ought to doe and as this Father St. Athanasius teaches 'tis necessary to Saluation for all men to keep it which is also further manifest For if they did beleeue any one Article with true diuine Fayth they finding the same formall reason in all viz. diuine Reuelation sufficiently attested and applied by the same meanes to all by the infallible Authority of the Church they would as easily beleeue all as they doe that one or those few Articles which they imagine themselues to beleeue And this our Antagonist will not seeme much to gain say roundly telling A. C. that himselfe and Protestants doe not beleeue any one Article only but all the Articles of the Christian Fayth for the same formall reason in all namely because they are reuealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word and by his Churches ministration But this is only to hide a false meaning vnder false words Wee question not what Protestants may pretend to doe especially concerning those few points which they are pleas'd to account Articles of Christian Fayth to witt Fundamentalls only but what they really doe Now that really they doe not beleeue eyther all the Articles of Christian Fayth or euen those Fundamentall points in any sincere sense for Gods Reuelation as sufficiently applied by the ministration of the Church is manifest from their professing that the Church is fallible and subiect to errour in all points not-Fundamentall and euen in the deliuery of Scripture from whence they pretend to deduce theyr sayd Fundamentalls consequently they can in no true sense beleeue any thing as Catholiques doe for the same formall reason sufficiently applyed To beleeue all in this sort as A. C. requires and as all Catholiques doe were in effect to renounce their Heresie and to admitt as matter of Christian Fayth whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in the name and by the Authority of Christ doth testifie to be such and require them to receiue and beleeue for such which the world sees how vnwilling they are to doe 4. The like arte he vseth in his answer to A. Cs. obiection pag. 70. viz. that Protestants as all Heretiques doe MAKE CHOICE of what they will and what they will not beleeue without relying vpon the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church He answers first that Protestants make no choice because they beleeue all viz. all Articles of Christian Fayth But this is both false and equiuocall False because as was iust now shew'd they beleeue none with true Christian Fayth as Catholiques ought or for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation rightly applied but only for and by their owne election Equiuocall because 't is certaine he meanes by Articles of Fayth only Fundamentall points in Protestant sense whereas 't is the duty of Catholiques and the thing by which they are most properly distinguish't from Heretiques to beleeue all Articles or points of Christian doctrine whatsoeuer deliuer'd to them by the Authority of the Church in the quality of such truths as she deliuers them Secondly he sayes Protestants with himselfe doe rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and the Whole Catholique Church True soe farre as they please they doe but not so farre as they ought not entirely as A. C. requires And what is this but to make choice as all Heretiques doe Againe why speakes he not plainly If the Bishop mean't really and effectually to cleere himselfe of A. Cs. charge of doing in this case as all other Heretiques doe why does he not say as euery Catholique must and would haue done wee rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and of the Catholique Church therby acknowledging the Authority of the Catholique Church to be an infallible meanes of applyinge Gods word or diuine Reuelation to vs. Whereas to ascribe infallibility only to the word of God and not to the Catholique Church what is it in effect but to doe as all Heretiques doe and tacitly to acknowledge that really and in truth he cannot cleere himselfe of the imputation Lett our aduersaries know it is not the bare relying vpon the whole Catholique Church which may be done in some sort though she be beleeu'd to haue noe more then a meere humane morall and fallible Authority in proposing matters of Fayth but it is the relying vpon the Churches infallible Authority or vpon the Church as an infallible meanes of applying diuine Reuelation which can only make them infallibly sure both of Scripture and its true sense A C. therefore had noe reason to be satisfyed with the Bishops answer but had iust cause to tell him that though Protestants in some things beleeue the same verities which Catholiques doe yet they cannot be sayd to haue the same infallible Fayth which Catholiques haue But the Bishop here takes hold of some words of A. C. which he pretends to be a confession that Protestants are good Catholiques bidding vs marke A.Cs. phrase which was that Protestants in some Articles beleeue the same truth which other good Catholiques doe The Relatour's reason is because the word other cannot be
so vsed as here it is but that Protestants as well as wee must be supposed good Catholiques J answer 't is cleere enough A. C. mean't only this that Protestants in some things beleeue the same truth with other people who are good Catholiques which is very true but farre from implying that confession which the Bishop would inferre from him Howeuer I thinke not the matter worth standing vpon The Bishop himselfe acknowledges A. C. intended 〈◊〉 to call them Catholiques and if vnawares some thing slipt from his pen whereby he might seeme to call them so what matter is it seeing 't is incident euen to the best Authours sometimes to lett fall an improper expression 5. To as little purpose is it for him to tell vs that next to the infallible Authority of Gods word Protestants are guided by the Church For as wee sayd before so farre as they please they are guided by the Church and where they chinke good they leaue her Wee entreate our Adversanes to tell vs what is this but to follow their own fancy and the fallible Authority of humane deductions in beleeuing matters of Fayth both which the Bishop doth so expressly disclayme in this place To what A. C. adds that by the Church of God he vnderstands here men infallibly assisted by the spirit of God in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils the Relatour answers according to his wonted dialect that he makes no doubt the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation The whole Church cannot doe thus Surely his kindeness is great and the Catholique Church is much obliged to him for allowing her such a large prerogatiue and portion of infallibility as that of necessity some one person or other must still be sound in the Church beleeuing all the Articles of the Creed or if that be too much at least all Fundamentall points in Protestant sense For so longe as but two or three persons hold all such points it will be true that the whole Church is not by any errour totally sallen away from Christ the Foundation All the lawfull Pastcurs of the Church may in the Bishops opinion erre euery man of them and fall away euen from Christ the Foundation yea draw all their people to Hell with them without any preiudice to the promises which Christ made to his Church if but two or three poore soules be still found whome God preserues from such errour as our Aduersaries call Fundamentall All is well the gates of Hell doe not prevaile ouer Christs Church though euery particular Christian saue only some few in an age perish by Heresie the holy Ghost doth not cease to teach the Church all necessary truth notwithstanding that in all ages and times of the Church he suffers such an vniuersall deluge of all damning and Soule-destroying errours as this to ouerspread the whole face of Christendome 6. This is the infallibility our Aduersary grants the whole But A. Cs. words concerning the holy Ghosts assistance in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils oblige the Bishop some what further to declare himselfe in that point wherein though wee sufficiently know his minde already yet it shall not be amiss to heare him speake He vtterly denies therfore and that twice ouer for failing that Generall Councils be they neuer so lawfully called continued and confirmed haue any infallible assistance but may erre in their determinations of Fayth Whether they can or no hath been already sufficiently handled and the Relatours assertion confuted so that there is noe necessitie of repeating what hath been sayd All that I shall desire of the Reader here is that from this and the former passage of the Bishop he would take a right measure of his iudgement and of the iudgement of all his followers in this maine point concerning the Churches Authority and to reflect how much they doe in reality attribute to it They are oftentimes heard indeed to speake faire words and to profess great respect to the Church and to Councils especially such as be Generall and oecumenicall pretending at least to refuse none but for some manifest defect or faultiness as that they were not truly or fully Generall or did not obserue legall and warrantable proceeding in their debates etc. But lett them giue neuer such goodly words lett them counterfeite Iacobs voyce neuer so much here 's the touch-stone of their iudgement and inward sense whatsoeuer they say this they all hold Generall Councils how lawfullysoeuer and how lawfully and warrantably soeuer proceeding haue no infallible assistance from God but may erre and that vniuersally too for so he meanes as wee haue already proued that is in all matters and points whatsoeuer Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall But you will replie the Bishop grants infallibility to a Generall Council to witt de post facto as his words are after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church I answer this is to giue as much infallibility to a Generall Council as is due to the meanest Society or Company of Christians that is For while they iudge that to be an Article of Christian Fayth which is so indeed and receiu'd for such by the whole Church they are euery one of them in this sense infallible and can noe more be deceiu'd or deceiue others in that particular iudgement then a Generall Council or then the thing that is true in it felfe and also found to be true by the whole Church can be false In this indeed the Relatour is iust as liberall now to a Generall Council as he was formerly to the whole Church in granting it not to erre while it erres not The truth is he vainly trifles in the whole business and dallyes with the Reader by obtruding vpon him a Grammaticall or at best but a Logicall notion or sense of the word infallible in stead of the Theologicall For how J pray or in what sense is a Generall Councill acknowledg'd by the Relatour to be infallible euen de post facto after t is ended and as he will haue it confirm'd by the Churches acceptance Certainly if you marke it no otherwise then euery true Proposition is or may be sayd to be infallible that is hipothetically and vpon supposition only For surely no true Proposition quâ talis or soe farre as t is suppos'd or know'n to be true though but by some one person can deceiue any man or possibly be false Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique Quicquid est quando est necesse est esse Euery thing that is has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing since it cannot but be so long as it is And is it not thinke you a worthy prerogatiue of the Church to be thus infallible in her definitions Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the
how happen'd it that St. Austin and the Church of his time could not see both the one and the other J must not omitt the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Hierusalem and St. Iobn Chrysostome though the Bishop does in his answer the first of which giues testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory in these words Wee pray sayth he for those amongst vs who are departed this life beleeuing that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOVLES for whome the Oblation of his holy and dreadfull Sacrifice vpon the Altar is offered The second speaks thus Jt is not in vaine that wee make Oblations for the dead it is not in vaine that wee pray and giue Alms for them doubt not but there comes much good of it and more towards the end lett vs consider sayth he how great consolations wee may cause to the dead by these our teares and giuing of Alms for them and by our prayers Againe If thy dead Brother be departed with any sinne that is with sin not so fully repented for and not so fully expiated by works of Pennance as it ought and as wee haue often declar'd wee ought to the vtmost of our power to GIVE HIM SVCCOVR by our prayers supplications and teares and by procuring Oblations or Masses for him For it is not in vaine that in the diuine Mysteries wee remember the faythfull departed Wee doe it to the end they may receiue CONSOLATION and what wee doe in this kinde is not any superstitious inuention of man as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is but the Ordination of the Holy Ghost 13. What can be sayd more then this to the full assertion of our Catholique beleefe in this point Especially seeing out Aduersary himselfe grants concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time that they vndoubtedly held Purgatory so that for a thousand yeares and more he confesses Purgatory was the generall Fayth of Christians Jt would be considered by indifferent men whether it be not sarre more likely to haue been always the Fayth of Christians and that our fore-fathers were in truth frighted into the beleefe of it as the Bishop will needs speake by noe other meanes then they were frighted into the beleefe of Hell that is by the Tradition of the Catholique Church and the preaching of their lawfull Pastours conformably thereto I conclude therfore that Purgatory can be noe other then a doctrine of Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good lib. 4. de Baptism cap. 24. which teacheth that wee iustly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles if they be taught by the whole Church and wee finde noe beginning or first Institution of them in Councils Nationall Prouinciall or oecumenicall Now wee challenge our Aduersaries to shew when or in what age the doctrine of Purgatory first began to be taught or which is all one when the doctrine of Praying for the dead that their sins might be remitted to them that they might finde mercy and milder chastisement from God refreshment ease of their paines help and reast in our Lord etc. first began to be practis'd in the Catholique Church Neither doth Bellarmins prouing it from Scripture hinder the point from beeing a Tradition of the Apostles For does not St. Austin with Bellarmin and all diuines not excepting euen Protestants themselues acknowledge the Baptisme of infants and doctrine of Originall sinne and diuerse other points to proceed from Apostolicall Tradition and yet endeauour to proue them also from Scripture much less does the Cardinall contradict himselfe as our Aduersary likewise pretends he doth by endeaucuring on the one side to proue Purgatory by nineteene places of Scripture and yet auerring on the other that wee finde no beginning of this doctrine For first his assertion that wee finde noe beginning of this doctrine imports noe more then that noe first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie could be found since the Apostles that beeing fully sufficient to his purpose which was only to shew that the beleefe of Purgatory was an Apostolicall Tradition And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age eyther since the time of the Apostles or before yet should he not contradict himselfe by thinking or saying it might be prou'd by Scripture Who doubts but the doctrine of soules immortality is effectually prou'd out of the Gospell and the bodies resurrection out of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15 Yet will any man pretend that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospell or in St. Pauls Epistles was not the immortality of the soule and resurrection of the body beleeu'd by the faythfull before Christs Incarnation So that in truth the Relatour committs the grand absurdity himselfe in arguing as he doth that if Bellarmin did finde it in Scripture to witt the doctrine of Purgatory then he is false in saying wee finde noe beginning of it Certainly to finde a thing to be taught and to finde the first beginning of its beeing taught is not all one in any sober mans iudgement except it be the Relatours What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling vs the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all and that it is not beleeu'd by the Grecians to this very day is in part contrary to himselfe who hath already confess 't that from St. Gregories time all the Fathers taught and all Christians generally beleeu'd Purgatory and misunderstood in the whole For certainly 't is only of the name Purgatory and quality of the fire there that a Castro and some others speake when they affirme that few of the ancients beleeu'd Purgatory it beeing impossible to conceiue they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers and was vnanimously without the least difference or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins in the Councill of Florence touching the thing that is the penall state of some Faythfull soules departed after this life The Bishop might as well haue told vs that those Authours pronounce the same touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Sonne and of some other points namely that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers to witt express and in terminis but yet without doubt suppose those ancient and Orthodox Pastours of the Church did euer teach the sayd points as to the substance of doctrine and sense His Lordships assigning Origen to be the first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie is a manifest falsity already disprou'd by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian ancienter then he likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite contempory with the Apostles to whom wee may adde St. Clement an Authour of the same age cited by Bellarmin in both which such prayer for the dead as doth necessarily inferre Purgatory is auouch'd to be a Tradition receiu'd from the Apostles Tertullian
also does the same with St. Chrysostome yea once againe wee challenge our Aduersaries to nominate if they can any one ancient Father or Christian writer that euer noted this an errour or priuate doctrine in Origen that he taught Purgatory or that in any sort intimates him to haue been the Authour or inuentour of it and yet the world knowes Origens errours and priuate opinions were diligently noted by Antiquity But this 't is sure enough our Aduersaries can neuer doe and therfore lett noe man thinke it vnreasonable in vs that wee still confidently presume and assert that this doctrine hath no beginning assignable and consequently according to St. Austins rule aboue mention'd is to be thought an Apostolicall Tradition 14. Jt is therfore firmly to be beleeu'd by all Catholiques that there is a Purgatory yea wee are as much bound to beleeue it as wee are bound to beleeue for instance the Trinity of Incarnation it selfe if by this manner of speaking be mean't only that wee can noe more lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine beeing once know'n by the Churches definition to be reueald by God and pertaining to the Catholique Fayth then wee may deny or question the sayd Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation though wee confess there is not the same necessity or obligation for all men to know the one as the other or to haue explicite beleefe of one as of the other Nor can J doubt but the Bishop himselfe would haue confess'd in the sense aboue mentioned that wee are as much bound not to disbeleeue any thing euen of least moment contain'd in Scripture when wee know it to be there contained as to beleeue the sayd Articles and as this is farre from beeing esteem'd blasphemy by any good Christians so is the other if rightly vnderstood CHAP. 26. The infallible certainty of Christian Fayth confessed yet subuerted by the Bishop ARGVMENT 1. Why noe matter of doctrine defind by Generall Councils may be deliberately deny'd or doubted of 2. A. C. doth not teach that euery Catholique Priest in the Roman Church able to preach is infallible 3. Jnfallibility in teaching how rightly inferr'd by him from the Holy Ghosts Assistance 4. To what intent our Janiour left the Prerogatiue of infallibility in his Church 5. No certain meanes in our Aduersaries principles to be assur'd that a Generall Councill erring in one point does not erre in all 6. The Relatour by allowing priuate persons to examin the definitions of Generall Councils allowes them in effect to iudge and censure them 7. Posteriour Councils no less necessary for the infallible determination of controuerted points of Fayth then the fowre first 8. Infallible assurance requisite in superstructures as well as points Fundamentall 9. The insufficiency of the Relatours reason to the contrary 10. No help for him from St. Thomas and our Authours touching the extent of necessary points 11. His nugatory descanting vpon words 1. THus much for Purgatorie 'T is time now that wee return againe to A. C. who giues his Aduersarie a why no man may deliberately doubt of much less deny any thing defin'd by a Generall Councill viz. because euery such doubt is a breach from the one sauing Fayth in that it takes away infallible creditt from the Church so as the diuine reuelation beeing not sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence breed infallible Fayth in vs. Jn answer whereto the Bishop insists wholy vpon principles already confuted viz. that deliberately to doubt and deny what is defined by Generall Councils doth not take away infallible creditt from the whole Church the contrary whereof wee haue often shew'n in this Treatise Likewise he tells vs the creditt of the Catholique Church is safe so long as she is held infallible in things absolutely necessary to Saluation which absolutely necessary things neither himselfe nor any body else could euer yet resolue vs what they are or how to know them And beside seeing he teaches that all points absolutely necessary to Saluation are plainly sett down in the Creed and Scripture how is it possible wee should haue need of the infallible Authority of the Church now or hereafter to beleeue any such points of Fayth Againe if the whole Church may erre in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation noe reason can be giuen but it may also erre in deliuering and interpreting any particular texts of Scripture which containe matter or doctrine not absolutely necessary which supposed it necessarily followes that wee cannot beleeue with certaine infallible and diuine Fayth any thing deuer'd in Scripture it selfe saue only a very few points to witt the chiefe and Fundamentall Mysteries of our beleefe Lastly seeing the whole Church consists of all particular members which can neuer be found out and consulted with by any person and that consequently there can be no sufficient assurance had of what they all hold as absolutely necessary to Saluation how is it possible wee should be mou'd by their Authority as the Bishop here supposeth to beleeue all or any points of Fayth absolutely necessary to Saluation 2. The Relatours next worke is to carp at the gloss which A. C. giues to those words of St. Paul Rom. 10. 15. how shall they preach etc. that is sayth A. C. how shall they preach infallibly By which manner of speaking yet he does not meane whateuer the Bishop imputes to him to make euery Priest in the Church of Rome that hath learning enough to preach an infallible Preacher He was not ignorant that the natiue and immediate sense of those words compar'd and ioyn'd with the fore-going how shall men beleeue vnless they heare etc. is only to signifie that for the Propagation of the Gospell 't is necessary there should be Preachers and that noe man ought to take that office vpon him vnless he be sent that is ordain'd and called by Allmighty God He was not so simple as to thinke euery priuate Preacher infallible You will say then why does he comment vpon the words how shall they preach etc thus how shall they preach INFALLIBLY vnless they be sent from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit J answer the reason hereof was because the word preach which the Apostle vseth doth not signifie sermons only but absolutely the announcing or publication of diuine doctrine by all such as are lawfully appointed to publish it and in what manner soeuer it is necessary for beleeuers that it be publish't and announced to them Now there beeing confessedly a twofold annunciation or manner of publishing diuine doctrine to Christians the one priuate and meerly ministeriall which is perform'd by priuate and particular Pastours to their particular and respectiue flocks the other publique and authoritatiue viz. of the Pastours of the whole Church assembled together in Generall Councils and this latter in regard of the publique and vniuersall benefitt which comes by it the more important of the
two A. C. could not doubt but that really it was intended and must necessarily be included in the sense of those words of the Apostle how shall they preach etc. no less then the former J say that speciall annunciation or preaching of Christian doctrine must necessarily be included in the latitude of those words wherby the Prelats of the Church doe sufficiently applie diuine reuelation to Christian people for the grounding and eliciting an assent of true diuine Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done by any Authority or meanes which is not infallible A. C. therfore takes not the whole but only the principall part or one principall kinde of preaching Christs Gospell when he so glossed vpon St. Pauls words And well might he so doe it beeing that without which the preaching of all particular Pastours to their particular flocks would be to little purpose for they could preach nothing but vncertainties or at best but probable doctrine As little cause had his Lordship to taxe A. C. of bragging because he auerrs that wee Catholiques vse to interpret Scripture by vnion consent of fathers and definitions of Councils For in a iust and true sense soe wee doe in as much as wee neuer decline but alwayes follow that interpretation of Scripture which hath consent of Fathers and the definition of Generall Councils Can Protestants say so much for themselues And yet our meaning is not that noe exposition of Scripture is good but what hath express consent of Fathers or the definition of some Generall Councill to backe it wee doe not deny but euen priuate persons may discourse vpon Scripture and declare their iudgement concerning the sense and meaning of it prouided they neither hold nor obtrude any sense contrary to the common consent of Fathers or the definitions of Generall Councils but hold and doe all things with due submission to the Church But the Relatour will proue from the authorities of Scotus and Canus cited in his margent that the Apostle in this place speaks not at all of infus'd that is of diuine and infallible Fayth but of Fayth acquit a to witt by naturall and humane industrie and meanes which beeing not infallible nor requiring any infallible Authoritie in them that preach it the Bishop thence concludes that A. C ' Gloss is not good but rather that he grossly abuses the text by it J answer first the precedent discourse and reason giuen for the gloss doe sufficiently discharge A. C. of that imputation leauing the note of a Precipitate censure vpon his aduersary Secondly I say the Bishops information abuses him there beeing not one word or syllable in Scotus which denyes infused that is supernaturall diuine true Christan and infallible Fayth to be vnderstood in that Tex't of the Apostle T is true Scotus alledges the words in particular proofe of Fayth acquir'd viz. of that Fayth which is gained by hearing of particular Preachers and depends only on their Authoritie But yet he there maintaines with all Diuines an absolute necessity of Fayth infused or supernaturall which as the Bishop himselfe here proues out of Canus must rest vpon some infallible motiue and consequently requires an infallible preaching to applye it sufficiently to vs which is all that A. C ' gloss imports Adde hereunto that acquired Fayth beeing according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence prerequired and antecedent to Fayth diuine and supernaturall as Canus likewise here teacheth it cannot in any sort be suppos'd to exclude it Lastly by an argument a fortiori 't is euidently concluded that the text ought to be extended to diuine and infallible Fayth as well as to humane and acquired For if wee cannot beleeue euen with naturall and acquired Fayth without a Preacher surely much less can wee beleeue with infus'd and supernaturall Fayth without one still speaking according to ordinary course which Preacher must also be infallible eyther in his owne person as all the Apostles were or as he deliuers the doctrine and performes the office committed to him by an infallible autority such as is that of the Church by whome euery particular Preacher is deputed to deliuer the doctrine which she holds I might vrge also the common consent of interpreters who expound the place of noe other Fayth but that by which Christians are iustify'd and sau'd which surely can be noe other but supernaturall and infused Fayth And this is most certain whateuer Biel out of his priuate opinion asserts to the contrary But wee haue stood longer vpon this subiect then the small importance of it requires since neither our nor A. C ' doctrine touching the infallibility of Generall Councils does at all depend vpon this text but is sufficiently prou'd by those other already alledged to that purpose 3. The Bishop in the next place tells A. C. he has ill lucke in fitting his conclusion to his premisses and his consequent to his antecedent The business is because he seems from the assistance of the holy Ghost to inferre infallibility But J answer our Aduersary hath not much better lucke so often to mistake and peruert A. C ' meaning For certainly A. C. does not deduce infallibility eyther of Church or Councils from any assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer but from such assistance as is necessary for them both and from thence infallibility is rightly and inuincibly concluded as wee haue often shew'n by the grand inconueniencies which otherwise would vnauoydably follow both to Religion and the Church What therfore he vrges that the ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Church were assisted by Gods Spirit and yet not held to be of infallible creditt is beside the purpose A. C. making no such inference as the Relatour by this obiection supposes him to doe As for the question which A. C. asks if a whole Generall Council defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible Creditt what man in the world can be sayd to be infallible the Bishop seems rather to slight then satisfie it when he sayes I 'le make you a ready answer noe man no not the Pope himselfe No. Lett God and his word be true and euery man a lyar citing Scripture for it Rom. 3. 4. But what cannot Gods word be true vnless the Pope and Generall Councils be held fallible and subiect to erre when they define matters of Fayth were not those words of the Apostle true when both himselfe and all the rest of his Fellow-Apostles liu'd vpon earth and were infallible And if they were true then why not also now though the Pope and Generall Councils be held infallible Certainly A. Cs. question deseru'd a better answer then this or rather was vnanswerable by the Bishop without deserting his auowed principles For thus J argue ex concessis Jf Generall Councils defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible creditt noe man nor men in the world can be sayd to be so this the Bishop grants But then
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
of Christ of Scripture and the whole Church in the falsely-defined Article that there is in the true and that the Scripture doth not equally giue eyther ground or power to define truth and errour what is it but to trifle tediously For wee neither say nor suppose any such thing So as the Bishop by his discourse here meerly labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius it beeing a thing wholy vnknow'n to vs yea impossible for vs to know infallibly and certainly when the Councill defines matters equally by and according to the Authorities of Scripture or the whole Church but by the Councils own Acte that is by her definition so express't and fram'd as there can be noe iust cause to doubt but that she defin'd or presum d herselfe to define both the one and the other point conformably to Scripture and the sense of the whole Church See now what great reason the Relatour had to obiect cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business Our Aduersarie here againe runnes from the marke A. C. in giuing the reason of his former demand speaks of examining only and not of iudging as his words shew If wee leaue this sayth he meaning the erring and not-erring of a Generall Councill in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly to be EXAMINE'D by euery priuate man the examination not beeing infallible will need to be examined by an other and that by an other Without end or euer coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers that he hath 〈◊〉 vs the way how an erring Councill may be rectifyed and the peace of the Church eyther preseru'd or restor'd etc. viz. § 32. num 5. § 33. consid 7. num 4. of his Relation and wee haue likewise shew'n all his pretended wayes to be deuicus and not to lead to the end he aymes at But does he there or any where else shew how wee may be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one point does not also erre in the other in the case aboue mention'd which is the only thing his Aduersary here vrges him withall does he shew that A. Cs. obiected process in infinitum can be auoyded by any priuate and fallible examination of the Councils decrees or does he prescribe any other meanes of examining them but what is in his own opinion fallible at least though perhaps not priuate First he assignes Scripture for a way to examin a Councils definition but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture beares that sense in which he vnderstands it and not that in which the Councill vnderstands it Secondly he assignes the fowre first Generall Councils but how can he be sure that their Authority in defining is such as euery one ought to obey and not that of after-Councils Thirdly he assignes the Creeds as containing all things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth but does he meane all of them all the three Apostolicall Nicen Athanasian By his words it seemes he doth for he makes noe difference betwixt them and in reason 't is necessary he should seeing 't is euident the Apostles Creed alone will not ferue the turn it making no express mention of the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost nor of the Mystery of the Trinity Jncarnation etc. which yet wee confidently presume are all of them Fundamentall points in the Bishops Creed But then wee aske how come these latter Creeds the Nicen and Athanasian to be infallible seeing their Authours in the composing of them were fallible and subiect to errour in the Relatours opinion How can they be a ground of infallible certaintie to me if possibly in themselues they man be false which though it cannot be sayd or suspected of the Apostles nor by consequence of their Creed as it was compos'd and publish't by them yet wee make a Querie what infallible Authority assur'd the Bishop or assur's vs now that the Creed which wee haue at present and commonly call the Apostles Creed is really the same which the Apostles first composed or that wee haue it entire and vnchanged Tradition or the Church by the Relatours grounds must not be pretended here seeing they are both of them fallible with him and may deceiue vs. It followes then euen from his own principles that he neither hath nor can haue infallible certainty for his beleeuing the Creeds and as for the fowre first Generall Councils the Relatour must needs haue less pretense of reason to alledge them for a ground of infallible certainty in beleeuing seeing in all his booke he neuer acknowledges nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge Councills to be infallible euen in Fundamentalls Where is then his infallible certaintie for that one Fayth necessary to Saluation 6. How farre the Relatour speakes truth when he sayes be giues noe way to any priuate man to be iudge of a Generall Councill lett any man iudge that considers his doctrine Liberty to examine euen the definitions of Generall Councils if they see iust cause he does expressly grant to priuate persons yea and some kinde of iudgement too he allowes them viz. that of discretion though not the other of power as he distinguishes But is there not a inake lurking in the grass here may wee not feare fome poyson vnder the gilded pill of his Lordships distinction This iudgement of discretion as he calls it especially if common experience and practice may expound it what does it signifie less then a power assum'd by euery priuate person not only to examin the validity of such reasons and grounds as confirme the defined article but constantly to deny both it and them if his priuate spirit or discretion tells him that he hath better reasons for the contrary or that the Councils definition is an errour Has not this always been the way and methode of Heretiques To what end doe they at any time put themselues vpon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of Generall Councills was it euer for any other reason but to see whether they could finde a flaw in them which when they persuaded themselues to haue once spy'd did they not presently in their own vayne hearts fall to despise the Councill which they suppos'd to erre as ignorant and ouerseen in their proper business did they not vsually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience in lieu of necessary obedience and submission Did they not forthwith imagin themselues inlightened persons and soone after that oblig'd in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people and vnder a pretense of informing weaker brethren draw them to the like discret examining of the Churches defin'd and generally receiu'd doctrine with themselues Js not this the know'n course of the humour Is not this Satans methode by degrees to vsher in publique and generall defections from the Authority both of Generall Councills and all the Lawfull Pastours and Gouernours of the Church See in effect the whole benefitt of the Bishops goodly deuise
This and very little else as the experience of all ages and times shew is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills Not to vrge that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is or may be For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other and may if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause as lawfully doubt and deny the desinitions of the one as the resolution of the other wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council then J doe to a priuate person Seeing 't is euident that neither the one nor the other haue further Authority with mee or command ouer my vnderstanding then their seuerall reasons in my own iudgement deserue and that if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill 7. His asserting so confidently that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills beside the fowre first seemes noe less strange and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils since the fowre first been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill or second of Constantinople was it not matter of Fayth and necessary to Saluation what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents what thinke they of the sixth against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ defin'd by this Councill in the Bishops opinion as Fundamentall in the Fayth as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures defin'd by that of Chalcedon Againe may not fresh errours arise may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters in Religion Jf they doe shall it not be necessary for the Church that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own very honest and learned men as he is pleas'd to qualifie them when it serues his turn are of the same opinion with him in this point citing in proofe hereof certayn words as he pretends of Petrus de Alliaco an ancient Schoole-Author otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis Vertsstmum esse c. 'T is most true all things pertaining to Religion are well order'd by the fathers if they were as well and diligently obserued But first here 's a great mistake The words which the Bishop cites are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae and presented to the Councill of Constance but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it with diuerse other small tractates of that nature in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke Secondly admitting they were or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect yet were it little to the Bishops purpose For the Authours meaning is that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques that if they were well obserued there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine But he does not deny but that vpon new emergent occasions other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church and of many Heresies springing vp the Authority of an other Generall Councill to witt of Constance was necessary as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth as to extirpate the Schisme and all other abuses and disorders in the Church With what truth then could the Bishop pretend that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer after the fowre first And as for Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition or vniuersall Tradition of the Church yet doubtless when it is know'n to be so and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop neither he nor any other Catholique Authour will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie to hold it St. Cyprian here likewise alledged speaks cleerly of such matters as were then vndefined and were not till a long while after defin'd by the Councill of Nice St. Thomas speaks only deminis et opinionibus as his words shew of small matters and priuate opinions which in no sort concern our present controuersie and wherein wee acknowledge with the Relatour Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth or Christian charity necessary to Saluation But for matters which the Church hath found necessary for preuention of Schismes preseruation of vnity and for vindicating or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour once to determine by Generall Councils how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name ancient or modern who taught that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined This the Relatour should haue shew'n had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader and not meerly to amuse him by filling his pages with Authorities cited to noe purpose 8. Had not the Apostles those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world Reuclation from God not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. as the Protestants translate it with command and obligation that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world entirely and
erected into a Patriarchate or after as wee haue prou'd the Bishop of Romes Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 ouer all parts and Prouinces of Christendome THE LAST CHAPTER Seuerall other Mistakes of the Bishop with a conclusion of the whole worke ARGVMENT 1. St. Cyprians text Epist. 45. ad Cornelium touching the roote and matrix of the Catholique Church vindicated from the Bishops peruersions 2. All Charches in St. Cyprians bpiniony one by Communion with that of Rome 3. Tertullian of the same sentiment with St. Cyprian 4. The Bishops 〈◊〉 betwixt the Essence and Existence of the Church not pertinent 5. His 〈◊〉 touching the Ladies going to Church so persuaded in conscience as she was not 〈◊〉 6. Going to Protestant Churches in England neuer held by lawfull Catholiques 7. The Heretiques badge viz. pride and presumption of ones proper iudgement not well putt off by the Bishop 8. The same charge cannot be retorted vpon Catholiques in matters of Fayth 9. Catholiques maintaine the same succession to be a marke of the true Church which the Fathers did viz. the ioynt-succession of persons and doctrine 10. Stapleton not contrary to this nor to himselfe whateuer is pretended by the Bishop 11. Temporary Contestations about the Papacy no interruption of the Lawfull Succession of Popes 12. The Bishop standing to his principles cannot rid himselfe of A. C. Dilemma viz. of making 〈◊〉 noe iudge at all or euery man iudge for himselfe in Controuersies of Fayth 13. Infallibility the true Foundation loth of Church and Religion with the Authours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Prayer for the 〈◊〉 THe Bishop hath still a pieque against the Roman Church beeing euer willing to lessen as much as in him lyeth the respect which good Christians of ancient times may be thought to haue born towards that Sea Out of this humour it proceeds that he will not endure the Roman Sea should be styled the roote and matrix of the Church Catholique but to a voyde it takes occasion euen where he confesses none was giuen him by his Aduersary to make a long discourse of no less then eight or nine pages in folio only vpon a text of St. Cyprian which he calls indeed a difficult place that he might not seeme to want some reason for his tediousness but I presume an indifferent Reader hauing obseru'd the text and well weighed the Bishops comment vpon it will iudge it difficult in no other sense then that the Relatour found it somewhat a hard matter for him to disguise and peruert it from its true sense But a bad cause will plunge the best witts sometimes into difficulties and J am apt to thinke our Aduersarie in this digtession contends more then a little against what he could not but in his owne conscience see to be most probable 1. For first as to the truth of the storie the occasion of writing that Epistle wherein St. Cyprian is by vs suppos'd to style the Roman Church the ROOTE and MATRIX of the Church Catholique was not that which the Relatour setts down but very different from it The Relatour tells vs they were St. Cyprians own letters aboute which Cornelius Bishop of Rome expostulated with him and complain'd that they were not directed to himselfe as of right they ought to haue been but to the Roman Clergie whereas in truth St. Cyprian and his Colleagues had taken a resolution not to write at all to Rome by reason of the Schisme that was there 〈◊〉 till they had first heard from their Legate the Dishops Caldonius and Fertunatus whom they had sent on purpose to Rome to know the true state of affaires betwixt Cornelius the lawfull Bishop and 〈◊〉 the Schismatique But those letters were written by certain Priests and others of the African Clergie pertaining to the Diocess of Adrymettium where St. Cyprian happened to be at that time and in the absence also of the Bishop of the place This appeares by the very words of the Epistle it felse nor does St. Cyprian answer as the Bishop feignes him to doe to witt as owning or acknowledging the writing of those Letters himselfe or that they were sent with his knowledge but professes the thing was done out of ignorance of what himselfe and Colleagues had resolued and only by some in Africke during the absence of their Bishop Secondly as to the words wherby St. Cyprian professes to Gornelius that he for his part did exhort all that sayld out of Africke to Rome that they should acknowledge and embrace the ROOTE and matrix of the Catholique Church who can imagin any other thing should be mean't by them but that he exhorted such people when they came to Rome that they should ioyne themselues to the partie and communion of the lawfull Bishop of Rome because his Communion was the roote and matrix of the Church and haue nothing to doe with the Schismatiques The Bishop would haue vs thinke he mean't only to exhort them in generall to acknowledge and adhere to the vnity of the Catholique Church which though wee deny not but it may be in some sense term'd the roote and matrix of the Church yet surely in this place it can be thought little less then friuolous for St. Cyprian so especially to exhort those trauellers to acknowledge that vnity is the roote of the Church Beside what satisfaction or iust apologie could St. Cyprian thinke it would be to Cornelius already somewhat offended with him though by mistake for not duly acknowledging his Authority to tell him that he exhorted all people that came out of Africke to Rome that they should acknowledge vnity to be the roote of the Church or that they should keep the vnity of the Church in generall without specifying his communion or the communion of the lawfull Bishop of Rome in particular The acknowledgement then of the roote and matrix of the Church which St. Cyprian here meanes and exhorts good Christians to make and constantly stand to when they came to Rome hath doubtless something in it more speciall then this that is to say it must relate to that which euen by St. Cyprians own iudgement elsewhere deliuer'd is the roote and matrix of the Churches vnity to witt the lawfull Successour of St. Peter to whome the Church it selfe owes her vnity and aboute whome there was at that time dispute and controuersie and a doubt rais'd amonge Christians at Rome So that with very good reason St. Cyprian might exhort such as sayl'd 〈◊〉 to adhere to him and acknowledge him as beeing indeed the roote and matrix of Ecclesiasticall vnity as likewise to disown and reiect the partie they should finde auerse to him This indeed was a conuenient subiect of exhortation and well worthy of St. Cyprians charitie and zeale but that he should exhort them to any thing else in this place or noe more then the Relatour will seeme to thinke is wholy incredible But the Bishop conceiues it could not be St. Cyprians meaning and intention here to
that by so doing they did as much as in them lay procure Ecclesiam alteram institui the forming of an other Church which sayth he nefas est nec licet fieri may not in any wise be attempted telling them that their preceedings herein were contra Institutionis Catholicae vnitatem contrary to that vnity in which all true Catholique Christians were instructed by the very principles of Catholique Religion to hold and maintaine that it was contra Sacramentum semel traditum diuinae dispositionis Catholicae vnitatis against that Order or Authority which God once for all appointed in his Church for the preseruation of Catholique vnity and peace amongst Christians likewise not to vrge that in other places also St. Cyprian doth in effect style the Popes chaire the Center from whence Ecclesiasticall vnity is deriued that the Primacy was therfore giuen by Christ to St. Peter that there might be ONE Church and ONE chaire and that he cannot be in the Church who deserts the Chaire of St. Peter Lastly not to vrge the confession euen of the Schismatiques themselues some of them at least voluntarily yet solemnly made when they returned to the Popes obedience wherby they profess't that as God is ONE our Lord Iesus Christ ONE whome they had lastly confessed in prison and the holy Ghost ONE so likewise in the Catholique Church there ought to be acknowledg'd by all ONE BISHOP viz. the Bishop of the Roman Church to whose obedience and Communion they then returned What are all these testimonies but so many euident conuictions and demonstrations of the Relatours huge mistaking not to say any worse when he pretends that by the roote and matrix of the Church St. Cyprian vnderstands noe more but the vnity of the Church in generall nor are they any whit infringed by what he brings out of St. Cyprians Epistle to Iubaianus written against the Nouatians who durst rebaptize Catholiques in which Epistle St. Cyprian hath these words WEE ARE THE HEAD OF BAPTISME What makes this against vs For first the Bishop himselfe acknowledges that by WEE St. Cyprian doth not vnderstand his own person or Church precisely but includes all other particular true Churches and chiefly the Roman where Nouatian himselfe was baptized The Head of Baptisme then in St. Cyprians meaning are all true Churches as they stand in due subordination and Communion vnited with the Roman and not otherwise which wee willingly grant But yet it followes not from hence as the Bishop would haue it that it is all one to be head or roote of Baptisme and to be head and roote of the Church For the whole Church as one by Communion with the Sea of Rome may properly enough be styled the head of Baptisme which signifies noe more then that the chiefe and ordinary power of baptizing is in the Catholique Church but it will neuer be proper to say the Church is the head and roote of the Church for that were to make the whole to be only a principall part which is absurd Now that St. Cyprian did hold all true Churches to be ONE by Communion with the Roman Bishop and Church is sufficiently euidenc'd by what is aboue sayd Nor can he with reason be vnderstood in any other sense when he speakes those words in the beginning of that period cited by the Bishop Nos qui Ecclesiae vnius caput et radicem tenemus etc. For as by Ecclesiae vnius it will not be denyed but he meanes the Church Catholique soe by the words caput et radicem if wee expound him with conformity to his already cited assertions wee cannot possibly vnderstand any thing else but the Bishop of Rome and his Sea the one as head ruling and commanding by Authority the other as matrix by Communion embracing and comprehending all true Christians or the whole Catholique Church on earth Beside this 't is very obseruable what the Relatour himselfe alledges and concludes out of an other Epistle of St. Cyprian viz. that St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africke sent their Legats to Rome on purpose to bring the ` Nouatians that is the Schismaticall partie there to the vnity and Communion of the Church vniuersall but that by reason of the obstinacy and stiffness of those Schismatiques their labour was lost Now for ought appeares to the contrary by the sayd Epistle the reduction of the Nouatians to the Churches vnity whereof by the Bishops own confession St. Cyprian there speaks was nothing else but the bringing them to obedience and Communion with Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome as the Relatour himselfe also intimates and consequently it must be acknowledged there is something in resisting and opposing the lawfull Bishop of Rome which hath greater contrariety to the vnity of the Church then there is in resisting and opposing any other particular Bishop And if it were otherwise why should all the Churches of Africa esteeme themselues and the whole Church soe concerned in it why should they send Bishops of their own on purpose to Rome to reduce the Schismatiques with so much diligence and care to the obedience of their lawfull Bishop what reason can be giuen of this but that they foresaw and fear'd that if a Schisme proceeded there the whole Church would in a short time come to be inuolued in it and diuided into two seuerall parties by acknowledging two heads or Roman Bishops When Nouatus sett vp Maiorinus the first Donatist Bishop at Carthage against Caecilian the lawfull Bishop and when Meletius and Paulinus had their seuerall parties at Antioch likewise when Anthimus an Eutychian Heretique was intruded into the Sea of 〈◊〉 against the Catholique Bishop thereof there was noe such thing fear'd as breaking the Generall vnity of the Church there beeing still a visible and certainly-know'n head of the Church Catholique viz. the Bishop of Rome who by his authority kept all in vnity and first or last rectify'd and composed those dissentions But here of necessity it would haue been otherwise For the breach of Ecclesiasticall vnity beeing in the very head fountaine and roote thereof would vnless preuented vnauoydably in no long time spread it selfe ouer the whole Church and thence it was that the Bishops of Africa thought it necessary with extraordinary diligence to make vp the breach there and reduce the separated parties to vnity 3. Tertullian whome the Relatour also cites makes nothing against vs. For he only affirms that all those many and great Churches founded by the Apostles are that ONE Church which is from the Apostles and that they are all FIRST or primitiue Churches and all of them APOSTOLICALL because they doe all of them allow and approue ONE VNITY that is say wee an vnity deriued from one and center'd in one who is no other but St. Peters lawfull Successor the Bishop of Rome by subordination vnto whome in Fayth and discipline as vnto the vniuersall Pastour of the Church all particular
Churches are made one and doe in effect continue one and the same Catholique Primitiue and Apostolicall Church or Churches which the Apostles first of all founded So that till our aduersaries either disproue this gloss or giue a better wee shall make no scruple to assert that in Tertullians iudgement as well as St. Cyprians Rome or the Roman Church may well be termed the roote and matrix of all other Churches because none remaine in the Catholique Church but by vnity with Rome and the Bishop thereof Nor matters it that Pamelius reckons vp diuerse Churches which he calls Originall and Mother-Churches before the Roman For as to the name Originall and Mother-Churches wee haue giuen the reason of it in the precedent chapter when wee spake of the Church of Hierusalem and for the thing viz. that he reckons Rome in the last place as if therfore the Church of Rome were to be accounted inferiour to those other wee answer his Lordship would neuer haue made this obseruation twice had he first consulted the Master of Ceremonies about it For he certainly would haue resolu'd him that in marshalling dignityes subordinate one to an other as the case was here all the particular Churches mentioned by Pamelius viz. Smyrna Philippi Corinth Ephesus beeing subordinate to Rome the Principall or Souereign is to be ranked in the last place Doth Pamelius or Tertullian himselfe acknowledge the like priuiledges and authority in regard of the whole Church to belong to those other originall and Mother-Churches which they doe to the Roman As for that irreligious Acte of the Emperour Adrian which the Bishop mentions 't is but too much imitated by Protestants For as he sett vp the Image of Jupiter in the very place where Christ suffered and as he profaned Bethlehem with erecting the Temple of Adonis as thinking to destroy Christian Religion by laying wast the place where it was first founded soe doe our Aduersaries plant all their batteries against Rome persuading themselues that if they could beate downe that chiefe fortress of the Catholique Church they should soone destroy our whole Church But as that Heathenish Emperour Adrian did soe doe these enemyes of God and true Religion they labour in vayne For the Church is inuincible the gates of Hell it selfe cannot preuaile against her and as St. Austin long since obserued all Heresies whatsoeuer doe indeed goe out of her beeing cutt off from her as vnprofitable branches from the vine But the Church herselfe always remaines in her ROOTE in own VINE in her own CHARITY viz. by remayning always vnited with the Bishop of Rome Jn the most principall and proper sense then the Roman Church and that only is both the rocke and roote of the Church-Catholique as beeing by institution and appointment of Christ principally and solely ordain'd to supplie the place and performe the office both of rocke and roote to all other Churches whatsoeuer how be it in a less principall and limited sense in reference to particulars only wee doe not deny but some other particular Church or Churches beside the Roman may sometimes be are the style that is be called rocke or roote Thus for example wee confesse St. Austin cited by the Bishop styles the Eastern Churches the roote in regard of the Africans Pars Donati non consider at se praecisant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 RADICE Orientalium Ecclesiarum But the reason is 〈◊〉 't was eyther because the Eastern Churches were a larger and more noble part of the Church vniuersall then the Africans were or because the Africans first receiued the Gospell from them as St. Austin also testifieth in the same place and not that they were such a roote of the whole Catholique Church as Kome was or in all properties pertaining to a roote equall to Rome That 's only the Relatours voluntary supposition and mistaken inference 4. Nor will his speculation hold wherby he distinguishes the essence of the Church from its existence and makes that vnity which is an attribute of ENS to be the roote and matrix of the Church For first in true Philosophy the essence of a thing is not really 〈◊〉 from its existence Secondly because in this sense of his the Church should rather be the roote and matrix of vnity then vnity the roote and matrix of the Church for vnity as an attribute flowes from ENS and not ENS from it as like wise in naturall Philosophy all Properties flow from their subiects and not their subiects from them Thirdly what vnity does our Aduersary here speake of when he tells vs ENS and VNVM beeing and beeing one are conuertible This is Metaphysicall vnity only entitatiue vnity But is that all the vnity the Bishop acknowledges to be necessary in the Church if not why is that only mention'd here and no other Christians when they dispute and teach that the Church is one vnderstand sure a further vnity then this namely a morall vnity an vnity of minde and iudgement touching the verityes of Christian Religion and not only an vnity of nature definition and essence This therfore was 〈◊〉 to equiuocate or mistake 〈◊〉 in the business But wee pass it by as likewise wee doe the remaynder of the paragraph as beeing farc'd only with assertions without proose or with proofs against no Aduersary 5. As St. Cyprian ought to be commended for his exhorting those who crauelled to Rome to acknowledge and maintaine the ROOTE and MATRIX of the Catholique Church soe did the Jesuit well to persuade the lady to doe the same Of whose Counsell by the report of Mr. 〈◊〉 she made thus farre good vse that vpon this and the precedent conferences the rested in iudgement fully satisfy'd of the truth of the Roman Churches Fayth yet vpon frailtie and feare to offend the king she yeelded for a while to goe to Church for which she was 〈◊〉 very sorry The Relatour seems willing enough to haue 〈◊〉 all this if he had know'n how but not beeing able to doe that he contents himselfe to 〈◊〉 it as suspicious and 〈◊〉 as he can 〈◊〉 it were so or no. He 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 that honourable 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 in conscience and iudgement nor 〈◊〉 it were feare or 〈◊〉 or other 〈◊〉 that made hor yeeld to goe to Church nor how sorry she was for it nor who can testifie that sorrow The Bishop knowes none of all these particulars Well it is sufficient that others did and doe know them Howeuer he confidently tells vs the lady would more 〈◊〉 be able to answer to God for her coming to Church then for leauing the Church of England To which when A.C. takes modest exception and only tells him that he neither doth proue nor can proue it to be lawfull for one especinlly so persuaded as the lady was to goe to the Protestant Church the Bishop sharply replies there 's a 〈◊〉 deale of cunning and as much malice in this passage of A. C. But where I pray 〈◊〉 eyther the
doth not with any presumption signify that a man is a Protestant which falls out otherwise in England For here it hath always been held a conformity to and with the Protestant Religion professed in England to goe to Church and therfore not allowed by any of our Diuines who neuer giue way to the profession of false doctrine Now who is more guilty of dissimulation in Religion which the Bishop charges vpon some of our partie then the Bishop himselfe Doth he not § 35. punct 5. professedly allow possibility of Saluation to such Catholiques as doe both wittingly and knowingly associate themselues euen to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church and such as come euen neere to Idolatrie only because they beleeue the Creed and hold the Foundation what is this but to teach it lawfull at least no sinne excluding Saluation to ioyne ones selfe outwardly to a superstitious Church in a superstitious false and euen Idolatrous way of worshipping God contrary to ones knowledge and constience only for some temporall and worldly respects and consequently that men are not alwayes bound to seeme and appeare as they are but sometimes at least may haue liberty to weare a masque But certainly that which followes is a most strange and inconsequent Paradox if euer any was Jf the Religion of Protestants sayes the Bishop be a know'n false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too For their Religion meaning Catholiques and Protestants is the same sayth he nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants sett vp a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion and the difference is in certaine gross corruptions to the very endangering of Saluation which each side sayes the other is guilty of What is this but to heape absurdities one vpon an other which of all these propositions is maintainable in any true and proper sense The Religion of Catholiques and Protestants is the same The church of Rome and the Churches of Protestants sett not vp different Religions Christian Religion is the same both to Catholiques and Protestants they are of the same Religion and yet differ in it First are wee of the same Religion because wee agree in some few generall points why might he not as well haue sayd that Arians and all other Heretiques are of the same Religion with vs. by reason of their agreement with vs in some points of Fayth Secondly is Christian Religion J meane in the necessary soundness and integrity of it common both to Catholiques and Protestants what Protestant will affirm that it is and if it be not why would the Relatour trifle and abuse his Reader with such vaine and pernicious amphibologie as he here vseth in a business of so great importance Thirdly if wee Catholiques be of the same Religion with Protestants how can wee be sayd to differ from them in the same Religion as the Relatour here expressly sayes wee 〈◊〉 can I be of the same 〈◊〉 with my neighbour and yet differ from him in the same thing surely if our Religion and that of Protestants be the same wee are not to be sayd to differ but to agree in it vnless our aduersary and his party thinke they may vary the common sense and notion of words at their sole pleasure Beside those points about which vnder the notion of corruptions and errours the Bishop himselfe acknowledges that wee doe differ eyther they are parts of Chrstian Religion or they are not So they be parts of Christian Religion seeing by his own confession wee differ in them from Protestants how is Christian Religion in gross sayd to be common to vs both how is it the same to Catholiques and Protestants If they be not parts of Christian Religion how can wee by reason of them be sayd to differ from Protestants in Religion or in the same Christian Religion But what sayes the Bishop cannot I proue any superstition or errour to be in the Roman Church none at all A.C. it seems had told him so now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome were so happy and the Catholique Church thereby 〈◊〉 with truth and peace For J am confident such truth would soone eyther command peace or confound peace breakers But is there 〈◊〉 superstition in adoration of Images None in Inuocation of Saynts None in adoration of the Sacrament Js there 〈◊〉 errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giuing it but in one kinde None about Purgatory and common prayer in an vnknowen tongue These and many more are in the Roman Religion and 't is noe hard worke to proue euery one of these to be errour or superstition or both Wee answer 't is a harder worke to proue them to be so then barely to affirme them to be so otherwise wee are confident his Lordship would haue been as liberall of his proofs in this kinde as he is of his 〈◊〉 for surely it more imported him to proue then to accuse But wee aske how will his friends and adherents after him proue them to be superstitions and errours By Scripture only who shall be iudge that the places alledged out of Scripture to that purpose beare the sense in which Protestants vnderstand rather then that in which Generall Councills vnderstood them when they defin'd the recited particulars as the present Roman Church beleeues and obserues them at this day when they haue done all they can the finall resolution of the business must according to Protestants be reduced to priuate iudgement which in such matters as these according to St. Austin is most insolent madness Nor doe J see vpon what ground the Relatour could be so confident that if the Roman Church were so happy as to teach nothing but truth to witt in Protestants sense that is to agree with Protestants in condemning the worship of Jmages Jnuocation of Saynts Adoration of the Sacrament Purgatory etc. it would so certainly eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers as he imagins What confusion I pray would it be for such people to disagree from a Church which proclaymes her owne erroneousness to all the world by beginning now to teach contrary not only to her selfe and her own former beleefe but contrary to the generall beleefe of all Christendome beside for many hundred of yeares would not the very alteration of doctrine which in this supposition the Roman Church must necessarily make render it euident to all men that both her selfe and the whole Church of Christ with her may erre and hath erred in points of greatest importance concerning the Fayth what peace-breakers would be confounded with the authority of a Church so apt to fall into errours and superstitions of such dangerous nature Truly for my part I am soe farre from thinking such an impossible case as the Bishop here putts would eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers that is the Authours or Abettours of priuate
and contrary opinions in Religion that I see nothing in the world more likely to animate and encourage them still to persist in their obstinate refractariness and to cast off euen all sense of due obedience and reuerence of the Churches authority 7. But the Bishop beeing so well content as he tells vs with men's opinion of his weakeness it will be no hard worke for his friends to excuse his ouer-confidence in this particular when they please vpon that ground only of pride he is not willing to be taxed For which reason A. C. hauing told him as most iustly he might that he could not proue any errour or superstition to be in the Roman Religion but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himselfe or some of his fellowes to be iudge of controuersies and taking authority to censure all for superstition and errour that suites not with their fancies he complaines as beeing in this deeply censur'd by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appeare I answer his own confession sufficiently shewes that in the very next lines where he sayes indeed if I tooke this vpon mee J were guilty of great pride This that is to make himselfe or some of 〈◊〉 fellowes iudge of controuersies or to endeauour to proue errour and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority vpon him he confesses were great pride Well But how does he cleere himselfe of the charge How does he conuince the Roman Church of errour and superstition otherwise then by taking this authority him and making himselfe or some of his fellows Iudge of Controuersies To say only as he does I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councill iudge of conerouersies by and according to Scripture will not serue his turn by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the generall practice of Protestants hitherto none but himselfe and some of his fellowes shall be iudge whether the Councill be lawfull and free or not For if eyther it consists of such as fauour not their opinions or will not obserue such conditions as he and his fellows thinke good to prescribe though neuer so contrary to the Canons and legall proceedings of former Councils wee are sure enough it will neuer be acknowledg'd for free or lawfull by our Aduersaries Againe standing to the Bishops principles and the common practice of his partie expounding them who but himselfe and his fellowes shall be iudge whether a lawfull and free Generall Councill hath defined or doth define by and according to Scripture Doth not the Relatour himselfe expressly teach § 38. num 15. that if a Generall Councill shall forget it selfe and take vpon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and actually beleeu'd by all neither it nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians euery priuate Christian he sayes num 23. may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils Likewise doth he not tell vs Ibidem num 24. that it is no pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours defin'd by Councils instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran Constance and Trent as hauing made erroneous definitions in matter of Fayth what is this in effect but to teach that noe man is bound to admitt the doctrine defined by Generall Councills meerly for the Authority of the sayd Councills and if not who sees it not manifestly to fallow that cuery priuate Christian that is in other terms himselfe or some of his followes is by our Aduersarie made iudge of Controuersies and allowed to take the Authority vpon them of censuring all for superstition and errour that suites not with their priuate iudgement which is the thing his Lordship but euen now confessed to be great pride But the Relatour will proue from the testimony of A C. himselfe that he is not guilty of pride in this particular viz. of making himselfe Judge of Controuersies etc. For why A C. taxes him for giuing too much power to Generall Councils and binding men to a strict Obedience to them euen in case of errour Therfore sure sayth he most innocent I am of the intolerable pride which he is pleas'd to charge vpon mee J aske is this testimony of A C. true or not If it be not true how can he from a false testimony inferre his own innocency If it be true viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine doth really binde men to a strict obedience to the definitions of Generall Councills euen in case of errour how grossly doth he contradict himselfe when he sayes ' tir noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours euen of Generall Councills and teaches that a priuate man vpon iust grounds may both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils This surely is in effect to deny both internall and externall obedience too to Generall Councils For if wee may deliberately doubt where is internall obedience If wee may constantly denie where is the externall Doth he not also teach Ibidem num 23. that a priuate Christian may not only consider and examin the definitions of Generall Councils both for his own and the Churches satisfaction but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine in such manner as the whole Church shall be oblig'd to call an other Generall Councill to consider of the matter etc How can this be done without expressing dislike or shewing some externall disobedience to the precedent Councill lett our Aduersarie if they please shew how But wee haue already chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subiect To as little purpose is it for him to plead that be submitts his iudgement in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church But that this is a false pretense wee haue all along in this treatise demonstrated but more particularly chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds saying that he submitts vpon new and necessary doubts to the iudgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councill Fairly spoken Vpon new and necessary doubts he will submitt not otherwise But wee must know in the Bishops sense and according to the principles already aduanc'd and resolutely insisted vpon by him noe doubts are necessary but such as concern matters Fundamentall in Fayth that is as he perpetually explaines himselfe absolutely necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all Christians for Saluation So that in all other points of doctrine eyther determin'd and defin'd already or hereafter to be determin'd and defin'd by the Church he does vpon the matter openly profess that he will not submitt to the iudgement of a Generall Councill but follow his own priuate opinion though contrary to it Now what is this but to take vpon him to be iudge of controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills and to censure for superstition and errour what suites not with his priuate fancie 8. But our Aduersarie would haue A.C. consider how iustly all
this may be turned vpon himselfe viz. that be hath nothing to pretend THERE ARE NOT GROSS ERROVRS AND SVPERSTITIONS in the Roman persuasion as he calls it vnless by intolerable pride he make himselfe and his partie iudge of Controuersies But who sees not this is a most palpable vntruth All the world knows that A. C. and all his party submitt with most absolute humility of judgement to the desinitions of Generall Councills and so haue euer done A. C. makes not himselfe iudge of controuersies betwixt him and his Aduersaries but a lawfull Generall Councill yea all the lawfull Generall Councills that euer the Church had or esteem'd such To them he appeales to them he stands lett Protestants doe as much and the controuersies would not be hard to be ended So vtterly false it is what the Bishop affirms here that We will he iudg'd by none but the ` Pope and a Councill of his ordering Doe the Relatours Adherents thinke there was euer a Generall Councill in the Church well ordered lett them name it wee stand to its sentence Neither doe wee require that any Councill should be of the Popes ordering further then the Canons of the Church doe allow him and his Predecessours haue in effect done in all Generall Councills euen the fowre first True it is A. C. and all Catholiques with him acknowledge noe Councill to be a lawfull ludge of controuersies vnless it be approu'd and confirm'd by the Pope but in this there is noe pride For the right of confirming the decrees of Generall Councills wherein controuersies of Fayth are judged hath euer belong'd to St. Peters Successor as wee haue already shew'n and St. Austin Epist 62 with the whole Councill of Mileuis professes it to be grounded on Scripture yea the Canons of the vniuersall Church doe expressly allow it him witness euen Socrates himselfe noe very great friend of the Roman Church Sozomen with others and in the Generall Councill of Chalcedon Action 1. Dioscorus no meaner person then the Patriarch of Alexandria is for this very reason deny'd the priuiledge of sitting in Councill because he had presum'd to hold a Generall Councill to witt the predatory or pretended second Councill of Ephesus without the Popes Authority a thing which as the Fathers there acknowledge was neuer lawfull to doe nor euer done before NVNQVAM LICVIT NEC VNQVAM FACTVM EST. Why therfore shall A. C. be tax'd of pride if he beleeues the doctrine of the Roman Church to be true vpon the Authority of Generall Councills confirm'd by the Pope who sees not a great deale of difference betwixt him and his Aduersary in this regard A. C. in his vnderstanding of Scripture followes the exposition of Generall Councills the Bishop relyes vpon no interpretation but this own teaching that Generall Councills may erre in their exposition of Scripture euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation A. C. acknowledges he can be infallibly certaine of nothing in matter of Fayth by the bare letter of Scripture and the light of his own vnderstanding only the Bishop is confident that by the letter of Scripture only and his owne iudgement he can be infallibly assur'd of all necessary points of Fayth A. C. is ready to submitt his iudgement to a Generall Councill in any point of doctrine whatsoeuer seeming reasons or grounds he may priuately haue to the contrary the Bishop allowes a man vpon probable grounds to doubt and vpon cleerer grounds to deny and oppose the definitions of such a Councill A.C. thinks it an vngodly presumption to taxe Generall Councills of errour and superstition the Bishop makes noc scruple to censure diuerse of them for damnable errours A. C. holds it altogether vnlawfull for any Christian to dissent from the Catholique Church in any point of defined doctrine whatsoeuer great or small the Bishop maintaines that the whole Catholique Church may erre both grossly and dangerously in all points not Fundamentall and that all priuate Christians who vnderstand or perceiue such errours to be in the Church may dissent yea if need be that is if the Church will not reforme the sayd errours vpon their admonition separate from her as Luther and his followers did when they first began their reformation Lett any indifferent person then be iudge whether that which A.C. charges vpon the Bishop concerning pride and taking vpon him to be iudge of Controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills may be as iustly turned vpon himselfe as the Relatour here pretends His next Paragraph only tells vs what was the conclusion of his first-publish't Relation of the conference with Mr. Fisher wherein he falls againe to his wonted custome of charging his Aduersary indirectly at least with what he does not own A. C. doth not maintaine the Pope to be infallible in all controuersies of Fayth otherwise then in and with a Generall Councill witness his own words in the end of his answer I wish sayth he the Chaplain and his lord and euery other man carefully to consider whether it be not more Christian etc. to thinke that the Pope beeing St. Peters Successour WITH A GENERALL COVNCILL should be iudge of Controuersies and his Pastorall iudgement viz. in and with such a Councill be accounted infallible then to make euery man that can read Scripture an interpreter of Scriptures and decider of Controuersies euen to the controuling of Generall Councills or to haue noe iudge in controuersies of Fayth at all This is the summe of all that A. C. teaches touching the Popes infallibility and if the Bishop could really thinke this to be such a brayne-sicke deuice as he talks of I doubt it will be thought by some that his own head was not alwayes in good temper 9. A. C. to shew that in matters of Fayth wee ought to submitt our iudgements to such doctours and Pastours as by a continuall visible succession haue without interruption or change brought the Fayth down from Christ and his Apostles to these our dayes and shall by vertue of Christs promise in the like continued succession so carry it downe to all future generations till the end of the world makes vse of that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. etc. where 't is sayd that Christ ascending gaue some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saynts for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till wee all come in the vnity of the Fayth and of the knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a perfect man etc. 'T is true some from this place gather the Popes infallibility too as well as the necessary succession of lawfull Pastours because it is intimated there shall be noe more wanting in the sacred Hierarchy of the Church the office of of an Apostle then the office of a Pastour or teacher till the end of the world Now to the office of an Apostle two things are necessary viz.
haue pretended to be Pope neither hinder nor make voyde the legitimate and necessary succession of the Roman Church as Doctor Stapleton maintaines it For first euen when differences did happen there was for the most part a lawfull Pope presently chosen vpon the vacancy so that the succession of the Roman Bishops was not at all broken off or interrupted in this case And for the guilt of Schisme if any were it lay only on their part who willfully opposed the lawfull Pope after he was sufficiently declar'd Secondly when it so happened that eyther a lawfull Pope was not presently chosen or that it was not certainly know'n which of the pretending parties was the lawfull Pope yet neither in this case was the succession itselfe euacuated as any man in reason may see but only suspended for a while or the euidence thereof as to the person succeeding pro tempore obstructed For eyther by death or by cession and resignation of the pretendants themselues or by depriuation of those whose elections were notoriously illegitimate or by some other lawfull and Canonicall meanes first or last the right of election to the Apostolique dignity was always cleer'd of doubt and legally settled vpon one person whome therevpon the whole Church presently acknowledg'd for true Pope And as for the Interregnum as wee may call it or the time that such Contestations about the Popedome lasted though it were an vnhappy state of the Church to be so diuided within it selfe yet for the most part there was noe formall Schisme on eyther part For neither did the Anti-popes themselues properly speaking separate from the Catholique or Roman Church so as to deny its Authority but only contested for a time with the person of that was lawfull Pope and vpon a presumption at least pretended that themselues were Pope and not he And though there had been formall Schisme on their part yet seeing there was none on his part that was true Pope what man can be soe vnreasonable as to thinke that the fault of pretenders could preiudice the lawfull succession of him that was rightly chosen Now our Aduersaries wee hope know that the line of succession is continued not by the Anti-popes but by the true Popes To which wee may adde that in all such cases viz. of contestations about election to the Papacy when the matter was really dubious as it was not of any absolute necessity for the Church or the seuerall prouinces of Christendome to acknowledge eyther the one or the other pretendant for true Pope so it was lawfull for them to acknowledge him for such whome they did bonâ fide and prudently iudge to haue been lawfully chosen The superstitions he talks of in the end of this Paragraph are 〈◊〉 layd to our charge and though they were euen iustly charged vpon vs yet seeing by his own principles and profession they are not inconsistent with true Fayth necessary to saluation 't is euident they cannot be vrged by him as an Argument to intringe and nullify the perpetuall succession of Pastours in the Roman Church 12. To A. C. friendly and serious aduice that his Lordship would consider carefully whether it be not more Christian and less brain-sicke to thinke that St. Peters successour together with a Generall Councill should be an infallible iudge of controuersies in matters of Fayth then to make euery man that can but read Scripture an interpreter of it and a decider of Controuersies or to haue noe iudge at all in such matters the Bishop answers that he hath consider'd all this carefully and findes himselfe no way chargeable with the inconveniencies which A. C. specifies of making euery priuate man iudge of Controuersies and a Controuler of Generall Councils or else of admitting noe iudge at all to determin such Controuersies His reason is because he admitts Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church and a lawfull and free Generall Councill determining according to them to iudge of Controuersies and holds that noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these But here the Bishop himselfe is in the briers For tell mee I pray how does this doctrine noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these consist with what he professedly auowes * elsewhere as wee haue often seen that priuate Christians may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions euen of Generall Councils and that if they erre grossly and dangerously as in his opinion they may and haue done 't is noe pride to refuse submission to them Is not this to make priuate men iudges of these things that is to say whether or noe Generall Councils doe determine according to Scripture and the Primitiue Church A thing which the world sees all Protestants doe take vpon them to iudge and the Bishop himselfe as freely as any notwithstanding his great but feigned profession here to the contrary and vtter disclayming from that desiunctiue imputation of eyther a priuate iudge or noe iudge Jn the very next line he openly professes he cannot swallow this proposition that the Pope with a Generall Councill should be iudge Yet the Primitiue Church did not only swallow this proposition but also very well relish it witness its willing and absolute submission to the sowre first Generall Councils consirm'd by the Pope as iudges of those grand and Fundamentall Controuersies that were then agitated and allowing noe priuate man to examin and consider their definitions whether they were consonant vnto Scripture or not He should haue done well to haue told vs what other iudge but this the Pope with a Generall Councill in Controuersies of Fayth the Church hath had what other iudge but this euer was or indeed can be acknowledg'd for such matters And thersore if this iudge be not admitted and that absolutely by vs 't is certain eyther no iudge at all will be found to end these Controuersies or in the finall deuolution of the business euery priuate man will be made iudge The Relatour had he pleas'd might haue found a sufficient answer in Bellarmin to the matter he brings out of AEneas Syluius otherwise called Pope Pius the second namely that he retracted in his maturer age and vpon better consideration what he had formerly as it were in his youth out of heate of contention and vpon presumption of Scholasticall learning written vpon the subiect of the Popes Authority in reference to Generall Councils Neither can the meere want of learning which the Bishop here obiects to some Popes be any sufficient preiudice against their authority nor hinder the operation and assistance of the holy Ghost from concurring with them and working by them in all cases necessary The Apostles themselue and many worthy Bishops in the Primitiue Church were persons of noe great learning and 't is the counsell and wisedome of God for the most part to chuse the weake things of this world to confound the strong and the foolish things of this world to confound the wise
Nor doe wee make the infallibility of the Church to depend vpon the Pope alone as the Relatour perpetually insinuates but vpon the Pope and a Generall Councill together So that if this be granted by our Aduersaries wee shall acquiesce and require no more of them because this only is matter of Fayth 13. But neither the Pope by himselfe alone nor a Generall Councill with him doe euer take vpon them to make new articles of Fayth properly speaking but only expound and declare to vs what was before Yome way reueal'd eyther in Scripture or the vnwritten word Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority that wee are oblig'd vnder paine of eternall damnation neither to deny nor question any doctrine of Fayth by them propos'd to be bclceued by vs. This vnder Christ is the true Foundation of the Catholique Church and Religion Whosoeuer goes about to lay any other and to erect superstructures vpon it will finde in the end that he layd but a sandy Foundation and rais'd a tottering edisice which will one day fall vpon his own head and crush him to his vtter ruine Lett this therfore remaine as a settled conclusion that the Catholique Church is infallible in all her definitions of Fayth and that there is noe other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace which the Bishop will seeme so much to haue laboured for in his lifetime J beseech God to giue all men light to see this truth and grace to assent vnto it to the end that by liuing in the militant Church with vnity of Fayth wee may all come at last to meete in glory in the triumphant Church of Heauen which wee may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Sauiour Jesus-Christ to whome with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glorie world without end AMEN An Alphabetical Table of the most remarkable matters contained in this Book Apostles CHrists promises to his Apostles when extendible to their Successours and when not page 103 The Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible not by Scripture but by their Miracles page 56 57 As necessary for the Church in some cases that the Apostles Successors be guided and settled in all Truth as the Apostles themselves page 103 104 Appeals The Canons of the Council of Sardica expresly allow Appeals to Rome page 194 195 Appeals to Rome out of England anciently practised page 189 From all parts of Christendom in St. Gregories time page 〈◊〉 Councils that restrain them look onely at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing page 194 What the Council of Carthage desir'd of the Pope in the matter of Appeals Ibid. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden to Appeal to Rome page 188 Authority No Authority meerly Humane absolutely Infallible page 123 Nor able sufficiently to warrant the Scriptures Infallibility Ibid. Divine Authority necessary for the Belief of Scriptures Infallibility and what that is page 64 65 69 Authority of the Church sufficient to ground Infallible Assent page 75 78 108 The supream Authority of One over all as necessary now as ever page 207. And will be so to the end of the world Ibid. Authors Either misalledg'd or misinterpreted by our Adversary page 4 7 8 9 10 22 47 80 81 98 113 118 134 135 136 137 138 139 143 175 187 193 201 202 204 210 218 222 240 248 309 310 Baptism INfant-Baptism not evidently exprest in Scripture nor demonstratively prov'd from it page 51 52 53. Acknowledg'd for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin p. 26 53 67 That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Bishops Not meerly the Popes Vicars or Substitutes page 219 224 They govern in their own right and are jure divino Pastours of the Church no less then the Pope Ibid. Yet by the same law of God under the Pope Ibid. In what sense it may be said that all Bishops are equal or of the same merit and degree in the Ecclesiastical Priesthood page 222 The Bishop of Canterbury made Primate of England by the Pope p. 190 Universal Bishop The title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop anciently given to the Popes page 196 But never assum'd or us'd by them Ibid. Us'd by the Patriarchs of Constantinople but never lawfully given them page 196 What the more ancient Patriarchs of that Sea intended by their usurpt title Ibid. The Sea of Constantinople alwayes subiect to that of Rome page 196 197 198 In what manner Gregory the seventh gave the title of Universal Bishop to his Successors page 199 Likewise in what manner Phocas the Emperor might be said to give it Ibid. Catholick THe several Acceptions of the word Catholick page 130 Causally the particular Church of Rome is styl'd the Catholick and why Ibid. No such great Paradox that the Church in general should be styled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome Ibid. In what sense 't is both true and proper to say the Roman-Catholick Church page 132 Certainty No absolute Certainty of any thing reveal'd by God if the Churches Testimony be not Infallible page 29 30 Moral Certainty even at the highest not absolutely Infallible p. 123 Church The Church cannot erre and General Councils cannot erre Synonymous with Catholicks page 19 20 177 The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in it self but more certainly known to us page 21 24 How the Churches Definition may be said to be the Churches Foundation page 35 Nothing matter of Faith in the Churches Decrees but the naked Definitions page 64 What the ground of Church-Definitions in matter of Faith is and must of necessity ever be page 230 Roman Church The Principality of the Roman Church deriv'd from Christ. p. 183 The Roman Churches Tradition esteem'd of old the onely Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine page 202 No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church page 212 No Errours or Abuses in Religion at any time more imputable to the Roman then to the whole Catholick Church of Christ. page 142 The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman p. 190 191 The Roman Churches Defining of Superstructures or Non-Fundamental Points no cause of Schism page 332 The Roman Church rightly styl'd the Root and Matrix of the Catholique page 391 392 393 394 395 Church of Hierusalem Why with some others styled sometimes mother-Mother-Church p. 389 390 and why Pamelius in his list of those Churches might reckon them before the Roman page 397 Contradictions Slipt from our Adversaries pen. page 51 54 70 83 90 99 112 124 146 150 223 249 308 310 Councils General and Oecumenical Councils of how great Authority page 32 The most proper remedy for errours and abuses that concern the whole Church page 165 National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith without consulting the Apostolick Sea page 164 166 167 168 To confirm General Councils no Novelty but the Popes ancient Right page 215 The Churches
Damned page 336 Heresies Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense by St. Austin and the Churches account page 17 Pelagian Heresie not condemned in the Council of Ephesus page 33 Nor in any other General Council acknowledg'd by Protestants Ibid. Heresie what it is page 178 Properly speaking not within but without the Church page 218 Hereticks Those of former times as great Pretenders to Scripture as Protestants page 50 Faith necessary to be kept with Hereticks the constant Tenet of all Catholicks page 152 Jews THe Jews prov'd the Old Testament to be Gods Word the same way that we Catholicks do the New page 121 They held not the Old Testament for their sole Rule of Faith page 122 Images No real difference betwixt the Ancient and the Modern Church of Rome in point of Images page 294 The Second Council of Nice expresly forbad the Worship of Images with Latria or Divine Worship Ibid. c. The Definition of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images Ibid. The Church hath done what in her lyeth to prevent abuses in Image-Worship Ibid. Images in common use and veneration amongst Christians in Primitive Times page 295 296 Index The Index Expurgatorius justified against the Bishops Calumnies page 342 Infallible The Catholick Church prov'd to be Infallible by the same Means that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were prov'd such page 55 56 62 In what sense Catholicks maintain that the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive and Apostolical p. 80 No Means to be Infallibly sure of Prime Apostolical Tradition if the present Church be Fallible page 83 Necessary for the Church to have power to determine Infallibly as well Not-Fundamental as Fundamental points page 385 Infallibility Whence the Infallibility both of the Catholick Church and General Councils proceeds page 43 The Infallibility of the present Church prov'd from Scripture page 101 102 c. page 177 178 179 In what manner the Churches Infallibility in Teaching is rightly infer'd from the Holy Ghosts Assistance page 375 376 Intention What kinde of Intention in the Priest is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments page 281 282 283 No real Inconveniencies following the Catholique Doctrine touching the Priests Intention page 284 285 Judge Our Adversaries demand of a Third person to be Judge and Umpire betwixt the Roman Church and Them nugatory and frivolous pag. 157 171 172 173 The notorious partiality of English Protestant Prelats in this case p. 174 General Councils by the Bishops own confession the best Judge on earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted page 213 A visible supreme living Judge to determine Controversies as necessary in the Church as State page 219 Legats NEither Hosius nor any other person presided at the Council of Nice but onely in quality of the Popes Legats page 231 Why the Pope sent no Legats to the second Council at Constantinople page 232 At the Council of Ephesus St. Cyril presided as Legat to Pope Celestin. Ibid. The like was at Chalcedon and other General Councils Ibid. Limbus Patrum The Fathers generally teach Limbus Patrum page 336 Literae Communicatoriae The Literae Communicatoriae by whom first ordain'd and to what end page 220 They evidently prove the Popes Authority Ibid. The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope and Those granted by other Catholique Bishops Ibid. Lyturgie The English Lyturgie why unlawful to be us'd by Catholiques page 319 Manichees GReat Braggers and pretenders to Truth when they most oppos'd it page 30 Miracles None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures either Protestant or Catholique page 109 Miracles rather confirm the Churches Infallibility then the Scripture's page 110 They are always sufficiently convincing though they do not actually convert page 115 Monarchy That of the Church not a pure but mixt Monarchy page 219 224 Monarchy acknowledg'd by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government page 220 The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church to what it tends page 224 Multitude Catholiques make not Multitude alone any Infallible Mark of the True Church page 162 Necessary POints said to be Necessary to Salvation in a double sense p. 15 92 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation to believe Scripture p. 91 92 Nice No Synod held at Rome in the time of the Nicen Council page 237 The Council of Nice of absolute Authority without the concurrence of any other Council Ibid. The Council of Sardica esteem'd anciently but an Appendix of the Council of Nice and the reasons why page 194 195 The probable occasion of Pope Zosimus his citing the Council of Nice for that of Sardica Ibid. Obedience NO External Obedience to be given to the Definitions of General Councils should they manifestly erre against Scripture and Demonstration page 241 242 Object of Faith Material and Formal a necessary Distinction page 15 18 What it imports Ibid. Patriarchs IN point of Authority not Equal to the Bishop of Rome p. 183 184 The Bishop of Rome Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs by the very Canon of the Council of Nice Ibid. The Popes Confirmation requir'd to all new-elected Patriarchs Ibid. Eight several Patriarchs depos'd by the Bishop of Rome Ibid. Other Patriarchs restor'd to their Seas by the Popes Authority Ibid. St. Peter In what manner St. Peter represented or bare the person of the whole Church when he receiv'd the Keyes Matth. 16. 19. page 266 267 Christs whole flock more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter then to the other Apostles page 211 Pope The Popes Authority alwayes included and suppos'd in that of the Church pag. 33 The Infallibility of the Pope not necessarily tyed to the particular Church or city of Rome page 132 Catholiques not oblig'd to maintain the Pope Infallible save onely with a General Council page 133 143 In what manner the Popes trewhile indur'd the Emperours censures page 192 The Popes Authority duly acknowledg'd would effectually prevent Heresies and preserve Unity in the Church page 218 The Popes Greatness no effect of Humane Policy page 13 Nor of his Residence in the Imperial-City page 192 The Definition of the Council of Florence touching the Popes Authority page 228 229 The Popes Authority not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes p. 223 Pope Alexander the Third and Pope Innocent the Third not contrary to one another in the cause of Peter Lombard page 279 Pope Honorius not really guilty of the Monothelites Heresie p. 279 280 Priest The judgement of the High Priest and his Sanhedrim in Controversies concerning the Law Infallible under the Old Testament p. 97 123 Prescription Justly pleaded by Catholiques for their Religion not so by Protestants page 333 334 Primacy PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what they signifie especially in Ecclesiastical sense page 200 Primacy inferrs Supremacy and belongs to St. Peters Successors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself Ibid. Protestants Neither Scripture nor any other
point of Christian Religion believ'd by Protestants with Divine Faith page 125 126 127 352 Their Protestation at Auspurgh 1529. directly against the Roman Church and her Doctrine page 146 147 To Protest against the Roman Church in the manner they then did was to Protest against all True visible Churches in the world page 147 Protestants are Chusers in point of Faith as much as any other Heretiques page 353 How far Protestants relie upon the Infallible Authority of the whole Church Ibid. Why unlawful for Catholicks in England to go to Protestant Churches page 401 Purgatory The Council of Florence unanimous in defining the point of Purgatory page 358 The Fathers as well within the first 300. years as after constantly teach Purgatory p. 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 No real difference betwixt praying for the Dead us'd by the Ancients and praying for the Dead us'd by the Roman Church at present p. 360 361 The Testimonies of the Fathers in proof of Purgatory made good page 358 c. ut supra Purgatory rightly esteem'd an Apostolical Tradition page 370 Reformation ALwayes and professedly intended by the Popes themselves in what was really needful p. 147. effected by the Council of Trent Ibid. The Church of Juda no pattern of the Protestants Reformation p. 160 The Parallel for them holds better in the revolted Tribes page 161 Sacriledge the natural fruit of Protestant Reformation page 170 Regicide No doctrine of Catholicks page 212 348 Resolution of Faith How Catholiques do necessarily resolve their Faith into the Churches Definition and how not page 58 60 63. How such and such Books contain'd in the Bible are known to be the word of God page 59 122 No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in the Resolution of their Faith page 55 62 117 126 In urging the Circle both parties must be suppos'd to believe Scripture with Divine and Infallible Faith page 111 The Bishop in his Resolution cannot avoid the Circle page 64 111 Revelation The Churches Testimony or Definition no New nor Immediate Revelation from God page 58 65 Divine Revelation the onely Formal Object or Motive of Infallible Faith page 59 Safe-Conduct GRanted two wayes jure communi and jure speciali and how they differ page 153 The Safe-Conducts granted to John Huss and Hierome of Prague were meerly jure communi and secur'd them onely against unjust violence Ibid. The Safe-Conduct granted to Protestants by the Council of Trent was jure speciali and as Full and Absolute as themselves could desire or the Council grant page 153 154 The 〈◊〉 of the Council of Constance touching Safe-Conducts granted by Temporal Princes what it intended page 154 156 It contain'd nothing against keeping Faith with Heretiques Ibid. Salvation Attainable in the Roman Faith and Church by our Adversaries own confession page 300 301 c. Catholique Doctors in possibility of Salvation by the Bishops own grounds page 323 324 The Roman Religion demonstrated to be a more safe way to Salvation then that of Protestants page 301 302 303 307 308 Saints Invocation of Saints no Errour in Faith page 290 291 The Fathers teach it ex instituto and Dogmatically Ibid. St. Austin expresly for it Ibid. The Saints Mediatours of Intercession not of Redemption pag. 292 The faithful under the old Testament desir'd to be heard for the merits of Saints no less then we Ibid. The Intercession of Saints departed not derogatory to the Merits or Intercession of Christ. page 293 Schisme Protestants not Catholiques made the present Schisme and how p. 144 145 146 212 Schismes at Rome not in the Roman Church properly speaking p. 144 The true and real causes of Protestants being-Excommunicated by the Roman Church page 145 158 In point of Departure as well as other Circumstances the Parallel betwixt them and the Arians holds good page 145 No just cause assignable for Schisme page 151 Scripture Not believ'd to be Divine but for the Churches Authority p. 17 66 67 Scripture alone can be no sufficient ground of Infallible Assent to Superstructures or non-Fundamental points contained in it page 19 No means of Infallibly-discerning true Scripture from false unless the Church be Infallible page 85 In what cases 't is both lawful and necessary for Christians to riquire a proof that Scripture is Gods word page 118 Scripture alone in the Bishops opinion the whole Foundation of Divine Faith page 116 In what sense Christians must suppose or take it for granted that it is Divine or Gods word page 121 What Light the Scripture must have to shew it self to be Gods Word page 87 The Belief of Scripture for its own pretended Light imprudent p. 88 89 90 91 116 125 The Fathers for some hundred years after Christ 〈◊〉 saw no such Light page 70 91 No reason can be given why Catholicks should not see that pretended Light if there were any such page 90 The Council of Nice made not Scripture their onely Rule of Faith in condemning the Arian Heresie page 125 The Scriptures prerogative above the Church page 60 64 Scripture in a proper sense no first principle p. 51 90 114 118 119 Succession St. James not Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church page 205 Our Saviours Prayer Luc. 22. 32. effectually extended both to St. Peter and his Successours page 208 Lawful Pastours visibly Succeeding each other and handing down the same unchanged Doctrine from Christ to this present time an infeparable mark of the true Church page 410 411 Sound Doctrine indivisible from the whole lawful Succession Ibid. The Popes Succession not interrupted by Contestations about the Papacy page 412 413 Sunday That Sunday be kept Holy instead of the Jewish Sabbath an Apostolical Tradition page 67 Synods The Pope no enemy or opposer of National Synods page 166 Sundry National Synods impertinently alled'gd by the Bishop in point of Reformation page 167 168 169 Tradition NOt known but for and by the Churches Authority page 17 Traditions unwritten page 26 67 What Traditions are to be accounted truly Apostolical and the unwritten word of God page 66 c. Universal Tradition morally speaking less subject to alteration or vitiating tiating then Scripture page 98 Church-Tradition a necessary condition of Infallible Belief page 59 How necessary it is that the Tradition of the present Church should be Infallible page 126 Transubstantiation No errour in Faith page 287 Not inconsistent with the grounds of Christian Religion Ibid. The Thing it self alwayes believ'd by Christians page 288 Evinc'd from the Text. page 288 289 Trent The Council of Trent a lawful and free General Council p. 165 229 Nothing to he objected against it more then against all General Councils Ibid. The Popes presiding therein contrary to no Law Divine Natural or Humane but his undoubted Right page 230 231 232 The Pope no more the person to be reform'd at the Council of Trent then at those of Nice and Chalcedon page 232 The place as indifferently chosen for
not immediately from his Premises viz. that either there is no revelation or Scripture is it For if he would prove that Scripture must be it if there be any by the sole light of Scripture as he hath hitherto pretended I have evidenc'd it to be inconsequent Would he prove Scripture to be that Revelation supposing there be any by the intervention of Church-Tradition assuring us that it is such it is true but Diametrically opposite to his Principles Again he wheels a little about For no man ever deny'd that Scripture is Gods Revelation supposing he hath made Revelations so that in proving this he hurts not his Adversary but his Province was to prove that Scripture onely was Gods Revelation Why then omits he here the word onely which caused the whole Controversie His last Consideration is a dark Meander For the Motives of Credibility he there musters up preceding the light of Scripture are indeed of force to justifie ones Belief that Scripture is Gods Word when 't is receiv'd as the Ancients did receive it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwayes And our present Question is not whether his Lordship does well in believing Scripture to be the Word of God as all those Motives of Credibility here mentioned by him perswade but whether he doth well in teaching that Scripture ought to be believ'd with Divine Faith for its onely inbred light as the formal Object And in this opinion I would gladly know how the recounted Motives can justifie his proceeding For though no man can doubt but most of those Motives may be applied to our Belief in the Articles of our Creed yet in his opinion they will not justifie the Believing those Articles with Divine Faith independently of Scripture which he makes the whole Foundation of believing them with Divine Faith 6. It s worth noting what we hear him now at last acknowledge for all the rest in this page is a meer repetition of what hath been already answered viz. that being arrived to the Light of the Text it self and meeting with the Spirit of God c. then and not before we are certain that Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and Infallible proof So that here he manifestly acknowledges that those who are not arrived to the light of Scripture in it self have no divine nor infallible proof of its being Gods Word and consequently have no Divine Faith of the mysteries of Christian Religion and so are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation which consequences how horridly they will sound in the ears of the unlearned I leave to the Reader And to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and prosess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet and consequently since it is unlawfull to lye and much more in matters of Religion then in others it will also follow that it is unlawfull for any one to teach unlearned persons their Creed and as unlawfull for them either to learn it or rehearse it before they have seen those Articles proved by Scripture For by this word Believe there must be meant as all agree a formal Christian and Divine Faith of those Articles 7. Finally we are told of his Lordships good intention in having proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the Benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all Christianly disposed But he had done much better had he proceeded in an Analytical way for in that was the difficulty namely to assign the first Principle on which our Faith is grounded in the Resolution of Faith which we are far from apprehending by this Synthetical way which confounds the Reader with Multiplicity of Arguments and weakens the Authority of the Church without which he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear Resolutionof Faith Well therefore might A. C. without note of Captiousness require the Analytical way yet give all all due respect to Scripture though the Relatour it seems would willingly insinuate the contrary For the Question being started whether the Scriptures onely or besides them unwritten Traditions were the Foundation of our Faith the Bishop maintain'd the first and A. C. the second Now A. C. could not more directly nor efficaciously overthrow his Lordships Tenet then by proving that the Assurance we have even of Scriptures themselves relyes upon Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which therefore must necessarily be the Foundation of our Faith His endeavour to bring A. C. and us into a Labyrinth like his own of a vicious Circle by retorting the Question which he calls captious it may be because himself was taken in it I have already prov'd ineffectual because both A. C. and our other Authours give the motives of Credibility as a preceding and uncircular ground for the Infallibility of Church-Tradition So that the Relator cannot retort the Question so easily as he imagines nor rid his hands so soon of the Jesuit by demanding How he knows the Testimony of the Church to be Divine and Infallible falsely supposing us to say that the Churches Infallibility is founded upon the Testimony of Scripture and the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church the contrary whereof I have sufficiently deliver'd and declared chap. 5. When therefore he demands how we know the Testimony of the Church to be infallible we answer that we prove it independently of Scripture by the Motives of Credibility immediately shewing it to be evidently credible in it self as the like motives made this point evidently credible to the Faithful heretofore that the Prophets and Apostles were Infallible And 't is evident to any judicious man that herein is not the least shadow of a Circle 8. The Relatour will not yet permit us to put a period to this Question but wrangles with A. C. for telling him what he thought his Lordship said But I had rather dispute what he doth or can say in this matter He expounds his own minde thus That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need no proof in regard of those men who are born in the Church and in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it that the Books commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God But here he ought to have reflected that to make good this supposition so far as to the breeding in us a Supernatural Act of Faith it must also of necessity be supposed at least tacitely that the Scriptures are delivered to us by the Infallible Authority of the Church Wherefore in this assertion that Scripture onely is the Foundation of Faith he contradicts what he ought to have presuppos'd viz.
will become of Ecclesiastical Authority Immunity Liberty c. Every Heretique or Sectary how turbulent and seditious soever if he can but procure a Safe Conduct or the word of some Temporal Prince for his Security shall be exempt from Censure may preach write spread Heresie without check or controul Wherefore the Council sayes no more in effect then is in it self evident viz. that an inseriour Tribunal cannot hinder the proceedings of a superiour But enough of this matter To his Lordships Question why they should go to Rome to a General Council and have their freedom of speech since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing I answer Protestants were never invited to a General Council at Rome to reform the Church that 's a work to which they can pretend no competent Authoriy but they were invited thither to be better instructed and reclaimed from their errours The Roman Church is sufficiently authoriz'd by Saint Paul viz. that though an Angel from heaven should teach otherwayes then shee had taught he ought not to be believ'd In like manner the Fathers in the Council of Trent might with good reason be resolv'd firmly to stick to the Doctrine they had formerly been taught by the Catholique Church notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it either by Bishops or any other person 5. His Lordship goes on and blames both A. C. and F. Campian too for their boldness in saying that no good answer can be given by English Protestants why they refuse to grant a publique Disputation to Catholicks The Bishop thinks it a very good Answer to say that the Church of England hath no reason to admit of a publique Dispute with us till we be able to shew it under the Seal and Powers of Rome that the Roman Church will submit to a Third who may be an indifferent Judge between Catholicks and Protestants or to such a General Council as is after mentioned But I would fain know who this Third indifferent Judge should be If he prove an Heretique or Schismatique he will hardly be found indifferent 't is to be fear'd he will be partial in the cause Perchance he shall be some Atheist Turk or Jew Judges fitly chosen indeed to sit upon the Church of God But would his Lordship think you have taken it for a satisfactory Answer if some Brownist or other Sectary in his time upon his Lordships vouchsafing to dispute with them in hope to reduce them to union and obedience should have answered we will admit a Dispute provided your Lordship and the rest of your Prelatical Church of England will accept of a Third to be Judge between you and us might not the Arrians or any other Ancient Heretiques have as well required a Third to judge between them and Catholiques in Controversies wherein they differed Yea may not every known Rebel upon the like pretense demand a Third to be Judge between him and the King his Sovereign and in case of refusal remain obstinate in his rebellion even as well as the Protestants do persist in their spiritual Disloyalty to the Vicar of Christ because a Third person is not accepted to be Judge between him and them To what he intimates of a General Council we say if it be a lawful one viz. call'd and approv'd by the Pope as Head of the Church as all lawful General Councils hitherto have been we shall never refuse to submit to it but heartily wish that all the Relatours party would do the same CHAP. 13. Protestants no part of the Church ARGUMENT 1. How the Separation of Protestants from the Church was made 2. Whether the Roman-Catholiques or They do imitate the Ten Tribes 3. The Roman Doctrin concerning the Holy Ghosts Proceeding c. more antient then the Bishop pretends 4. In what cases Particular Churches may declare Articles of Faith 5. The word Filioque when added to the Creed and why 6. No Particular Church hath power to reform what is universally taught and receiv'd 7. The Protestants Synod at London 1562. neither General nor Free 8. Gerson and all his other proofs fail the Bishop 9. Protestants never yet had either true Church or Council 1. WE are again told that Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out by her without cause What the cause of their expulsion was we have already declar'd and shall not refuse here again briefly to repeat It was because by their Heretical doctrine and Schismatical proceedings they had first separated themselves from the Church and became both unworthy and uncapable any longer of her Communion They had raised a new Separate and mutinous Faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholique or general Body of the Church They had chosen to themselves new Pastors independent of any ordinary and lawful Pastours of Christs Church that were before them They had instituted new Rites and Ceremonies of religion fram'd new Liturgies or Forms of Divine Service They had schismatically conven'd in several Synods or Conventicles and there broacht new Heretical Confessions of Faith contrary not only to the true Catholique Faith but to the Faith of all particular Churches what ever existent in the world immediately before they began Thus Protestants of themselves first departed from the Churches Doctrine and Communion and persisting obstinate in their evil opinions and practises the Church was forc'd to proceed against them according to the Canons and by just censure cast them out of her bosom lest otherwise by their scandalons division high disobedience and pestilent doctrine they might further infect the Flock of Christ which was committed to her charge The Bishop denies he ever granted that Protestants did first depart otherwise than he had before expressed § 21. num 6. But that is enough he there acknowledges that an actual separation at least was made by Protestants and A. C. here asserts no more Whether this actual separation were upon a just cause preceding as the Relatour pretends is a thing to be disputed between A. C. and him although indeed it be of it self clear enough to any who duly considers it that Protestants neither had nor could have any just cause for such a Separation as A. C. pag. 55 56. and all Catholiques do charge them with For it was a Separation not onely from the Church of Rome but as Calvin himself Epist. 14. confesses à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a Separation necessarily involves separation from the True Catholique Church from which as it hath been often urg'd already even by the confession of Protestants themselves 't is impossible there should ever be just cause to separate The Bishop grants that Corruption in manners onely is no just cause to make a separation from the Church of God yet cannot forbear to have a fling at the corrupt manners of the Church of Rome quoting for that purpose Dr. Stapleton But I wonder our Adversaries take notice of
contrary hee beeing so great a Champion of the Bishop of Rome's Authority as to assert his Infallibility in defining ex Cathedra euen without a Council and Chap. 48. ibidem teaches that the particular Roman Church as consisting only of the Pope and his Clergie cannot erre by reason of that priviledge obtain'd by our Sauiours prayer Luke 22. 32. for St. Peter and his successors What therefore the Bishop cites out of him for his purpose is nothing to the purpose Waldensis meaning only vnlawfull Councils as appeares by his instancing in no other then the Council of Arimini assembled by an Arian Prefect vnder an Arian Emperour and that of Constantinople vnder Justinianus Minor which Pope Sergius expressly condemned Whereas the Bishop sayes it Seems strange to him this Proposition euen in terms A GENERALL COVNCIL CANNOT ERRE should not bee found in any one of the Fathers J answer 't is sufficient the full sense of that Proposition is found in them as wee haue shew'n in theyr Texts aboue-alledged and it might seeme as strange to mee that this Proposition if it were true viz. Generall Councils can erre in definitions of fayth is not to bee found in any one of the Fathers Jn the next place hee vrges that St Austin makes it the Prerogatiue of scripture alone that whatsoeuer is found written therein may neither bee doubted nor disputed whether it bee true or right But the letters of Bishops may not only bee disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more wise and learned then they or by Nationall Councills and Nationall Councils by Plenary or Generall and euen Plenary Councils themselues may bee amended the former by the latter Vpon which words of St. Austin the Bishop seems to triumph telling vs t' was no news with St. Austin that a Generall Councill might erre and therfore inferiour to scripture which may neither bee doubted nor disputed where it affirms And if it bee so sayth hee with the definition of a Council too viz. that it may neyther bee doubted nor disputed where is then the scriptures Prerogatiue J answer the Relatour does here canere triumphum ante victoriam for though t is true that the scriptures haue no small Prerogatiue aboue Councils wherein nothing is of necessity to bee beleev'd as matter of fayth but the naked Definition it selfe whereas in scripture euery thing euen the least sentence is to be beleev'd with Diuine fayth yet it is cleere that it cannot bee S. Austins meaning that Generall Councils may erre in their Definitions of fayth by what hee frequently deliuers else where namely Tom. 7. 〈◊〉 Baptis contr Donatist where hee expressly teacheth that no doubt ought to bee made of what is by full Decree establisht in a Generall Councill and lib. 7. cap. 5. where hee makes the Definition of a Generall Council and the consent of the whole Church to bee all one against which latter hee tells vs also Epist. 118. ad Januar. t is not only errour but insolent madness for any one to dispute Wherfore wee must eyther make St. Austin contradict himselfe or disapproue of our Aduersaries Exposition of this Text. But what is his meaning then you 'll say in what cases may Generall Councils bee sayd to bee amended the former by the latter as this Doctor speaks Truly in no other then these viz. in Matter of fact in Precepts pertaining to Manners and discipline or by way of more full and cleere Explication of what had been deliuered by former Councils which as they are the comon Expositions giuen by Catholique Diuines of this Text of St. Austin so are they indeed most agreable to it and such as without force the very words of the Text taken intirely will beare no other for when doth this Mending happen in St. Austins opinion Cum aliquo rerum Experimento aperitur quod clausum est et 〈◊〉 quod latebat then sayth hee when by SOME EXPERIMENT of Things that comes to bee opened which was shut vp and that know'n which did lye hid Now who is so ignorant as not to know that Experiment hath not place in matter of vniversall Beleefe but belongs properly to Matters of fact and Things intrinsecally vested with the Circumstances of Time place Person c. from which such points of sayth and Generall Doctrines doc abstract and are wholly independent of them St. Austin therfore cannot in reason bee suppos'd to meane that Generall Councils may bee amended the former by the latter in any thing more then in matters of fact precepts of Manners and discipline or in the manner of Explication when by reason of emergent Schismes and 〈◊〉 t' is Experimentally found necessary for the peace of the Church that a fuller and more perfect Declaration bee made of some thing already defined by a former Council as it happened in the Addition of the word filioque to the Creed of the Council of Nice and in diverse other cases But wee must heare the Bishops exceptions against Bellarmin and Stapleton for expounding S. Augustin in the sense wee haue here deliuer'd Hee sayes first They are both out and Bellarmin in a Contradiction for applying the Amendment S. Austin speaks of to Rules of Maners and discipline I answer the Cardinal is in no Contradiction though elsewhere hee averrs that Generall Councils cannot erre in Precepts of Manners for this is no good consequence Generall Coūcils may amend one another in Precepts of māners and discipline ergo they may erre in such matters The reason is because Precepts of Manners and Discipline depend much vpon Circumstances of Time place person c. which varying it often so falls out that what at first was prudently iudg'd fit to bee done becomes afterward vnfitting and when this happens t is out of question one Generall Council may bee amended by another yet neither of them bee iustly tax'd with Errour they both commanding aright according to different Circumstances To what hee obiects against this exposition that St. Austins whole dispute in this place is against the errour of St. Cyprian followed by the Donatists which was sayth hee an Errour in fayth namely that true Baptisme could not bee giuen by Heretiques and such as were out of the Church I answer this euinces nothing against vs. For though this father takes the occasion of his speech from that errour of St. Cyprian and makes a Gradation in the writings of Bishops Prouinciall Nationall and Generall Councils yet t is manifest hee speaks in a different stile in the last place where hee touches on Plenary Councils cleerly pronuncing that the writings or private Bishops may bee reprehended si quid in eis fortè a veritate deuiatum est so hee affirms that Prouinciall and Nationall Councils must yeeld to Generall ones but of these hee only sayes they may bee mended by others when by some experiment of things that is opened which was shut vp and that know'n which lay hid which
't is apparent hee does it only in a lesse proper or Analogicall sense to signifie that by vertue of diuine Assistance and direction such a Conclusion or Definition in regard of precise verity is as infallibly true and certaine as if it were a Prophecy Neither is there any Contrariety in this betweeen Stapleton and Bellarmin for both agree that neither Church nor Council doe publish Jmmediate Reuelations nor create any New Articles of Fayth but only declare and vnfold by their definitions that doctrine which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered Both of them likewise confesse that whether the Principles from which the Church or General Councils deduce their definition haue intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine defined or noe yet the Conclusion or definition it selfe is of infallible verity the holy Ghost so directing the Council that it neuer defines any conclusion to bee of fayth but what is de facto matter reueasd by God eyther in those Principles from which the Council deduces it or at least in some other The Relatours whole Discourse therefore vpon this subiect of Prophecy falls of it selfe to the ground as beeing built vpon a pure I had almost sayd a willfull mistake viz that Stapleton maintaines the Decrees of a Generall Councill to bee Propheticall in a proper sense which hee does not and consequently that it was wholly needless for our aduersary to talke so much of Enthusiasms and tell vs so punctually what Prophecy is what vision and that neither of both are to bee gotten with study and Industry For wee know all this and therfore wee doe not style the definitions of Councils Reuelations or Prophesies or visions or the like but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study and industrie only wee aerre the study and industrie which the Prelats in Generall Councils doe vse for the finding out of Truth is always crowned by God with such success as infallibly preserues them from errour Stapleton goes on and giues vs the reason why a Generall Councill must necessarily bee infallible in the Conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Fayth not of Knowledge and that therfore the Church proposing it to bee 〈◊〉 though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art Meanes or Argument but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost else when wee embrace the Conclusion proposed it would not bee an Assent of Fayth but an Habit of Knowledge To this the Bishop replying seemes to broach a New Doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an Habit of Knowledge To this the replying Bishop seemes to broach a new doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an habit of Knowledg But surely Diuine Fayth is according to the Apostle Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which doe not appeare to wit by the same meanes by which wee giue this assent of Fayth otherwise our Faith would not bee free and meritorious T is true the same conclusion may bee Fayth to one and Knowledge to another according to St. Austin and St. Thomas cited by the Bishop but this must bee vpon different motiues and therfore Fayth as Fayth can neuer bee knowledge which is all that Stapleton vrges The motiues of Credibility then which wee haue for our Fayth doe not by euident demonstration shew the truth thereof though they make it euidently credible in so much as hee would bee imprudent who should refuse to giue his assent So though the Bishop doe truly assert that the Church in all ages hath been able to stop the mouthes of philosophers and other great men of reason when it is at the highest yet this is also true that our sauiour did neuer intend to sett vp a schoole of Knowledge but of Fayth and that Councils in their definitions relie not on any demonstratiue reasons but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost promised to them In like manner the Faythfull ground not themselues on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church but on Gods Reuelation obscurely but certainly and infallibly applyed to them by the Church In the seauenth Consideration the Relatour takes notice againe of a Querie that A. C. made to him viz. if a Generall Council may erre wherein are wee neerer to vnity by such a Council But in stead of giuing a punctuall and direct answer as hee should haue done hee falls a fresh vpon certaine new considerations which hee aduances vpon this subiect whether the Protestant opinion that Generall Councils may erre in defining matters of Fayth or the Catholique opinion that they cannot bee more agreeable to the Church and more able to preserue and reduce Christian peace which in effect is little else but to answer one Querie by many and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth by a gentle turn to lead him back againe through all the Meanders thereof howeuer wee must obserue his Motions 3. His First Querie or Consideration is whether an absolute infallibility bee promised to the present Church or whether such an infallibility will not serue the turn as Stapleton acknowledges I answer no doubt but it will Lett Protestants acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church as that worthy Doctour maintaines and wee shall bee agreed for that matter But the Truth is our Aduersarie does here only confound his reader and wrong the Author hee alledges by not declaring sufficiently in what sense hee speakes For Stapleton in the place cited expressly teaches that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree or Conclusion but also in the Meanes or Arguments and this he calls absolute or exact Infallibility whereas the present Church is only infallible in the Decree or Conclusion and this also it hath by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost yet not by a new Immediate Reuelation Whence it appeares that this Authour is cleere for the Churches Infallibility though hee doe not in all respects equall it to that of the Apostles and consequently that it is not hee but the Bishop himselfe that wriggles in the bussiness vnworthily endeauouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him Bellarmin is vsed no better whose doctrine is cleere that in the Decree or Conclusion a Generall Council is as certaine as the scripture because both are infallible and nothing can bee more certain then what is infallible though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtiues aboue Generall Councils as that it is Gods immediate Reuelation that there not only the Conclusion but Euery thing is matter of Fayth c. which agree not to a Generall Council 4. Howeuer to pass to this second Consideration or Querie wee shall not much quarrel his term of Congruous Infallibility but rest contented if Protestants will acknowledge such an Infallibility in the present Church as is congruous and agreeable to the promises of our sauiour and to the necessities of the Church so as by vertue