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
Protestants to note it only in a word by the way haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church not that wee are vnable or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth Religion Church and all things pertaining thereto by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession iustly prescribe against our aduersaries and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they who are our aggressours in this case doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew that our possession is not bonafidei but gain'd by force or fraude or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes A Gentleman that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours is not to be outed of it because an other say's and perhaps beleeues he has a better title to it neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence but the other is bound to euict him and demonstrate that his possession is not good and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe that his own clayme is better otherwise in stead of gaining an estate he will get nothing but a checke In like manner the Lady beeing in possession of a Fayth which for many ages together had been professed by her ancestours and generally by the whole Christian Church 't is not the Bishops telling her that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome or iustly moue her to beleeue that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church but he must make it appeare to be so by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter is to be accounted folly and his confidence rashness I adde how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church English Protestants for example beleeue the Popes power iure diuino is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Bishops witness Tertullian and this long before the Canons of the Church or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority The Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians was not from men but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of St. Clement St. Anaclet St. Sixtus the first St. Pius the first St. Anicet St. Victor with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer So as euen the Centurists themselues and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity are forc'd to confess it They pretend indeed that these Epistles are counterfeite and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes A weake plea for beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them 't is certain that Isidorus Hispalensis who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time and professes that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops to make his collection out of them as well as out of other Epistles and writings which Protestants doe not question Not to vrge that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them and Rufinus himselfe others who was contemporary with St. Hierome nor yet the absolute conformity in point of doctrine and style that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church viz. Iulius the first Pope Damasus Syricius Innocentius Leo and others which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe nor can pretend to be forged but only say that the Popes of those times were arrogant men and began to take too much vpon them The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not according to Gods commandement acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing Vicar of Christ in the Church The Primitiue Church professed that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull to witt in matter of Religion and Fayth the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their Epistle to Pope Marcus that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things witness St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church Witness optatus Mileuitanus that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed to which all must repaire for the waters of life that she is the Rock vpon which the Church is built that to be out of her Communion was to be an Alien from the houshold of God to be out of the Church to be as a profane or vncleane person who might not come into the Campe or Congregation of Israel in briefe it was to belong not to Christ but to Antichrist witness St. Hierome The Bishops of the Primitiue Church beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome as to their proper and lawfull Judge for iustice and reliefe and were likewise by him righted and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe Witness the examples already alledged of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians also of St. Chrysostome The odoret and diuerse others Lastly not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise the Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer Witness St. Austin the Councils
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
of Christ of Scripture and the whole Church in the falsely-defined Article that there is in the true and that the Scripture doth not equally giue eyther ground or power to define truth and errour what is it but to trifle tediously For wee neither say nor suppose any such thing So as the Bishop by his discourse here meerly labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius it beeing a thing wholy vnknow'n to vs yea impossible for vs to know infallibly and certainly when the Councill defines matters equally by and according to the Authorities of Scripture or the whole Church but by the Councils own Acte that is by her definition so express't and fram'd as there can be noe iust cause to doubt but that she defin'd or presum d herselfe to define both the one and the other point conformably to Scripture and the sense of the whole Church See now what great reason the Relatour had to obiect cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business Our Aduersarie here againe runnes from the marke A. C. in giuing the reason of his former demand speaks of examining only and not of iudging as his words shew If wee leaue this sayth he meaning the erring and not-erring of a Generall Councill in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly to be EXAMINE'D by euery priuate man the examination not beeing infallible will need to be examined by an other and that by an other Without end or euer coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers that he hath 〈◊〉 vs the way how an erring Councill may be rectifyed and the peace of the Church eyther preseru'd or restor'd etc. viz. § 32. num 5. § 33. consid 7. num 4. of his Relation and wee haue likewise shew'n all his pretended wayes to be deuicus and not to lead to the end he aymes at But does he there or any where else shew how wee may be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one point does not also erre in the other in the case aboue mention'd which is the only thing his Aduersary here vrges him withall does he shew that A. Cs. obiected process in infinitum can be auoyded by any priuate and fallible examination of the Councils decrees or does he prescribe any other meanes of examining them but what is in his own opinion fallible at least though perhaps not priuate First he assignes Scripture for a way to examin a Councils definition but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture beares that sense in which he vnderstands it and not that in which the Councill vnderstands it Secondly he assignes the fowre first Generall Councils but how can he be sure that their Authority in defining is such as euery one ought to obey and not that of after-Councils Thirdly he assignes the Creeds as containing all things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth but does he meane all of them all the three Apostolicall Nicen Athanasian By his words it seemes he doth for he makes noe difference betwixt them and in reason 't is necessary he should seeing 't is euident the Apostles Creed alone will not ferue the turn it making no express mention of the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost nor of the Mystery of the Trinity Jncarnation etc. which yet wee confidently presume are all of them Fundamentall points in the Bishops Creed But then wee aske how come these latter Creeds the Nicen and Athanasian to be infallible seeing their Authours in the composing of them were fallible and subiect to errour in the Relatours opinion How can they be a ground of infallible certaintie to me if possibly in themselues they man be false which though it cannot be sayd or suspected of the Apostles nor by consequence of their Creed as it was compos'd and publish't by them yet wee make a Querie what infallible Authority assur'd the Bishop or assur's vs now that the Creed which wee haue at present and commonly call the Apostles Creed is really the same which the Apostles first composed or that wee haue it entire and vnchanged Tradition or the Church by the Relatours grounds must not be pretended here seeing they are both of them fallible with him and may deceiue vs. It followes then euen from his own principles that he neither hath nor can haue infallible certainty for his beleeuing the Creeds and as for the fowre first Generall Councils the Relatour must needs haue less pretense of reason to alledge them for a ground of infallible certainty in beleeuing seeing in all his booke he neuer acknowledges nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge Councills to be infallible euen in Fundamentalls Where is then his infallible certaintie for that one Fayth necessary to Saluation 6. How farre the Relatour speakes truth when he sayes be giues noe way to any priuate man to be iudge of a Generall Councill lett any man iudge that considers his doctrine Liberty to examine euen the definitions of Generall Councils if they see iust cause he does expressly grant to priuate persons yea and some kinde of iudgement too he allowes them viz. that of discretion though not the other of power as he distinguishes But is there not a inake lurking in the grass here may wee not feare fome poyson vnder the gilded pill of his Lordships distinction This iudgement of discretion as he calls it especially if common experience and practice may expound it what does it signifie less then a power assum'd by euery priuate person not only to examin the validity of such reasons and grounds as confirme the defined article but constantly to deny both it and them if his priuate spirit or discretion tells him that he hath better reasons for the contrary or that the Councils definition is an errour Has not this always been the way and methode of Heretiques To what end doe they at any time put themselues vpon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of Generall Councills was it euer for any other reason but to see whether they could finde a flaw in them which when they persuaded themselues to haue once spy'd did they not presently in their own vayne hearts fall to despise the Councill which they suppos'd to erre as ignorant and ouerseen in their proper business did they not vsually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience in lieu of necessary obedience and submission Did they not forthwith imagin themselues inlightened persons and soone after that oblig'd in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people and vnder a pretense of informing weaker brethren draw them to the like discret examining of the Churches defin'd and generally receiu'd doctrine with themselues Js not this the know'n course of the humour Is not this Satans methode by degrees to vsher in publique and generall defections from the Authority both of Generall Councills and all the Lawfull Pastours and Gouernours of the Church See in effect the whole benefitt of the Bishops goodly deuise
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
yet Faith which is the Foundation of all our Supernatural Building remain firme But if one part of the Foundation be shaken the whole ground-work will be but in a tottering condition and as A. C. sayes in a certain manner shaken By which kinde of speech I conceive he onely means that by questioning or denying one point of Faith though we do not eo ipso deny all others directly yet indirectly we do to wit by taking away or denying all Authority to Gods Revelation and for that reason rendring our selves at the same time uncapable of believing any thing else with Supernatural and Divine Faith 9. His Lordship must be pardoned if he dissent from A.C's. Assertion that all Determinations of the Church are made some to us by one and the same Divine Revelation which in the sense we have declared his Lordship doth not disprove but in the pursuance of his Discourse he brings in Doctor Stapleton as contradicting Bellarmin because Bellarmin sayes that nothing can be certain by the certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the word of God or deduced out of it by evident consequence whereas Stapleton is vouched to affirme that some Decisions of the Church are made without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Scripture I have sought this place in Stapleton and finde his words to be onely these We ought not to deny our Assent in matters of Faith though we have them onely by Tradition or the Decisions of the Church against Heretiques and not consirmed with evident or probable Testimony of Holy Scripture His meaning is we must submit to the Determinations of the Church and the Traditions she approves though they be not expresly contained in Scripture which questionless may very well stand with Bellarmins Doctrine that nothing can be believ'd with Divine Faith unless it be either contain'd in the word of God or drawn from thence by evident consequence For that Bellarmin by the word of God understands not onely Gods written but his not-written word also or Tradition is manifest because he makes all our Faith even of Scripture it self to be grounded upon it as is clear by his very words Itaque hoc Dogma 〈◊〉 necessarium quod scilicit sit aliqua Scriptura Divina non potest sufficientèr haberi ex Scripturâ proinde cum Fides nitatur verbo Dei nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum nulla nobis erit Fides Therefore this so necessary Maxime viz. that there is any Divine Scripture at all cannot sufficiently be had by Scripture alone Wherefore seeing Faith relyes upon the word of God unless we have a word of God not-written we shall have no Faith at all Many like instances he gives in the same Chapter of other matters pertaining to Christian Faith which can onely be believ'd for the word of God not-written Now in the place cited by the Bishop he teaches that we cannot be certain of our Salvation with certainty of Faith because this is not reveal'd by the word of God either written or unwritten nor is evidently deduc'd from either of these which is a good Argument but no way contradicted by Stapleton Besides a Proposition may be not so much as probably expressed in Scripture and yet be inferred by necessary consequence from something contained in Scripture I mean inferred at least from such general Principles and Rules as the Scriptures recommend to us and command us to follow But the reason the Bishop brings to prove that Bellarmin speaks onely of the written word is very strange For Bellarmin sayes he treats there of the knowledge a man can have of the certainty of his own Salvation and I hope that A. C. will not tell us that there is any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Thus he Now first we say not that Bellarmin speaks of the word unwritten and Stapleton of the word written but that Stapleton speaks of the unwritten word onely and Bellarmin of both the written and unwritten word which he calls the compleat word of God Secondly Bellarmin was not to affirme there was any unwritten Tradition by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations but the contrary That there was no such unwriten Tradition to be found For had he intended to prove any such unwritten Tradition he should have consequently proved the foresaid assurance to be Infallible and equal to the Certainty of Faith which he there professedly labours to prove fallible and not of the Certainty of Faith which had been a Turn like one of his Lordships the quite contrary way And for Stapleton he purposely proves that the Church hath not power to make new Articles of Faith but onely to declare and explain those already delivered His Lordship cannot believe that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church saith he though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the power it commits to General Councills lawfully called yet it is not alwayes of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and Integrity c. To this I answer that these Ornaments of Knowledge Sufficiency Conscience and Integrity are not the Causes of Infallibility either in the Church or Councils for that proceeds onely from the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost which is of the same power in weaker and stronger Instruments as it appear'd by the Apostles who being of themselves persons altogether ignorant of Divine matters yet by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost became not onely able to Teach them but also Infallible in their Teaching Neither doth the want of Conscience or Integrity in some particular persons deprive either the Church or a General Council of this promised Infallibility any more then the same want deprived the Scribes and Pharisees in old time of their Authority concerning whom notwithstanding their manifest and great defects in point of Conscience and Integrity c. our Saviour himself pronounceth Matth. 23. 2. Upon the Chaire of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees all things therefore they shall say to you observe you and do The Relatour again repeats that all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are not alike Fundamental in the Faith But this is answer'd by the Doctrine we have so often delivered to clear his often mistaking touching Fundamentals that some are in this sense Fundamental to wit of necessity to be believ'd by all and known expresly of all others not Fundamental that is not of necessity to be known and believed expresly by all In this sense I say we agree with his Lordship and his party touching the Distinction of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals Our onely controversie is whether there be in the Catholique Church any points of Faith not-Fundamental in this sense that is such as
If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made For the same reason also if it be now the true Church it was ever so having alwayes adhered to St. Peters Successor and the Doctrine by him delivered 1. But the Relatour asserts that the Church of Rome was and was not a right and Orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For in the prime times of it it was a most right and Orthodox Church but if we look upon the immediate times before Luther then it was a corrupt and tainted Church In this I say the Relatour begs the question for the Roman Church remained alwayes the same it was from the beginning because in this dispute the Roman signifies the Catholique Church according to that of Dr. Stapleton Apud veteres pro eodem habita fuit Ecclesia Romana Ecclesia Catholica amongst the Ancients saith he the Roman Church and the Catholique Church were taken for the same We adde they are now also to be held for the same and the reason given by Stapleton whatever the Bishop thinks doth not at all destroy the said Identity His reason is quia ejus communio erat evidenter certissimè cum totâ Catholicâ because the Communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholique and by consequence the whole Catholique with it Wherefore as the Catholique Church continued ever the same and incorrupt so did the Roman which is the same with the Catholique This A. C. sufficiently express'd when he mention'd the Roman Church not onely as it contain'd the City and Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it in Doctrine and Communion For 't is clear by Roman Church in that sense he could understand no other but the Catholique We deny then that any abuses or errours did at any time more corrupt or taint the Roman Church then they did the Catholique Wherefore it seems very strange to hear his Lordship say that the Roman Church never was nor ever can be THE RIGHT or the HOLY CATHOLIQUE Church For when it was a right Church as he himself grants it once was if we take it in A. C's sense viz. not onely for that Church which is within the City or Diocess of Rome but for all that agree with it what difference will he finde betwixt the Holy Catholique Church and all others agreeing with the Church of Rome What he asserts of the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that then the Roman Church was a corrupt and tainted Church and far from being a right Church sounds very harshly in a Christians ears For if in all those ages the Roman Church that is the Church of Rome and all other Churches agreeing with her were wrong corrupted and tainted and all those likewise that disagreed from her viz. Hussites Albigenses Waldenses Wickleffists Greeks Abyssins Armenians c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages as 't is certain they had neither could the Relatour deny it I say if the Roman Church was thus corrupt it follows that not onely for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one visible Church untainted incorrupt right Orthodox throughout the whole world And consequently that during the said ages every good Christian was in conscience oblig'd in some point of Christian belief or other to contradict the Doctrine and desert the Communion of all visible Churches in the world since no Church not confessedly Hereticall can be shew'n that did not communicate both in Doctrine and Discipline with the Roman during all that time Whence it would further follow that Schisme or Separation from the externall Communion of the whole Church might be not onely lawfull which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers as Dr. Hammond well proves in his Book of Schisme but even necessary which is impossible as being contrary to the very essentiall Predicates of Schisme which is defined to be a voluntary or wilfull Departure such as no just cause or reason can be given of it from the Communion of the whole Church 2. His great Marginal Note out of Petrus de Alliaco signifies but little For as it mentions not any false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church so neither doth it threaten that any shall be taught by it after his time but clearly speaks of Schismes and Heresies rais'd against the Church not foster'd by her in all parts of Christendom Otherwise we must esteem that learned Cardinal a man either very ignorant or very impious to make the Church it self Ecclesiam Dei as he speaks guilty of Schismes and Heresies which even in our Adversaries opinion are held to be incompatible with the Church of God and destructive of it 'T is certain Bellarmin acknowledges no errours in Popes but onely as they were private Doctours he admits not any errours to have been defined by them by Authority properly Papall or ex Cathedrâ for Christs Doctrine or to be believ'd by the whole Church And indeed he even clears them of Errours in the first kinde so far as to shew that they did never so much as personally or in quality of private Doctors erre or teach any errour in matter of Faith publiquely defined and admitted for such by the whole Church which though it be a very pious opinion yet no man is oblig'd to embrace it as a point of Faith For Catholique Faith in this particular onely obliges us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines with a General Council To what good purpose then does the Relatour in his Margin pin this following assertion upon Bellarmin Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminasse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est there being nothing like such a Proposition in the whole Chapter cited by the Bishop Almainus speaks not of Errours in Faith at all much less doth he say the Popes taught the whole Church such errours but onely of errours or rather abuses in point of Manners which might happen by the bad examples of Popes or their remissness in the execution of their Pastoral office But what if some of them should be prov'd to have taught errours in Doctrine as private men that destroyes not the Infallibility of the Church nor of the Pope as we maintain it no more then his permitting or suffering others through his negligence to teach such errours Hence also his Simile of Tares sow'n among Wheat is nothing to the purpose For if he means by Tares sow'n false Doctrine publiquely and definitively taught by the Pope or receiv'd by the Church in this sense we absolutely deny that ever any Tares were sow'n or ever shall be sow'n in the field of Gods Church But if he mean sow'n onely by private persons and growing up but for some time through negligence of particular Pastours until the Supreme Pastour either by himself or assisted with his Council
St. Peters person onely but his Faith conjoyned with his person or his person confessing and asserting the Faith and that the Fathers speak in this sense and no other when they say the Church is built upon St. Peters Faith Bellarmin proves by a whole Jury of the most Ancient among them and most of them the same the Bishop here pretends to bring for himself beside the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon consisting of above six hundred Catholique Bishops As to what he asserts that by Hell-gates-prevailing against the Church is not understood principally the Churches not Erring but her not falling away from the Foundation we have already fully prov'd the Contrary both by the Testimony of the Fathers and Solid Reason shewing that if any Errour in Faith could be admitted by the Catholique Church the Gates of Hell might in such case be absolutely said to have prevaild against her contrary to this promise of Christ. And how Bellarmin here cited by the Bishop is to be understood when he sayes there are many things DE FIDE which are not necessary to salvation is already shewn where we also prov'd that every errour in Faith contrary to what is propounded by the Church is Fundamentall But the Relatour as if his own word were a sufficient proof tells us finally that the promise of this stable Edification is made to the whole Church not to a Council Why not to both I pray to a General Council as well as to the Church The truth is it was made neither to Church nor Council directly and immediately but to St. Peter and his Successours as the Fathers above mentioned shew though for the good of the Church viz. her preservation from errour in Faith which morally could not be effected if a General Council lawfully called and confirm'd by St. Peters Successour be not Infallible or exempt from errour in its decisions of Faith To what the Bishop concludes with upon this Text that a Council hath no interest in this promised Edification further then it builds upon Christ that is upon the Doctrine Christ deliver'd the Rules he gave and the Promises he made to his Apostles and their Successours we agree with him but that a General Council confirmed by the Pope does ever reject or go contrary to these we absolutely deny To the fourth place viz. of Christs prayer for St. Peter that his faith should not fail Luke 22. 32. the Relatour will have the native sense of it to be that Christ prayed and obtained for St. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong Temptation which was to winnow him above the rest And you must take it if you please upon his bare word that by Faith is here meant Grace Had the Bishop weighed the pregnancy of Bellarmins Reasons in confutation of this Exposition he could not surely have been so positive in it It should be an unnecessary prolixity to insert them here where 't is sufficient to observe the contradiction involv'd in this pretended Native sense of Christs prayer Christ according to the Bishop obtain'd for St. Peter that he should persevere in Grace But St. Peter did not still persevere in Grace for he lost it when he committed that enormous sin of Denying his Master Therefore Christ obtain'd and did not obtain one and the same thing of his Eternal Father which is a formal contradiction Our Saviour therefore prayed according to his own expression in Scripture that St. Peter might not lose Faith by an Internal act of Disbelief though the Devil should so far prevail by his Temptations as to make him say contrary to his own knowledge I know not the man you have taken prisoner But the Bishop objects thus against this Text to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope or in his Chair or in the Roman Sea or in a General Council though the Pope be President I finde no Antient Father that dare adventure it I answer 't is no wonder that they do not sinde who are unwilling to see Bellarmin cites and that out of Authentique Records whatever the Bishop mutters against them as Counterfeit without the least proof Lucius Felix St. Leo and Petrus Chrysologus the last of which lived above twelve hundred years ago these I say Bellarmin affirms to have adventur'd to prove from this Text what the Bishop denies And though the three first of these were Bishops of Rome yet such was their Sanctity and Learning as might well vindicate them from the least jealousie of challenging either through ignorance or ambition more then of right belong'd to their office Nay the Church of Rome was so confessedly Orthodox in their dayes that even Dr. Heylin a man bitter against Catholiques thought it not fit in his Geography to term the Roman Bishops Popes till almost two hundred years after St. Leo the last of the three And as for Chrysologus his Contemporary and no Pope he adventur'd as it were to ground the Infallibility we plead for upon this Text when he said St. Peter as yet lives and presides in his Sea and affords the true Faith to those that seek it which speech the Bishop will have to be but a flash of Rhetorique an easie way of answering the most unanswerable Authorities Had Chrysologus written or addressed his words to the Pope there might have been some colour for the Evasion but speaking them to an Heretique whom he sought to reduce into the bosome of the Catholique Church who can imagine he intended to complement the Pope Nothing but a weak Cause could drive so learned a person as the Bishop to so poor a shift So the Testimonies of Theophylact and St. Bernard are slighted by him as men of yesterday though they lived the one above five hundred the other near six hundred years ago But whoever charges St. Bernard with corrupt Doctrine either in point of Faith or Manners might as justly charge St. Austin and the Fathers of his time in which time even by the acknowledgement of Calvin when he is sober the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles And for Theophylact he being a Greek Bishop and of the forwardest in siding against the Latin Church and in taxing her of Errour touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost it cannot be rationally imagin'd but what he speaks in favour of the Roman Church is extorted from him by the evidence of Truth and the known consent of all Catholique Christians in that particular As to the Gloss upon the Canon Law I answer it speaks onely of the Pope in his personal capacity as a private Doctour in which quality it is not deny'd but he may possibly erre even in Faith Hence may easily be perceiv'd how unsatisfactorily the Bishop endeavours to elude the force of this Text concerning Christs prayer for St. Peter which I have already prov'd to be extended to his Successours
LABYRINTHVS CANTVARIENSIS OR DOCTOR LAWD'S LABYRINTH BEEING AN ANSVVER TO THE LATE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBVRIES RELATION OF A CONFERENCE BETWEEN HIMSELFE AND Mr. FISHER ETC. WHEREIN The true grounds of the ROMAN CATHOLIQVE Religion are asserted the principall Controuersies betvvixt Catholiques and Protestants throughly examined and the Bishops MEANDRICK vvindings throughout his vvhole vvorke layd open to publique veivv By T. C. Prepare yee the way of our Lord make streight the paths of our God Crooked things shall become streight and rough wayes plaine Isa. 40. 3. 4. PARIS Printed by IOHN BILLAINE 1658. THE AVTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE READER AS I know my selfe to baue been mou'd with noe other impulse then that of Charity in composing this booke so doe I coniure the Reader to carry the same minde along with him in the perusing of it It is a great mistake to thinke that heate of disputation for the finding out of truth is a cooling of Charity Debates of this kinde are not so much breaches of freindship as a meanes to vnite vnderstandings in the beleefe of truth If contentions in Schooles for interest of ones priuate opinion only or some worldly glorie be esteem'd no violation of amity amonge disputants surely to contend meerly out of zeale to saue soules cannot be thought inconsistent with Charity In this contest our warre is not against the person but the errours of our neighbour in which to be silent would in some degree make vs criminal and responsable to God for our neighbours ruine If any man wonder why an answer came forth no sooner let him consider that my Lord Bishops booke was publish't not long before the time of our publique distractions in which it concern'd vs rather to prepare for the next world then answer books that defended the Church of England which was then in so bleeding a condition that it might haue been thought as vnhandsome to impugne it as to fight with a dying Aduersarie But the heate of the warre beeing ouer and many of the Prelatique party who together with our selues did daily entertaine a confidence of the happy return and restauration of our gracious Souereign King Charles the second seeming to conclude that my Lord of Canterburies booke was an impregnable piece in regard wee had not attempted to assault it I thought I should performe a worke acceptable to God and very satisfactory to the wishes of Catholiques if I framed an answer so often called for by our Aduersaries In perusall of the Bishops booke I found so many affected Windings and artificiall meanders especially in that important controuersie of resoluing our Fayth where he ought chiefly to haue aym'd at perspicuity that I could not chuse but looke vpon it as a Labyrinth and haue therfore soe styled it in my answer I intend not to make my Reader spend time in vnnecessary Preambles which I wish him rather to imploy in seeking satisfaction within my booke I shall therfore in this preface only take notice of some few things which the Bishop vrges against vs in his dedicatory Epistle to his late Maiestie of glorious and deare memorie The Bishop charges Mr. Fisher with downright disloyalty for publishing contrary to the Kings express command the Relations of the Conferences which he had with the Bishop and Doctor White because sayth he Mr. Fisher was charged vpon his allegiance not to sett out or publish what passed in some of the conferences till his Maiestie gaue further licence To which I answer his Maiesties command even as here sett down by the Bishop doth only forbid the publishing of what pass't in some of these conferences so that for ought appeares what pass't in other some might be publisht without further licence Secondly 't is auerr'd by A. C. that not Mr. Fisher but his Aduersaries first transgress't this precept of his Maiestie by diuulging false reports to the preiudice of Mr. Fisher's person and cause by reason whereof Mr. Fisher was forced for the iust and necessary vindication of himselfe and the Catholique cause to deliuer some copies to his friends Thirdly who made most hast in publishing what had passed in these Conferences appeares likewise out of W. I. from whome the Bishop frames all this charge against Mr. Fisher. Some may perhaps maruaile sayes W.I. why these Relations came out so late it beeing now long since the Aduersaries haue giuen out false reports both in speeches and print So that it seems by this not Mr. Fisher but his Aduersaries were the first prouokers both in speeches and print and by consequence the only transgressours of his Maiesties command Neither are those of Mr. Fishers profession so apt to complayn and cry out Persecution without cause there beeing then persons of great Authority about the King inciting his Maiestie to put the penall and sanguinary Laws against vs in rigorous execution to say nothing of those who were then actually persecuted Nor does the Bishop so much cleere as contradict himselfe in this particular while he first sayes pag. 11. of his Epistle God forbid I should euer offer to persuade a persecution in any kinde or practise it in the least and yet in the very next lines adds God forbid too that your Maiestie should lett the laws viz. against Catholiques and Catholique Religion sleep forfeare of the name of persecution If Mr. Fisher and his fellowes doe angle for his Maiesties subiects as the Relatour pretends 't is only to bring them the safe to Heauen and by which only they themselues hope to arriue thither it is not to draw them into the beleefe of any assertions repugnant to loyaltie and Christian vertue but such as their Teachers will be euer ready to maintayn both with their pens and liues To fish in this manner deserues neither hanging drawing nor quartering but is conformable to the ancient commission which in the person of the Apostles these anglers as he calls them receiued from Christ. Matth. 4. 18. follow mee and I will make you Fishers of men Neither doth Mr. Fisher or any of his profession allow or vse any such netts as the Relatour mentions pag. 11. Epist. that is they neither practise nor hold it lawfull to dissolue oaths of Allegiance to depose or kill Kings to blow vp states for the establishing of QUOD VOLUMUS c. All which out of his Charity and professed forbearance towards vs the Bishop does very kindely infinuate both to his Maiestie and the Reader But our answer is wee yeeld to none in all Christian and true allegiance to our Souereign Lord the King which wee haue in times of tryall so manifested to the world that wee hope there are not many euen amonge our Aduersaries but are conuinced of our reall fidelitie and though some perhaps will talke more and sweare more yet none vpon all iust occasions will doe more in defense of his Maiesties sacred Person rights and dignity then those of our profession This is certain Roman-Catholiques alone can glorie in this that whereas in these
onely meant but said as plainly as he could that the Church of Rome did first seek that is labour by all the fair means she could to recall Protestants from their errours even before there was any publique or notorious breach made and then afterwards onely that is when she saw private endeavours would take no effect but that a publique and formal Schism was made by Protestants invited them to a General Council 'T is true the Churches inviting of Protestants to a Free and Publique Disputation in a General Council was in the nature of the thing a justifiable and lawful seeking of them but we say it was not the seeking of them which A. C. both meant and exprest in this place and the Bishop did not well to pervert and misreport his Adversaries words onely to finde himself matter for an injurious quibble 2. But to the end the true Doctrine may be fully understood in this point viz. of Keeping faith with Heretiques and of punishing after Safe-Conduct given 't is necessary to know that a Safe Conduct may be granted two wayes First jure communi when 't is given onely against unjust violence falvâ semper justitiâ provided alwayes that Justice be not impeached Secondly jure speciali when it secures a man against all violence whatsoever whether just or unjust and chiefly in that cause for which it is given In the former manner a Safe-Conduct was granted by 〈◊〉 the Emperour to John Huss and by the Council of Constance to Hierome of Prague In the latter sort the Council of Trent offered Safe-Conduct to the Protestants in Germany and A. C. tells us the like was offered by the Roman Church to all Heretiques No Faith therefore was broken with John Huss for a Safe-Conduct was onely given him jure communi by which Justice was to remain unimpeachable since he was onely promis'd to be defended against unjust violence which was perform'd Nay he was justly burnt for two reasons The first is for being obstinate in his Heresie The second for having fled which the Emperour had prohibited in his Safe Conduct under pain of death Wherefore the Emperour if we rightly consider the matter did not break faith with John Huss but John Huss broke faith with the Emperour by flying against his engagement and seeing by his Safe-Conduct he could expect no more then to be secur'd against unjust violence that so he might be brought to a legal Trial this being made good to him and he legally convicted of Heresie he might questionless be punish'd according to Law without any breach of faith given by his Safe-Conduct Hierome of Prague indeed at first abjur'd his Heresie but falling afterwards into a Relapse and flying as John Huss had done was taken and burnt by which it appears that faith was also kept with him For the Safe Conduct granted him by the Council had this express Clause in it Salvâ semper justitiâ which sufficiently intimated that the course of Justice was to proceed against him notwithstanding his Safe-Conduct But had the Protestants gone to the Council of Trent upon the Safe-Conduct granted them by that Council jure speciali in the second manner they could not at all have been punish'd under any pretence of Heresie without manifest breach of Faith which all Catholiques hold to be unlawful The like may be said of the Safe-Conduct offered them for going to Rome So that his Lordships party may well be esteem'd Crasty Foxes to use his own Simile but never Wise men to refuse so fair an offer which I repeat it again and for proof referre my Reader to the Copy of the Safe Conduct it self was to defend them against all violence whatsoever and to give them as full and free liberty of coming to and going from the Council as could be devised and with an express Proviso That none of them should be punish'd for any matter or crime concerning Religion nor any kinde of Authority or Jurisdiction used towards them by the Council or by any other persons with the Councils allowance or permission by colour of any Law Canon Constitution of Council Precedent of former times particularly not of those of the Councils of Constance and Siena Wherefore to say no more 't is most unjustly urg'd by the Relatour that the Conduct offer'd was not as secure for their return as for their going thither 3. Touching the Decree of the Council of Constance 't is evident the Bishop doth either ignorantly or maliciously wrong the Council The words of the Decree are these Praesens Sancta Synodus ex quovis SALVQ-CONDUCTU per Imperatorem Reges alios Saeculi Principes Haereticis vel de Haeresi diffamatis concesso nullum Fidei Catholicae vel Jurisdictioni Ecclesiasticae praejudicium generari vel 〈◊〉 praestari posse seu debere declarat quo minùs dicto SALVO CONDUCTU non obstante liceat 〈◊〉 competenti Ecclesiastico de hujusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere aliàs contra eos debitè procedere eosdemque punire quantum justitia suadebit si suos errores revocare pertinacitèr recusaverint etiamsi de SALVO-CONDUCTU confisi ad locum venerint judicii aliàs non venturi nec sic promittentem cum fecerit quod in ipso est ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum In English thus This present Sacred Synod declareth that by whatsoever Safe-Conduct granted by the Emperour Kings or other Secular Princes to Heretiques or such as are defamed for Heresie no prejudice can arise no impediment can or ought to be put to the Catholique Faith or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but that notwithstanding the said Safe-Conduct it may be lawful for any competent and Ecclesiastical Judge to enquire into the errours of such persons and duly other-wayes proceed against them and punish them so far as Justice shall require if they shall pertinaciously refuse to revoke their errours yea though they come to the place of judgement relying upon such Safe-Conduct and would not otherwise come thither nor doth he who so promiseth remain obliged in any thing having done what lies in him By this Decree indeed the Council declares that no Secular Power how Sovereign soever can hinder the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal in causes of Heresie for which there is great reason and consequently if the Emperour or any other Secular Prince grants a Safe-Conduct or makes promise of any thing to the prejudice of that Jurisdiction it shall not hold The reason is because 't is a promise made of a thing not pertaining to the Jurisdiction of that Prince nor wholly in his power to see perform'd But the Council no where teaches that Faith or Safe-Conduct given in Temporal causes properly pertaining to the Princes Jurisdiction is not to be kept by all and to all persons of what condition soever so farre as 't is possible but rather most clearly insinuates the contrary in the last clause of this Decree where 't is said That he who so promiseth shall not
that in Recognition thereof it decreed that all Constitutions of Councils and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vigour But what sayes his Reserve his Master-Allegation the Fourth Council of Toledo just as much as the rest It added sayes the Bishop some things to the Creed which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds So they might well do for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before and in opposition to Heresies already condemn'd by the whole Church Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church or of the Sea Apostolique which is the question in hand and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church provided it were done with due Subordination to the Sea Apostolique For that thus a National Synod may proceed the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth sufficiently declare which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church Thus does he prove that Provincial and Particular Councils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Doctrine without yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you when in all the instances he brings there is not the least glance or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority but express mention of it and of due regard towards it He urges again that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter or peradventure he perswaded himself the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them 9. Yet after so many lost proofs with a confidence as great as if they had been all Demonstrations he asks us the question And if this was practis'd so often and in so many places why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like Truly I know no reason why it may not provided it be a True National Council and a True Church of England as those recited were true Churches and Councils and provided also that it do no more But seeing as his following words declare by the Church of England he menas the present Protestant Church there and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition and tell him the Church of England in that sense signifies no true Church neither is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod duly representative of the true English Church For is it not notorious that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers Is it not manifest that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England or lawfully to represent the English Church who never had any lawful that is Canonical and Just Vocation Mission or Jurisdiction given them to and over the English Nation But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did that they acted directly contrary to them Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them as this Synod of London did Not one of them contradicted the doctrine of the Roman Church as this did None of them convened against the express will of the Bishop of Rome as this Conventicle did None of them deny'd the Popes Authority or attempted to deprive him of it as these did so far as 't was in their power What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods or Councils of Rome Gangres Carthage Aquileia c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562. What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did is known and confess'd not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign who was the learnedst Prelat then in England but even by Protestant Authors to have been extorted from them rather by threats force then otherwise and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops as we may call them for distinction seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England I mean that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons Prescription and other title of humane Right and gave it to the King yet they never renounc'd or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at was to get the Power into his hands and to have those Authorities Prerogatives Immunities annexed to his Crown which the Pope enjoyed and had exercised here in England time out minde in Ecclesiastical Causes that is in the Goverment and Discipline of the English Church and to this the Bishops yielded but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catholique Church for ought appears clearly to the contrary both the Bishops and the King too left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph onely I observe that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition which yet he is ready to excuse telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation But we ask What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformation Was it for any thing else that they sack't and demolisht so many Monasteries and Religious Houses alienating their Lands and Revenues but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person or to live a Monastical life Was it for
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
is confest by his Lordship and other Protestants The Conclusion therefore is undenyable viz. that 't is necessary for the Due Government of the Church that one should be endow'd with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages Adde hereunto that so long as the End is but in Acquisition and not compleatly gained the Necessary Means to obtain it is alwayes necessary But the End in our present case viz. the Due Government of the Church the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholick Faith and Christian Charity is and ever hath been since the Apostles time but in Acquisition and shall not be compleatly gained till the end of the world Ergo the Necessary Means viz. the Supreme Authority of One over All in the Government of the Church is hath been and ever will be necessary to the Worlds End CHAP. 17. The Popes Authority asserted and vindicated ARGUMENT 1. Our Saviours prayer for St. Peter extended to his Successours 2. What it effected for St. Peter and what for them 3. PASCE OVES AGNOS John 21. 15. 17. a Special charge to St. Peter and not common in all respects to the rest of the Apostles 4. A.C. begs not the question but proves it 5. The Bishop willingly mistakes him about the Notion of a General Council 6. Optatus and St. Austins words cited nothing to the purpose 7. The Popes Ancient and undoubted right to confirm General Councils 8. The Bishops Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies examin'd and shew'n to be vain 9. The Popes Authority duly acknowledged sufficient to prevent Schismes and Heresies 10. The Government of the Church not purely Monarchical but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope and other Catholique Bishops differ'd 1. THe Bishop himself in his Answers to the Argument drawn from our Saviours Prayer for St. Peter Luke 22. 32. Ego rogavi pro Te c. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not shews the insufficiency of his Evasions Card. Bellarmin by the Testimony of seven Popes most of them very Ancient proves that our Saviour by that Prayer obtain'd both for St. Peter and his Successours this priviledge namely that they should never teach the Church any thing contrary to True Faith What sayes the Bishop to this As for St. Peter himself he tells us it will be easily granted that such a priviledge was obtain'd for him but that it should be obtain'd or intended for his Successours also that never came within the compass of ROGAVI PROTE Petre. Yea Bellarmin's proof according to the Relatour is its own Confutation And why because forsooth all his proofs are from witnesses in their own Cause and from Interessed persons I answer first that all his proofs are not from Popes fot he gives several pregnant reasons for his Assertion drawn from the Text it self had the Bishop been pleas'd to answer them Secondly I ask How interressed so far as to assert a manifest untruth in a matter of so great importance to the whole Church Surely no. Can our Adversaries have the Confidence Temerity rather to affirm that Felix the first a most Holy Martyr about the year 273. that Lucius the first another most Holy Martyr as some think or as others say a Confessour about the year 337. and Leo the first a most Holy Pope as all Antiquity acknowledg'd about the year 440. would dare pervert and mis-alledge Scripture onely for Interest and to advance their own Authority had they not known it to be the just Authority of their Sea and rightly grounded on this Text Truly I could never yet understand this proceeding of Protestants who make so many publick professions to stand to the Fathers Authority of the first Five or Six hundred years yet when such Fathers are alledged fly presently back and reject their Authority upon such weak pretenses as these And though Pope Agatho were something after those ages viz. about the year 678. yet I see not how they can refuse his Testimony in this matter unless they be resolved to contemn not onely him but all the Fathers in the sixth General Council where the Epistle of this Pope was read and approv'd who could much better judge whether his words were written out of proper Interest then the Relatour or any of his party The other Three 't is confest are of somewhat a later standing yet the latest of them flourisht above four hundred years since and we desire to know what Authour of good repute ever taxed any of them as by assed with proper interest when they publish't that St Peter does in his Successours still teach the Church and confirm his Brethren in the True Faith by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour His assertion that Bellarmin upon the matter confesses there is not one Father in the Church before Theophylacts time that understands this Text as Bellarmin doth is wholly groundless Must he needs confess there are no more Authours citable in any subject but what he cites himself Certainly though Bellarmins Learning was great and his Reading much yet was he known to be a person of too great modesty and humility to pretend to this But suppose he had confest as much as the Bishop desir'd what follows onely this that till Theophylacts time none had given so full an Exposition of those words Ego rogavi pro Te c. as those seven Popes which is no wonder at all considering how few of the Fathers have purposely commented upon the place and how many of them do in effect deliver the same Doctrine drawn from other Texts of Scripture as Bellarmin also shews in other Chapters The force therefore of Bellarmins proof out of Theophylact is this If our Saviours prayer was to have a special effect in St. Peter because he was to be the Churches Foundation under Christ it must also have the like effect in those who were to be such Foundations in succeeding ages that is in all his lawful Successours Neither doth this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith belong to him precisely as an Apostle which the Relatour insinuates but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him 2. To what he addes touching the two Effects or Priviledges our Saviours prayer obtain'd for St. Peter and their descending to his Successours I answer Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his did effectively so descend But I confess 't is a disputable question whether every thing which Christ by this prayer intended and obtain'd for St. Peter was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours That some special priviledge both intended and obtain'd by this prayer was to descend to them is manifest both by the Authorities and Reasons brought by Bellarmin in proof thereof and this Priviledge was that none of St. Peters Successours should ever so far fall from the Faith as to teach Heresie or any
against this Monarchical Government they rather prove our Assertion being ordain'd by Sixtus the first in favour of such Bishops as were call'd to Rome or otherwise forc'd to repair thither to the end they might without scruple be receiv'd into their own Diocess at their return having also decreed that without such Letters Communicatory none in such case should be admitted Now what can more clearly prove that the Pope had power over all Bishops and all Diocesses in the Church then the making of such a Decree We deny not but the like Literae Communicatoriae were mutually sent from one Patriarch to another But as for that even equal and Brotherly way whereby the Bishop pretends that these Letters were sent reciprocally from other Patriarchs and Bishops to the Bishop of Rome for admitting any into Episcopal or Priestly Office that went from them to him as I finde nothing of it in Baronius who yet handles the matter at large so I doubt not but it is a meer Chimaera And had the Bishop pleas'd with all his professed diligence in the search to have afforded us any instance in a business of such importance there would doubtless have appear'd a manifest difference and inequality between them viz. that those sent to the Pope from other Prelates were meerly Testimonial to assure him that the person bringing them was capable of his Communion whereas those from the Pope to other Bishops were not onely Testimonial but Mandatory or such as enjoyn'd the reception and restitution of the Bringer to such place and office in the Church as he pretended to Witness beside many other examples in Ecclesiastical Story the case of St. Athanasius and those other Catholick Bishops persecuted and expell'd their Seas by the Arrians and restor'd by vertue of the Popes Letters Communicatory But should the Pope voluntarily submit to the Equity of his own Law that is not onely allow such Letters to be written from others to him as he writes to them but also permit them to be so far of force as equity requires what would this prejudice his just Authority It might argue indeed the Humility of his Spirit but could surely be no Argument against his Right and Power to do otherwise if he saw cause CHAP. 18. A Continuation of the Defence of the Popes Authority ARGUMENT 1. Gersons Book de auferibilitate Papae proves nothing for the Bishop or his Party 2. St. Hierome and Optatus expounded 3. The Popes Spiritual Sovereignty not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes 4. Bishops of Divine Institution yet Subordinate to the Pope by the Law of Christ. 5. Pope Innocents Simile of the Sun and Moon in relation to the Spiritual and Civil Government an usual Allegory 6. Why the Book of the Law was anciently deliver'd to the Prince 7. The Pope never pretended to Subject the Emperour to himself in Temporals 8. The Jesuites unjustly charged by the Bishop 9. Occham no competent Judge in the question of the Popes Authority 10. The Definition of the Council of Florence touching that matter 1. BUt before we pass any further it will not be amiss to look back and examine more narrowly the Bishops Marginal Allegations Gerson that famous Chancellour of Paris and undoubted Catholique writ a Book in troublesome times intituled De auferibilitate Papae whence the Relatour concludes that the Authour was of opinion the Church might continue in very good being without a Monarchical Head A strange Illation and contrary to what Gerson expresly teaches in the very treatise the Bishop cites The drift of Gerson's discourse is to shew how many several wayes the Pope may be taken away that is depriv'd of his Office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But he no where teaches that the Government of the Church settled in a Monarchical way or rul'd by a Pope lawfully chosen can be absolutely abolisht by any power on earth but his judgement is clear even beyond all dispute for the contrary Hear Gersons own words and you will see to what great purpose and with what Fidelity our Adversary sometimes alledges Authours Auferibilis est saith he aut mutabilis LEGE STANTE quaelibet Politia Civilis Monarchica seu Regalis ut fiat Aristocratica at non sic de Ecclesiâ quae in UNO MONARCHA SUPREMO per universum fundata est à Christo quia nullam aliam Politiam instituit Christus IMMUTABILITER MONARCHIC AM quodammodò Regalem nisi Ecclesiam In English thus Any Civil Monarchy or Regal Government may be taken away or changed into an Aristocracy the Law still continuing in force But it is not so in the Church which was founded by Christ in one Supream Monarch throughout the world Because Christ instituted no other Government unchangeably Monarchical and as it were Regal besides the Church Can any words be more express in proof of the Authority of one over the whole Church And yet forsooth from the bare title of the Book the Relatour will inferre that in Gerson's judgement the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ Monarchical 2. Neither hath the Bishop much better success in his Allegation of St. Hierome who in his Epistle to Evagrius enveighing as his manner is somewhat vehemently against one that seem'd to preferre Deacons before Priests proceeds so far in vindication of the dignity and honour of Priesthood that he almost equalizes it with the office of Bishops plainly asserting that Diocesan Bishops have no more belonging to them jure Divino or by the Institution of Christ then Priests save onely the Power of Ordination that the riches wealth and amplitude of their respective Diocesses make not one Bishop greater then another but that all Bishops where ever they be plac'd are of one and the same merit and degree in regard of Ecclesiastical Priesthood which speaking precisely of the Office and Power Episcopal in it self is very true for a larger or lesser Diocess makes not one man more or less a Bishop then another St. Austin was as much a Bishop at little Hippo as Aurelius was at great Carthage But this is no impediment to the additional or accessory collation whether by divine or humane Institution of some special and more eminent Power and Authority upon the Bishop of one Diocess then of another as we say there is conferr'd jure Divino upon the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and jure Ecclesiastico upon many other Bishops viz. Archbishops Metropolitans Primates c. who by the Canons of the Church exercise authority over many Bishops who in regard of the power meerly Episcopal are equal to them St. Hierome therefore when he sayes ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii speaks not of the
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
Damned page 336 Heresies Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense by St. Austin and the Churches account page 17 Pelagian Heresie not condemned in the Council of Ephesus page 33 Nor in any other General Council acknowledg'd by Protestants Ibid. Heresie what it is page 178 Properly speaking not within but without the Church page 218 Hereticks Those of former times as great Pretenders to Scripture as Protestants page 50 Faith necessary to be kept with Hereticks the constant Tenet of all Catholicks page 152 Jews THe Jews prov'd the Old Testament to be Gods Word the same way that we Catholicks do the New page 121 They held not the Old Testament for their sole Rule of Faith page 122 Images No real difference betwixt the Ancient and the Modern Church of Rome in point of Images page 294 The Second Council of Nice expresly forbad the Worship of Images with Latria or Divine Worship Ibid. c. The Definition of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images Ibid. The Church hath done what in her lyeth to prevent abuses in Image-Worship Ibid. Images in common use and veneration amongst Christians in Primitive Times page 295 296 Index The Index Expurgatorius justified against the Bishops Calumnies page 342 Infallible The Catholick Church prov'd to be Infallible by the same Means that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were prov'd such page 55 56 62 In what sense Catholicks maintain that the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive and Apostolical p. 80 No Means to be Infallibly sure of Prime Apostolical Tradition if the present Church be Fallible page 83 Necessary for the Church to have power to determine Infallibly as well Not-Fundamental as Fundamental points page 385 Infallibility Whence the Infallibility both of the Catholick Church and General Councils proceeds page 43 The Infallibility of the present Church prov'd from Scripture page 101 102 c. page 177 178 179 In what manner the Churches Infallibility in Teaching is rightly infer'd from the Holy Ghosts Assistance page 375 376 Intention What kinde of Intention in the Priest is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments page 281 282 283 No real Inconveniencies following the Catholique Doctrine touching the Priests Intention page 284 285 Judge Our Adversaries demand of a Third person to be Judge and Umpire betwixt the Roman Church and Them nugatory and frivolous pag. 157 171 172 173 The notorious partiality of English Protestant Prelats in this case p. 174 General Councils by the Bishops own confession the best Judge on earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted page 213 A visible supreme living Judge to determine Controversies as necessary in the Church as State page 219 Legats NEither Hosius nor any other person presided at the Council of Nice but onely in quality of the Popes Legats page 231 Why the Pope sent no Legats to the second Council at Constantinople page 232 At the Council of Ephesus St. Cyril presided as Legat to Pope Celestin. Ibid. The like was at Chalcedon and other General Councils Ibid. Limbus Patrum The Fathers generally teach Limbus Patrum page 336 Literae Communicatoriae The Literae Communicatoriae by whom first ordain'd and to what end page 220 They evidently prove the Popes Authority Ibid. The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope and Those granted by other Catholique Bishops Ibid. Lyturgie The English Lyturgie why unlawful to be us'd by Catholiques page 319 Manichees GReat Braggers and pretenders to Truth when they most oppos'd it page 30 Miracles None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures either Protestant or Catholique page 109 Miracles rather confirm the Churches Infallibility then the Scripture's page 110 They are always sufficiently convincing though they do not actually convert page 115 Monarchy That of the Church not a pure but mixt Monarchy page 219 224 Monarchy acknowledg'd by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government page 220 The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church to what it tends page 224 Multitude Catholiques make not Multitude alone any Infallible Mark of the True Church page 162 Necessary POints said to be Necessary to Salvation in a double sense p. 15 92 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation to believe Scripture p. 91 92 Nice No Synod held at Rome in the time of the Nicen Council page 237 The Council of Nice of absolute Authority without the concurrence of any other Council Ibid. The Council of Sardica esteem'd anciently but an Appendix of the Council of Nice and the reasons why page 194 195 The probable occasion of Pope Zosimus his citing the Council of Nice for that of Sardica Ibid. Obedience NO External Obedience to be given to the Definitions of General Councils should they manifestly erre against Scripture and Demonstration page 241 242 Object of Faith Material and Formal a necessary Distinction page 15 18 What it imports Ibid. Patriarchs IN point of Authority not Equal to the Bishop of Rome p. 183 184 The Bishop of Rome Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs by the very Canon of the Council of Nice Ibid. The Popes Confirmation requir'd to all new-elected Patriarchs Ibid. Eight several Patriarchs depos'd by the Bishop of Rome Ibid. Other Patriarchs restor'd to their Seas by the Popes Authority Ibid. St. Peter In what manner St. Peter represented or bare the person of the whole Church when he receiv'd the Keyes Matth. 16. 19. page 266 267 Christs whole flock more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter then to the other Apostles page 211 Pope The Popes Authority alwayes included and suppos'd in that of the Church pag. 33 The Infallibility of the Pope not necessarily tyed to the particular Church or city of Rome page 132 Catholiques not oblig'd to maintain the Pope Infallible save onely with a General Council page 133 143 In what manner the Popes trewhile indur'd the Emperours censures page 192 The Popes Authority duly acknowledg'd would effectually prevent Heresies and preserve Unity in the Church page 218 The Popes Greatness no effect of Humane Policy page 13 Nor of his Residence in the Imperial-City page 192 The Definition of the Council of Florence touching the Popes Authority page 228 229 The Popes Authority not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes p. 223 Pope Alexander the Third and Pope Innocent the Third not contrary to one another in the cause of Peter Lombard page 279 Pope Honorius not really guilty of the Monothelites Heresie p. 279 280 Priest The judgement of the High Priest and his Sanhedrim in Controversies concerning the Law Infallible under the Old Testament p. 97 123 Prescription Justly pleaded by Catholiques for their Religion not so by Protestants page 333 334 Primacy PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what they signifie especially in Ecclesiastical sense page 200 Primacy inferrs Supremacy and belongs to St. Peters Successors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself Ibid. Protestants Neither Scripture nor any other
then two hundred African Bishops at once who being banish'd into Sicily for the Catholique Faith by the Arrian King Gelimer Symmachus Papa saith Paulus Diaconus UT SUA MEMBRA suis sumptibus aluit ac fovit liberalissimè Pope Symmachus maintain'd them most liberally at his own charge as members of his own body which is a convincing argument that he held them not for Schismatiques 7. In the next Paragraph the Bishop by a long discourse founded more upon his own conjectural presumptions then any thing else undertakes to shew how the Popes rose by degrees to that height of Authority which Protestants cannot endure to see in which discourse having first asper'st St. Hierome as being no great friend to Bishops which is both false and injurious to the reputation of so holy a Doctour at last he delivers his own assertion which is That the very Fountain of Papall Greatness was the Popes residence in the great Imperial City But we have often shew'd a far different Fountain thereof viz. the Ordinance of Christ making St. Peter Head of his Universal Church in that Text of the Gospel Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. according to the common Exposition of Fathers is it reason then we should take the Relatours bare word for it without proof Well but Precedency saith he is one thing and Authority another thereby insinuating that under the reign of Constantin the Bishop of Rome had onely Precedency or Priority of place in publique Assemblies before other Prelats by reason of his residence in the Imperial City without any proper Authority or Jurisdiction over them But we have often evidenc'd the contrary 8. After a slight glance at the Levity of the Eastern and Arrogancy of the Western Bishops wherein the Pope is no more concern'd then all other Prelats of the West he tells us of the Obedience Popes did anciently shew towards the Emperours enduring saith he their Censures and Judgements and accepting the ratification of their Election to the Popedom at the Emperours hands We confess all this They endured the Emperours Censures just in the same manner as all other oppressed persons are forc'd to endure the judgement of their oppressors But let all his Lordships party shew us one just judgement that an Emperour ever pronounced against the Pope They accepted the ratification of their Election at the Emperours hands but surely that except in some few cases where wicked Emperors apparently tyranniz'd over them and by force compell'd them to do what they pleas'd contrary to Law and Custom was no more then this The Emperour being duly inform'd that such or such a person was Canonically chosen Pope there issued forth of course some Declaration or other Authentick Act from the Emperour whereby he gave notice thereof to the principal Judicatures and Prefect ships of the Empire requiring them upon all occasions to acknowledge the said Elected person for Pope A thing very proper for the Emperour to do as the state of the Empire then stood as was also observ'd in the Election of most of the chief Prelats and Officers of the Empire But his Lordship was much mistaken if under the notion of ratifying the Popes Election he thought the Emperours had ever any just power to make whom they pleased Pope never any good Emperour pretended to more then to see that the Election were Canonical which in a matter so highly concerning the peace of the Empire could not with equity be deny'd them But had any Emperours refus'd to ratifie the Election of a Pope Canonically chosen no man but a stranger in Ecclesiastical History can doubt but all good Christians would in such case have adher'd to the said Pope and not to him the Emperour should have obtruded upon them We also grant that so long as the Pope remain'd a Subject of the Empire this custome continued but being afterward declar'd free from that subjection the reason ceased and the custome with it See Gratian. Decret Can. Ego Ludovicus Dist. 63. Can. Constitutio Dist. eâdem where the Emperours themselves renounce it After this to prove that the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were grown so ambitious that they could hardly contain themselves within the ordinary bounds of their own Jurisdictions the Relatour cites us three Greek words out of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie beyond their Priestly Power or Office to which I might well supersede the answer since he quotes not the place of his Author which it 's more then probable he industriously omitted Yet the place after some search we have found Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. and must needs say 't is such a place as clearly shews not onely that Socrates was an enemy of the Roman Church and a favourer of Heretiques as divers good Authours charge him but that even the Bishop himself was not so great a friend to Truth and Ingenuity as he ought For certainly the Historian utters the alledged words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meerly out of spleen against the said Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria for not suffering the Novatian Heretiques to exercise publiquely the profession of their Heresie in Catholique Churches for which how little it became his Lordship first to tax them of pride and then to palliate his injurious censure with the testimony of such an Authour let any man judge But all 's lawful with some men that 's done or spoken against the Roman Church Billius his observation of the Western Bishops objecting Levity to the Eastern and of these retorting Arrogancy to those of the West proves just as much as the Testimony of one Adversary against another and whether the world by this took notice of the Popes ambition or not sure I am there 's no unbyassed Judgement but will take notice our Adversary is very destitute of solid proofs who fills his pages onely with such impertinencies as these 9. His main design is to overthrow the Popes Supremacy by shewing it was not lawful to appeal to Rome But Catholique Authors frame an unanswerable Argument for his Supremacy even from the contrary thus It was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs from all the parts of Christendome therefore say they the Pope must needs be Supream Judge in Ecclesiastical matters This is evidenc'd out of the fourth and seventh Canons of the Council of Sardica accounted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice and often cited as the same with it I deny not but some ancient Authors may speak against too frequent appealing to Rome and declining ordinary Jurisdiction especially where the crimes were manifest and all just proceedings towards delinquent parties observ'd as who doubts but in Civil causes there may be just ground of complaint against the like appeals especially if the Courts to which the Cause is remov'd by Appeal be very remote but withall who sees not that such accidental complaints do rather confirm then weaken the confess'd Authority and Right
of such Superiour Courts to receive and determine Causes of Appeal To prevent as much as might be all occasion of Complaints in this kinde the Council of Sardica provided this expedient that no Ecclesiasticks under the degree of Bishops should usually be allow'd to appeal to Rome which may easily serve to reconcile all seeming contradiction in Authours touching this matter And it must be observ'd that though the Canons prohibit Priests and inferiour Clergy-men to appeal out of their own Province yet they forbid not the Pope to call what causes of theirs he sees necessary before him although indeed in the business of Apiarius the Pope properly speaking did neither call him out of his own Province to be heard by himself nor yet admitted his appeal but remanded him back to his proper Judges with command they should hear his cause once again and do him right in case it were found that any injustice had been used towards him in the former Sentence However Bishops were never prohibited the liberty of appealing to Rome by any Ecclesiastical Canon whatever 'T is true indeed the Africans in their Epistle above-mention'd thought good by way of Argument and Deduction to extend the Canon prohibiting Appeals even unto Bishops causes but the general custome of the Church was ever against them as is manifest by what hath been said 10. The Fathers in the sixth Council of Carthage petition'd I confess the Pope not easily to give ear to those who appeal'd to Rome from Africk especially where the crimes were manifest They except also against the manner of proceeding in the case of Apiarius and some others in which the Popes Legats sent into Africk carried not themselves as Judges but rather as Patrons and Advocates of the appealers Wherefore the Prelates at that Council request his Holiness he would rather please to give power to some in Africk to end such causes then send from Rome such as should give encouragement to Delinquents ne fumosum Typhum Saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi videretur inducere Lest otherwise say they his Holiness should seem to introduce the swelling pride or haughtiness of the world into the Church of Christ which ought to be the School and Mistress of Humility We confess also that in the times of Pope Zosimus Boniface the first and Pope Celestin there was much searching into the Records of the Nicen Council to finde the matter of Appeals therein decided The occasion was this Pope Zosimus to shew his proceedings in that affair to be not onely just but Canonical had by a little mistake the errour probably being rather his Secretaries then his own cited the Council of Nice for his Right touching Appeals whereas it should have been the Council of Sardica in the Canons whereof that Power is clearly allow'd the Pope Now this Council of Sardica being rather an Appendix of the Council of Nice then otherwise and called presently after it consisting likewise for the most part of the same Prelates and assembled for no other end but to confirm the Faith of the Nicen Council and supply some Canons necessary for the Discipline of the Church what matters it that such a mis-citation of one Council for another happened or how does it prejudice the Popes right Did the African Fathers or any other Catholique Authour of succeeding ages ever charge the Pope with falsifying the Canons upon this account as Protestants now do let them shew this if they can CHAP. 16. Of the Title of Vniversal Bishop ARGUMENT 1. The Title of Universal Bishop often given by Antiquity to the Bishops of Rome but never used by them 2. Though the Bishops of Constantinople assum'd the Title yet they never conceiv'd it did exempt them from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 3. A double signification of the Term Universal Bishop the one Grammatical the other Metaphorical and how they differ 4. St. Gregory condemn'd it onely in the first sense asserting the second expresly to himself 5. Phocas gave no new title to Boniface but onely declar'd that the Title of Universal Bishop did of right belong to the Pope and not to the Bishop of Constantinople 6. St. Irenaeus not rightly translated by the Bishop 7. Ruffinus corrupts the Nicen Canons and the Bishop mistakes Ruffinus 8. The Bishop even with Calvins help cannot clear himself of the Authority of St. Irenaeus 9. St. Epiphanius miscited and mistaken by the Bishop 10. Primacy and Supremacy in the Ecclesiastical sense all one and as necessary in the Church of Christ now as in the Apostles times AFter many windings the Bishop leads us at last into a Trite and beaten way falling upon the Question of John Patriarch of Constantinople so much censur'd by St. Gregory for assuming the title of Universal Bishop an objection satisfi'd a hundred times over yet though never so clear in it self the Bishop still endeavours to overshadow it with difficulties and amuse his Reader To the end therefore all obscurity may be taken away and the truth clearly appear I think it not amiss in the first place to set down the whole matter Historically as I finde it registred in the Monuments of the Church 1. Know then that the Title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop in Ecclesiastical History was anciently attributed to the Bishop of Rome This no man can deny that reads the Acts of that famous General Council of Chalcedon where in a Letter approv'd by the whole Council and afterward by order of the Bishops there assembled inserted into the Acts thereof the Priests and Deacons of Alexandria style Pope Leo The most Holy and most Blessed Oecumenical or Universal Patriarch of great Rome c. The National Council of Constantinople did the same to Pope Agapet calling him their most holy Lord the Archbishop of old Rome and Oecumenical Patriarch Agapet c. John Bishop of Nicopolis with others styles Pope Hormisda Universi orbis terrarum Patriarcha which is in full sense the same with Oecumenical Constantinus Pogonatus the Emperour in the third Council of Constantinople which is the sixth General calls Leo the Second Oecumenical Pope as witness both Baronius and Binius So likewise did Basil the younger Emperour with Eustathius Bishop of Constantinople as appears by the Acts of their Reconciliation Yea Balsamon himself notwithstanding his known rancour against the Roman Sea is forc'd to acknowledge that the Greeks had an ancient custom to style the Bishop of Rome Oecumenical or Universal POPE nevertheless it cannot be shown they ever made use of this honourable Title but rather contented themselves with that of Servus Servorum Dei as relishing more of Humility and Apostolical meekness Whereas on the contrary the Bishops of Constantinople have for many hundreds of years usurp't it in all their Briefs Letters c. as appears by the Greek Canon Law it self viz. in the Titles of Sisinnius German Constantin Alexius and several other Patriarchs 2. It is further observable that
of sardica Ephesus Chalcedon with the Emperour Valentinian himselfe in his Epistle to Theodosius 〈◊〉 amonge the preambulatory Epistles of the Council of 〈◊〉 Here you see a Generall consent of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church for belocning the so much contested Power and Principality of St. Peter and his Successours ouer the whole Church Doe the Bishop and his English Protestant Church beleeue this Doe they interpret Scripture and the Creeds in this sense Againe Protestants deny that there is a Purgatory or that the soules of the faythfull departed doe eyther need or can receiue any kinde of help or benefitt any kinde of releefe case of paine or other consolation from the faythfull liuing Yet it was the generall beleefe of the ancient Primitiue Church that they could and did many of them receiue help and benefitt after their departure from the faythfull Liuing namely by the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist by the prayers alms-deeds and other offices of Christian pietie that were done for them grounding this their beleefe both vpon Tradition and seuerall texts of Scripture as wee shall make further to appeare in the following chapter where this point is particularly to be treated How therfore could the Bishop or how can Protestants pretend that their Fayth is agreeable to the Primitiue Church and that they interpret Scripture in the sense of that Church 5. But the Relatour if he cannot make good his own cause at least he endeauours to shew that wee Romanists doe not beleeue Scripture and the Creeds in all points according to that sense in which the Primitiue Church vnderstood them The Primitiue Church sayth he neuer interpreted the descent of Christ into Hell to be no lower then LIMBVS PATRVM But how will it be made to appeare that the Primitiue Church interpreted Christs descent to be as low as the place where the reprobate are tormented Because it is sayd in the Creeds that Christ descended into Hell must wee needs vnderstand that he descended euen to the place of reprobate and damned soules Did Iacob meane that place of punishment when expressing his griefe for the supposed death of his sonne Ioseph Genes 37. 35. he sayd I will goe down to my sonne mourning into Hell Doth not Caluin himselfe grant in effect what our Church vnderstands by Limbus Patrum when he sayth Let no body wonder that the holy Fathers who expected Christs redemption were shut vp in prison Doth not St. Irenaeus that ancient father affirme that in those three dayes and nights in which Christ was dead he remayned with the Patriarchs who could not be held to be amonge the damned Doth he not likewise teach that our Sauiour desoended to them that are vnder the earth that he might make know'n his coming and acquaint them with the remission of sinnes giuen to all those that beleeue in him Doth not Origen plainly auouch that Christ deliuered from the place into which he descended our first Father Adam whome none will auerre to haue been amonge the damned and doth he not vnderstand those words of Christ to the good theefe Luc. 23. hodie mecum eris in Paradiso this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise to haue been verifyed also of all those to whome Christ descended Doth not Eusebius 〈◊〉 say that the soule of Christ hauing recommended it selfe to the Eternall Father left the body and descending into Hell deliuer'd from thence the Fathers In a word doth not St. Hierome by Hell vnderstand Limbus-Patrum when he sayth that before Christ Abraham was apud Inferos in Hell but after Christ euen the thiefe is in Paradise Why therfore should the Bishop so peremptorily deny that by Hell into which Christ descended none of the ancient fathers did vnderstand Limbus Patrum But he proceeds The Primitiue Church sayth he did not acknowledge a Purgatory in a side part of Hell But it did acknowledge a Purgatory which the Bishop denies Let Protestants but grant there is a Purgatory and the Church of Rome will not binde them to place it in a side part of Hell this beeing noe article of our beleefe The Primitiue Church says the Bishop did not interpret away halfe the Sacrament from Christs institution neither did it euer interpret Christs institution to be such as did oblige all Christians vnder paine of sin to receiue it in both kindes as wee haue already prou'd The Primitiue Church did not make the Priests intention to be of the essence of the Sacrament etc. very true neither doth our Church make it to be so but it was Christ himselfe that soe ordain'd it as wee haue also shew'n The Primitiue Church beleeu'd no worship to be due to Jmages But how will it be prou'd they beleeu'd it to be sinne and vnlawfull to worship them for their Prototypes sake Doth not Lactantius in the Primitiue Church write thus in his Poem de Passione addressing his speech to a Christian as then entring into the Church Flecte genu lignumque Crucis VENERABILEADORA Doth not St. Basil. Epi st 53. in Iulian. reported in the second Council of Nice Action 2. profess that he publiquely adored Jmages and that the honour done to them redounds to the persons whome they represent Doth not St. Ambrose praise the Empress St. Helena for setting the Cross vpon the head or crown of Kings that it might be adored in them and doth not St. Hierome report of her that hauing at Hierusalem happily found the Cross vpon which our Sauiour suffered she adored it as if she had euen then seen our Lord hanging vpon it Doth not St. Chrysostome likewise exhort Christians to come with feare and deuotion to worship the Cross vpon the aniuersary or yearly holy * day on which they were then wont solemnly to performe that duty as Roman Catholique generally now doe vpon Goodfryday Doth not Paulinus Bishop of Nola mention the like custome in Jtaly and Iustinian the Emperour style the Cross in that very regard adorandam verè honorandam Crucem To conclude omitting diuerse other pregnant instances of the perpetuall vse and veneration also of sacred Images amonge Christians related by Eusebius Historia Tripartita Nicephorus and others if the Primitiue Church acknowledged no worship to be due to Images how could the Generall Council according to the latin translation of it style them venerabiles and profess to giue adoration to them MENTE SERMONE SENSV both in minde body and words Yea how could St. Gregory say non quasi ante Diuinitatem ante illas prosternimur confessing prosternimur that Christians did vse to bow or prostrate their bodies before them but not as vnto the Deity it selfe or as attributing Diuinity to them But aboue all how could the second Council of Nice an assembly of Bishops for number exceeding the first it selfe so much celebrated by Christians and conuen'd from all parts and