there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
pleases then to any severity in the Church of Rome which is known to be a pious Mother and never proceeds to Excommunication but when obstinacy and perverseness enforce her As to what the Bishop objects that the Roman Church makes many points to be of necessary belief which had for many hundred of years passed onely for pious opinions if his Lordship had assigned any such points in particular they should have received an answer The Relatour dislikes Mr. Fisher for saying The Church of England in her Book of Canons Excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles viz the 39. Articles But although these were not the precise words of their Canon yet the Church of England excommunicating all such as affirme they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto them as 't is manifest she does by the very Canon which the Bishop cites she doth in effect excommunicate all that hold any thing contrary to the said Articles As for the pretended severity of the Roman Church we have answer'd it already and shew'd that the Freedom and Liberty granted by her enemies would afford no more prosperity to her then it hath done to them 'T is true the Church of Rome as his Lordship takes notice imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of Damnation but it is not in her power to do otherwise because Christ himself hath commanded her so to do in these words Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican 7. His exceptions here against A. C. are but as so many Meanders For first he sayes that the words objected by A. C. are not the words of the Canon I answer nor did A. C. affirm they were Secondly he addes and perhaps not the sense because privately holding within himself and boldly and publickly affirming are different things True But where doth A. C. mention those words privately holding within himself or where does the Canon say boldly and publickly affirming as the Bishop would impose on the Reader And as to the sense of the Article the Bishop himself durst not boldly and publickly affirme that A. C. missed it but sayes onely perhaps he did and then perhaps he did not But without all perhaps and peradventure he gave the genuine sense of the Canon seeing 'tis against all reason to imagine that a man should be held punishable with Excommunication for a meer internal Act. He must mean therefore by the word holding an external Act which cannot amount to less then Affirming 8. The question is not whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more Severe but whether the English Protestants Severity in Excommunicating those that affirme any part of the thirty nine Articles to be 〈◊〉 be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For what is it less then unreasonable Tyranny to cast men out of their Church which they esteem a True one deliver them up to Satan and lay Gods and their Churches curse upon them for affirming that to be erroneous which for ought they know may possibly be such indeed especially when the Impugner fully perswades himself that what he affirms to be erroneous in them is really so For Excommunication being the most grievous punishment the Church can inflict must require a Crime proportionable to it But can any man perswade himself that to oppose a Doctrine against which the opposer verily perswades himself he hath either an evidence from Scripture or a Demonstrative reason in which cases the Bishop grants that one may yea ought to oppugne the Churches errours can any man I say perswade himself that this is a Crime proportionable or a sufficient cause of Excommunication Every just Excommunication therefore inflicted for the opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground Whence likewise it follows that Protestants while they confess on the one side that all their thirty nine Articles are not Fundamental points of Faith and by consequence in their sense and according to their principles not infallibly true but subject to errour yet on the other side proceed to Excommunication against any that affirm them or any part of them to be superstitious or erroneous do themselves exercise a greater Tyranny and injustice towards their people then they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which as they well know excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both Infallibly true and also Fundamental at least according to the formal Object As little is it the question whether the Roman Churches Excommunications be of a much larger extent then those of the English Protestants for this argues no more then that one is the Universal Church the other not but the question is as hath been said whether Protestants Excommunications be not unreasonable nay most enormious as inflicted by those who acknowledge themselves fallible and subject to errour in that very point for which they Excommunicate Again as to the larger extent of our excommunications might not the same have been objected against the excommunications of the Apostles themselves by any particular Heretical Conventicles in those times to wit that their pretended Excommunications reached no further then the bounds of their own private Congregations whereas the Apostolical Excommunications extended to the utmost limits of the whole Christian World What follows ha's been often answered For we grant the Scripture is sufficient for some mens Salvation if we regard the material Object onely or the chief points of Faith because all the Prime Articles of our Faith are expressed in Scripture which Prime Articles are Fundamental onely in the first sense so often declared But hence it follows not that some things not exprest in Scripture are not Fundamental in the second sense formerly delivered Amongst these Tradition must be numbered for which we admit Scripture it self In this truly to use his Lordships Rhetorique the Fathers are plain the Schoolmen are not strangeis and Stapleton whom he stiles an angry opposite confesses as much Moreover where there is any difficulty about the sense of Scripture or the point to be believed we are not so to stand to Scripture as that we refuse to hear the Church appointed by Christ to interpret it and to declare what ought to be believed For otherwise there would be no end of Controversies every Heretique pretending Scripture and crying it up as much as the Bishop or any other of his party can do Nor can the Church obtrude any thing as Fundamental in the Faith which is not so in it self she being Infallible as shall hereafter be proved the Bishop here wrongfully supposing the contrary Mr. Fisher sayes 'T is true That the Church of England grounds her POSITIVE Articles
use his own language enterfeires shrewdly For speaking of the whole Church Militant he tells us if she can erre either FROM the Foundation or IN it she can be no longer Holy and that Article of the Creed is gone I BELIEVE THE HOLY CATHOLIQUE CHURCH yet presently after speaking of the same Church he saith If she erre IN the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental points of Faith then she may be a Church of Christ still but not Holy but becomes Heretical These words I say hang not well together for an Heretical Congregation cannot be a Church of Christ because by pertinacious and obstinate erring especially against the Fundamental and prime Articles of the Creed it becomes neither Holy nor Church of Christ believing no more any part of Christian Doctrine with Divine and Supernatural Faith then if it had faln into a general Apostacy from the whole Foundation 'T is therefore very strange to hear him say that if the Church erre in one or more Fundamental points then she may be a Church of Christ still though not Holy but Heretical Are there two sorts of Christs-Churches upon earth one Holy the other unholy one Catholique the other Heretical Is a Church erring in the very Foundation it self and that in more then one point of it a Church of Christ still what calls he then I pray the Synagogue of Satan Had he so quite forgot that by the unanimous consent of all Christians both Ancient and Modern all Heretical Congregations whatever are esteemed sever'd from the Catholique Church I adde therefore and confidently averre that any errour in Faith whatever much more in and against the Foundation pertinaciously defended against the Church renders the Congregation that maintains it no Church of Christ. No errours thus defended are to be accounted of mean alloy or weak tincture they are all dyed in grain they all remove Holiness from the Assembly that so erres and wholly un-Church it The reason hereof hath been given above viz. because all such errour implicitely and virtually at least either affirms something to be Gods word which is not or denies that to be his word which is it either asserts errour to be Gods word or Gods word to be an errour both which being in so high a degree injurious and derogatory to the Veracity of God can be no less then Mortal Sins against the vertue of Divine Faith and by consequence destructive of it which is also in effect warranted by that saying of our Saviour in the Gofpel Si Ecclesiam non audierit c. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican that is account him no Christian whatever he seems to profess Hence it appears that A. C's inference was very reasonable when he told the Bishop he might safely grant not onely that Protestants did make the Division but further that it was ill done of them who first made the Separation I may justly adde it is likewise ill done of those who continue in it For as all the Fathers teach and the most learned of English Protestants acknowledge there neither was nor ever can be just cause given for any man or number of men particular Church or Churches to separate themselves or continue in Schisme out of the Communion of the Holy Catholique Church CHAP. 12. Of keeping Faith with Heretiques ARGUMENT 1. That Faith ought to be kept with Heretiques is the constant Tenet of all Catholique Divines 2. What kinde of Safe-conduct John Huss had from the Emperour and Hierome of Prague from the Council of Constance 3. The Councils Decree in this business insincerely cited by the Bishop and Simancha egregiously Sophisticated 4. Neither the Council nor the Emperour justly blameable in their proceedings 5. The absurd partiality of Protestants imposing most unequal conditions upon the Church while they admit not any to be impos'd on themselves 1. MR. Fisher having in the precedent discourse briefly yet very justly and truly charged Protestants with the Crime of Schisme A. C. prosecutes the matter and undertakes to justifie and clear the Church's proceedings towards them from such imputatitions as they usually cast upon her To this purpose he thinks fit to minde his Adversary that after this Breach was made the Church of Rome did invite the Protestants publickly with Safe Conduct to Rome to a General Council freely to speak what they could for themselves This passage of A. C. gives the Bishop a new Theme viz. concerning keeping Faith with Heretiques a Theme which for the most part our Adversaries love to dwell upon as thinking they have some great advantage against us therein The Relatour glosses upon A. C's words and tells us this kinde Invitation was onely to bring them within our Net that the Conduct granted was Safe for going thither viz. to Rome but not for coming thence that the Jesuits write and maintain That Faith given is not to be kept with Heretiques that John Huss and Hierome of Prague were burnt for all their Safe Conduct Thus the Bishop Beoanus treating this matter very well observes that our Adversaries in this are like the Pharisees of old who though they heard from our Saviours own mouth that they should give to Caesar the things which belong to Caesar yet had the face openly before Pilate to accuse him of forbidding Tribute to be given to Caesar. In like manner we do both privately and publiquely in word and writing teach and profess that Faith is to be kept as well with Heretiques as Catholiques yet our Adversaries by their clamorous accusations seem as if they would force us to hold the contrary whether we will or no. But before I prove that Faith hath been kept with Heretiques even in those examples which the Bishop alledges I observe that he himself keeps not Faith with Catholiques at least in his Citations otherwise he would not have miscited his Adversaries words for thus he makes him speak But A. C. goes on saith he and tells us that after this Breach was made yet the Church of Rome was so kinde and carefull to seek Protestants that she invited them publiquely with Safe Conduct to Rome to a General Council freely to speak what they could for themselves Whereas the words of A. C. speaking of the Church of Rome's proceeding with Protestants in this case are onely these Which did AT FIRST seek to recall them from their novel Opinions and AFTER THEIR BREACH did permit yea invited them publiquely to Rome to a General Council c. In A. C's words rightly cited the Church of Rome is onely said to seek to recall Protestants from their novel opinions or errours a thing no way liable to cavil whereas in the Bishops allegation of the words they are so plac'd and such words of his own added to them as if the Church of Rome by her seeking had aim'd at nothing else but how to entrap Protestants when A. C. not
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church with all Fundamentall points generally held for such and to receiue the fowre first Generall Councils only and noe more be a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation Did our Sauiour meane the Primitiue Church only or only the fowre first Generall Councils and noe others when he sayd Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not heare the Church lett him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And if it be to be vnderstood as without doubt it is of the Church and Generall Councils in all ages how could the Bishop how can Protestants thinke themselues secure only by beleeuing the fowre first Councils and the Church of Primitiue times if they oppose and contradict others or contemne the authority of the true Catholique Church of Christ that now is And for the second viz. that the English-Protestant Fayth is not really and indeed such a Fayth as the Bishop here professeth will appeare vpon examination thus You beleeue say you Protestants the Scripture and the Creeds and you beleeue them in the sense of the Primitiue Church J aske first doe you meane all Scripture or only a part of it if part of it only how can your Fayth be thought such as cannot but giue Saluation seeing for ought you know there may be damnable errour and sinne in reiecting the other part If you meane all Scripture you profess more then you are able to make good seeing you refuse many books of Scripture that were held Canonicall by very many in the Primitiue Church and admitt for Canonicall diuerse others that were for some time doubted of and not reckoned for any part of the Canon by many ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church more then those were which for that reason chiefly you account Apocrypha 4. You pretend to beleeue both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church But when will this be prou'd wee bring diuerse testimonies from the Fathers and Doctours of those ancient times vnderstanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholy agreeable to vs and contrary to your doctrine Must all our allegations be esteem'd apocryphall and counterfeite or mis-vnderstood because they impugne your reformed beleefe must nothing be thought rightly alledged but what suites with your opinions you pretend conformity with the fowre first Generall Councils too but the proceedings of those Councils cleerly shew the quite contrary The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Syluester to confirm their decrees Doe Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope The great St. Athanasius with the Bishops of Egypt assembled in the Council at Alexandria profess that in the Council of Nice it was with one accord determined that without consent of the Bishop of Rome neither Councils should be held nor Bishops condemned Doe not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon by one common voyce profess that St. Peter spake by the mouth of Leo that the sayd Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter deposed Dioscorus Doe they not call him the vniuersall Bishop the vniuersall Patriarch the Bishop of the vniuersall Church Doe they not terme him the Interpreter of St. Peters voyce to all the world Doe they not acknowledge him their Head and themselues his members and consets that the custody or keeping of Christs vineyard which is the whole Church was by our Sauiour committed to him Js this the dialect or beleefe of English Protestants Did not likewise the whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first Bishop of Rome to confirme what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresie with the authority of the Sea Apostolique pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the sauing of many and for correcting the peruerse wickedness of some and did they not with all reuerence and submission receiue the Popes answer sent to them in these words In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you haue made it appeare sayth he not only by vsing all diligence as is required of a true and Catholique Council in examining matters of that concernment but also in referring your debates to our iudgement and approbation how sound your Fayth is and that you are mindefull to obserue in all things the examples of ancient tradition and the discipline of the Church knowing that this is a duty which you owe to the Apostolique Sea wherein wee all desire to follow the Apostle from whome both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is deriued and following him wee cannot be ignorant both how to condemne what is ill and also to approue that which is praise-worthy oYou doe well therfore and as it becometh Priests to obserue the customes of the ancient Fathers which they grounded not vpon humane but diuine authority that nothing should be finally determined in remote Prouinces without the knowledge of this Sea by whose full authority the sentence giuen if it were found to be iust might be confirm'd this Sea beeing the proper Fountaine from which the pure and vncorrupted waters of truth were to streame to all the rest of the Churches Will English Protestants consent to this Doe not the Prelats in the Council of Ephesus heare with like attention and approbation Philip the Priest one of the Popes Legats to that Council auouching publiquely in full Council the authority of St. Peters Successour in these words noe body doubts sayth he nay it is a thing manifest and acknowledged in all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter PRINCE AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES AND FOVNDATION OF THE CHVRCH receiued from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and that to this day he still liues in his Successours and determines causes of Fayth and shall euer continue so to doe With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend that Protestants conform themselues to the doctrine of the fowre first Generall Councils Those Councils submitt their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome Protestants disclayme from him as from an enemy of Christs Gospell Those Councils acknowledge him vniuersall Pastour and Head of the Church Protestants cry out against him as an Vsurper and Tyrant ouer the Church Those Councils confess him St. Peters Successour who was Prince and Chiefe of the Apostles Protestants call him and esteem him Antichrist The Councils own his authority ouer the whole Church as proceeding from Christ Protestants allow him noe more power by diuine right then they allow to euery ordinary Bishop Lastly these Councils with all submission profess that the Pope was their Head and themselues his members Protestants giue vs in contempt and derision the nickname of Papists for doing the same that is for owning subiection to the Pope and Sea of Rome I might instance in many other points wherein Protestants disagree from the fowre first Generall Councils but I pass them ouer to take notice of what followes There is sayth the Bishop but one sauing Fayth But then euery thing which you call
DE FIDE of Fayth because some Council or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Fayth as that he which expressly beleeues it not nay as that he which beleeues the contrary is excluded from Saluation so his disobedience therenhile offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor the charity that ought to be amongst Christians Wee doe not say that euery thing is de Fide that some Council or other indefinitely speaking be it generall or particular hash defined but that euery thing is de fide which is defined by a Lawfull Generall Council And for this how contemptuously soeuer he is pleas'd to speake of it because some Council or other hath defined it wee challenge all his adherents to shew what one Generall Council acknowledg'd for such eyther by themselues or vs did euer define any point of doctrine which they did not require all Christians to hold and beleeue as matter of Fayth after it was so defined as likewise to shew how 't is possible for Christians to disbeleeue what such a Generall Council hath defined without making themselues guilty of that sentence of our Sauiour Matth. 18. 17. He that will not heare the Church lett him be as an Heathen or Publican yea of that other Luc. 10. 16. He that despiseth you despiseth me Why shall not such a man be excluded from Saluation seeing that by the Bishops own doctrine the decrees of all Generall Councils are binding till they be reuers'd by an other Council of like authority why did he account it damnable sin to adhere to the condemned errour of St. Cyprian after it was condem'd by a Generall Councill seeing 't is manifest disobedience in that particular did of it selfe neither offer more violence to the peace of the Church nor to the charity that ought to be amongst Christians then disobedience in points determined by other Generall Councils is apt to doe and hath euer done as experience witnesseth So that in truth to suppose a disobedience to Generall Councils in point of defined doctrine which shall offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor to charity that ought to be amongst Christians is to suppose an impossibility and in effect to thinke that rebellion may consist with the peace of the state and that to cast of obedience to superiours is not to contemn their authority Wee doe not deny but there is a Latitude in the Fayth as the Bishop speakes that is all things pertaining to the doctrine of Fayth are not necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all persons in order to Saluation and this Bellarmin's authority cited by the Bishop rightly proues But it follows not from hence that any man may deny or doubt of any point whatsoeuer that he knows is defin'd and propos'd by the Church to be beleeued as the Bishop and all Protestants doe It is not in it selfe absolutely necessary to Saluation to know or expressly beleeue many things reported in Scripture as for Example that Iudas hang'd himselfe that St. Paul was thrice beaten with rods that he left his cloake at Troas etc. but yet for any man to deny or doubt of these knowing them to be testifyed in Scripture I doe not doubt but euen Protestants themselues will acknowledge to be a great sin and without repentance inconsistent with Saluation In like manner though it be not absolutely necessary to know or beleeue expressly all verities defined by the Church as Bellarmin truly teaches yet it may be and is absolutely necessary not to disbeleeue or doubt of any one point that is know'n to be so defined As for our aduersaries beeing sure that our peremptory establishing so many things that are remote deductions from the Foundation to be beleeu'd as matters of Fayth hath with other errours lost the peace and vnity of the Church 't is but a partiall and groundless faney which all Heretiques and Schismatiques will plead as well as himselfe when they are put to it and may with as much right Was there not more disturbance and tumults in the Church during those Primitiue ages by reason of Arianisme Pelagianisme Manicheisme and other Heresies that then raged then there was for many hundred of years together before Luther began in which time neuertheless eyther all or most of the points now contested by Protestants were as fully defined by the Church and as generally beleeu'd by Christians as now they are With what truth or conscience then can it be sayd that the defining or establishing such points haue lost the peace of the Church True it is the Greekish Church hath opposed the Roman for a long time but what does that help Protestants seeing the world know's it is not for such points as Protestants doe now condemne in the Roman Church but for such errours as they themselues for the most part doe as much condemne in the Greeks as the Roman Church doth 'T is euident the Greeke Church consents with the Roman in all the chiefe points of controuersie betwixt the Roman Church and Protestants and this generall peace of the Church might still haue continued had not the pride arrogancy and temerity of Protestant Predicants first opened the gap to dissention by reuiuing and setting on foote condemned Heresies and by cooperating to so many other wicked Schismaticall and vnchristian disorders under pretense of reformation and obedience to the Gospell A C. tells his aduersarie it is not sufficient to beget a confidence in this case to say wee beleeue the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeued them What says the Bishop to this He confesses 't is most true to witt that which A. C. told him if he ' did only SAY so and did not beleeue as he sayd But sayth he if wee doe say it you are bound in charity to beleeue vs vnless you can proue the contrary For I know no other proofe to men of any point of Fayth but confession of it and subscription to it J reply the Bishops answer falls short of A. Cs. demand For who can doubt but A. C. when he told the Bishop it was not sufficient in this case to say wee beleeue Scripture etc. mean't that beside verball profession and giuing it vnder his hand that he doth beleeue so and so he should proue it by solid and conuincing arguments that the sense in which he beleeues the Scripture and the Creeds is the same with that in which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeu'd them for otherwise he can neither be sufficiently assured himselfe nor can he giue sufficient assurance there of to others Just reason I fay had A. C. to demand this of the Bishop namely that he should proue his Fayth to be agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church obsignatis tabulis as they say that is by speciall vndenyable euidence and not thinke it sufficient only to profess and affirm it to be so But
greatest and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage and eating certaine meats was a doctrine of 〈◊〉 and that those who held it should sall from the 〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church as well as the Donatists and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions which in the Bishops iudgement doe Shake but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines what shall hinder but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ may notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉 bound to heare and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here good Reader what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow vnder paine of beeing in as bad or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition then an Heathen and Publican 4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation because both parties viz. Catholiques and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it but doe not both of them agree that it may be had in the Protestant Church and Religion The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to shew that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to thinke that ours is the safer way His first instance is this The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes and the Orthodox also but that of the Orthodox was held true and valid only by the Orthodox and not by the Donatists yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two How then does it follow that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion as the safer way to heauen because both parties agree that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants This is the Summe and 〈◊〉 of his first instance To which J answer that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists as the safer way but he must committ two sins the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques in diuine Rites such as the administration of Sacraments is the other against Fayth which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity when the greatest and most considerable 〈◊〉 to witt that of the Orthodox hold it cannot be done except in case of necessity without damnable 〈◊〉 which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite different from this For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉 his Saluation whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉 But no 〈◊〉 did euer grant that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉 reasons and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary or that a man who had so embrac't the Baptisme of Donatists might liue and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault and repented of his 〈◊〉 You will say perhaps that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme thought valid in the iudgement of both parties because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉 and forbad it vnder paire of sinne so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant who is taught by scripture or otherwise and is fully persuaded that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours contrary to Gods words embrace the Roman Church and Religion though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church and Religion J. answer and acknowledge that as a few 〈◊〉 or Arian is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉 beleefe so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion so long as his conscience tells him that it 〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word But J say withall that as a few Mahumetan and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth if sufficient motiues were propounded to him and that according to the principles of both parties the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours were offer'd to him and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants and Catholiques that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation Now that by the ioynt principles or doctrine both of Catholiques and Protestants our Religion or Fayth is the safer way wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours whensoeuer they will attend to them is sufficiently euidenced from hence seeing an infinite multitude of persons who haue as good naturall witts as themselues as tender consciences as themselues haue read and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as themselues vnderstand all contrary reasons and obiections as well as themselues yet belecue with absolute certainty as diuine Truths those very points which Protestants conceiue to be errours 5. Tho other instances which he brings seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement then in the Argument he impugns In the point of the Eucharist sayth he all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England then with the Roman and Lutheran because all agree in this truth not in any other opinion Here are many words spent to small purpose For first can a man be sayd in any true sense to communicate rather with the Church of England then with the Roman or Lutheran only by beleeuing that where in they all agree and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this But put case by
Priestly Function to have any commerce with Rome and a capital crime even to hear Mass or but harbour a Priest And what I pray is true piety in Gods sight if all these be capital offences But enough of this Parallel His Lordship even during the Schisme of Jeroboam will yet needs have Israel a True Church But I answer They were no true Church because they rejected the Authority of the High Priest refused to communicate in the Sacrifices and Worship of God at Jerusalem and adored the golden Calves of Jeroboam 'T is true there were many holy persons inhabitants of the same Countrey with the rest who kept themselves undefiled from those Idolatries and Divisions who though they were not perhaps suffered to go up to Jerusalem to worship yet never consented to go to Dan or Bethel These we acknowledge remained parts of the True Church notwithstanding the Schisme as many Catholiques do now continue true members of the Roman Church though living dispersedly in Heretical Countreys And the Prophets who were amongst them were also a part of the True Church at Jerusalem for which reason for the most part the Kings of Israel persecuted them as Catholiques also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen Mahumetan and Heretical Princes The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church then it would argue the Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church if some Roman Catholique should be found among them having the spirit of Prophesie But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture that the ten Tribes continued a Church notwithstanding their Schisme and Idolatry But to that of 〈◊〉 9. 17. I answer first this Prophet prophesied both against Juda and Israel and the word Israel being an Appellative common to all the seed of Jacob 't is not certain he alwayes means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes onely and not sometimes the Tribe of Juda also Secondly I say the Relatours Gloss addes to the Text. God doth not there threaten to cast Israel away in non Ecclesiam as the Bishop speaks that is to un-church them as if forsooth before that threatning they had been a true Church this is the Relatours own voluntary addition or fiction rather but he threatens simply to deprive them of his wonted protection to deliver them into their enemies hands and as the very next words shew to make them wanderers among the Nations that should take them captive To that of 4. Reg. 9. 6. where they are called the people of the Lord I answer in a general sense all Abrahams seed according to the flesh are styled the people of God by reason of that promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 18. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee but Abraham's seed only according to the spirit that is the faithful make the True Church To his last Argument which he advanceth as ad hominem that Multitude is a note of the Church I answer we do not contend that of Christians the greater multitude is an infallible mark of the true Church There was a time when the Arrians were reported to be more numerous then the Orthodox 3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father was a Truth alwayes acknowledg'd in the Church of God and receiv'd in General Councils long before the Controversie touching that point arose between the Latins and the Greeks Witness that Epistle of St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria which he wrote as Bellarmin tells us from the Council of Alexandria to that of Ephesus wherein are these words Spiritus appellatus est veritatis veritas Christus est unde ab isto similiter sicut ex Patre procedit The Holy Ghost saith he is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth whence follows that he proceeds as well from him as from the Father Thus he Now this Epistle of St. Cyril and the Council of Alexandria as Bellarmin likewise shews was receiv'd not only by the Council of Ephesus which was about the year of our Lord 434. but also by four other General Councils held in Greece it self and consequently the Doctrine of the Holy Ghosts Procession was a Truth so anciently known in the Church that it could not well seem a novelty to any when the express confession of it came to be more frequent and publick in the Latin Church It matters not much in what capacity it was promulgated by the Church of Rome whether as a particular Church as the Bishop contends or as Head of the Church Universal as we think For either way it could not but be very lawful for that Church to do it nor can it help his Lordships cause which way foever it was done For supppose a particular Church may in some case promulgate an Orthodox Truth not as yet Catholiquely receiv'd or defined by the whole Church doth it thence follow that a particular Church or Churches may repeal and reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and Definitively received Surely no. Yet this is his Lordships and the Protestants case 4. Hence the Relatours egregious Fallacy is manifest while from the adding of a Word onely by some particular Church for Explication of a known ancient and generally received Truth such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son he pretends to inferre both these Propositions viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholique where the whole Church is negligent or will not For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormious as the latter because it supposes not any actual errour contrary to Catholique Doctrine to be maintained by the whole Church but onely a Non declaration or at most some negligence to promulgate a Catholick Truth whereas the other supposes errour of something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church yet are they both utterly Paradoxical and False and no way to be inferr'd from the example or practise of the Roman Church in declaring the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son for that was of a point anciently and generally received in the Church Much 〈◊〉 can it justifie the Protestants proceedings whose Declarations Promulgations Confessions or what ever you will call them made upon their several pretended reformations were onely of new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholique Truths For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the Real Presence of our Saviours Body and Blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the Real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believ'd Was not Veneration