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
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
Pope Alexander How sharp-sighted therfore our aduersarie is in his obseruations against vs appeares by this But seeing these forked syllogismes so Dilommas are sometimes called by Logicians are such Currant Coine with his Lordship it will not I hope be thought vnreasonable if wee pay him one for many Thus then I argue Either the Bishop knew his Relation touching Peter Lombard to be false or he know it not If he knew it not his ignorance in a point wherein he would seeme knowing is hardly excusable and his temerity in affirming without sure ground such a thing as this to the scandall of the 〈◊〉 Pastour of the Church and of a synod of three hundred Bishops and Archbishops by his own confession altogether blameable If he knew it to be false and yet would affirme what he did where is his honestie The like is to be sayd of his 〈◊〉 touching Pope 〈◊〉 and the eight Generall Council defining against Honorius there 's a mistake in it For neither did Pope Honorius really maintaine the Monothelites Heresie nor doe wee maintaine but in a question of Fact as this was viz. whether the sayd Pope had really asserted that Heresie both the Pope and a Generall Council through Misinformation or other Jucidents may iudge amiss The Bishop proceeds asking vs in the next paragraph to this effect that since the doctrine of the Popes infallibility had been so easie a way eyther to preuent all diuisions about the Fayth or to end all controuersies of that nature whensoeuer they should arise why this briefe but most necessary Proposition THE BISHOP OF ROME CANNOT ERRE IN HIS JUDICJALL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FAYTH is not to be found in letter or sense in any stripture Council or Father of the Church I answer first that in the sense wherein Catholiques maintaine the Popes infallibility to be matter of necessary beleese to all Christians it is found for sense both in scripture Councils and Fathers as wee haue already sufficiently proued in prouing the infallibility of Generall Councils of which he is the most principall and most necessary member Secondly euen in the sense wherein the Bishop with perpetuall impertinency 〈◊〉 it viz. as it signifies his personall infallibity without a Generall Council who knowes not that the maintainers of that opinion alledge both scriptures Fathers and Councils for it probably at least as may be seen in their 〈◊〉 disputations vpon that subiect To omitt scripture wherein wee confess there is no express mention of the Pope but only of S. Peter in whose Right the Pope succeeds what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doth not that Council seem to say in effect that the Pope is infallible when vpon reading of his 〈◊〉 to them in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Heresie the 〈◊〉 Assembly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out with acclamation and profess that St. Peter who was infallible spake by the mought of Leo and that the Pope was Interpreter of the Apostles voice what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doe not the Fathers in that Council seeme to attribute infallibility to the Pope when they acknowledge that St. Peter was Head and Foundation of the Church and that he STILLL 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 causes of Fayth in and by his successours the Bishops of 〈◊〉 Doth not St. Hierome seeme to make Pope Damasus infallible when speaking of him and his particular Sea he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. vpon this Rocke J know the Church which can 〈◊〉 faile or fall away from the 〈◊〉 Fayth is built Did not St. Austin doe the same with the whole Council of 〈◊〉 when beside their own suffrage which was but of a particular Prouinciall Council they requir'd nothing but the 〈◊〉 sentence only to the full and effectuall condemning of the Pelagian Heresie doth he not speake also to the same effect When he 〈◊〉 that the succession of the Roman Bishops is that very Rock of the Church against which the proude Gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile I might adde St. Cyprian formerly alledged as also St. Leo Pope Innocent the first Pope Gelasius St. Gregory with others but I feare it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their owne cause Beside hauing hitherto wholy declined the defence of that assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope infallible in and with Generall Councils only I haue no obligation to engage further in that business nor can I thinke it any way expedient to make the entrance into Catholique Communion seeme narrower to our aduersaries then in truth it is and of necessity must be maintayn'd to be CHAP. 22. The Bishops vaine endeauour to finde out Errours in Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope ARGVMENT 1. The Councils of Florence and Trent err'd not in defining the Priests intention to be necessary to the validity of Sacraments 2. Why the Popes Confirmation is necessary to the definitions of Generall Councils 3. Transubstantiation no errour nor any such late or new doctrin as the Relatour pretends without shew of proofe 4. Communion under one kinde no errour but the allowed practice of the Church in Primitiue times 5. Inuocation of Saynts no errour but the doctrine and practice of the Fathers 6. Not derogatory eyther to the Merits or Mediation of Christ our Sauiour 7. Adoration or worshiping of Images as allowed by the doctrine of the Church neither Idolatrie nor Errour 8. Optatus both partially and impertinently alledg'd by the Bishop 9. Priuate abuses in this or any other matter not iustly imputable to the Church 10. Cassander qualis vir 11. Llamas misunderstood by the Relatour 1. THe Bishop here and in the Following paragraphs brings in a fresh charge of errours in matter of Fayth committed by such Generall Councils as the Pope confirmed The first in the endictement is that of the Priests Jntention which the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirm'd by the Pope defin'd to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament which the Bishop thinks is an errour But before he goes about to proue it to be such he forgets not to tell vs that the Popes infallibility of which wee talke so much is a vayne and vseless thing Why I pray His reason is for that before the Church or any particular man can make vse of it that is be settled and confirm'd in the truth by meanes thereof he must eyther know or vpon sure ground beleeue that he is infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be beleeu'd of him as he is St. Peter's Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the Relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to haue such certaintie as is sufficient to ground an infallible beleefe Why because the knowledge and beleefe of this depends vpon his beeing truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly baptised none of all which according to our principles can
altogether vnsuspected themselues to be warping in religion he had erroneously and scandalously deliuer'd to the preiudice of Catholique verity As to any matter of abuse in this kinde crept in amongst the ignorant wee haue already shew'n how carefull the Council of Trent was to prouide against and preuent all inconueniences that could reasonably be fore seen or feared And if notwithstanding such diligence on the Churches part there happen something now and then to be amiss eyther through the infirmity of some particular persons or the negligence of others yet neyther is the doctrine or practice of the Church iustly to be blam'd for it nor yet the pious and more discrect deuotion of the rest for this reason to be discountenanced much less prohibited or forbiden Otherwise for the like pretended reason of Abuse and Scandall wee might be thought to stand oblig'd to blott out of the 〈◊〉 those words concerning our Saniour that he sitts at the right hand of God and diuerse Texts out of the Bible it 〈◊〉 Why because that by them ignorant and ill-disposed people haue been formerly and may be still induc'd to thinke that God the Father is of a Bodily Shape and hath a right hand and a left as men haue and likewise to forme to themselues many other false and dangerous conceptions of God Abuses of this nature if any be and whensoeuer they happen must be redressed by better instruction and information but the pious and lawfull custome of the Church must not therefore be abolish'd and quite taken away 11. As for what Llamas a Spanish Authour relates of the people of Asturias Cantabria and Gallicia who were so addicted to their old worm-eaten and ill-fashioned Images that when the Bishops of those Prouinces commanded new ones and bandsomer to be sett vp in their stead they begg'd euen with teares to haue their old ones still J confess there might be some indiscretion in their proceeding but J see noe ground the Bishop hath to taxe them of 〈◊〉 For the people did not cry after the Bishops officers when they remou'd these old Jmages why doe you take away our Gods giue vs our Gods againe or the like as Jdolaters would haue done as well as Laban Genes 31. 30. when he reprehended Iacob for stealing away his Gods Beside what euer was amiss in this kinde as the same Authour testifieth was by a little intruction of their Pastours quickly amended though the Bishop a man it seems of very hard beleefe will not thinke so But why should his Lordship make such difficulty to beleeue what a graue Author reports of his own knowledge As to what he further inferrs from the words of Llamas namely that the Jmages of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Diuinity in them and that wee may 〈◊〉 things of them and put trust in them in that regard my answer is the Bishop always shews himselfe ouer ready to expound our Authors in the worst sense euen many times where there is no rationall pretense This Author sufficiently shews he could haue no such meaning as the Bishop imputes to him what euer his words may seeme to import For in the very place cited by the Bishop he cleerly teacheth that wee ought to worship Jmages according to the Prescript of the Council of 〈◊〉 and how carefull that Council was that all might be duly instructed in this matter and no occasion left euen for the most ignorant and weake to offend by conceiuing or beleeuing any Diuine Power to be in the Jmages or by puting trust in them or crauin any thing of them appeares by the words of the Council already cited and by the Relatours own acknowledgement who stiles the Fathers religiously carefull in that respect Adde hereunto the Prouiso which this Author giues in the same chapter which is that wee ought to aske nothing of the Saynts no not of our B. Lady her selfe otherwise then by desiring them to beg it for vs at Gods hand and that to doe otherwise that is to aske any thing of them as if they were Authors of it or could of themselues alone giue or grant vs the good things wee aske were Jdolatrie Thus therfore wee hope this Author Llamas his intention and true meaning is cleer'd of what the Bishop imputes to him but it will not be amiss to take notice also how weakely the Bishops illation is made out of the sayd Authors words Because Llamas writes that the Images of Christ are not to be 〈◊〉 as if there were Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by art but only as they represent Christ and the Saynts the Relatour inferrs thus So then belike according to the Diuinity of this Casuist a man may worship Images AND ASKE OF THEM AND PVT TRVST IN THEM as they represent Christ and his Saynts But what consequence is this How does it follow that wee may aske of Images and put our trust in them as they represent Christ and his Saynts because wee may worship them as they represent Christ and his Saynts wee many times loue and reuerence a picture for the person it represents and yet noe body is so foolish as to aske any thing of it as it represents that person Wee shew a 〈◊〉 respect to the chaire of state and chamber of Presence for the kings sake yet wee neither make to them any ciuill inuocation nor place confidence in them as they relate to the king Why therfore must it follow that wee may call vpon pictures or Jmages as they represent our Sauiour or the Saints because they may be honour'd or worshiped as they doe represent them Nor is it less ridiculous what the Bishop adds in pursuance of his discourse namely his resoluing this proposition of Llamas The Images of Christ and the Saynts are to be worshiped not as if there were any Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by arte but as they represent Christ and his Saynts into this other The Images of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Deity or Diuinity in them making them both to signifie the same thing For why might he not as well haue resolu'd this proposition The kings picture is to be honour'd not as if there were Souereign Authority in it as it is a materiall thing made by arte but as it represents the king into this other The kings picture as it represents its Exemplar hath Souereign Authority in it The Bishop here surely giues the Reader more cause to suspect his iudgement touching the interpretation of Llamas then vpon his interpretation of him to taxe our Church of Idolatric I conclude it therfore most certain and indubitable that Llamas in the wordes cited by the Relatour intended noe more then to signifie that all worship done to Jmages was Relatiue and not Absolute which is to say that it was exhibited to them not for their own but for their exemplars sake which they represent
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
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
the Bishop translates him and doth not expresly say Semper retinebit it ever holds and not it shall ever hold the true Faith speaking of the Roman Church yet certainly in this place the word retinet coming after these other ab antiquis temporibus habet and having Semper annexed to it must in all reason be understood to relate to the severall Differences of Time past present and to come Sixthly that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alledging of St. Cyril and Ruffinus as holding his opinion about the particular Church of Rome whereas Bellarmin hath not so much as St. Cyrils name in that whole Chapter nor Ruffinus's but onely when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him and when he alledges those two Authors in his third Chapter he expresses both the places and their words but it is to prove another Proposition and that of St. Cyril is a quite different Text from what the Relatour thrusts into his Margent Thus eagerly fights he by Moon-light with his own shadows Seventhly that his Lordship confounds two Questions that are distinct and distinctly treated by Bellarmin viz. Whether the Pope when he teaches the whole Church can erre in matters of Faith which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastour of the Church with this whether the particular Roman Church that is the Roman Clergy and People cannot erre in Faith which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th Chapter Lastly that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus c. Thou art Peter c. cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter as abstracted from his Person but onely to his Person as made in that occasion for and in vertue of that Confession perpetually to endure in him and his Successours THE ROCK of Christs Church But of these hereafter The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question concerning Infallibility whether to be admitted in any Church or not at length in the 20 th page removing St. Peters Chair out of his way and from the City of Rome and disporting himself a while in that particular City or Diocess in a kinde of Raillery upon its Infallibility his Lordship comes to the Greek Church on occasion of some words spoken by a friend of the Ladies in defence of that Church I believe that Friend did a friendly office to the Bishop in giving him a rise for a new Dispute and diverting the Lady from pressing him further for a satisfactory answer to her Querie 4. The question started by this friend was as I have already hinted about the Faith of the Greek Church which Mr. Fisher told him had plainly made a change and taught false Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that he had heard his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost This latter part of Mr. Fishers assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King whereas in truth he highly honour'd his Majesty and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judgement in that point touching the Holy Ghost But the Bishop with all his respect and present flattery is resolved to contradict his Majesty yet that he might seem to do it but in part he introduces this distinction viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two wayes 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errours and sins and the punishment that is due unto them 2. The other is when it loses not onely this Assistance but all Assistance to remain any longer a true Church Now the Bishop denyes the Greek Church to have lost the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in this latter Acception viz. totally which would render it no true Church but grants it to have lost that special Assistance specified in the first branch of the distinction But this he sayes is rather to be called an errour CIRCA SPIRITVM SANCTVM about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an errour CONTRA SPIRITVM SANCTVM against the Holy Ghost Thus he minces what he had said before That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost and that they erred against him But let us see what Arguments his Lordship brings in proof of his Assertion that the Greek Church continues a true Church and that their errour is not properly against the Holy Ghost Here the Bishop makes no great haste but breathing himself a while does very prudently prepare his Reader to expect no great matter from him in this kinde For dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds There is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man or that the personal defects of any man should press any more then himself Also that he entred not upon this service but by command of Supreme Authority there being as he sayes an hundred abler then himself to maintain the Protestant Cause This his acknowledgement as I have no reason to blame him for it so I cannot see what just cause his Lordship had to censure Mr. Fisher for thinking so humbly of himself as to confess there were a thousand better Scholars then he to maintain the Catholick Cause Before we come to the Bishops proofs I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words which are these I was not so peremptory viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamental Divers learned men and some of your own were of opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a question not simply Fundamentall I know and acknowledge that errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity After this he adds as a Theological proof of his own Since their form of speech is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father BY THE SON and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a TRVE CHVRCH though I confess them AN ERRONEOVS Church in this particular Are not these very specious expressions I was not so peremptory Divers learned men were of opinion I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grievous errour in Divinity I dare not deny them to be a true Church They seem to agree with us They think a diverse thing from us But I pass by his trifling and make way for truth It is to be considered that now for many hundred years the whole Latin Church hath decreed and believed it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of
to comply a little with the Donatists he sent along with them some Bishops of the Gaules in whom they more confided and whom they had already demanded to be their Judges intending that these French Bishops should hear the Donatists cause together with the Pope and determine therein what they should finde to be right Neither did Melchiades the Pope refuse them but for the greater solemnity of the judgement and satisfaction of the parties adjoyned to them fifteen other Italian Bishops and so proceeded to the hearing of the Cause But behold the issue After a full hearing of all parties the Donatists were condemn'd Caecilianus Felix and some other African Bishops of their party were justifi'd and acquitted The Schismatiques being thus condemn'd at Rome and even by those Bishops of the Gaules whom they had chosen for Judges by way of Appeal address themselves again to the Emperour which the pious Prince took so hainously that as Optatus Milevitanus reports he cry'd out against them to this purpose O the audacious folly and madness of these men See They have here exhibited an Appeal being themselves Bishops and in a cause of Bishops just as Infidels use to do in their own causes Nevertheless being at length as it were forced by their obstinate importunity he condescends they should be heard once again not as admitting their appeal or deporting himself in the business as their competent Judge but chiefly for their further conviction and to inform himself of the cause of Felix Bishop of Aptung which the Donatists pretended had not been duly heard at Rome Whereupon a Council of two hundred Bishops was assembled at Arles where the Popes Legates were present as also the three Bishops of the Gaules and some of the Italian Bishops who had already pronounced sentence in the cause at Rome To be short the Donatists are in this Council likewise condemn'd but not quieted for with an impudence proper to such people and to be parallel'd onely with their fellow Schismatiques they run the third time to the Emperour and will not be satisfied unless he condescend to hear them in person What should the Emperour do He had already protested against this as of it self unlawful but there was no remedy the Schismatiques will not let him rest until he hear them Wherefore having first promised to ask the Bishops pardon he consents to this also hears them and condemns them with his own mouth This is the true and real story of the Donatists proceedings from whence his Lordship brings several objections against the Popes Supremacy which we are now to examine First he would have us observe that the Roman Prelate came not in till the Donatists had leave given them by the African Prelates to be heard by forreign Bishops But this proves rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate that he came not in before it was due time and the matter orderly brought before him For though the cause did most properly belong to the Popes Cognizance yet was it first to be heard and decided by the Bishops of the Province where the cause first sprang up The Pope was not to meddle with it otherwise then by way of regular Appeal unless perchance he had seen the Provincial Bishops to have neglected it or been unable effectually to determine it Secondly he abuses St. Austin in making him say that the African Bishops gave the Donatists leave to be heard by forreign Bishops Whereas there is no such leave mention'd or insinuated by St. Austin in all that Epistle What he sayes is onely his own private advise viz. that if any of them had convincing proofs of ought that was criminal in the Catholique Bishops of Africa for which they fear'd to communicate with them they should apply themselves to the Transmarine Bishops and especially to the Bishop of Rome and there make their complaints which is not a dispensing with them to do something which otherwise they might not do as the Bishop would have it thought much less is it a license or dispensation given them by the African Bishops sitting in Council but onely a private exhortation and counsel of St. Austin himself requiring them to do what according to the Canons was to be done in such a case His second objection is that if the Pope had come in without this leave to judge the Donatists cause it had been an usurpation in him But this is grounded partly upon his own false supposition that such leave was given and partly upon an affected mistake or mis-translation of the words usurpare and usurpavit For 't is evident in the first part of the sentence St. Austin speaks not in his own person but in the person of the Donatists as making an objection to himself in their behalf An fortè non debuit c. the words you have in the margin at large Ought not perchance Melchiades Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops to challenge to himself that judgement c. Whereas the Bishop by his englishing the words makes St. Austin positively say peradventure Melchiades ought not of right to have challenged or usurp'd to himself that judgement which surely was a notorious winding in his Labyrinth For it makes that to be a Negative in St. Austins sense which doubtless in his true meaning was an Affirmative and by asking will you Donatists say he ought not to do this he by consequence and in effect said that he ought to do it For the second part of the Speech where St. Austin answers the objection 't is no less clear that he speaks per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of condescendence to his Adversaries manner of speaking the better to mollifie them which is oftentimes practis'd in Rhetorick and not as acknowledging that it could be any real usurpation in the Pope to take cognizance of such a cause without leave given And if our Adversaries think not this true let them tell us who but our Saviour Christ and the Canons of the Universal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and those many other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church which most certainly he did both hear and judge effectually no man no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffer'd by his judgement complaining or accusing him of usurpation Thirdly he alledges that other Bishops were made Judges with the Pope and that by the Emperours power which the Pope will now least of all endure I answer first the Bishops sent by the Emperour were onely three an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence and the Pope to shew his Authority that he was not to be prescrib'd by any in this cause added to these three fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business Secondly I answer the Emperour in sending those Bishops together with the Donatists to Rome did nothing by
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
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
eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and resule of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church disfusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church difsusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their desinitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a mans own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or auow that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doc they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt 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 eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much
giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and result of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church diffusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church diffusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their definitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a his own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or 〈◊〉 that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doe they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny such definitions and yet tells vs he must submitt both himselfe and grounds to the Church in that or an other Council Eyther his grounds are really such as he speaks of viz. 〈◊〉 certaine and demonstratiue or only seemingly such If only seeming such what is it but to giue power to euery Phanatique and presumptuous spirit to oppose Generall Councills and contradict their definitions whensoeuer he fancies to himselfe to haue an cuident text or conuincing argument against them how foolish and fallacious soeuer it be If reall and true demonstrations how can he that knows them submitt himselfe and his grounds to a Generall Councill Can any thing be more absurd and vnreasonable then that a true demonstration and a true iudgement grounded vpon it should yeeld to a fallible Authority such as that of all Generall Councils is suppos'd to be Againe who shall assure vs that the Generall Councill to which he submitts shall not desine the same article or errour which was defin'd before In this case eyther he is bound to beleeue the article de nouo defin'd or he is not If he be not bound to beleeue it why doth the Bishop teach that notwitstanding a man may constantly deny the definitions of a Generall Councill vpon monstratiue grounds yet he is bound to submitt himselfe and his grounds to an other Councill if it be lawfull for him to oppose the second Councills definition as well as the first 's where 's his submission If he be bound to beleeue as the second Council defines 't is euident he is bound to preferre a fallible Authority before a true demonstration and know'n to be such which is not only absurd but also impossible 8. As to that text of St. Austin which the Bishop cites againe in his margent touching the emendation of former Generall Councils by latter wee haue already answer'd the obiection taken from it
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
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