IMPIORUM FUROR But God avert saith he this evil from the mindes of his and be it rather the fury of the impious to do so whoever therefore are so audacious as to adde Novelties to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church are judg'd by Vincentius to be impious persons raging in a fury of madness which how justly or truly it can be affirmed of Christs true Church let any discreet man be judge But if this be not sufficient to demonstrate what this Authours opinion was of Christs Church in this particular take a further Description which he gives of her cap. 22. Christi vero Ecclesia sedula cauta Depositorum apud se Dogmatum custos nihil in iis unquam permutat NIHIL MINVIT NIHIL ADDIT non amputat necessaria non apponit superflua non amittit sua non usurpat aliena Where we see in opposition to those impious and furious Adders of Novelties mentioned in the last words of the precedent chapter how effectually and fully in the very beginning of this he clears the Church from that foul aspersion which the Bishop would cast upon her But the Church of Christ saith he as a careful and wise Depositary or keeper of the Truths committed to her NEVER CHANGES any thing at all in them lessens nothing ADDES NOTHING neither cuts away things necessary nor adjoyns things superfluous neither loses what is hers nor usurps what belongs to others c. Words as Diametrically contrary to what the Relatour pretends unto in this passage viz. suspicion and possibility of the Churches adding NOVITIA VETERIBVS and of making a change in the Doctrine which she first received from Christ and his Apostles as any thing can be imagined But to return to that lame sentence which he cites out of Lirinensis the very same does clearly shew that Lirinensis never taught or imputed to the Church that she added New Doctrines to the Old For if she be a Keeper of the Old and never labour'd in her Councils to do more then preserve id quod antea that which was before and that Vincentius expresly averres this how can he in reason be suppos'd to teach that this very Keeper of old Doctrines and Rejecter of Novelties should either corrupt the one or introduce the other nay the very words the Bishop cites demonstrate evidently that the Church cannot in this Authors opinion be understood to make these Additions For those who make them may at length by such Additions come to change the Church in errorum Lupanar But 't is impossible the Church should change her self or do any thing whereby to be chang'd in errorum Lupanar for so she should be no more the Church of Christ unless he would have Christs Church while it remains his Church to be errorum Lupanar which 〈◊〉 as Vincentius abhors so I presume the Bishop himself would never in terms and directly have admitted Lastly the Bishops own exposition of Vincentius his words destroyes this unworthy imputation cast upon the Church He interprets Dogmata as we have seen to be the Maximes or Prime Principles of Christian Doctrine whereof no one part can be rejected without opening a way to reject another till the whole be destroyed Therefore to make Lirinensis his discourse uniforme and coherent who still goes on in the former matter and gives not the least hint that he speaks onely of Fundamentals in the former part of his discourse when he mentions changes in dogmatibus fidei and of not Fundamentals in those Additions of Novelties I say to make this Discourse of Vincentius uniforme and coherent he must understand the Novitia which Vincentius sayes are added Veteribus to be added as new principal Maximes to the other principal Maximes of Faith no less then the Ancient Maximes were Now such an Addition would be a Fundamental errour destructive of the Church as he also grants Wherefore it is impossible that the true Church remaining still the true Church should make any such addition even according to the Relatours exposition of Vincentius Whence it appears to what straits this place of Lirinensis put him seeing that whilest he labours to avoid one inconvenience he falls into another like him of whom the Poet sings Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim while he endeavours to avoid the Charybdis as he accounts it of acknowledging from thewords and Testimony of Lirinensis the Churches Infallibility in not Fundamentals he runs and splits himself upon the Scylla of making the whole Church erre in points Fundamental But he is resolv'd to make all seem as fair for himself as he can to which end observe a little how he uses the Text. Ecclesia depositorum apud se Dogmatum Custos That 's well His Lordship could neither deny nor dissemble but that the Church in the judgement of Vincentius is a Guardian or Keeper of the Truths deposited with her But yet that it might not appear what kinde of Keeper she is whether Faithful and Diligent or Unfaithful and Negligent whether apt to admit the Addition of other New and Strange Doctrines which she received not or to lose and corrupt any of those which she did receive he unfairly leaves out the first words of the sentence which would have cleared the doubt Sedula cauta The Church is a diligent and wary Keeper of the Truths committed to her charge She suffers nothing to be lost or embezzel'd either through neglect of duty or unskilfulness to perform it In brief that it might not appear in how exact a manner the Church executes this office of Depositary and Guardian of Divine Truth he wraps up all the following words Nihil in iis unquam permutat nihil minuit nihil addit and the rest which follow in which the Churches singular Care and Faithfulness in this affair is most Emphatically and truly avouched with an c. a Fatal but Faithless c. Whereas Vincentius as we heard above out of the words themselves directly and positively asserts that the Church never changes any part of the Doctrine committed to her addes nothing diminishes nothing to wit by any corruptive Addition or Diminution or by any change that perverts or destroyes the Truth formerly Deposited with her The like By-turn he makes in the third Text cap. 31. where citing it thus abruptly and unintelligibily Impiorum turpium errorum Lupanar that it might be thought the Church her self makes this Addition of Novelties he leaves out the word adiiciunt they adde that is Heretiques and Novelists do adde for so Vincentius speaketh he sayes not adiicit she or the Church addes For they are Heretiques and not the Catholique Pastours of the Church who by their Novel Additions labour to pervert and overthrow the True Doctrine of the Church We grant not unwillingly what the Relatour here asserts That a whole frame of Building may be shaken and the Foundation whereon it is laid remain firme So may Hope Charity and other vertues be shaken and
the Bishop thought this injury not great enough unless he redoubled it by any additional false Imputation of other two absurdities which he avers to follow evidently from our doctrine To the first viz. That we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholique Church as we do to the whole I answer there follows no such thing from any Doctrine of ours but from his Lordships wilfully-mistaken Notion of the Catholique Church which he most desperately extends to all that bear the name of Christians without exception of either Schismatiques or Heretiques that so he might be sure to include himself within her Pale and make the Reader absurdly believe that the Roman Church taken in her full latitude is but a 〈◊〉 or Parcel of the Catholique Church believed in the Creed This indeed to use his Lordships phrase is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in all things For it is to pretend an Addition of Integral parts to a Body already entire in all its Integrals seeing the Roman Church taken in the sense it ought to be as comprising all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholique Church as is evident in Ecclesiastical History which clearly shews throughout all Ages that none condemn'd of Heresie or Schisme by the Roman Church were ever accounted any part of the Catholique Church And this I would have prov'd at large had his Lordship done any more then barely suppos'd the contrary If any man shall object that the Bishop charges the absurdity upon us in respect of the Roman Church that we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of it as we do to the whole viz. In our General Councils I answer that is so far from being an absurdity that it were absurd to suppose it can be otherwise which the Objecter himself will clearly fee when he considers that the like must needs be granted even in Civil Governments For instance the Parliament of England is but a handful of men compar'd with the whole Nation yet have they greater Authority in order to the making or repealing of Laws then the whole Nation were they met together in a Body Men Women and Children which would produce nothing but an absolute confusion The Application is so easie I leave it to the Objecter himself to make The second accusation which the Bishop layes to our charge is this That in our Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of our Church our proceeding is most unreasonable in regard we will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers Propriety of Language Conference of Places c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholique because she professeth it to be such which sayes he is to prove Idem per Idem Whereas truly we most willingly embrace and have frequent recourse to all the Bishops mentioned helps and that with much more Candour then Protestants can with any ground of reason pretend to considering their manifold wrestings both of Scripture and Fathers when they either urge them against us or endeavour to evade their clear Testimonies for us Neither are we in any danger of committing a Circle or proving Idem per Idem because his Lordship sees not how we can possibly winde our selves out The business is not so insuperably difficult in our Doctrine For if we be asked how we know the Church to be Infallible our last answer is not as he feigns because she professes her self to be such but we know her to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which sufficiently prove her to be such So the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were in their time known to be Infallible Oracles and Teachers of Truth by the like signs and Motives onely this difference there is that these viz. Christ and his Apostles c. confirming their Doctrine gave Infallible Testimony that what they taught was the Immediate Revelation and Word of God whereas the Motives which confirme the Declarations and Authority of the Church do onely shew that she Infallibly delivers to us the same Revelations I mean the same for sense and substance of Doctrine which the other received immediately from God And that to rest in this manner upon the Authority of the present Church in the Resolution of our Faith is not to prove Idem per Idem as the Bishop falsly imputes to us I clearly shew by two several Instances which even those of his party must of necessity allow 5. The first Instance is of the Church in time of the Apostles For who sees not that a Sectary might in those dayes have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same Method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholique Church might he not have taxed those Christians of unreasonable proceeding in their belief and have set it forth as the Bishop does thus For if you ask them why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole True Catholique Faith their answer is because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them how they know it to be so they will produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time by what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them and their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or doctrine but their final answer is they know it to be so because the present Apostolique Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove Idem per Idem Thus the Sectary By which it is clear that the Bishops objection against the present Roman Church wherein he would seem to make a discovery of her Corruptions and Politique Interests is equally applyable to the Primitive Apostolique Church in its undeniable purity But at once to answer both the Bishops and Sectaries objection I affirm that the prime and precise reason to be given why we believe the voice of the present Church witnessing or giving Assurance of Divine Revelation to us is neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers no nor the Oral Doctrine of Christ himself but the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility which moved both the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Not that we are necessitated to resolve our Faith into the Motives as its Formal Object or ultimate Reason of Assent for that can be no other then the Divine Authority Revealing but as into most certain Inducements powerfully and prudently inclining our will to accept the present Church as the Infallible Organ ordained by Divine Authority to teach us the sure way of salvation The second Instance is ad hominem against the Bishop in relation to those Fundamental Truths wherein he confesses the whole Church neither doth nor can erre For suppose a Separatist should thus argue with his Lordship your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility
Society questionless he means chiefly Is it not fine sport the Bishop here makes that A. C. by Pastours of the Church must chiefly mean and that without all question or dispute those of his own Society When 't is well known there are scarce two Pastours of the Church amongst all the Jesuits in Europe And then to mend the matter that he will have Mr. Fisher and A. C. to be those two Pastours when they neither were Pastours nor could be unless he will suppose likewise they would break their vow made to Almighty God for by Pastours the Apostles Successours are meant Bishops never to admit any such dignity without express command of the Pope But how proves the Bishop the Iesuits perswade themselves they are Infallible Rabbi Casaubon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help him out An Apologist sayes Casaubon averres 't is impossible for a Iesuit to erre Who is this Anonymus Apologist A Iesuit or a Minister For an Apologist and a Jesuit are no more convertible terms then a Iesuit and a Minister How shall we know then whether this nameless Apologist was a Iesuit or a Minister personating a Jesuit The Gospel will tell us Ex fructibus corum cognoscetis eos Is it possible his Lordship should think himself everable to move wise men with such non-proofs as these The Relatour having been so positive in denying the Infallibility of the Church 't is strange he should think it needless for A. C. to urge passages of Scripture in proof of it which though they be well known in this Controversie yet are they not therefore of lesse force The first is in St. Luke where Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me c. The second in St. Matthew where Christ tells us I am with you alwayes unto the end of the world The third is in St. John where 't is written The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever To the first of these passages viz Luke 10. 16. alledg'd by A. C. the Bishop answers that those who hear the Successours of the Apostles hear Christ viz. when they speak the words of Christ but not when they speak their own words But that this is rather to pervert our Saviours words then to interpret them is manifest For can the Bishop bring any ground from the Text that this restraint may not by some other Sectary who denies the Apostles Infallibility no less then the Churches be applied to the Apostles themselves as well as he now applies it to their Successors But his Lordship has haply ground for what he sayes if not here yet in St. Matthew chap. 28. ver 20. where they are commanded to teach all things which Christ commanded them Ergo say I and with more reason for the command was given expresly and immediately to the Apostles themselves the Apostles were neither to be heard when they preach'd other things then what Christ had commanded them and so both these Texts will either include an Infallibility in the Successors of the Apostles or exclude it from the Apostles themselves If he reply we our selves must acknowledge a difference in applying this Text to the Apostles and their Successours for it was true in every one of the Apostles apart but it is not so as we confess in every one of the succeeding Pastours I answer first the difference alledged by us is so clear and unquestionable that our very Adversaries agree with us in it Secondly 't is manifest by experience it self that many Pastours even of very eminent authority in the Church have not onely err'd but invented and maintain'd Heresies Thirdly we have the universal Tradition and consent in all ages that all Pastours apart are not Infallible Fourthly we have plain Scripture for it Acts 20. 30. where the Apostle sayes that even from amongst themselves that is from amongst the Pastours and Bishops of the Church to whom he there speaks ver 17 28. there should arise some in future ages that should speak perverse things Fifthly we so interpret the words for future ages that what is necessary for preserving the Church in the purity of Christs doctrine is still subsistent in all ages in the Infallibility of lawful General Councils whereby we make the words of Christ in both Texts absolutely true without all ifs and conditions which our Adversaries exposition does utterly frustrate in relation to the Church Sixthly we according to the most receiv'd perswasion amongst us preserve that Infallibility in one Supream Pastour of the Church the Bishop of Rome successively which they continue neither in one nor in all the Pastours of the Church assembled together Let those therefore of his Lordships party bring as strong reasons for the Bishops exposition of this Text of St. Luke 10. 16. as we do for ours and we shall not be unwilling to yield to it but we and they too know that to be impossible His answer to the second place Matth. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes even unto the end of the world runs in the same strain with his answer to the former Text and so requires not our further refutation We extend those words I am with you alwayes c. to the whole Church Representative not to every Pastour apart whereby St. Gregories Text is no wayes against us for he speaks of Preachers taken severally and apart We say also with Rhabanus Maurus that Christ in his holy Spirit is alwayes present with his Church diffusive in communicating his Graces unto it But that supposes at least denies not a conjunctive Infallibility of the Pastours as a necessary Foundation and support of the Church diffusive Whence it appears how vain the Bishops challenge is whereby he urges us to shew any one Father of the Church that extends the sense of this place of Scripture to Divine and Infallible Assistance granted thereby to all the Aposties Successours For as to Divine Assistance we have all along prov'd it not to be necessary but as to Infallible Assistance in regard of the whole Church 't is clear that the Fathers in effect do attribute such a Prerogative to the Church viz. that Christ doth assist and preserve her from errour in as much as they teach That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresie That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds That she can never fail That her Faith is invincible even to the very Powers of Hell That she is founded by Christ in the Truth for ever That all the Heretiques in the world cannot pervert the Tradition of her Doctrine and the like which seeing also they limit not to any determinate age or ages but extend indefinitely to all 't is likewise clear that in the judgement of the Fathers this Assistance was granted and intended by Christ to all the Apostles Successours in the sense above declared But whether the Fathers ground their Doctrine
if our aduersaries like not his answer wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church Moreouer wee auerre that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned A. C. inference is rightly gathered namely that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle then solid when to make good his denyall of it he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point granting the first of these viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points to follow out of Doctor Whites concession but not the second viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall But with what ground or consonancy to himselfe and truth lett the Reader iudge His precense is that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression as he calls it or bare letter of the Article but hath err'd in the exposition or sense of it J answer if she hath err'd in the exposition and sense of an Article how can she be truly sayd to haue held it Can any man with truth say that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity or the Antitrinitarians the doctrine of three diuine Persons because they allow and hold Scriptures in which these Mysteries are contain'd who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold in a question of Fayth to signifie no more then profession or keeping of the bare letter of the Article and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense Is it not all one to say Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say they beleeue the sayd doctrines Jf then it be true that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points 't is likewise true that she hath euer beleeu'd them and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any there beeing noe other way properly and truly speaking wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth but only by disbeleeuing it If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points it is by necessary consequence likewise granted that she neuer erred in any such points how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so He tells vs indeed but his accusation has noe proofe that our Church hath erred grossly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them lastly that her beauty in this respect is but meere painting as preseruing only the outside and bare letter of Christs doctrine but in regard of inward sense and beleefe beeing neither beautifull nor sound Thus he But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd Let our aduersaries shew in what one Article of all the three Creeds the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense or err'd in her exposition of it Beside they must likewise shew how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe and not in the bare letter how can those which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion beleeuing all things as she teacheth and noe otherwise attain Saluation 3. The Lady here asks a second question whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats vpon my soule sayes the Bishop you may vpon my soule sayes Mr. Fisher there is but one sauing Fayth and that 's the Roman You see their mutuall confidence but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes and condition also of Saluation viz. Catholique Fayth which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed saues none witness St. Athanasius in his Creed admitted by Protestants The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils so much magnifyed by Antiquity to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation This in fine is the ground of the Bishops confidence But I answer his Lordship failes in two things The first that he doth not shew that such a Fayth as he here mentions is sufficient to Saluation notwithstanding whateuer errour or opinion may be ioyned with it The second that he doth not shew that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth that is in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 For as to the first of the pariculars did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme that St. Cyprians followers were lost without repentance because they opposed the authority of the Church which in and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous Put case then that in after-times the whole Church or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice should declare some other opinion to be erroneous which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so eyther by Scripture Creeds or those Fowre first Generall Councils were not he that should hold it after such definitiue declaration of the Church or Council in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils If not lett our aduersaries shew why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church or the Councils definition and other people who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority should not Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne to oppose the definition of a Generall Council when he auerrs that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience and submission till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times and inconsistent with the Churches peace How can this possibly be made good if to beleeue Scripture and the
this may be turned vpon himselfe viz. that be hath nothing to pretend THERE ARE NOT GROSS ERROVRS AND SVPERSTITIONS in the Roman persuasion as he calls it vnless by intolerable pride he make himselfe and his partie iudge of Controuersies But who sees not this is a most palpable vntruth All the world knows that A. C. and all his party submitt with most absolute humility of judgement to the desinitions of Generall Councills and so haue euer done A. C. makes not himselfe iudge of controuersies betwixt him and his Aduersaries but a lawfull Generall Councill yea all the lawfull Generall Councills that euer the Church had or esteem'd such To them he appeales to them he stands lett Protestants doe as much and the controuersies would not be hard to be ended So vtterly false it is what the Bishop affirms here that We will he iudg'd by none but the ` Pope and a Councill of his ordering Doe the Relatours Adherents thinke there was euer a Generall Councill in the Church well ordered lett them name it wee stand to its sentence Neither doe wee require that any Councill should be of the Popes ordering further then the Canons of the Church doe allow him and his Predecessours haue in effect done in all Generall Councills euen the fowre first True it is A. C. and all Catholiques with him acknowledge noe Councill to be a lawfull ludge of controuersies vnless it be approu'd and confirm'd by the Pope but in this there is noe pride For the right of confirming the decrees of Generall Councills wherein controuersies of Fayth are judged hath euer belong'd to St. Peters Successor as wee haue already shew'n and St. Austin Epist 62 with the whole Councill of Mileuis professes it to be grounded on Scripture yea the Canons of the vniuersall Church doe expressly allow it him witness euen Socrates himselfe noe very great friend of the Roman Church Sozomen with others and in the Generall Councill of Chalcedon Action 1. Dioscorus no meaner person then the Patriarch of Alexandria is for this very reason deny'd the priuiledge of sitting in Councill because he had presum'd to hold a Generall Councill to witt the predatory or pretended second Councill of Ephesus without the Popes Authority a thing which as the Fathers there acknowledge was neuer lawfull to doe nor euer done before NVNQVAM LICVIT NEC VNQVAM FACTVM EST. Why therfore shall A. C. be tax'd of pride if he beleeues the doctrine of the Roman Church to be true vpon the Authority of Generall Councills confirm'd by the Pope who sees not a great deale of difference betwixt him and his Aduersary in this regard A. C. in his vnderstanding of Scripture followes the exposition of Generall Councills the Bishop relyes vpon no interpretation but this own teaching that Generall Councills may erre in their exposition of Scripture euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation A. C. acknowledges he can be infallibly certaine of nothing in matter of Fayth by the bare letter of Scripture and the light of his own vnderstanding only the Bishop is confident that by the letter of Scripture only and his owne iudgement he can be infallibly assur'd of all necessary points of Fayth A. C. is ready to submitt his iudgement to a Generall Councill in any point of doctrine whatsoeuer seeming reasons or grounds he may priuately haue to the contrary the Bishop allowes a man vpon probable grounds to doubt and vpon cleerer grounds to deny and oppose the definitions of such a Councill A.C. thinks it an vngodly presumption to taxe Generall Councills of errour and superstition the Bishop makes noc scruple to censure diuerse of them for damnable errours A. C. holds it altogether vnlawfull for any Christian to dissent from the Catholique Church in any point of defined doctrine whatsoeuer great or small the Bishop maintaines that the whole Catholique Church may erre both grossly and dangerously in all points not Fundamentall and that all priuate Christians who vnderstand or perceiue such errours to be in the Church may dissent yea if need be that is if the Church will not reforme the sayd errours vpon their admonition separate from her as Luther and his followers did when they first began their reformation Lett any indifferent person then be iudge whether that which A.C. charges vpon the Bishop concerning pride and taking vpon him to be iudge of Controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills may be as iustly turned vpon himselfe as the Relatour here pretends His next Paragraph only tells vs what was the conclusion of his first-publish't Relation of the conference with Mr. Fisher wherein he falls againe to his wonted custome of charging his Aduersary indirectly at least with what he does not own A. C. doth not maintaine the Pope to be infallible in all controuersies of Fayth otherwise then in and with a Generall Councill witness his own words in the end of his answer I wish sayth he the Chaplain and his lord and euery other man carefully to consider whether it be not more Christian etc. to thinke that the Pope beeing St. Peters Successour WITH A GENERALL COVNCILL should be iudge of Controuersies and his Pastorall iudgement viz. in and with such a Councill be accounted infallible then to make euery man that can read Scripture an interpreter of Scriptures and decider of Controuersies euen to the controuling of Generall Councills or to haue noe iudge in controuersies of Fayth at all This is the summe of all that A. C. teaches touching the Popes infallibility and if the Bishop could really thinke this to be such a brayne-sicke deuice as he talks of I doubt it will be thought by some that his own head was not alwayes in good temper 9. A. C. to shew that in matters of Fayth wee ought to submitt our iudgements to such doctours and Pastours as by a continuall visible succession haue without interruption or change brought the Fayth down from Christ and his Apostles to these our dayes and shall by vertue of Christs promise in the like continued succession so carry it downe to all future generations till the end of the world makes vse of that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. etc. where 't is sayd that Christ ascending gaue some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saynts for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till wee all come in the vnity of the Fayth and of the knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a perfect man etc. 'T is true some from this place gather the Popes infallibility too as well as the necessary succession of lawfull Pastours because it is intimated there shall be noe more wanting in the sacred Hierarchy of the Church the office of of an Apostle then the office of a Pastour or teacher till the end of the world Now to the office of an Apostle two things are necessary viz.
obserues againe Epist. pag. 19. that noe one thing hath made conscientious men of his party more wauering in their mindes and more apt to be draw'n beside from the Religion professed in the Church of England then want of of vniforme and decent order c. therevpon taking occasion to enlarge himselfe on the subiect of ceremonies shewing their vsefulness and necessity in the publique exercise of Religion wherin I haue noe reason to contradict him Only this I must note by the way that whereas out of indulgence to his ordinary humour he taxes the Roman Church with thrusting in many that are vnnecessary and superstitious he might haue know'n that the Councill of Trent it selfe not only inables but inioynes all particular Bishops in their respectiue Dioceses and all Archbishops and Metropolitans in their respectiue Prouinces to reforme what euer they may finde amiss in this kinde And this his crimination is no more then was obiected to himselfe by his owne people Wee shall in due place shew in what sense it is wee maintaine that out of Rome that is out of the communion of the Roman-Catholique Church there is no saluation At present it may suffize to say that wee doe not shut vp saluation in such a narrow conclaue as the Bishop would haue his Reader beleeue when he parallels vs with the Donatists Wee teach no other doctrine concerning the attainement of saluation then what hath been held in all ages in all times and in all places and is now visibly taught and professed throughout the Christian world viz. that out of the true Catholique Church saluation is not to be expected Nor doe wee shut Heauen-gates as the Relatour insinuates to any that are willing to enter prouided they be willing to enter and goe that way which Christ hath appointed But 't is the Bishop and his party that doe really shutt Heauen-gates to those who otherwise might enter euen whilest they pretend to open them For by teaching the way to Heauen to be wider then it is and that Saluation may be attained by such meanes and in such wayes as according to Gods ordinary Prouidence it cannot what doe they but putt men into a false way and in stead of leading them in that straite path to eternall happiness which the Gospell prescribes trace out that broad way to them which leads to death I shall close my Preface with an Aduertisement to such as are apt to quarrel at words beyond the meaning of those that vse them The infallible which in treating of the Church and Generall Councils I haue had frequent occasion to make vse of is cunningly raised by our Aduersaries to so high a pitch of signification as though it could import no less then the ascribing of an intrinsecall vnerring power in all things to those wee account infallible which is cleerly to peruert our meaning wee intending to signifie noe more when wee say the Church or Generall Councils are infallible then that by vertue of Christ's promise they haue neuer erred nor euer shall in definitions of Fayth In fine Good Reader that thou mayst see and embrace the truth is the hearty wish of him that bids thee noe less heartily Farewell Labyrinthus Cantuariensis OR Dr. LAWD'S LABYRINTH BEING An Answer to his Lordships Relation of a Conference between Himself and Mr. Fisher c. CHAP. I. Stating the Conference between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher for Satisfaction of a Person of Honour ARGUMENT 1. The Introduction 2. The Bishops Artifice in waving a direct Answer to the Question 3. His pretended Solutions to certain Authorities referr'd to a fitter place for Answer 4. His maintaining the Greeks not to have lost the Holy Ghost and that they are a true Church 5. The Modern Greeks in Errour not the Ancient 6. why FILIOQUE inserted into the Nicene Creed 1. THough Dedalus that ingenious Artificer might possibly shew no less skill in contriving his Cretan Labyrinth then did the principall Architect employ'd by Salomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jerusalem yet their Labours were of a different nature For whereas the latter exercis'd his Art in raising a noble elevated lightsome Structure the former Dedalus us'd all his Inventive industry in framing a Subterraneous darksome Prison with such redoubled Turnings perplexed Windings and tortuous Meanders that who ever entred into it might indeed wander up and down within its involved and recurring paths but never be able to get either back or thorow it Now alluding to these different Works we may not unfitly compare the learned Labours of the Fathers Doctors and worthy Divines of Gods Church to this stately Temple of Salomon being the rich and illustrious Monuments of their Piety Zeal and Erudition Whereas by the Cretan Labyrinth are fitly Symboliz'd the Artificiall but Pestiferous Works of all Hereticall Authors who forsaking the ever-visible and conspicuous Church of Christ and known Consent of Christendome induce themselves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Phanatick Brains These mens Labours are so farre from being lightsome Monuments that they are rather Labyrinths or intricate Dungeons for poor seduced Souls who being once ingag'd in the perplexities of their intangled flexures see not the radiant light of Gods Church some few onely excepted whom of his great mercy he is pleas'd to shew the way out and reduce into his Fold Now it hath already been shew'n by others that the Works of many late Protestant Writers of this Nation are of the aforesaid intangling Nature and I doubt not by Gods help but to evidence that this their Grand Authors Book I am now about to answer is very liable to the same Reproach For to describe it rightly it is a Labyrinth most artificially compos'd with as many abstruse Turnings ambiguous Windings and intricate Meanders as that of Dedalus and therefore equally inextricable But a more sure and stronger Clew then Ariadne's the Line of the Catholique Churches Authority and Tradition joyn'd with Holy Scripture hath not onely carried me through it but by Gods good assistance enabled me to render it pervious to all by the Discoveries and Directive Marks I have set on the Leaves that compose this present Volume Yet before I descend to particulars I must advertise the Reader that I designe not the Defence either of Mr. Fisher or any other Author further then they deliver the generally received Doctrine of the Catholique Church which is that I undertake to maintain The three leading pages of the Bishops Book contain the occasion of the Conference between himself and Mr. Fisher viz. for the satisfaction of an Honourable Lady who having heard it granted on the Protestant part in a former Conference that there must be a continuall visible Company ever since Christ teaching unchanged Doctrine in all points necessary to Salvation and finding it seems in her own Reason that such a Company or Church must not be fallible in its Teaching was in Quest of a Continuall Visible and Infallible Church as
not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church which point of Infallibility the Bishop sought to evade saying That neither the Jesuit nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly if she said she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church because an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible 2. Here already you may observe the Bishop falling to work on his projected Labyrinth by making its first Crook which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective For though he could not be ignorant that the Lady sought not any one Particular Infallible Church in opposition to another Particular Church not Infallible but some Church such as might without danger of Errour direct her in all Doctrinall Points of Faith call it an or the Infallible Church as you please for she had no such Quirks in her head yet the Bishop will by no means understand her sincere meaning but instead of using a charitable endeavour to satisfie her perplexed Conscience vainly pursues that meer Quibble on purpose to decline the difficulty of giving her a satisfactory Answer in his own Principles Neither indeed does that expression an Infallible Church denote a Particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible but positively signifies a Church that never hath shall or can erre in Doctrine of Faith without connotating or implying any other Church that might erre Nor can it be pretended that the Particle a or an is onely appliable to Particulars seeing the Bishop himself applies it to the whole Church For omitting other places see page 141. where speaking of the whole Militant Church he sayes And if she erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then she may be a Church of Christ still Here sure he cannot mean a Particular Church by this expression A true Church but the whole Catholique or Universal Church unless he intended to speak non-sense viz. That the whole Militant Church is a Particular Church And what Learned Interpreter ever understood those words of Saint Paul Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit to himself A glorious Church c. of any other save the Universall Church of Christ And seeing the Lady made enquiry after that Church IN WHICH one may and OUT OF WHICH one cannot attain Salvation as the Bishop sets down the words of Mr. Fisher page 3. it is evident that really and in effect she sought no other save the Universall Visible Church of Christ which A. C. to take away all doubt of her meaning expresses pag. 1. by saying that she desired to depend upon the judgement of THE TRUE Church Why then might not the Lady express her self as the Bishop himself does in the place above cited by the Particle a or an and yet not speak so improperly that he must needs mistake her meaning The truth is it was an affected mistake in his Lordship as any man may easily perceive that has not lost his discerning faculty But the Bishop having now entred his hand and willing to shew his dexterity betimes immediately redoubles the Crook he had made while to countenance his former trisling with the Lady touching an Infallible Church he craftily attacks Bellarmin for maintaining an Infallibility in the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholiques which it is not and by confuting it to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholique Church Now though Bellarmins opinion is indeed That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot erre in Faith and desert the Pope so long as his Chair remains in that City yet the Bishop knew very well that the Catholique Church doth not restraine the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin it being sufficient for a Catholique to believe that there is an Infallibility in the Church without further obligation to examine whether the Particular Church of Rome be Infallible or not By what has been hitherto faid a man may easily perceive the candour of the Bishops proceeding and what he is to expect from him throughout his whole Work which will I assure you for the greater part be found to correspond with that you have already seen 3. From the fourth page to the twentieth he goes on disputing against severall Opinions of Bellarmin as whether the Popes Chair may be removed from Rome and in case of such Removall whether that Particular Church may then erre which seeing they are but Particular Opinions I shall not expostulate them with the Bishop as being no part of the Province I have undertaken And as to the Authorities here quoted by Bellarmin out of St. Cyprian St. Jerom St. Gregory Nazianzen c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Articles held de Fide among Catholiques nor impugned by the Bishop but as insufficient to make good those particular Opinions though he hoped the Reader would make neither of these reflections I cannot hold my self oblig'd to take notice of his pretended Solutions till I finde them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholique or Roman Church in its full Latitude as Catholiques ever mean it save when they say expresly the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as here Bellarmin doth However I intend to examine them when I come to treat the Question of the Infallibility of the Universal Church Where I make no doubt but I shall clearly evince against his Lordship and the whole party these particulars following First that to draw the word perfidia which St. Cyprian useth to his own sense the Bishop leaves out two parts of the Sentence which he ought necessarily to have expressed Secondly that by glossing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alledged he makes that Father give no more Priviledge to Rome then what was due to every particular Church yea to every Orthodox Christian of those times quite contrary to St. Cyprians intent Thirdly how he presses St. Cyprians not being tax'd by the Ancients for holding a possibility of the Popes teaching Errour in matter of Faith but never reflects that he was as little tax'd by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universall and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization embrac'd and practised against him by the whole Church Fourthly I shall shew that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is meerly Nugatory making him advertize Ruffinus that the Apostolicall Faith first preach'd at Rome could not in it self be any other then what it essentially is that is it could not be changed so long as it remained unchang'd Fifthly that he trifles as much in the allegation of St. Gregory Nazianzen For though that Father useth the word Semper retinet as
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
must be a True Church though an erroneous one in this particular Here the Bishop thinks to blinde all the Churches of Christendome with a trifle He grants that whoever makes an Inequality between the Holy Ghost and the Son or denyes the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Son is an Heretique But he goes not about to shew in Divinity though he talks much of it how all this can be viz. That the Holy Ghost should be in all respects Equal and Consubstantial with the Son unless he proceeded from the Son This it seems was matter too deep for his Lordship to wade into and therefore very dexterously he puts it off as a business of no great moment And to hide his face from an open profession with the Greeks against the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son he first casts a vail over the Readers eyes giving him a dark expression that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son and then boldly tells him non est aliud 't is the same to say the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son as to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son But I ask his Lordship whether the Modern Greeks say the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son for he cites none but St. John Damascen for it who is none of the Moderns Secondly whether the Spirit he here sets forth do truly proceed from the Son if not then he trades with some other Spirit and not with the Holy Ghost What I have hitherto said is I doubt not sufficient to undeceive any indifferent Reader touching the Question in Dispute Yet to press the point a little harder I thus argue in form against his Lordship and that out of his own Concessions If the Greeks errour be not onely concerning but against the Holy Ghost then according to the Bishops own Distinction they have lost all Assistance of that Blessed Spirit and are become no True Church But their errour is not onely concerning but against the Holy Ghost Therefore they have lost all the Assistance of that Blessed Spirit and are become no True Church The Major or First Proposition contains the Bishops own Doctrine The Minor or Second Proposition viz. That the Greeks errour is not onely concerning but against the Holy Ghost I thus prove All errours specially opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost are according to all Divines not onely errours concerning but errours against the Holy Ghost But the Greeks errour is opposite to the particular and personal Procession of the Holy Ghost as is already proved Ergo their errour is not onely concerning but against the Holy Ghost whose Assistance therefore they have lost not onely according to the first but even latter Branch of the Bishops Distinction and consequently remain no True Church But here the Bishop may seem to have provided against the force of this Argument by hinting a difference between errours Fundamental and not Fundamental which point I shall purposely examine in the following Chapter In the interim I observe that his Lordship having been for a while serious begins now to quibble upon the word Filioque on occasion of the Popes inserting it into the Creed And first he grumbles that the Pope should Adde and Anathematize too I hope he will give the Holy Ghost leave to Assist the Church in adding expressions for the better explication of any Article of Faith and then the Pope hath leave and command too to Anathematize all such as shall not allow the use of such expressions 6. Now to come to the debate of Filioque 't is true that many hundred of years had passed from the time of the Apostles before Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed and more since the Declarations and Decrees were sufficiently published and in all these years Salvation was had in the Church without mention of Filioque But it is also true that the Addition of Filioque to the Creed was made many years before the Difference brake out between the Latins and Greeks So that th' inserting this word Filioque into the Creed was not the first occasion of Schisme But grudges arising among the Greeks who had been a large flourishing Church with a number of most learned and zealous Prelates and held the Articles still though upon emptier heads such quickly fill'd with winde thinking their swelling places and great City of Constantinople might hold up against Rome they began to quarrel not for places that was too mean a Motive for such as look'd so big but first they would make it appear they could teach Rome nay they spyed out Heresies in it the old way of all Hereticks and so fell to question the Procession of the Holy Ghost and must needs have Filioque out of the Creed To return unto which after the meaning of the Latin Church was understood and that the word Filioque lay in the Creed to confess that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as truly as from the Father and that whoever denyed the Filioque must be supposed to deny the Procession then it became an Heresie to deny it and the Church did rightly Anathematize all such denyers None can be so ignorant as to think the Church in composing the Creed intended to thrust in all points of Faith concerning the Trinity 't is clear more may be added yet but when the Church understood that some of her Truant Children began to stumble at a particular point the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son then she thought it high time to speak a loud word that might keep her good Children from falling Neither is the Roman-Catholick Church justly accusable of Cruelty though the Bishop taxes her of it because she is quick and sharp against those that fall into Heresie 'T is not the Libertine Heretick the Church looks so eagerly after to have him punished as a Motherly compassion of her other Children yet good lest they should come to be infected If sinners could be bad themselves onely and not infuse their venome into others nor give scandal the Church might possibly have reason to mitigate her severity But seeing the Bishop brings in St. Peter with the Keyes at his girdle to shew his mildness may not I represent to his Lordship St. Peters proceeding with Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5. 5 10. striking them dead at his Feet for retaining some part of their goods though they had deliver'd the far greater part of them to St. Peter Yea why may I not joyn St. Paul to him chastising most severely such untoward children 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20 Certainly the Church punishes not her Delinquents to encrease the suffering of such as are to dye but to strike a terrour into the living whom fear many times more then the love of God keeps from sinning CHAP. 2. Of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. The Catholique Tenet concerning Fundamentals no step to the Roman Greatness 2. His Lordships different Acceptions of the
nothing against the Truth practised in the Church The Bishop goes on and endeavours to shew that St. Augustin speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture because immediately before he sayes There was a question moved to St. Cyprian whether Baptisme was tyed to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no question was moved that question that was made was answered And again That St. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking But all this proves nothing against us but for us because St. Cyprian might answer the question that was made by that which was granted by all and questioned by none although the thing granted and not questioned were the Doctrine of the Church For this Doctrine of the Church or Foundation as the Bishop calls it might be given in answer to confirm a Stone that was shaking that is some particular matter in question Although whatsoever is taught by the Church may be granted without contradicting Catholique Principles to be some way or other infolded or contained in Scripture Wherefore all the Definitions of the Church may be said to be Foundations of Doctrine in Scripture although many times they be so involved there that without the Definition of the Church we could not be bound expresly to believe them nay without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture it self as St. Augustin tells us in the words formerly cited Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas So that it cannot be doubted but that St. Augustins judgement was that all our Faith depended upon the Authority of the Church and therefore that he who opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work and Foundation of all Divine and Supernatural Faith Now whether the Bishop or Mr. Fisher hath wronged the Text of St. Augustin we shall presently see For first the Bishop sayes that St. Augustin speaks of a doctrine founded in Scripture not a Church-Definition How untrue this is viz. that St. Augustin speaks not of the Churches Definition let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited where speaking of Christs profiting of Children Baptized he useth these words Hoc habet Authoritas Matris Ecclesiae Hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon contra hoc robur contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur This saith he hath the Authority of our Mother the Church this hath the well founded Canon or Rule of Truth against this invincible Rampart whoever runneth himself is sure to be broken in pieces And again speaking of St. Cyprian he tells us that he will shew quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptisme of Infants or rather what he demonstrated the Church had alwayes taught concerning it and many such like places are in this very Sermon It is therefore manifest that St. Augustin here speaks of the Churches Definition nay and that so fully that he acknowledges in another place that the Baptisme of Infants was not to be believed but because it is an Apostolical Tradition His words are these Tom. 3. De Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 13. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaquam spernenda est neque ullo modo 〈◊〉 deputanda NEC O M NINO CREDENDA nisi Apostolica esset Traditio The custom of our Mother the Church to Baptize Infants is by no means to be despised or counted in any sort superfluous nor yet at all to be believed if it were not a Tradition of the Apostles Though therefore St. Cyprian in those few lines which St. Augustin referres to doth not expresly mention the Definition of the Church as the Bishop objects yet a man would think St. Augustins Authority should be sufficient to assure us that in those very words St. Cyprian shews what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church in the same manner as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 't is true to say he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture though himself doth not expresly say at the propounding of it it is in Scripture Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point which he sayes was not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition which is in effect to say that it cannot be proved by sole Scripture how can he be understood to say that Scripture is the Foundation of the Church But that he may one way or other draw St. Augustin to speak in appearance for him he gives a most false Translation of his words For he translates these words of St. Augustin ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur thus He shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded all in a different letter Whereas in the Latin Text of St. Augustin there is nothing that answers to any of those words which the Bishop thrusts into his English upon which or whole Church or is grounded so that all this latter part is meerly an Addition of his own and no part of St. Augustins sentence But such fraudulent dealing was necessary to give a gloss to his interpretation For he would make St. Augustin speak of a foundation different from the Churches Authority no wit the Scriptures whereupon sayes he the Authority of the Church is grounded which is farre from St. Augustins meaning For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea the very foundation of the Church he means nothing else but the Church it self or her Authority which is the foundation of Christianity as when St. Paul sayes superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum c. being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets he means nothing else but that we are built upon the Apostles and Prophets as upon a foundation or as if one should say of a destroyer of the Fundamental Laws of a Nation Fundamentum ipsum begum quatere molitur he endeavours to shake the very foundation of our Laws or of one that rejected the Authority of Scripture fundamentum ipsum Scripturarum quatere molitur he labours to shake the very Foundation of holy Scripture no man would understand him to mean any other Foundation then what the Laws and the Scriptures themselves are Now that nothing but this can be the meaning of St. Augustin is evident For in this very sentence he allows of Disputes held in such things as are not yet establish't by the full Authority of the Church nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis Wherefore all consequence and coherence of discourse requires that when he disallows of those disputes which go so far as to shake the foundation of the Church he must mean those
Bishop frames a notable Turn in his Labyrinth winding in the words of St. Augustin quite contrary to St. Augustins meaning to make them speak for himself For having affirmed in his own Text as we heard but now that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling Disputant may not be allowed just over against these words in his own Margent at Litera F. he puts these Latin words of St. Augustin Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor In English thus Which truly if it be shewed so clear that there can be no doubt of it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholique Church Now by citing these words and no more but leaving out those immediately precedent he leaves it also doubtful to what the word quae which in St. Augustins Text is to be referred but yet by putting plain Scripture c. in his own Text right over against it he supposed doubtless his Reader would not judge that Quae could be referred to any thing else save Scripture and that which follows it in his Text and consequently would conclude that St. Augustin and he were of the same opinion viz. that plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument is to be preferred before all the Definitions of the Church Whereas St. Augustin in the place cited hath nothing at all either of plain Scripture or evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manichaeans he writes th us Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat VERITATIS POLLICITATIO and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit c. But with you saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretiques who have nothing at all of those Things which may invite and hold me onely a promise of Truth makes a noise WHICH Truth if it be Demonstrated to be so clear as it cannot be called in doubt is to be preserred c. where it is plain Quae which is relative onely to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else Nay it is Relative onely to that Truth in this place which the Manichees bragg'd of and promised which was so far from being plain Scripture c. that it was no other then what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus intituled Fundamentum which St. Augustin at that present confuted as appears by the following words Neither indeed could St. Augustin be understood to speak of plain Scripture in this place as though that were to be preferred before the Definition of the Catholique Church or a General Council and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholique Church or of General Councils to be contrary to plain Scripture understanding by plain Scripture Scripture truly sensed and interpreted for he Disputes ex professo against that supposition or perswasion and proves that no clear place of Scripture can be produc'd against the common received Doctrine of the Church from this grand inconvenience necessarily following upon it viz. That if such a Thing could happen that the Doctrine of the Catholique Church could be contrary to Scripture or the Gospel he should not be able to believe rationally and infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because he receives them onely upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the Plain Scripture which is supposed to be brought against her Though therefore St. Augustin had said in express terms as 't is manifest he doth not that clear Scripture is to be preferred before all things which he had named before yet he is so far from supposing as the Bishop here supposes that evident Scripture can be contrary to the Churches received Doctrines that he professedly teaches and proves the contrary and uses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. onely ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo c. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed Saint Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from Heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel yet so he speaks And the same may be said in answer to the evident Reason or full Demonstrative Argument which the Bishop talks of for neither can that truly and properly speaking be any more brought against the Churches Authority and Doctrine then plain Scripture The Relatours supposition then has no more ground in St. Augustin then if one should prove that an Angel from Heaven can preach against the doctrine of the Apostles because St. Paul sayes Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed Now if the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugne it so long at least as he is so farre from seeing his errour that he is fully perswaded he erres not and that the Church erres in Defining against him as those Heretiques were perswaded against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place His second winding is that he labours to prove from the fore-cited words of St. Augustin that plain Scripture is to be preferred before the Definitions of the Church and may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Now St. Augustin speaks as little of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain in this sentence as he doth of Scripture For by those words Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor there is not once named the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental or any comparison or contrariety mentioned betwixt them For the question was not whether St. Augustin might reject some of the Churches Definitions which by plain Scripture he found to be erroneous in matters of small moment and yet remain still a member of the Church submitting to her in all Fundamental points but the question was this whether St. Augustin were to forsake the Catholique Church and become a profest enemy of her as he once had been in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine if plain and undenyable Truth should be brought against the Church and for Manichaeus So that the Truth mentioned by him in this place was to have been so Fundamental that it had been able utterly to overthrow the Church and establish Manichaeisme if any such Truth could have been undoubtedly demonstrated If therefore this Text could prove any thing it must prove that the whole visible Church can erre Fundamentally and so become no Church which is clearly against his Lordship
pag. 65. But why joyns he a wrangling to an erring Disputer are these think you Synonyma's I esteem his Lordship an erring Disputer yet he had reason to think me uncivil if I should call him a wrangling Disputer If they be not of the same signification why ha's he added in the exposition of St. Augustins words the word wrangling seeing in the sentence here debated there is neither wrangler not any thing like it Oh! I see now it is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Catholique Church when they are ill founded But where findes he any such Disputer in St. Augustins words upon whose Authority he grounds his Position Seeing that most holy and learned Doctor is so far from judging that any one can proceed solidly aud demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholique Church and Occumenicall Councils that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod Universa Ecclesia senti which is held by the whole Church and that they have hearts not onely of stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenicall Council for of that he speaks 3. After this the Bishop makes mention of one who should say That things are Fundamentul in Faith two wayes one in the matter such as are all things in themselves The other in the manner such as are all things which the Church hath defined and declared to be of Faith 'T is not set down who it was that spake thus But whoever he was I am not bound to defend him neither was his speech so proper He might have said some thing like it and have hit the mark viz. That Things are Fundamentall in Faith two wayes one in regard of the material object such as are the prime Articles of our Faith which are expresly to be believed by all The other in regard of the formal object such as are all Things that the Church hath defined to be of Faith because he that denies his assent to any one of these when they are sufficiently proposed does in effect deny his assent to the authority and word of God declared to him by the Church and this being to take away or deny the very formal object of Divine Supernatural Faith by consequence it destroyes the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever Wherefore let any man with the Bishop view as long as he pleases the Morter wherewith this Foundation is laid and if he consider it rightly he will finde it well tempered Our assertion is That all points defined by the Church are Fundamental because according to St. Augustin to dispute against any thing settled by full Authority of the Church and such are all things defined by her is to shake the Foundation Hence the Relator would inferre we intend to maintain that the point there spoken of the remission of original sin in the Baptizing of Infants was defined when St. Augustin wrote this by full sentence of a General Council But I deny that from urging that place of St. Augustin we can be concluded to have any such meaning For by Authority of the Church we mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena Authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima full though not the fullest and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in St. Augustins sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it Wherefore although one grant what Bellarmin sayes That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in an Oecumenical Council but onely by a National yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresie would be justly condemn'd without calling a General Council as one that oppos'd himself against the full Authority of the Church and did shake its foundation But the Bishop sayes Bellarmin was deceived in this business and that the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd in the first Ephesine Council which was Oecumenical I answer first 'c is not credible that Bellarmin who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his concealing the matter had he found it there because it would make nothing against the Catholick Church but rather for it However till the Councils words be brought I desire to be pardoned if I suspend my Assent to what the Bishop sayes Truly I have my self viewed that Council upon this occasion but cannot finde it there I fear therefore his Lordship hath been misinformed But suppose all were there which he pretends yet would it conclude nothing against Bellarmin who onely sayes that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in any General Council and the Bishop to disprove him shewes that some who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresie and Nestorianisme also were condemned in the Ephesine Council But how does this contradict Bellarmin Certain Pelagians were indeed condemned in the Ephesine Council but it was not for Pelagianisme but Nestorianisme that they were condemned Had they been condemned for Pelagianisme his Lordship had hit the mark but now he shoots wide He should have observed that Bellarmin denyed onely the condemnation of the Heresie and not of the persons for holding another Heresie wholly distinct from that of Pelagianisme 4. As for St. Augustins not mentioning the Pope when he speaks in the place before cited of the full Authority of the Church which the Bishop tearms an inexpiable omisson if our Doctrine concerning the Popes Authority were true It is easie to answer there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwayes chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church His Lordships followers might as well quarrel with me because I many times speak of the Authority of the Church without naming the Pope though I do ever both with that great Doctor and all other Catholiques acknowledge and understand the Popes Authority compris'd in that of the Church When my Lord of Canterbury findes in ancient Lawyers and Historians that such and such things were decreed by Act of Parliament without any mention of the King by whose Authority and consent they were decreed would he not think you condemn those Authors also of an inexpiable omission and thence conclude that the King in those dayes had not the prime Authority in Parliament and that whatsoever was said to be decreed by Act of Parliament was not eo ipso understood to be done by Authority of the King 5. We grant what is urged that it is one thing in nature and Religion too to be firme and another to be Fundamental For every thing that is Fundamental is firme but every thing that is firme is not Fundamental Wherefore we distinguisht before in the material
object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firme and close joyn'd to a sure foundation but not Fundamental But here his Lordship misconceives or rather misalledges A. C's Argument For it is not as he frames it All points defined are made firme ergo all points defined are Fundamental but thus All points defined are made firme by the full Authority of the Church ergo all points defined are Fundamental And his reason is because when any thing is made firme by the full Authority of the Church it is so firme that it cannot be denyed without shaking the whole foundation of Religion and consequently is Fundamental 6. But the Bishop proceeds further and makes this Argument Whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in her absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid This Argument will lose all its force by putting the Reader in minde of the Distinction between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals which we admitted in the material object of Faith for if this be reflected on there will be a foundation for the Church without supposing her to be in perfect being before her foundation be laid We have often declared what we understood by Fundamental viz. That to which we cannot refuse our assent by denying or doubting of it when it is proposed to us by the Church as a matter of Faith without damnation and without destroying the formal object of Faith and without making our selves during that deliberate doubting or denying uncapable of believing any thing with Divine and Supernatural Faith For surely whatever is of this nature must needs be Fundamental in Religion So that we admit the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in respect of the material object of Faith but not in respect of the formal that is as we have often said some matters of Faith are more universally necessary to be expresly known and believed by all then others and yet the Authority revealing that is God and declaring them infallibly to be revealed that is the Church is truly Fundamental in both As in the Scripture it self this Text John 1. And God was the word according to the matter it contains viz. the Divinity of our Saviour is a Fundamental point universally to be known and believed expresly to Salvation and that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas according to the matter it contains is no Fundamental point nor of any necessity to Salvation to be universally known and believed expresly yet the formal object revealing both these truths being the Authority of the Holy Ghost is equally Fundamental in both and doubtless if any one to whom it is as clearly propounded to be affirmed in Scripture that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas as that it is affirmed in Scripture that the word was God should yet deny or doubt of the first he could neither be saved so long as he remained in that misbelief nor believe the second with divine infallible Faith as all Christians both Catholiques and Protestants must grant Had this been well considered by his Lordship we should not have been forced to so frequent repetitions of the same Doctrine The Bishop thinks he has got a great advantage by pressing A. C. to this That the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation But what absurdity is it to grant that the Definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the foundation of the Church diffusive who can doubt but the Pastours in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every winde of Doctrine Ephes. 4. are a foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not St. Paul expresly affirm it Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum c. Did not the Bishop just now pag. 34. except the Apostles as having in their Definitions more Authority then the Church had after their times yea even so much as was sufficient to make their Definitions Fundamental and the opposing of them destructive of the Foundation of Religion their Authority being truly Divine which he sayes that of the Church after them was not Now this doctrine of the Bishop supposed I urge his own Argument against himself thus Whatever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church in the time of the Apostles be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition in the Apostles time is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church in their time could lay her own foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation was laid Who sees not here how the Bishop fights against himself with his own weapons and destroyes his own Positions by his own Arguments And whatever may be answered for him will satisfie his Argument in defence of us Now the answer is plain to any one who hath his eyes open for the Prime foundation of the Church are the Doctrines delivered by our Saviour and inspired by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whereby it took the first being of a Church and the Prime foundation to the insuing Church after the Apostles is the most certain Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by our Saviour to his Church By these two Prime foundations the Church is in being and so continues the Definitions of the Church grounded in these are a secondary foundation whereby Ecclesia docens the Church teaching established upon that promised assistance of the Holy Ghost fundat Ecclesiam doctam founds and establishes in every age the Church taught in the true Faith 7. But what shall we say in defence of A. C whom we finde blamed for these words That not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or prime Articles of Faith but all that which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church The answer is these are not the precise words of A. C. and therefore no wonder if the Bishop easily confute him whom he either mistakes or makes to speak as himself pleases A. C's words are these By the word FUMDAMENTAL is understood not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or Prime Principles which do not depend upon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as the Bishop and Dr. White say they are FUNDAMENTAL points but
all which do so pertain to Supernatural Divine Infallible Christian Faith by which Faith Christ the onely PRIME FOUNDATION of the Church doth dwell in our hearts and which Faith is so to the Church the Substance Basis and Foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for as that being thus confirmed or made firm by the Authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especicially obstinately denyed or questioned all the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all Supernatural Divine Christian Faith is shaken Thus he But who sees not that there is a main difference betwixt these words of A. C. and those which he is made to speak by the Bishop for he joyns the words as that to these thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts whereas in A. C's discourse they are joyned to these if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately questioned c. that of Faith whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts c. being onely a Parenthesis added for greater explication and not belonging to the substance of his discourse as the Relatour no less corruptly then cunningly makes it belong which is an other Dedalian Turn in this his Labyrinth Now let us hear the Accusation First sayes the Bishop A C. is mistaken because all that pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by Fundamental in the Faith to all men But A. C. does not say it is he speaks onely of those to whom such points are propos'd and who deny or question them when so propos'd Although in some sense they may be said Fundamental to all because all are to believe them implicitely and explicitely all such as have sufficient reason to know they are declared by the Church Secondly A. C. is accus'd for confounding the Object with the Act of Faith But if his words be rightly penetrated there will appear no confusion For A. C. having first named Prime Principles and then going on with others which pertained to Supernatural Infallible Divine Christian Faith it is apparent he understood by those points which so appertain not the Act of Faith it self but the Object Wherefore A. C. doth here no more but explicate the nature of the Object by the Act and that onely upon the By and in a Parenthesis as appears by his words in which there is no Confusion but Clarity for as the Act of Faith is the Foundation of Hope Charity and all other Supernatural Acts so is the Object on which Faith is grounded the Foundation of Faith and in such a manner as whoever denyes or questions one point of Faith doth in effect question all Now I wonder the Bishop should urge as an Argument the Definition of the Council of Trent That Orders Collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent of the people or any secular power and yet saith we can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition to be Fundamental in the Faith I wonder I say he should urge this when all Catholique Authors who maintain that whatsoever is defined by the Church is Fundamental do in effect hold that this Decree is Fundamental For they all affirm that this is a lawful General Council confirmed by the Pope and therefore of the same Authority to command our Belief that any other ever was Wherefore this Argument of the Bishop is not Argumentum ad hominem as he pretends but petitio principii Now if he mean that this Decree of the Council is no Fundamental point of Faith according to the precise material Object it is true but nothing against us who have often granted it the question being onely about Fundamental points in the formal Object of Faith as we perpetually inculeate A. C. further urgeth That if any one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may do it against another and another and so against all since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakened in one cannot be firme in any other Thus far A. C. And here the Bishop will needs have A. C. to have horrowed this doctrine out of Vincentius Lirinensis and that he might have acknowledged it I hope it is no errour against Faith if he did borrow it and not acknowledge it although two wits may sometimes hit on the same thing or at least come near it which is all he here allows to A. C. without taking it one from another However the Doctrine both of A. C. and Vincentius Lirinensis is true For the same reason that permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maximes of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because as I said it is not the greatness or smallness of the matter that moves us to give firme Assent in points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church Wherefore all points of Faith whatsoever may be said to be deposited with the Church For all that the Church doth even in things of least seeming concernment is but ut haec 〈◊〉 quae anteà that the same things may be believed which were before delivered but now with more light and clearness that is to say now explicitely before implicitely So that in either sense if we give way to every cavilling disputant to deny or quarrel them the whole foundation of Faith is shaken Moreover the Church being Infallible 't were meerly vain to examine her Decrees which the Relatour requires to be done to see if she have not added Novitia veteribus new Doctrines to the old For the Holy Ghost as hereafter shall be proved when we speak of this point having promised so to direct her as she cannot erre will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith which was not before either expressed or infolded and implyed in the word of God 8. But why does the Relator print Catholici dogmatis in great Letters in this sentence of Lirinensis is there any such great mystery in these words yes surely For sayes he Vincentius speaks there De Catholico Dogmate of Catholique Maximes Well But though Dogma signified a Maxime yet surely it cannot signifie Maximes unless he will here have the singular number signifie the plural as before he made the plural signifie the singular eis it But it was for his Lordships purpose to translate it in the plural number and that was sufficient for had he put it in the singular thus the Catholique Maxime that is as he expounds it the properly Fundamental and prime Truth deposited in the Church there would have seem'd to be but one Fundamental point which would have marr'd his whole designe Now because he holds there are many Fundamental points of Faith Catholicum Dogma in his Grammar could signifie nothing less then Catholique Maximes that is properly
English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christs Descending into Hell But the Bishop will needs have the English Church resolved in this point I will not much trouble my self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours But Mr. Fisher grounded his speech upon those words of Mr. Rogers viz. In the interpretation of this Article there is not that consent that were to be wished Thus he Whereupon the Relatour also confeffeth That some have been too busie in Crucifying this Article As for Catholiques upon whom the Bishop would lay the same charge they all believe it as it lyes in the Creed and is proposed by the Church But it being not defined by the Church whether we have this Article from Tradition onely or also from Scripture I hope Divines may be permitted to hold different opinions about it without prejudice to the Unity or Integrity of Faith Durand may also be suffered to teach though somewhat contrary to the common opinion that the Soul of Christ in the time of his death did not go down into Hell really but virtually and by effects onely The like may be said of that other question whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in its Essence into the Lower Pit and place of the Damned or really onely into that place or Region of Hell which is called Limbus Patrum but Virtually from thence into the Lower Hell Our Adversaries may know that all Catholique Divines agree Durand excepted that Christ our Saviour in his Blessed Soul did really descend into Hell our School Disputes and Differences being into what part of Hell he really descended as likewise touching the manner of exhibiting his Divine Presence amongst the Dead and of the measure of its effects to wit of Consolation and Deliverance towards the Good or of Terrour Confusion and Punishment towards the Bad. And though they should differ in their opinions more then they do in this or any other question concerning Religion yet they all submitting their judgements as they do to the Censure and Determination of the Church when ever she thinks fit to interpose her Authority and define the matter all these seeming Tempests of Controversie amongst us will end in a quiet calme I could wish his Lordship had been in his time and that his Followers would now be of the same Temper for then all Disputes and Differences in matters of Faith would cease yet School-Divinity remain entire Wherefore to what the Bishop asserts That the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without further Dispute and in that sense which the Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in I answer all Catholiques profess to do the same so that the question can onely be touching the sense of the words as they lye in the Creed and the sense of the Primitive Church concerning them Now as for Stapletons affirming That the Scripture is silent in the point of Christs descending into Hell and in mentioning that there is a Catholique and Apostolique Church suppose we should grant that Christs Descent into Hell were not exprest in Scripture yet his Lordships party will not deny it to be sufficient that it is in the Creed And for the other point Stapleton was not so ignorant as to think there was no mention of the Church of Christ in Scripture for every ordinary Scholar knows that place of Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Nor that she was to be even by the testimony of Scripture both Catholique and Apostolical for how often and invincibly doth this most worthy Doctor prove both these points from Scripture in several parts of his works wherefore in the place alledged 't is evident his meaning was onely to deny that the words Catholique and Apostolique were expresly in Scripture though they be there in sense and effect as I presume our Opponents themselves will not be so hardy as to deny So that his Lordships facetious discourse here upon Stapleton and some Texts of Scripture may rather be taken for a jeast to please his own humour then for an Argument against us This Incidental quarrel with Stapleton being over the Bishop fiercely again falls to expostulate both with Mr. Fisher and A. C. for citing Mr. Rogers Authority for the Doctrine of the Church of England But with how little reason it appears by the very Title of Mr. Rogers's Book which as the Bishop himself acknowledges runs thus The Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England and for this gives him a jerk that possibly he might think a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title Truly I conceive it of small importance to bestow much time upon this Subject either in relation to the Bishops Disagreement with Master Rogers or the pretended variance between Vega and Soto touching mens certain assurance of Justification or Salvation which jarre is denyed by Bellarmin who cites both of them for the Common opinion that a man cannot be certain of his Justification or Salvation by certainty of Faith without an especial Revelation 5. However I cannot but observe that though Catharinus disagrees from Bellarmin and the Common opinion concerning the foresaid point as the Bishop objects yet he dissents not formally from the Decree and Doctrine of the Church whose sense he professeth to follow submitting himself in that and all other his opinions to her Censure So that though I grant him to have fallen into an errour yet he is not accusable of Heresie as not being obstinate in his mistake 6. The Bishop is our good friend in saying that all Protestants he might have added all other profest enemies of the Catholique Church do agree with the Church of England in the main exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and onely one by unity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions Now that our Authours disagree not in Faith we have shewed a little before The Relatour doth much perplex himself about the Catholique Churches pronouncing Anathema But this is not done so easily as he imagined For this Anathema falls onely upon such as obstinately oppose the Catholique Church And if in such cases it should not be pronounced we should be so far from being in peace and quietness that all would be brought to confusion as appears by the concord we finde in our own Church and those sad Dissentions and Disorders most apparent in theirs Wherefore I believe that reason will rather ascribe the troubles of Christendome to the freedom which others take and give in matters of Faith by permitting every one to believe what he
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
Lordships Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points Wherefore he must needs agree with us in this that the perfection of Infallibility may be applied to the whole Church though not to every particular Member thereof Now further concerning the Churches Infallibility though she be so tyed to means as that she is bound to use them yet in her Definitions she receives not her Infallibility from the Means as the Bishop must also affirm of his Fundamentals but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Church which makes her Definitions truly Infallible though they be not New Revelations but onely Declarations of what was formerly Revealed For as the immediate Revelation it self is for no other reason Infallible but because it proceeds from God and in case it should happen to be not true and Certain the Errour would be ascribed to God So in the Definitions of the Church if she should fall into Errour it would likewise be ascrib'd to God himself Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is Gods immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false Gods Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averre that Gods promise would be infring'd as truly it would in that Supposition For did he not so preserve his Church in her Definitions of Faith by Assistance of the Holy Ghost as that she should never Define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not Revealed from God it would imply a destruction of Gods veracity and make him deny himself All which Doctrine is so well grounded on Christs Promise assuring us he will alwayes assist his Church that the Bishop has little reason to accuse us of rather maintaining a party then seeking Truth as though we set Doctrines on foot to foment Division and were rather lead by Animosity then Reason CHAP. 6. No unquestionable Assurance of Apostolicall Tradition but for the Infallible Authority of the Present Church ARGUMENT 1. Apostolical Traditions are the unwritten word of God and eight Instances concerning them witnessed by St. Augustin 2. Many things spoken by our Saviour not deliver'd by way of Tradition to the Church and many Church-Traditions not the word of God 3. Tradition not known by its own light any more then Scripture to be the word of God 4. The Private Spirit held by Calvin and Whitaker for the sole Motive of Believing Scripture to be the word of God 5. A Dialogue between the Bishop and a Heathen Philosopher 6. The case of a Christian dying without sight of Scripture 7. Occham Saint Augustin Canus Almain and Gerson either miscited or their sense perverted by the Bishop 1. THe Bishop having been hardly put to it in the precedent Chapter to finde some way whereby to prove Scripture to be the Word of God he continually treading on the brink of a Circle at length falls on the unwritten Word It seems he is afraid he shall be forc'd to come stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority But being loath to trust her he grows so wary that hee 'l admit no unwritten word but what is shew'n him deliver'd by the Prophets and Apostles Would he read it in their Books Now if you hearken to his Discourse he presently cryes out he cannot swallow into his belief that every thing which his Adversary sayes is the unwritten word of God is so indeed Nor is it our desire he should But we crave the indifferent Readers Patience to hear reason According to which it is apparent that there must be some Authority to assure us of this main Principle of Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This our Ensurancer is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition Declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God We do not pretend as the Bishop objects that every Doctrine which any particular Person as A. C. Bellarmin or other private Doctour may please to call Tradition is therefore to be receiv'd as Gods unwritten Word but such Doctrinal Traditions onely as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently Gods unwritten word Of which kinde are those which not I but St. Augustin judged to be such in his time and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first Apostolical Tradition named by Saint Augustin is that we now treat that Scripture is the Word of God He affirms he would not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto and sticks so close to her Authority that he sayes If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church Nay that he as much believed the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel it self because the same Authority of the Church assured him both of the one the other A second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other Person A third that the blessed Virgin Mary was and remained alwayes a Virgin both before in and after the Birth of Christ St. Augustin terming Helvidius his opinion who denied it a Blasphemy and for that reason inserting him in his Catalogue of Hereticks The fourth That those who are Baptized by Hereticks are not to be Rebaptized The fifth That Infants are to be baptized The Sixth that Children Baptized are to be numbred amongst the faithful The seventh that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting The eighth that Sunday the first Day of the Week is to be kept holy by Christians It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds that they cannot enter into a question without supposing a Falshood so his Lordship here feeds his humour and obtrudes many He makes Bellarmin and all Catholique Doctours maintain that whatever they please to call Tradition must presently be received by all as Gods unwritten Word After he keeps a fluttering between Tradition and the unwritten Word asking if they be Convertible Terms and then whether any Word of God be unwritten c. Which digressive Discourse is nothing but a new Turn in his Labyrinth to avoid the foil he foresaw himself in danger of in case he did here grapple with Bellarmin who clearly delivers his Doctrine in the place cited by the Bishop cap. 2. viz. That the word Tradition is general and signifies any Doctrine communicated from one to another whether it be written or unwritten By which 't is evident he makes not Tradition and the unwritten Word of God Convertible Afterwards he divides Traditions into Divine Apostolical and Ecclesiastical and again into Traditions belonging to Faith and Traditions belonging to Manners So that
as a precious Jewel in a Cabinet about with them and name Cranmer onely in the Margent or should any other Author to discredit Protestants affirm that some of them turn'd Turks and were burnt for such and cite onely in the margent Bernardinus Ochinus would not this be esteem'd a Rhetoricall Hyperbole or rather a most unjust way of writing But what if this Singular-Plural sayes no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie would not this be a notable Turn Intelligitur so are Occhams words cited by the Bishop in his margent SOLUM de Ecclesiâ quae fuit tempore Apostolorum It viz. the sentence of St. Augustin I would not believe the Gospel c. is understood saith he ONELY of the Church which was in the Apostles time Now in that whole place which I have perused very diligently there are neither those cited words nor any thing like them What is there then marry the quite contrary For he sayes expresly that the Church whereof St. Augustin speaks in that Sentence contains not onely the Apostles and those of their times but also the Church successively from the times of the Apostles to that very time wherein St. Augustin wrote those words as Occham himself shews out of another Text of St. Augustin and affirms that he understood the Church in the very same sense in this sentence that he exprest in the other and so concludes that St. Augustins words there are not to be understood of the times of the Apostles onely quite contradictorily to what his Lordship makes him speak Is this fair dealing think you to juggle in this manner what is this but to go about to perswade us 't is not day though the Sun shines That St. Augustins meaning jumps right with Occhams interpretation 't is evident For he must speak here of the Church in his time and not of the Primitive or Apostolicall Church onely because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo do not believe Manichaeus which if he had affirmed of the Primitive or Apostolicall Church had neither been true nor to the purpose the Primitive and Apostolicall Church having said no more against Manichaeus then the Scripture it self said Moreover he speaks of that Church wherein as he taught in the former Chapter the succession of Bishops from St. Peter to the present time had kept him c. but that must needs be the present Church succeeding the Primitive and not the Primitive onely Nay further he sayes that if any evident place could be alledged out of the Gospel in confirmation of Manichaeus his Doctrine he would neither believe the Church nor the Gospel because both of them should in that case have deceiv'd him which must necessarily be meant of the present Church because the Church in the Apostles time had not deceiv'd him in forbidding him to follow Manichaeus Now though it be a point of Faith that the Church is Infallible in delivering the Scripture unto us yet is it not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is prov'd out of the cited place of Saint Augustin 'T is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self His Lordships objection That the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive I distinguish If he means the one must be as truly and really Infallible quoad substantiam as the other I grant it but if he mean the one must be as highly and as perfectly Infallible as the other quoad modum I deny it For the voyce of the Church need not be suppos'd simply Divine to give an Infallible Testimony of this Tradition as we have shew'd because we need not assert it to be any more then an Authenticall Testimony preserv'd by the Holy Ghost from Errour Those two ends alone mentioned by the Relatour fall short of the end of Tradition which not onely induces Infidels and instructs Novices and weaklings but founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors in the Church St. Augustin was neither Infidell Novice Weakling nor Doubter in the Faith but the very learnedst of Bishops and Doctors yet it serv'd him so much that he would not have believ'd no nor could believe Scripture without it as he himself testifies of himself in the place above cited contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. As concerning Jacobus Almaynus his opinion cited by the Relatour viz. that we are first and more bound to believe the Church then the Gospel it is not altogether true For though we are first bound to believe the Church non prioritate temporis sed naturae to use Philosophicall tearms because the Authority of the Church is the means by which we are infallibly assur'd that Scripture is the word of God yet the Authority of the Church being ordain'd to the Scripture as the end and more noble object it cannot be properly said that we are more bound to believe the Church then the Scripture Touching his and Gersons reading the fore-cited place of St. Augustin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas where for commoveret they read compelleret concerning this I say I had rather charitably think they had found it so in some copies then judge with his Lordship that they did most notoriously falsifie the Text. And I am perswaded he had the like charitable opinion for Mr. Perkins who puts credidissem for crederem and movisset for commoveret Neither is this Apology of mine for Almaynus and Gerson without ground For both Occham and Biel quoted by his Lordship serve themselves of the very same word compelleret so that it seems the School-men of those dayes cited St. Augustin in this manner And though for my part I preferre commoveret before compelleret yet in St. Augustins perswasion express'd in that place it signifies as much as compelleret For he confesses that the Authority of the Church not onely mov'd him to believe the Gospel but commanded him and so strongly that it necessitated him to acknowledge the Scriptures for the Divine word of God which is as much as compelleret To the Authors cited in his Margent I answer Canus libr. 2. de Locis cap. 8. treats as St. Augustin did how one comes to believe who hath no belief in the Scripture and resolves that this must be done by the Authority of the Church and that such as reject the Churches Authority can never believe the Scripture Hence he consequently asserts sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii c. that Infidels and Novices in the Faith are brought to the belief of Scripture by this means But here 's the Turn He cites sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii lamely without a Verb or any full sense thinking thereby to perswade his Reader that the Church induces onely such to read Scriptures by a fallible authority and that all their Infallible Faith of Scripture streams
not dissenting from it Again as Christ and his Apostles shew'd they had Divine Authority to all who had the Grace to believe them and none to whom their preaching was sufficiently propounded could disbelieve them without damnable sin so also if the Scripture hath light enough after the recommendation of the Church to be seen by all that have Grace whoever dissents from that light commits a damnable sin in not believing it to be the word of God Now to affirm that all who dissent from that light commit damnable sin were to condemne not onely all the Luther an Protestants but many of the holy Ancient Fathers of damnable sin who read some of those Books which other Protestants account Scripture even upon the recommendation of the Church and yet dissented from their being the word of God at least accounted it not infallibly certain that they were 6. Thus we have seen quite contrary to the Bishops Doctrine that Scripture gives not so great and high Reasons of Credibility to it self that the Believer may rest his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority upon that Divine light which Scripture hath in self For there appears no such light to any but to the Bishop and those who pretend to the private Spirit 'T is true the Scripture is said by the Royal Prophet to be a Light because after we have once receiv'd it from the Infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe Therefore David saith not Verba scripta in Bibliis lumen pedibus meis but Verbum tuum THY WORD is a light to my feet so that he first believ'd the Scripture to be the word of God and then said it was a light c. But without this Authority 't is neither lumen manifestativum sui nec alterius neither a light that evidences it self nor any thing else because without this we may with just reason doubt as well of Scripture as of the true sense thereof Wherefore though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspir'd from God yet he doth never avow that this could be prov'd out of them unless they were receiv'd by the Infallible Authority of the Church And Henricus a Gandavo quoted by his Lordship for affirming that Christians in the Primitive Church did principally believe for the Authority of God and not of the Apostles means onely that Christians were not mov'd to believe for any humane Authority of the Apostles but for the Authority of God speaking by them So that this argument must be solv'd as well by the Bishop as by us for he has already granted that the Authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as we And Origen whom he cites in the Margent speaks to such as believ'd that Scriptures were the word of God whom by those proofs out of Scripture he endeavour'd to confirm and settle in their Faith by shewing how Scripture it self testified as much We may therefore assert that 't is not any humane or fallible Authority of the Church that moves us to embrace the Scripture as the Infallible word of God but the voyce of God speaking by the Church or the Authority of God declar'd to us infallibly by the present Church And this Infallible Authority is no less requisite to the knowledge of the first Apostolicall Tradition of the Scriptures then it is to know the Scripture it self But I finde another handsome Turn or two in this discourse of the Bishop He undertook to evince that the Scripture hath such light in it self that being introduc'd by the Tradition of the Church it can shew it self to be the most undoubted Divine word of God which to perform he assumes this medium The Scripture is a light Therefore it can manifest not onely other things but also it self by it self to be a light Ergo it can manifest it self to be the word of God This must be his consequence if he will conclude his intent But what windings are here The Scripture is a light I grant it Ergo 't is able to manifest it self to be a light I grant that too Ergo it can manifest it self to be an infallible light or the undoubted word of God That I deny and this which was the onely thing to be prov'd he never so much as goes about to prove For unless he could shew that there are no other lights save the word of God and such as are Infallible he can never make good his consequence In Seneca in Plutarch in Aristotle I read many lights and those lights manifest themselves to be lights Ergo they manifest themselves to be Infallible lights or the very Divine word of God what consequence is this The Scripture teacheth that there is one God this is a light and manifests it self to be a light Ergo it manifests it self to be the word of God how follows that May not the same light be found in hundreds of Books even in the Talmud of the Jews and Alcoran of the Turks as well as in Scripture The same may be said of a thousand Moral Instructions which either the very same or much like to them may be sound in other Moral Writers as well Christians as Jews and Heathens which all manifest themselves to be lights but follows it thence that they manifest themselves to be Divine lights or lights undoubtedly proceeding from the mouth of God The intricacy therefore of this Meander consists in making a sly Transition from the light to the person who is cause of this light I finde for example a candle lighted in a room it is a light and enlightens all the room and shews it self to be a light by its own light but it shews not by that light who lighted it I see some good sentence written on a wall it manifests it self by it self to be good but it manifests not whether it were written by Man Angel or God himself this must be evinc'd some other way Thus the words and sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves by themselves to be lights yet because the very same or such as are perfectly like and so the same in substance and sense may have been conceiv'd and express'd not onely by God but by good Men or Angels it follows not as he would have it they shew themselves to be lights by their own light Ergo they shew themselves to be Gods-lights or Infallible lights produc'd by none but God himself We have made I hope a pretty good progress through this Meander But no looner is one past over but we fall into another He was to prove that Scripture has light enough in it self to give Divine Infallible proof that 't is the word of God so as our Faith may rest upon that light as on its proper formall object and to evince this he cites here and there Authorities of the Fathers where they took some proofs out of Scripture to conclude Scripture to be the word of God
that City Whether he consented with the Catholick Bishops that is saith he with the Romane Church And in this sense the Church of Alexandria according to St. Hierome made it her glory to participate of the Romane Faith And John Patriarch of Constantinople wrote thus to Pope Hermisda We promise saith he not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of those who are sever'd from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not in all things with the Sea Apostolick Thus Saint Austin addresses himself to the Donatists telling them that the Succession of the Romane Bishops is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell overcome not thereby 〈◊〉 that the very Succession of those Bishops is in some true sense the Catholique Church So Optatus Milevitanus after he had said St Peter was head of all the Apostles and that he would have been a Sohismatick who should have erected another Chair against that singular one of St. Peter as also that in that Chair of St. Peter being but one unity was to be kept by all he addes that with Syricius then Pope he himself was united in communion with whom the whole world saith he meaning the whole Catholique Church agrees by COMMUNICATORY LETTERS in one Society of Communion See here how clearly he makes the union with the Bishop of Rome the measure of the Catholick Church which the Bishop calls a Jesuitisme and further proves himself to be in the Catholick Church because he was in Communion with the Sea of Peter St. Herome professes the Church is built upon St. Peters Sea and that whoever eats the Lamb that is pretends to believe in Christ and 〈◊〉 of the Sacraments out of that House that is out of the Communion of that Church is profane and an alien yea that he belongs to Antichrist and not to Christ whoever consents not with the Successor of St. Peter St. Fulgentius stiles the Roman Church The top of the world and Eulalius Bishop of Syracusa tells the same Fulgentius that it would avail him nothing to go into those Countreys which he desired to visit because saith he the Inhabitants thereof certain Religious men were sever'd by a faithless Dissention from the Sea of Peter Lastly Gratian the Emperour made a Decree that the Churches formerly possessed by Heretiques should be restored to those Bishops who were of Pope Damasus his Communion understanding thereby the Communion of the Catholique Church The Communion therefore with the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was the measure and distinctive badge whereby to know who were and who were not of the Catholique Church 6. Hence it appears that what his Lordship is pleas'd to tearm a perfect Jesuitisme in A. C. is a perfect mistake of the Bishop and a losing himself in his own Labyrinth Neither is that vulgar exception against Romane Catholick any better For as all Countreys how distant soever from one another under the Command and Obedience of the Roman Emperour were called the Romane Empire taken collectively because the chief Seat of their Emperour was at Rome So all the Churches subject to the Romane Bishop are call'd the Romane Church because their Supream Head and Pastour under Christ sits at Rome And seeing in the Law of Moses the whole Church of the Israelites was properly called the Jewish Church which name strictly taken belong'd onely to the Tribe of Juda because the chief City of it appertained to that Tribe where the High Priest resided and officiated why may not also the whole Orthodox Christian Church be nam'd the Romane Church because its Supream Bishop keeps his Residence in the Romane City The truth is in all doubts concerning matter of Doctrine recourse is to be had to St. Peters Successor who at least with a Generall Council can infallibly resolve all difficulties This Infallibility is independent of all places insomuch that as St. Peter had been infallible though he had never been at Rome so though his Successor should leave to reside in that City yet should he not leave to be Infallible in the manner specified and should as well then as now judge both the Roman Faith and the Faith of all other Churches This I have said to shew how the Faith of every particular Church is to be examin'd and prov'd to be Catholique to wit by its conformity to the Faith of the Romane Church concluding nothing whither the Pope can transferre his Chair from Rome or not and whether the Clergy of Rome can desert him and the true Faith or not for these Questions make nothing to our present purpose 7. By way of Appendix to this Chapter since so fair an occasion is presented us it will not be amiss to perform what we promis'd chap. 1. viz. to examine a little more fully his Lordships pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities which the Bishop brings § 3. num 3. But my intention is to maintain them so far onely as they make for the Infallible Authority of the Church or of the Pope Defining Articles of Faith in a General Council for we are obliged to no more The first Authority is out of St. Cyprian who shall here speak a little fuller then either the Bishop or Bellarmin cites him to the end the force of his words may the better appeare This holy Martyr writes thus to Cornelius Bish 〈◊〉 of Rome Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab Haereticis constituto navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est à Schismaticis 〈◊〉 literas ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos perfidia habere non 〈◊〉 accessum Why calls he St. Peters Chair Ecclesiam principalem the chief Church but because 't is the Head to which all other Churches must be subordinate in matter of Doctrine The words following signifie as much Unde unitas Sacerdotalis exorta est from which Chair of St. Peter as it were from its fountain unity in Priesthood and consequently unity in Faith is derived Why brings he the Apostle himself as Panegyrist of the Roman Faith Quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudataest Is it forsooth because no malicious 〈◊〉 in matter of Trust or Errour in Fact against the Discipline and Government of the Church can have access unto them as the Bishop will needs misinterpret the place or rather because no errour in Faith can approach the Sea Apostolique Certain it is Perfidia in this sentence is Diametrically opposed to the Faith of the Romans immediately before commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith and consequently it must of necessity be taken for the quite contrary viz. Misbelief or Errour in Faith Hence his other Explication also vanishes into smoak viz. when he asserts that 〈◊〉 non potest may be taken Hyperbolically for non facile potest because this
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
findes no difficulty to do Thirdly his Lordship excepts against the Application of the places brought by A. C. out of St. Bernard and St. Austin But we answer his Exceptions do not weaken the force of the said places For first concerning that of St. Bernard let us suppose as the Relatour contends that St. Bernard by those words Quae major superbia c. What greater pride can there be then for one man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation as if he alone had the Spirit of God mean't onely that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching yet is his saying not unaptly apply'd by A. C. to our present purpose by an Argument à minore ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who preferre their private fanatick opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholique Church This certainly Protestants did by their Solemne Protestation and obstinate maintaining their private opinions What the Relatour addes That it is one thing for a private man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation and another thing for an intelligent man in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholique Church is of no advantage to him For first though we should grant his Lordship that Martin Luther Ulrick 〈◊〉 John Calvin Theodore Beza John Knox and the rest of that crew were to be accounted Intelligent Persons yet will he or can he say they propos'd their Doubts modestly to the Church surely not and whoever sayes so will easily be convinc'd of ignorance in their opinions or practices But put case a more modest propounding of Doubts had been used as the Bishop seems to wish yet unless the Doubts were in points undecided by the Church the modest proposall of them could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their Doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholique Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful Heretical and damnable His exceptions against A. C's interpretation of St. Austin are no less weak The Holy Doctor affirms that it is a most insolent madness for a man to dispute whether that ought to be to be done which is usually held and done by the whole Church The Bishop first excepts that there is not a word of the Roman Church but onely of the Catholique yet having often shew'n that the Roman Church and the Catholique are all one and seeing A. C. adds to Roman Faith the practice of the Church this Authority remains still entire against him Next he sayes A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith whereas 't is spoken of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church But first I answer A. C. applies the place both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church of which practice the place is most properly understood even in that sense which the Bishop himself gives to the words Secondly if it were madness to dispute against the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church much greater would it be to dispute against any point of Faith held by the Church so that the Application of the place is still good by the Rule à minore ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God The reason may be because there is alwayes some point or matter of faith involv'd in every universally-practis'd Rite and Ceremony of the Church Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholique Church teacheth is by St. Austin tearm'd a most insolent madness We deny not but a right-sober man modestly proceeding may in some case dispute a point with the Roman either Church or Prelate as Irenaeus did with Pope Victor in the Controversie which arose toward the end of the second Century provided it be done with Submission and profession of Due Obedience to that Church and Prelate which can never be unless the dispute be about matters as yet undecided by the Church 6. Touching A. C's illation I answer since it is certain the whole Catholique or Roman Church in the sense often explicated cannot erre A. C. doth well inferre that there can be no just cause to make a divorce or Schism from it The Relatour grants that the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolute fundamental Doctrine and blames Bellarmin for needlesly busying himself to prove that the visible Church can never fall into Heresie But I answer Bellarmins labour was not needless since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errours save onely in Fundamentals as they call them whereas Bellarmin proves it equally of all Fundamentals or not-Fundamentals Moreover Bellarmin well observes that Protestants generally grant this onely to the Invisible Church whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible and though the Bishop in the Margent endeavours to shew they hold the same also of the Visible Church yet this onely proves that Protestants contradict one another which we deny not and Bellarmin likewise observes it elsewhere yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop when he saith the Church cannot erre addes this restriction if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture So that if she do it seems according to him she may erre But I must confess I have often desired and do yet much long to know which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all mens salvation according to the opinion of Protestants I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down Our Tenet is that the Catholique Church is Infallible in all points of Faith and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholique Church cannot be denied under pain of damnation and consequently is Fundamental to us and to all true Christians So that these following words of the Bishop viz. That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule are injurious to the Church and inconsistent with that Prerogative of Holiness which as he himself in this very place confesses alwayes accompanies the true Church 7. This Holiness consists chiefly in the verity of Faith So the Relatour himself professes in these words The Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners c. Insomuch that if the Church failed in the verity of Faith she could be no longer Holy nay it would follow that the Gates of Hell had prevailed much against her contrary to the promse of Christ. I assert therefore that the present Church is no more liable to errour through curiosity or weakness then was the Primitive nor the Vicar of Christ with a General Council more subject to erre upon that account then were the Apostles of Christ. In the following words the Relatour to
will become of Ecclesiastical Authority Immunity Liberty c. Every Heretique or Sectary how turbulent and seditious soever if he can but procure a Safe Conduct or the word of some Temporal Prince for his Security shall be exempt from Censure may preach write spread Heresie without check or controul Wherefore the Council sayes no more in effect then is in it self evident viz. that an inseriour Tribunal cannot hinder the proceedings of a superiour But enough of this matter To his Lordships Question why they should go to Rome to a General Council and have their freedom of speech since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing I answer Protestants were never invited to a General Council at Rome to reform the Church that 's a work to which they can pretend no competent Authoriy but they were invited thither to be better instructed and reclaimed from their errours The Roman Church is sufficiently authoriz'd by Saint Paul viz. that though an Angel from heaven should teach otherwayes then shee had taught he ought not to be believ'd In like manner the Fathers in the Council of Trent might with good reason be resolv'd firmly to stick to the Doctrine they had formerly been taught by the Catholique Church notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it either by Bishops or any other person 5. His Lordship goes on and blames both A. C. and F. Campian too for their boldness in saying that no good answer can be given by English Protestants why they refuse to grant a publique Disputation to Catholicks The Bishop thinks it a very good Answer to say that the Church of England hath no reason to admit of a publique Dispute with us till we be able to shew it under the Seal and Powers of Rome that the Roman Church will submit to a Third who may be an indifferent Judge between Catholicks and Protestants or to such a General Council as is after mentioned But I would fain know who this Third indifferent Judge should be If he prove an Heretique or Schismatique he will hardly be found indifferent 't is to be fear'd he will be partial in the cause Perchance he shall be some Atheist Turk or Jew Judges fitly chosen indeed to sit upon the Church of God But would his Lordship think you have taken it for a satisfactory Answer if some Brownist or other Sectary in his time upon his Lordships vouchsafing to dispute with them in hope to reduce them to union and obedience should have answered we will admit a Dispute provided your Lordship and the rest of your Prelatical Church of England will accept of a Third to be Judge between you and us might not the Arrians or any other Ancient Heretiques have as well required a Third to judge between them and Catholiques in Controversies wherein they differed Yea may not every known Rebel upon the like pretense demand a Third to be Judge between him and the King his Sovereign and in case of refusal remain obstinate in his rebellion even as well as the Protestants do persist in their spiritual Disloyalty to the Vicar of Christ because a Third person is not accepted to be Judge between him and them To what he intimates of a General Council we say if it be a lawful one viz. call'd and approv'd by the Pope as Head of the Church as all lawful General Councils hitherto have been we shall never refuse to submit to it but heartily wish that all the Relatours party would do the same CHAP. 13. Protestants no part of the Church ARGUMENT 1. How the Separation of Protestants from the Church was made 2. Whether the Roman-Catholiques or They do imitate the Ten Tribes 3. The Roman Doctrin concerning the Holy Ghosts Proceeding c. more antient then the Bishop pretends 4. In what cases Particular Churches may declare Articles of Faith 5. The word Filioque when added to the Creed and why 6. No Particular Church hath power to reform what is universally taught and receiv'd 7. The Protestants Synod at London 1562. neither General nor Free 8. Gerson and all his other proofs fail the Bishop 9. Protestants never yet had either true Church or Council 1. WE are again told that Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out by her without cause What the cause of their expulsion was we have already declar'd and shall not refuse here again briefly to repeat It was because by their Heretical doctrine and Schismatical proceedings they had first separated themselves from the Church and became both unworthy and uncapable any longer of her Communion They had raised a new Separate and mutinous Faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholique or general Body of the Church They had chosen to themselves new Pastors independent of any ordinary and lawful Pastours of Christs Church that were before them They had instituted new Rites and Ceremonies of religion fram'd new Liturgies or Forms of Divine Service They had schismatically conven'd in several Synods or Conventicles and there broacht new Heretical Confessions of Faith contrary not only to the true Catholique Faith but to the Faith of all particular Churches what ever existent in the world immediately before they began Thus Protestants of themselves first departed from the Churches Doctrine and Communion and persisting obstinate in their evil opinions and practises the Church was forc'd to proceed against them according to the Canons and by just censure cast them out of her bosom lest otherwise by their scandalons division high disobedience and pestilent doctrine they might further infect the Flock of Christ which was committed to her charge The Bishop denies he ever granted that Protestants did first depart otherwise than he had before expressed § 21. num 6. But that is enough he there acknowledges that an actual separation at least was made by Protestants and A. C. here asserts no more Whether this actual separation were upon a just cause preceding as the Relatour pretends is a thing to be disputed between A. C. and him although indeed it be of it self clear enough to any who duly considers it that Protestants neither had nor could have any just cause for such a Separation as A. C. pag. 55 56. and all Catholiques do charge them with For it was a Separation not onely from the Church of Rome but as Calvin himself Epist. 14. confesses à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a Separation necessarily involves separation from the True Catholique Church from which as it hath been often urg'd already even by the confession of Protestants themselves 't is impossible there should ever be just cause to separate The Bishop grants that Corruption in manners onely is no just cause to make a separation from the Church of God yet cannot forbear to have a fling at the corrupt manners of the Church of Rome quoting for that purpose Dr. Stapleton But I wonder our Adversaries take notice of
of Holy Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Praying for the Dead that they might be eased of their pains and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practis'd by all Christians Was not Freewill 〈◊〉 of good Works and Justification by Charity or Inherent Grace and not by Faith onely universally taught and believ'd in all Churches of Christendom Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholique this doth not justifie at all his reformation he should prove that it may not onely adde but take away something that is Catholique from the doctrine of the Church for this the pretended Reformers did as well in England as elsewhere 5. It is not a thing so evident in Antiquity when or where the word Filioque was added to the Creed that his Lordship should so so easily take it for granted without proof that the Roman Church added it in quality of a particular Church All that can be gathered from Authours so far as I can yet learn concerning this point is that in the Councils of Toledo and Luca assembled against the Hereticks call'd Priscillianists the word is found inserted in the Creed which is suppos'd to have been done upon the Authority of an Epistle they had receiv'd from Pope Leo the first wherein he affirms the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be both from the Father and Son I confess Hugo Eterianus in his Book written upon this Subject about the year 1100 affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome but he names not the Pope Whether it were because in his time 't was generally known what Pope it was I cannot certainly say but of this I am sure that by reason of his silence we now know not with any certainty whom he meant Card. Perron directly affirms that it was first added by an Assembly of French Bishops But perhaps that may be more probable which Stanislaus Socolovius tells us in his Latin Translation of the Answer of Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople to the Lutherans pag. 8. viz. that the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople which is the second General sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome the Pope and Council at Rome approv'd of their said Confession but yet added by way of explication the word Filioque to the Article which concern'd the Holy Ghost and this they did to signifie that the Holy Ghost as True God proceeded from the Son and was not made or created by him as some Heretiques in those times began to teach Neither doth he affirm this without citation of some credible Authority adding withall that this Definition or Declaration of the Pope was for some hundreds of years generally admitted and embrac'd by the whole Church neither Greeks nor Latins dissenting or taking any exception at the word Filioque till about the time of the Eighth Synod where the Greeks first began publiquely to cavil against it more out of pride and peevish emulation against the Latins then for any urgent Reasons they had to contest it more then their predecessours before them But of this I need not contend further with his Lordship 6. To return therefore to our business of Reformation we grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does to particular Churches to National and Provincial Councils in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice onely we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastour of the Church and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledg'd to be Catholique Truths For this even Capellus himself by the Relatour here cited requires and the practise of the Church is evident for it in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils which as St. Austin witnesses sent their decrees touching Grace Original Sin in Infants and other matters against Pelagius to be confirm'd by the Pope who was not esteem'd by St. Austin and those Fathers the Disease of the Church a tearm very unhandsome from an inferiour but rather the Physician of it to whose Care and Government it was committed Neither do I think it convenient to stay for a General Council when the errours and abuses to be redressed are such as call for speedy remedy and threaten greater mischief if they be not timely prevented When the Gangrene endangers life we do well to betake our selves to the next Chyrurgeon that is a Provincial Council This in such a case with the Popes assistance is acknowledg'd a Physician competent and able to apply all due remedy to the Churches infirmities although I confess the most proper Expedient specially for all matters that concern the Church in general is an Oecumenical Council Such as the Council of Trent was whatever the Bishop without any reason given sayes to the contrary nor can any thing be objected against it which upon due examination will not be found as easily applyable to all other approved Councils which the Church hath yet had so that by disowning this we should in effect disown all others But suppose it had not been General yet sure it was for Number Learning and Authority far surpassing any National Council or Synod which the Protestants either of England or any other Nation ever had Wherefore if their Assemblies or Synods so inconsiderable as they were are yet esteem'd of sufficient Authority to make reformation in matters of Faith and correct what doctrine they imagin'd erroneous in the Catholique Church shall not the Council of Trent be as sufficient to assure us that the said pretended errours are indeed no errours at all but Divine Truths and the perpetual universally receiv'd Traditions of Christs Church 7. But it is yet more strange that our Adversary should also object want of Freedom to this Council seeing that even by the relation of their own partial and malevolent Historian it sufficiently appears that neither the Prelates wanted full liberty of Suffrage nor the Divines of Disputation and maintaining their several assertions in the best manner they could His Lordship had done well to have lookt nearer home and consider'd how matters were carried in England much about that time If the Council of Trent were not a free Council what was that Protestant Synod of London Anno 1562. in which the thirty nine Articles that is the summe of the Protestant Faith and Religion in England were fram'd Was that a Free Synod First at Trent all the Prelates in Christendome that could be invited and were concern'd in the Resolutions of that Council being solemnly call'd did come and assist either in their persons or proxies both at the Deliberations and Determinations of the Assembly I adde that the Protestants themselves were
likewise invited with full security to come and go if they had pleas'd but of this we have spoken already Whereas at London to that Synod of English Protestants not one of the lawfull English Prelates were call'd or permitted to come who yet of all others were most concern'd and ought to have been there present as well by reason of their Authority and Function as of their just interest What speak I of the Prelates not so much as one of the English Catholiques how numerous soever they were at that time were call'd to that Assembly but all both Pastours and people were condemn'd together without being heard or allow'd to speak one word for themselves At Trent there were no Bishops illegally depriv'd of their Bishopricks purposely to cashier their Votes in Council nor any others included into their places contrary to the Canons of the Church purposely to vote down the said Churches established Doctrine and Canons In England it is notorious that all the lawful Prelates of that Nation were most illegally and arbitrarily depriv'd of their Bishopricks for no other end but to evacuate their Authority in the Nation and Lay-Bishops thrust into their places purposely to vote down and abolish Catholique Religion by some colour of Authority and seigned shew of a pretended Ecclesiastical Synod At Trent nothing had been done or was done in matter of Religion by the Pope or any other person in way of Determination or New Decree but by and upon the most unanimous and general resolutions of that Council In England 't is too notorious to be deny'd Religion was already chang'd by the Queen and a few meer-lay-persons in Parliament scarce enough to make a legal vote had the matter been proper for them and this Synod of London call'd apparently not to debate matters of Religion as they ought to be debated in a Free Ecclesiastical Synod but to serve designs and to boulster up by their pretended titular and usurp'd Authority what before-hand had most Uncanonically been resolv'd upon by the State This his Lordship should have a little reflected on when he objected want of Freedom to the Council of Trent But it seems he could more easily see a Mote in another man's eye then a Beam in his own 8. Our desire is not that any man should rather be blinde then open his owneyes God forbid we would have him onely clear them to see that Catholiques approve of National Provincial and also Diocesan Synods and onely disapprove of such Assemblies as Convene and Act contrary to the Canons in opposition to the chief Pastour of the Church universally receiv'd Doctrines and General Councils The Bishop therefore might very well have spar'd his pains of proving so industriously that many Reformations have been made by particular Councils for who denyes it Bellarmin had sufficiently shew'd it already who also observes out of St. Austin that for the Defining of easie things 't is not convenient to trouble all Christian Provinces Non omnis Haeresis est talis ut propter eam debeant vexari omnes provinciae We deny not but matters of less moment such as concern Rites and Ceremonies onely or Abuses in Manners and Discipline may be reform'd by particular Councils and that without asking express leave of the Pope for who knows not that the Discipline of the Church allows this Who knows not that the Pope is so far from being a hinderance to such Assemblies that it is no small part of his Apostolical vigilancy for the good of the Church to encourage and stir up the Bishops of other Nations and Provinces to the frequent holding of them But we affirm that in matters of greater moment which concern the Faith and publique Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolique and the Popes consent either expresly granted or justly presum'd The Bishop indeed all along pretends the contrary viz. that National and Provincial Councils did reform in matters of Faith and Doctrine both without and against the Popes consent and it concerns him so to do for without this granted his Lordship knew well enough it would be impossible for him to justifie the pretended Reformation of his English Church But let us examine his proofs First Gerson speaks nothing expresly touching matters of Faith but onely that he would have all the States or Degrees of the Church reform'd which may be understood as well of personal abuses or corruption in Manners and Discipline as in matters of Faith Besides writing his first-alledg'd Treatise upon this subject de Concilio unius obedientiae and pleading hard for such a General Council as should acknowledge one Head 't is manifest he allow'd of no Schismatical Reformations nor any thing to be done in that kinde contrary to the Authority and good liking of the Churches Head Secondly the Bishop cites Concilium Romanum sub Sylvestro but here the very title confutes his pretence for the Council was held sub Sylvestro under the Pope therefore not without or against him And at the Council of Gangres Osius was Popes Sylvesters Legate and the Canons of this Council as Pope Symmachus related by Baronius affirms were enacted by the Authority of the Sea Apostolique His third proof is Concilium Carthiginense primum which was indeed assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage but no new Article Defined in it onely the perpetual Tradition of the Church touching Non-rebaptization was confirm'd therein having been defined long before by sundry Popes and also by the Council of Nice For this Council therefore of Carthage no man can be so hardy as to deny but that the Popes consent if it were not expresly had yet might be justly presum'd In the Synod of Aquileia which is his fourth proof the Bishop himself findes nothing but only that Palladius and Secundinus were therein condemn'd for embracing the Arian Heresie which having been already condemn'd by the Council of Nice and St. Ambrose with other Bishops of Italy being present at Aquileia who can doubt but every thing was there done by the Popes Authority and consent His fifth proof is the second otherwise call'd the third Council of Carthage which was so far from being held against the Popes consent that in the forty eighth Canon 't is expresly resolv'd by the Council to consult Pope Syricius concerning the matter of that Decree His sixth proof is the Council of Milevis in Africa condemning the Heresie of Pelagius But was not I pray the Sea Apostolique consulted in that grand affair Sure it was St. Austin above cited will avouch as much His seventh proof is the second Council of Aurange which was assembled by means of Felix Bishop of Rome so far was it from being held without the Popes consent After this comes the third Council of Toledo which was so devoted to the Authority of the Sea of Rome
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
laid upon it For St Basil himself even as the Bishop quotes him professes to fight against Heresies by unwritten Doctrine or Tradition yet such as was not contrary but according to Scripture Lastly we say with Biel that Scripture is a Rule which applied by the Church and that is Biels express caution though it might not appear in English measures all things yea and contains all things necessary to salvation either mediately or immediately Wherefore to take notice by the way of the Bishops conceit upon Gedeon's Fleece we averre that Scripture hath not onely Dew upon it but water in it and that enough not onely for a Lamb to wade thorow but for an Elephant to swim but whosoever shall presume to wade or swim there without help of Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradition will surely perish by his presumption He asks what warrant we have to seek another Rule beside Scripture but considers not how groundless his own assertion is that God hath left us Scripture as the onely Infallible Rule which is contrary to the common belief of all true Christians contrary to express Scripture and the constant judgement and practise of the Church in all ages and according to the example of none but confess'd and condemn'd Heretiques 9. But the Bishop tells us that though the Pope should be granted a living Infallible Judge yet would it not suffice against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in Doctrine of Faith or to soder the rents which are made His reason is because oportet Haereses esse c. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith I answer the Church is at all times sufficiently and effectually secur'd from such Rents by the Authority of its chief Pastour where 't is duly acknowledg'd The malice of the Devil and impious men by inventing Heresies hurt not the Church but themselves and their Adherents who by their Heresie and Schism make a divorce from the Church that is either sever themselves or are justly cut off from her for their errours the Church to speak properly remaining still as pure and incorrupt as she was before Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents or Schismatical party which stand in need of Sodering are not found amongst the true Members of the Church who continue still united in Faith and due obedience with their Head and in all necessary Communion with one another but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adher'd to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations And herein truly if passion did not too much blinde us experience would tell us that had not the Pope receiv'd from God the power he challenges of Governing the Church as Supream Head thereof under Christ he could never have been able to preserve that Peace and Unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church there being upon other Accounts so many Feuds and Animosities among the Professours of that Religion or to have subsisted thus long had his pretension to it been grounded on meer Policy and Interest as Protestant Ministers continually suggest to their Disciples especially in these latter ages wherein the wit and malice of his enemies have been sharpened to the utmost and every thing objected even with notorious calumny that might possibly serve to render his Authority suspected and contemptible even with those who acknowledg'd it But leaving him to the execution of his Pastoral Charge let us see how matters go between the Bishop and his Adversary 10. A. C. tells us there is no earthly Kingdom that when matters cannot opportunely be compos'd by Parliament which upon all occasions and at all times cannot be summoned hath not beside the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Supream Magistrate and Judge to determin emergent Controversies and preserve peace in Temporal affairs and thence à paritate rationis or rather à fortiori inferrs that Christ the wisest of Kings hath in like manner provided in his Kingdom the Church beside the Law-Books of Holy Scripture some visible Magistrates and Judges and above all one chief Magistrate and Judge sufficiently impower'd and assisted by his Spirit as to put an end to all Controversies concerning Ecclesiastical affairs and preserve his Church in the Unity and Certainty of Faith To which the Relatour thinks it sufficient to say all this is but a Simile and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing The Similitude upon which A. C. grounds his discourse is that the whole Militant Church is a Kingdom which the Bishop denyes telling us they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or mixt Government But I answer though A. C. urges the Argument in the Similitude of a Kingdom onely yet is it of force in any other kinde of settled Government In a Common-wealth beside the Law-Books 't is requisite there be a living Judge or Judges invested with Supream Authority to determin all matters in difference amongst the people What the Relatour brings against the Monarchy of the Militant Church shews onely that it is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy participating somewhat both of Aristocracy and Democracy I call that a Pure Monarchy in which all the Sovereign Power is so in one alone as that no other person or persons in the Kingdom govern but in vertue of the Monarchs Authority and meerly as his Substitutes A mixt Monarchy is that in which one indeed is Supream and in some cases commands all yet so as others within the Monarchy are Princes and do govern both Towns and Provinces as their own and with rights of Sovereignty though not absolute but holding and depending on the Monarch in chief Now the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical Seeing the Pope as Vicar of Christ and St. Peters Successour hath a Supream Authority over the whole Church yet is not his Monarchy pure but mixt because Bishops within their respective Diocesses and Jurisdictions are Spiritual Princes also that is Chief Pastours and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right and not meerly his Vicars and Substitutes placeable and displaceable at his pleasure In this respect therefore the Government of the Church hath something of the Aristocratical in it And because any man if sufficiently qualified for it may be promoted to a Bishoprick it hath something also of Democratical 11. But since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect what wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern his Church by one Viceroy as the Bishop is pleas'd to tearm him then Aristocratically or by many as he would have it And as for the Literae Communicatoriae which himself alledges
credulous Reader that the Fathers in the Council of Trent were so aw'd by the Popes Authority or sway'd by his Interest that either they durst not or would not open themselves so farre as to speak freely what they thought What is this but an empty and injurious suspicion or rather an unworthy accusation of so many grave Prelats assembled in Council A little more of Christian charity might have taught his Lordship to frame a far different judgement and believe that so many worthy Prelats would not be neglectful of their charge to the betraying of their conscience especially seeing the Pope had fully declared his desire that the matters in Controversie might receive a free and fair Dispute in the Council in order to a Settlement of the Truth To put a period therefore to this long and groundless Dream of the Popes strong party and the Bishops-being over-aw'd in the Council of Trent I conclude that seeing none of the Fathers there assembled no not any of those who liv'd either under the wing of Protestant Princes or where Liberty of Conscience was allowed ever sided with Protestants but constantly and zealously persever'd even till death in the Faith and Doctrine they had subscribed in that Council and shew'd themselves solicitous that all its Definitions should be Universally held by their people no Evidence can possibly be given of any Free Consent or Vote in Council if this may be call'd in question 9. Touching HIEREMIAS Patriarch of Constantinople you must know that some Eminent Protestants of the Lutheran Party about the end of the last Century endeavour'd to feel the Pulse of the Greek Church to see if they could there finde any Symptoms of their own Disease The design was to close with the Greeks for the better making out of the pretended perpetual Succession of their Church which Project they so hotly pursu'd though formerly in vain attempted that they would not desist till the Patriarch being settled in his Throne they had sent to him the summe of their Reformed Belief drawn up according to the Augustan Confession which had been compos'd by Melancthon and approv'd by their Patriarch Luther After a long intercourse of Letters Answers and Replyes mutually continued for some years and all arguments us'd that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his Communion he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their doctrine but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman-Catholique Church which those Lutherans endeavour'd to overthrow Insomuch that at last the Patriarch tyred with their importunity gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholique Church and desir'd them not to trouble him any more with their writings All this is more largely related by Spondanus out of the writings of those very Protestants that treated with the Patriarch in the business Neither can the Censure passed by this Patriarch upon the Lutheran errours be accounted rash or precipitate seeing they had a full Hearing by him they had made their address to who was not onely the chief Patriarch of the Greeks but a person of that eminent Esteem among them that his Censure must in reason be taken to declare the sense of the Greek Church Nor matters it that Catholiques account him a Shismatique this cannot prejudice his Censure in reference to Protestants He was such a Schismatique as they would gladly have made Patron of their Religion The Bishop therefore by giving no other Answer to this Patriarchs-proceeding against Protestants but that he findes not this Censure of Hieremias warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church shews he had very little to say in opposition to it Was not this Hieremias chief Patriarch of the Greek Church Doth not he write in a style Definitive and peremptory touching the matters debated between him and Protestants Does he not upon all occasions testifie the Doctrine he declares to be the Doctrine of the Catholique Church of the Holy Fathers and of the Sacred Councils Did any of the Greek Bishops ever disclaim the said Doctrine either in whole or part as they disclaim'd the Doctrine of one of his successours whom they depos'd and ejected as an Heretique because his Tenets savour'd of the Protestant Leaven who then can doubt but what he delivers is the common Belief of the whole Greek Church as is likewise in effect acknowledg'd by the Interessed Lutherans themselves in their Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium c. publisht after the Treaty ended and more expresly by some English Writers Well therefore might A. C. affirm without making himself a Prophet that if ever such a Free Council as the Relatour seem'd to wish were gather'd out of the East and West Provinces of Christendom Protestants would doubtless be condemn'd for Heretiques For this is not to Prophesie but to discourse and draw a Certain Conclusion out of Principles morally Evident that is to say if the French Spanish and Schismatical Greeks also in their respective Churches do teach and profess as matter of Catholique Faith Doctrine Diametrally opposite to that of Protestants no man can doubt but had or were they met in a General Council to declare their said Belief they would infallibly condemn Protestantisme no less then did this Patriarch Hieremias CHAP. 20. Of the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils ARGUMENT 1. The Bishops pretended Forwardness for a General Council meerly Delusive 2. His Erring General Council qualifi'd at most but to unite in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration 3. The Bishops Remedy against his Council intolerably Erring instrumental to all Disunion 4. The Authority of Oecumenical Councils whence derived 5. Their Infallibility evidenc'd from the same Texts of Scripture that prov'd the Church Infallible 6. The Text Mat. 18. 20. Where Two or Three are gathered together in my Name c. Vindicated in proof of the Infallibility of lawful General Councils 7. The Decrees of Legally-Confirm'd General Councils in points of Faith truly styled the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 8. The whole Church lyable to Errour if a General Council may Erre in points of Faith 9. St. Austins Text lib. 2. De Baptism cap. 3. That General Councils may be amended the former by the latter c. explicated at large 1. THe Bishop having cast as much dirt as he was able upon the Council of Trent wishes in fine that a lawful General Council were called to end Controversies A pure one you may be sure if according to his wish who bearing himself very confident upon the impossibility of assembling such a Council as he would call General sayes as it were to insinuate an unwillingness on our part to have Controversies ended in so fair a way as by a General Council If you have a most gracious King inclined unto it how can you acquit your selves if you do not consent As though forsooth there were no more requir'd to the assembling of a General Council then
pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority who shall determine or how shall men satisfie themselves whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent The Bishop gives us no light in this particular but leaves us to grope in the dark But let us indulge so much to our Adversary as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have General and of Equal Authority yet Maldonats Argument which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one evinces clearly that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word there would need another Council and then another to try that and so in infinitum The result of which would be that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self To this the Bishop answers that no General Council lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM which is either as ambiguous as the rest or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity But this is neither to exclude possibility nor fear of erring c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 Here the Bishop sayes I might have returned upon you again If a General Council not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Council He tells us we may say yes because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer But let this piece of Disingenuity pass and let us examine how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader while he insinuates to him that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope alone as Head of the Church is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions which is but an opinion of particular Doctours and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer as the Bishop does for us viz. That a General Council is necessary because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre but rather the contrary That a General Council is needfull because it is not De fide or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council as all Catholiques unanimously believe he ever does when he defines with it What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us 3. But the Bishop foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity and unless it the Council erre manifestly and intolerably In which cases you may see the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity to fall into another as great viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity nor what manifestly intolerable but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy to exclaim as warranted by the Bishop against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity or manifestly intolerable in both which cases they may with the Relatours license spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom or Commonwealth The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching Declaring and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable and changing according to Circumstances of Time Person Place c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good and necessary to be repealed which can never happen in Decisions of Faith The truth of this is evident even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment Corporal or Pecuniary whereas the Spiritual viz. a General Council layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions Witness the first Four General acknowledg'd for such by Protestants which were they fallible as the Bishop contends they are would be the greatest tyranny not to say Impiety imaginable Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts against Catholique Doctrine 'T is true some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him not for him But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd which is that National or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour if the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council and examine it Sure the Bishop had very ill luck or a bad cause to maintain otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities in so little a Compass as he does For first he leaves us to divine what those Errours are which we must esteem intolerable Secondly he forgets to tell us whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church or its Representative while as is supposed there 's no General Council yet in being Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a
infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But he does not finde he sayes that any General Council since did ever take upon them to say punctually and in express terms of their Definitions VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS acknowledging even thereby a great deale of difference as hee conceiues in the Certainty of those things which After-generall Councils determined in the Church and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sate in Council I answer there 's no Essentiall difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a Generall Councill confirm'd by the Roman Bishop Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops in respect of Personall Prerogatiues and graces but none at all between the Certainty of what eyther the Apostles by themselues or succeeding bishops in a lawfull Generall Council assembled define for Truth seeing what is completely determin'd therin is no lesse determin'd by Apostolicall Authority then what was determin'd by the Apostles in that first Council at Hierusalem And if After-Councils vse not the same Expression punctually and in terms it is not materiall since they doe it in effect by vniversally enioyning the Beleefe of their Decisions vnder paine of Anathema And this the Holy fathers well vnderstood when they averr'd the Decrees of a Generall Council to bee a most Holy and Diuine Oracle a sentence inspir'd by the Holy Ghost not to bee 〈◊〉 not to bee question'd without errour that it is the last sentence that can bee expected in matters of fayth What the Relatour meanes by alledging Valentia I vnderstand not that Author cleerly speaking of Councils not yet ratify'd by the Pope The Bishop therfore hath sayd nothing in disproofe of what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirme viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proofe of the Jnfallibility of Generall Councils which considered Dr. Stapleton is so farre from beeing iustly Censurable for styling the Decrees of Generall Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost that his Lp. is rather blameable for pretending such words to bee little short of Blasphemie Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to giue them such like Attributes Does not St. Athanasius terme the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever Does not St. Cyrill aboue cited call it likewise a Diuine and most Holy Oracle Doth not Constantin the Emperour style the same Definition a Celestiall mandate Doth not St. Gregory with the applause of all true Christians professe to reuerence the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councils as hee reuerences the foure Ghospells Doth not St. Leo St. Gregory Naziazen Pope Nicolas the first with others speake to the same sense Bellarmins Argument deduc'd from this Apostolicall Council as 't was a President to all future Councils oecumenicall holds good for their Jnfallibility since otherwise they must haue been ineffectuall as to the principall purpose of calling them Viz. so to determin Controuersies of fayth as to put an end to all debates of that nature in the Church which can never bee effectually done where Infallibility is not acknowledg'd as hath been proued To what hee obiects that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils where no man Sate that was inspired as was in this of the Apostles where all that sate as iudges were inspired I answer 't is sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelats concurring with their Head in any other lawfull Generall Council were ioyntly infallible in any kinde of reall infallibility whether like to the former or not So in the Bishops own principles a Generall Council or at least the Catholique Church is infallible in fundamentalls or Things absolutely necessary to saluation though hee would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to haue that prerogatiue of infallibility As touching Ferus hee avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility though his Authority would bee of no greater force then if hee were none of ours His Comment vpon the Acts which the Bishop here cites beeing listed with most of his other works in the ROLL of Prohibited Books Thus haue I gone thorough all the forecited passages of scripture and in euery one of them solv'd the Bishops obiections for rendring them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of Generall Councils which yet I needed not haue done since what is cleerly prou'd by any one Text of scripture is as vndoubtedly true as what is prou'd by more But the Bishop tells us hee easily grants a Generall Council cannot erre in Things necessary to 〈◊〉 suffering it selfe to bee led by the spirit of Truth in scripture wherein hee seems but to trifle saying no more in effect then that a Generall Council cannot erre so long as it doth not erre This is a very small Prerogatiue and might bee affirm'd of any kinde of Council nay of any particular person of how meane capacity soever The question is whether a lawfull Generall Council can ever bee presumable to fall into the Bishops hinted disorder of leauing scripture or defining any thing contrary to its true sense But to speake truth there can bee no question of it as beeing inconsistent with the veracity of Diuine Promises to permitt the whole Church to erre in any Doctrinall point she finds necessary to define by a Generall Council for preuenting of schisms and settling of mens minds in the Truth To what hee adds as the Result of his discourse vpon these several Texts that supposing they promisd Assistance even to Infallibility yet they are to bee understood of the whole Church principally and of its Representatiue but by consequent nor any further then the sayd Representatiue consents and eleaues to that vpon which it is consequent viz. the Catholique Body of the Church This I say is but a weake cuasion For seeing the Catholique or Diffusiue Body of the Church is bound to beleeue and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representatiue if the Church Diffusiue haue an Infallible Assistance for her Beleeving the Council or Church Representatiue must also necessarily haue Infallible Assistance in Teaching To which of these this Assistance is promised principally is but a vayne speculation since they both haue it as beeing absolutely necessary for them both Here the Bishop falls againe to his Considerations and wil haue vs to obserue fourthly that there is not the like consent that Generall Councils cannot erre as there is thatthe Church in Generall cannot erre from the fayth necessary to Saluation since in this all agree but not in the former J answer all that haue not deserted nor adher'd to the Desertors of the Catholique Church doe vna nimously agree that a lawfully-call'd and confirm'd Generall Council can no more erre in point of fayth then the Church in general and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the
experiment as wee haue sayd is only found in matters of fact precepts of Manners and discipline which depend on Circumstances and are therfore in their own nature changeable or lastly when experience shews that some new arising errours call for a further explanation of some Doctrinall point already defin'd Nor matters it that there was no experiment of fact in St. Cyprians case seeing St. Austin does not consine his discourse to St Cyprians case only but by occasion of his and his Councils errour lays down generall Doctrine touching the different Authority of the writings of particular Bishops prouinciall Nationall and Generall Councils And as for Doctor Stapletons reading Conclusum for Clausum it imports little to the present purpose hee else where reading it Clausum est The Bishops exposition therfore of St. Austins word experiment to bee a further proofe of the question is groundleess and contrary to the know'n notion of the word Nor does it help him that St. Austin in the following chapter where hee speaks of Rebaptization sayes it was a question tenebris inuoluta since hee speaks of it as it stood in St. Cyprians time vndefin'd by a Generall Councill Adde hereunto that St. Austin expressly teacheth in the same chapter that St. Cyprian would certainly haue corrected his opinion had the point in his time been defin'd by a Generall Council which is another manifest proofe that neither St. Cyprian nor St Austin were of the Bishops minde in this particular touching Generall Councils Hence also is iustified what Stapleton averrs as the Bishop reports him viz. That if St. Austin speakes of a Cause of fayth his meaning is that latter Generall Councills doe mend the former when they explicate more perfectly that fayth which lay hid in the Seed of Ancient Doctrine as for example when the Council of Ephesus explicated that of Nice concerning the Diuinity of Christ the Councill of Chalcedon that of Ephesus and the Counil of Constance all the Three This Stapleton speakes by way of Solution to the Argument brought by Protestants from this Text of S. Austin against the infallibility of Generall Councills and the Relatour disingenuous as to make his Reader beleeue that the sayd Stapleton brings it for a proofe while hee ridiculously asks whether it bee not an excellent Conclusion These Councils taught no Errour and were only explained Therfore no Council can erre in matter of fayth 'T is I confess no Excellent conclusion nor ever intended for such by Stapleton But 't is so excellent a solution to the Bishops Argument that it made him giue an Additionall Turn to the rest of his Labyrinth That St. Austin meant plainly that euen Plenary Councils might erre in matter of fayth and ought to bee amended in a latter Council the Bishop does well to say I thinke will thus appeare For in truth hee does but thinke it as will soone bee manifest His maine reason why hee thinks so is taken from St. Austins word emendari which the Relatour tells us properly supposes for errour and faultiness J answer the word emendari is very properly applyable to the taking away of any defect it beeing deriued from Menda which as Scaliger himselfe in his Notes vpon Varro obserues comes from the latin Adverb Minus and properly signifies any defect whatsoeuer and therfore not solely applyable to errour in fayth but to such defects as I haue mentioned aboue Stapleton therfore giues not a forced but the true and proper signification of St. Austins word emendari And this may serue for a sufficient solution to the rest of his discourse the word emendari bearing our sense as properly as reprehendi and ce dere insisted on by the Bishop To what hee adds that St. Austin must bee vnderstood to speake of Amendment of errour because hee teaches it must bee done without Sacrilegious pride without swelling Arrogancie and without Contention of Envy in holy Humility in Catholique peace in Christian Charity which Cautions the Bishop supposes necessarily import some Errour or fault committed by the former Council in mending whereof the following Council might without such Caueats bee apt to insult over the former and the former or their Adherents to envy and contest the Proceedings of the latter I answer St. Austins admonitions in this kinde relate not in particular to Generall Councils but to the other seuerall subiects of his whole discourse viz. Priuate Bishops Prouinciall and Nationall Councils by whome as errour may bee committed so 't is evident Pride Arrogancy Contention may happen in its emendation if not religiously avoyded by the am enders The Bishop proceeds against Bellarmin telling vs this shift of his is the poorest of all viz. That St. Austin speaks of vnlawfull Councils But surely 't is no shift at all in the Cardinal seeing hee gives that Exposition only ex superabundanti and with a peradventure as the Relatour himselfe obserues To what hee brings at last that it is a meere tricke which the Ancient Church knew not and as hee thinks not beleeu'd at this day by the wise and learned of our own side to require the Popes Instruction Approbation and Confirmation etc. J answer wise and learned men will rather thinke 't is a meere Resuerie in the Relatour thus to contradict the perpetuall know'n practise both of Councils themselues which always requir'd the Popes Cofirmation and of the Church which never accounted them Compleate lawfull Generall Councils without it and of Reason it selfe as I haue already Shew'n CHAP. 21. In vvhat manner Generall Councils are Infallible ARGVMENT 1. The Bishop falls into vnavoydable Inconueniences by maintaining that Generall Councills are fallible 2. They are Infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine defined though not always so in the Premisses and the Reason why 3. What Difference there is between the present Church and that of the Apostles 4. An Explanation of St. Austins Text. Lib. de Agon Christian. cap. 30. PETRVS PERSONAM ECCLESIAE SVSTINET c 5. The Council of Constance in point of Receiuing vnder one kinde only not contrary to Christs Institution 6. No vnreasonableness in the Catholique Doctrine touching Infallibility 7. The Bishops various and gross Mistakes about the Popes Infallibility both in reference to Councils and otherwise 8. His Misunderstanding of St. Ambrose 1. THe Bishop labours in his fifth Consideration to avoyd Two Jnconueniences which must needs follow by supposing errour to bee incident to a Generall Council The first is that this supposition layes all open to vncertainties The second that it maks way for a whirle winde of the Priuate spirit to come in and ruffle the Church Hee thinks hee hath found out a Remedy for this twisted Disease To the first Inconuenience hee sayes that Generall Councills as lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and a 〈◊〉 Representation and cannot erre in matters of fayth keeping themselues to Gods Rule and not attempting to make a New of their own and
then that an Angel may feele tast heare because this Proposition is true An Angel would seele tast or heare if hee had a body a tongue or corporall eares But to what purpose does the Bishop goe about to shew that Councils are not to bee our Iudges in points that are cleerly taught by reason or scripture wee shall neuer haue recourse to Councils to know whether the whole bee greater then the part nor whether Jsaac had two sons Iacob and Esau. Neither ever will there arise any case in which all wise persons of the Roman Church will outwardly profess the Doctrine defined by Councils and inwardly aslent that it is contrary to the word of God and to euident demonstration The Controuersie which the Bishop should haue resolu'd is this whether in case one partie pretend and verily beleeue they haue cleere scripture and demonstration for what they say and the other consisting of men at least equall if not superiour to them in point of learning vnderstanding Morall Honestie Prudence and all other helps conducing to right iudgement shall affirme the contrary whether in this case there bee not an absolute necessity of a liuing and infallible iudge to end the Controuersie and whether all Christians ought not to submitt to that iudge notwithstanding any reasons or seeming euidences to the contrary T is strange the Bishop should thinke Bellarmin to grant that a priuate man may lawfully dissent from a Generall Council by reason of some manifest and intolerable errour The Cardinall asserts indeed that inferiours may not iudge superiours whether they proceed lawfully or not vnless it manifestly appeare that an intolerable errour is committed by them But there hee speaks of the Council of the Iews which condemned our sauiour and in condemning him committed an intolerable errour And in that very place hee teaches that the Council of the Jewes wherein the High Preist presided could not erre in matters of fayth before the coming of the Messias but that after his birth they might according to diverse Prophesyes hee there alledges adding that at the very time when the Council was lyable to errour subiects were to submitt to their superiours viz. the people to their Council vnless it manifestly appear'd that an intolerable errour had been committed by them But how can the Relatour inferre from thence that such an errour may bee committed by our Generall Councils since the Cardinal expressly teaches in that very booke that our Generall Councils cannot possibly erre in their definitions of fayth The Bishops next quarrel is with Doctor Stapleton for teaching that the voyce of the Church in determining Controuersies of fayth in Generall Councils is Diuine telling vs that the Proposition stick 's in his throate as if the Doctor had felt some checke in the vttering of it Why because forsooth by way of explicating himselfe Stapleton adds that it is not simply but in a manner diuine Is this to retract in any sort what hee had sayd who sees not rather that 't is only to speake with that necessary caution which the cause requires and which the cauilling disposition of Heretiques doth particularly oblige vs to This Proposition The voyce of the Church determining in Generall Councils is in a manner diuine is doubtless not only most true in it self but also most consonant to Catholicke grounds to witt as expressing that it is not Gods immediate reuelation but only an infallible meanes of applying immediate reuelation to us His next obiection against the sayd Doctor is Blasphemy viz. for aucrring that the Church is the foundation of fayth in a higher kinde then scripture I answer that I haue diligently sought for the words alledged in Stapletons works and cannot finde them The Bishop quotes Relect. Contr. 4. quest 4. art 3. but that question hath no article at all in it 'T is true in the fifth question hee teaches that the Church is more know'n to us then scripture and that it is the meanes of applying to us both scripture and all things else that wee beleeue But this is neither Blasphemy nor Contradiction to his own grounds However should any such proposition bee found in Stapleton J am not bound to maintaine it seeing J haue only engag'd to defend the receiu'd Doctrine of the Catholique Church which no ways depends vpon any such assertion as is here layd to Stapletons charge 2. In the sixth Consideration the Relatour argues to this purpose if a Generall Council bee infallible the infallibility of it is eyther in the Conclusion alone or in the Meanes that proue it alone that is to say in the Premisses or in both together But the Council sayth hee is neither infallible in the Conclusion alone nor in the Meanes or premisses alone nor yet in both together ergo 't is not infallible at all Wee desire to bee breife and therfore not standing to consider the reasons why hee thinks 't is not infallible in the Meanes wee answer 't is infallible in the Conclusion that is in the Doctrine defined though it bee not infallible in the meanes or arguments vpon which it proceeded to the definition The reason is because the one viz. that the Conclusion or defined Doctrine of a Generall Council should bee infallibly true is necessary for the due gouernment of the Church But the other viz. that there should bee infallibility also in the Meanes or in the disquisition aboute the matter before it comes to bee defined is not necessary and it is a know'n maxime Deus non deficit in necessarijs nec abundat in superfluis which holds good in Theologie as well as in Nature God is not wanting in the supply of necessaries noris hee profuse in affording things superfluous To this our Aduersarie replies that 't is a thing altogether vnknow'n in nature and art too that fallible Principles can eyther as father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion But this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the childe of those principles as the fruite of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an infallible Conclusion what ever the premisses may bee This is necessary for the peace and vnity of the Church and therfore not to bee deny'd vnless an impossibility can bee shew'd therein But I hope no man will attacque Gods Omnipotency and depriue him of the power of doing this Hence it appeares how vainly the Relatour fancies to himselfe that Stapleton and all Catholiques are miserably hamper'd in this Argument whereas they all easily answer it as wee haue done What hee sayes next is a meere peruersion of Stapletons meaning whoe neuer teaches that the Church is Simply Propheticall eyther in the Premisses or Conclusion but rather the quite contrary as the Relator might haue seen if hee had pleas'd in the place hee cites T is true hee vses the word Propheticall sometimes speaking of the Conclusion or Definition of a General Council but
other Councils named by Bellarmin But I answer our dispute is about lawfull Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope such as neither of these were nor any of those other which Bellarmin mentions in the place quoted by the Bishop neither can it bee sayd that those subsequent Councils which reformed the errours concluded at Ariminum and Ephesus were called by the Authority of the whole Church in generall but by the Pope in the same manner as that of Trent and others were Hee grants that the Church though it may erre hath not only a Pastorall power to teach and direct but a Pretorian also to controule and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamentall or of great consequence Are not the Reall Presence Purgatory praying to Saynts the fiue Sacraments of seauen which Protestants denie and diuerse other points wherein they differ from us and the Church things of great consequence And did not the whole christian Church generally teach and profess these points both long before and at the time of Luthers departure from the Roman Church why was it not then in the power of the Church to controule and censure him with all his followers for opposing her Doctrine in the sayd points Againe if wee ought to obey the Church in points Fundamentall and of great consequence as the Bishops doctrine here cleerly implies why must wee not obey her likewise in taking those points to bee Fundamentall and of great consequence which shee holds to bee such and by her definition declares to bee such Certainly Heretiques will neuer want reason to iustifie their disobedience to the Church if allowing her authority to controule and censure only in points Fundamentall and of great consequence wee allow them the liberty to iudge and determin what points are such what not His instance of a mothers authority viz. that Obedience due to her is not to bee refused vpon her falling into errour holds not in the Church because the authority of a naturall mother is not in order to Beleefe but to Action and it does not follow that because shee hath commanded amiss in one thing that her child is not to obey her in an other which it shall not know to bee vnlawfull But the authority of the Church ouer her children consists not only in directing them what they are to doe but in obliging them to beleeue firmly and without doubt what euer shee shall esteem necessary to difine and propound to them as matter of Beleefe Now its impossible that the vnderstanding which can assent to nothing but what it apprehends to bee true nor infallibly beleeue but what it apprehends to bee infallibly true should bee mou'd with any respect due to the Church to beleeue without doubt any defined point which it did not before so long as it giues way to this opinion viz. that shee may and has defin'd and also commanded vs to beleeue as a point of Fayth a thing false in it selfe As to his citing St. Austins authority in the margent touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not hauing Spot nor wrinckle c. it maks nothing against vs. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to bee vnderstood of the Church Militant but only that they are not to bee vnderstood of her in the sense giuen them by the Pelagians my meaning is hee doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholique Church vniuersally receiu'd or defin'd as matter of fayth to bee without Spot of errour but hee denies the liues of Christians euen of the most iust and perfect in this life to bee altogether without Spot of sin Neither doth St. Austin read vs any such lesson as this that the Church on earth is no freeer from wrinckles in doctrine and discipline then it is from Spots in life and conuersation but it is the Bishops own voluntary scandalous and inconsiderate assertion if hee speaks of doctrine vniuersally receiu'd and approu'd by the Church if only of doctrine and errours taught by priuate persons what is it to the purpose An other thing considered is that if wee suppose a Generall Council infallible and that it proue not so but that an errour in fayth bee concluded the same erring opinion which maks it thinke it selfe infallible makes the errour of it irreuocable and so lenues the Church without remedy I answer grant false antecedents and false premisses enough and what absurdities will not bee consequent and fill vp the conclusion an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility euen of the Bible it selfe in the Bishops own style thus This Booke which you call the Bible and suppose to bee Gods word immediate Reuelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it sayes IF IT PROVE NOT SO but that it were written only by man and containes errours THE SAME ERRING OPINION that makes you thinke 't is Gods word c. makes all the sayd errours contain'd in it wholy irreuocable and of necessity for euer to bee beleeu'd as Gods word and Diuine Reuelation Can any man deny this consequent granting the Bishops antecedent if it proue not so The inconuenience therfore which the Relatour here obiects beeing only conditionall and the condition vpon which it depends such as wee are neuer like to grant nor our aduersaries to proue wee pass it by as signifying else nothing but how willing his Lordship was to heap vp obiections against vs though such as hee and his party must answer 5. But how does the Bishop proue that a Generall Council hath erred Thus. Christ sayth hee instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To breake Christs institution is a damnable errour this errour was committed by the Council of Constante whose words are these cited and englished by the Bishop LICET CHRISTVS c. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples after supper vnder both kindes of bread and wine yet NON OBSTANTE notwithstanding this it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faythfull vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiu'd by Laymen only vnder the kinde of bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused And to say this is an vnlawfull custome of receiuing vnder one kinde is erronious and they which persist in saying so are to bee punished and driuen out as Heretiques The force of the obiection depends wholy on the words NON OBSTANTE which the Bishop conceiues to import that the Council defin'd receiuing vnder both kindes not to bee necessary NOTWITHSTANDING that our Sauiour so instituted it viz. in both kindes I answer Bellarmin rightly obserues that the words non obstante haue no reference to receiuing vnder both kindes but to the time of receiuing it after supper which though the Bishop bee not satisfy'd with but obiects that the NON OBSTANTE
was their consent asked whether a Council should bee conuened or not but the Apostles concluded this amongst themselues as beeing a particular and speciall branch of that Power they had receiued from Christ for the Gouernment of the Church Neither at this day is their consent or concurrence any more required de iure to the conuening of such assemblies then it was in the Apostles time but the Pastours of the Church doe act and determin all things pertaining to this affayre solely amongst themselues without requiring the Peoples consent Generall Councils then are a principall and necessary part of that Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which Christ instituted for the Gouernment of his Church and not an humaine Expedient only brought in or taken up by the Church her selfe meerly upon prudentiall considerations as the Bishop will needs conceiue and their Power beeing wholy from aboue as the Church Diffusiue properly speaking giues it not so neither can shee take it away or annull any thing in point of doctrine which the Pastours in such Councils assembled shall by full authority decree I sayd in point of doctrine because that is ex natura rei unchangeable The Gospell of Christ and true Christian Fayth which Generall Councils are by Christs Institution appointed to teach admitts not of yea and nay now the Affirmatiue then the Negatiue as the Bishop by his correcting and abrogating Power left to After-Councils would haue vs belccue but only yea It is alwayes the same if once declared and settled by those who haue the authority and assistance from God that is requisite thereto as Councils haue euen by the Relatours own confession here It must stand and bee professed without alteration or abrogation for euer His pretense therfore of the Churches representing her selfe againe and by a new Council taking order for what was decreed amiss signifies nothing in this case saue only that our aduersarie holds still to his first and false supposition that Generall Councils may erre which was neuer yet granted him nor can wee grant it without offering violence to the nature and propertie of true Christian Fayth which is to bee invariable and to admitt no change not without derogating both from the institution and honour of Christ. For a Generall Council beeing of diuine institution and euen in the Bishops own style and profession the Supreme Externall Liuing Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies in Fayth if any errour contrary to true Fayth could bee incident to the definition of such a Council what Certainty or Vnchangeableness could there bee in the Fayth it sefle or how can it bee thought not to reflect vpon Christs honour to haue instituted in his Church no other Power to correct and repeale the errours of such a Council but what is lyable to the same or the like errour 〈◊〉 The Bishop himselfe in this Paragraph attributes such power authority and high prerogatiues to Generall Councils that I see not how they can stand with the possibility of errour 〈◊〉 calling in question any point of doctrine defined by them First he tells vs a Council hath power to order settle and define differences arisen concerning Fayth Then that a Council lawfully called and proceeding orderly and concluding according to the Rule the 〈◊〉 the whole Church cannot but approue the Council That the decrees of it shall binde all particulars and it selfe Lastly that because the whole Church can meete no other way the Council shall remaine the Supreme Externall Liuing Temporary Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Does hee not now plainly destroy these prerogatiues and contradict himselfe when speaking of such a Council hee sayth presently after only the whole Church and shee alone hath power when scripture or demonstration is found and peaceably tender'd to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Council and in it to order what was amiss A while since hee granted that the definitions of a Generall Council were to bee held and obserued till such euident scripture and demonstration were brought against them as beeing propos'd and vnderstood the minde of man cannot chuse but assent to it But here hee supposeth the whole Church is made acquainted with euident scripture and demonstration against the definitions of a former Council and yet by his own doctrine but a few lines aboue all particulars are bound to stand to those definitions till such time as an other Council of equall authority called by the whole Church hath ordered and amended what was decreed amiss in the former Againe how can the whole Church when scripture and demonstration is found contrary to a former Council represent her selfe in a new one to order by it what was formerly defind amiss but shee must cleerly vnderstand that what was determined by the former Council was false and erroneous vpon this supposition 〈◊〉 Eyther the sayd former Councils false and erroneous definitions are still binding or they are not if they are binding it would bee sinne to beleeue the contrary or at least outwardly to oppose the sayd definitions Now let any body 〈◊〉 how its possible for the whole Church to call an other Council to reforme those errours of the first but it must outwardly shew some dislike of them and therby declare in effect the doctrine of the precedent Council to bee false and consequently oppose its decrees euen while they are supposed to binde If you answer they are binding to particulars not to the whole Church I reply it is impossible the whole Church should euer 〈◊〉 agree to represent her selfe in an other Council to reforme the 〈◊〉 of the precedent but that very many nay almost all particulars must 〈◊〉 and also 〈◊〉 those errours before the whole Church 〈◊〉 and declare them If therfore the definitions of the precedent Council though 〈◊〉 binde all particulars till an 〈◊〉 Council lawfully called reuerse them and define the control truth as the Bishop confesseth how can the 〈◊〉 Church which consists of particulars and acts nothing but by 〈◊〉 call in question the doctrine of any precedent Council but very many if not all particulars must committ sinne by some kinde of 〈◊〉 opposition or not conforming themselues where they were as yet bound to yeeld obedience And how I 〈◊〉 had the former Council power to settle and define differences of sayth and to binde all particulars if 〈◊〉 and euery particular person as the case now supposeth may lawfully thinke and profess that for ought kee knows both scripture and demonstration may bee brought against it and that in case they bee the errours of the precedent Council ought to bee reform by calling an other Againe I aske to what purpose should there bee an other Council called to reforme the errours of a former For eyther the whole Church hath euident scripture or demonstrations against the definitions of the former Council or it hath not If it hath not the Church her selfe committs sinne in the Bishops owne principles by imputing errour to the precedent Councill
be certainly know'n or beleeued because forsooth the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope or made him Bishop Priest etc. can neuer be certainly know'n and yet by the doctrine of the Councils of Florence and Trent it is of absolute necessity to the validity of euery one of those Sacraments so as without it the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest This is the summe of a much longer discourse which the Relatour makes to this purpose In answer to which in the first place I obserue though the Bishop leuels his argument only against the Popes infallibility yet it hath the same force against the infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamentall For seeing the whole Church cannot consist of other persons then such as are truly baptised and that no infallible assurance can be had that eyther all or any one in particular is baptised how is it possible wee should be infallibly sure that there is such an assembly in the world as the Bishop calls the Church that is a company of true Christians beleeuing all points fundamentall or absolutely necessary to saluation since wee cannot be infallibly sure that any of them are baptised Secondly I answer that both a Generall Council and the Pope when they define any matter of Faith doe also implicitely define that themselues are infallible and by consequence that both the Pope in such case and also the Bishops that sit in Council are persons baptised in holy Orders and haue all things Essentially necessary for that function which they then execute Neither is there any more difficultie in the case of the Pope now then there was in the time of the Prophets and Apostles of old whome all must grant that with the same breath they defin'd or infallibly declar'd the seuerall articles and points of doctrine propos'd by them to the faythfull and their own infallibility in proposing them Here therefore the Bishops argument hath equall force against all parties his own as well as ours and all must answer as wee doe narnely that it is not necessary first to beleeue the infallibility of the proposer to wit prioritate temporis or in respect of time and afterwards the infallibility of the doctrine he proposeth but it sufficeth to beleeue it first prioritate naturae so as the infallibility of the teacher be presuppos'd to the infallibility of his doctrine as without which this latter could not subsist or be beleeu'd by vs. Thus wee conceiue the Relatours Achilles is fall'n and truly it may seem much that in all his discourse he should take no notice of this answer to this obiection which is commonly giuen by diuines Was it because he knew it not or wanted a sufficient replie But this is but as it were the Prologue to the Play the Relatours maine business is about the Priests intention concerning which he first of all positiuely layes down that it is not of absolute necessitie to the essence of a Sacrament so as to make it voyd though the Priests thoughts should wander from his worke at the instant of vsing the essentialls of a Sacrament yea or haue in him an actuall intention to scorn the Church After which he tells vs a story how learnedly a Neapolitan Bishop in the Council of Trent disputed against the common opinion viz. which holds the Priests intention to be necessary himselfe pressing the grand inconuenience which he thinks would follow if any such intention were held to be essentially necessary in these words namely that then no man should be able to secure himselfe upon any doubt or trouble in his conscience that he hath truly and really been made 〈◊〉 of any Sacrament whatsoeuer no not of Baptisme and so by consequence be left in doubt whether he be a Christian or no. I shall speake first to his principall assertion which is that the Priests intention is not absolutely necessary to the essence or validity of the Sacrament If it be not I desire a reason of our aduersaries why wee should not thinke a Priest consecrates the Body of Christ as much at a table where there is wheaten bread before him and that eyther by way of disputation or reading the 26. Chapter of St. Matthew he pronounces the words Hoc est corpus meum as he doth at the Altar what is here wanting to the essence of a Sacrament according to the Relatours principles Here is the true forme Hoc est corpus meum Here is the true matter wheaten bread He that pronounces the Forme is a true Priest and yet in all mens iudgement Here 's no true Sacrament made Some thing else therfore is necessary to the essence of a Sacrament beside what is here found and what can that possibly be if it be not the intention which the Church requires you will say perhaps that the outward circumstances at least must shew to the standers by that the Priest really intends to make a Sacrament I answer first if it be not absolutely necessary that such an intention should be had why is it absolutely necessary it should be signified Secondly J deny that any such externall signification by circumstances is essentially necessary to a Sacrament Might not a Catholique Priest to saue the soule of some dying infant baptise it if he could without making any such signification by circumstances Might he not vpon pretense that he had skill in Physick and that it were good for the child to haue it's face often sprinckled with cold water take occasion himselfe euer and anon to be sprinkling the childs face and at one time amongst the rest to pronounce eyther softly or by way of discourse the words Ego te 〈◊〉 c. with intention to conferre the Sacrament and will any man doubt but that the Priest doing this out of a reall intention to baptise the child is really baptis'd though none of the standers by take notice by any circumstances of what that Priest does I aske therfore if in this case a true Sacrament be made though no circumstances doe outwardly signify that the Priest intends to make it why is it not likewise so in the other case viz. where a Priest hauing due matter wheaten bread before him pronounces the 〈◊〉 or words of Consecration meerly by way of discourse or reading Can any reason hereof be so much as imagin'd saue only this that in the former case the Priest hath a reall intention to make a Sacrament or to doe what the Church doth or what Christ did institute to be done but in the other he hath no such intention As for the inconuenience which the Bishop pretends would follow out of this doctrine viz. that no man can rest secure that he hath been really made partaker of any Sacrament no not of Baptisme it selfe I answer first that as to the farre greater part of Christians the inconuenience follows as much out of the Bishops principles as ours they cannot be absolutely certaine that they are Baptis'd For the Bishop
nothing but flourishes of wit and Rhetorique not to say that such putt-offs as this serue for nothing else but to open a gate as it were and giue a pretense to euery Phanatique Heretique further to reiect and despise the authority of the ancient Fathers whensoeuer they teach contrary to his phansie vnder coulour that they deliuer not their reall sense but only speake 〈◊〉 or vse flourishes of witt and Eloquence to stirre vp deuotion Nor doc I see how the Fathers could thinke to 〈◊〉 true deuotion in the hearts of their people by vsing outwardly and commending Prayer to Saynts if they had thought it to be a thing in it selfe vnlawfull as Protestants hold it to be In the second place he vrges authority against the Inuocation of Saynts to witt of S. Austin who speaking of the Christian Sacrifice hath these words Ad quod Sacrificium suo loco ordine homines Dei nominantur non tamen a 〈◊〉 qui Sacrificat 〈◊〉 At which Sacrifice meaning no other but the Sacrifice of the Mass which wee hope the Reader will marke for S. Austins sake in their due place and order sayth he holy men of God are named or commemorated meaning the holy Prelats and Pastours of the Church with other Saynts departed but they are not inuocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth I answer the Fathers meaning is that the Saynts departed are not inuocated or called vpon by way of Sacrifice that is as persons to whome the Sacrifice is offered For that beeing a worke of Religion due vnto God alone the Saynts departed are not capable of it That this only is S. Austins meaning and not absolutely to deny that the Saynts departed are in no sort to be invocated or prayd vnto by the Priest is very cleere euen from the place it selfe For he presently adds these words as explicating himselfe and giuing the reason of what he had sayd immediately before Deo quippe non illis Satrificat For the Priest sayth he Sacrificeth to God and not to them neither is he their Priest that is to inuocate or worship them by oblation of Sacrifice but Gods To the same purpose also he speaks elsewhere and 't is likewise confirm'd by other passages of his works where he teaches that not only Commemoration is made of the Saynts departed in time of Sacrifice as he doth euen in the text cited by the Beshop but that it is done to this particular intent and purpose viz. that they would pray for vs which doubtless amounts at least to a virtuall inuocation of them Ideo quippe ad ipsam Mensant c. For this reason sayth he wee remember or make mention of them at the Holy Table not as wee doe other Faythfull departed so us to pray for them but rather THAT THEY WOVLD PRAY FOR VS And againe Iniuria est pro Martyre orare cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari T is an iniury sayth he to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers wee our selues ought to be recommended Doth not S. Austin sufficiently signifie by these words that the prayers by which wee recommend our selues to the Saynts departed are both lawfull and also pro fitable Nor will it serue the Bishops turn to say this is yet no formal and express inuocation here 's no Ora pro nobis as the manner now is for I answer that lib. 21. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 27. there is as much as Ora pro nobis comes to S. Austin doth there clearly profess it to be the generall custome of Christians in theyr recommending themselues to the Saynts to say MEMOR ESTO NOSTRI which surely no man will contend to signifie less then ora pro nobis Adde to this what he hath further in his sermon vpon St. Stephen Let vs therfore recommend our selues sayth he to the prayers of this Saynt seeing he is now farre better heard for those that worthily pray to him If S. Stephen be heard for those that worthily pray to him then to pray to S. Stephen is not a sinfull act but very profitable Haue not wee now more reason to thinke the Bishop is mistaken in his construction of St. Austin then that the Church and Generall Councils are in recommending this doctrine 6. But it is further vrged that wee pray to God and desire him to heare our prayers for the merits of Saynts which the Bishop thinks doth not only make the Saynts Mediatours of Intercession but euen sharers in the Mediation of Redemption He tells vs likewise that such Prayers as these stand not without great scandall to Christ and Christianity vsed and authorised to be vsed in the Missal I answer first our aduersarie might as well haue taken offence at some prayers vsed in scripture where though the word Merits be not expresly mention'd yet the full sense and meaning thereof is necessarily implyed and vnderstood as much as in those prayers of the Church which he will seeme so much to stumble at For example doth not Salomon Psalm 132. pray to God to heare him in effect for the Merits of his Father Dauid deceased when he sayth Memento Domine Dauid et omnis Mansuetudinis eius Lord remember DAVID and all his MEEKENESS etc. what J pray you is this but to desire that God would remember to Salomons benefitt and good not only his own Couenant and Promise made to Dauid as Protestants vainly pretend without any the least ground from the Text but Dauids Pietie and vertue by which he was acceptable to God For which reason also after some particular instances thereof giuen he adds againe in his prayer Propter Dauid seruum tuum etc. For thy Seruant DAVIDS sake as euen the english Protestant Translation reads it turn not away the face of thine Anointed The like was done by Daniel Dan. 13. by Moyses also Hieremias and other Prophets praying vnto God and desiring their petitions might be heard for Abraham for Isaack and for Jsraels sake and for the sakes of other holy men who had liu'd before and been in their times persons acceptable to God Yea to doe this was the generall custome of the Primitiue Church witnessed by St. Austin in his Questions vpon Exodus where speaking of Moyses his praying and obtaining pardon of God for that great sinne of the Israelites in making the golden Calfe he tells vs that by such an example wee are put in minde that when our own Merits depress vs with feare that God doth not loue vs wee may be encouraged and holpen BY THE MERITS of those whome he doth loue The golden mouth of St. Chrysostome vtters the same truth Whence wee conclude 't is no vnwarrantable thing to pray that God would heare vs for the Merits of saynts seeing in effect it is no more then to acknowledge our own vnworthiness and to pray to God that for the works of the Martyrs and Confessours our brethren who were and are most desirous of our
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
J am they neuer say or thinke he is there by such a spirituall presence as Protestants meane that is exclusiue of his truly-reall presence and by Fayth only or that he is not there as truly and really as he is in heauen whether wee exercise an act of Fayth or no. Now when the Bishop insists so much vpon a spirituall participation of the true and reall Body and Bloud of Christ truly and really by Fayth eyther he meanes such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament and cannot be had saue only in the orall and actuall receiuing of the Sacramentall elements or he meanes such a participation of Christs Body and Bloud as deuoute persons may haue in their soules whether they receiue those elements corporally or no. If he meanes this second only then both parties cannot be sayd to agree in the proper point of Sacramentall participation seeing it is now suppos'd to be such but only a spirituall kinde of receiuing Christ common to other devoute offices of Christian pietie as well as to the Sacrament If he meanes the first viz. such a participation of Christs Body as is proper only to the Sacrament and cannot be had but when the Sacrament is orally and actually receiu'd to make it appeare that wee agree with Protestants in it they must first shew what it is and particularly that it is something really different and distinct from a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits etc. otherwise they relapse into the former difficulty viz of putting such a participation of Christ as is not proper to the Sacrament for certainly none of all those participations of Christ last mentioned are proper to the Sacrament but may be exercised at other times and by other meanes as namely when one eates his common food at the table when he drinks wine or beere when he looks vpon a Crucifix when he prayes meditates or the like But this neither the Bishop not any of his partie can shew standing to Caluin and their own principles that is they cannot shew what their spirituall participation or receiuing of Christ signifies in effect more then a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits or something of like nature done and performed oftentimes as really without the Sacrament as with it and consequently it can neuer be sayd that both parties viz. Roman-Catholiques and Protestants are of the same sentiment or doe agree in any reall reception or participation of Christ proper to the Sacrament For all the world knows the 〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament which Catholiques beleeue signifies a quite different thing from this 7. Lett vs now consider what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming there is no perill of any damnable Heresie Schismo or other sinne in resoluing to line and dye in the Roman Church This the Relatour cannot digest therfore he replies not so neither For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution is presum'd to beleene as that Church beleenes and he that doth so in the Bishops opinion is guilty more or less not only of the schisme which that Church caused at first by her corruptions and now continues by her power but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbeleefe and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbeleefe of that Church leads him into He seemes by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques For how can they possibly be sau'd that liue and dye in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins or what sort of Catholiques are they whome the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Saluation are they such only as doe not beleeue as that Church viz. the Roman beleeueth but only liue in outward Communion with her and making only outward shew and feigned profession to beleeue that which in heart they disbeleeue He giues indeed some cause to thinke that this is his meaning when he tells vs how willing he is to hope there are many among vs which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished and would haue all things amended that are amiss if it were in their power etc. and of such particularly professeth that he dares not deny them possibility of Saluation But how could it possibly sinke into a sober mans head to iudge him capable of Saluation that for temporall and sinister ends only contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinfull and Jdolatrous practices all his life long and deny it to him who hates all superstition and sin in his very soule and would not comply with any if he knew it but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church meerly for conscience sake and for noe other reason but because he simply and sincerely beleeues all her doctrine to be true and consonant to Gods word and all her allowed customes and obseruances to be pious and holy what is this but to say he is an honest man that takes his neighbours goods wittingly and willingly from him knowing them to be his and that he is a knaue and deserues to be hang'd that takes them vnwittingly and verily beleeuing that they are his own Secondly he tells vs that 't is one thing to liue 〈◊〉 Church and not to comunicate with it in Schisme or in any false worship and an other thing to liue in a Schismaticall Church and to Communicate with it in the schisme and corruptions which that Church teacheth wee grant it beeing our selues in some sort an instance of this truth whome the Catholique Church permuts both in England Germany and other Countries to liue amonge those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretiques too though wee thinke this is not properly speaking to liue in a schismaticall Church yet she does not permit vs to communicate with them in their shisme But when he proceeds therevpon to charge the Roman Church with beeing worse and more cruell then the Church of Israell euen vnder Achab and Jezabel was when so many worshiped the calues in Dan and Bethel because forsooth he doth not finde that this doctrine YOV MVST SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES or this YOV MVST NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN HIERVSALEM was eyther taught by the Priest or maintained by the Prophets or enioyned by the Sanedrim Whereas the Church of Rome sayth he hath solemnly decreed her errours and imposed them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties yea and erring hath decreed withall that she cannot erre wee answer this is not to argue as a Logician should ex concessis or probatis but rather vpon false and vnproued suppositions to bring in lieu of argument railing accusation against our superiours which the Apostle Jude 8. 9. vtterly condemned Is it sufficient for the Relatour to say that Transubstantiation Purgatory
say's the Bishop the Romanists will not endure because St. Thomas and the schoole generally agree in it that he went really no further then LIMBVS PATRVM I answer by denying his proposition There is no such agreement of parties as the Bishop pretends though the Church of Rome and the Church of England doe both agree that our Sauiour descended into hell yet they doe not both agree that by hell eyther in the Creed or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned is vnderstood the place of the damned Here therfore our aduersarie cleerly disputes ex falso supposito and the argument in truth may be much better retorted vpon himselfe thus Both parties agree that Christ descended into hell but both parties doe not agree that by hell is vnderstood here the place of the damned for the greater and better part of Diuines hold the contrary ergo 't is safer not to beleeue that he descended into the place of the damned then positiuely to assert it as some English Protestants doe His next instance is about the Sacraments beeing receiu'd in both kindes and as little to the purpose as the former For though wee agree that our Sauiour instituted the Sacrament that is made it himselfe and ordain'd it to be made by his Ministers in both kindes yet wee neither agree that he instituted with intention or gaue any command that it should be always receiu'd in both kindes by all the Faythfull nor doe wee grant possibility of Saluation to any that out of priuate Hereticall persuasion holds it ought to be receiu'd by all or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary doe receiue it in both kindes Our Sauiour gaue it in one kinde only to the two Disciples at Emmaus Lucae 24. as both St. Austin St. Chrysostome St. Hierome Theophylact and others of the Ancients witness whose example the Church following alwayes allowed the vse and manner of receiuing this Sacrament free as to the Faythfull viz. eyther to receiue it in both kindes if their deuotion inclin'd them thereto or only in one in case they desired no more till of later times the custome of receiuing it in forme of bread only growing more generall and inconueniences of receiuing it in both kindes multiplying the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiuing it in forme of wine and inioyn'd what is now in vse Whence likewise it appeares 't was not iniuriously as the Bishop pretends but iustly requir'd of the Bohemians not to condemne the practice of the Church for receiuing in one kinde when she dispensed with them to receiue in both To what he obiects against the doctrine of concomitancy inuented as he sayes by St. Thomas of Aquin and contrary to truth for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Bloud shed and powred forth and not of Bloud contained in the Body I answer that howeuer the term it selfe might perhaps be first vsed by the Angelicall Doctour yet the thing thereby signify'd was always the constant doctrine of the Catholique Church which euer taught that by Consecration vnder each species the entire Sacrament or whole Christ was putt and therfore vnder each of them as well the Body as the Bloud and as well the Bloud as the Body was contain'd notwithstanding it be certaine that the precise words in the Consecration of bread express noe more then Christs Body nor those vsed in the Consecration of the chalice any more then Christs Bloud Wherfore to shew what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration and what by vertue of naturall connexion or vnion Diuines commonly make vse of this distinction ex vi verborum and per Concomitantiam Ex vi verborum or by vertue of the precise words of Consecration Christs Body only is vnder the forme of bread and his Bloud only vnder the forme of wine but per Concomitantiam by reason of naturall connexion or vnion wherby the parts of Christs Humanity are neuer to be diuided one from an other the Bloud is vnder the forme of bread also and his Body vnder the forme of wine and his foule and diuinity or Godhead vnder both And this the Bishop must grant if he hold the reall presence except he would haue vs thinke that Christ is dead in the Sacrament contrary to St. Paul who plainly tolls vs Rom. 6. 9. He dyes no more As for the Priest that consecrates there is a double necessity for him to receiue vnder both kindes The first is gathered from Christs words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament and interpreted to vs by the vniuersall doctrine and practice of the Church The second grounded vpon the nature of the thing which is not only a Sacrament to be distributed amonge the Faythfull but a true proper and perfect Sacrifice representing that vpon the Cross where not only Christs Body was Crucifyed but also his Bloud was shed for vs. And therfore the Priest who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar must not only consecrate in both kindes but receiue in both kindes to compleate the sacrifice His third instance is about the Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist wherein he pretends that they and wee agree But this is false speaking in the Protestants sense or of such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice as excludes that which is reall and proper Where did Catholiques euer agree with Protestants that it was not 〈◊〉 sin in them to deny the true reall and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist or that they might be saued acknowledging only such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist as they doe Lett one only Author of the Roman Church be named who teaches this or that bread broken and wine powred out vnderstanding naturall and substantiall bread and wine as the Bishop must doe according to Protestant principles were in true and proper sense a Commemoratiue Sacrifice amongst Christians For this were to say in effect that Christians vnder the Gospell did really Sacrifice to God naturall bread and wine and therby adde another Sacrifice to that of Christs Body which were a very gross errour In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptisme he lapses againe For what wee agree with Protestants in wee stand to as most safe to be done in order to Saluation Now this is only in the present case that due matter and forme must necessarily be vsed for the validity of Baptisme Doe any of vs or can any man deny but it is safer in order to Saluation to vse due matter and forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme then not to vse them The Bishop indeed would gather from hence that wee must also account due matter and forme sufficient without intention But this is more then the rule obliges vs to doe The rule certainly bindes A. C. to no more then to acknowledge the thing wherein differing parties agree to be saser then the contrary or negatiue of it which wee doe
Rome or after He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church before he settled his seate at Rome and the Brittish Christians if any such were before that time might very well at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary be instructed by their preachers to beleeue and acknowledge him for such CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques and the Roman Fayth prou'd to be the same now that it euer was ARGVMENT 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation and all Protestant teachers excluded by the Bishops own grounds 2. No Church different in doctrine from the Roman can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation vpon the account of his Fayth rather presumptuous then well grounded 4. His pretending to beleeue as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd disprou'd by instance 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM the doctrine and worshiping of Images the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church 6. A. C ' Interrogatories defended 7. Protestants haue not the same Bible with Catholiques in any true sense 8. The index expurgatorius not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques in points defined by the Church 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely or implicitely but Protestants none at all that is infallible 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth nettled a little as it seems by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that returns smartly vpon him in these words she may be better saued in it then you and bids him marke that too Well wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant touching the Ladies Saluation but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe for that in the Bishops opinion his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation But what is his reason because for sooth any man that know's so much of the truth as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling doe and yet opposes it must needs be in greater danger So that it seems learning and sufficiency according to the Bishop haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one and not to see the truth of the other But how false this surmize is appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants that the more learned they are and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine Againe what likelyhood is there that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's seeing it is euident that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing that belongs to Diuine Fayth For teaching as they doe that all particular men all Generall Councils and the whole Church of God may erre what assurance can they giue me that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true or that the sense of the words of Scripture by which they proue their doctrine is such as they vnderstand or that their Church which they grant to be fallible doth not erre in those points wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques viz. because they are within the Church and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation is a Paradox and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds For seeing he hath often deliuer'd that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points as are Prime Radicall and Fundamentall in the Fayth necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians in order to Saluation and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized and hold the Foundation in this sense what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body most of the Heretiques that euer were and that euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it Nor is he content with one absurdity vnless he adioyne a second There is no question sayth he but many viz. ignorant Catholiques were saued in the corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented before their death as 't is morally certain none of them did were lost See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall But what were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours which as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together How could that be were they not all euen by the Bishops own principles members of the true visible Church of Christ notwithstanding those errours by reason of their beeing Baptized and holding the Foundation If they neither lost that Fayth by which they were members of the true Church nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace with what truth or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them He adds that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction or to vse all the meanes they can to come to the knowledge of truth But J demand if no Misleaders but such doe perish with what countenance conscience J might say could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours in the manner he doth that they were lost Can it with any colour of equity or truth be charg'd vpon them that they refus'd the Churches instruction what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together by which had they been neuer so willing they could be instructed to teach otherwise then themselues taught in their respectiue ages and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did to come to the knowledge of truth Why should not our aduersarie in reason haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion from Heresie and all other damnable errour then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers seeing 't is manifest these last oppos'd and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side in the points now controuerted and for which Protestants condemne them of errour The truth is the Bishop is a little intangled here Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques to keep his own people in awe and to fright them from becoming Catholiques but positiuely and determinately what
to say he is scarce prouided He giues a hint at the difference between Errour and Heresie but dares not so much as apply the distinction for feare he should be forc'd eyther to acquit our Leaders too manifestly or otherwise pass such a censure vpon them as he should not be able to maintaine But the wary Reader will easily discouer by his timorousness and hesitancy here his vncharitable temerity and forwardness in the precedent passage He tells vs likewise that a teaching Heretique if he adde Schisme to his Heresie is lost Very good Wee grant it no less willingly then himselfe but wonder his Lordship would not first make it cleere that our teachers added Schisme and obstinacy to their errours as he is pleased to call them before he gaue sentence vpon their persons by saying that they were lost But that which he adds concerning St. Cyprian and his followers giues a plaine aduantage against him and his followers namely to proue that all Leaders of Protestant Religion are guilty both of Heresie and Schisme and by consequence lyable to damnation except they repent St. Cyprian he sayth was a maine Leader in the errour of Rebaptization yet that the whole Church grants him safe and his followers only that were after him in danger of damnation And why this but only because St. Cyprian did not refuse the Churches instruction did not obstinately and formally oppose the Churches authority which had not as yet defined the contrary doctrine But after the Churches determination those that followed St. Cyprians errour and misled the people were iudged both Heretiques and Schismatiques and that iustly too by the Bishops own confession and so by consequence were lost without repentance But is not this a conuincing instance against Luther Caluin and all other ringleaders of the Protestant profession doth it not euidently proue them also to be both Heretiques and Schismatiques did not they refuse to heare the Churches instruction as much as any of those post-nate followers of St. Cyprian did was not the contrary doctrine to what these Protestant Leaders taught as much and as solemnly defined by the Church as that which was contrary to the errour of rebaptization T is euident therfore if St. Cyprians followers were iustly accounted Heretiques and in danger of damnation for not hearing the Churches instruction giuen them by the voyce of a Generall Council and for teaching contrary to what the Church had solemnly defin'd and declar'd as by the Bishops own discourse they were neyther Luther nor Caluin nor any that succeed them in their doctrine and profession can be iustly acquitted of the like crime If you answer the whole Church of Christ condemned the errour of rebaptization but the doctrine of Protestants was condemn'd only by the particular Church of Rome I aske what you meane by the whole Church If all such people and all such particular Churches as beleeue in Christ and hold all Fundadamentall points in Protestant sense that will comprehend the rebaptisers themselues or those followers of St. Cyprians errour whome the Bishop here confesses to haue been Heretiques For doubtless they beleeu'd in Christ and held all points which according to the Relatours principles can be accounted Fundamentall or absolutely necessary to Saluation otherwise St. Cyprian himselfe had erred in a point Fundamentall Therfore the whole Church in that sense did not condemne the doctrine of rebaptization And to say it was the whole Church in any other limited sense makes it in effect but a particular Church in regard of the Church Catholique and also according to the Bishops doctrine no less fallible and subiect to errour in defining vnfundamentall points as this of rebaptization was then was the Church which condemned Protestant doctrine whatsoeuer Church that was Besides how often shall wee be forc'd to reminde our aduersaries that when Luther first began to oppose the Roman Church the Protestant doctrine concerning Reall Presence Inuocation of Saynts Prayer for the dead two Sacraments only etc. was contrary to the Generall beleefe of the whole Christian world whereof the farre greater part also were such as professed obedience to the Sea of Rome 2. The greatest part of his 〈◊〉 paragraph is taken vp with personall matters and matters of fact viz. what A. C. what Doctor White and the Bishop in their respectiue conferences with Mr. Fisher sayd in which kinde of differences I shall not interpose That which I shall obserue here is that the Bishop formalizeth without cause vpon those words of A. C. different from the Roman which he vseth pag. 67. where he tells vs that Doctor White expressly granted that he could assign no Church DIFFERENT FROM THE ROMAN which in all ages held all Fundamentall points The Relatour will not seem to vnderstand what A. C. meanes by a Church different from the Roman whether he meanes different in place or different in doctrine whereas if he had perus'd neuer so little Doctor Whites answer where 't is first reported pag. 22. he would haue found in express terms different in doctrine twice ouer for failing Beside the very acception wherein A. C. in that place takes the word Roman Church towitt for the whole visible Catholique Church euinces that he could not meane any Church different from it in place seeing the Roman Church in that sense comprehends all places in Christendome and all particular true Churches throughout the Christian world Nor can it with truth be auouched that the Greeke Church hath euer held and taught the Foundation in all ages as the Bishop pretends seeing all or most of those Primitiue Heresies Arianisme Eunomianisme Nestorianisme Eutychianisme etc. haue been anciently embrac'd and professed respectiuely by the Greeke Patriarchs and their Churches at some time or other Neyther doth euen the present Greeke Church hold and teach it so entirely and soundly as it ought euen by the Relatours own confession touching their errour about the Procession of the Holy Ghost Lastly wee haue prou'd chap. 1. of this treatise that the Greeks errour in that point is Fundamentall and sufficient to vnchurch them By a Church different from the Roman then the Relatour should haue here vnderstood without making any scruple about it a Church different from her not in place but in doctrine and differing also not in points Fundamentall only which is an other scruple too as needlessly added but in points not Fundamentall also in Protestant sense that is a Church differing from the Roman in any point of doctrine which the Roman Church now teacheth or in any of those points which Protestants reiect and for which they separate themselues from the Roman Church This wee say was the sense of Mr. Fishers demand to Doctor White and consequently must be the sense of Doctor Whites answer and concession to him viz. that noe Church differing in any points of doctrine what euer Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall from the present Roman could be assign'd which held in all ages all Fundamentall points And
Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church with all Fundamentall points generally held for such and to receiue the fowre first Generall Councils only and noe more be a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation Did our Sauiour meane the Primitiue Church only or only the fowre first Generall Councils and noe others when he sayd Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not heare the Church lett him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And if it be to be vnderstood as without doubt it is of the Church and Generall Councils in all ages how could the Bishop how can Protestants thinke themselues secure only by beleeuing the fowre first Councils and the Church of Primitiue times if they oppose and contradict others or contemne the authority of the true Catholique Church of Christ that now is And for the second viz. that the English-Protestant Fayth is not really and indeed such a Fayth as the Bishop here professeth will appeare vpon examination thus You beleeue say you Protestants the Scripture and the Creeds and you beleeue them in the sense of the Primitiue Church J aske first doe you meane all Scripture or only a part of it if part of it only how can your Fayth be thought such as cannot but giue Saluation seeing for ought you know there may be damnable errour and sinne in reiecting the other part If you meane all Scripture you profess more then you are able to make good seeing you refuse many books of Scripture that were held Canonicall by very many in the Primitiue Church and admitt for Canonicall diuerse others that were for some time doubted of and not reckoned for any part of the Canon by many ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church more then those were which for that reason chiefly you account Apocrypha 4. You pretend to beleeue both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church But when will this be prou'd wee bring diuerse testimonies from the Fathers and Doctours of those ancient times vnderstanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholy agreeable to vs and contrary to your doctrine Must all our allegations be esteem'd apocryphall and counterfeite or mis-vnderstood because they impugne your reformed beleefe must nothing be thought rightly alledged but what suites with your opinions you pretend conformity with the fowre first Generall Councils too but the proceedings of those Councils cleerly shew the quite contrary The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Syluester to confirm their decrees Doe Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope The great St. Athanasius with the Bishops of Egypt assembled in the Council at Alexandria profess that in the Council of Nice it was with one accord determined that without consent of the Bishop of Rome neither Councils should be held nor Bishops condemned Doe not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon by one common voyce profess that St. Peter spake by the mouth of Leo that the sayd Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter deposed Dioscorus Doe they not call him the vniuersall Bishop the vniuersall Patriarch the Bishop of the vniuersall Church Doe they not terme him the Interpreter of St. Peters voyce to all the world Doe they not acknowledge him their Head and themselues his members and consets that the custody or keeping of Christs vineyard which is the whole Church was by our Sauiour committed to him Js this the dialect or beleefe of English Protestants Did not likewise the whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first Bishop of Rome to confirme what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresie with the authority of the Sea Apostolique pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the sauing of many and for correcting the peruerse wickedness of some and did they not with all reuerence and submission receiue the Popes answer sent to them in these words In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you haue made it appeare sayth he not only by vsing all diligence as is required of a true and Catholique Council in examining matters of that concernment but also in referring your debates to our iudgement and approbation how sound your Fayth is and that you are mindefull to obserue in all things the examples of ancient tradition and the discipline of the Church knowing that this is a duty which you owe to the Apostolique Sea wherein wee all desire to follow the Apostle from whome both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is deriued and following him wee cannot be ignorant both how to condemne what is ill and also to approue that which is praise-worthy oYou doe well therfore and as it becometh Priests to obserue the customes of the ancient Fathers which they grounded not vpon humane but diuine authority that nothing should be finally determined in remote Prouinces without the knowledge of this Sea by whose full authority the sentence giuen if it were found to be iust might be confirm'd this Sea beeing the proper Fountaine from which the pure and vncorrupted waters of truth were to streame to all the rest of the Churches Will English Protestants consent to this Doe not the Prelats in the Council of Ephesus heare with like attention and approbation Philip the Priest one of the Popes Legats to that Council auouching publiquely in full Council the authority of St. Peters Successour in these words noe body doubts sayth he nay it is a thing manifest and acknowledged in all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter PRINCE AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES AND FOVNDATION OF THE CHVRCH receiued from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and that to this day he still liues in his Successours and determines causes of Fayth and shall euer continue so to doe With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend that Protestants conform themselues to the doctrine of the fowre first Generall Councils Those Councils submitt their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome Protestants disclayme from him as from an enemy of Christs Gospell Those Councils acknowledge him vniuersall Pastour and Head of the Church Protestants cry out against him as an Vsurper and Tyrant ouer the Church Those Councils confess him St. Peters Successour who was Prince and Chiefe of the Apostles Protestants call him and esteem him Antichrist The Councils own his authority ouer the whole Church as proceeding from Christ Protestants allow him noe more power by diuine right then they allow to euery ordinary Bishop Lastly these Councils with all submission profess that the Pope was their Head and themselues his members Protestants giue vs in contempt and derision the nickname of Papists for doing the same that is for owning subiection to the Pope and Sea of Rome I might instance in many other points wherein Protestants disagree from the fowre first Generall Councils but I pass them ouer to take notice of what followes There is sayth the Bishop but one sauing Fayth But then euery thing which you call
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
were esteem'd such in the Primitiue Church A question hitherto often askt in vaine and which himselfe once plainly declin'd the answering * as beeing no worke for his pen. But let vs heare what he says vpon second thoughts Fundamentalls sayth he so accounted by the Primitiue Church are but the Creed and some sew and those immediate deductions from it But this leaues vs 〈◊〉 in the darke Who shall resolue which those sew and immediate deductions are And what does he meane by immediate deductions only such as 〈◊〉 in themselues euident and necessary If so it were in effect to deny both the Diuinity and Incarnation of Christ to be Fundamentall points Jf in euident and only probable who shall infallibly assure vs that the deduction is true and certaine what shall wee thinke of Scripture Is not that a Fundamentall point in the Relatours beleefe can any man be sau'd that reiects Scripture prouided he admitts the Creed and some few immediate deductions from it Nay wee are told that euen the immediate deductions themselues are not formally Fundamentall for all men but only for such as are able to make and vnderstand them and that for others 't is enough if they doe not obstinately and Schismatically refuse them after they are once reuealed But had not preiudice troubled his eye-sight our Aduersarie might easily haue seen as much reason to say 'T is Fundamentall in the Fayth not to question or deny Schismatically and obstinately any thing at all that is sufficiently propos'd to vs as reuealed by God Let him cite what he can out of the Fathers he shall neuer proue that a man cannot fall from the true fayth by an act of disbeleefe so long as he beleeues the Articles of the Creed seeing the Apostle teaches that some fall from the Fayth by forbiding Marriage and certaine meates as absolutely vnlawfull and many haue been condemned for Heretiques in those ancient times who neuer oppos'd the Creed Now if a man may beleeue the Creed and yet be damned for Heresie and mis-belcefe in other matters how can Protestants assure themselues of Saluation or be accounted Orthodox Christians meerly by this pretended conformity with the Primitiue Church in the beleefe of the Creed vnless it could be prou'd withall that they held no other vnlawfull doctrine But certaine it is that to deny Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and diuerse other points as Protestants doe is most vnlawfull and was so held by the Primitiue Church 9. As for Tertullian Ruffinus St. Irenaeus and St. Basil here alledged by the Bishop they neither seuerally nor all together make an infallible authority to assure Protestants that all and only those points which they account Fundamentall were soe esteem'd by the Primitiue Church which yet was the only thing that A. C. in his Interrogatorie requir'd him to shew The doctrine by vs deliuer'd stands very well with the resolution of Occham here cited that it is not in the power of the Church or Council to make new Articles of Fayth For the Church neuer tooke vpon her to doe this but only to declare infallibly what was expressed or inuolued eyther in Scripture or the word of God not-written viz. Tradition And 't is a meere vntruth to affirme that Catholiques agree not in this that all points determined by the Church are Fundamentall in the sense declared For neither Sixtus Senensis nor any other Catholique did euer doubt or make scruple of those books of holy Scripture which they acknowledg'd to haue been defin'd by the Church for Canonicall they only question some other books concerning which wee haue not had as yet the resolution of any Generall Council such as are the third and fourth of Machabees the third and fourth of Esdras the prayer of Manasses etc. 'T is true Sixtus Senensis hath something about those chapters of the booke of Ester which Protestants count ` Apocryphall wherby he may be thought not to hold them for Canonicall Scripture euen after the decree of the Council of Trent But the reason was because he iudged that the decree of the Council touching Canonicall Scriptures did not comprehend those loose vncertaine peices as he calls them Beside his opinion therein was both singular and disallowed as may appeare euen by the booke it selfe where ouer against the place whence the Bishop takes his obiection there stands printed in the margent this note or censure Non est haec Sententia Sixti probanda cum repugnet sess 4. Concilij Tridentini quam ipse detorquet ne videatur ei repugnare This opinon of Sixtus sayes the note is not to be allowed seeing it is contrary to the fourth session of the Council of Trent which Sixtus wresteth that he may not seeme to be contrary to it The edition of Sixtus Senensis his booke where this Censure is found is that of Paris 1610. in folio which 't is hardly credible that the Bishop himselfe should not haue seen and if he had seen and did know it with what conscience or ingenuity towards his Reader could he make the obiection To what he sayth touching Pope Leo the tenths defining in the last Council of Lateran that the Pope is aboue a Generall Council I answer our Aduersaries know that those Catholique Authours that hold the negatiue doe likewise deny that the point was there defined as a matter of Fayth but only that by way of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall Constitution it was declar'd that the right of calling translating from one place to another and likewise dissoluing of Generall Councils did entirely and solely belong to the Bishop of Rome Successour to St. Peter those beeing the things which had been formerly contested by the Councils of Constance and Basil against the Pope likewise the sayd Authours deny that the last Council of Lateran was a full Generall Council After so many questions none of which as yet haue been sufficiently answer'd A. C. inferrs that his Aduersary had need seeke out some other infallible rule or meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or else that he hath noe reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule vpon it that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth What sayes the Relatour to this His answer is that if he cannot be confident for his soul vpon Scripture and the Primitiue Church expounding and declaring it he will be confident vpon no other But this is still to begg the question For the difficulty is how he comes infallibly to know Scripture and the exposition of the Primitiue Church or that the Primitiue Church did not erre in her exposition without certaine knowledge of which his confidence in this case cannot be well grounded He might more truly and ingenuously haue answer'd if I cannot be confdent for my soule vpon the Scripture and exposition of the Primitiue Church receiu'd and interpreted according to my own priuate sense and iudgement J will be confident vpon noe other For this in effect
aboute it as the Bishop pretends 13. Purgatory an Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good 14. In what manner of necessary beleefe 1. BVt lett vs return to A. C. who very charitably and no less truly mindes the Bishop that there is but one sauing Fayth that by his own confession it was once the Roman and by iust consequence is so still because 't is granted that men may be saued in it wishing his Lordship therfore well to consider how wee can hope to haue our soules saued without wee hold entirely this Fayth it beeing the Catholique Fayth which as St Athanasius in his Creed professeth VNLESS A MAN HOLD'S ENTIRELY HE CANNOT BE SAVED To all which the Relatour tells vs he hath aboundantly answered before referring vs to § 35. num 1. and § 38. num 10. of his Relation The question is not how aboundantly but how sufficiently his Lordship answereth and for that wee also referre our selues to the Readers judgement vpon our replie there made What he adds here that A. Cs. conclusion hath more in it then is in the premisses is manifestly vntrue to any that obserues the force of the argument which stands thus There is but ONE Sauing Fayth the Roman was once this sauing Fayth and by the Bishops confession is still a sauing Fayth ergo it is still that one sauing Fayth and by consequence is still the Catholique Fayth This inference J say is euident and vndenyable vnless wee suppose eyther more sauing Fayths then one or that the one sauing Fayth is not the Catholique both which are euidently false and contrary to our aduersaries own confessions His discourse about Additions pretended to be made by the Council of Trent vnto the Catholique Fayth imports not much For eyther the sayd Additions are such as by reason of them the present Roman Fayth ceases to be a sauing Fayth or they are not Jf the first he contradicts himselfe hauing already granted that Saluation may be had in the Roman Fayth if the second it necessarily followes that eyther the Roman Fayth is now the one sauing Fayth or that there are more sauing Fayths then one which the Bishop denyes What he also affirms of the sayd Council of Trent viz. that it hath added a new Creed to the old and extraneous things without the Foundation etc. is noe more then what the old Heretiques might as truly and no doubt did as freely obiect to those ancient Primitiue Councills and if it be iust and sufficient in defense of them to assert that the Additions they made were only perfectiue that is further and more cleere explications of the Fayth formerly beleeu'd and not corruptiue of the ancient Primitiue truth wee thinke it sufficient to make the same answer in behalfe of the present Roman Church and Council of Trent 2. Nor doe those words of St. Athanasius sett down in the begining and end of his Creed This is the Catholique Fayth signify any such thing as the Bishop pretends viz. that this and no other doctrine is Catholique Fayth this and no more then is here deliuer'd is to be beleeu'd etc. I say St. Athanasius his words admite not of this Gloss. For so wee might without any breach of the Foundation reiect in a manner the whole Scripture with a good part of the Apostles Creed and all other points of Christian doctrine beside The Relatour himselfe could not be ignorant that the non-rebaptising of Heretiques was a point of Catholique Fayth already in St. Athanasius his time defind by the Councill of Nice yet sure he finds noe mention of it in the Athanasian Creed noe more then he doth that our Sauiour was conceiued by the Holy Ghost or born of a Virgin not to speake of Remission of sinnes Baptisme Eucharist or any other Sacraments etc. none of all which beeing expressed in that Creed will Protestants thinke they may be denyed without breach of the Catholique Fayth mean't by St. Athanasius To salue the matter in some sort the Relatour here casts in a Parenthesis in these words always presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did meaning that the Apostles Creed presupposed rhon and not otherwise this of St. Athanasius is so sufficient that there needs no other nor that any thing else should be added to it But this helps him not at all For first 't is manifest enough St. Athanasius supposed many other things at the composing of his Creed beside the Creed of the Apostles viz. the whole Canon of Scripture the decrees of the Nicen Councill the vniuersall Traditions of the Church as matters appertaining to Christian Fayth all which are not only supernumerary but inconsistent with the Bishops assertion This and noe other is Catholique Fayth So that in reason it cannot possibly be thought this Father mean't to signifie that his Creed contain'd all necessary points whatsoeuer pertaining to Christian beleefe but only to express what was to be hel'd by Christians in those maine and principall articles touching the B. Trinity our Sauiours incarnation etc. which were at that time so much controuerted and withall to giue vs a certaine Rule or Forme of Catholique confession touching those points Whence also 't is euidently deduced that as 't was necessary to Saluation for Christians to beleeuo and confess according to the Catholique Fayth in the points there specifyed so a paritate rationis it is likewise necessary they should doe in all other points and doctrines whatsoeuer For doubtless if the Catholique Fayth may be contradicted in any one point without perill to a mans Saluation it may be also in an other and an other yea in all the rest A. C. goes on and endeauours a little further to vnfold the meaning of this great father of the Church obseruing that in his Creed he says without doubt euery man shall perish that holds not the Catholique Fayth ENTIRE that is in euery point of it and INVIOLATE that is in the right seuse and for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the infallible authority of the Catholique Church proposing to vs by her Pastours this Reuelation To which discourse of A.G. the Bishop so farre agrees as to acknowledge that he who hopes for Saluation must beleeue the Catholique Fayth whole and entire in euery point which I note only by the way as a matter worthy to be seriously reflected vpon by all his followers But then he obiects the word Jnuiolate is not in the Creed and falls a taxing the latin Translatour with errour for so rendring St. Athanasius's word which sayth he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ought to be rendred vndefiled But I feare the Bishop will here also be found in a mistake rather then A. C. For first Baronius shewes in the yeare of our Lord 340. that St. Athanasius did himselfe compose and publish this Creed first of all in the latin tongue namely when he presented it as the confession of his
fire for purging of soules after this life which can be no other then the fire of Purgatory which wee assert in which the effects of mortall sinne and also veniall sinnes are purged Neither is it against vs that this purging fire is sayd by St. Gregory to be a fire that sleeps not seeing his meaning is that it goes not out nor ceaseth to burn till the soule be perfectly refined by it Wee confess also that St. Gregory proues the Resurrection of the bodie by this argument because 't is fitting the body which hath been partaker in sinne should likewise be partaker in punishment But how does this disproue Purgatorie Yes sayes the Bishop for this Father teacheth withall that the soule cannot suffer by fire but in the body Jf he meanes naturally and by materiall fire Weo grant it too but supernaturally and by diuine power so ordaining it wee auerre that both Deuills and damned foules doe now suffer by fire in Hell though it be not matter of necessary Fayth to beleeue that soules in Purgatorie are now purg'd by materiall fire It sufficeth that they suffer reall paines reall affliction and dolours whatsoeuer those be and by what meanes soeuer applyed and that by suffering them they are purged from their sinnes What the Relatour adds here concerning diuerse of the ancients especially of the Greeks viz. that they were a little too much acquainted with Plato's schoole if his meaning be that they were thereby led into errour or that they corrupted the Christian doctrine with the opinions of Plato or any other Paganish Philosophers 't is a groundless calumny and extremely iniurious to those worthies But our Aduersarie seemes not much to care what he imputes to the fathers soe he may impose vpon his Reader and make him beleeue those primitiue and zealous Assertours of Christian verity against both Philosophers Heretiques and all enemies whateuer held against vs in this point or taught not Purgatorie as a part of Catholique doctrine 12. But St. Austin has the ill hap to be vs'd worst of all The Bishop makes him say and vnsay and wauer in his doctrine touching this matter as if he had been rather a nouice in the Fayth then a father of the Church thence concluding that the doctrine of Purgatorie was noe matter of Fayth in St. Austins time for if it had been such St. Austin would neuer haue spoken so doubtfully of it Excellenty concluded But I answer the argument proceeds only vpon a willing mistake of our Aduersarie and an affected ignorance of St. Austins meaning in the places alledged That he could not possibly be thought to deny or doubt of Purgatory quoad rem that is as it signifies a pen all state of faythfull soules departed from which they are in time deliuered is so euident that wee referre it to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader after he hath seriously weighed these places not to repeate here those other which Bellarmin cites out of him Constat animas purgari post hancvitam c. this the Bishop himselfe also cites 't is certaine sayth he that some soules are purged after this life If St. Austin held it certaine how could he be thought to doubt of it neque negandum est etc. Jt is not a thing to be denyed sayth he againe but the soules of the dead are holpen by the piety of their liuing friends when the sacrifice of Christs Body is offered for them or Alms giuen on their behalfe To the same purpose he writes also lib. 21. de Ciuit. Det. pag. 13. lib. 2. de Genes contr Manich. cap. 20. Epist. 64. ad Aurel. Episc. Item in psalm 37. Lastly what he sayth Serm. 32. de verb. Apost Orationibus Sanctae Ecclesiae et Sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adiuuari etc. wee may not at all doubt sayth he but the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Holy Church with Alms distributed for their soules doe help the dead so as to procure that our Lord deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes haue deserued this beeing a thing which the vniuersall Church obserues by Tradition from the Fathers Compare this good Reader with that know'n maxime and resolution of St. Austin in his Epistle to Januarius that 't is noe better then insolent madness to question or dispute that which the vniuersall Church holds and tell mee if thou can'st possibly thinke that St. Austin doubted of Purgatorie The thing he doubted of was not whether there were such a state of soules after this life as wee now style Purgatory but only what was the most proper and genuine sense of that place of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. 13. etc. siquis superaedificauerit etc. and more particularly whether the Apostle mean't the afflictions of this life or those after this life by this fire he speaks of He doubted also and offer'd it to consideration whether soules departed might not be thought to be in part tormented euen after death with the sense of such griefe as they suffer'd in this life when they were depriu'd of things which were most deare to them Of these wee confess St. Austin seems in some sort to doubt but yet so little that 't is euident he always allowes it for a good and sound exposition of text abouesayd 1. Cor. 3 12. etc. to vnderstand it literally of the paines of the next life and very frequently so vnderstands it himselfe without making any difficulty or question about it and without mentioning any other sense All which presupposed and well reflected on it could haue been no hard matter sure for the Bishop to haue reconciled all that St. Austin deliuers vpon this subiect without making him seeme to doubt of that which he teacheth datâ occasione no less constantly then he doth the doctrine of Heauen and Hell or else to speake contrary to himselfe which is neither beseeming nor soe easily to be imputed to such a person as this Father was know'n and confessed to be in the Church of God Nor can I but wonder seeing the Bishop grants that St. Austin sometimes asserted Purgatorie though at other times he left it doubtfull why the Bishop and his party should make it such a necessary point of their doctrine to deny it whereas St. Austin neuer deny'd Purgatory Whence is deriued to Protestants that light which St. Austin and the whole Church of his time could not see They had the word of God then as well as Protestants can pretend to haue it now and were much neerer to the Primitiue and Apostolicall times in which euen by our Aduersaries acknowledgement there was not that dross of superstition which they complaine of in latter times If it were a truth so important to Saluation and so cleere in Scripture as Protestants now make it or the beleese of Purgatory an errour so derogatory to the merits and satisfaction of Christ as they say it is
how happen'd it that St. Austin and the Church of his time could not see both the one and the other J must not omitt the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Hierusalem and St. Iobn Chrysostome though the Bishop does in his answer the first of which giues testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory in these words Wee pray sayth he for those amongst vs who are departed this life beleeuing that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOVLES for whome the Oblation of his holy and dreadfull Sacrifice vpon the Altar is offered The second speaks thus Jt is not in vaine that wee make Oblations for the dead it is not in vaine that wee pray and giue Alms for them doubt not but there comes much good of it and more towards the end lett vs consider sayth he how great consolations wee may cause to the dead by these our teares and giuing of Alms for them and by our prayers Againe If thy dead Brother be departed with any sinne that is with sin not so fully repented for and not so fully expiated by works of Pennance as it ought and as wee haue often declar'd wee ought to the vtmost of our power to GIVE HIM SVCCOVR by our prayers supplications and teares and by procuring Oblations or Masses for him For it is not in vaine that in the diuine Mysteries wee remember the faythfull departed Wee doe it to the end they may receiue CONSOLATION and what wee doe in this kinde is not any superstitious inuention of man as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is but the Ordination of the Holy Ghost 13. What can be sayd more then this to the full assertion of our Catholique beleefe in this point Especially seeing out Aduersary himselfe grants concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time that they vndoubtedly held Purgatory so that for a thousand yeares and more he confesses Purgatory was the generall Fayth of Christians Jt would be considered by indifferent men whether it be not sarre more likely to haue been always the Fayth of Christians and that our fore-fathers were in truth frighted into the beleefe of it as the Bishop will needs speake by noe other meanes then they were frighted into the beleefe of Hell that is by the Tradition of the Catholique Church and the preaching of their lawfull Pastours conformably thereto I conclude therfore that Purgatory can be noe other then a doctrine of Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good lib. 4. de Baptism cap. 24. which teacheth that wee iustly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles if they be taught by the whole Church and wee finde noe beginning or first Institution of them in Councils Nationall Prouinciall or oecumenicall Now wee challenge our Aduersaries to shew when or in what age the doctrine of Purgatory first began to be taught or which is all one when the doctrine of Praying for the dead that their sins might be remitted to them that they might finde mercy and milder chastisement from God refreshment ease of their paines help and reast in our Lord etc. first began to be practis'd in the Catholique Church Neither doth Bellarmins prouing it from Scripture hinder the point from beeing a Tradition of the Apostles For does not St. Austin with Bellarmin and all diuines not excepting euen Protestants themselues acknowledge the Baptisme of infants and doctrine of Originall sinne and diuerse other points to proceed from Apostolicall Tradition and yet endeauour to proue them also from Scripture much less does the Cardinall contradict himselfe as our Aduersary likewise pretends he doth by endeaucuring on the one side to proue Purgatory by nineteene places of Scripture and yet auerring on the other that wee finde no beginning of this doctrine For first his assertion that wee finde noe beginning of this doctrine imports noe more then that noe first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie could be found since the Apostles that beeing fully sufficient to his purpose which was only to shew that the beleefe of Purgatory was an Apostolicall Tradition And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age eyther since the time of the Apostles or before yet should he not contradict himselfe by thinking or saying it might be prou'd by Scripture Who doubts but the doctrine of soules immortality is effectually prou'd out of the Gospell and the bodies resurrection out of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15 Yet will any man pretend that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospell or in St. Pauls Epistles was not the immortality of the soule and resurrection of the body beleeu'd by the faythfull before Christs Incarnation So that in truth the Relatour committs the grand absurdity himselfe in arguing as he doth that if Bellarmin did finde it in Scripture to witt the doctrine of Purgatory then he is false in saying wee finde noe beginning of it Certainly to finde a thing to be taught and to finde the first beginning of its beeing taught is not all one in any sober mans iudgement except it be the Relatours What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling vs the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all and that it is not beleeu'd by the Grecians to this very day is in part contrary to himselfe who hath already confess 't that from St. Gregories time all the Fathers taught and all Christians generally beleeu'd Purgatory and misunderstood in the whole For certainly 't is only of the name Purgatory and quality of the fire there that a Castro and some others speake when they affirme that few of the ancients beleeu'd Purgatory it beeing impossible to conceiue they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers and was vnanimously without the least difference or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins in the Councill of Florence touching the thing that is the penall state of some Faythfull soules departed after this life The Bishop might as well haue told vs that those Authours pronounce the same touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Sonne and of some other points namely that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers to witt express and in terminis but yet without doubt suppose those ancient and Orthodox Pastours of the Church did euer teach the sayd points as to the substance of doctrine and sense His Lordships assigning Origen to be the first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie is a manifest falsity already disprou'd by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian ancienter then he likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite contempory with the Apostles to whom wee may adde St. Clement an Authour of the same age cited by Bellarmin in both which such prayer for the dead as doth necessarily inferre Purgatory is auouch'd to be a Tradition receiu'd from the Apostles Tertullian
if neither Generall Councils nor any man in the world be of infallible creditt who sees it not to follow there can be noe infallible creditt amonge men noe not in the whole Church euen in points Fundamentall For seeing noe testimony can be of infallible creditt except it be know'n and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know eyther who those are that make vp the whole Church in the Bishops sense or that they doe all of them beleeue and testifie such a point of doctrine to be Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to saluation how is it possible for the whole Church in that sense to be of infallible creditt or to giue infallible certainty to any points whatsoeuer whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation To his Aduersaries demand why a Generall Councill if it may erre in defining one diuine truth may not erre in defining an other and so in all the Relatour answers by way of Confession that it may erre euen in all to witt of like nature vsing this limited manner of speech in all of like nature on purpose to auoyd inconueniencies and that he might vpon occasion take the aduantage of his wonted distinction between Fundamentall points For so presently as it were by way of anticipation he tells the Reader that of things not absolutely necessary to Sabuation or not-Fundamentall there can be noe necessity of infallible certaintie in the whole Church much less in a Generall Councill and consequently quently 't is noe matter with him though a Generall Councill be suppos'd lyable to errour in all such points as well as in any one But it sufficeth that wee haue already shew'n the contrary both for Church and Councill namely that in many cases it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to haue infallible certaintle of points in their owne nature not absolutely necessary to saluation or which is all one to haue such points when brought into controuersie amongst Christians infallibly defined by a Generall Councill so as wee need not trouble the Reader here with repetitions Nor could it serue his turn or iustify his assertion from beeing in the highest degree iniurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of Generall Councills though it were otherwise that is though wee had not already prou'd a necessity of infalliblydefining by Generall Councills all controuerted points of Religion whatsoeuer whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation For 't is certaine enough the Relatour holds that Generall Councills may possibly erre euen in points that are absolutely necessary to Saluation or Fundamentall as wee haue heretofore obseru'd though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine But this suppos'd lett his adherents tell vs what does his maxime if in one possibly in all proclaime but that a Generall Councill may not only fall into errour in defining some one or other point of Christian Fayth but euen totally Apostatize and define against Christianity it selfe A proposition sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety and which may iustly serue for a second instance of our Aduersaries sincerity when they profess fo much esteem and reuerence towards Generall Councills 4. Wee doe not say that Christ our Sauiour left infallibility in his Church to satisfie eyther contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits as the Bishop would seeme to impose vpon vs for 't is euident enough by the experience the world hath of the seuerall sects and Heresies of Protestants that such kinde of people will be satisfy'd with nothing but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous phansies Nor will wee Catholiques euer desert the confession and defence of it because such people will not be satisfy'd But wee tell them Christ left that legacy to his Church for these ends viz. to guide the humble and sober-minded securely and certainly in the right way of Saluation he left it also to curbe the contentious to restraine the curious and to giue sufficient checke to such presumptuous spirits as should dare in matters of such high and difficult nature as the truths and Mysteries of Religion are to be wise in their own eyes and to preferre their priuate phansies before the publique and generall iudgement of the Church and their own lawfull Ecclesiasticall superious none of all which ends could be effectually attain'd or duly prouided for without the sayd infallibility which therfore for the Relatour or any other out of priuate opinion to goe aboute to take away from the Church is without doubt both intolerable presumption and errour especially doing it vpon no better grounds and pretense of reason then he layes down here viz. because the Foundation that is in his sense all Fundamentall and absolutely-necessary doctrine is so strongly and plainly layd down in Scripture and the Creed Stongly and plainly layd down does he say Surely the Bishop when he wrote this thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretiques who deny such points of Fayth as he himselfe grants to be Fundamentall To say those points are so strongly or plainly deliuer'd in Scripture c. as not to require some other infallible authority beside Scripture to support and make good our beleefe of them must needs argue a very strong preiudice to any man that duly considers how those controuersies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them and how equally those Heretiques bandy texts with their Aduersaries both wayes that is to say as well vpon the offensiue as defensiue part as well by opposing the truth with the pretense and allegation of many Scripture-texts as by answering and euading what euer is by their Aduersaries argued out of Scripture for it or against them So as indeed a modest man to borrow a little of his Lordships own style may iustly wonder whither the Bishop would haue vs to runne for infallible certainty in those points if not to Generall Councill which yet he will by noe meanes allow vs to doe 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop hath more questions to aske His next is how wee can according to ordinary course be infallibly assur'd that a Council erres in one and not in an other point when she equally defines both by one and the same authority to be diuine truths This may be thought a shrewd question too and the Relatour does a little discouer himselfe nettled by it in telling vs that A. C. turns Questionist here to disturb the business viz. which his Lordship had with Mr. Fisher and indeed the Church as much as he can Howeuer he answers the question by distinction thus If a Generall Councill erres sayes he eyther it erres in things absolutely necessary to Saluation or in things not necessary If in the first sort wee may be infallibly assur'd by the Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generalls Councills and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in an other point Jf in the latter sort 't is not
This and very little else as the experience of all ages and times shew is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills Not to vrge that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is or may be For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other and may if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause as lawfully doubt and deny the desinitions of the one as the resolution of the other wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council then J doe to a priuate person Seeing 't is euident that neither the one nor the other haue further Authority with mee or command ouer my vnderstanding then their seuerall reasons in my own iudgement deserue and that if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill 7. His asserting so confidently that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills beside the fowre first seemes noe less strange and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils since the fowre first been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill or second of Constantinople was it not matter of Fayth and necessary to Saluation what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents what thinke they of the sixth against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ defin'd by this Councill in the Bishops opinion as Fundamentall in the Fayth as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures defin'd by that of Chalcedon Againe may not fresh errours arise may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters in Religion Jf they doe shall it not be necessary for the Church that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own very honest and learned men as he is pleas'd to qualifie them when it serues his turn are of the same opinion with him in this point citing in proofe hereof certayn words as he pretends of Petrus de Alliaco an ancient Schoole-Author otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis Vertsstmum esse c. 'T is most true all things pertaining to Religion are well order'd by the fathers if they were as well and diligently obserued But first here 's a great mistake The words which the Bishop cites are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae and presented to the Councill of Constance but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it with diuerse other small tractates of that nature in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke Secondly admitting they were or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect yet were it little to the Bishops purpose For the Authours meaning is that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques that if they were well obserued there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine But he does not deny but that vpon new emergent occasions other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church and of many Heresies springing vp the Authority of an other Generall Councill to witt of Constance was necessary as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth as to extirpate the Schisme and all other abuses and disorders in the Church With what truth then could the Bishop pretend that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer after the fowre first And as for Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition or vniuersall Tradition of the Church yet doubtless when it is know'n to be so and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop neither he nor any other Catholique Authour will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie to hold it St. Cyprian here likewise alledged speaks cleerly of such matters as were then vndefined and were not till a long while after defin'd by the Councill of Nice St. Thomas speaks only deminis et opinionibus as his words shew of small matters and priuate opinions which in no sort concern our present controuersie and wherein wee acknowledge with the Relatour Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth or Christian charity necessary to Saluation But for matters which the Church hath found necessary for preuention of Schismes preseruation of vnity and for vindicating or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour once to determine by Generall Councils how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name ancient or modern who taught that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined This the Relatour should haue shew'n had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader and not meerly to amuse him by filling his pages with Authorities cited to noe purpose 8. Had not the Apostles those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world Reuclation from God not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. as the Protestants translate it with command and obligation that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world entirely and
without defaulking of any part And did they not intend that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer And how can the Church performe this if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them How can she be accounted in those respects the Pillar and Foundation of truth as 't is certain euen by the exposition of Protestants St. Paul doth style her 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be J say how is it possible the Church should be accounted eyther a sure Foundation Faythfull Depositary Guardian or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion as she is by Scripture and all Antiquity generally if eyther through ignorance and ouersight she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often euen where Religion is pretended from men and their humours rather then from things and errours to be found in them J grant it to be very true in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture which is the practice of Protestants and all Heretiques before them and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise lett them fairly make it appeare that the disagreement which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents but meerly from the Sectaries who it cannot be deny'd alledge scripture abundantly and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition both in doctrine discipline and worship no less then they accuse vs of the same faults 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense although euen by his own supposition they be diuine truths and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules His reason is because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse c. there must be Heresies whence he concludes 't is out of doubt Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance as is able to preuent them or such a mastering power in his Church as is able to ouer-awe them But J answer what consequence is here There must be 〈◊〉 there will vnauoydably be Heresies crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them and to vindicate the contrary truth To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp amongst Christians therefore the Pastours of the Church haue and ought to haue all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose should eyther themselues happen to crre or to determine the truth withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty But as to the obiection it selfe the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies it is not mean't that they shall not be at all but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church Heresies may be but the Faythfull members of the Church hauing due care of themselues and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours shall be euer fully secured against their snares and none deceiued by them at least not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence suffer themselues to be misted by them Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes on her part when she certainly declares the truth and rightly determins the matter about which Christians began to contend and to be diuided in opinion one from another when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them This is preuention both necessary and also sufficient on the Churches part and this beeing done if the effect follow not it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church but only to the incorrigible pride obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children which nothing but the hand of God can ouerrule and master A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's prudently instituted wherein when seditions and rebellions happen to arise and they doe happen sometimes in the very best wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate or state to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature are incident to mens mindes and which can neither be foreseen nor quelled in an instant by any power on earth J adde that the Relatours obiection oportet Haereses esse c. has as much force to proue the Church not infallible euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church to preuent errours contrary to such points which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions For the words of St. Paul ther must be Heresies are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points as other and there will be Heresies more or less in all ages in matters absolutely necessary as well as in things not necessary Yea surely according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points in regard they say that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer So that if because Heresies must be or will be the Bishop will conclude there is neither infallible certaintie nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth in such points as are contested by Heretiques as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude by his allegation of this text he must in consequence also confess there is noe infailible
erected into a Patriarchate or after as wee haue prou'd the Bishop of Romes Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 ouer all parts and Prouinces of Christendome THE LAST CHAPTER Seuerall other Mistakes of the Bishop with a conclusion of the whole worke ARGVMENT 1. St. Cyprians text Epist. 45. ad Cornelium touching the roote and matrix of the Catholique Church vindicated from the Bishops peruersions 2. All Charches in St. Cyprians bpiniony one by Communion with that of Rome 3. Tertullian of the same sentiment with St. Cyprian 4. The Bishops 〈◊〉 betwixt the Essence and Existence of the Church not pertinent 5. His 〈◊〉 touching the Ladies going to Church so persuaded in conscience as she was not 〈◊〉 6. Going to Protestant Churches in England neuer held by lawfull Catholiques 7. The Heretiques badge viz. pride and presumption of ones proper iudgement not well putt off by the Bishop 8. The same charge cannot be retorted vpon Catholiques in matters of Fayth 9. Catholiques maintaine the same succession to be a marke of the true Church which the Fathers did viz. the ioynt-succession of persons and doctrine 10. Stapleton not contrary to this nor to himselfe whateuer is pretended by the Bishop 11. Temporary Contestations about the Papacy no interruption of the Lawfull Succession of Popes 12. The Bishop standing to his principles cannot rid himselfe of A. C. Dilemma viz. of making 〈◊〉 noe iudge at all or euery man iudge for himselfe in Controuersies of Fayth 13. Infallibility the true Foundation loth of Church and Religion with the Authours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Prayer for the 〈◊〉 THe Bishop hath still a pieque against the Roman Church beeing euer willing to lessen as much as in him lyeth the respect which good Christians of ancient times may be thought to haue born towards that Sea Out of this humour it proceeds that he will not endure the Roman Sea should be styled the roote and matrix of the Church Catholique but to a voyde it takes occasion euen where he confesses none was giuen him by his Aduersary to make a long discourse of no less then eight or nine pages in folio only vpon a text of St. Cyprian which he calls indeed a difficult place that he might not seeme to want some reason for his tediousness but I presume an indifferent Reader hauing obseru'd the text and well weighed the Bishops comment vpon it will iudge it difficult in no other sense then that the Relatour found it somewhat a hard matter for him to disguise and peruert it from its true sense But a bad cause will plunge the best witts sometimes into difficulties and J am apt to thinke our Aduersarie in this digtession contends more then a little against what he could not but in his owne conscience see to be most probable 1. For first as to the truth of the storie the occasion of writing that Epistle wherein St. Cyprian is by vs suppos'd to style the Roman Church the ROOTE and MATRIX of the Church Catholique was not that which the Relatour setts down but very different from it The Relatour tells vs they were St. Cyprians own letters aboute which Cornelius Bishop of Rome expostulated with him and complain'd that they were not directed to himselfe as of right they ought to haue been but to the Roman Clergie whereas in truth St. Cyprian and his Colleagues had taken a resolution not to write at all to Rome by reason of the Schisme that was there 〈◊〉 till they had first heard from their Legate the Dishops Caldonius and Fertunatus whom they had sent on purpose to Rome to know the true state of affaires betwixt Cornelius the lawfull Bishop and 〈◊〉 the Schismatique But those letters were written by certain Priests and others of the African Clergie pertaining to the Diocess of Adrymettium where St. Cyprian happened to be at that time and in the absence also of the Bishop of the place This appeares by the very words of the Epistle it felse nor does St. Cyprian answer as the Bishop feignes him to doe to witt as owning or acknowledging the writing of those Letters himselfe or that they were sent with his knowledge but professes the thing was done out of ignorance of what himselfe and Colleagues had resolued and only by some in Africke during the absence of their Bishop Secondly as to the words wherby St. Cyprian professes to Gornelius that he for his part did exhort all that sayld out of Africke to Rome that they should acknowledge and embrace the ROOTE and matrix of the Catholique Church who can imagin any other thing should be mean't by them but that he exhorted such people when they came to Rome that they should ioyne themselues to the partie and communion of the lawfull Bishop of Rome because his Communion was the roote and matrix of the Church and haue nothing to doe with the Schismatiques The Bishop would haue vs thinke he mean't only to exhort them in generall to acknowledge and adhere to the vnity of the Catholique Church which though wee deny not but it may be in some sense term'd the roote and matrix of the Church yet surely in this place it can be thought little less then friuolous for St. Cyprian so especially to exhort those trauellers to acknowledge that vnity is the roote of the Church Beside what satisfaction or iust apologie could St. Cyprian thinke it would be to Cornelius already somewhat offended with him though by mistake for not duly acknowledging his Authority to tell him that he exhorted all people that came out of Africke to Rome that they should acknowledge vnity to be the roote of the Church or that they should keep the vnity of the Church in generall without specifying his communion or the communion of the lawfull Bishop of Rome in particular The acknowledgement then of the roote and matrix of the Church which St. Cyprian here meanes and exhorts good Christians to make and constantly stand to when they came to Rome hath doubtless something in it more speciall then this that is to say it must relate to that which euen by St. Cyprians own iudgement elsewhere deliuer'd is the roote and matrix of the Churches vnity to witt the lawfull Successour of St. Peter to whome the Church it selfe owes her vnity and aboute whome there was at that time dispute and controuersie and a doubt rais'd amonge Christians at Rome So that with very good reason St. Cyprian might exhort such as sayl'd 〈◊〉 to adhere to him and acknowledge him as beeing indeed the roote and matrix of Ecclesiasticall vnity as likewise to disown and reiect the partie they should finde auerse to him This indeed was a conuenient subiect of exhortation and well worthy of St. Cyprians charitie and zeale but that he should exhort them to any thing else in this place or noe more then the Relatour will seeme to thinke is wholy incredible But the Bishop conceiues it could not be St. Cyprians meaning and intention here to
cunning or malice of this speech or what does it containe but plaine reall truth and 〈◊〉 A. C. had prou'd through his whole discourse as wee likewise haue 〈◊〉 to doe in this or ours and the lady 〈◊〉 that the Protestant Church was not an Orthodox but 〈◊〉 Church that it protessed a salfe and corrupt Fayth so as a man could not communicate with it without making himselfe guilty of Heresie To 〈◊〉 this and yet goe to Church were euidently to halt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two opinions which in Religion is neuer lawfull 〈◊〉 doe It were to serue God and Baall too though neither of 〈◊〉 well Lastly it were to dissemble in that wherein it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man more then in all other matters to be sincere and vse 〈◊〉 doubling 〈◊〉 to walke with integrity and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 before God and the world For as the Scripture sayth 〈◊〉 2. 12. fearfull 〈◊〉 fearfull hearts and 〈◊〉 hands and to the 〈◊〉 that gods TWOE WAYES one in outward shew and protession and an other in the inward iudgement of conscience Is there now any such cunning or 〈◊〉 to admonish one of 〈◊〉 But the Relatour tells vs he neuer went about to proue that a Roman-Catholique beeing and 〈◊〉 such might against his conscience goe to Church Neither doth A. C. tell him that he euer 〈◊〉 about to proue it but yet in effect he did say it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he affirin'd that life lady beeing so persuaded as the was by Mr. Fishers report and as the Bishop himselfe 〈◊〉 did nor could 〈◊〉 her to haue been might more eastly 〈◊〉 to God for her coming to the English Protestant Church then for her going to the Roman which though he be pleas'd to 〈◊〉 with the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 yet that afters not the case at all to the 〈◊〉 who was otherwise persuaded of those things which he calls superstitions and errours nor doth it 〈◊〉 his assertion to plead as he doth that the Church of England is an 〈◊〉 Church and that he hath prou'd it so For still wee say the lady was otherwise 〈◊〉 she neither did nor could possibly thinke beeing thus persuaded in iudgement that the Church of England was an Orthodox Church or that the Bishop had sufficiently 〈◊〉 it to be such but rather 〈◊〉 the contrary How then is it possible for the Bishop to make good what he 〈◊〉 that though the lady were a Roman-Catholique yet she might more easily answer to God for coming to the Church of England then by 〈◊〉 English Church to communicate with Rome which is as much as to 〈◊〉 that she might more easily answer to God for coming to a Church wherein she verily beleeu'd Heresie and false doctrine was taught then for ioyning her selfe to a Church whose communion she verily beleeu'd was necessary to Saluation and wherein she was firmly persuaded that noe 〈◊〉 doctrine was taught by any publique allowance nor superstition practised for all this is necessarily implyed in beeing a Roman-Catholique Nay is it not manifestly contrary to his own professions here J say the same thing with A. C. viz. that 't is not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to serue and worship God because that were to halt on both sides to serue two masters to dissemble with God and the world and that noe man may outwardly profefs a Religion in conscience know'n to be false 〈◊〉 Scripture for it Rom. 10. 10. For with the heart man beleeueth to righteousness and with the mouth he consesseth to Saluation adding withall that noe man can confess a know'n false Religion to his saluation Whence I argue Jf a Roman-Catholique beeing and continuing such may not against his conscience goe to the Protestant Church if it be not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to ferue and worship God if noe man ought to beleeue Religion after one sort and practice it after an other if it be sinne to dissemble with God and the world in such maine points of Religion as are in controuersie betwixt Catholiqucs and Protestants how could the lady beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique better answer to God for coming to the English Church and leauing the Roman then for continuing to communicate with the Church of Rome what sinne could the Bishop thinke she committed by communicating with the Roman Church if in her heart she were a Roman-Catholique and apprehended nothing as superstitious and vnlawfull that was allowed by that Church but rather pious and godly In this she did nothing contrary to her conscience but in going to the Protestant Church she did that which was cleerly against her conscience and by consequence sinned in doing it Againe admitt there were errours and superstitions in the Roman Church as the Bishop will needs suppose yet how will he proue the lady should be in any sort answerable for them vnless wee suppose also that she held them against her conscience or by holding and practising them opposed the know'n truth which to doe were contrary not only to all Christian charity but euen to the 〈◊〉 own maximes who confesses that none but God and a mans selfe can know how farre he opposes truth in that manner and § 37. num 1. tells A. C. thus you are the happier in your errour that you hold nothing against your conscience especially if you speake not against conscience while you say so But this noe man can know but your selfe For noe man knowes the thoughts of man but the spirit of man that is within him 1. Cor. 2. 11. if now errours in Religion be not sinne so long as the person that holds them opposes not the know'n truth or holds them not against conscience and that by the Bishops own confession also 't was not possible for him to know that the lady by embracing our Fayth and Church did any thing contrary to her conscience or oppos'd any truth she knew vpon what ground could he condemn her of sinne in what she did or say as in effect he doth that she could not so easily answer to God for her doing so as she might for going to his English-Protestant Church wherein euen by his own grounds beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique she did manifestly committ sinne in doing against her conscience which is always sin more or less in dissembling with God and the world in matters of so great moment in halting on both sides and in beleeuing Religion after one sort and practising it after an other 6. As for what concerns Catholique Authours who may possibly affirm it lawfull in some cases and with due limitations for Catholiques to goe to Protestant-Churches there doctrine is necessarily restrained vnto such countries and places in which going to Protestant-Churches is no distinctiue signe of Religion that is where it
well to the verity of doctrine Who teaches otherwise who sayes 't is tyed to place and persons only who denyes but succession of the same and by consequence of true doctrine is requir'd together with succession of persons This Memorandum therfore serues vs only for an occasion to acknowledge with Tertullian that besides the order of Bishops which is personall succession there is requir'd consanguinitas doctrinae conformity of doctrine in those persons to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles 't is requir'd I say that the doctrine which succeeding Pastours teach be allyed in bloud and of Kin to that which Christ and his Apostles taught as the Relatour also vrges in so much as if the doctrine which succeeding Pastours teach be strange that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the succession it selfe will be iudged Alien and strange too what neereness soeuer of persons is pretended All this wee willingly confess with Tertullian in the places cited by the Bishop Irenaeus likewise teacheth that wee are to obey those Presbyters or Bishops who together with the succession of their Bishopriques haue receiued the grace or guift of truth to which wee subscribe and for this reason maintaine that the Greeke Church would want one necessary marke of the true Church though she could shew a continuall visible succession of persons in her Hierarchy because they haue long since erred and doe still continue in errour against the true Fayth by denying the procession of the holy Ghost to be from the Father and the Sonne as it hath been defin'd in Generall Councills As for Protestants 'tis manifest that vpon this account they are excluded from beeing part of the true Church seeing 't is confess 't by Protestants that for neere a thousand yeares before Luther there was noe visible Church that denyed those points of doctrine which Protestants now deny and account damnable errours and superstitions in our Church And J wonder how any rationall man can imagin that in so long a tract of time wherein the pretended errours are sayd to be introduc'd all those Watchmen appointed by God to be vigilant ouer the Church and not to hold their peace should be soe dead a-sleepe as not to take the least notice of them for such and Protestants alone after a a thousand yeares so much awake as not only to obserue them but to breake Communion vpon account thereof 10 Well But wee must now help Doctor Stapleton out of the brieres vpon which sayes the Bishop he hath torn his credit The Relatour himselfe acknowledges this Authour for a great Clarke but will haue 〈◊〉 beleeue that to make good the succession to the Roman Church he is forced to contradict himselfe Why because he first affirms that sound doctrine is iudiuisible or inseparable from true and 〈◊〉 succession and presently after tells vs that a lawfull Pastour may become a Wolfe to witt by teaching Heresie and false doctrine which if it may happen the Bishop concludes sound doctrine and lawfull succession are separated which is contrary to what Stapleton sayd before But our Doctour needs no such help as the Bishop imagins it is but fairly and rightly vnderstanding him and the business is done Doctor Stapleton when he teaches that sound doctrine is inseparable from true and lawfull succession takes succession collectiuely or for the whole succession of lawfull Pastours in any particular age of the Church meaning therby that it can neuer happen that all the lawfull Pastours of the Church in any age should desert sound doctrine or teach Heresie he takes it not distributiuely for any particular Pastour or Pastours of the Church all which generally speaking he knowes very well may erre in their own persons and desert sound doctrine Like as when the Bishop himselfe teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall he meanes only that the whole Church cannot so erre but any particular person or member of the Church may Now what contradiction is there betwixt these two propositions the whole succession of lawfull Pastours cannot be separated from sound doctrine and some particular Pastours that is part of the whole may and become of Pastours wolues truly iust as much as there is betwixt these the whole Church of Christ cannot fall away from the truth but euery particular member of the Church may This worthy Doctour therfore will neuer be forc't as the Relatour thinks and would faine haue it to quit the great note of Church-succession that he may agree with the Fathers but he will inuincibly and vnanswerably maintaine that which both the Fathers and himselfe meane by this great note to witt a legitimate succession a succession of Pastours which hold entire both the vnity and Fayth of the Church this beeing the summe and vpshot of all his doctrine touching this point namely that the true Catholique Church is know'n by this that there is in her a perpetuall succession of lawfully-sent Pastours deliuering and receiuing the doctrine of Christ one from an other continually or in all ages which likewise they are always to be suppos'd to haue done and to doe so long as the Church in no succeeding determinate age notes any change of doctrine or publique introduction of nouelty to hane been made by any of them nor that any such change is found recorded by any of those approued Authours who liued in the respectiue ages of the Church and in their writings left report to posterity of all such publique occurences both concerning Religion and the Church as happened in and about their times Wherfore to accuse the Church of Rome of change in doctrine as the Bishop here and all Protestants doe without alleadging such Authentique proofe what is it but out their own arbitrary presumption and malice to pass an vncharitable and rash censure vpon their mother contrary to all rules of equity truth iustice and Christian pietie Till therfore such proofe of change be alledged from sufficient and creditable Records all prudent and impartiall men will iudge the accusation signifies not much saue only that the Church is vnworthily and shamefully wronged by her Aduersaries which is no new thing This then is the haire if wee may so speake in which the strength of that our English Sampson Doctor Stapleton lyes which none of the Philisthims of Gath or Ekron eyther Prelaticall or Presbyterian Aduersaries whateuer they may talke shall be able to cutt off The promise and power of Christ so defends it that no Aduersarie powers shall euer preuaile against it Matth. 16. 18. J meane the continuall vninterrupted succession of lawfull Pastours teaching the same doctrine of Christ in all ages of the Church without any assignable beginning since the time of the Apostles 11. Those pretended Schim's which the Bishop obiects out of Onuphrius that is to say the contestations which haue sometimes been touching elections to the Papall dignity wherby seuerall persons at the same time
haue pretended to be Pope neither hinder nor make voyde the legitimate and necessary succession of the Roman Church as Doctor Stapleton maintaines it For first euen when differences did happen there was for the most part a lawfull Pope presently chosen vpon the vacancy so that the succession of the Roman Bishops was not at all broken off or interrupted in this case And for the guilt of Schisme if any were it lay only on their part who willfully opposed the lawfull Pope after he was sufficiently declar'd Secondly when it so happened that eyther a lawfull Pope was not presently chosen or that it was not certainly know'n which of the pretending parties was the lawfull Pope yet neither in this case was the succession itselfe euacuated as any man in reason may see but only suspended for a while or the euidence thereof as to the person succeeding pro tempore obstructed For eyther by death or by cession and resignation of the pretendants themselues or by depriuation of those whose elections were notoriously illegitimate or by some other lawfull and Canonicall meanes first or last the right of election to the Apostolique dignity was always cleer'd of doubt and legally settled vpon one person whome therevpon the whole Church presently acknowledg'd for true Pope And as for the Interregnum as wee may call it or the time that such Contestations about the Popedome lasted though it were an vnhappy state of the Church to be so diuided within it selfe yet for the most part there was noe formall Schisme on eyther part For neither did the Anti-popes themselues properly speaking separate from the Catholique or Roman Church so as to deny its Authority but only contested for a time with the person of that was lawfull Pope and vpon a presumption at least pretended that themselues were Pope and not he And though there had been formall Schisme on their part yet seeing there was none on his part that was true Pope what man can be soe vnreasonable as to thinke that the fault of pretenders could preiudice the lawfull succession of him that was rightly chosen Now our Aduersaries wee hope know that the line of succession is continued not by the Anti-popes but by the true Popes To which wee may adde that in all such cases viz. of contestations about election to the Papacy when the matter was really dubious as it was not of any absolute necessity for the Church or the seuerall prouinces of Christendome to acknowledge eyther the one or the other pretendant for true Pope so it was lawfull for them to acknowledge him for such whome they did bonâ fide and prudently iudge to haue been lawfully chosen The superstitions he talks of in the end of this Paragraph are 〈◊〉 layd to our charge and though they were euen iustly charged vpon vs yet seeing by his own principles and profession they are not inconsistent with true Fayth necessary to saluation 't is euident they cannot be vrged by him as an Argument to intringe and nullify the perpetuall succession of Pastours in the Roman Church 12. To A. C. friendly and serious aduice that his Lordship would consider carefully whether it be not more Christian and less brain-sicke to thinke that St. Peters successour together with a Generall Councill should be an infallible iudge of controuersies in matters of Fayth then to make euery man that can but read Scripture an interpreter of it and a decider of Controuersies or to haue noe iudge at all in such matters the Bishop answers that he hath consider'd all this carefully and findes himselfe no way chargeable with the inconveniencies which A. C. specifies of making euery priuate man iudge of Controuersies and a Controuler of Generall Councils or else of admitting noe iudge at all to determin such Controuersies His reason is because he admitts Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church and a lawfull and free Generall Councill determining according to them to iudge of Controuersies and holds that noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these But here the Bishop himselfe is in the briers For tell mee I pray how does this doctrine noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these consist with what he professedly auowes * elsewhere as wee haue often seen that priuate Christians may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions euen of Generall Councils and that if they erre grossly and dangerously as in his opinion they may and haue done 't is noe pride to refuse submission to them Is not this to make priuate men iudges of these things that is to say whether or noe Generall Councils doe determine according to Scripture and the Primitiue Church A thing which the world sees all Protestants doe take vpon them to iudge and the Bishop himselfe as freely as any notwithstanding his great but feigned profession here to the contrary and vtter disclayming from that desiunctiue imputation of eyther a priuate iudge or noe iudge Jn the very next line he openly professes he cannot swallow this proposition that the Pope with a Generall Councill should be iudge Yet the Primitiue Church did not only swallow this proposition but also very well relish it witness its willing and absolute submission to the sowre first Generall Councils consirm'd by the Pope as iudges of those grand and Fundamentall Controuersies that were then agitated and allowing noe priuate man to examin and consider their definitions whether they were consonant vnto Scripture or not He should haue done well to haue told vs what other iudge but this the Pope with a Generall Councill in Controuersies of Fayth the Church hath had what other iudge but this euer was or indeed can be acknowledg'd for such matters And thersore if this iudge be not admitted and that absolutely by vs 't is certain eyther no iudge at all will be found to end these Controuersies or in the finall deuolution of the business euery priuate man will be made iudge The Relatour had he pleas'd might haue found a sufficient answer in Bellarmin to the matter he brings out of AEneas Syluius otherwise called Pope Pius the second namely that he retracted in his maturer age and vpon better consideration what he had formerly as it were in his youth out of heate of contention and vpon presumption of Scholasticall learning written vpon the subiect of the Popes Authority in reference to Generall Councils Neither can the meere want of learning which the Bishop here obiects to some Popes be any sufficient preiudice against their authority nor hinder the operation and assistance of the holy Ghost from concurring with them and working by them in all cases necessary The Apostles themselue and many worthy Bishops in the Primitiue Church were persons of noe great learning and 't is the counsell and wisedome of God for the most part to chuse the weake things of this world to confound the strong and the foolish things of this world to confound the wise
Acceptation onely a secondary and accessory Confirmation of them Ibid. Not absolutely necessary as the Popes is Ibid. In what sense it is said that all Pastours are gathered together in General Councils page 213 The whole Churches consent virtually included and effectually declar'd by a General Council page 216 The Prelates in General Councils assembled may proceed against the Pope himself if his crimes be notorious page 231 233 What kinde of Free Council it is that Protestants call for page 233 No Conditions or Rules for holding a General Council justly assignable now which have not been competently observ'd by such former General Councils as Protestants reject page 240 The Church Universal indispensably oblig'd to embrace the Doctrine of General Councils page 250 The Decrees of General Councils in matters of Faith to be receiv'd not as the Decisions of men but as the Dictates of the Holy Ghost p. 252 General Councils not of Humane but Divine Institution page 245 No known Heretick or Schismatick hath Right to sit in General Councils page 233 In what Cases General Councils may be amended the former by the latter page 255 256 257 258 They are Infallible in the Conclusion though not in the Means or Arguments on which the Conclusion is grounded page 263 264 Infallibility of the Apostles and succeeding Councils how they differ page 265 266 The Councils of Arimini and second of Ephesus no lawfull Generall Councils page 268 339 The Supposition of a General Councils Erring in one point renders it liable to Erre in all page 378 Creed St. Athanasius his Creed no absolute Summary of the Catholique Faith page 350 351 No not even supposing the Creed of the Apostles Ibid. What the Authours intent was in composing it Ibid. St. Athanasius first compos'd and publisht it in the Latine Tongue page 351 Donatists A Narrative of their proceedings in the business of Cecilianus their Archbishop and Primate of Africk page 185 186 Donatists why they addrest themselves to the Emperour Constantine Ibid. The Emperour openly professes that the Donatists cause belong'd not to his Cognizance Ibid. What he did in it was forc'd from him by importunity page 185 187 He promises to ask pardon of the Bishops for medling in the Donatists business page 186 The Donatists thrice condemned page 185 186 Emperour No secret compact between the Emperor Sigismund and the Council of Constance in the cause of Huss page 156 No just Sentence ever pronounc'd by an Emperour against the Pope p. 192 In what manner the Emperours for some time ratisy'd the Popes Election Ibid. That Custom 〈◊〉 long since by the Emperours themselves p. 193. The Emperours favour some advantage to the Popes Temporal Interest no ground of his Spiritual Authority page 200 The Surmize of having one Emperour over all Kings as well as one Pope over all Bishops a meer Chimaera or fiction page 225 The Emperour as Supream over his Subjects in all Civil Affairs as the Pope is in matters Spirituall page 226 The Popes never practis'd to bring the Emperours under them in Civil Affairs Ibid. No Catholick Emperours ever took upon them to reform religion without or contrary to the Pastours of the Church Ibid. Errour In matters of Faith though not Fundamental inconsistent with the acknowledg'd Holiness of the Church page 150 Every Congregation unchurched that holds Errour in Faith and the reason why page 151 Eucharist That the holy Eucharist be receiv'd Fasting is a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Receiving it under one kinde no Errour in Faith page 207 271 Nor contrary to Christs Institution Ibid. The Non-obstante in the Council of Constance's Decree touching the Eucharist to what it refers page 271 272 273 The Eucharist under one kinde a perfect Sacrament page 271 Frequently receiv'd in Primitive times under one kinde page 289 Given by Christ himself in one kinde page 318 Why necessary that the Priest who consecrates should receive in both kindes page 319 Excommunication Never pronounc'd in the Catholique Church but where Obstinacy and perverseness inforce it page 48 Incurr'd ipso facto by all English Protestants for denying any one of the 39. Articles page 49 The English Church more justly censurable for tyranny in point of Excommunications then the Roman page 49 50 Faith Divine and infallible Faith inconsistent with the denial of any one point sufficiently propounded by the Church page 17 Faith Implicite what it imports in Catholique sense page 20 Implicite Faith necessary to be had of all Divine Revelations whatsoever Explicite onely of what the Church defines and propounds for such page 20 The English Protestant Faith not the Faith of the Primitive Church page 328 329 330 331 Implicite Faith not us'd by Catholiques at pleasure page 346 347 Roman Faith The Consequence of this Argument made good The Roman Faith was once THE ONE SAVING FAITH Ergo it is so still p. 340 350 Fathers Catholiques shew all due respect to the Fathers yet without derogation from the Authority of the present Church page 60 61 The Fathers account none Catholiques but such as agree with the Roman Church page 131 Proofs of the Churches Infallibility from the Fathers page 102 105 108. 131 137 178 Protestants profession to stand to the Fathers what it signifies page 208 Fundamental A word in Religion of various and ambiguous Acception page 14 How it ought to be taken in the present Dispute page 14 34 44 Catholiques allow a distinction of Fundamental and Non-Fundamental points in some sense page 15 20 21 23 34 44 All points defin'd by the Church and sufficiently known to be so are Fundamental that is not to be doubted of or deny'd under pain of damnation page 15 16 27 Points not-Fundamental deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles no less then points Fundamental page 38 Points Fundamental necessary to be known in specie or particularly page 45 176 177 217 243 Government THe Government of the Church in a Monarchical way not changeable by any power on earth page 221 222 The difference between the Government of the Church in matters of Faith and Religion and the Government of the State in matters of Policy and Civil Concern page 243 244 245 Greeks Their Errour against the Holy Ghosts procession from the Son properly Heretical page 6 7 King James his censure of the Greek Church page 5 Ancient Greeks differ'd onely in Words or manner of speaking from the Latins not in sense page 7 8 21 22 The Greeks excluded from the Council of Trent not by the Popes Summons but by their own Schism page 233 Divers Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church present in the Council of Trent page 233 234 Modern Greeks no True Church page 10 11 The business of Hieremias the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople page 238 His Censure of the Lutheran Doctrine a sufficient Testimony of the sense of the Greek Church Ibid. He utterly rejected the Lutherans Communion Ibid. Hell THe word Hell doth not alwayes signifie the place of the
yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick Arguments against them affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so small and inconsiderable that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome for many hundred years quite blinde and themselves onely clear and sharp-sighted which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learn't from St. Augustine that pride is the mother of Heresie will easily collect But though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and Personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denial of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct Person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son onely and not from the Father would he not be highly guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not onely an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient mattter of Heresie which being here most manifestly found either in the Affirmative maintained by the Latins or in the Negative embraced by the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son there must also be found sufficient matter to constitute the erroneous Tenet Heretical And seeing Protestants acknowledge with the Bishop here that the Greeks in this are the erring party how can they possibly excuse them from Heresie 5. But before I fall upon a particular examen of his proofs we must distinguish between Greeks Some are Ancient other Modern The Ancient Greeks though they did indeed in this question of the Holy Ghosts procession express themselves sometimes by the word per Filium by the Son yet the sense they gave them was Confignificative with à Filio from the Son Whereas the Modern Greeks since they rais'd this Dispute against the Latin Church will not admit that expression à Filio but per Filium onely and that too in a sense Dissignificative to à Filio For they so affert the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father by the Son that he proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son at all thereby making the words perrFilium to signifie the Medium onely not the Principle from which he is Originiz'd as truly as from the Father And that this is the erroneous perswasion of the Modern Greeks is manifest not onely by those long Discourses between the Greeks and Latins set down at large in the Council of Florence but by the free acknowledgement of Hieremias late Patriarch of Constantinople in his Book intituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae cap. 2. where expounding the Belief of the Modern Greek Church he hath these express words Spiritum verò Sanctum Dominum vivificantem EX PATRE SOLO procedentem Now after this distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks and their different meanings even under the same expression it will be seasonable to give solutions to all the Bishops proofs To the first therefore however the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamental errour he takes a wrong course to effect it and in stead of excusing them directly overthrows and condemns them nay renders those whom he endeavours to excuse incapable of that favourable exposition which the Authors he alledges in their behalf have made for some of the Greek Church For pag. 24. § 9. num 1. he acknowledges that errour of denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity and pag. 26. § 9. num 3. that the Greeks think a diverse thing from the Latins in this point as I have noted above Now to prove that these who erre thus grievously and differ from the Latin Church in re not in the words onely but in the thing do yet not erre Fundamentally he brings Testimonies from our Authors who speak of such Grecians even as he cites them which erre not at all in the opinion of those alledged Authors and which differ from the Latin Church onely voce in words and not in the thing or matter of their Doctrine Thus he cites Durandus Pluralitas IN VOCE salvata unitate IN RE non repugnat unitati Fidei Magist. Sentent Dist. 11. Sanè sciendum est quod licet in presenti Articulo à nobis Graeci VERBO difcordent tamen SENSU non differunt and the like sayings are in all the following Authors there cited by the Bishop But what a strange Medium is this to prove his intent He was to prove that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity erred not Fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity He was to prove that such as differ in re in the thing it self from the Latin Church about the Procession of the Holy Ghost erre not Fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as differ onely from us voce in words but not in the thing controverted Is not this strong Logick Let his Lordships Defender then prove from the said Authorities his Assertion viz. That those Greeks who erre grievously in Divinity and differ in re from the Latin Church erre not Fundamentally and he will have done more then my Lord himself has done or any other I presume can do In the mean time every half eye will discover how inappositely the Relatour hath reasoned hithertó and brought no Authority at all to make good his Assertion For the Master of Sentences he speaks only of such Ancient Authors as differed onely in voce in words and not in Substance from the Latin Church or at least who spake not so clearly against it but that their words might admit some tolerable interpretation But how proves this that those of the Greek party say now no more nor otherwise then the others did in those Ancienter times seeing it is manifest from the Council of Florence and from Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople that their Doctrine cannot admit of that Exposition which those Authors give to the Doctrine of the Ancient Grecians For they flatly and in express terms deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son and understand per Filium by the Son in that sense which excludes à Filio from the Son This difference of times was long since observed by St. Bonaventure in that very place wherein his Lordship cites him to wit in 1. Sentent dist 11.
according to Bellarmin 't is clear there are some Traditions which are not Gods unwritten word Nevertheless Bellarmin A. C. and all Catholiques agree against the Bishop that we believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is Gods Word and that there is no other Word of God to assure us of this point but the Tradition deliver'd to us by the Church and that such Tradition so delivered must be the unwritten Word of God I say such Tradition for that we admit in practise divers Ecclesiastical Traditions but neither in quality of Gods Word or Divine Traditions nor are any of them contrary to the Word of God whether written or unwritten 2. Now to return to his Lordship we grant there are many unwritten Words of God never deliver'd over to the Church for ought appears and that there are many Traditions of the Church which are not the unwritten word of God yet not contrary to it Wherefore his Lordship might herein have spared his labour since he proves but what we grant And if the Church hath received by Tradition some Words of Christ not written as well as written and hath delivered them by Tradition to her Children such written and unwritten Word of God cannot be contrary to one another For as the Church was Infallible in Defining what was written so is she also Infallible in Defining what was not written And so she can neither tradere non traditum as the Bishop urgeth that is make Tradition of that which was not deliver'd to her nor can she be unfaithful to God in not faithfully keeping the Depositum committed to her Trust. Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary as he insinuates they may but are bound to believe her Tradition because she being Infallible the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father Now whereas the Bishop so confidently averrs that whereever Christ held his peace and that his words are not registred no man may dare without rashness to say they were THESE or THESE his Lordship must give me leave to tell him I must binde up his whole Assertion with this Proviso But according as the Church shall declare for it is her Authority whereon we depend to know when and in what Christ held his peace or whether his words some or none were registred as much as we depend on her to know whether Scripture be the Word of God or not This our proceeding does unqestionably free us from all shadow of rashness Neither doth St. Augustin say any thing in contradiction hereof For he onely speaks against determining of a mans own head what was spoken by Christ without ground or warrant from the Church In like manner we grant there were many unwritten Words of God which were never deliver'd over to the Church and therefore never esteem'd Tradition As there are many Traditions according to Bellarmin which we cannot own for Gods unwritten Word yet all such as the Church receives are conformable at least not contrary to his Word written or unwritten Such are the Ceremonies used in Baptisme of which the Relatour here speaketh For the party to be baptiz'd is Anointed to signifie that like a Wrestler he is to enter the list So St. Chrysostom Inungitur baptizandus more Athletarum qui stadium jam ingressuri sunt Spittle is applied to their Ears and Nostrils as St. Ambrose saith in Imitation of that our Saviour did Mark 7. who spitting touched the tongue and put his Fingers into the ears of the deaf and dumb man before he cured him The like he did John 9. 3. to the blinde man Wherefore these Ceremonies are conformable to Scripture Three Dippings were used in Baptisme to signifie the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or our Saviours remaining for three dayes in the Sepulcher as St. Gregory teacheth But this Ceremony is not us'd at all times nor in all places as being not absolutely commanded by the Church Wherefore Bellarmin who proveth the Ceremonies us'd in Baptisme to be Apostolical Traditions sayes not that every Tradition is Gods unwritten Word but that we must necessarily believe Scripture to be the Word of God which seeing we cannot believe for any written Word of his we must either admit some Word of God not written to ground this our Belief on which can be no other then Apostolical Tradition applied to us by the voice of the Church or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of this point because all Divine Faith must relie upon some Word of God The Bishop therefore hath no reason to go on with his Enquiry but must either fix here or he will finde no firm ground whereon to rest his foot as will appear both by the other wayes of Resolving Faith by him confuted and by his own which is every whit as confutable 3. For the second way of proving Scripture to be the Word of God to wit that it should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony lumine proprio by the sole resplendency of the light it hath in it self and by the witness it can so give to it self this the Relatour himself sufficiently confutes and we agree with him in the confutation However though the Bishop knew full well that we deny this Doctrine of knowing Scripture for Gods Word by its own light as much as himself or any of his party can do yet as it were to justifie the more my late accusation of his obtruding Falshoods to asperse us he will needs suppose another here viz. that the said Doctrine may well agree with our grounds in regard we hold if you will believe him That Tradition may be known for Gods Word by its own Light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture Which Inference indeed would be true were it not drawn from a false supposition as most certainly it is For all Catholicks hold it ridiculous to believe that either Scripture or Tradition is discernable for Gods Word by its own Lustre Nor is A. C. justly accusable in this point as the Bishop would make him by misconstruing his words to signifie that Tradition is discernable by its own Light to be the Word of God For A. C's words even as they are lamely cited by the Bishop do sufficiently vindicate him from having any such meaning as his Lordship would impose on him The cited words are these Tradition of the Church is of a company which by its own light shews it self to be Infallibly assisted c. where any man may easily see that the word which must properly relate to the immediate preceding word company even to make sense and not to the more remote word Tradition 'T is therefore clear that A. C's Intention is onely to affirm that the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light As concerning the Question propounded by Mr. Fisher to be answered by Dr.
W. I finde not one word of Tradition being known by its own light in it If therefore this Proposition That a Tradition may be known to be such that is to be Gods unwritten Word by the light it hath in it self be a matter to be made sport with as the Bishop sayes it is we shall not grudge him the mirth he may have found in his own fiction But before I leave this point I desire the Reader to consider what the Relatour grants viz. that the Church now admits of St. James and St. Jude's Epistles and the Apocalypse which were not received for divers years after the rest of the New Testament Yet would he elsewhere conclude against the Church of Rome that it had 〈◊〉 in receiving more Books into the Canon then were received in Ruffinus his time But if according to him some Books are now to be admitted without errour for Canonical which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such certainly without errour also and upon the same Authority some Books may now be received into the Canon which were not so in Ruffinus his time But this onely by way of Digression As for the third way of proving Scripture to be Gods word to wit by the Private Spirit 't is true the Bishop professes to reject the Phrensie as he calls it of Private Revelation except in some extraordinary Circumstances both as a thing that would render a man obnoxious to all the whisperings of a seducing Private Spirit and from whence can be drawn no proof to others being as he sayes neither seen nor felt of any but him that hath it Yet concerning this point he delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse as signifies nothing in effect to what he would seem to drive at and so leaves the Reader wholly unsatisfied how to prove Scripture to be the Word of God Infallibly without recourse at last to the Private Spirit Nor was it possible for him to free himself from that Imputation of recurring to the Private Spirit against any that should press the business home notwithstanding his Brags to the contrary and his Thanks to A. C. whose imperfectly-cited words he would fain improve to a freeing himself from necessity of recurring to the Private Spirit which is opposite to A. C's meaning who thus urges against him by name of the Chaplain The Chaplain therefore who as it seems will not admit Tradition to be in any sort Divine and Infallible while it introduces the Belief of Scripture to be Divine Books cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be Infallible unless he admit an Infallible Impulsion of the Private Spirit EX PARTE SUBJECTI without any Infallible sufficiently applied Reason EX PARTE OBJECTI which he seemeth not nor hath reason to do c. Now I leave it to any Indifferent mans judgement whether the sense of those words be not this viz. That the Chaplain or Bishop seems indeed to reject the Private Spirit and hath reason so to do yet since he admits not Tradition to be in any sort Divine and Infallible he cannot sufficiently defend the Faith of Scriptures being the Word of God to be Infallible unless he admit an Infallible Impulsion of the Private Spirit But this part of A. C.'s Speech his Lordship very prudently supprest to make way for a perversion of the other part which taken both together signifie no less then what I have said That the Bishop professeth to reject the Doctrine of the Private Spirit yet neither did nor could prove Scripture to be the Word of God Infallibly without recourse to Private Revelation 4. However the Bishop was so far from avowedly countenancing this opinion that he chose rather to seem ignorant then freely confess that any Protestant did hold it For he grants no more then that either some do think there is no other sufficient Warrant for this then special Revelations or the Private Spirit or else that we impose it upon them and that if they do mean by Faith Objectum Fidei the object of Faith that is to be believed then they are out of the ordinary way Here you see how doubtfully the Bishop speaks either there are some such or you saith he to us would have them think so And if they do mean c. As if there could be any doubt in either of these two particulars Seeing Calvin that great Doctour of Protestancy is so positive therein and delivers that Doctrine so expresly in his Institutions lib. 1. cap. 7. § 4. Where he clearly resolves that to satisfie mens Consciences in this point viz. in the Belief that Scripture is the Word of God and to keep them from doubting we must recurre to the Secret or if you will the Private Testimony of the Spirit And § 5. where he professeth that Holy Scripture gains the credit or certainty which it hath with us from the Testimony of the Spirit But to come yet closer to the Bishop Dr. Whitaker a man that suckt the Church of Englands Milk as well as his Lordship writes expresly thus Esse enim dicimus c. For we affirm saith he there is a more certain and clear Testimony by which we are perswaded that these Books are sacred to wit the Internal Testimony of the Holy Ghost The like he hath cap. 3. ad 3 um in these words Qui enim Spiritum Sanctum habent c. For they who have the Holy Ghost and are taught of God are able to know the voice of God as one knows his Friend with whom he hath long and most familiarly conversed by his voice Whence it evidently appears that divers eminent Protestants do in this point to say nothing of the rest resolve their Faith into the Private Spirit notwithstanding the Bishops unwillingness to confess it To what else he inserts in treating this point I say nothing because it is not against Catholick Doctrine I wonder not much to see Natural Reason introduc'd by the Bishop tanquam Saulem inter Prophetas as a means sufficient to ground an Infallible Belief that Scripture is the Word of God because after a more narrow search I perceeive he was enforc'd to take this fourth way viz. Natural Reason which he elsewhere num 2. pag. 60. sayes must be admitted though it be but for Pagans and Infidels who either as he affirms consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be Converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. Now therefore let us see how his Lordship goes about either to Convert a Heathen or leave him without excuse in case he believe not Scripture as it is now in their Protestant English Canon by the light of Natural Reason And for greater clearness of proceeding let us imagine that some learned Heathen who had read the Bshops Book comes to his Lordship to be satisfied in point of Religion whose Discourse you have in this ensuing Dialogue 5. Heathen
that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Naturall Reason but to put so gross a fallacy upon me That because Naturall Sciences admit some Principles without proof as being so clear in themselves that there needs no more then the bare apprehension of their tearms therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for Gods word and admitted without probation for an unquestionable Principle May not any Religion pretend the like The Turks for example may they not say their Alcoran is the Rule and Principle of their Religion and consequently unquestionable You know very well and confess it too elsewhere That the Principles of Naturall Knowledge appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding And you know as well that there is an infinite disparity in the case between such Principles and your Bible The later having exercis'd the wit and learning of a world of Expositors in regard of its obscurity and the former being uncapable of proof by reason of their evident clearness I may therefore rationally conclude that your Bible cannot justly challenge an infallible Belief of being Gods word by conviction of Natur all Reason This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordships discourse of whom I take my leave By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen wherein I have not wrong'd him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his Arguments a man may easily discern how irrationall it is to take the Bible for the sole Rule and Guide in matters of Faith A Doctrine which had it been held in the Primitive Church would have laid the World under an impossibility of ever being converted to Christianity But now 't is high time to return to our Church-Tradition which I press a little further in this manner 6. A Child is brought up and instructed in the Roman Church till he arrives to some ripeness of years Amongst other things he is commanded to believe the Bible is the True word of God that he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith receiv'd universally amongst Christians He gives therefore the same Infallible assent to the Scriptures being the word of God that he gives to the other Articles of Faith and so without once looking into the Scripture departs this life I demand had this Christian saving Faith or not if he had then upon the Churches Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God Ergo the Churches Authority was sufficient to ground an Infallible Faith in this point If he had not saving Faith in this Article he could not have it in any of the rest for he had them all from the very same Authority of the Church Therefore he had no saving Faith at all Ergo such a Christian could not be saved Would his Lordship have ventured to affirm this But let us suppose now that this young Christian yet lives and applies himself to study makes progress in learning becomes a profound Philosopher a learned Divine an expert Historian then betakes himself upon the Churches recommendation to the reading of Scriptures discovers a new light in them and by force of that light discerns also that the Faith he had before was onely a humane perswasion and that he had no divine Faith at all before he found by that light in Scripture that they were the undoubted word of God and sole foundation of Faith and consequently that not having that foundation he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian Belief and for want thereof was out of the state of Salvation What gripes and torture of spirit would spring out of such a Doctrine amongst Christians Moreover either the Church whereof he is suppos'd a member taught that he was to believe Scripture infallibly to be the word of God upon her sole Tradition as an infallible Testimony thereof as we before supposed or not If the first then he reflects that this Church has plainly deceiv'd him and if she have deceiv'd him in assuming that Infallibility to her self and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith when he had nothing but humane and uncertain perswasion she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself and consequently expos'd them all to the hazard of eternall damnation by following her Doctrine and therefore was no true Church but a seducer and deceiver Hence he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole letter of Scripture without any credible voyce of the Church and then must either gather the Divine Authority of Scripture from sole Scripture which the Bishop denies or there will he no means left him to believe even according to the Bishops principles infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God If the Church teach him onely that her testimony of Scripture is no more then Humane and Fallible but that the Belief it self that Scripture is Gods word rests upon sole Scripture as his Lordship speaks he begins presently to consider what then becomes of so many millions of Souls who both in former and present times either were uncapable to read and examine Scripture by reason of their want of learning or made little use of that means as assuring themselves to have infallible Faith without it Had such Christians a morall and fallible perswasion onely and no divine Faith then they were all uncapable of salvation This consequence seems very severe to our supposed Christian. Wherefore he begins to make a further reflection and discourses in this manner Is the Tradition and Definition of the Church touching the Divine Authority and Canon of Scripture onely Humane and Fallible how then can I rationally believe that my single perswasion of its being the word of God is Divine and Infallible The Bishops Pastours and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition and thereby discover'd its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly then I alone am able to do If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness their perswasion concerning Scriptures being Gods word was onely Humane and Fallible what reason have I to think I am Divinely and Infallibly certain by my reading of Scripture that it is Divine Truth He goes on If the light of Scripture on the other side be so weak and dim that it is not able to shew it self unless first introduc'd by the recommendation of the Church how came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Huss Wickless c. to be so sharp-sighted as to discover this light of Scripture seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world coexistent with them or existent immediately before them and consequently of the true Church Hence he proceeds to a higher enquiry Had not sayes he the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years
the word of God which is also sutable to his words § 16. num 22. We resolve saith he meaning Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scriptures it self and yet confesses we have no means to be infallibly certain that Scripture is the word of God but by the Testimony of Church-Tradition He would fain have the difference betwixt us to consist onely in this that we affirm Church-Traditions to be the Formal Object Prime Motive and last Resolution of Faith and that they deny it to be so But the difference as it appears in the Resolution we have already given is not in that For we are now both agreed that it is not necessary to say the Faith of Scripture is resolv'd into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formall Object or Prime Motive c. but the onely substantiall Difference is this We say the Tradition of the present Church is Infallible and that necessarily to the end it may infallibly apply the Formal Object to us you say 't is Fallible Grant us once that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible and the controversie in this is ended How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith as here he speaks into the Prime Apostostolical Tradition Infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church I see not unless he could tell how to be infallibly certain of that Tradition without it which he knows not well how to compass as appears in the next number So that now he abandons his Fort again by not shewing how we can know infallibly that Apostolicall Tradition is Divine otherwise then by the Tradition of the present Church For as to what he asserted num 21. that there 's a double Authority and both Divine viz. Apostolical Tradition and Scripture even in respect of us it doth not satisfie the difficulty as I have prov'd but serves onely to make one contrary Turn upon another in his Labyrinth so that you know not where to follow him For if Church-Tradition fail to ascertain us infallibly of that Divine Apostolicall Tradition we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture it self be the Infallible word of God or no. That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible may be thus sufficiently prov'd We cannot be infallibly certaine that Scripture is the word of God unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible For we acknowledge many Books for Canonicall Scripture which Protestants admit not and they now hold some for such which have not been alwayes approv'd for such And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have are said by Catholiques to be corrupted Others also cry up some Books for Canonicall Scripture which both Catholiques and Protestants disallow If therefore the Church can erre in this point with what shadow of truth can Protestants pretend to bring an Infallible ground that Scripture is the word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church serves to assure us infallibly that Scripture is the word of God and not onely as his Lordship would have it to work upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to read and consider the Scripture or among Novices Weaklings and Doubters of Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scriptures 2. Neither can the often cited place of St. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. be rationally understood of the foresaid Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith For it is clear that St. Austin by those words gives a reason why he then a Bishop would not follow the Doctrine of Manichaeus and why no Christian ought to follow it As if a man should say he that believes the Gospel believes it onely for the Authority of the Church which condemning Manichaeus it is impossible rationally proceeding to admit the Gospel and follow Manichaeus Neither is the contrary any wayes deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop § 16. num 21. If thou shouldst finde one who did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldst thou do to make him believe For the holy Doctor there speaks to Manichaeus and shewes how neither Infidels nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus Not Infidels because Manichaeus proves this onely out of Scriptures which they not admitting might rationally enough slight his proof Not Christians because they receiving the Scripture upon the sole Authority of the Church could no more approve of the Apostleship of Manicheus condemned by the Church then if they admitted not of Scripture at all Wherefore A. C. had no reason to pass by this place of St. Austin which his Lordship sayes pag. 82. he urged at the Conference unless it were because he did not then remember it As for the Catholique Authors cited by the Relatour certainly they all hold that the Authority of the present Church is an Infallible proof that Scripture is the word of God And though they teach that the fore-mentioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels Novices and those who deny or doubt of Scripture yet they averre not that it is of less force for all others But their meaning is that the Authority of the Church appears more clearly necessary against Infidels and those who doubt of the Faith For suppose a learned man be an Infidel or doubt of Scripture he will say if the Church may erre he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is Gods word If you tell him the Church though subject to errour is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture and read it diligently and that then he will finde such an inbred light in it as will assure him infallibly that 't is the word of God he will reply he hath done what you require and yet findes no more inbred light in those Books which Protestants receive for Canonical then he doth in others which Catholiques admit but Protestants reject as Apocryphall no no more then he doth in other counterfeit pieces disapprov'd both by Catholiques and Protestants 3. Who doth not here most clearly see that we cannot deal with such a man without the unerring or Infallible Authority of the Church unless we will have recourse to the Private Spirit from which though the Bishop would seem so free that he excludes it from the very state of the Question yet he falls into it and palliates it under the specious title of Grace and where others us'd to say they were infallibly resolv'd that Scripture was the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83 84. averres that he hath the same assurance by Grace so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular he onely changeth their words 4. The Relatour is very much out when he maintains on the one side that the Church is fallible in her Tradition of Scriptures and yet still supposes throughout his whole discourse that whoever comes to read Scriptures deliver'd by the Church findes
one of his Authorities brought to prove that Church-Tradition founds onely a probable humane perswasion that Scripture is Gods Word rather evince the quite contrary The second point to be concluded is that Scripture thus led in by the Church proves it self Infallibly and Divinely by its internall light to such as had no supernatural Faith precedently This he labours to evince from some expressions of the Fathers who use sometimes the like proofs to shew that Scripture is the Word of God But first do they alwayes bring these proofs to such as had no Divine Faith before of Scriptures-being Gods Word Do they not use them both for themselves and others who precedently had a Divine Faith of that point Secondly do the Fathers say that those proofs of theirs are the Primary Infallible and Divine proofs of Scriptures-being the word of God 〈◊〉 do they not rather use them as Secondary arguments perswasive onely to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word precedently to them Thirdly do they use onely such proofs as are wholly internal to Scripture it self All these conditions must be made good to make a full proof for his purpose out of them Now touching the two first conditions 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point not used they them as such And for the third condition viz. of the proofs being internal to Scripture they are not all such For first that of Miracles is externall The Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the word of God Secondly the Conversion of so many people and Nations by the doctrine contain'd in Scripture is also external to Scripture unless haply it came by reading the Scripture and not by the declaration and preaching of the Church which he proves not and the contrary is rather manifest Again many other Books beside Scripture contain the same doctrine yet are not thereby prov'd to be Gods Word Were not many thousands converted to that humble doctrine of Christ before divers of the Canonical Books were written Nay many whole Nations as St. Irenaeus already alledged witnesses some hundreds of years after the said Books were written who knew nothing at all of Scripture But suppose these four proofs mentioned by the Bishop viz. first Miracles secondly Doctrine nothing carnal thirdly performance of it Fourthly The Conversion almost of the whole world by this Doctrine had been all of them internal to Scripture yet how prove they Infallibly and Divinely that Scripture is the Word of God Perswade truly they may but convince they cannot Touching the first how will it appear that Miracles were ever wrought in immediate proof of the whole Bible as it is receiv'd in the Canon As for the second how many Books are there beside Scripture which have nothing of Carnal Doctrine at all in them Concerning the third and fourth how can it ever be prov'd that either the performance of this Doctrine or the Conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be deny'd but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applyable to the Church then to Scripture For first Miracles have most copiously and familiarly confirmed the Authority and lawful Mission of the Pastours Secondly the Doctrine of Gods true Church hath nothing of Carnal in it The Performance or verifying of this Doctrine is onely found in the Members of the Church Lastly it is the Church that hath preach'd this humble Doctrine of Christ and that hath converted and still doth convert Nations to the belief of it and submission to it Who sees not by this that while he disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it CHAP. 9. An End of the Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. St. Austins words explicated 2. The Bishop cannot avoid the Circle without mis-stating the Question 3. He waves the difficulty 4. St. Cyril and St. Austins words examined 5. The Bishops eight Points of Consideration weighed and found too light 6. According to his Principles no man can lawfully say his Creed till he have learnt the Articles thereof out of Scripture 7. His Synthetical way one of the darkest passages in his Labyrinth 8. Scripture when and by whom to be supposed for Gods Word 9. His Lordship argues a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 10. Brings non-cognita for praecognita and proves what he affirms ought not to be proved 11. The Jews Resolved their Faith into Tradition as the Church of Rome now doth 12. Moral Certainty not absolutely Infallible 1. 'T is now high time to put a Period to this Controversie touching the Churches Infallibility and Resolution of Faith which I should have done long since had not our Antagonist led us so long and so intricate a Dance through the redoubled Meanders of his Labyrinth St. Austins proving Scripture by an internal Argument lib. 13. cap. 5. contr Faust. makes little for the Bishops purpose unless St. Austin either affirm that Argument to be such as Faith may fully rest upon as its primary formal Motive and Object for proof of Scripture or that he himself prove it to be so For St. Austin often urges Arguments which are onely Secondary and probable yea sometimes purely conjectural in this kinde See an example of this in the margin What the Bishop quotes out of Thomas Waldensis Doct. Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Art 2. cap. 23. num 9. that if the Church should speak anything contrary to Scripture he would not believe her is most true but it is likewise as true what St. Austin said above contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. that if the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither The truth is both the one and the other that is both Waldensis and St. Austins expressions proceed ex suppositione impossibili and are wholly like that of St. Paul Gal. 1. If an Angel from heaven preach any thing otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed 2. But for all these Turns and Windings it will be hard to free the Bishop from a vicious Circle For if he allow not Scripture to be believ'd with Divine Faith by vertue of the Churches Testimony and Tradition what answer can be made to this Question Why believe you infallibly that Scripture is Gods Word If he say for the Tradition of the Church it will not serve seeing he is suppos'd to have no Divine Faith that
so resolv'd would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms resolving of Faith c. in the Ancient Fathers it being a School-term not used in their times It seems he would by his false citation of St. Austin in these words Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. contr Fund cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found nor any where else I am confident in all St. Austin For us it is sufficient that the Fathers frequently say We believe Scripture for Tradition we would not believe Scripture unless the Authority of the Church moved us that Traditions move to piety no less then Scripture c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms in the Fathers we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father who saith that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God infallibly for the Churches authority but must resolve it into the light of Scripture 5. I come now to his Considerations and begin with the first point touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology that must be pre-suppos'd without proof because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed I answer first he confounds Theology a Discursive Science with Faith which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will for Gods Authority revealing and not deduced by discursive Principles and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever in this particular Secondly I say I have already answered this matter to the full chap. 7. num 7. and chap. 6. num 5. in the Dialogue to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith which has further principles and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them He himself acknowledges that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition how was it then a Principle which cannot ought not to be proved but must be presupposed by all Christians Concerning his second point the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge For there the thing assented to remains obscure which in Sciences is made clear and all the difficulty is to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us and seeing he denies the Church to be it and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture we must have some further light clearer quoad nos then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition His third point contains no more in summe then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration I shall not therefore quarrel with it As to his fourth point we grant that the Incarnation of our Saviour the Resurrection of the dead and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church nor did we ever do it but into the Infallible Authority of God as we have often confessed In his fifth point recommended to Consideration there are also divers things which the Relatour himself should have better considered before they fell from his pen. For first he asserts on the one side that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence and that had it been clear in its own light to the Hearers of the Apostles that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge and not by Faith Yet on the other side almost with the same breath avoucheth that it appeared clear to the Prophets and Apostles that what ever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth and that they had clear Revelation What is this in effect supposing the Truth of his first Proposition but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful and make them in that respect like the Blessed in Heaven Comprehensores while they were yet in the way Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions that they walked by Faith not by Sight and that they saw onely per speculum in aenigmate Secondly in point of Miracles he avers that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing but what is actually converting which is a great mistake For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs since in themselves they deserve belief whether they actually convert or not and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said Had I not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned and again Woe be to thee Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida for had the Miracles done amongst you been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes Likewise The works which I do in my Fathers name bear witness of me and though you believe not me believe my works Thirdly the Bishops reasons brought in disparagement of Miracles seem as strange as his Doctrine First saith he the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested because forsooth there may be Counterfeit Miracles just as if a man should say Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not Secondly they are not convincing proofs because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Is not this a strange Paradox Do not all Divines even Protestants themselves confess that true Miracles are not feasable but by the special and extraordinary power of God That they are Divine Testimonies and that by them God sets as it were his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm that God bears witnesse to a Lye See the Margin It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other then false and feigned Miracles The sixth Point concerning the light of Scripture hath nothing but what is already answered chap. 7. num 5 6 and 7. Were Scripture by its own light capable of being the Prime Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge yet at least it must have something in it to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent Which in the Relatours Principles is not found The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows
that Scripture was held to be Gods Word for the Authority of the Church So that though it be against Art and Reason to question the Subject or put our Adversary to prove Scripture to be the Word of God when we dispute whether Transubstantiation Purgatory or the like Predicates be contain'd in Scripture yet against one that denies the necessity of Tradition we require a proof of Scripture it self as knowing he could not have any other good ground of supposing Scripture to be Gods Word besides the Tradition of the Church which he now denying doth either contradict himself or deprive the Scripture of all Authority Wherefore I make no difference at all in this point between a natural man and a man newly entring or doubting in Faith and those who pretend to be grown up in Faith and yet impugne the Tradition of the Church For all these are after one and the same Method to be dealt with that so they may be brought to admit the true grounds of proving Scripture to be the Word of God It was therefore no familiarity with impiety nor desire to catch advantage that mov'd Bellarmin and A. C. to demand how Scripture could be prov'd the Word of God for they were forced to it by their Adversaries denying the Necessity of Tradition And the advantage is to your selves that by this Medium which Protestants ever decline you may discern the weakness of your own Foundation In the very Porch of this Paragraph the Bishop as if he had untied the Gordian knot of Mr. Fishers Arguments brags he set him to his Book again But I am confident it was rather the not untying this knot that mov'd him to repeat what he had writ before For this repetition shew'd clearly the Bishop said no more then what Dr. White had said before him and consequently that Mr. Fishers words spoken to the Doctour were sufficient to solve all the Bishop had said Wherefore as the Bishop did actum agere do onely what was done by the Doctour before so he made Mr. Fisher dictum dicere to say again what was said before since there needs no new Solution where no new difficulty is propounded And when we hear him talking of Metaphysical Principles it seems they are too clear to be answered and therefore he waves them as too quaint niceties to be reflected upon by the Reader Neither does Bellarmin artificially cited in his Margin any way favour his Lordship For when he gives an Advertisement that all Hereticks suppose with Catholicks as a general Principle that the Word of God is a rule of Faith he speaks not of the sole written Word as the Bishop will needs misinterpret him but of the Word of God abstractively or as it embraces both the written and unwritten Word His omnibus Quaestionibus sayes he praemittenda est Controversia de VERBO DEI c. even as our Adversary cites him he sayes not de VERBO DEI SCRIPTO but de VERBO DEI. The Bishop and Hooker avoid not the difficulty by calling it a supposed Principle amongst Christians For if they suppose this with any ground they must suppose it founded upon Tradition And therefore A. C's Argument has still the same force even in this supposition of a Praecognitum as before For when a thing is admitted as a Principle by both parties in any particular Debate touching Religion 't is presupposed onely as a Praecognitum to that difficulty not as an absolute Prime Principle in Religion and is left in that Order of Priority or Posteriority of Principles which its proper nature requires Wherefore though both the Relatour and Mr. Fisher had supposed Scripture as a Principle agreed on by both parties in order to some further Question depending of Scripture which notwithstanding could not be done in this present Controversie where the Question was about the Priority of Tradition in order of Principles before Scripture yet Scripture is then to be presupposed onely as a Principle to that particular Dispute and cannot be thereby made a Prime Principle absolutely and universally in Faith Suppose for example the Dispute were whether Extream Unction were a Sacrament in this Dispute 't is to be supposed as a Principle granted by both parties that there are some Sacraments But hence follows not that it is supposed as an absolute prime Principle in Religion which neither can nor ought to be proved by other precedent Principles to wit Scripture or Tradition that there are some Sacraments His Lordship confesseth again that Tradition must lead the way like a preparing Morning-light to Sun-shine but then we settle not for our direction upon the first opening of the Morning-light but upon the Sun it self His meaning is that although Tradition must go before yet we ought not to rely upon it as the ground for which we admit Scripture but we are to fix our eyes onely upon the brightness of Scripture it self But I demand how knows the Relatour this Light is rather a Beam then a Dream by which he is deceiv'd by the watchful Enemy of Mankinde who transforms himself into an Angel of Light 'T is true the Scripture is called a Light but 't is like a Candle in a dark Lanthorn or the Sun under a Cloud in regard of all those who deny the Infallibility of the Church and appears in full light onely to them who acknowledge it After some flourishes the Bishop mindes us that there is less light in Principles of Faith then those of Knowledge But A. C. urgeth thus Though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknown in a Science must be primo cognitum needing not another thing pertaining to that Science prius cognitum known before it so if in Faith Scripture be the first and onely Foundation and consequently the first thing foreknown primum praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum needing not any other thing pertaining to Faith prius cognitum known before it This supposed Church-Tradition which is one thing pertaining to Faith could not as the Bishop saith it is and as indeed it is be known first and be an Introduction to the Knowledge of Scripture These are A. C's words pag. 51. not those set down by his Lordship and therefore he had no reason to say he is sorry to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes but had rather cause to employ his sorrow for himself since he could not otherwise avoid the difficulty then by corrupting his words whom he pretends to answer For by omitting the Parenthesis and changing the words he makes A. C. teach not his own but in part the Bishops Doctrine A. C. therefore mistook not at all but prest home his Argument in this manner which the Bishop solves not by saying he consesseth every where Tradition to be the Introducer to the knowledge of Scripture For the primum
praecognitum we seek for is not such a one as the Relatour makes Tradition viz. an Introducer onely but such a one as we may rely upon for an Infallible Testimony in the Resolution of Faith Nay I adde Scripture is not a primum praecognitum even to this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation For if in this Proposition it be suppos'd that Scripture is the Word of God it must also at least implicitely be suppos'd as prov'd by Tradition and consequently both in this and all other Questions Tradition must be the praecognitum and primò cognitum 9. But put case the Bishop held the Scriptures-being the Word of God as a supposed Principle meerly in materiâ subjectâ yet should he not have said absolutely as he doth That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need not to be proved but should have said We are now to suppose Scripture to be the Word of God in order to this Question and are not to prove it But the truth is in this Question of Mr. Fisher viz. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture even as it related to the present Controversie betwixt them Scripture was not to be supposed as a Principle to be Gods Word For the Question then agitated was not Whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation there being no mention of that but onely whether the Creed contained all Fundamental Points And the immediate occasion of Mr. Fishers demanding this Question was this answer of the Bishop viz. That the Scriptures onely not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith Whereupon Mr. Fisher demanded how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are believed sayes Mr. Fisher to be Scripture yet not proved out of any place of Scripture Now 't is manifest that in this Debate Mr. Fisher had Logically right to demand this Question it being a direct Medium and Argument to infringe the Bishops Tenet For by this means his Doctrine was evinced to be false because if there be some point of Protestant Faith not founded in Scripture Scriptures onely are not the Foundation of their Faith Whence it follows that even though the Question had been whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation yet Scriptures in order to that were not to be suppos'd to be the Word of God since the very believing them to be so at least in his principles is a point necessary to salvation which gives right to his Antagonist to disprove his assertion by instancing that Scriptures-being the word of God is not contained in Scripture 10. His Lordship here undertakes a hard task and pretends to make it appear to A. C. how Scripture is a praecognitum even in the strictest sense But behold his reason Scripture is a praecognitum because 't is known in clear light by God and the Blessed in heaven Is not this an invincible argument I am sorry to see him so much mistake the Question For we are not in search after a praecognitum in order to God and the Saints in heaven but in relation to us upon earth to whom it is as much unknown whether God and the Saints see Scriptures to be his Divine Oracles as it is whether the same Scriptures be Gods word or not abstracting from Tradition Is not this in respect of us to bring non-cognita for praecognita Besides what avails it me for the Resolution of my Faith that the Revelation is clear to God and his Saints unless I know it be so who have no other light for its admittance then the Tradition of the Church Having labour'd to prove that Scriptures are the Oracles of God from the clear science God and the Saints have of them which clear Science of theirs is derived by Apostolical Tradition to the Church the Relatour drawes a conclusion quite contrary to his Premises namely that Scripture is to be supposed Gods word and needs no precedent proof If it needs no proof why does his Lordship endeavour to prove it by such a strange kinde of Argument Had he indeed said Scriptures being prov'd by another principle to be the word of God must be suppos'd to be so by all that admit that proof he had said a manifest truth But on the one side to hold it must be prov'd by a further principle and on the other to maintain that it needs not be prov'd at all cannot but seem a strange Vertigo to any Logical head As to his conclusion in these words And therefore now to be suppos'd at least by all Christians that the Scripture is the word of God I answer if he means by now to be suppos'd for Gods word as prov'd such by Apostolical Tradition 't is most true but if he mean 't is to be suppos'd the word of God without any precedent proof in order to us it s all out of joynt and his answer contrary to his own principles 11. Touching the Jewes they had the like proof for the Old Testaments-being the word of God that we have for the New For theirs was delivered by Moyses and the Prophets and ours by the Apostles who were Prophets too And as they that came after received the Old Testament from the Tradition of the Church so do we now And this is it that St. Chysostome affirms We know why By whose Testimony do we know By the Testimony of our Ancestors Which words being spoken without restriction and in answer to the question proposed must of necessity be understood as well of the immediate as prime Ancestors however the Bishop labours by his Gloss to exclude the immediate ones which is incompatible with Reason since the witness that is able to make me know any thing must attest it immediately to me that so I may hear his testimony my self Now the Jewes who liv'd many hundred years after Moyses and the Prophets did not could not hear them immediately therefore Moyses and the Prophets could not give them an immediate testimony And since they had none that witnessed this immediately to them but those of the present Jewish Church who with a most full consent deliver'd what they had receiv'd from those who flourished in the next age before them they could not know that their Ancestors taught it but by those of their present age and consequently it was not their prime Ancestors onely that made them know it as the Relatour would insinuate This is most clearly signified Psalm 77. ver 3. c. where the Children of Israel were to receive the Law and Works of God successively by Generations one immediately from another And the same is also commanded them Deut. 6. ver 6 7 20. viz. that fathers should instruct their children concerning the great Works and Mercies of God c. As to what the Bishop observes touching the word Knowledge which is attributed to the Jews by holy Scripture as also by
driving the Church of Rome to a hard strait that it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it Neither did the Roman Church reject all that Ruffinus writ even in that Book wherein he exprest his Heresie but onely such parts of it as were dissonant to the received Doctrine of the Catholique Church And if one condemned of errour by another may not be cited in any thing wherein he favours the party that condemned him why does the Relatour so often cite our Authours whom he condemns of errours in Faith when they seem to favour him The Bishop having examin'd Bellarmins Authorities in the manner you see returns again to A.C. and the Jesuit telling us in very positive terms that no Jesuit nor any other is able to prove any particular Church Infallible But to this I have often answer'd that it was neither to the Ladies purpose nor ours to dispute concerning a particular Infallible Church it sufficeth that the Pope is infallible at least with a General Council which question as I have often observ'd the Relatour wisely declines and diverts another way namely to an unnecessary dispute with Bellarmin about the Infallibility of the particular Church or Diocess of Rome viz. whether the Roman Clergy can at any time forsake the Pope and his Doctrine or not or whether the Chair of St. Peter can be transferred to another place and the Roman Church upon that account be left subject to errour as being no longer the Sea Apostolique both which are matters of that nature that they do no way engage me to contend with his Lordship about them further then to tell him that they are nothing at all to his purpose nor to the satisfaction of the Lady and seem to have been thrust into his book onely to fill up some vacant pages and to avoid the question which he was obliged but not able directly to answer In the same page I observe the Bishop charges the Romane Church with erring in the Worship of Images in altering Christs Institution in the Blessed Sacrament by taking away the Cup from the people and divers other particulars but because he endeavours not in any sort to prove his charge I presume I may take liberty to answer in a more convenient place to wit where the Bishop disputes formally against them But his Lordship will not part without another fling at Bellarmin he thinks he hath spy'd a great inconsistency in some words of the Cardinal The matter thus Bellarmin lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. § 2. as the Bishop cites him of this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith so long as St. Peters Chair is at Rome sayes 't is A MOST TRUE Proposition but presenty after speaking of it sayes onely PERADVENTURE 'T IS AS TRUE AS THIS viz. the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre At this the Bishop exclaims as at a great absurdity of speech What sayes he A Proposition MOST TRUE and yet but PERADVENTURE as true as another That 's not possible with him But soft and fair What needs so much noise Let 's see what grounds the Relatour has for this Criticisme First he should have reflected that in such expressions as this there is alwayes a latitude of moral sense and meaning to be allow'd even by common right and custom of speaking When I say for example such a man is vir prudentissimus or vir optimus a most wise and most honest man I am not presently thought to prefer him in those respects before all the men in the world nor shall I be counted I hope a lyar though some other men be found as wise and honest as he Bellarmin therefore might have been excus'd with indifferent Judges for saying what he did upon no other ground but this But I shall not here use this plea let the word Verissima be taken in the strictest rigour of Scholastical sense that can be yet may not a Proposition be rightly said most true viz. in its proper Rank and order of such Propositions and yet be but peradventure as true as a Proposition of another and higher rank for certainty or infallibility of Truth 'T is manifest Bellarmin held his first Proposition touching the Popes Infallibility when he teaches the whole Church to be true Veritate fidei for he holds it to be a proposition of Faith but this other touching the Roman Clergies not erring or not departing from the Popes Doctrine so long as the Sea Apostolique continued there to be true onely Veritate Theologiae as other Theological Propositions are True which are not Divinely revealed but meerly by humane Discourse and way of Argument deduced from other Theological Propositions and Principles whose Truth consequently is never so absolutely infallible as that of matters of Faith but onely more or less certain according as the Principles or Propositions whence we deduce them are more or less Infallible and the Deduction of them from such Principles more or less evident and necessary What absurdity then was it for Bellarmin to say this Proposition viz. of the Roman Clergies never forsaking the Popes Doctrine c. is most true meaning in the quality of a Theological Conclusion and yet but peradventure as true as that other viz. of the Popes not erring when he teacheth the whole Church which latter Proposition Bellarmin undoubtedly held to be a Proposition of Divine Faith but did not hold the other to be such Truly just as much absurdity as 't is to say of a little man that in comparison of a Pygmie he is a tall Fellow but in comparison of some Yeoman of the Guard he is but a Dwarf Thus having acquitted my self of what I stood obliged by promise at the beginning of this Treatise I return again to the Bishop in pursuit of his present Discourse CHAP. II. Protestants Schismatiques ARGUMENT 1. No pure Church in the world since the Apostles time if the Roman Church corrupt 2. Petrus de Alliaco favours not the Bishop Card. Bellarmin most falsly quoted by him Almainus Cassander c. not for him 3. Schismes and Heresies in Rome but not in the Roman Church 4. who made the present Schisme Roman-Catholiques or Protestants 5. St. Bernards and St. Austins words rightly urged by A. C. and Bellarmins as wrongfully by the Bishop 6. Protestants though they will have the Church unerrable in Fundamentals onely yet can never be brought to give a list of them 7. Christs Church by inseparable property both Caththolique and Holy THe Relatour is still making personal reflexions upon A. C. Here he will have him troubled again about the form of the Ladies question but I see no reason he had to be troubled whether the Lady askt her question by Be or Was because if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shew'n in her Doctrine
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
Communion that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques as then respectively call'd either for Reformation or such a Free Council as Protestants now do viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever profefsing the name of Christ. Again the Oath which the Bishops usually take does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but onely that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded But I answer first the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come making no exclusive mention of any Secondly the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme had excluded themselves and perhaps durst not venture to come as knowing that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission it being confess'd that no known Heretique or Schismatique hath right othertherwise then by special leave or permission to sit in Council Those Greeks whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope as the Relatour surmizes but expell'd and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope and had right of assisting in the Council as true Bishops of the Greek Church We are told again that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present and not above forty or fifty Bishops and for the west nearer home it reckon'd no more then one English viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph I answer many more were both call'd and expected who likewise came long before the end of the Council and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming which was sufficient Concerning those of our Countrey the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council as he might have been otherwise he would have found beside the Bishop of St. Asaph Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session and divers others As for his Authority or Right to sit there being not sent or deputed by the English Church we answer such Mission or Deputation is not of absolute necessity but onely of Canonical Provision when time and state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope Now 't is undeniable that for some years before the Council ended the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey we cannot give much credit to him in what he affirms either of France or Spain It sufficeth that in diverse Sessions of this Council many Bishops of both these Nations were present and might have been in all the rest had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them The impediment was not on the Councils part and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority Legality or Liberty of it and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats 't is manifest the Council was so full that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils which even our Adversaries themselves account General 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice But to this the Bishop will by no means yield telling us the case is not alike between the said Councils and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects First saith he the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed not to depart from Scripture but engaged to prove what they defin'd by many testimonies thereof whereas the Council of Trent as the Relatour affirms concluded many things simply EXTRA out of all bound of Scripture leaving both its Letter and sense I answer the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture they alledged Scripture for their Heresie they said in effect to the Father 's then what the Bishop and his party say to us now we are sure and we are able to prove that the Council of Nice had not Scripture for them There is therefore no such disparity between them as the Bishop pretends The truth is both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined but neither of them hold it for their onely rule or so made use of it as to reject Tradition for which the Scripture it self is admitted In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius but because Tradition was the principal thing that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side the Arians partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts which Catholiques brought against them and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion against the Catholique Doctrine As to what he addes in the Margent that the whole Church concluded that Scripture was against the Arians and agreeing with the Council of Nice but that the like consent is not that Scripture is for the Council of Trent and against Protestants We answer the like consent of the whole Church both is and was when Protestants first began that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition which is equivalent to it was for the Council of Trent and against Protestants Is it not evident to go no further back then the Year 1500. that
Council till her forbearance therein may be interpreted a Neglect or Refusal to do it Fifthly he scores us out no way how we should go to work to obtain the necessary Concurrence of all Christian Princes to the actual Assembling of this new model'd Council It would be too long to point out all the inextricable Difficulties that attend this uncanonical way of proceeding in Religion recommended by the Bishop A Doctrine so far from being a Remedy against the pretended intolerable failings of a former General Council upon supposition of the whole Churches neglect or refusal to call a Council and examin them that it is highly instrumental to Division both in Church and State giving as good title if not better to any new Body of Sectaries to reform Protestantism when they get power into their hands as it did to Protestants to reform for themselves against the whole Church 4. However the Bishop still goes on harping upon the same string and in lieu of giving us solid Arguments to evince the Truth of what he would perswade viz. that his opinion touching a General Councils possibility of erring in points of Faith is most preservative of peace established or ablest to reduce perfect Unity into the Church he falls into a tedious discourse which he sayes he will adventure into the world but onely in the nature of a Consideration which yet he divides into many entring upon the First with Two very erroneous Suppositions which he layes for the foundation of a tottering Superstructure The one that the Government of the Church is no further Monarchical then as Christ is the Head The other that all the Power an Oecumenical Council hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in its Determination it hath it all from the Universal Body of the Church because the Representative of a Commonwealth hath no more power then what it receives from the Body it represents The first of these viz. that the Church is not governed by one in chief under Christ is a supposition more then once confuted To the second which we have already impugned above we further answer that the Power and Assistance which General Councils have to determine Controversies of Faith so as not to erre in the Determination cannot possibly be communicated to them by the Church but must chiefly proceed from the same Fountain now it did in the Apostles time viz. from the Direction of the Holy Ghost This Spiritual power for the government of the Church being not of Humane but Divine Institution nor proceeding so much from the Natural Wisdome Knowledge Vertue and Abilities of the Ecclesiastical Governours assembled in Council as from the cooperation of the Holy Spirit with them Whereas in a Civil Commonwealth which is of Humane Institution its representative cannot pretend to any other Power then what is derived from the said Commonwealth Secondly the Bishop considers that though the Act that is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the childe of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special Assistance of the Holy Ghost This we no way contradict but adde that this special Assistance of the holy Ghost is so far ever afforded to a Lawful General Council as to render all it s compleated Definitions of Faith Infallible 5. Thirdly he considers that the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour that sayes he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all Assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such an high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Council in matters Fundamental in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike Infallible By this expression alike Infallible the Bishop seems to grant that all the Definitions of a General Council even in Deductions as well as Fundamentals are Infallible and onely to doubt whether they be alike Infallible I see no necessity of graduating Infallibility in the present question since any real Infallibility is as much as Catholique Authors assert in all Decisions of Faith be they Fundamental or remote Deductions in the Bishops sense seeing that as to our obligation of believing them they are alike Fundamental as we have prov'd in the second Chapter Here the Bishop intends to examine the Texts which he sayes Stapleton rests upon for proof of Infallible Assistance afforded to General Councils viz. John 16. 13. I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And John 14. 16. This Spirit shall abide with you for ever And Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you to the end of the world Likewise these which he sayes are added by others viz. The Founding the Church upon the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. and Luke 22. 32. Christs Prayer for St. Peter that his Faith fail not and Christs promise Mat. 18 20. That where two or three are gathered together in his Name he will be in the midst of them And that in the Acts chap. 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us A man would imagine these Texts sufficiently clear in themselves to evince the Truth of the Catholick Assertion touching General Councils but the Bishop is partly of another minde affirming that no one of them does infer much less inforce Infallibility He was loath to say all of them together did not But let us hear how he quarrels them in particular To the first which speaks of leading into all Truth and that for ever he answers ALL is not alwayes universally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth but for ALL TRUTH absolutely necessary to Salvation I reply neither do we averre that it is here universally taken or doth signifie simply all Truth for then it would comprehend all natural Truth and matter of Fact which we deny no less then the Bishop but that it signifies all Truth necessary for the Apostles and their Successors to know for the Instruction and Government of the Church whether expressed or but infolded in Scripture or Tradition As to his limiting the words to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation we say this is but gratis dictum and a meer groundless restriction depending wholly on the Bishops voluntary assertion as we have already shewn It is also clearly refuted by the Context vers 12. where our Saviour having told his Disciples he had many things to say to them which they could not then bear addes immediately as it were by way of Supplement to their present weakness the forecited words that when the Spirit of Truth should come he would guide them into all Truth that is into all those Truths which Christ had to say to them and which they were not as yet in a capacity to bear But can any man imagine Christ had not already
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
't is apparent hee does it only in a lesse proper or Analogicall sense to signifie that by vertue of diuine Assistance and direction such a Conclusion or Definition in regard of precise verity is as infallibly true and certaine as if it were a Prophecy Neither is there any Contrariety in this betweeen Stapleton and Bellarmin for both agree that neither Church nor Council doe publish Jmmediate Reuelations nor create any New Articles of Fayth but only declare and vnfold by their definitions that doctrine which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered Both of them likewise confesse that whether the Principles from which the Church or General Councils deduce their definition haue intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine defined or noe yet the Conclusion or definition it selfe is of infallible verity the holy Ghost so directing the Council that it neuer defines any conclusion to bee of fayth but what is de facto matter reueasd by God eyther in those Principles from which the Council deduces it or at least in some other The Relatours whole Discourse therefore vpon this subiect of Prophecy falls of it selfe to the ground as beeing built vpon a pure I had almost sayd a willfull mistake viz that Stapleton maintaines the Decrees of a Generall Councill to bee Propheticall in a proper sense which hee does not and consequently that it was wholly needless for our aduersary to talke so much of Enthusiasms and tell vs so punctually what Prophecy is what vision and that neither of both are to bee gotten with study and Industry For wee know all this and therfore wee doe not style the definitions of Councils Reuelations or Prophesies or visions or the like but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study and industrie only wee aerre the study and industrie which the Prelats in Generall Councils doe vse for the finding out of Truth is always crowned by God with such success as infallibly preserues them from errour Stapleton goes on and giues vs the reason why a Generall Councill must necessarily bee infallible in the Conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Fayth not of Knowledge and that therfore the Church proposing it to bee 〈◊〉 though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art Meanes or Argument but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost else when wee embrace the Conclusion proposed it would not bee an Assent of Fayth but an Habit of Knowledge To this the Bishop replying seemes to broach a New Doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an Habit of Knowledge To this the replying Bishop seemes to broach a new doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an habit of Knowledg But surely Diuine Fayth is according to the Apostle Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which doe not appeare to wit by the same meanes by which wee giue this assent of Fayth otherwise our Faith would not bee free and meritorious T is true the same conclusion may bee Fayth to one and Knowledge to another according to St. Austin and St. Thomas cited by the Bishop but this must bee vpon different motiues and therfore Fayth as Fayth can neuer bee knowledge which is all that Stapleton vrges The motiues of Credibility then which wee haue for our Fayth doe not by euident demonstration shew the truth thereof though they make it euidently credible in so much as hee would bee imprudent who should refuse to giue his assent So though the Bishop doe truly assert that the Church in all ages hath been able to stop the mouthes of philosophers and other great men of reason when it is at the highest yet this is also true that our sauiour did neuer intend to sett vp a schoole of Knowledge but of Fayth and that Councils in their definitions relie not on any demonstratiue reasons but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost promised to them In like manner the Faythfull ground not themselues on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church but on Gods Reuelation obscurely but certainly and infallibly applyed to them by the Church In the seauenth Consideration the Relatour takes notice againe of a Querie that A. C. made to him viz. if a Generall Council may erre wherein are wee neerer to vnity by such a Council But in stead of giuing a punctuall and direct answer as hee should haue done hee falls a fresh vpon certaine new considerations which hee aduances vpon this subiect whether the Protestant opinion that Generall Councils may erre in defining matters of Fayth or the Catholique opinion that they cannot bee more agreeable to the Church and more able to preserue and reduce Christian peace which in effect is little else but to answer one Querie by many and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth by a gentle turn to lead him back againe through all the Meanders thereof howeuer wee must obserue his Motions 3. His First Querie or Consideration is whether an absolute infallibility bee promised to the present Church or whether such an infallibility will not serue the turn as Stapleton acknowledges I answer no doubt but it will Lett Protestants acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church as that worthy Doctour maintaines and wee shall bee agreed for that matter But the Truth is our Aduersarie does here only confound his reader and wrong the Author hee alledges by not declaring sufficiently in what sense hee speakes For Stapleton in the place cited expressly teaches that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree or Conclusion but also in the Meanes or Arguments and this he calls absolute or exact Infallibility whereas the present Church is only infallible in the Decree or Conclusion and this also it hath by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost yet not by a new Immediate Reuelation Whence it appeares that this Authour is cleere for the Churches Infallibility though hee doe not in all respects equall it to that of the Apostles and consequently that it is not hee but the Bishop himselfe that wriggles in the bussiness vnworthily endeauouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him Bellarmin is vsed no better whose doctrine is cleere that in the Decree or Conclusion a Generall Council is as certaine as the scripture because both are infallible and nothing can bee more certain then what is infallible though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtiues aboue Generall Councils as that it is Gods immediate Reuelation that there not only the Conclusion but Euery thing is matter of Fayth c. which agree not to a Generall Council 4. Howeuer to pass to this second Consideration or Querie wee shall not much quarrel his term of Congruous Infallibility but rest contented if Protestants will acknowledge such an Infallibility in the present Church as is congruous and agreeable to the promises of our sauiour and to the necessities of the Church so as by vertue
may say that Christ hath made two promises to his Church the one to assist her souereign Head and Pastour so as that he shall neuer define any thing to be beleeu'd by all the Faythfull but what is diuine truth The other so to assist Generall Councils or the Representatiues of the Church that they shall neuer erre in the doctrine they determin Now those that affirme the Pope alone or without a Generall Council to be infallible as well as Generall Councils hold these two promises to haue been made by our sauiour and that when the Pope defines in Generall Councils his infallibility proceeds from the latter promise by vertue of which the definitions of Councils confirm'd by the Pope would be infallible although the other promise had not been made as the Council at Hierusalem would haue been infallible by vertue of the infallible Assistance which was promised to euery Representatiue of Christs Church though each Apostle had not been endowed with that prerogatiue The Bishop wonders that they which affirme the Pope cannot erre doe not affirm likewise that he cannot sinne But why does he not wonder too that Christ should giue infallibility in teaching to St. Peter as the Relatour cannot denie but he did and yet not preserue him from those defects for which St. Paul sayth 〈◊〉 was truly reprebensible Could not his Lordship obserue that infallibility in the Head of the Church would be an effectuall meanes to settle Religion confirme the Faythfull suppress Heresies preuent differences in matter of Fayth c. seeing none would oppose the doctrine of the Pope if they held him infallible whereas no such good would accrue to the Church in point of sanctity though the Pope were impeccable and held so to be by all Christians For seeing that Prerogatiue in Christ whome they hold to be their iudge and to haue power to condemne them to euerlasting flames cannot keep them in their duty much less would the Popes impeccability doe it though they did all generally beleeue it Lastly as the infallibility of the Pope is in so many respects profitable for the Church more then his immunity from sin would be so the Assertours of it doe alledge many probable and pregnant arguments from scripture and Ecclesiasticall Writers to proue it but for his impeccability none can be alledged 8. What can be inferred from Pope Liberius his demanding the iudgement of St. Athanasius I cannot see vnless the Relatour had first shew'n that the Pope did this after he had pass'd a definition ex 〈◊〉 in the matter But in his allegation of S. Ambrose he mistaks worst of all The Bishops intent is to shew that the Popes definitions in matters of Fayth are fallible and subiect to errour why because St. Ambrose lib. 1. epist. 83. 〈◊〉 that many did aske his opinion touching the obseruation of Easter post 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae definitionem Episcopi quoque Romanae Ecclesiae after the definition of the Church of Alexandria and also of the Bishop of Rome whereas the context of St. Ambrose makes it cleere that he speakes not of any Doctrinall or 〈◊〉 definitions touching that point which had been long before determined by the Council of Nice but only of such Definitions and Rules for obseruing the precise time on which Easter day fell as by the appointment of the Nicen Council the Bishop of Alexandria was yearly to send to the Pope and the Pope yearly to publish to the rest of the Church That such Astronomicall not Thcologicall Definitions were published annually is manifest from Baronius and the reason was for that though by the decree of the Councill of Nice all Christian Churches of Catholique Communion did celebrate Easter not vpon the Decima quarta mensis primi or day of the Iewish Pasche but vpon the day following yet by reason of the different accompts or computation of time through the various ending and begining of Monthes it fell out that all did not celebrate it vpon the same sunday Wherfore to remedy this inconuenience and reduce the obseruation of Easter as much as might be to a generall vniformity it was order'd by the Councill of Nice that by reason the Egyptians were held to be the most exact and experienced of all other nations in the calculation of time the Bishop of 〈◊〉 in Egypt should take care that the fall of Easter day might be exactly calculated euery yeare by such as were most skillfull in that art and the calculation sent to the Bishop of Rome so seasonably as that he might haue time enough to 〈◊〉 notice of it to all other Christian Churches to the end that Easter might be obseru'd on the same day throughout the whole Church Hence comes the frequent mention of the Cycly and 〈◊〉 Paschales in antiquity and of these only St. Ambrose speakes as is cleere by the whole epistle cited by the Bishop and not of any thing Doctrinall or Dogmaticall touching the question of Easter or anything else The Reader may see if he please Baronius Tom. 3. ad Ann. 325. num 110. 111. and Petauius de doctrin Temp. against Scaliger lib. 2. cap. 57. pag. 205. Also his notes upon Epiphanius in Heres Quarto-decimam Nor will those Prophesies as the Bishop calls them out of 〈◊〉 amount to any iust proofe of the Popes fallibility in the sense where in Catholiques deny it vnless he proue the Popes taught them as matters of Fayth to the whole Church Againe he mistakes by affirming that Pope Alexander the Third with a Councill of three hundred Archbishops and Bishops held at Rome condemn'd Peter Lombard of Heresie and that after he had layn vnder that sentence for the space of thirty six yeares Innocent the Third restor'd him and condemn'd his accusers The 〈◊〉 of the historie is only this After Peter Lombards death there was obseru'd in some of his writings this proposition Christus secundum quod est homo non est aliquid which beeing contrary to the Catholique doctrine touching the perfection of Humane Nature in Christ was indeed condemned by Pope Alexander as the Bishop tells you but was neuer approu'd by Pope Innocent That which Innocent approu'd was only the sayd Peter Lombards doctrine concerning the Trinity against which the Abbot 〈◊〉 had written all which you may read in Baronius and Spondanus his continuation of him in the yeares 1164. 1179 and 1215. Whence it appears that neither part of the Bishops 〈◊〉 concludes any thing against vs. For neither did Pope Alexander erre in comdemning the sayd Proposition of Lombard notwithstanding the Relatour 〈◊〉 and without any reason giuen reproaches him with errour nor yet Pope Innocent in iustifying his doctrine against the Abbot Ioachim for the ones condemnation and the others approbation were of seuerall propositions Alexander condemning a proposition touching the matter of the Incarnation which was neuer repeald by Pope Innocent and Jnnocent approuing his doctrine in the matter of the B. Trinity which was neuer condemn'd by
Pope Alexander How sharp-sighted therfore our aduersarie is in his obseruations against vs appeares by this But seeing these forked syllogismes so Dilommas are sometimes called by Logicians are such Currant Coine with his Lordship it will not I hope be thought vnreasonable if wee pay him one for many Thus then I argue Either the Bishop knew his Relation touching Peter Lombard to be false or he know it not If he knew it not his ignorance in a point wherein he would seeme knowing is hardly excusable and his temerity in affirming without sure ground such a thing as this to the scandall of the 〈◊〉 Pastour of the Church and of a synod of three hundred Bishops and Archbishops by his own confession altogether blameable If he knew it to be false and yet would affirme what he did where is his honestie The like is to be sayd of his 〈◊〉 touching Pope 〈◊〉 and the eight Generall Council defining against Honorius there 's a mistake in it For neither did Pope Honorius really maintaine the Monothelites Heresie nor doe wee maintaine but in a question of Fact as this was viz. whether the sayd Pope had really asserted that Heresie both the Pope and a Generall Council through Misinformation or other Jucidents may iudge amiss The Bishop proceeds asking vs in the next paragraph to this effect that since the doctrine of the Popes infallibility had been so easie a way eyther to preuent all diuisions about the Fayth or to end all controuersies of that nature whensoeuer they should arise why this briefe but most necessary Proposition THE BISHOP OF ROME CANNOT ERRE IN HIS JUDICJALL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FAYTH is not to be found in letter or sense in any stripture Council or Father of the Church I answer first that in the sense wherein Catholiques maintaine the Popes infallibility to be matter of necessary beleese to all Christians it is found for sense both in scripture Councils and Fathers as wee haue already sufficiently proued in prouing the infallibility of Generall Councils of which he is the most principall and most necessary member Secondly euen in the sense wherein the Bishop with perpetuall impertinency 〈◊〉 it viz. as it signifies his personall infallibity without a Generall Council who knowes not that the maintainers of that opinion alledge both scriptures Fathers and Councils for it probably at least as may be seen in their 〈◊〉 disputations vpon that subiect To omitt scripture wherein wee confess there is no express mention of the Pope but only of S. Peter in whose Right the Pope succeeds what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doth not that Council seem to say in effect that the Pope is infallible when vpon reading of his 〈◊〉 to them in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Heresie the 〈◊〉 Assembly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out with acclamation and profess that St. Peter who was infallible spake by the mought of Leo and that the Pope was Interpreter of the Apostles voice what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doe not the Fathers in that Council seeme to attribute infallibility to the Pope when they acknowledge that St. Peter was Head and Foundation of the Church and that he STILLL 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 causes of Fayth in and by his successours the Bishops of 〈◊〉 Doth not St. Hierome seeme to make Pope Damasus infallible when speaking of him and his particular Sea he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. vpon this Rocke J know the Church which can 〈◊〉 faile or fall away from the 〈◊〉 Fayth is built Did not St. Austin doe the same with the whole Council of 〈◊〉 when beside their own suffrage which was but of a particular Prouinciall Council they requir'd nothing but the 〈◊〉 sentence only to the full and effectuall condemning of the Pelagian Heresie doth he not speake also to the same effect When he 〈◊〉 that the succession of the Roman Bishops is that very Rock of the Church against which the proude Gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile I might adde St. Cyprian formerly alledged as also St. Leo Pope Innocent the first Pope Gelasius St. Gregory with others but I feare it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their owne cause Beside hauing hitherto wholy declined the defence of that assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope infallible in and with Generall Councils only I haue no obligation to engage further in that business nor can I thinke it any way expedient to make the entrance into Catholique Communion seeme narrower to our aduersaries then in truth it is and of necessity must be maintayn'd to be CHAP. 22. The Bishops vaine endeauour to finde out Errours in Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope ARGVMENT 1. The Councils of Florence and Trent err'd not in defining the Priests intention to be necessary to the validity of Sacraments 2. Why the Popes Confirmation is necessary to the definitions of Generall Councils 3. Transubstantiation no errour nor any such late or new doctrin as the Relatour pretends without shew of proofe 4. Communion under one kinde no errour but the allowed practice of the Church in Primitiue times 5. Inuocation of Saynts no errour but the doctrine and practice of the Fathers 6. Not derogatory eyther to the Merits or Mediation of Christ our Sauiour 7. Adoration or worshiping of Images as allowed by the doctrine of the Church neither Idolatrie nor Errour 8. Optatus both partially and impertinently alledg'd by the Bishop 9. Priuate abuses in this or any other matter not iustly imputable to the Church 10. Cassander qualis vir 11. Llamas misunderstood by the Relatour 1. THe Bishop here and in the Following paragraphs brings in a fresh charge of errours in matter of Fayth committed by such Generall Councils as the Pope confirmed The first in the endictement is that of the Priests Jntention which the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirm'd by the Pope defin'd to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament which the Bishop thinks is an errour But before he goes about to proue it to be such he forgets not to tell vs that the Popes infallibility of which wee talke so much is a vayne and vseless thing Why I pray His reason is for that before the Church or any particular man can make vse of it that is be settled and confirm'd in the truth by meanes thereof he must eyther know or vpon sure ground beleeue that he is infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be beleeu'd of him as he is St. Peter's Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the Relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to haue such certaintie as is sufficient to ground an infallible beleefe Why because the knowledge and beleefe of this depends vpon his beeing truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly baptised none of all which according to our principles can
himselfe holds that both matter and 〈◊〉 are essentially necessary and that without them the Sacrament were voyd But who sees not how easie it is for the Priest especially in Country-Churches and villages amongst poore ignorant people and in priuate howses too when he is call'd to Christen children ready to dye Jsay how easie it is for the Priest if he will be so wicked to vitiate something pertaining to the Essentialls of Baptisme without beeing perceiu'd which if he does the Baptisme is voyd Secondly as to his pretended inconuenience that then people should not be absolutely and infallibly certaine that they are truly Baptis'd is not Morall assurance or such as is lyable to no iust cause of doubting and suspecting the contrary sufficient or can any man in his witts pretend to more assurance then this touching his Baptisme Such Metaphysicall and rare cases therfore as the Relatour seems to put ought not to trouble sober men much less to fright them out of the true beleese of the Church they only prouing that wee cannot by ordinary course without speciall reuelation haue absolute and infallible certainty of our Justification and Saluation which is no way contrary to Catholique Fayth but most consonant to it As for those wandring Thoughts the Bishop speaks of wee easily grant they doe not nullyfy the Sacrament because they well stand with a virtuall intention which in the generall doctrine of our diuines is sufficient to the essence of the Sacrament Virtuall intention is when the Priest really does operate or celebrate the Sacrament in vertue of an express intention which he had to doe it but now at this or that instant hath not by reason of some distraction of minde or that his thoughts are vpon some other thing which wee may illustrate by an example or two A Seruant vpon command of his Master vndertakes a iourney When he first receiues the command and is bidden to prepare himselfe no doubt but in obedience to his Master he hath an express intention to doe what he is commanded which probably continues till his first setting out and some time after But vpon the roade he meets with frends lights vpon company falls into discourse c. so that he hath no longer that express intention vpon the business he goes about which at first he had but yet he still goes on his way by vertue of his intention to obey his master A labouring man that is hir'd to a dayes-worke whilest he sings or talks to his fellow-labourers hath not any express intention of getting money yet certaine it is he labours all day in vertue of an intention to get money though grown so flacke that he cannot perceiue it So is it in the administration of Sacraments and in all other actions of like nature wee doe not alwayes expresly intend the worke wee doe for that 's morally impossible but wee doe alwayes virtually intend it if euer wee went seriously and deliberately about it vntil wee doe expresly and actually cease or intend the contrary For seeing the hand moues not without some impulse of the will nor the will act at any time without some motiue represented by the vnderstanding 't is cleere in all these cases that the motiue which was first represented to the will and by which the wil was first of all moued doth stil remaine and operate vpon the will though so obscurely and vnperceiuedly by reason of other obiects interuening that it can hardly be discerned to moue vs. Let the Priest therefore be neuer so much distracted in his thoughts and wander at the instant of applying the matter and forme of the Sacrament if he begun the action not with an intention to deride the Church but to doe what is vsuall for Christs Ministers to doe in the like occasions he makes a true Sacrament by virtue of that first intention though he does not cleerly perceiue it Now as for the Neapolitan Bishop wee answer that the most Eminent Sforza Palauicino late of the Societie of IESVS and now Cardinal in his elaborate and learned tomes of the historie of the Council of Trent obserues that the Council in their definition touching the Priests intention in the Sacrament aym'd only at the condemning of that errour of Luther which denyes all vertue to the Sacrament and auerrs it to haue its full effect from the Receiuers Fayth alone so farre as though the whole action were done in mockage and derision of the Church yet it should be to him that receiues it a true Sacrament This doctrine the Council expresly condemn'd as indeed it deseru'd beeing so apparently vnsuitable both to the wisdome of our Sauiour and the Decorum of his Church contrary to the vniuersall apprehension of the Faythfull and repugnant to the nature of all other humane actions But as for Catharinus who is the person the Relatour meanes by the Neapolitan Bishop who as his Lordship sayes disputed so learnedly against the common opinion in the Council of Trent the Cardinal aboue mention'd is cleere of opinion that the Council decreed nothing against him because he deny'd not an intention to be necessary in the Sacrament but only explicated the thing differently from the common way of schole-men into which dispute neither the Council of Florence nor Trent thought it necessary to engage but defin'd in generall terms that in the Minister of the Sacrament an intention was requir'd faciendi quod facit Ecclesia of doing what the Church doth which Catharinus did not deny 2. Thus haue wee I hope sufficiently answer'd the Bishops first Charge of Errour against Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope Before he brings in the second he presents the Reader with such a quaint subtletie against the Popes Right to confirme them and the necessity wee maintaine of their beeing so confirm'd by him that wee cannot well auoid taking notice of it Thus then he argues Noe Councill is confirm'd till it be finished and when 't is finished euen before the Popes confirmation be putt to it eyther it hath erred or it hath not erred 〈◊〉 it hath erred the Pope ought not to confirme it and if he doe 't is a voyd Acte for no power can make Falsehood Truth If it hath not erred then it was true before the Pope confirm'd it so his Confirmation 〈◊〉 nothing but his own assent Thus the Relatour But I answer wee must distinguish in the business A Generall Council makes a definition in matter of Fayth eyther with the ioynt consent of the Pope or without it By defining with the Popes ioynt consent I vnderstand that eyther the Pope be personally present in the Council and concurre with it which happens but seldome or that his Legats doe it following the Popes instruction in eyther of these cases the definition of a Generall Council is vnquestionably infallible By defining without the Popes consent I meane when neither the Pope is present in the Council nor haue the Legats that are present any instruction from
saluation he would be pleas'd to grant our requests Wee beleeue and confess that Christ alone is our Redeemer and that he and none but he by the iust price of his most precious Bloud hath paid our ransome and fully satisfy'd the iustice of God for out sins all that wee desire of the Saynts eyther when wee mention their merits to God or simply beg their Intercession with God for vs is only that they would ioyne with vs in prayer to God and that God would be pleased for their sakes whose works were soe gratefull to him to bestow on vs the fauours wee aske but wee still acknowledge that what wee aske is principally to be granted vs for the merits of Christ according to the Council of Trent Sess. 25. which defines that all onr praiers and requests made to the Saynts are to be made for and through his merits for which reason also wee vsually conclude all our prayers with mention of our Sauiour in these or the like words PER CHRISTVM DOMINVM NOSTRVM Mow if the Saynts merits or good works and their receiuing an Eternall reward for them in Heauen be not iniurious to the fullness of Christs merits why should eyther their beeing heard by reason of their sayd works when they pray to God for vs through Christ or our desire that they may be heard for them be thought iniurious to Christs merits And if it be no iniury to the force and vertue of Christs Intercession that the Saynts doe pray and interceede for vs through Christs merits why should it be accounted an iniury to his Passion that the Saynts merits or Good works be held to haue force to procure good things from God both for themselues and vs yet not otherwise then through the merits of Christ and for his sake Jn vaine therfore doth the Relatour goe about to peruert the sense of the prayers of the Church in the Missal which with all the Sophistrie he can vse he shall neuer be able to shew but to be most consonant to Christian doctrine and pietie And where as Bellarmin is tax'd for calling the Saynts our Redeemers it is no fault in the Cardinal but a rashness in the Bishop For both Bellarmin himselfe professeth they can only be so called in a large sense and improper manner of speaking and confirms his assertion by a like passage of St. Paul who sayes of himselfe 1. Cor. 9 23. that to all men he became all things that he might SAVE some The Apostle if he had pleas'd might as well haue sayd that he might haue REDEEMD some for that had been no less agreeable to his meaning and yet who can deny but it is euery way as proper to Christ to be a Sauiour as to be a Redeemer He taxes the Cardinall likewise for styling the Saynts Numina which word he will haue always to signifie eyther God himselfe or at least the Power of God or an Oracle of God Be it so But in the first place Ifeare the Relatours information deceiu'd him for in the place he cites there is not the least shadow or intimation of any such matter his whole discourse there beeing of images and not of the Saynts Secondly what matter were it if the Cardinal had so called them Doth not the Bishop himselfe acknowledge one signification of the word Numina to be the Power of God and can it be thought so impious and vnlawfull to style the Saynts Powers of God seeing it is vndenyable that God vseth them as the instruments of his Power and by them worketh many powerfull and strange effects Are not the Angels for this very reason called Powers of God and the Gospell it selfe the Power of God to Saluation But this is the Bishops custome now and then to haue a fling at Bellarmin whether he hit or miss 7. Against the Adoration of Images the Bishop is very bitter so as to tell vs the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganisme in the practice of it and driuen to scarce intellible subtleties in her servants writings that defend it The Modern Church of Rome is thus and thus to blame sayth the Bishop But J pray tell vs wherein doe the Modern and Ancient Church of Rome differ touching this point What does the Council of Trent teach concerning the worship of Jmages more then the second Council of Nice did which was celebrated little less then nine hundred yeares agoe and therfore surely not to be accounted Modern The Council of Nice though it decreed that the Jmages of Christ and his Saynts should be had in veneration and due reuerence outwardly giuen to them yet it expresly forbad they should be worshiped with Diuine worship or such as was proper and due to God alone Doth the Council of Trent or Roman Church now teach otherwise heare if you please the Prelats themselues speake in that Council The Holy Council say they commands all Bishops and all others who haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faythfull people teaching them that the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saynts are to be bad and retained especially in Churches and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them not that one should beleeue any Diuinity to be in them or Power for which they are to be worshiped or that one should aske any thing of them or put confidence in them as anciently the Gentiles did who placed their hope in Idolls but because the honour that is done to them redounds to those whome they represent So that by the Images wee kiss and before which wee vncouer our heads and prostrate our selues wee worship Christ and his Saynts whose similitudes they are which doctrine say the Fathers abouesayd is established by the Decrees of Councils especially of the second of Nice And a little after they adde If it happen at any time that the histories or passages of holy Scripture be express'd or figur'd out in pictures whensoeuer it may be thought expedient for the vnlearned lett them be taught that the Diuinity or God himselfe is not painted therby nor can be seen with bodily eyes nor represented by any colours or figures J thought it not amiss to sett down the words of this Council at large as beeing sufficient if duly considered to stop our aduersaries mouthes and silence their calumnies against vs for euer in this particular without any recourse to subtleties and nice distinctions as the Relatour pretends wee are forc'd to doe For what is here but plaine and easie Behold in the first place express caution and prohibition that wee attribute noe kinde of Diuinity to Images but only worship them with such honour and veneration as is due to them Behold in the second place all Bishops with others that haue the cure of soules vnder them strictly requir'd to teach the faythfull no more then this plaine and secure doctrine and that they take care to preuent as
communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament how is it possible that a man should be moued to this beleefe by the common consent of Catholiques Lutherans and English Protestants seeing only these last agree in this point That which the Relatour adds to this is no less absurd He cites 〈◊〉 a Catholique diuine as teaching that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques as if he had ouercome them with their own arms asking A. C. what he can say to this and seems to admire the force of truth which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie But J answer what matter is it though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation were that sufficient ground to say that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour or noc point of Catholique Fayth because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation very true it is all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church is an article of Fayth which may neither be doubted of nor disputed yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined by an express act A Protestant versed in scripture would thinke it a sinne if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent yet J conceiue he will hardly say that it is Simply necessary to Saluation or that he is bound absolutely Speaking to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation But the truth is Suarez speaks to no such purpose as the Bishop alledges him He confesses indeed that the manner of explicating the change or conuersion that is made in the B. Sacrament which Schoole-men vse is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles but as for the conuersion it selfe or Transubstantiation it is most euident that he holds it for a point of Fayth which to deny were Heresie His words are these in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes Secundò infero etc. Secondly Sayth he J inferre that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as also the absense of bread yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body he falls into Heresie because the Catholique Church hath defined and doth teach not only the two first but also this last what say you to this Protestants you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church was it truth and honestie thinke you that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour They that please to consult the Author himselfe in the place alledged will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it but a farre different thing as wee haue sayd aboue His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent whome he censures forsooth of tediousness and for making as he conceiues an intricate and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion a thing which in the Relatours opinion neither Diuinity nor Philosophy euer heard of till then But let the indifferent reader be Judge Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition and becomes a liuing and animate part of man not because the soule which informs it is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd but because the same soule which was in the body before begins now to be in the new matter so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion the bread is turned into the Body of Christ not as if Christs Body were properly speaking produced vnder the elements for it was preexistent before and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense be sayd to be produced but because it was not there before and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms by vertue of Consecration Lett any man iudge whether this explication be not farre more intelligible then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence First of all he affirms with Bishop Ridley and other Protestants cited by him that the true reall naturall and Substantiall Body of Christ that very Body which was born of the Virgin which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead is truly really and Substantially in the B. Sacrament and yet for all this denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation that is in effect he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament yet neither with the Substance of bread nor without it He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time and yet stiffly denies with all Caluinists that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once Is not this to say in effect that Christs Body really is only in Heauen and no where else and yet to acknowledge that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth But who is able to vnderstand and reconcile these speeches His saying that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth by Grace and the like is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence which in no true sense can be called reall In my opinion Zuinglius Peter Martyr and those of the Sacramentary party deale faric more candidly in this point who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence both name and thing then the Bishop and some other Protestants alledged by him who confess the name but deny the thing 6. The Catholique Authors which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter are grossly eyther misunderstood or misexpounded by him For 't is euident when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane for the most part that which is by desire and deuotion only when for want of opportunity or some 〈◊〉 reason wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament but yet doe vse most of those affections and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God and our B. Sauiour which wee are wont to practise when wee doe really communicate Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament where he is present not like a bodily substance but rather like a spirit that is whole in the whole consecrated host and whole in euery part of it But sure
the force of A. Cs. maxime viz. that 't is safest in order to Saluation to take that way which both parties agree in which imports not any agreement whatsoeuer indefinitely speaking but determinately and specially such an agreement or an agreement so farre betwixt aduerse parties concerning such a point or thing as to acknowledge the beleefe or doing of it doth not destroy Saluation or doth not hinder the parties beeing sau'd that does it Had due notice been taken of this it would haue sau'd him the trouble of bringing this and so many other instances to noe purpose of which more in due place Jn the meane time wee conceiue the disparity betwixt the case and argument of Petilian and A. C. so manifest that it needs no further illustration 10. But here the Relatour growes into choler taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉 vntruth and such as an ingenuous man would not haue spoken for no other reason but for saying there is confessedly noe perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church J answer whateuer the Bishop granted or granted not in express terms to A. C. touching this matter 't is certaine that from what he doth confess it really and necessarily followes that there is no perill of damnation per se loquendo or precisely by liuing and dying in the Roman Church For first as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errours of our Church but cannot discern them those he professedly exempts from perill of damnation if they conforme themselues to a religious life Secondly he grants that such others of the Roman Church as doe euen 〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and liue accordingly are not to be deny'd Saluation Whence I argue If according to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary nor inuoluntary superstition excludes a Papist from possibility of beeing sau'd it is no lowd vntruth nor indeed so much as a mistake to say that in the Roman Church there is confessedly noe perill of damnation in the sense abouesayd that is meerly by liuing and dying in that Communion What he adds after this of some amonge vs who wish the superstitions abolished which they know and pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not and would haue all things amended that are amiss were it in their power if he meanes that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion or that they would haue any thing amended in the Churches publique Authoriz'd doctrine he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion it beeing contrary to Catholique Fayth to beleeue that any such errours or uperstitions can be taught by the Church and he might as well suppose if he had pleas'd that those are Protestants who goe to Church and ioyne with Protestants in exteriour seruice only to saue their estates or for some other temporall ends though they hold the Protestant Tenets contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church for no better then Heresies and would if it were in their power much more willingly heare Mass then common prayer when they goe to Church Neither can he be a Catholique who prayes to God to forgiue his errours in any matter or point defined by the Church for that implies a beleefe or doubt that the Church may haue erred in defining some doctrine of Fayth which according to vs is absolutely inconsistent whith true Fayth no more then wee presume he could haue been thought a Christian or Protestant in the Bishops opinion who should aske God forgiueness for beleeuing some thing deliuered in Canonicall scripture Jn answer to A. Cs. Assertion wherby he preferrs both for number and worth those who deny there is any perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church before those who affirm there is the Bishop that he might more easily confute the passage first of all cunningly diuides it and endeauours to shew that number alone is no sufficient ground of truth Who sayes it is Not A. C. J am sure who as cleerly as he could ioyn'd both together worth to number as a necessary supplement and concluds what he intends ioyntly from them both Now this term worth comprehending not only eminency of power and authority but also of vertue learning zeale prudence sanctity etc. can any man doubt but those who haue the greater number and worth on their side are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth then those who haue incomparably less or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them His long marginall allegations therfore which mention number only serue to no purpose but to amuse And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of vs say that our Fayth rests vpon the number or worth of men as the Bishop will needs insinuate but vpon Gods infallible veracity and authority number and worth of men beeing only motiues of credibility to induce and direct vs prudently to determin to which of the two parties wee are to giue credit when they teach vs contrary doctrines A. C. thought it so euident a thing that those of the Catholique beleefe in the points controuerted betwixt vs and Protestants doe incomparably exceed those of the contrary partie as the Bishop would neuer haue call'd for a proofe of it as indeed it needs none For if wee compare those spread ouer the whole face of Christendome for the last thousand yeares a space of time commonly granted vs by our aduersaries who beleeu'd as wee beleeue and neuer dream't of any perill eyther of schisme Heresie or sinne by liuing and dying in the Roman Church with those few that since yesterday as it were began to dissent from vs and pretend there was perill of schisme c. by liuing and dying in the sayd Church wee shall finde these in worth and number iust nothing in regard of the other So that in truth the Relatour himselfe had he well consider'd it should haue blusht at his own extrauagant obiection you haue not yet prou'd your partie more worthy for life or learning then the Protestants and not bid his aduersary blush for speaking the truth For in this case who sees not that all true Christians who for a thousand yeares together liu'd in the world were and are of our party II. But let vs consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. Cs. maxime that 't is safest to follow that way in Religion in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Saluation His first is taken from the article of our Sauiours descent into hell The Church of Rome sayth he and the Church of England dissenting parties doe agree that our Sauiour descended into hell and that hell is the place of the damned Therfore according to A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue that our Sauiour descended into the place of the damned But this
eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and resule of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church disfusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church difsusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their desinitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a mans own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or auow that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doc they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt no otherwise then euery true Proposition is or may be sayd to be infallible that is hipothetically and vpon supposition only For surely no true Proposition quâ talis or soe farre as t is suppos'd or know'n to be true though but by some one person can deceiue any man or possibly be false Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique Quicquid est quando est necesse est esse Euery thing that is has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing since it cannot but be so long as it is And is it not thinke you a worthy prerogatiue of the Church to be thus infallible in her definitions Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much
giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and result of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church diffusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church diffusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their definitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a his own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or 〈◊〉 that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doe they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny such definitions and yet tells vs he must submitt both himselfe and grounds to the Church in that or an other Council Eyther his grounds are really such as he speaks of viz. 〈◊〉 certaine and demonstratiue or only seemingly such If only seeming such what is it but to giue power to euery Phanatique and presumptuous spirit to oppose Generall Councills and contradict their definitions whensoeuer he fancies to himselfe to haue an cuident text or conuincing argument against them how foolish and fallacious soeuer it be If reall and true demonstrations how can he that knows them submitt himselfe and his grounds to a Generall Councill Can any thing be more absurd and vnreasonable then that a true demonstration and a true iudgement grounded vpon it should yeeld to a fallible Authority such as that of all Generall Councils is suppos'd to be Againe who shall assure vs that the Generall Councill to which he submitts shall not desine the same article or errour which was defin'd before In this case eyther he is bound to beleeue the article de nouo defin'd or he is not If he be not bound to beleeue it why doth the Bishop teach that notwitstanding a man may constantly deny the definitions of a Generall Councill vpon monstratiue grounds yet he is bound to submitt himselfe and his grounds to an other Councill if it be lawfull for him to oppose the second Councills definition as well as the first 's where 's his submission If he be bound to beleeue as the second Council defines 't is euident he is bound to preferre a fallible Authority before a true demonstration and know'n to be such which is not only absurd but also impossible 8. As to that text of St. Austin which the Bishop cites againe in his margent touching the emendation of former Generall Councils by latter wee haue already answer'd the obiection taken from it
also does the same with St. Chrysostome yea once againe wee challenge our Aduersaries to nominate if they can any one ancient Father or Christian writer that euer noted this an errour or priuate doctrine in Origen that he taught Purgatory or that in any sort intimates him to haue been the Authour or inuentour of it and yet the world knowes Origens errours and priuate opinions were diligently noted by Antiquity But this 't is sure enough our Aduersaries can neuer doe and therfore lett noe man thinke it vnreasonable in vs that wee still confidently presume and assert that this doctrine hath no beginning assignable and consequently according to St. Austins rule aboue mention'd is to be thought an Apostolicall Tradition 14. Jt is therfore firmly to be beleeu'd by all Catholiques that there is a Purgatory yea wee are as much bound to beleeue it as wee are bound to beleeue for instance the Trinity of Incarnation it selfe if by this manner of speaking be mean't only that wee can noe more lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine beeing once know'n by the Churches definition to be reueald by God and pertaining to the Catholique Fayth then wee may deny or question the sayd Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation though wee confess there is not the same necessity or obligation for all men to know the one as the other or to haue explicite beleefe of one as of the other Nor can J doubt but the Bishop himselfe would haue confess'd in the sense aboue mentioned that wee are as much bound not to disbeleeue any thing euen of least moment contain'd in Scripture when wee know it to be there contained as to beleeue the sayd Articles and as this is farre from beeing esteem'd blasphemy by any good Christians so is the other if rightly vnderstood CHAP. 26. The infallible certainty of Christian Fayth confessed yet subuerted by the Bishop ARGVMENT 1. Why noe matter of doctrine defind by Generall Councils may be deliberately deny'd or doubted of 2. A. C. doth not teach that euery Catholique Priest in the Roman Church able to preach is infallible 3. Jnfallibility in teaching how rightly inferr'd by him from the Holy Ghosts Assistance 4. To what intent our Janiour left the Prerogatiue of infallibility in his Church 5. No certain meanes in our Aduersaries principles to be assur'd that a Generall Councill erring in one point does not erre in all 6. The Relatour by allowing priuate persons to examin the definitions of Generall Councils allowes them in effect to iudge and censure them 7. Posteriour Councils no less necessary for the infallible determination of controuerted points of Fayth then the fowre first 8. Infallible assurance requisite in superstructures as well as points Fundamentall 9. The insufficiency of the Relatours reason to the contrary 10. No help for him from St. Thomas and our Authours touching the extent of necessary points 11. His nugatory descanting vpon words 1. THus much for Purgatorie 'T is time now that wee return againe to A. C. who giues his Aduersarie a why no man may deliberately doubt of much less deny any thing defin'd by a Generall Councill viz. because euery such doubt is a breach from the one sauing Fayth in that it takes away infallible creditt from the Church so as the diuine reuelation beeing not sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence breed infallible Fayth in vs. Jn answer whereto the Bishop insists wholy vpon principles already confuted viz. that deliberately to doubt and deny what is defined by Generall Councils doth not take away infallible creditt from the whole Church the contrary whereof wee haue often shew'n in this Treatise Likewise he tells vs the creditt of the Catholique Church is safe so long as she is held infallible in things absolutely necessary to Saluation which absolutely necessary things neither himselfe nor any body else could euer yet resolue vs what they are or how to know them And beside seeing he teaches that all points absolutely necessary to Saluation are plainly sett down in the Creed and Scripture how is it possible wee should haue need of the infallible Authority of the Church now or hereafter to beleeue any such points of Fayth Againe if the whole Church may erre in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation noe reason can be giuen but it may also erre in deliuering and interpreting any particular texts of Scripture which containe matter or doctrine not absolutely necessary which supposed it necessarily followes that wee cannot beleeue with certaine infallible and diuine Fayth any thing deuer'd in Scripture it selfe saue only a very few points to witt the chiefe and Fundamentall Mysteries of our beleefe Lastly seeing the whole Church consists of all particular members which can neuer be found out and consulted with by any person and that consequently there can be no sufficient assurance had of what they all hold as absolutely necessary to Saluation how is it possible wee should be mou'd by their Authority as the Bishop here supposeth to beleeue all or any points of Fayth absolutely necessary to Saluation 2. The Relatours next worke is to carp at the gloss which A. C. giues to those words of St. Paul Rom. 10. 15. how shall they preach etc. that is sayth A. C. how shall they preach infallibly By which manner of speaking yet he does not meane whateuer the Bishop imputes to him to make euery Priest in the Church of Rome that hath learning enough to preach an infallible Preacher He was not ignorant that the natiue and immediate sense of those words compar'd and ioyn'd with the fore-going how shall men beleeue vnless they heare etc. is only to signifie that for the Propagation of the Gospell 't is necessary there should be Preachers and that noe man ought to take that office vpon him vnless he be sent that is ordain'd and called by Allmighty God He was not so simple as to thinke euery priuate Preacher infallible You will say then why does he comment vpon the words how shall they preach etc thus how shall they preach INFALLIBLY vnless they be sent from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit J answer the reason hereof was because the word preach which the Apostle vseth doth not signifie sermons only but absolutely the announcing or publication of diuine doctrine by all such as are lawfully appointed to publish it and in what manner soeuer it is necessary for beleeuers that it be publish't and announced to them Now there beeing confessedly a twofold annunciation or manner of publishing diuine doctrine to Christians the one priuate and meerly ministeriall which is perform'd by priuate and particular Pastours to their particular and respectiue flocks the other publique and authoritatiue viz. of the Pastours of the whole Church assembled together in Generall Councils and this latter in regard of the publique and vniuersall benefitt which comes by it the more important of the
certainty nor meanes of infallible certainty less in the Church for the teaehing and beleefe of any points at all euen of the most absolutely and vniuersally necessary In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride who will not 〈◊〉 their private iudgements where with good conscience they may and ought Wee may easily diuine whom he meanes but are sure he could not exempt himselfe and his adherents from the sting of that censure though he endeauours it by saying 't is noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errouts Very good But wee aske what Sect or company of Heretiques in the world vses not this plea Doe not euen the Artans Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselues vrge it as earnestly against Protestants as Protestants doe against vs So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the conuocation of English Prelates and Clergie adherent to them should 〈◊〉 Dictatours in the business of Religion ouer all Christendome beside and determin vncontroulably what is what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous errour I see not what his discourse here signifies But whereas himselfe obiects errour to three Generall Councills at once viz. those of Lateran Constance and Trent yea such errour as in his opinion gaue a greater and more vrgent cause of breaking the vnity of the Church then any pride of men wee shall not for the present taxe him with want of modesly wee only tell his followers 't is as yet only saying without prouing and they cannot but acknowledge that in point of morality 't is oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man barely to deny a crime that is obiected to him but it is neuer sufficient nor euer honest barely to obiect it Beside wee haue much more reason to think that he a priuate Doctour is mistaken in his censure then that those three Generall Councils were deceiued in the matters of Fayth which they defin'd 10. His acknowledgement that it is noe worke for his pen to determin how farre the necessary points of soule-sauing Fayth extend would haue been ingenuous enough had he not made it intricate and meander-like by applying it to different persons but kept it in its absolute nature viz. what is simply necessary for all in which sense he hath treated the point all this time Now sure it the determining this maine and as I may say Cardinall difficulty be not worke for his pen neither was it of any right worke for his pen to draw vpon himselfe and his party a necessity of at least beeing call'd vpon and requir'd to doe it who counsells them contrary vnto and without the example of any Orthodox Christians to restraine the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controuersies of Religion to they know not what or to such points as they neither doe nor euer will be able certainly to know and determin For as 't is that only which brings our vnanswerable demand vpon them so till they haue answer 〈◊〉 and cleerly determin'd what those simply or absolutely necessary points are in which the Church cannot erre wee must proclayme they leaue all Christians that well consider what and vpon what grounds they beleeue vnsatisfy'd vncertaino and doubtfull how farre or in what matters they are oblig'd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue what is declar'd by the Church to be diuine truth and yet withall teach them that they neither can with true infallible Fayth nor ought nor lawfully may belecue her in all she teacheth because in much of it she cyther erres or is subiect to erre and teach them falsehood yea gross and dangerous errour in stead of diuine truth which if it be iust or reasonable in our Aduersaries to doe or tending to any thing else but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the mindes of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader iudge Nor can he to any purpose help himselfe here by what St. Thomas and our Authours teach concerning points precisely necessary necessitate medij For neither will the Bishop stand to that scantling as he calls it that is he will not dare to teach there are no more Fundamentall points in his sense then our Diuines teach there are points necessary necessitate medij nor is the case alike For that doctrine hath place only where inuincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express beleefe whereas here both sufficient proposition and actuall knowledge of all articles defin'd by the Church is supposed so as noe Jgnorance can be pleaded in excuse of the partie that erres and yet they teach that of these articles all equally so farre as concerns the Church defin'd and propounded some may be refused but all the rest must of necessity vnder paine of damnation be beleeu'd with diuine and infallible Fayth neuertheless giuing no certaine rule to know eyther the one or the other Is not this Daedalus-like to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth and there leaue them 11. Jn the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else but dally with his Reader in the equiuocation of words Catholique Roman Church particular vniuersall one holy Mother-Church etc. vpon all which he makes a briefe descant at pleasure But wee answer much is sayd nothing prou'd nor so much as offer'd to be prou'd to any purpose The Church of Rome in the sense that wee maintaine and haue often declar'd is not only one but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that wee maintaine she is holy all her doctrine defined all her Sacraments all her institutes are holy and tend to Holiness In the sense that wee maintaine she is Catholique or vniuersall both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine with continued succession of Pastours There is no Christian Countrie in the world where there are not some that acknowledge the Popes Authority and profess the Roman Fayth Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Fayth which is contrary to what the Catholique Church hath euer taught Lastly wee haue shewed that euen in the Primitiue Church or first siue-hundred yeares after Christ the Faythfull owned subiection to the Roman Church and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine Wee acknowledge the Church of Hierusalem is sometimes by Antiquity styl'd a Mother-Church and the Head of all other Churches But wee say withall 't is meerly a title of honour and dignity giuen her probably for this reason viz. because the first Foundations as it were of Christian Religion were layd there by the preaching and Passion of our Sauiour and because from thencë the first sound and publication of the Gospell was made by the Apostles to all the Churches of the Gentiles It was noe title of Authority and power properly so called as it was in the Roman Church Jf our Aduersaries thinke it was let them shew what Authority or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Church or Bishop of Hierusalem exercised ouer all other Churches eyther before it was
and contrary opinions in Religion that I see nothing in the world more likely to animate and encourage them still to persist in their obstinate refractariness and to cast off euen all sense of due obedience and reuerence of the Churches authority 7. But the Bishop beeing so well content as he tells vs with men's opinion of his weakeness it will be no hard worke for his friends to excuse his ouer-confidence in this particular when they please vpon that ground only of pride he is not willing to be taxed For which reason A. C. hauing told him as most iustly he might that he could not proue any errour or superstition to be in the Roman Religion but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himselfe or some of his fellowes to be iudge of controuersies and taking authority to censure all for superstition and errour that suites not with their fancies he complaines as beeing in this deeply censur'd by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appeare I answer his own confession sufficiently shewes that in the very next lines where he sayes indeed if I tooke this vpon mee J were guilty of great pride This that is to make himselfe or some of 〈◊〉 fellowes iudge of controuersies or to endeauour to proue errour and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority vpon him he confesses were great pride Well But how does he cleere himselfe of the charge How does he conuince the Roman Church of errour and superstition otherwise then by taking this authority him and making himselfe or some of his fellows Iudge of Controuersies To say only as he does I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councill iudge of conerouersies by and according to Scripture will not serue his turn by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the generall practice of Protestants hitherto none but himselfe and some of his fellowes shall be iudge whether the Councill be lawfull and free or not For if eyther it consists of such as fauour not their opinions or will not obserue such conditions as he and his fellows thinke good to prescribe though neuer so contrary to the Canons and legall proceedings of former Councils wee are sure enough it will neuer be acknowledg'd for free or lawfull by our Aduersaries Againe standing to the Bishops principles and the common practice of his partie expounding them who but himselfe and his fellowes shall be iudge whether a lawfull and free Generall Councill hath defined or doth define by and according to Scripture Doth not the Relatour himselfe expressly teach § 38. num 15. that if a Generall Councill shall forget it selfe and take vpon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and actually beleeu'd by all neither it nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians euery priuate Christian he sayes num 23. may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils Likewise doth he not tell vs Ibidem num 24. that it is no pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours defin'd by Councils instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran Constance and Trent as hauing made erroneous definitions in matter of Fayth what is this in effect but to teach that noe man is bound to admitt the doctrine defined by Generall Councills meerly for the Authority of the sayd Councills and if not who sees it not manifestly to fallow that cuery priuate Christian that is in other terms himselfe or some of his followes is by our Aduersarie made iudge of Controuersies and allowed to take the Authority vpon them of censuring all for superstition and errour that suites not with their priuate iudgement which is the thing his Lordship but euen now confessed to be great pride But the Relatour will proue from the testimony of A C. himselfe that he is not guilty of pride in this particular viz. of making himselfe Judge of Controuersies etc. For why A C. taxes him for giuing too much power to Generall Councils and binding men to a strict Obedience to them euen in case of errour Therfore sure sayth he most innocent I am of the intolerable pride which he is pleas'd to charge vpon mee J aske is this testimony of A C. true or not If it be not true how can he from a false testimony inferre his own innocency If it be true viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine doth really binde men to a strict obedience to the definitions of Generall Councills euen in case of errour how grossly doth he contradict himselfe when he sayes ' tir noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours euen of Generall Councills and teaches that a priuate man vpon iust grounds may both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils This surely is in effect to deny both internall and externall obedience too to Generall Councils For if wee may deliberately doubt where is internall obedience If wee may constantly denie where is the externall Doth he not also teach Ibidem num 23. that a priuate Christian may not only consider and examin the definitions of Generall Councils both for his own and the Churches satisfaction but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine in such manner as the whole Church shall be oblig'd to call an other Generall Councill to consider of the matter etc How can this be done without expressing dislike or shewing some externall disobedience to the precedent Councill lett our Aduersarie if they please shew how But wee haue already chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subiect To as little purpose is it for him to plead that be submitts his iudgement in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church But that this is a false pretense wee haue all along in this treatise demonstrated but more particularly chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds saying that he submitts vpon new and necessary doubts to the iudgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councill Fairly spoken Vpon new and necessary doubts he will submitt not otherwise But wee must know in the Bishops sense and according to the principles already aduanc'd and resolutely insisted vpon by him noe doubts are necessary but such as concern matters Fundamentall in Fayth that is as he perpetually explaines himselfe absolutely necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all Christians for Saluation So that in all other points of doctrine eyther determin'd and defin'd already or hereafter to be determin'd and defin'd by the Church he does vpon the matter openly profess that he will not submitt to the iudgement of a Generall Councill but follow his own priuate opinion though contrary to it Now what is this but to take vpon him to be iudge of controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills and to censure for superstition and errour what suites not with his priuate fancie 8. But our Aduersarie would haue A.C. consider how iustly all
infallibility of iudgement in teaching and power of iurisdiction or gouernment ouer the whole Church-Wherfore seeing as they suppose 't is manifest from this text that an Apostleship must always be in the Church and that noe other Ecclesiasticall Pastour can with any probable pretense lay clayme to that office but only the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters successour they conclude that the successour of St. Peter must of necessity haue those two 〈◊〉 of Apostleship vested in his person that is he must be infallible in his doctrine and haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church So that it could not haue been counted a meere begging the question in A.C. had he alledged this text expressly in proofe of the Popes infallibibility which yet the Relatour himselfe cannot affirme that he did And 't is of it selfe cleere enough that A. C. alledges it to proue the continuall succession of Pastours and doctours in the Church who haue brought down the vnchanged Fayth of Christ from the Apostles to our dayes this beeing one part of the proposition he had layd down and by consequence was to proue and none of his other marginall allegations viz. Matth. 16. 18. †18. 18. Luc. 22. 32. looking that way but only at the infallibility of Generall Councills or of the Popes Pastorall iudgement in them which was the second part This succession of lawfull Pastours A. C. auerres it apparent in the Church of Rome and cannot be shew'n in the Protestant Church The Bishop not beeing able to deny but a continuall succession of lawfull Pastours is rightly concluded from this text has this only to answer that 't is not necessary that this succession should be personall in any one particular Church Roman or other Admitt it were not necessary what doth this help the Bishop or his party Protestants are farre enough from shewing any succession for themselues eyther in a particular Church or in the Church vniuersall And the scope of A. Cs. argument here beeing only to exclude or barre Protestants and with them all other Nouellists and Sectaries beside from beeing eyther in whole or in part the true Church of Christ it serues his turn well enough that they can shew no such personall continued succession at all for thence 't is conuinc'd they are noe part of the true Church which 't is confess 't must haue alwayes such a personall succession of lawfull Pastours somewhere or other in some Church or other handing downe the vnchanged Fayth of Christ in all ages from the Apostles to the end of the world and if our Aduersaries doe pretend to such a succession lett them shew it But then secondly I say though it appeares not precisely by this text alone that the abouesayd succession should be personall in any one particular Church yet seeing 't is certaine our Sauiour did chiefly radicate and fown'd this succession in him that was to be the chiefe of these Pastours to witt St. Peter and in the line of those that were perpetually to succeed him of necessity it was to be more eminently visible and perpetuall in 〈◊〉 and them then in any other Wee confess also that if St. Peter had continued as by his first institution he was only vniuersall Pastour of the whole Church and had not been particular Bishop any one citty or Diocess his successours would haue succeeded him only in his vniuersall charge But seeing besides this St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed Bishop of that Sea and that his successours in the vniuersall Pastourchip haue likewise alwayes hitherto succeeded him in that particular charge viz. as Bishop of Rome per accidens at least and de facto though not absolutely and by vertue of any diuine institution it comes to pass that this succession of Pastours is now determined vnto a particular Church and is as visible perpetuall vninterrupted in a particular Church as it is in the Church vniuersall and so must necessarily continue vntill St. Peters successours shall cease to be Bishops of that particular Church For till they doe the Pope wheresoeuer he chances to liue or dye is still true Bishop of Rome and by vertue of his beeing so the succession of lawfull Pastours founded vpon him is still vninterrupted in the Roman Church In this then and in noe other sense doe wee maintaine the succession of lawfull Pastours to be local or determined to a particular place or Church Nor is it by any thought so absolutely necessary as that if eyther the citty of Rome should be quite destroyed or wholly possess 't by Jnfidells or by any other accident made vncapable of beeing any longer the Sea of St. Peters successour and therevpon the Apostolique Sea be remou'd from thence to some other citty that therfore the succession it selfe wherby the Gouernment of the supreme Bishop or Pastour of the Church is perpetuated should faile or be broken off Neuertheless it cannot be deny'd but the Fathers who in this point looke vpon the principall and adiunct as one thing that is vpon the vniuersall Pastourship as connex't and as it were fix't to the particular Diocess of Rome doe cleerly make the locall and particular succession of the Bishop of Rome a signe and marke of the true Church Witness St Jrenaeus reckoning vp the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Pope Eleutherius who sate in his time and testifying that by this succession all Heretiques are confounded And if the same Father mentions the like succession in some other Churches of Asia as the Relatour vrges yet it is with manifest deference to the Church of Rome to which he there professeth that all Churches or the Faythfull from all parts of Christendome must haue recourse by reason of its more powerfull principality Witness likewise St. Austin who in confutation of the Donatists opinions and practises makes a Catalogue of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Anastasius who was St. Austins contemporary auerring that same series or succession of Bishops to be the Rocke against which the gates of Hell preuaile not and finally by way of reproach telling them that in the whole order of that succession there was not one Donatist Bishop to be found Wee might adde nor any Protestant Other Fathers you may finde to this purpose cited by Bellarmin 'T is true Vincentius Lirinensis makes noe speciall or distinct mention of this note of continuall succession contenting himselfe only to name Antiquity vniuersality consent But is it not manifestly inuolued in the two first at least it cannot but be thought so as Vincentius explicates himselfe Lett vs hold sayth he that which hath been beleeu'd by all euery where and alwayes Is not this in effect to teach a continuall succession of Pastours and doctours euer deliuering the same Faith without doubt what is alwayes deliuer'd must be deliuer'd by continuall succession But wee are told the succession mean't by the Father is not tyed to place or persons only but is tyed as
all parties as could be page 233 The Summons general and exclusive of none that had right of Suffrage Ibid. No Oath taken by the Bishops but what was Canonical and of more then a thousand years use in the Church Ibid. The Summe of it Ibid. Some English Catholique Bishops present in that Council page 234 Want of Deputation from the English Clergy no just impediment to their Sitting and Voting there Ibid. For number of Prelates this Council more Full then some of the four first Ibid. The Prelates unanimous in their consent to all things defined by it Ibid. No material Disparity betwixt the Council of Trent and that of Nice page 234 235 237 The consent of the Church at the time of the Council of Trent as much against Protestants as at the Council of Nice against the Arians page 235 The Italian Bishops no prejudice to the Councils Liberty page 236 What the Popes Interest was at the Council of Trent page 236 237 The Bishops there neither overaw'd nor byassed by the Popes Interest page 237 Will or Testament CAtholicks in no sense maintain that Christ dyed Intestate or without a Will page 214 FINIS The Author doth desire the Reader to correct these following Errata with his Pen. PAge 11. line 48. for the Articles still read the Miters still page 16. line 4. for this supposition read his supposition p. 18. at these words Some modern Protestants beginning the Paragraph adde the figure 5. and p. 19. at these This I evidence adde the figure 6. p. 50. l. 23. ending the Paragraph there wants the interrogative point Ibid. l. 33. for strangeis r. strangers p. 64. l. ult for standing r. standing p. 103. l. 5. for of our r. of ours p. 238. l. 38. for Shismatique r. Schismatique p. 244. l. 18. for have have r. have p. 253. l. 39. for Naziazen r. Nazianzen p. 257. l. 5. for cuinces r. evinces Ibid. l. 10. for pronuncing r. pronouncing p. 259. l. 28. for as lawfully r. lawfully p 260. l. 16. for lawfull assembly r. awful assembly p. 265 l. 1 2 3. deleantur all these following words To this the replying Bishop seems to broach a new Doctrine THAT THE ASSENT OF FAITH MAY BE AN HABIT OF KNOWLEDGE p. 267. l. ult in the margin for ch 8. 2. r. ch 8. 20. p. 269. l. 18. for difine r. define p. 270. l. 3. for enery r. every Ibid. l. 12. for else nothing r. nothing else Ibid. l. 29. for erronious r. erroneous Item l. 12. in the margin for Laicis r. à Laicis p. 271. l. 36 for Sacrament r. a Sacrament p. 275. l. 4. for ke r. he p. 276. l. 35. for don r. done Ibid. l. 44. for notes r. votes p. 277. l. 1. for this r. his p. 278. l. 35. for day r. Sunday Ibid. l. penult for Cycly r. Cicli p. 279. l. 6. for Quarto-decimam r. Quarto-decimani Ibid. l. 8. for Avsntinus r. Aventinus p. 280. l. 14. for Stripture r. Scripture Ibid. l. 33. for mought r. mouth Ibid. l. 38. for stilll iveth r. still liveth Item l. voce ult for thta r. that p. 285. l. 48. for schole-men r. School-men p. 287. l. 44. for nonc r. none p. 292. l. 13. for Cristianity r. Christianity p. 293. l. 12. for our r. our Ibid. for the r. the Ibid. l. 16. for Mow r. Now Item l. 23. for interceede r. intercede p. 294. l. 10. for intellible r. intelligible Ibid. l. 34. for Images with a full point read Images with the latter part of a Parenthesis p. 297. l. 2. in the margin for 36 286 r. 36. pag. 286. Ibid. l. 6. joyn 1564. num 26. to the words ad Ann. l. 5. p. 298. l. 5. for intruction r. instruction p. 299. in the Argument of chap. 23. mend the pointing and for confess it Safe r. confess it safe p. 300. at the beginning of the Chapter adde in the margin § 34. p. 304. l. 5. for Divine Faith necessary r. Divine Faith is necessary p. 305. l. 13. for sure r. so sure Ibid. l. 31. for the r. thee Item l. 38. for in us to r. in us to p. 306. l. 41. for assigns the r. assigns thee p. 307. l. 42. for Gods words r. Gods word p. 309. l. 30. for Christ body r. Christs Body Ibid. l. 42. for tediousness r. tediousness p. 313. l. 15. for boued r. bowed Ibid. l. 13. for then she r. then shee p. 322. l. 9. in the Argument mend the pointing and for doctrine and r. doctrine and p. 327. l. 12. for Diviunity r. Divinity p. 331. l. 19. for therenhile r. therewhile Ibid. l. 40. for condem'd r. condemn'd Ibid. l. 42. for particular r. particular p. 337. l. 27. for aniversary r. anniversary Ibid. l. 37. for the General r. the sixth General p. 338. l. 45. for Fonndation r. Foundation p. 340. l. 22. for infallible assurance r. fallible assurance p. 343. l. 1 15. for writtings r. writings p. 344. l. 31. for I answer r. In answer Ibid. l. 46. for in evident r. inevident p. 347. l. 15. for tells r. tell Ibid. l. 47. for points in his r. points in his p. 352. l. 20 for well-grounden r. well-grounded p. 355. l. 25. for lawfully soever r. lawful soever p. 356. l. 20. for giving r. given Ibid. l. 28. for and and r. and p. 357. l. 30. for Hereticks r. Heretick p. 360. l. 5. for Ancients r. the Ancients p. 363. l. 6. for plumby r. plumbi p. 365. l. 16. for 1 c. 3. r. 1. Cor. c. 3. p. 369. l. 34. for of his holy r. of this holy p. 370. l. 16 for nature proceed r. nature to proceed Ibid. l. 24. for reast r. rest Item l. 45. for souls r. the souls p. 371. l. 32. for contempory r. contemporary p. 373. l. 25. for dever'd r. deliver'd p. 376. l. 46. for Fundamental points r. Fundamental and not-Fundamental points p 378. l. 5. for stongly r. strongly Ibid. l. 21. for General Council r a General Council p. 380. l. 24 for treahs r. treats p. 382. 1. 5. for man r. may p. 388. 1. 2. for sut r. sit p. 390. the citation § 38. num 27. in the margin must be brought down to the beginning of the Chapter Ibid. in the Argument 1. 9. for 〈◊〉 lawful r. lawful by p. 397. 1. 42. for her root r. her own root Ibid. 1. 43. for in own r. in her own p. 399. 1. 25. for Eccles r. Ecclus p. 404. 1. 30. for fallow r. follow p. 406. 1. 32. for this own r. his own p. 409. 1. ult for universa r. universality p. 411. 1. 1. for to the r. of the Ibid. 1. 43. for hane r. have p. 412. 1. 19. for Schims r. Schisms In the Preface p. 5. 1. 19. for shipt r. slipt Ibid. p. 6. 1. 7. for beside read aside § 1 2. § 3. num 2. pag. 3. § 18. num 5 § 3. num 3. pag. 4. § 3. num 3. 4 5 6 7
that God spake them which we could never elevate our hearts to believe with Divine Faith but by the Testimony of Gods Church which gives us a full assurance of his Revelation Thus then the Church being supernaturally Infallible in all her Definitions of Faith will be a sufficient ground to ascertain us of those Holy writings which God by unwritten Tradition revealed to the Church in time of the Apostles to be his written word For if her Definition herein be absolutely infallible then what she defines as reveal'd from God to be his written word is undoubtedly such insomuch that Christians being irrefregably assured thereof by the Churches Infallible declaration believe this Article with Divine Faith because revealed from God who cannot deceive them that Revelation being the onely formal object into which they resolve their Faith and the Churches Assurance the ground to perswade them that it is infallibly a Divine Revelation or Tradition The Churches Definition therefore is like Approximation in the working of natural causes to wit a necessary condition prerequired to their working by their own natural force yet is it self no cause but an application onely of the efficient cause to the subject on which it works seeing nothing can work immediately on what is distant from it Thus Gods Revelations delivered to the Church without writing were and are the onely formal cause of our assent in Divine Faith but because they are as it were distant from us having been delivered that is revealed so many ages past they are approximated or immediately applyed to us by the Infallible Declaration of the present Church which still confirming by her doctrine and practice what was first revealed makes it as firmly believed by us as it was by the Primitive Christians to whom it was first revealed So a Common-wealth by still maintaining practising and approving the Laws enacted in its first Institution makes them as much observ'd and esteem'd by the people in all succeeding Ages for their Primitive Laws as they were by those who liv'd in the time of their first Institution Hence it appears our Faith rests onely upon Gods immediate Revelation as its formal object though the Churches voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that formal object without it By which Discourse the Bishops Argument is solv'd as also his Text out of Aristotle For seeing here is no Scientifical proof per principia intrinseca there can be no necessary and natural Connexion of Principles evidencing the Thing proved as is required in Demonstrative Knowledge the thing it self which is believed remaining still obscure and all the Assurance we have of it depending on the Authority of Him that testifies it unto us Lastly hence are solved the Authorities of Canus cited also by his Lordship who onely affirms what I have here confessed viz. That our Faith is not resolv'd into the Authority of the Church as the formal object of it and that of pag. 65. where he contends that the Church gives not the Truth and Authority to the Scriptures but onely teaches them with Infallible Certainty to be Canonical or the undoubted Word of God c. the very same thing with what I here maintain The Churches Authority then being more known unto us then the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their Prerogative above the Church For being Gods Immediate Revelation they require a greater respect and reverence then the meer Tradition of the Church Whence it is likewise that our Authours do here commonly distinguish Two Sorts of Certainty the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other ex parte subjecti The first proceeds from the Clearness of the Object the other from the Adhesion as Philosophers call it of the Will which makes the Understanding stick so close to the Object that it cannot be separated from it This latter kinde of Certainty hath chiefly place in Faith a thing unknown to Aristotle Whence it is that when we believe we do adhere more firmly to the Articles of Faith then to any Principle whatsoever though evident to natural reason which firme Adhesion of ours is grounded partly on the Greatness and Nobleness of the Object and partly on the importance of the matter which is such that our Salvation depends upon it For that Immediate Revelation namely the Scripture being in it self of so much greater Worth and Dignity then the Churches meer Tradition doth worthily more draw our affection then the other notwithstanding the other be more known to us and the Cause of our admitting his Thus we have shew'n that we hold not the Churches Definition for the formal object of Faith as the Relatour by disputing so much against it would seem to impose on us though our present Faith 't is true relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten word of God which is the Formal Object Wherefore when we say we believe the Catholique Church we profess to believe not onely the Things which she teacheth but the Church her self so teaching as an Infallible witness and the contrary we shall never believe till it be prov'd otherwise then by saying as the Bishop here does it were no hard thing to prove By what hath been said it appears that there is no Devise or Cunning at all as the Relatour would have it thought of us either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our Adversaries party But they must pardon us if we preferre the general Interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extoll it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living Infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other then the Present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applyed to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the Assistance and Direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. The Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church This being the Substance of our Doctrine concerning the Resolution of Faith as we have osten intimated 't is evident the cunning of the Device the Bishop speaks of is none of ours but his own while he falsly chargeth us that we finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman Church whereas in points of Faith we ever resolve them finally into Gods word or Divine Revelation though we must of necessity repair to the Catholick Church to have them Infallibly testified unto us But
of the Church in Fundamentals is most unreasonable For if a man ask you why you believe all those points which you hold for Fundamental for example the Resurrection of the Dead and life everlasting your answer will be because they are agreeable to the Doctrine and Tradition of Christ. And if you be asked how you know them to be so you will no doubt produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental points But if he ask you a third time by what means you are assured that those Testimonies do make for you or are indeed the Words Sentences and Works of Christ you will not then have recourse to the Testimonies and Words themselves that is to the Bible but your final Answer will be you know them to be so and that they do make for you because the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much to you from Tradition and according to Tradition which is to prove Idem per Idem as much as we And if the said Separatist further enquiring about the precedent Authorities of Scriptures Councils Fathers Apostles and Christ himself while he lived on Earth shall ask why such Fundamentals are believed upon the sole Authority of the Present Church as the last Testimony Infallibly assuring that those Fundamental Points and all the precedent Confirmations of them are from God 't is evident the Bishops party has no other way to avoid a Circle but by answering they believe the Scriptures Councils c. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church as the Infallible Organ Ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us Which Infallibity must come from the Holy Ghost and be more then Humane or Moral and therefore must be truly 〈◊〉 and proceed from Gods most absolute and Divine Veracity in fulfilling his Promises as from its Radical Principle and from the Operation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate Cause preserving the Church from errour in all such points Thus we are easily got out of the Circle leaving the Bishop still tumbling himself in it For we do not finally rest on the Present Church as consisting of men subject to errour as his Lordship vainly suggests Nor do we rest upon the Motives of Credibility as the Formal Object of our Faith but as inducing us to rely on the said Church ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us and is consequently Infallible Whereas the Bishop does but dance in a Round while enquiring for some Infallible warrant of the Word of God he thus concludes pag. 66. 'T is agreed on by me it can be nothing but the Word of God which must needs end in an apparent Circle as proving Idem per Idem And whereas immediately after he runs on prolixly in Distinguishing between Gods written and unwritten Word as though he would make the latter serve for Infallible proof of the former he never reflects that the said latter viz. Gods unwritten Word does necessarily stand in as much need of proof as the former Now as concerning the Authority of the Church of which the Motives of Credibility do ascertain us 't is not necessary that it be esteem'd or stiled absolutely Divine as the Bishop would have it yet as to this purpose and so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self I mean in respect of the precise Infallibility and absolute veracity of whatsoever it Declares and Testifies to be matter of Divine Faith though in many other respects we do not deny but the Authority of the Church is much inferiour to that of Scripture For first the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth because there not onely every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believ'd by all that know it to be a part of Scripture but in the Definitions of the Church neither the Arguments Reasons nor Words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but onely the Thing Declared to be such Besides the Church has certain limits and can Define nothing but what was either Reveal'd before or hath such connexion with it as it may be Rationally and Logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before Revealed Moreover the Church hath the Receiving and Interpreting of Scripture for its End and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it Hence it is that Holy Scripture is per Excellentiam called the Word of God and Divine whereas the Testimony of the Church is onely said by Catholique Divines and in particular by A. C. IN SOME SORT or IN A MANNER Divine By which manner of speaking their intention is not to deny it to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility but onely to shew the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church Adde that although we hold it necessary and therein agree with our Adversary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God upon DIVINE Authority yet standnig precisely in what was propounded by Mr. Fisher pag. 59. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture there will be no necessity of Defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine For if it be but Infallible by the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost it must give such Assurance that whatever is Defined by it to be Scripture is most certainly Scripture that no Christian can doubt of it without Mortal Sin and shaking the Foundation of Christian Faith as hath been often Declared And the immediate reason why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely Infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church has Defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be Reveal'd or taught by Divine Authority this also must be so revealed and consequently no Authority less then Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith Now it is to be remembred and A. C. notes it pag. 49 50. that the Prime Authority for which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which moves us as the formal Object of our Faith to believe that Scripture is the Written Word of God and the Definition of the Present Church assuring us Infallibly that there is such a Tradition applies this Article of our Faith unto us as it does all the rest whether the Voice or Definition of the Present Church in it self be absolutely Divine or no. Neither can there be shew'n any more difficulty in believing this as an Apostolical Tradition upon the Infallible Declaration of the Church then in believing any other Apostolical Tradition whatsoever upon the like Declaration His
builds the Catholique Church upon the Faith onely and not upon the Person of St. Peter professing that Faith But first this assertion of the Bishop is refuted by the words of St. Cyril himself who calls the Faith upon which he sayes the Church is founded c inconcussam firmissimam Discipuli Fidem the invincible and most firm Faith of Christs Disciple which words clearly include St. Peters Person with his Faith For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm but onely in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it We our selves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peters Shoulders but upon his Faith viz. as 't is constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person and the person of his Successors as occasion requires Secondly 't is no less contrary to the words of Holy Scripture Matth. 16. 18. I say unto thee Peter Thou art A ROCK and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church c. where 't is plain that by these words This Rock Christ meant no other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the preceding words Thou art a Rock For our Saviour spake in the Hebrew or Syriack Language Thou art CEPHAS which signifies a Rock and upon this CEPHAS that is upon this Rock will I build my Church The same is in the Greek Translation For even there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisies a Rock as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the Catholique Translators of the New Testament who follow the vulgar Latine Translation render it thus Thou art PETER and upon THIS ROCK will I build my Church yet have they noted that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our Blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word to wit Cephas which signifies a Rock when he made that promise to Saint Peter To make this plain by an instance drawn from our own affaires Suppose Matthew Parker presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied with John Scory Miles Coverdale William Barlow Jobn Hodgskins c. his Associates and Consecrators as Mr. Mason will have have it should have addressed themselves to the Queens Presence-Chamber to kiss her hand and the Queen should have asked them Quid dicitis vos de Filiâ Henrici octavi what say you of the Daughter of Henry the Eighth and Matthew Parker as chief among them answering according to the then-newly-enacted Belief Tu es Elizabetha Supremum Caput Ecclesiae c. Thou art Elizabeth Supream Head of the Church of England if the Queen thereupon should have return'd him this gracious Answer Et ego dico tibi TU ES PRIMAS super HUNC PRIMATEM aedificabo Ecclesiam meam And I say to thee Thou art Primate and upon this Primate I will build my English Church had this I say happened would any one have been so simple as to doubt whether by hunc Primatem this Primate she meant any other then Matthew Parker to whom onely she then spake Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referr'd to the Confession of St. Peter For that being a remote Antecedent mention'd onely in the verse before and Peter or Rock the immediate mention'd in one and the same verse with hanc Petram the words in question had our Saviour understood by hanc Petram This Rock not St. Peter himself but the Confession he made of Christs Divinity he should not have said super HANC Petram but super ILLAM Petram not upon THIS Rock will I build my Church but upon THAT Rock viz thy Confession because I say that was the remote Antecedent mention'd in the former verse and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour Super hanc Petram c. Seeing therefore our Saviour sayes not That but This Rock he must be understood according to strict rules of Grammar by the Demonstrative hanc or This to mean the immediate or next Antecedent viz. St. Peter himself not that which was further off viz. his Confession of Christs Divinity I adde that if our Saviour had meant St. Peters Confession onely without his Person he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And saying Thou art Peter AND upon this Rock c. but he should have us'd the Conjunction Discretive or Exceptive But saying Thou art Peter that is a Rock in name BUT upon that Rock of thy Confession will I build my Church Wherefore seeing our Saviour doth not so speak but uses the Conjunction Copulative And he plainly tyes his speech to the Person of St. Peter to whom onely he spake in the words immediately precedent and this as necessarily as the subsequent And in the next following sentence AND to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. doth shew the said words or sentence to belong to St. Peter onely Beside what coherence do you think our Saviours discourse will have if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peters person onely and the middle of a quite different thing Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion that he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different maner from that which the Church of Rome doth now adayes And therefore sayes he either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome Infallible or else the Church of Rome this day reckons up more Books in the Canon then heretofore she did If she do so then she is changed in a main point of Faith viz. the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible But this Argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing For though it should be granted that the Catholick Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon then she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could prove no errour in her unless it could be likewise shew'd which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those Books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine and Canonical For as now she defines some Truths which in former times were left under dispute without the least shadow of errour so without errour may she now admit some Books for Canonical and Divine Scripture which before she left under dispute that is so undeclared by her for Canonical that Christians were not obliged to receive them for such Books which now after her Declaration they are obliged to do What he says here of the Church of Rome will not I conceive be found very pressing viz. that she is driven to a hard strait for using the Authority of her Adversary meaning Ruffinus to prove her Infallibility For though it should be granted that Ruffinus was an Adversary of the Romane Church yea a condemned Adversary rejected and branded by her as the Bishop speaks yet certainly this is so far from
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