defined by the Church were Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation that is whether all those Truths which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes The one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self that not onely the disbelief of it when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express Knowledge and Belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti in regard of the matter which they contain But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti onely conditionally that is by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formall object or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense is a thing so manifest that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability thought it his onely course to divert it according to his ordinary custome by turning the Difficulty which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality or necessity derived from the formall Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that point to the materiall Object that is to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the formall object whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation The Major is evident For to refuse to believe Gods revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition For though his Lordship say he grants it not yet for the present he sayes that though it were supposed he should grant that the Church or a lawful General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamental that is as we have proved necessary to Salvation Supposing therefore that the Church and a lawful General Council be taken in this occasion for the same thing as he affirms they are saying in the beginning of num 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general and a General Council which is her representative and admitting this he proceeds in his argument Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre I prove the Minor thus Whosoever refuses to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre refuses to believe that which is revealed from God But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre Ergo Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God The Major is evident ex terminis For if the Authority which testifies it is revealed from God cannot erre that which it testifies to be so revealed is so revealed The Minor is the Bishops supposition viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre as is proved Ergo c. And this I hope will satisfie any ingenuous Reader that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation as Mr. Fisher took it Yet to deal freely with the Bishop even taking Fundamental in a general way as he in this present Conference mistakes it for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion it is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal object or Infallible Authority propounding them though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain Whoever deliberately denies or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point delivered as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church For whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other Now I subsume But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church erres Fundamentally Ergo c. This Subsumptum is evident For if he believe none at all he neither believes God nor Christ nor Heaven nor Hell c. with an Infallible Divine Christian Faith and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine Infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous or fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority It is manifest that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point there can be no Infallible Faith of
any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
disputes which properly and directly question matters fully establish't by the Authority of the Church His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him recurrs to a second much weaker then the first For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spake he denyes it to follow thence that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith But against this I thus argue out of St. Augustin All those points the disbelief whereof shakes the Foundation are Fundamental in Faith But all the points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is defined by the Church are such as the disbelief of them shakes the foundation Ergo all points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is Defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith If he distinguish the Major that they shake some foundation of our Religion but not every foundation I disprove him thus Whoever shakes the foundation St. Augustin speaks of which is the Church shakes consequentially every foundation of our Religion This I have above proved because nothing can be infallibly believed when the Churches foundation is shaken But the denial of points defined by the Church shakes the Foundation St. Augustin speaks of that is the Church as the Bishop now supposes foundation to be taken Ergo the disbelief of points defined by the Church shakes every foundation of Religion His proving that some things are founded which are not Fundamental in Faith is very true for St. Pauls Steeple is well founded yet is no Fundamental point in Faith but as little to the present purpose as can be for who ever asfirmed that all things founded even upon the Authority of the Church are Fundamental in Faith and as little concludes that which follows about Church Authority For I have already proved that the Authority of the Catholique Church in defining matters of Faith whereof onely we now treat as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is either Divine in it felf to wit as informed with that Assistance or so necessary for the giving infallible assent to Divine Revelation that no man rejecting it can give an infallible assent to any point of Christian Faith For seeing upon that Authority only we are infallibly certified that the Articles of our Faith are revealed from God if in any thing we oppugne the firmness of that Authority we cannot believe infallibly that any one of them is revealed from God Though therefore it were granted that Church-Definitive Authority were not simply Divine yet is it so necessary to salvation that if it be rejected it destroyes salvation which is to be Fundamental in our present debate CHAP. 3. A Continuation of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. All Definitions of the Catholique Church concerning Doctrine Infallible and by many of the learned held Divine 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several wayes 3. NO MANS opinion confuted by his Lordship Bellarmin miscited 4. The Pope alwayes included in the Church and Councils 5. A. C's words cited by halves 6. How the Churches Definition is said to be her Foundation 7. A. C. corrupted the second time 8. Vincentius Lirinensis falsified thrice at least 9. Stapleton and Bellarmin good Friends notwithstanding the Bishops endeavour to make them jarre IN the first place we grant what is here set down viz. that Things may be founded upon humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith for we say nothing that hath any shadow of contradicting this But our Assertion is that those Things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church because this is according to St. Augustin to shake the Foundation Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority Definition Declaration or Determination use what tearm you please of the Church are Fundamental to wit in respect of the formal object of Gods revelation contained in them as we have often said 1. Now concerning what is added that full Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply Divine I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from Gods Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that This or That is revealed by God but onely the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith This Discourse may be granted I say and yet the Church be denyed to be of Divine Authority notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be tearms Convertible And Stapleton whom the Bishop cites in the Margin is farre from denying it as would have better appeared if his words had been fairly cited For I finde him thus to write Si quaeratur quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus quia DEUS PER ILLAM loquitur If it be asked why the Church is so certain a witness of Truth we answer because God speaks by her Thus he Now if God speaks by the Church certainly she is of Divine Authority The same doctrine we finde elsewhere taught by him Deum per Ecclesiam loqui non ex solo Ecclesiae testimonio sed ex ipsis maximè Scripturis Fidei Symbolo ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat That God speaks by the Church is most certain not onely by the Testimony of the Church but by the Scriptures themselves the Greed and the common perswasion of Christians The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church that no erring Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in general Councils layes yet he adds that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring disputant may not be allowed it Must have room that is must be allowed to shake the Foundation which the Church in General Councils layes For that is the necessary sense of his words An Assertion truly worthy of a Protestant Primate But I shall not here insist upon the manifold inconveniences of it I onely tell his Lordship at present that it begs the question and supposes what never was nor ever will be proved viz. that there can be plain Scripture in the true sense thereof or a full Demonstrative Argument brought against the Definition of a lawfull Generall Council We deny that any such case can happen or that the Definitions of a General Council in points of Faith can ever be so ill founded 2. Here therefore if we observe it the
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
fall not into a Circle as his Lordship here pretends they do For they primarily and absolutely prove the Infallibility of the Church by the Motives of 〈◊〉 and not by Scripture though afterwards and as it were secondarily as we said before they prove it also especially to those who admit Scripture as Protestants do by the Scripture it self which we acknowledge with the Relatour to be a higher proof especially against them then the Churches Tradition Yet we deny that those other proofs from the Motives of Credibility can be in reason questionable as he sayes they are until we come to Scripture Neither do any Catholique Authours disagree in this because they unanimously teach that the Motives of Credibility make our Church EVIDENTLY CREDIBLE and by consequence she is sufficiently proved to be True by them alone Now as concerning that Assertion which the Bishop urges that the principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit then the Conclusion it self and his inference thereupon viz. that the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest being Conclusions and the Principles by which they are concluded being onely Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the Tradition is more Infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony I answer the ground of all this Discourse is the Authority of Aristotle whose words the Bishop thus cites in the Margent 1. Poster c. 2. T. 16. Quocirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia PER ILLA scimus credimus etiam posteriora Wherefore saith he if we know and believe all other things for or by vertue of the First Principles we know and believe them to wit the First Principles themselves much more because by them we know and believe all other things In which words we confess the Philosopher doth very well declare the proceeding of the Understanding or Minde of Man when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence or clearness of its Object but not when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and Free Acts 〈◊〉 or at least principally from the Impulse and Inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxime holds not viz. That the Principles of a Conclusion must be of more Credit then the Conclusion it self Now the Act of Believing is such an Act that is which the Understanding Elicites rather by a Voluntary and Free inclination and Consent of the will then from any Evident Certainty in the Object whereto it assents 3. That this may further appear I distinguish a double proceeding in Probations the one is per principia intrinseca by intrinsecal principles that is such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves The other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the Thing proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the Understanding to Assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such Probations are made And this kinde of proof is called Probatio ab Authoritate an Argument from Authority which Authority is nothing but the veracity knowledge and vertue of him to whom we give assent when we receive such or such an affirmation from him Now as I said above we our selves either hear immediately what he affirms and then we assent immediately and solely for his Authority or we hear it mediately from the report of others who if of unquestionable credit we assent that he did affirm it upon the Authority of the Reporters yet so as we should not give an undoubted assent to the thing it self but for the undenyable Authority of the First Deliverer To apply this doctrine when we believe any thing with Divine Faith it proceeds not from any probation per principia intrinseca from any thing that hath natural connexion dependence or inference of or with the thing believed but is purely propter principia extrinseca for and from extrinsecal principles to wit the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it Now the Prophets and Apostles assented to what God spake immediately unto them And the like is Affirmable in some proportion of their immediate Hearers But succeeding Ages had it viz. Gods Revelation both from Christ and his Apostles onely mediately and immediately from their respective Pastours Now that we may be assured hereof Infallibly we must have some infallible Testimony to ascertain it unto us which can be no other then the Church 4. Neither will it be necessary precisely for this reason to affirm in the Resolution of our Faith That the Churches Declaration in matters of Faith is absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions or that our Faith is Resolved into the voice of the Church as into its formal object but it is enough to say our Faith is Resolved into Gods Revelations whether written or unwritten as its formal object and our Infallible Assurance that the Things we believe as Gods Revelations are revealed from him is Resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations Seeing therefore our Faith in this way of proceeding is not resolved into the Churches Authority as the formal Motive of our Assent but onely as an assured Testimony that such and such Articles as the Church defines to be matters of Faith are truly revealed from God as she assures us they are it is not necessary the Churches Testimony should be a new immediate Revelation from God but onely Supernaturally Infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed If then it be demanded why we believe such Books as are contain'd in the Bible to be the word of God we answer because it is a Divine Unwritten Tradition that they are his word and this Divine Tradition is the formal object whereon our Faith relyes But if it be further demanded how we are certain that it is a Divine Tradition we answer the certainty we have thereof is from the Infallible Testimony of the Church teaching us it is such a Tradition Thus the Articles of our Faith are delivered from God but kept by the Church they spring from God as the Fountain but run down in a full Stream through the Channel and within the Banks of the Church they are sowed by the hand of God but grow up in the field of the Church They are spoken by the mouth of God but we hear them by the voice of the Church assuring us
the Bishop thought this injury not great enough unless he redoubled it by any additional false Imputation of other two absurdities which he avers to follow evidently from our doctrine To the first viz. That we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholique Church as we do to the whole I answer there follows no such thing from any Doctrine of ours but from his Lordships wilfully-mistaken Notion of the Catholique Church which he most desperately extends to all that bear the name of Christians without exception of either Schismatiques or Heretiques that so he might be sure to include himself within her Pale and make the Reader absurdly believe that the Roman Church taken in her full latitude is but a 〈◊〉 or Parcel of the Catholique Church believed in the Creed This indeed to use his Lordships phrase is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in all things For it is to pretend an Addition of Integral parts to a Body already entire in all its Integrals seeing the Roman Church taken in the sense it ought to be as comprising all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholique Church as is evident in Ecclesiastical History which clearly shews throughout all Ages that none condemn'd of Heresie or Schisme by the Roman Church were ever accounted any part of the Catholique Church And this I would have prov'd at large had his Lordship done any more then barely suppos'd the contrary If any man shall object that the Bishop charges the absurdity upon us in respect of the Roman Church that we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of it as we do to the whole viz. In our General Councils I answer that is so far from being an absurdity that it were absurd to suppose it can be otherwise which the Objecter himself will clearly fee when he considers that the like must needs be granted even in Civil Governments For instance the Parliament of England is but a handful of men compar'd with the whole Nation yet have they greater Authority in order to the making or repealing of Laws then the whole Nation were they met together in a Body Men Women and Children which would produce nothing but an absolute confusion The Application is so easie I leave it to the Objecter himself to make The second accusation which the Bishop layes to our charge is this That in our Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of our Church our proceeding is most unreasonable in regard we will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers Propriety of Language Conference of Places c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholique because she professeth it to be such which sayes he is to prove Idem per Idem Whereas truly we most willingly embrace and have frequent recourse to all the Bishops mentioned helps and that with much more Candour then Protestants can with any ground of reason pretend to considering their manifold wrestings both of Scripture and Fathers when they either urge them against us or endeavour to evade their clear Testimonies for us Neither are we in any danger of committing a Circle or proving Idem per Idem because his Lordship sees not how we can possibly winde our selves out The business is not so insuperably difficult in our Doctrine For if we be asked how we know the Church to be Infallible our last answer is not as he feigns because she professes her self to be such but we know her to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which sufficiently prove her to be such So the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were in their time known to be Infallible Oracles and Teachers of Truth by the like signs and Motives onely this difference there is that these viz. Christ and his Apostles c. confirming their Doctrine gave Infallible Testimony that what they taught was the Immediate Revelation and Word of God whereas the Motives which confirme the Declarations and Authority of the Church do onely shew that she Infallibly delivers to us the same Revelations I mean the same for sense and substance of Doctrine which the other received immediately from God And that to rest in this manner upon the Authority of the present Church in the Resolution of our Faith is not to prove Idem per Idem as the Bishop falsly imputes to us I clearly shew by two several Instances which even those of his party must of necessity allow 5. The first Instance is of the Church in time of the Apostles For who sees not that a Sectary might in those dayes have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same Method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholique Church might he not have taxed those Christians of unreasonable proceeding in their belief and have set it forth as the Bishop does thus For if you ask them why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole True Catholique Faith their answer is because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them how they know it to be so they will produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time by what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them and their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or doctrine but their final answer is they know it to be so because the present Apostolique Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove Idem per Idem Thus the Sectary By which it is clear that the Bishops objection against the present Roman Church wherein he would seem to make a discovery of her Corruptions and Politique Interests is equally applyable to the Primitive Apostolique Church in its undeniable purity But at once to answer both the Bishops and Sectaries objection I affirm that the prime and precise reason to be given why we believe the voice of the present Church witnessing or giving Assurance of Divine Revelation to us is neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers no nor the Oral Doctrine of Christ himself but the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility which moved both the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Not that we are necessitated to resolve our Faith into the Motives as its Formal Object or ultimate Reason of Assent for that can be no other then the Divine Authority Revealing but as into most certain Inducements powerfully and prudently inclining our will to accept the present Church as the Infallible Organ ordained by Divine Authority to teach us the sure way of salvation The second Instance is ad hominem against the Bishop in relation to those Fundamental Truths wherein he confesses the whole Church neither doth nor can erre For suppose a Separatist should thus argue with his Lordship your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility
of the Church in Fundamentals is most unreasonable For if a man ask you why you believe all those points which you hold for Fundamental for example the Resurrection of the Dead and life everlasting your answer will be because they are agreeable to the Doctrine and Tradition of Christ. And if you be asked how you know them to be so you will no doubt produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental points But if he ask you a third time by what means you are assured that those Testimonies do make for you or are indeed the Words Sentences and Works of Christ you will not then have recourse to the Testimonies and Words themselves that is to the Bible but your final Answer will be you know them to be so and that they do make for you because the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much to you from Tradition and according to Tradition which is to prove Idem per Idem as much as we And if the said Separatist further enquiring about the precedent Authorities of Scriptures Councils Fathers Apostles and Christ himself while he lived on Earth shall ask why such Fundamentals are believed upon the sole Authority of the Present Church as the last Testimony Infallibly assuring that those Fundamental Points and all the precedent Confirmations of them are from God 't is evident the Bishops party has no other way to avoid a Circle but by answering they believe the Scriptures Councils c. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church as the Infallible Organ Ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us Which Infallibity must come from the Holy Ghost and be more then Humane or Moral and therefore must be truly 〈◊〉 and proceed from Gods most absolute and Divine Veracity in fulfilling his Promises as from its Radical Principle and from the Operation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate Cause preserving the Church from errour in all such points Thus we are easily got out of the Circle leaving the Bishop still tumbling himself in it For we do not finally rest on the Present Church as consisting of men subject to errour as his Lordship vainly suggests Nor do we rest upon the Motives of Credibility as the Formal Object of our Faith but as inducing us to rely on the said Church ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us and is consequently Infallible Whereas the Bishop does but dance in a Round while enquiring for some Infallible warrant of the Word of God he thus concludes pag. 66. 'T is agreed on by me it can be nothing but the Word of God which must needs end in an apparent Circle as proving Idem per Idem And whereas immediately after he runs on prolixly in Distinguishing between Gods written and unwritten Word as though he would make the latter serve for Infallible proof of the former he never reflects that the said latter viz. Gods unwritten Word does necessarily stand in as much need of proof as the former Now as concerning the Authority of the Church of which the Motives of Credibility do ascertain us 't is not necessary that it be esteem'd or stiled absolutely Divine as the Bishop would have it yet as to this purpose and so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self I mean in respect of the precise Infallibility and absolute veracity of whatsoever it Declares and Testifies to be matter of Divine Faith though in many other respects we do not deny but the Authority of the Church is much inferiour to that of Scripture For first the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth because there not onely every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believ'd by all that know it to be a part of Scripture but in the Definitions of the Church neither the Arguments Reasons nor Words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but onely the Thing Declared to be such Besides the Church has certain limits and can Define nothing but what was either Reveal'd before or hath such connexion with it as it may be Rationally and Logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before Revealed Moreover the Church hath the Receiving and Interpreting of Scripture for its End and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it Hence it is that Holy Scripture is per Excellentiam called the Word of God and Divine whereas the Testimony of the Church is onely said by Catholique Divines and in particular by A. C. IN SOME SORT or IN A MANNER Divine By which manner of speaking their intention is not to deny it to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility but onely to shew the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church Adde that although we hold it necessary and therein agree with our Adversary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God upon DIVINE Authority yet standnig precisely in what was propounded by Mr. Fisher pag. 59. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture there will be no necessity of Defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine For if it be but Infallible by the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost it must give such Assurance that whatever is Defined by it to be Scripture is most certainly Scripture that no Christian can doubt of it without Mortal Sin and shaking the Foundation of Christian Faith as hath been often Declared And the immediate reason why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely Infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church has Defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be Reveal'd or taught by Divine Authority this also must be so revealed and consequently no Authority less then Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith Now it is to be remembred and A. C. notes it pag. 49 50. that the Prime Authority for which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which moves us as the formal Object of our Faith to believe that Scripture is the Written Word of God and the Definition of the Present Church assuring us Infallibly that there is such a Tradition applies this Article of our Faith unto us as it does all the rest whether the Voice or Definition of the Present Church in it self be absolutely Divine or no. Neither can there be shew'n any more difficulty in believing this as an Apostolical Tradition upon the Infallible Declaration of the Church then in believing any other Apostolical Tradition whatsoever upon the like Declaration His
that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Naturall Reason but to put so gross a fallacy upon me That because Naturall Sciences admit some Principles without proof as being so clear in themselves that there needs no more then the bare apprehension of their tearms therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for Gods word and admitted without probation for an unquestionable Principle May not any Religion pretend the like The Turks for example may they not say their Alcoran is the Rule and Principle of their Religion and consequently unquestionable You know very well and confess it too elsewhere That the Principles of Naturall Knowledge appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding And you know as well that there is an infinite disparity in the case between such Principles and your Bible The later having exercis'd the wit and learning of a world of Expositors in regard of its obscurity and the former being uncapable of proof by reason of their evident clearness I may therefore rationally conclude that your Bible cannot justly challenge an infallible Belief of being Gods word by conviction of Natur all Reason This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordships discourse of whom I take my leave By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen wherein I have not wrong'd him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his Arguments a man may easily discern how irrationall it is to take the Bible for the sole Rule and Guide in matters of Faith A Doctrine which had it been held in the Primitive Church would have laid the World under an impossibility of ever being converted to Christianity But now 't is high time to return to our Church-Tradition which I press a little further in this manner 6. A Child is brought up and instructed in the Roman Church till he arrives to some ripeness of years Amongst other things he is commanded to believe the Bible is the True word of God that he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith receiv'd universally amongst Christians He gives therefore the same Infallible assent to the Scriptures being the word of God that he gives to the other Articles of Faith and so without once looking into the Scripture departs this life I demand had this Christian saving Faith or not if he had then upon the Churches Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God Ergo the Churches Authority was sufficient to ground an Infallible Faith in this point If he had not saving Faith in this Article he could not have it in any of the rest for he had them all from the very same Authority of the Church Therefore he had no saving Faith at all Ergo such a Christian could not be saved Would his Lordship have ventured to affirm this But let us suppose now that this young Christian yet lives and applies himself to study makes progress in learning becomes a profound Philosopher a learned Divine an expert Historian then betakes himself upon the Churches recommendation to the reading of Scriptures discovers a new light in them and by force of that light discerns also that the Faith he had before was onely a humane perswasion and that he had no divine Faith at all before he found by that light in Scripture that they were the undoubted word of God and sole foundation of Faith and consequently that not having that foundation he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian Belief and for want thereof was out of the state of Salvation What gripes and torture of spirit would spring out of such a Doctrine amongst Christians Moreover either the Church whereof he is suppos'd a member taught that he was to believe Scripture infallibly to be the word of God upon her sole Tradition as an infallible Testimony thereof as we before supposed or not If the first then he reflects that this Church has plainly deceiv'd him and if she have deceiv'd him in assuming that Infallibility to her self and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith when he had nothing but humane and uncertain perswasion she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself and consequently expos'd them all to the hazard of eternall damnation by following her Doctrine and therefore was no true Church but a seducer and deceiver Hence he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole letter of Scripture without any credible voyce of the Church and then must either gather the Divine Authority of Scripture from sole Scripture which the Bishop denies or there will he no means left him to believe even according to the Bishops principles infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God If the Church teach him onely that her testimony of Scripture is no more then Humane and Fallible but that the Belief it self that Scripture is Gods word rests upon sole Scripture as his Lordship speaks he begins presently to consider what then becomes of so many millions of Souls who both in former and present times either were uncapable to read and examine Scripture by reason of their want of learning or made little use of that means as assuring themselves to have infallible Faith without it Had such Christians a morall and fallible perswasion onely and no divine Faith then they were all uncapable of salvation This consequence seems very severe to our supposed Christian. Wherefore he begins to make a further reflection and discourses in this manner Is the Tradition and Definition of the Church touching the Divine Authority and Canon of Scripture onely Humane and Fallible how then can I rationally believe that my single perswasion of its being the word of God is Divine and Infallible The Bishops Pastours and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition and thereby discover'd its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly then I alone am able to do If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness their perswasion concerning Scriptures being Gods word was onely Humane and Fallible what reason have I to think I am Divinely and Infallibly certain by my reading of Scripture that it is Divine Truth He goes on If the light of Scripture on the other side be so weak and dim that it is not able to shew it self unless first introduc'd by the recommendation of the Church how came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Huss Wickless c. to be so sharp-sighted as to discover this light of Scripture seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world coexistent with them or existent immediately before them and consequently of the true Church Hence he proceeds to a higher enquiry Had not sayes he the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years
after Christ as much reason and ability to finde this light in Scripture as I can pretend to Yet many Books which seem to me to discover themselves to be the word of God by that divine light which shines in them sent no such light to their eyes but were under question amongst them whether they were the word of God or not till they were declar'd such by the Catholique Church And I wonder much how Protestants receive the Books of the Old Tement upon the Authority of St. Hierome and the Jewish Synagogue and press no other reason notwithstanding they hold the Church may deceive us in the whole Canon of Scripture Further sayes this discoursing Christian If one who hath not yet examin'd the light of Scripture it self but onely taken it upon the account of Church-Tradition should deny for example St. Matthew's Gospel to be the written word of God he could not in this opinion be counted an Heretique because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be Gods word Nay hence it follows that even our Blessed Saviour who is Wisdom it self would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostour For had he not framed think you a strange and chimericall Common-wealth were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power which all other well-ordered Republiques enjoy to give an Authentical and unquestionable Declaration which is the genuine and true Law Now he comes closer to the matter it self and examines how this pretended light should be Infallible and Divine supposing the Churches Testimony of the Scriptures being Gods word was Humane onely and Fallible When I came discourses he with himself first to settle my thoughts to a serious reading of Scripture I had no more then a fallible Authority recommending Scripture to me That fallible Authority could be no Foundation much less a Formall object for a Divine and Infallible assent to rest upon Therefore before I thus began to read Scripture I had no Infallible and Divine Faith that it was the written word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church to me was no more then a Tradition of wise prudent and honest men who had no such assistance from God as was sufficient to preserve them from Errour Suppose therefore that as the Church might so she had err'd in testifying some Books of Scripture to be Gods word which really are not such in this supposition I should have them all equally recommended to me as Gods word by the very same Authority of the Church Then I fall to reading seriously and peruse all those which are call'd Canonicall Books in the Bible shall I ever think by my diligence in reading to discover that the light of Gods word shines not in those Books wherein the Church err'd as it shines in the rest Shall I discern Canonicall Books wherein she err'd not from the not-Canonicall by the light I finde in them when the whole Church and so many thousand learned Bishops who had read them more studiously and knowingly then I can do never discern'd any such different light more in the one then in the other But put case I were able to discern this difference in Scripture by the sole light of Scripture what follows seeing the Church ha's as universally recommended also very many unwritten Traditions for Apostolicall and Divine whereof some at least as the not-rebaptizing of those who were Baptized by Heretiques c. are most certainly true and as properly the word of God in their first delivery from Christ and his Apostles which the Bishop confesses as Scripture it self why can I not by that light which shines in a true Apostolicall Tradition as well distinguish it from a false one as by the light that shines in a true Book of Canonicall Scripture distinguish that from a false one Since God speaks equally in both why should there not be an equal light shining in both Nay seeing the Church in the Definition of Superstructures wherein his Lordship makes her fallible very often defines aright why may not I finde by the light which shines in such a definition that it is a Divine Truth and distinguish it from that which is not the true voyce of God and so take no other guide or judge to my self in Divine matters then onely my own knowledge of God speaking to me After this he examines a while of what perswasion the Holy Fathers were in this matter and findes that St. Irenaeus and St. Augustin in many places held that the Tradition of the Church is sufficient to found Christian Faith even without Scripture and that for some hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was written At length he returns again to your hidden light in Scriptures and discourses thus If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how can I ever be infallibly certain that she has not err'd de facto and defin'd some Book to be the word of God which really is not his word These you may imagine were the thoughts of our perplexed Christian who wearied out with speculations and reflections fell in the close upon this result That either the Church must be Infallible in the Tradition of Scripture or there is no possible means to be infallibly certain which is Scripture nay which is more whether there be any true Scripture at all Now we return to his Lordship Here his Dedalian windings are disintricated and his Reasons easily solv'd For first Church-Tradition appears far from being too weak by advancing the Proposition I did before viz. that to give an Infallible Testimony of the Scriptures being the true word of God it is not necessary that Church-Tradition should be absolutely Divine Secondly I agree with our Antagonist in the Authority of the Prime Christian Church that it was absolutely Divine and yet averre it is not necessary to the solving of his Arguments to assert the like Divine Authority in the present Church 7. When he sayes that some of our own will not endure that the often mentioned words of St. Augustin Ego vero Evangello non crederem c. should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and in proof of this cites Occham in the margent I ask the Relatour how can one single Author be aliqui some of our own in the plurall number Had he said onely some one of our own it might have pass'd but to say some of ours and then cite but one was to make an extreme narrow passage in his Labyrinth Should Julian the Apostata to lay an aspersion upon the whole Colledge of the Apostles have said that some of them betray'd their Master and then have nam'd Judas onely and that some others deny'd him and in proof thereof had cited onely St. Peter or should a Catholique to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury say that some of them carried a holy Sister of the Reformed Gospel lockt up in a chest
from the pretended light that is in Scripture Whereas if he had cited the whole Sentence it would have appear'd most clearly that Canus makes Infidels and Novices in Faith so convinc'd to believe Scripture for the Infallible word of God by the authority of the Church that the said authority is not a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it For he asserts that an Infidel is victus convinc'd by that Authority that it is via certa a sure and certain way and that we take argumentum certum a certain and assured argument of this from the Churches Authority Again by this citing of Nominatives without Verbs he puts off by a nimble Turn the esteem that Infideles Novicii make of the Churches Authority in regard of Scripture sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii ad sacras literas ingrediantur the Churches Authority is a sure way and none but that Observe I pray you those words None but that whereby he excludes all others and consequenly this pretended Light of Scripture it self from being a sure and infallible way of entring into the Scriptures that is of beginning to believe them expresly to be the word of God This Verb therefore ingrediantur which was omitted would have given light to 〈◊〉 his full meaning For though the greatest Doctours of the Church believe Scriptures upon this sole Authority as a certain and infallible foundation yet onely Infideles Novicii Infidels and Novices in Faith enter into Scriptures that is make their first beginning to believe them by the same authority As for Stapleton he never so much as mentions in the cited place this Text of St. Augustin but onely averres that nothing can be prov'd from Scripture against such an one as is either ignorant of Scripture or denies it St. Augustin therefore in this place speaking according to those cited Authors of a sure way for believing Scripture to be the word of God cannot possibly favour the Bishops assertion who makes the Authority of the Church in this case to be but fallible and unsure Neither doth this great Doctour any where affirm that this way of Church authority is onely for Infidels as the Bishops explication of him seems to insinuate but both affirms and proves that neither Infidels nor Believers can be any other way convinc'd When therefore his Lordship cites St. Augustins Text Quibus ergo obtemper avi dicentibus CREDITE EVANGELIO c. Whom therefore I have obeyed saying BELIEVE THE GOSPEL c. and thence gathers that St. Augustin speaks of himself when he did not believe I see very little consequence in this his Illation unless he suppose that Saint Augustin never obeyed this command of Gods Church but onely at his first Conversion from Infidelity For certainly his meaning was that he had and did alwayes even till that instant from his first Conversion obey that command of the Church One thing I am sure may be far better inferr'd from those words against the Relatour then this was against us For St. Augustin sayes not Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus LEGITE EVANGELIUM vel INSPICITE EVANGELIUM c. whom I obeyed saying Read the Gospel or persue the Gospel but Credite Evangelio believe the Gospel The Church commanded St. Augustin to believe the Gospel Ergo The Church in St. Augustins time esteem'd her self most undoubtedly certain that the Gospel and by consequence all other Scriptures which she recommended to her children to believe were the Infallible word of God For otherwise to impose a command of so high a nature in that wherein she might be deceiv'd her self and deceive them had been to expose her Authority to the hazard of commanding Christians to do that which had been a grievous injury to God namely to believe that to be his Divine Word which was onely the word of man CHAP. 7. The prosecution of the former Question ARGUMENT 1. No means sufficient in the Bishops Principles to be assured what Tradition is Apostolical or what Scripture Divine 2. St. Augustins Text concerning church-Church-Authority examin'd 3. That the Bishop yields at last to the Private Spirit mask'd under the title of Grace 4. His way of Resolving Faith demonstrated to faile 5. That no man with him can be a true Christian unless he be a good Grammarian and Logician too 6. How the Scripture is said to be a Light 7. His falling again upon the Private Spirit 8. Bellarmine vindicated 9. Brierley defended Hooker shamefully mangled miscited and misconstrued by the Bishop 1. HItherto our Antagonist hath endeavour'd with all the engins of his wit to shake the Infallible Authority of the present Catholique Church but in vain Let 's now see whether he can build better then he destroyes The ground on which he builds our Faith is Primitive Apostolical Tradition I demand how comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible or why cannot we as well being induc'd and prepar'd by the voice of the Church if fallible believe with Divine Faith and rest upon Apostolical Tradition as a Formal Object for it self as believe the Scriptures for themselves If it be answer'd we have no other certainty that the Church now delivers that Primitive Tradition which the Apostles deliver'd but the voyce of the Church I reply We have also no other certainty that the Scripture we now have is the very same which was recommended by Apostolicall Tradition but the Voyce and perpetual Testimony of the Church Yes sayes our Adversary we have the more ancient Copies which confirm ours But the same Difficulty returns upon those ancienter Copies What infallible certainty have we of them beside Church-Tradition They may replyes his Lordship be examin'd and approv'd by the Authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles But first how many of those are now extant Secondly how few will be able to come to the sight of them Thirdly what certainty have we that they are the Authenticall Autographa's but by Tradition Fourthly may not every Universall Tradition be carried up as clearly at east to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authors who wrote in their respective succeeding ages If therefore when he sayes there 's a double Authority c. he mean onely that in the Apostles time Christians had a double Authority to believe Scripture viz. Tradition and Scripture it self he brings nothing to the present purpose for our dispute is not of that but of Our present time If he say we have now that double Authority he contradicts himself and puts a foundation of our Faith beside Scripture and so denies that Scripture alone is the foundation of our Faith Yet it seems by speaking in the present Tense Here 's a double Authority that confirms Scripture to be the word of God he means that we have now both Apostolicall Tradition and Scripture it self as two Authorities and each containing the Formal Object of Faith to believe Scripture to be
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
polishes and perfects what was begun before He tells us next he will grant to A. C. that Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other provided that A. C. will grant his Lordship that they do it not equally This is kindely done But what if A. C. will not be so good natur'd as to grant so much What would the Relatour do in that case Call you this answering or rather making Meanders He 'l grant to A. C. what he cannot deny by reason of its evidence if in return thereof A. C. will acquiesce to that which is so apparently false that he had already refus'd to grant it and in the mean time his Lordship gives no absolute answer to the difficulty 8. To A. C's similitude of the Words and Letters Credential of an Embassador he sayes that the Kings Letters confirm the Embassadors Authority infallibly and the Embassadours word probably onely But to whom do those Letters confirm it infallibly To all that know the Seal and hand sayes the Bishop That 's pretty Suppose then he go to a Forreign King who neither knows Seal nor Hand how will those Letters confirm infallibly the Embassadours authority To this here 's not a word of answer yet this is the question For we now dispute how we come to know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word and this is neatly put off by a dexterous Turn 'T is true the Kings Letters may give some moral Testimony to purchase credit to the Embassadour supposing that he who gives himself out for an Embassadour do either by private Letters Informations or other Motives gain so much credit as to merit the repute of a person of worth and honour and therefore not likely to wrong his King and himself in a matter of so high concern Wherefore standing in this similitude the Kings Letters are Letters of Credence because they are written in the usual form of such Letters and deliver'd from the hand of such a person as for other reasons deserves the repute of an honest man so as according to the style of all Royal Courts he is not to be receiv'd as Embassadour without those Letters Where we see to fit this instance to our present purpose that the first Motive inducing the Forreign King to receive either the Person or the Letters are those reasons whereby the King is perswaded the Embassadour is a person of credit to which correspond our Motives of Credibility for receiving the Church as most deserving all credit with us who afterward affirming her self in her Prelates to be Christs Embassadour we receive her as such and give credit to what she sayes or does next she producing also Christs Letters of Credence the holy Scriptures which affirm that her Prelates are his Embassadours we are yet further confirm'd in the whole affair But in case we should so far give way to the Relatours answer in this particular as to yield that the Letters infallibly give credit to all that know the Seal and Hand sure he must say that if this make them infallibly certain they must also know infallibly that Seal and Hand for by knowing them onely probably they can never be infallibly certain of the Letters Now if they know that Seal and Hand infallibly they will also infallibly know that they are true Letters of Credence even independently of the Embassadours assertion Whence it follows that if we can be infallibly certain of any thing corresponding to the Seal and Hand of God in the Scriptures we likewise shall be infallibly certain that they are his Letters whether the Church as Gods Embassadour attest them or not So that this way reduces all to the sole light of Scripture which is against his Lordship and already rejected by him But after all how can one be infallibly certain of that Seal and Hand unless he be as certain of the Embassadours sincerity who brought them otherwise there can be no Infallibity of his Embassie How many wayes are there of counterfeiting both Seal and Hand Nay how many wayes of obtaining them surreptitiously May not the Embassadour himself or some other interessed person procure them by some artificial practice May they not combine with the Secretary of State to impose upon his Majesty by drawing him to sign one thing for another But enough of this it being a matter so obvious to the understanding Let us now follow the Bishop page by page who stomacks very much at this Assertion of A. C. That these Letters the Scriptures do warrant that the people may hear and give credit to those Legates of Christ as to Christ himself Soft sayes the Bishop this is too high a great deal no Legat was ever of so great credit as the King himself Durst I be so bold I might soft it to his Lordship too and tell him he sayes too much a great deal Where I beseech him doth A. C. say in the forecited words that a Legat is of as great credit as the King himself I 'm sure in his words there is no such sentence He averres indeed that we may give credit to those Legats as to Christ the King himself but he sayes not that we may give as much or as high credit to the one as to the other This was the Bishops Turn onely There is therefore a more eminent degree of credit to be given to a King then to his Legate and yet we give credit to the Legate as to the King himself that is we doubt no more of the one then of the other And I would gladly know if his Lordship had heard our Saviour speak in his life time and his Apostles preach after our Saviours death whether he would have doubted of the truth of the Apostles doctrine any more then of the doctrine of Christ himself whose Legates they were To give credit therefore to them as to Christ himself is as undoubtedly to believe them as Christ himself though with a higher degree of respect and regard to Christ then to them And our Saviour affirm'd as much when he said He that hears you hears me Luke 10. 16. Next he tells us that A. C. sayes that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition hath in them Divine and Infallible Authority and consequently are worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Has he not here plaid the Divine and Rhetorician both at once What means this Rhetorical repetition thrice together But the worst is A. C's words are misapply'd and miscited by an artificial Turn in the Labyrinth He accuses A. C. of attributing Divine Authority twice over and that absolutely without any restriction or modification to that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition and then sayes their Divine Authority and credit is so great that 't is sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Now Reader judge whether A. C. applies
this Divine Authority to that company of men or to the Holy Scriptures A. C. there discoursing of one who considers Church-Tradition as 't is deliver'd from a company of men assisted by the Holy Ghost speaks thus He would finde no difficulty in that respect to account the Authority of Church-Tradition to be Infallible and consequently not onely able to be an Introduction but also an Infallible motive or reason or at least a condition EX PARTE OBJECTI to make both it self and the Books of Scripture appear infallibly though obscurely to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith These words in them are clearly referr'd to Books of Scripture not to any company of men and those words sufficient to breed in us divine Faith have relation to the Authority of the Books of Scripture and not to those men For though he put before two Antecedents it self that is Church Tradition and Books of Scripture to both which in them may seem to have relation yet it is one thing to affirm that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine and Infallible Authority and another to affirm that those men so assisted have in them Divine and Infallible Authority as he accuses A. C. to have said For seeing that in Church-Tradition is included Apostolical Tradition in A. C's principles and that even according to our Adversary Apostolical Tradition is of Divine Authority it will be true to assert that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine Authority even though those men delivering it had not in them any absolute Divine but onely Infallible Authority Our Apology for A. C. being ended let us see how his Lordship goes about to prove Scripture to be Gods Word For the better understanding whereof 't is necessary to know what he is to prove He tells us that this his Method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the Ancient Church ever held c. Now his Lordships Method and manner of proving this includes two particulars The first that Church-Tradition is onely a humane moral and fallible inducement able onely to found a moral perswasion that Scripture is the Word of God but insufficient to conveigh infallibly to us the Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures-being Gods word whence he concludes that before the reading of Scripture we cannot in vertue of that Apostolical Tradition thus conveighed to us believe with Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This is the first part of his Position The second is that Scripture by the internal light which is in it founds a Divine Faith that it is the Word of God when we frame a high Moral esteem of it and are induc'd to read it as a thing most likely to be Gods Word by the fallible Testimony of the Church While therefore he here undertakes to prove that his Method and Manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is according to the use of the ancient Church let us have an eye to these two points and see whether his Authorities prove them or no. First then his Authorities must prove that before we read Scripture it self we have not Divine Faith but onely a Moral perswasion by Church-Tradition that it is the Word of God He cites first Vincentius Lirinensis lib. 1. cap. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholique Church The Faith he here speaks of is not any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian and Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it Sound Faith and his Faith Fidem suam the Faith of a Christian nay he sayes the Tradition of the Catholique Church must needs as truly munire fidem confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture does it in a more high and noble manner as being the immediate prime Revelation of God This then proves not his intent but the quite contrary Secondly Henricus à Gandavo sayes expresly Credunt per istam famam they believe by this Relation of Church-Tradition and this is such a Belief that Christ is said to enter their hearts by means of the Church Christus intrat per mulierem id est Ecclesiam But Christ cannot enter into a Soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith onely A Gandavo goes on Plus verbis Christi in Scripturis credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti ergo credit Ecclesiae He believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith A little after à Gandavo sayes Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis secundam subistâ Definitionibus Consuetudinibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Here 's prima secunda fides But yet both of them are properly and truly Faith And to the end all may understand he means no other but Supernatural and Divine Faith as to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church he addes a third manner of giving credit to others Post istas studiosis viris non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae After these two viz. Scriptures and Church-Definitions he sayes we believe also learned men but in a far other degree of assent from that which was given to the Scriptures and to the Church non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae For the credit we give to them obliges not under pain of Infidelity or errour in Faith if we dissent from them but under pain of pertinacious pride in preferring our selves before them Seeing therfore he addes this limitation to the third kinde of belief onely he tacitely grants that if we contradict either Scripture or Church it is sub poenâ perfidiae under pain of Infidelity and not of Proterviousness onely Ergo he accounts the Definitions of the Church sufficient to assure us infallibly of Divine Truths otherwise it would not be Infidelity Errour in Faith or Heresie to contradict them Lastly à Gandavo is cited in these words Quod autem credimus posterioribus c. Here is credimus again and that with a Divine Faith in regard of the Church for he asserts presently that it is clear constat that the writings of the Scripture and other Articles of Faith preach'd by the former Pastours are not changed by their Successours and this does constare ex consensione concordi in 〈◊〉 omnium Succedentium 〈◊〉 ad tempor a nostra by the unanimous consent of all Succeeders even to our present times But sure a thing that is fallible uncertain and questionable cannot be said constare to be clear and unquestionable as he affirms the unanimous consent of succeeding ages to be Now the Bishop minces it in his Translation of the word constat turning it now it appears For a thing may be said to appear either clearly or obscurely He should therefore have rather translated it now it evidently appears had he not intended to make some pretty Turn by his Translation Hence is evinced that every
Scripture is Gods Word from the sole Testimony of the Church Yet when both partles press this Circle against each other they alwayes suppose that Scripture is Infallibly and Divinely believ'd for Gods Word in some true sense by means of the Churches Testimony Otherwise it were as impertinent to press this Question to a Christian why believe you the Scripture to be the Word of God that has no further certainty of it then what is drawn from a probable and humane Testimony of the Church as if it were propounded to a Heathen who had onely heard Scripture recommended for Gods Word by persons very worthy of credit For both of these were equally to answer that they deny'd the supposition of an Infallible Belief since they did not believe as Christians take the word Belief that it is Gods Word And then no marvel if there be no Circle committed when there is no Christian Belief which both sides presuppose as a ground of this Circle where ever it is found When therefore the Relatour speaks of proving Scripture by the Church unless he mean proving it by a Medium sufficient to assure us infallibly that it is the Word of God which he constantly refuses to grant though he fall not into a Circle yet he falls into a Semi-Circle that is a Crooked Turn in his Labyrinth by mis-stating the question and bowing it another way then it ought to be and alwayes is propounded in this Controversie as I said above Wherefore if the Church give onely a humane Testimony to induce 〈◊〉 a fallible assent that Scripture is the Word of God and Scripture afterwards by its own light gives me an infallible Certainty that the Testimony of the Church was true there could never have been the least ground for wise and learned men to move this difficulty of a vicious Circle one against another no more then when I believe it probable that to morrow will be a fair day because Peter tells me so and after I know certainly that Peter told me true because I see the next day to be fair by its own light His Lordship therefore was either to suppose that those Beginners and Weaklings he speaks of have some degree of Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God by means of the Churches Tradition antecedently to the reading of Scripture or he commits the fallacy term'd ex falso supposito of making a false supposition and so by avoiding one errour falls into another For unless he believe infallibly that Scripture is Gods word upon the Testimony of the Church as a true Cause and Motive of his Infallible Belief he doth not answer the question seeing all that affirm they believe this for the Churches Testimony understand it so and if he do he forsakes his own principles falls to us and consequently into that pretended Circle he objects against us if his objections be of force His Lordships Resolution of Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition we have above evinced to be impossible supposing the immediate or present Church-Tradition to be fallible but were it possible we have also evidenced that it destroys his own grounds viz. of sole Scriptures-being the Foundation of our belief When therefore he averres that we may resolve our Faith into Prime Tradition when it is known to be such if he means by known as he must such a knowledge as may suffice to make that Prime Tradition an object of Faith he wheels quite about to amuse his Reader and sayes in effect we may then resolve our Faith into Tradition when that comes to pass which himself holds impossible ever to happen For if Prime Tradition can be onely gather'd by the perpetual succeeding Tradition of the Church as 't is certain it can onely be and that Tradition be fallible as the Bishop perpetually contends how shall any Prime Tradition be known sufficiently to make it self an object of Faith since nothing can do that but an Authority Infallible 〈◊〉 us Infallibly certain of that Tradition Hence he runs two contrary wayes at once desirous on the one side to resolve Faith into Prime Tradition that he may not seem repugnant to the Ancient Fathers and yet on the other so willing to be repugnant to us that by his grounds he makes that Resolution wholly impossible and to blinde these contrarieties pretends that Church-Tradition being not simply Divine cannot be such as may suffice for a formal object of Faith whereinto it is to be resolv'd when yet he knew full well the difficulty lay not there and that his Adversaries never affirm'd it was simply Divine or the formal object of Faith but spake alwayes warily and reservedly abstracting from that question as not necessary for the solving of his arguments or defence of the Catholick Faith against him Let the Bishops Adherents but confess that the Testimony and Tradition of the Church is truly infallible and we for the present shall require no more of them For that Infallibility suppos'd we have made it manifest that Prime Tradition is sufficiently derived to us in quality of the formal object of our Faith whereon to rest which in his Lordships principles is impossible to be done 4. Concerning the Relators endeavor to reconcile the Fathers whom he conceives to speak sometimes contrary to one another touching Scripture and Tradition though he doth not much oblige us in the number of those he brings in favour of our assertion for he names onely two and one of them somewhat lamely cited with an c. yet surely we are to thank him for his fair and candid exposition of those he quotes against us For he professes that when ever the Fathers speak of relying upon Scripture onely they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition wherein doubtless his Lordship delivers a great truth and nothing contrary to us But as for his challenge which follows we cannot but say that 's loud indeed but the sound betrayes its emptiness He will oblige us to shew that the holy Fathers maintain that which we need not affirm to be held by them For we never yet said that our Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word is resolved into the Tradition of the present Church but into Prime Apostolical Tradition of which we are infallibly certified by the Tradition of the present Church it being a condition or application of Prime Tradition to us And by this manner of defending our Tenets we have both gone along with A. C. and those Divines who affirm the voice of the Church not to be so simply and absolutely Divine as is the holy Scripture and given a full solution to all the Relatours arguments the most of which suppose us upon a false ground necessitated to acknowledge the voice of the Church to be so absolutely and simply Divine that our Faith is to rest upon it as its ultimate Motive and formall Object which must be no lesse then absolute Divine Authority But supposing we held our Faith to be
so resolv'd would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms resolving of Faith c. in the Ancient Fathers it being a School-term not used in their times It seems he would by his false citation of St. Austin in these words Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. contr Fund cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found nor any where else I am confident in all St. Austin For us it is sufficient that the Fathers frequently say We believe Scripture for Tradition we would not believe Scripture unless the Authority of the Church moved us that Traditions move to piety no less then Scripture c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms in the Fathers we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father who saith that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God infallibly for the Churches authority but must resolve it into the light of Scripture 5. I come now to his Considerations and begin with the first point touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology that must be pre-suppos'd without proof because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed I answer first he confounds Theology a Discursive Science with Faith which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will for Gods Authority revealing and not deduced by discursive Principles and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever in this particular Secondly I say I have already answered this matter to the full chap. 7. num 7. and chap. 6. num 5. in the Dialogue to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith which has further principles and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them He himself acknowledges that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition how was it then a Principle which cannot ought not to be proved but must be presupposed by all Christians Concerning his second point the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge For there the thing assented to remains obscure which in Sciences is made clear and all the difficulty is to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us and seeing he denies the Church to be it and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture we must have some further light clearer quoad nos then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition His third point contains no more in summe then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration I shall not therefore quarrel with it As to his fourth point we grant that the Incarnation of our Saviour the Resurrection of the dead and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church nor did we ever do it but into the Infallible Authority of God as we have often confessed In his fifth point recommended to Consideration there are also divers things which the Relatour himself should have better considered before they fell from his pen. For first he asserts on the one side that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence and that had it been clear in its own light to the Hearers of the Apostles that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge and not by Faith Yet on the other side almost with the same breath avoucheth that it appeared clear to the Prophets and Apostles that what ever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth and that they had clear Revelation What is this in effect supposing the Truth of his first Proposition but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful and make them in that respect like the Blessed in Heaven Comprehensores while they were yet in the way Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions that they walked by Faith not by Sight and that they saw onely per speculum in aenigmate Secondly in point of Miracles he avers that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing but what is actually converting which is a great mistake For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs since in themselves they deserve belief whether they actually convert or not and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said Had I not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned and again Woe be to thee Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida for had the Miracles done amongst you been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes Likewise The works which I do in my Fathers name bear witness of me and though you believe not me believe my works Thirdly the Bishops reasons brought in disparagement of Miracles seem as strange as his Doctrine First saith he the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested because forsooth there may be Counterfeit Miracles just as if a man should say Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not Secondly they are not convincing proofs because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Is not this a strange Paradox Do not all Divines even Protestants themselves confess that true Miracles are not feasable but by the special and extraordinary power of God That they are Divine Testimonies and that by them God sets as it were his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm that God bears witnesse to a Lye See the Margin It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other then false and feigned Miracles The sixth Point concerning the light of Scripture hath nothing but what is already answered chap. 7. num 5 6 and 7. Were Scripture by its own light capable of being the Prime Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge yet at least it must have something in it to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent Which in the Relatours Principles is not found The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows
not immediately from his Premises viz. that either there is no revelation or Scripture is it For if he would prove that Scripture must be it if there be any by the sole light of Scripture as he hath hitherto pretended I have evidenc'd it to be inconsequent Would he prove Scripture to be that Revelation supposing there be any by the intervention of Church-Tradition assuring us that it is such it is true but Diametrically opposite to his Principles Again he wheels a little about For no man ever deny'd that Scripture is Gods Revelation supposing he hath made Revelations so that in proving this he hurts not his Adversary but his Province was to prove that Scripture onely was Gods Revelation Why then omits he here the word onely which caused the whole Controversie His last Consideration is a dark Meander For the Motives of Credibility he there musters up preceding the light of Scripture are indeed of force to justifie ones Belief that Scripture is Gods Word when 't is receiv'd as the Ancients did receive it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwayes And our present Question is not whether his Lordship does well in believing Scripture to be the Word of God as all those Motives of Credibility here mentioned by him perswade but whether he doth well in teaching that Scripture ought to be believ'd with Divine Faith for its onely inbred light as the formal Object And in this opinion I would gladly know how the recounted Motives can justifie his proceeding For though no man can doubt but most of those Motives may be applied to our Belief in the Articles of our Creed yet in his opinion they will not justifie the Believing those Articles with Divine Faith independently of Scripture which he makes the whole Foundation of believing them with Divine Faith 6. It s worth noting what we hear him now at last acknowledge for all the rest in this page is a meer repetition of what hath been already answered viz. that being arrived to the Light of the Text it self and meeting with the Spirit of God c. then and not before we are certain that Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and Infallible proof So that here he manifestly acknowledges that those who are not arrived to the light of Scripture in it self have no divine nor infallible proof of its being Gods Word and consequently have no Divine Faith of the mysteries of Christian Religion and so are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation which consequences how horridly they will sound in the ears of the unlearned I leave to the Reader And to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and prosess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet and consequently since it is unlawfull to lye and much more in matters of Religion then in others it will also follow that it is unlawfull for any one to teach unlearned persons their Creed and as unlawfull for them either to learn it or rehearse it before they have seen those Articles proved by Scripture For by this word Believe there must be meant as all agree a formal Christian and Divine Faith of those Articles 7. Finally we are told of his Lordships good intention in having proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the Benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all Christianly disposed But he had done much better had he proceeded in an Analytical way for in that was the difficulty namely to assign the first Principle on which our Faith is grounded in the Resolution of Faith which we are far from apprehending by this Synthetical way which confounds the Reader with Multiplicity of Arguments and weakens the Authority of the Church without which he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear Resolutionof Faith Well therefore might A. C. without note of Captiousness require the Analytical way yet give all all due respect to Scripture though the Relatour it seems would willingly insinuate the contrary For the Question being started whether the Scriptures onely or besides them unwritten Traditions were the Foundation of our Faith the Bishop maintain'd the first and A. C. the second Now A. C. could not more directly nor efficaciously overthrow his Lordships Tenet then by proving that the Assurance we have even of Scriptures themselves relyes upon Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which therefore must necessarily be the Foundation of our Faith His endeavour to bring A. C. and us into a Labyrinth like his own of a vicious Circle by retorting the Question which he calls captious it may be because himself was taken in it I have already prov'd ineffectual because both A. C. and our other Authours give the motives of Credibility as a preceding and uncircular ground for the Infallibility of Church-Tradition So that the Relator cannot retort the Question so easily as he imagines nor rid his hands so soon of the Jesuit by demanding How he knows the Testimony of the Church to be Divine and Infallible falsely supposing us to say that the Churches Infallibility is founded upon the Testimony of Scripture and the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church the contrary whereof I have sufficiently deliver'd and declared chap. 5. When therefore he demands how we know the Testimony of the Church to be infallible we answer that we prove it independently of Scripture by the Motives of Credibility immediately shewing it to be evidently credible in it self as the like motives made this point evidently credible to the Faithful heretofore that the Prophets and Apostles were Infallible And 't is evident to any judicious man that herein is not the least shadow of a Circle 8. The Relatour will not yet permit us to put a period to this Question but wrangles with A. C. for telling him what he thought his Lordship said But I had rather dispute what he doth or can say in this matter He expounds his own minde thus That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need no proof in regard of those men who are born in the Church and in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it that the Books commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God But here he ought to have reflected that to make good this supposition so far as to the breeding in us a Supernatural Act of Faith it must also of necessity be supposed at least tacitely that the Scriptures are delivered to us by the Infallible Authority of the Church Wherefore in this assertion that Scripture onely is the Foundation of Faith he contradicts what he ought to have presuppos'd viz.
St. Chrysostome in the place above cited it imports not evident or Scientificall Knowledge properly so called but a firm and perfect assurance onely otherwise our Faith would neither be free nor meritorious His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one both because the Royall Prophet intimates that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors Psalm 77. 6. and because they that heard Moyses the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles speak knew as perfectly by that hearing as could be known in matters of Faith and likewise because St. Paul saith Rom. 10. 17. Fides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing and lastly because his Lordship himself asserts that Scripture is known in this sense to be the word of God by hearing from the mouthes of the Apostles Now to averre that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle then an ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition is a truth delivered by me all along this debate For I have always held the voice of the present Church to be onely an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures for which prime Tradition onely we believe Scripture to be the word of God as for the formal motive of our Belief To his Quere therefore touching the Jewes proceeding in the like controversie I answer when it shall be shewn that any of the Jewes held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith to the exclusion of Tradition I shall then be ready to shew what the Bishop here demands viz that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove that the Old Testament was Gods word But to return to their resolution of Faith certain it is they had alwayes at least very often Prophets amongst them insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth that God promised to provide there should never be wanting a Prophet in Israel Moreover besides these 't is well known there was in the Jewish Church a permanent infallible Authority consisting of the High Priest and his Clergy to which all were bound to have 〈◊〉 in doubts and difficulties of Religigion as is expressed in Holy Writ Wherefore we have not the least reason to doubt but the Jews would have proceeded the same way in all difficulties concerning Scripture and Tradition that we do though his Lordship would perswade us the contrary 12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in as he was once before for averring that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being Gods word but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point to which the Relatour replies that the Argument would have been stronger had he said to assure us of this point by Divine Faith But certainly Mr. Fisher meant such an assurance and no other as appears by the expression he uses viz. to assure us in this point What point That Scriptures are the Word of God which being a point of Faith he could not be thought in reason but to require an assurance proportionable to a point of Faith that is infallible assurance sufficient to breed in us Divine Faith though it be also true that no certain assurance at all touching this matter could be had without admitting the infallible Authority of the Church For as it hath been urged heretofore many Books of Holy Writ have been doubted of upon very good grounds and the rest questioned as corrupted So that without the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost it were impossible in this case to come to any certain determination at all much less could we arrive to an infallible certainty Sure I am the School doth not maintain with his Lordship here that Moral certainty is infallible Philosophers are so far from this as to admit that even Physical certainty falls short of infallibility as being lyable to deception As for example when I have my eyes open and look upon the wall I have Physical certainty that it is the wall which I see but I have no infallible certainty of it for by the power of God it may be otherwise Now the reason why a moral and humane authority so long as 't is fallible can never produce an infallible assurance is because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority can be no greater then the Authority that grounds it Since therefore according to the Relator all humane Authority is absolutely fallible 't is impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty This Doctrine is expresly delivered by the Bishop § 16. num 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THEN DIVINE then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are contained are not objects of Divine Belief which once granted will inforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance then humane and moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then SIMPLY DIVINE must make good the Scriptures infallibity at least in the last resolution of our Faith in that point This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone for the Church consists of men subject to errour Thus he No humane testimony therefore in the Bishops opinion can make good the Scriptures infallibility that is give us an infallible assurance of that or any other point of Faith But how this can stand with what he delivers § 19. num 1. when speaking of the very same question viz. of Scriptures-being Gods Word he positively affirms we may be even infallibly assured thereof by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof I see not let the Reader judge This is not the first contradiction we have observed in his Lordships discourses Nor will it serve his turn to say as he doth that by infallible assurance may be understood no more then that the thing believed is true and truth QUA TALIS cannot be false For however he playes with the word infallible yet that cannot touch assurance For the infallibity he there talks of is onely in the object and that in sensu composito too viz. onely so long as the object remains so But assurance relates to the subject or person believing and his act which is the thing we chiefly mean when we teach that Faith is of divine and infallible certainty For otherwise in the Bishops sense of infallibility there is no true proposition how contingent and uncertain soever in it self of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain So for example should I say meerly by guess The Pope is now at Rome or in the Conclave and it were so de facto I might be said to be infallibly certain of it which is extreamly absurd as confounding verity with infallibility which no true Philosophy will admit Wherefore it is ridiculous to distinguish as the Bishop does here one infallibility cui non subest falsum viz.
fastened to the undeniable Motives of Credibility accompanying and pointing out the true Church which Motives are the ground or reason why we believe the Church to be Infallible independently of Scripture whereby we avoid even the shadow of a Circle Now our Adversary on the other side though he grants true Christian Faith to be essentially Divine and Infallible and that Divine Revelation or Gods Word is the ultimate Foundation or Formal Object of Faith as also that we cannot believe with true Divine Faith unless we have some infallible ground and Authority to assure us of the said Divine Revelation or Word of God yet does he not 't is therefore to be suppos'd he could not shew any such infallible Authority or ground for his believing Scripture or any other point of Faith to be Divine Revelation or the Word of God The private Spirit however mask'd under the title of Grace hath been found to come far short in that respect the inbred Light of Scripture it self has been evidenc'd to be too weak and dimme for that purpose Neither can these defective means viz. of private Spirit and inbred Light of Scripture be ever heightened or improved to that Prerogative to wit of giving Infallible assurance by the Tradition of the present Church unless that Tradition be granted to be Infallible which the Bishop absolutely refuses to admit and thereby leaves both himself and his own Party destitute of such an Infallible ground for beleeving Scripture to be Gods Word as himself confesses necessary for attaining Supernatural and Divine Faith The consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his Eternal Felicity CHAP. X. Of the Universal Church ARGUMENT 1. The Ladies Question what it was and how diverted by the Bishop 2. In what sense the Romane Church is stiled THE Church 3. Every True Church a right or Orthodox Church and why 4. The Ladies Question and A. C's miscited 5. How THE Church and how Particular Churches are called Catholique 6. Why and in what sense 't is not onely true but proper to say the Romane-Catholique Church 7. The Bishops pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities referr'd Chap. 1. to a fitter place here more particularly answered 1. THe Lady at length cuts off the the thred of his Lordships long Discourse and by a Quere gives a rise to a new one Her demand according to Mr. Fishers relation was Whether the Bishop would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church What was the Bishops answer to this He granted that it was But since it seems he repented himself for granting so much For afterwards in his Book he deny'd that either the Question was askt in this form or that the Answer was such Had we the Ladies Question in some Authenticall Autography of her own hand it would decide this verbal Controversie However 't is very likely the Lady asked not this Question out of curiosity since she desired onely to know that which might settle her in point of Religion being at that time so deeply perplexed as she was Now what satisfaction would it have given her to know that the Church of Rome was a particular and true Church in the precise Essence of a Church in which she might possibly be saved if it were neither THE true Church that is the Catholique Church out of which she could not be saved nor the right Church in which she might certainly be saved This onely was her doubt as appears by the whole Dispute this having been inculcated to her by those of the Romane Church and 't is likely she fram'd her question according to her doubt But whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Romane were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none could be saved for herein she had from the beginning of the Conference desired satisfaction See Mr. Fishers Relation pag. 42. wherein it is said The Lady desired to have proof brought to shew which was that Continual Infallible Visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attain Salvation 2. To our present purpose 't is all one in which of these terms the Question was demanded For in the present subject the Romane Church could not be any Church at all unless it were THE Church and a right Church The reason is because St. Peters Successor being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as I shall fully prove anon that must needs be THE Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all In like manner if it were not a right Church it might be a Synagogue or Conventicle but not a True Church of Christ. For that implies a company of men agreeing in the profession of the same Christian Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments under the Government of lawfull Pastours and chiefly of one Vicar of Christ upon Earth 'T is evident this Church can be but One and therefore if it be a True Church it is a Right Church This notwithstanding hinders not the Universal Church from being divided into many Diocesses all which agreeing in the same Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments and in the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ make up One and the same Universal Church But where there is difference in any of these the Congregation that departs from the abovesaid One Faith Communion and Obedience of necessity ceases to be a Church any longer Why so Because Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu 'T is true THE Church signifies most properly either the whole Catholique Church or if it be applied to a particular Church the Chief Church and by consequence the Church of Rome St. Peter having fixed his Chair to that place and by that means made his Successor Bishop of Rome But had St. Peter placed his Chair elsewhere that Church where ever it had been would have been called THE Church as the Roman Church now is The Roman Church therefore is stiled THE Church because 't is the Seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastour of the Church Universal yet all other Churches are true right and Orthodox Churches of Christ otherwise they would be no Churches at all In a word I would fain see some grave Ancient Father who ever maintained a Congregation of Christians to be a true Church and yet held it not to be Orthodox 3. This being so all his Lordships subtleties fall to the ground which suppose that some Congregation of Christians may remain a True Church and yet teach false Doctrine in matters of Faith For how can you call that a True Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternall perdition Such needs must be all false Doctrine in matters of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denyes that to be his Word which is
General Church as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith which is contrary to divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith could be needful in the General Church but onely in particular Churches citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us how unwilling he is in this troublesome and quarrelling age to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral he addes though the Church of England professeth that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent It matters not what she sayes or sayes not in this but our question is what she must say if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise For this is certain that many of those particular points of Faith which are rejected as errours by the English Protestant Church were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christendom when this pretended Reformation began If therefore they be dangerous errours as the Bishop with his English Church professes they are by good consequence it must follow that the English Protestant Church holds that the whole Catholique Church hath erred dangerously But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general yet at last he meddles with it and that very freely too for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If saith the Bishop he means no more then this viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary but his 〈◊〉 fiction What is this but tacitely to grant that the whole Church of Christ may universally erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salvation Is not this great modesty towards the Church Nay a great satisfaction to all Christians who by this opinion must needs be left in a wood touching the knowledge of Points absolutely necessary to their salvation 3. But the Bishop suspects a dangerous consequence would be grounded upon this if it should be granted that the Church could not erre in any point of Divine Truth in general though by sundry consequences deduced from principles of Faith especially if she presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as he affirms Bellarmin to say she may I answer When God himself whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd and Verasity such that he cannot deceive speaks by his Organ the Holy Church that is by a General Council united with its Head the Vicar of Christ what danger is there of Errour As concerning Bellarmin who is falsly accus'd I wonder the Relatour should not observe a main difference between defining matters absolutely without Scripture and defining without express Scripture which is all that Bellarmin affirms For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures yet they may be there implicitly and rightly deduc'd from Scripture As for example no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity as 't is declar'd by the Council of Nice and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves expresly in Scripture it is not there said in express terms that he is of the same substance with the Father or that he is God of God Light of Light and True God of True God c. and yet who doubts but the sense of this Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture and consequently that the Defining of this and other points of like nature by the Church was not done absolutely speaking without Scripture Besides who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions Wherefore if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith be according to Tradition though it be not express'd in Scripture yet the Church does not define it without Scripture but according to Scripture following therein the Rule which is given her in Scripture But 't is further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church may be ignorant of some Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture or otherwise Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre and teach her errour yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not nay perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth He addes to this that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuit can produce for her not erring in any Thus the Bishop To which I answer The Argument were there any force in it would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles as of the present Catholique Church For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths though the promise intimated by the Bishop of being taught all truth John 16. 13. was immediately directed to them and yet 't is granted by Protestants that the Apostles could not teach that to be Divine Truth which was not much less could they teach that as matter of Divine Truth which was contrary to it Ignorance therefore of some Divine Truths and for some time onely when they are not necessary to be known doth not inferre errour or possibility of erring in those Truths when they are necessary to be known The Apostles Matth. 10. 19. were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand what they should answer to Kings and Presidents being brought before them because it should be given them in that hour what to speak In like manner with due proportion is it now given to their Successours what to answer that is what to define in matters of Faith when ever emergent occasions require it Secondly I say that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour but taught and informed by a master that is infallible he may become infallible So that his Lordships Argument from bare ignorance concluding errour or an absolute possibility of erring is it self as erroneous as this A young Scholar of himself alone is ignorant and apt to mistake the signification of words Ergo he can do no otherwise then mistake while his Master stands by him and teaches him 4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself and puts in a Proviso Provided alwayes saith he that this erring of the Church be not in any point simply Fundamentall for of such points even in his own judgement the whole Church cannot be ignorant nor erre in them To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other answer but this We desire to know what
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
Fayth to the Pope and a Councill of Bishops held at Rome whither he had been called vpon occasion of some things layd to his charge by Heretiques and with the acts of the sayd Councill was it registred and preseru'd till in tract of time it came to be publiquely and generally vsed in the Church Now the latin copie reads 〈◊〉 and anciently euer did so lett our Aduersaries shew any thing to the contrary and 't is euident by the Creed it selfe that it was not this Fathers intention to exhorte to good life or to teach how necessary good works were to Iustification or Saluation but only to make a plaine and full Confession of the Catholique Fayth concerning those two chiefe and grand Mysteries of Christian Religion viz. of the B. Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God 3. What the Relatour's reachis is in affirming that 't is one thing not to beleeue the Articles of Fayth in the true sense and an other to force a wrong sense vpon them intimating that this only is to violate the Creed and not the other I must confess I doe not well vnderstand For supposing I beleeue that is giue my assent to the Creed sure I must beleeue or giue my assent to it in some determinate sense or other Jf therfore I beleeue it not in the true sense I must necessarily beleeue it in a false and what is that but to offer violence or put a foreed sense vpon the Creed vnless perhaps he would haue vs thinke the Creed were so composed as to be equally or as fairly capable of a false sense as a true But this is not the first time our Aduersaries acuteness hath carryed him to inconueniences It is therfore a naturall and well-grounden inference and noe straine of A. C. to assume that Protestants haue not Catholique Fayth because they keep it not entire and inuiolate as they ought to doe and as this Father St. Athanasius teaches 'tis necessary to Saluation for all men to keep it which is also further manifest For if they did beleeue any one Article with true diuine Fayth they finding the same formall reason in all viz. diuine Reuelation sufficiently attested and applied by the same meanes to all by the infallible Authority of the Church they would as easily beleeue all as they doe that one or those few Articles which they imagine themselues to beleeue And this our Antagonist will not seeme much to gain say roundly telling A. C. that himselfe and Protestants doe not beleeue any one Article only but all the Articles of the Christian Fayth for the same formall reason in all namely because they are reuealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word and by his Churches ministration But this is only to hide a false meaning vnder false words Wee question not what Protestants may pretend to doe especially concerning those few points which they are pleas'd to account Articles of Christian Fayth to witt Fundamentalls only but what they really doe Now that really they doe not beleeue eyther all the Articles of Christian Fayth or euen those Fundamentall points in any sincere sense for Gods Reuelation as sufficiently applied by the ministration of the Church is manifest from their professing that the Church is fallible and subiect to errour in all points not-Fundamentall and euen in the deliuery of Scripture from whence they pretend to deduce theyr sayd Fundamentalls consequently they can in no true sense beleeue any thing as Catholiques doe for the same formall reason sufficiently applyed To beleeue all in this sort as A. C. requires and as all Catholiques doe were in effect to renounce their Heresie and to admitt as matter of Christian Fayth whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in the name and by the Authority of Christ doth testifie to be such and require them to receiue and beleeue for such which the world sees how vnwilling they are to doe 4. The like arte he vseth in his answer to A. Cs. obiection pag. 70. viz. that Protestants as all Heretiques doe MAKE CHOICE of what they will and what they will not beleeue without relying vpon the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church He answers first that Protestants make no choice because they beleeue all viz. all Articles of Christian Fayth But this is both false and equiuocall False because as was iust now shew'd they beleeue none with true Christian Fayth as Catholiques ought or for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation rightly applied but only for and by their owne election Equiuocall because 't is certaine he meanes by Articles of Fayth only Fundamentall points in Protestant sense whereas 't is the duty of Catholiques and the thing by which they are most properly distinguish't from Heretiques to beleeue all Articles or points of Christian doctrine whatsoeuer deliuer'd to them by the Authority of the Church in the quality of such truths as she deliuers them Secondly he sayes Protestants with himselfe doe rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and the Whole Catholique Church True soe farre as they please they doe but not so farre as they ought not entirely as A. C. requires And what is this but to make choice as all Heretiques doe Againe why speakes he not plainly If the Bishop mean't really and effectually to cleere himselfe of A. Cs. charge of doing in this case as all other Heretiques doe why does he not say as euery Catholique must and would haue done wee rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and of the Catholique Church therby acknowledging the Authority of the Catholique Church to be an infallible meanes of applyinge Gods word or diuine Reuelation to vs. Whereas to ascribe infallibility only to the word of God and not to the Catholique Church what is it in effect but to doe as all Heretiques doe and tacitly to acknowledge that really and in truth he cannot cleere himselfe of the imputation Lett our aduersaries know it is not the bare relying vpon the whole Catholique Church which may be done in some sort though she be beleeu'd to haue noe more then a meere humane morall and fallible Authority in proposing matters of Fayth but it is the relying vpon the Churches infallible Authority or vpon the Church as an infallible meanes of applying diuine Reuelation which can only make them infallibly sure both of Scripture and its true sense A C. therefore had noe reason to be satisfyed with the Bishops answer but had iust cause to tell him that though Protestants in some things beleeue the same verities which Catholiques doe yet they cannot be sayd to haue the same infallible Fayth which Catholiques haue But the Bishop here takes hold of some words of A. C. which he pretends to be a confession that Protestants are good Catholiques bidding vs marke A.Cs. phrase which was that Protestants in some Articles beleeue the same truth which other good Catholiques doe The Relatour's reason is because the word other cannot be
also does the same with St. Chrysostome yea once againe wee challenge our Aduersaries to nominate if they can any one ancient Father or Christian writer that euer noted this an errour or priuate doctrine in Origen that he taught Purgatory or that in any sort intimates him to haue been the Authour or inuentour of it and yet the world knowes Origens errours and priuate opinions were diligently noted by Antiquity But this 't is sure enough our Aduersaries can neuer doe and therfore lett noe man thinke it vnreasonable in vs that wee still confidently presume and assert that this doctrine hath no beginning assignable and consequently according to St. Austins rule aboue mention'd is to be thought an Apostolicall Tradition 14. Jt is therfore firmly to be beleeu'd by all Catholiques that there is a Purgatory yea wee are as much bound to beleeue it as wee are bound to beleeue for instance the Trinity of Incarnation it selfe if by this manner of speaking be mean't only that wee can noe more lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine beeing once know'n by the Churches definition to be reueald by God and pertaining to the Catholique Fayth then wee may deny or question the sayd Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation though wee confess there is not the same necessity or obligation for all men to know the one as the other or to haue explicite beleefe of one as of the other Nor can J doubt but the Bishop himselfe would haue confess'd in the sense aboue mentioned that wee are as much bound not to disbeleeue any thing euen of least moment contain'd in Scripture when wee know it to be there contained as to beleeue the sayd Articles and as this is farre from beeing esteem'd blasphemy by any good Christians so is the other if rightly vnderstood CHAP. 26. The infallible certainty of Christian Fayth confessed yet subuerted by the Bishop ARGVMENT 1. Why noe matter of doctrine defind by Generall Councils may be deliberately deny'd or doubted of 2. A. C. doth not teach that euery Catholique Priest in the Roman Church able to preach is infallible 3. Jnfallibility in teaching how rightly inferr'd by him from the Holy Ghosts Assistance 4. To what intent our Janiour left the Prerogatiue of infallibility in his Church 5. No certain meanes in our Aduersaries principles to be assur'd that a Generall Councill erring in one point does not erre in all 6. The Relatour by allowing priuate persons to examin the definitions of Generall Councils allowes them in effect to iudge and censure them 7. Posteriour Councils no less necessary for the infallible determination of controuerted points of Fayth then the fowre first 8. Infallible assurance requisite in superstructures as well as points Fundamentall 9. The insufficiency of the Relatours reason to the contrary 10. No help for him from St. Thomas and our Authours touching the extent of necessary points 11. His nugatory descanting vpon words 1. THus much for Purgatorie 'T is time now that wee return againe to A. C. who giues his Aduersarie a why no man may deliberately doubt of much less deny any thing defin'd by a Generall Councill viz. because euery such doubt is a breach from the one sauing Fayth in that it takes away infallible creditt from the Church so as the diuine reuelation beeing not sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence breed infallible Fayth in vs. Jn answer whereto the Bishop insists wholy vpon principles already confuted viz. that deliberately to doubt and deny what is defined by Generall Councils doth not take away infallible creditt from the whole Church the contrary whereof wee haue often shew'n in this Treatise Likewise he tells vs the creditt of the Catholique Church is safe so long as she is held infallible in things absolutely necessary to Saluation which absolutely necessary things neither himselfe nor any body else could euer yet resolue vs what they are or how to know them And beside seeing he teaches that all points absolutely necessary to Saluation are plainly sett down in the Creed and Scripture how is it possible wee should haue need of the infallible Authority of the Church now or hereafter to beleeue any such points of Fayth Againe if the whole Church may erre in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation noe reason can be giuen but it may also erre in deliuering and interpreting any particular texts of Scripture which containe matter or doctrine not absolutely necessary which supposed it necessarily followes that wee cannot beleeue with certaine infallible and diuine Fayth any thing deuer'd in Scripture it selfe saue only a very few points to witt the chiefe and Fundamentall Mysteries of our beleefe Lastly seeing the whole Church consists of all particular members which can neuer be found out and consulted with by any person and that consequently there can be no sufficient assurance had of what they all hold as absolutely necessary to Saluation how is it possible wee should be mou'd by their Authority as the Bishop here supposeth to beleeue all or any points of Fayth absolutely necessary to Saluation 2. The Relatours next worke is to carp at the gloss which A. C. giues to those words of St. Paul Rom. 10. 15. how shall they preach etc. that is sayth A. C. how shall they preach infallibly By which manner of speaking yet he does not meane whateuer the Bishop imputes to him to make euery Priest in the Church of Rome that hath learning enough to preach an infallible Preacher He was not ignorant that the natiue and immediate sense of those words compar'd and ioyn'd with the fore-going how shall men beleeue vnless they heare etc. is only to signifie that for the Propagation of the Gospell 't is necessary there should be Preachers and that noe man ought to take that office vpon him vnless he be sent that is ordain'd and called by Allmighty God He was not so simple as to thinke euery priuate Preacher infallible You will say then why does he comment vpon the words how shall they preach etc thus how shall they preach INFALLIBLY vnless they be sent from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit J answer the reason hereof was because the word preach which the Apostle vseth doth not signifie sermons only but absolutely the announcing or publication of diuine doctrine by all such as are lawfully appointed to publish it and in what manner soeuer it is necessary for beleeuers that it be publish't and announced to them Now there beeing confessedly a twofold annunciation or manner of publishing diuine doctrine to Christians the one priuate and meerly ministeriall which is perform'd by priuate and particular Pastours to their particular and respectiue flocks the other publique and authoritatiue viz. of the Pastours of the whole Church assembled together in Generall Councils and this latter in regard of the publique and vniuersall benefitt which comes by it the more important of the
two A. C. could not doubt but that really it was intended and must necessarily be included in the sense of those words of the Apostle how shall they preach etc. no less then the former J say that speciall annunciation or preaching of Christian doctrine must necessarily be included in the latitude of those words wherby the Prelats of the Church doe sufficiently applie diuine reuelation to Christian people for the grounding and eliciting an assent of true diuine Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done by any Authority or meanes which is not infallible A. C. therfore takes not the whole but only the principall part or one principall kinde of preaching Christs Gospell when he so glossed vpon St. Pauls words And well might he so doe it beeing that without which the preaching of all particular Pastours to their particular flocks would be to little purpose for they could preach nothing but vncertainties or at best but probable doctrine As little cause had his Lordship to taxe A. C. of bragging because he auerrs that wee Catholiques vse to interpret Scripture by vnion consent of fathers and definitions of Councils For in a iust and true sense soe wee doe in as much as wee neuer decline but alwayes follow that interpretation of Scripture which hath consent of Fathers and the definition of Generall Councils Can Protestants say so much for themselues And yet our meaning is not that noe exposition of Scripture is good but what hath express consent of Fathers or the definition of some Generall Councill to backe it wee doe not deny but euen priuate persons may discourse vpon Scripture and declare their iudgement concerning the sense and meaning of it prouided they neither hold nor obtrude any sense contrary to the common consent of Fathers or the definitions of Generall Councils but hold and doe all things with due submission to the Church But the Relatour will proue from the authorities of Scotus and Canus cited in his margent that the Apostle in this place speaks not at all of infus'd that is of diuine and infallible Fayth but of Fayth acquit a to witt by naturall and humane industrie and meanes which beeing not infallible nor requiring any infallible Authoritie in them that preach it the Bishop thence concludes that A. C ' Gloss is not good but rather that he grossly abuses the text by it J answer first the precedent discourse and reason giuen for the gloss doe sufficiently discharge A. C. of that imputation leauing the note of a Precipitate censure vpon his aduersary Secondly I say the Bishops information abuses him there beeing not one word or syllable in Scotus which denyes infused that is supernaturall diuine true Christan and infallible Fayth to be vnderstood in that Tex't of the Apostle T is true Scotus alledges the words in particular proofe of Fayth acquir'd viz. of that Fayth which is gained by hearing of particular Preachers and depends only on their Authoritie But yet he there maintaines with all Diuines an absolute necessity of Fayth infused or supernaturall which as the Bishop himselfe here proues out of Canus must rest vpon some infallible motiue and consequently requires an infallible preaching to applye it sufficiently to vs which is all that A. C ' gloss imports Adde hereunto that acquired Fayth beeing according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence prerequired and antecedent to Fayth diuine and supernaturall as Canus likewise here teacheth it cannot in any sort be suppos'd to exclude it Lastly by an argument a fortiori 't is euidently concluded that the text ought to be extended to diuine and infallible Fayth as well as to humane and acquired For if wee cannot beleeue euen with naturall and acquired Fayth without a Preacher surely much less can wee beleeue with infus'd and supernaturall Fayth without one still speaking according to ordinary course which Preacher must also be infallible eyther in his owne person as all the Apostles were or as he deliuers the doctrine and performes the office committed to him by an infallible autority such as is that of the Church by whome euery particular Preacher is deputed to deliuer the doctrine which she holds I might vrge also the common consent of interpreters who expound the place of noe other Fayth but that by which Christians are iustify'd and sau'd which surely can be noe other but supernaturall and infused Fayth And this is most certain whateuer Biel out of his priuate opinion asserts to the contrary But wee haue stood longer vpon this subiect then the small importance of it requires since neither our nor A. C ' doctrine touching the infallibility of Generall Councils does at all depend vpon this text but is sufficiently prou'd by those other already alledged to that purpose 3. The Bishop in the next place tells A. C. he has ill lucke in fitting his conclusion to his premisses and his consequent to his antecedent The business is because he seems from the assistance of the holy Ghost to inferre infallibility But J answer our Aduersary hath not much better lucke so often to mistake and peruert A. C ' meaning For certainly A. C. does not deduce infallibility eyther of Church or Councils from any assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer but from such assistance as is necessary for them both and from thence infallibility is rightly and inuincibly concluded as wee haue often shew'n by the grand inconueniencies which otherwise would vnauoydably follow both to Religion and the Church What therfore he vrges that the ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Church were assisted by Gods Spirit and yet not held to be of infallible creditt is beside the purpose A. C. making no such inference as the Relatour by this obiection supposes him to doe As for the question which A. C. asks if a whole Generall Council defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible Creditt what man in the world can be sayd to be infallible the Bishop seems rather to slight then satisfie it when he sayes I 'le make you a ready answer noe man no not the Pope himselfe No. Lett God and his word be true and euery man a lyar citing Scripture for it Rom. 3. 4. But what cannot Gods word be true vnless the Pope and Generall Councils be held fallible and subiect to erre when they define matters of Fayth were not those words of the Apostle true when both himselfe and all the rest of his Fellow-Apostles liu'd vpon earth and were infallible And if they were true then why not also now though the Pope and Generall Councils be held infallible Certainly A. Cs. question deseru'd a better answer then this or rather was vnanswerable by the Bishop without deserting his auowed principles For thus J argue ex concessis Jf Generall Councils defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible creditt noe man nor men in the world can be sayd to be so this the Bishop grants But then
point of Christian Religion believ'd by Protestants with Divine Faith page 125 126 127 352 Their Protestation at Auspurgh 1529. directly against the Roman Church and her Doctrine page 146 147 To Protest against the Roman Church in the manner they then did was to Protest against all True visible Churches in the world page 147 Protestants are Chusers in point of Faith as much as any other Heretiques page 353 How far Protestants relie upon the Infallible Authority of the whole Church Ibid. Why unlawful for Catholicks in England to go to Protestant Churches page 401 Purgatory The Council of Florence unanimous in defining the point of Purgatory page 358 The Fathers as well within the first 300. years as after constantly teach Purgatory p. 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 No real difference betwixt praying for the Dead us'd by the Ancients and praying for the Dead us'd by the Roman Church at present p. 360 361 The Testimonies of the Fathers in proof of Purgatory made good page 358 c. ut supra Purgatory rightly esteem'd an Apostolical Tradition page 370 Reformation ALwayes and professedly intended by the Popes themselves in what was really needful p. 147. effected by the Council of Trent Ibid. The Church of Juda no pattern of the Protestants Reformation p. 160 The Parallel for them holds better in the revolted Tribes page 161 Sacriledge the natural fruit of Protestant Reformation page 170 Regicide No doctrine of Catholicks page 212 348 Resolution of Faith How Catholiques do necessarily resolve their Faith into the Churches Definition and how not page 58 60 63. How such and such Books contain'd in the Bible are known to be the word of God page 59 122 No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in the Resolution of their Faith page 55 62 117 126 In urging the Circle both parties must be suppos'd to believe Scripture with Divine and Infallible Faith page 111 The Bishop in his Resolution cannot avoid the Circle page 64 111 Revelation The Churches Testimony or Definition no New nor Immediate Revelation from God page 58 65 Divine Revelation the onely Formal Object or Motive of Infallible Faith page 59 Safe-Conduct GRanted two wayes jure communi and jure speciali and how they differ page 153 The Safe-Conducts granted to John Huss and Hierome of Prague were meerly jure communi and secur'd them onely against unjust violence Ibid. The Safe-Conduct granted to Protestants by the Council of Trent was jure speciali and as Full and Absolute as themselves could desire or the Council grant page 153 154 The 〈◊〉 of the Council of Constance touching Safe-Conducts granted by Temporal Princes what it intended page 154 156 It contain'd nothing against keeping Faith with Heretiques Ibid. Salvation Attainable in the Roman Faith and Church by our Adversaries own confession page 300 301 c. Catholique Doctors in possibility of Salvation by the Bishops own grounds page 323 324 The Roman Religion demonstrated to be a more safe way to Salvation then that of Protestants page 301 302 303 307 308 Saints Invocation of Saints no Errour in Faith page 290 291 The Fathers teach it ex instituto and Dogmatically Ibid. St. Austin expresly for it Ibid. The Saints Mediatours of Intercession not of Redemption pag. 292 The faithful under the old Testament desir'd to be heard for the merits of Saints no less then we Ibid. The Intercession of Saints departed not derogatory to the Merits or Intercession of Christ. page 293 Schisme Protestants not Catholiques made the present Schisme and how p. 144 145 146 212 Schismes at Rome not in the Roman Church properly speaking p. 144 The true and real causes of Protestants being-Excommunicated by the Roman Church page 145 158 In point of Departure as well as other Circumstances the Parallel betwixt them and the Arians holds good page 145 No just cause assignable for Schisme page 151 Scripture Not believ'd to be Divine but for the Churches Authority p. 17 66 67 Scripture alone can be no sufficient ground of Infallible Assent to Superstructures or non-Fundamental points contained in it page 19 No means of Infallibly-discerning true Scripture from false unless the Church be Infallible page 85 In what cases 't is both lawful and necessary for Christians to riquire a proof that Scripture is Gods word page 118 Scripture alone in the Bishops opinion the whole Foundation of Divine Faith page 116 In what sense Christians must suppose or take it for granted that it is Divine or Gods word page 121 What Light the Scripture must have to shew it self to be Gods Word page 87 The Belief of Scripture for its own pretended Light imprudent p. 88 89 90 91 116 125 The Fathers for some hundred years after Christ 〈◊〉 saw no such Light page 70 91 No reason can be given why Catholicks should not see that pretended Light if there were any such page 90 The Council of Nice made not Scripture their onely Rule of Faith in condemning the Arian Heresie page 125 The Scriptures prerogative above the Church page 60 64 Scripture in a proper sense no first principle p. 51 90 114 118 119 Succession St. James not Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church page 205 Our Saviours Prayer Luc. 22. 32. effectually extended both to St. Peter and his Successours page 208 Lawful Pastours visibly Succeeding each other and handing down the same unchanged Doctrine from Christ to this present time an infeparable mark of the true Church page 410 411 Sound Doctrine indivisible from the whole lawful Succession Ibid. The Popes Succession not interrupted by Contestations about the Papacy page 412 413 Sunday That Sunday be kept Holy instead of the Jewish Sabbath an Apostolical Tradition page 67 Synods The Pope no enemy or opposer of National Synods page 166 Sundry National Synods impertinently alled'gd by the Bishop in point of Reformation page 167 168 169 Tradition NOt known but for and by the Churches Authority page 17 Traditions unwritten page 26 67 What Traditions are to be accounted truly Apostolical and the unwritten word of God page 66 c. Universal Tradition morally speaking less subject to alteration or vitiating tiating then Scripture page 98 Church-Tradition a necessary condition of Infallible Belief page 59 How necessary it is that the Tradition of the present Church should be Infallible page 126 Transubstantiation No errour in Faith page 287 Not inconsistent with the grounds of Christian Religion Ibid. The Thing it self alwayes believ'd by Christians page 288 Evinc'd from the Text. page 288 289 Trent The Council of Trent a lawful and free General Council p. 165 229 Nothing to he objected against it more then against all General Councils Ibid. The Popes presiding therein contrary to no Law Divine Natural or Humane but his undoubted Right page 230 231 232 The Pope no more the person to be reform'd at the Council of Trent then at those of Nice and Chalcedon page 232 The place as indifferently chosen for
not 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
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
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
yet Faith which is the Foundation of all our Supernatural Building remain firme But if one part of the Foundation be shaken the whole ground-work will be but in a tottering condition and as A. C. sayes in a certain manner shaken By which kinde of speech I conceive he onely means that by questioning or denying one point of Faith though we do not eo ipso deny all others directly yet indirectly we do to wit by taking away or denying all Authority to Gods Revelation and for that reason rendring our selves at the same time uncapable of believing any thing else with Supernatural and Divine Faith 9. His Lordship must be pardoned if he dissent from A.C's. Assertion that all Determinations of the Church are made some to us by one and the same Divine Revelation which in the sense we have declared his Lordship doth not disprove but in the pursuance of his Discourse he brings in Doctor Stapleton as contradicting Bellarmin because Bellarmin sayes that nothing can be certain by the certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the word of God or deduced out of it by evident consequence whereas Stapleton is vouched to affirme that some Decisions of the Church are made without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Scripture I have sought this place in Stapleton and finde his words to be onely these We ought not to deny our Assent in matters of Faith though we have them onely by Tradition or the Decisions of the Church against Heretiques and not consirmed with evident or probable Testimony of Holy Scripture His meaning is we must submit to the Determinations of the Church and the Traditions she approves though they be not expresly contained in Scripture which questionless may very well stand with Bellarmins Doctrine that nothing can be believ'd with Divine Faith unless it be either contain'd in the word of God or drawn from thence by evident consequence For that Bellarmin by the word of God understands not onely Gods written but his not-written word also or Tradition is manifest because he makes all our Faith even of Scripture it self to be grounded upon it as is clear by his very words Itaque hoc Dogma 〈◊〉 necessarium quod scilicit sit aliqua Scriptura Divina non potest sufficientèr haberi ex Scripturâ proinde cum Fides nitatur verbo Dei nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum nulla nobis erit Fides Therefore this so necessary Maxime viz. that there is any Divine Scripture at all cannot sufficiently be had by Scripture alone Wherefore seeing Faith relyes upon the word of God unless we have a word of God not-written we shall have no Faith at all Many like instances he gives in the same Chapter of other matters pertaining to Christian Faith which can onely be believ'd for the word of God not-written Now in the place cited by the Bishop he teaches that we cannot be certain of our Salvation with certainty of Faith because this is not reveal'd by the word of God either written or unwritten nor is evidently deduc'd from either of these which is a good Argument but no way contradicted by Stapleton Besides a Proposition may be not so much as probably expressed in Scripture and yet be inferred by necessary consequence from something contained in Scripture I mean inferred at least from such general Principles and Rules as the Scriptures recommend to us and command us to follow But the reason the Bishop brings to prove that Bellarmin speaks onely of the written word is very strange For Bellarmin sayes he treats there of the knowledge a man can have of the certainty of his own Salvation and I hope that A. C. will not tell us that there is any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Thus he Now first we say not that Bellarmin speaks of the word unwritten and Stapleton of the word written but that Stapleton speaks of the unwritten word onely and Bellarmin of both the written and unwritten word which he calls the compleat word of God Secondly Bellarmin was not to affirme there was any unwritten Tradition by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations but the contrary That there was no such unwriten Tradition to be found For had he intended to prove any such unwritten Tradition he should have consequently proved the foresaid assurance to be Infallible and equal to the Certainty of Faith which he there professedly labours to prove fallible and not of the Certainty of Faith which had been a Turn like one of his Lordships the quite contrary way And for Stapleton he purposely proves that the Church hath not power to make new Articles of Faith but onely to declare and explain those already delivered His Lordship cannot believe that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church saith he though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the power it commits to General Councills lawfully called yet it is not alwayes of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and Integrity c. To this I answer that these Ornaments of Knowledge Sufficiency Conscience and Integrity are not the Causes of Infallibility either in the Church or Councils for that proceeds onely from the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost which is of the same power in weaker and stronger Instruments as it appear'd by the Apostles who being of themselves persons altogether ignorant of Divine matters yet by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost became not onely able to Teach them but also Infallible in their Teaching Neither doth the want of Conscience or Integrity in some particular persons deprive either the Church or a General Council of this promised Infallibility any more then the same want deprived the Scribes and Pharisees in old time of their Authority concerning whom notwithstanding their manifest and great defects in point of Conscience and Integrity c. our Saviour himself pronounceth Matth. 23. 2. Upon the Chaire of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees all things therefore they shall say to you observe you and do The Relatour again repeats that all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are not alike Fundamental in the Faith But this is answer'd by the Doctrine we have so often delivered to clear his often mistaking touching Fundamentals that some are in this sense Fundamental to wit of necessity to be believ'd by all and known expresly of all others not Fundamental that is not of necessity to be known and believed expresly by all In this sense I say we agree with his Lordship and his party touching the Distinction of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals Our onely controversie is whether there be in the Catholique Church any points of Faith not-Fundamental in this sense that is such as
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
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.
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
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
which is not de facto false yet may be false and another cui non potest subesse falsum which neither is false nor can be false since all Infallibility is such cui non potest subesse falsum To obtain therefore an infallible assurance of Scriptures-being the Word of God we must of necessity rely upon the never-erring Tradition of Gods Church all other grounds assignable are uncertain and consequently insufficient to breed in us supernatural and divine Faith But enough of this Yet before I go further I cannot omit to observe the Bishops earnest endeavour to possess the Reader that the Scriptures both the old and new are come down to us so unquestionably by meer humane Authority that a man may thereby be infallibly assured that they are the word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith when he could not be ignorant that there is hardly any Book of Scripture which hath not been rejected by some Sect or other of Christians and that several parts even of the new Testament which most concerns us were long doubted of by divers of the Fathers and ancient Orthodox Writers till the Church decided the Controversie Nay that their great reformer Luther himself admits not for Canonical Scripture the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Saint James the Epistle of Saint Jude nor any part of the Apocalypse or Revelation Call you this candid dealing is it not rather to say and unsay or indeed to say any thing in defence of a ruinous Cause After this the Relatour pretending to come close to the particular sayes The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ that you and wee were all of one belief I wonder whom he means by that WEE of his before the Rent seeing the said WEE began with and by that Rent not made by us but by those that went out from us and deserted the Catholique Church and Faith in which they were bred up and so became a WEE by themselves which before the Rent so made had no other then a meer Utopian or Chimerical Being Yet as it seems by his Lordships discourse they are pleas'd in fancying themselves Reformers of our Corruptions while they themselves are the Corrupters They think themselves safe in holding the Creed and other common Principles of Belief but so did many of the ancient Heretiques who yet were condemn'd for such by lawfull oecumenical Councills They glory in ascribing as he sayes more sufficiency to the Scripture then is done by us in that they affirm it to contain all things necessary to Salvation while by so doing in the sense they mean it they contradict the Scriptures themselves which often sends them to Traditions Call you this giving honour to the Scritures This indeed is not onely enough but more then enough as the Bishop expresses it himself He tells us that for begetting and settling a Belief of this Principle viz. that the Scripture is the Word of God they go the same way with us and a better too He means they go some part of the way with us and the rest by themselves But certainly he ought rather to have continued in our way to the end then for want of a good reason why he left it to pin this falshood upon us That we make the present Tradition alwayes an Infallible Word of God unwritten Apostolicall Traditions we hold for such indeed since to be written or not-written are conditions meerly accidental to Gods Word but the Tradition of the present Church by which we are infallibly ascertain'd of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves we oblige not any man to receive it for Gods unwritten Word as the Bishop would make you believe Their way sayes the Bishop is better then ours because they resolve their Faith touching this Principle into the written Word which is in plain English that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word into no Word of God at all since there is not any written Word of God to tell them that this or that Book or indeed any Book of their whole Bible is the Word of God They therefore ultimately resolve their Faith of this point into little more then their own fancies and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all which neverthelesse is by them laid for the Basis or ground-work of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion Behold the excellency of their better way then ours who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into Gods unwritten Word viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own dayes And of this Apostolical Testimony Tradition or unwritten Word of God all the succeeding Christians of Gods Church even to this day have been rendred certain by the Infallible I say not Divine Testimony or Tradition of the said Church of Christ. Lastly the Bishop to close this Dispute speaks again to that well known place of St. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas which he attempts to solve by telling us that the Verb commovere is not applyable to one Motive alone but must signifie to move together with other Motives To this I answer that he must be a mean Grammarian who knows not this to be a great mistake when no plurality of Motives is expressed Secondly that in case St. Austins word commoveret were to be taken in the sense the Bishop gives it viz. to move together with Scripture yet his Lordship would gain little by it since his Faith were consequently to be resolv'd into it as being a Partial Motive of his Faith Now it cannot be denyed in true Philosophy that if one partial Motive be fallible the Act produced by that Motive must of necessity have a mixture of Fallibility in it every effect participating the nature of its cause So even in Logick should a Syllogism have for one of its Premises a Sentence of Scripture and for the other but a probable Proposition the Conclusion could be no more then probable And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited when speaking of the Churches Authority he sayes Quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio oredere potero which being weakened or call'd in question I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel it self Thus by Gods favour we are come to the end of this grand Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith wherein I have not onely shewn the insufficiency of the several wayes and methods propounded by the Bishop but cleared and established our own Catholick way of Resolving Faith The Infallible Tradition of the present Church is the sole Clew that guides us through the dark and intricate Meanders of our Adversaries Labyrinth 'T is the onely expedient by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object Gods Revelation This thred is
lye But whether the Bishop said the Protestants did make the Schisme or the Rent or a Division or Breach 't is not a straw's matter The words 't is true are different but the sense is the same Well therefore might the Jesuit be said to relate at least in sense what the Bishop utter'd without either enterfeiring or shuffling His Lordship therefore ought not to have boggled at this but clearly have granted That Protestants did depart from the Roman Church and gat the name of Protestants by Protesting against her for this is so apparent that the whole world acknowledges it and the Relatour himself cannot deny it without retracting his own words § 20. num 5. pag. 131. where speaking of Luther he grants he made a breach from it And 't is a very poor shift to say Protestants gat not that name by protesting against the Church of Rome but against her Errours and Superstitions for who sees not that this is the common pretext of all Heretiques when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholique Church There is nothing more ordinary with Protestants then to reproach the Roman Church and belch out virulent execrations against her yet all must be understood forsooth not against the Church but against her Errours As if Mr. Fisher and A. C. could be ignorant of this or stood in need of such a needless Comment to understand what Protestants mean when they protest or use uncivil language against the Church But sayes the Bishop if you take the whole Body and Cause of Protestants together you cannot so easily charge them with departing from the Church I know not well what this passage means but desire to have any either whole Body or part of Protestants shew'n who by their Professions and practices did not effectively make a true and real departure from the Roman Church and in so doing remained separate from the whole Church Nor doth it much mend the matter to say as he doth in the Margent that the Protestation made by his party in the Year 1529. from whence they took their name of Protestants was not simply against the Roman Church but against an Edict viz. that of Worms which commanded the restoring of all things to their former Estate without any Reformation For to stand as they did for Innovation in matters of Religion and to protest against restoring of things to their former estate which had been unwarrantably and wickedly alter'd by certain lawless people without any colour of Authority was surely in effect to protest against the Roman Church and seeing the things protested against were points of Faith and Christian piety wherein the Roman and all other true visible Churches in the world agreed to protest against them was with the same breath to protest against all the particular true visible Churches in the Christian world which none but notorious Heretiques or Schismatiques use to do It is not then the word Protestation that we dislike so much but the Thing that is the Protesting and standing for novel and corrupt Tenets against the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Roman Catholique Church Besides 't is worth the noting that the Relatour here addes a little to his Author when he sayes the Edict of Worms was for the restoring of all things to their former estatc without any Reformation at all as if the Edict had cut off all hopes of Reformation even in those things which needed it viz. Abuses in Manners and Discipline which is most false and confuted by evidence of fact For even the Popes themselves alwayes professed reformation in such things to be necessary and intended by them according as it was not long after effectually ordain'd by the Council of Trent 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop goes on and tells us that though the Church of Rome did thrust Protestants from her by Excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church which to do St. Bernard thinks is pride and St. Austin madness At this his Lordship takes several exceptions and first begins with the supposition of Errors and Superstitions in the Roman Church which in my opinion saith he were the prime cause of the Division and forced many men to hold and teach contrary to the Roman Faith To which we answer that the Bishop of Rome being St. Peters Successor in the Government of the Church and Infallible at least with a General Council it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries should ever finde such Errors or Corruptions definitively taught by him or receiv'd by the Church as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine or in case she refuses to conform to their preaching lawfully to forsake her Communion Secondly he quarrels with A. C. for styling it the Roman Faith when he speaks of the general Faith of all Christians It was wont sayes the Bishop to be the Christian Faith but now all 's Roman with A. C. and the Jesuit But first 't is no incongruity of speech to style the Christian or Catholique Faith sometimes the Roman For the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholique Church the Faith approv'd and taught by him as Head thereof though it be de facto the general Faith and profession of all Christians may yet very well be called the Roman Faith why because the Root Origin and chief Foundation under Christ of its beingpreach't and believ'd by Christians is at Rome And there is nothing more frequent then Denominations taken à parte digniori Again here 's a manifest robbery of part of A. C's words for which his Lordship is bound to restitution A. C. as it were foreseeing this cavil warily addes to Roman Faith these words and practice of the Church which the Relatour for reasons best known to himself craftily leaves out and makes him speak as if the opinions by which the Protestants stand divided from the Roman Church and for which they are excommunicated by her were onely contrary to the Roman Faith as Protestants usually understand the word Roman viz. as contradistinguisht from Catholique or the Church in general whereas A. C. to prevent any such mistake as expresly as he could said they were contrary both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church But we must excuse our Adversary for this slip though it be an unhandsome one For the truth is he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen in styling the Doctrines and practices of the Church Corruptions and Superstitions For to have charg'd the whole Church with Superstitions and Corruptions had been perhaps a little too bold a check especially for a person of his Lordships temper and would have brought him too apparently under the lash of St. Bernards and St. Austins Censures intimated by A. C. whereas to charge onely the Church of Rome with them is a thing the modestest man in all that party
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
any thing else that they pluckt down Altars burnt Images defac'd the Monuments of the Dead brake the Church-windows threw down Crosses tore the Holy Vestments in pieces c. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship as they tearm it was it for any thing else that they possest themselves of Ecclesiastical Benefices took upon them Spiritual Jurisdictions and Pastoral Charges by force of Secular Power and Authority from those that were in lawful and quiet possession of them according to the Canons of the Church but because according to the Maximes of their new Belief they held the old Pastours of the Church to be False Teachers and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians 'T is clear then that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation differ onely as the Tree and its Fruit they are not altogether the same but yet the one springs connaturally from the other the one begets and bears the other as naturally as a corrupt Tree bears bad fruit Nor can his Lordship so easily wash his hands of the guilt as he seems willing to do by saying they are long since gone to God to answer it as if none could be involv'd in this crime but onely the first Actors Are the Successors then Free No such matter Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entail'd upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings since they have no better ground nor title to enjoy them then those who first acted But I shall not prosecute this Theam any further Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Paragraph where he pretends to minde us of the General Church forced for the most part under the Government of the Roman Sea By what force I pray Is it possible or can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man in good earnest to believe that a single Bishop of no very large Diocess if it reacht no further then most Protestants will have it should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes power when the pretended Reformation began Force implies resistance of the contrary part and something done against the will and good liking of the party forced But can his Lordship shew any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claim'd and exercis'd confessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom when the Reformers first began their resistances Does any Classick Author of present or precedent times mention or complain of any such force 〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us that whensoever any Novellist started up and preacht any thing contrary to the Popes Authority the Bishops of other Provinces were as ready to censure and forbid him as the Pope himself Are not all Eeclesiastical Monuments full of examples in this kinde This therefore is as false a calumny as any and serves onely to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉 but false Pasquils CHAP. 14. Protestants further convinc'd of Schisme ARGUMENT 1. A. C's Parallel defended 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justifie the Churches proceeding against them 3. No danger in acknowledging the Church Infallible 4. Points Fundamental necessary to be determinately known and why 5. The four places of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility weigh'd the second time and maintain'd 6. Why the Church cannot teach errour in matter of Faith 7. How she becomes Infallible by vertue of Christs prayer for St. Peter Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trippings and Windings observ'd MR. Fisher askt his Lordship QUO JUDICE doth it appear that the Church of Rome hath err'd in matters of Faith as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Roman Church The Relatour in answer to this confesseth that no man in common equity ought to be suffer'd to be Accuser Witness and Judge in his own cause But yet addes there is as little reason or equity that any man who is to be accused should be the accused and yet Witness and Judge in his own cause If the first may hold saith he no man shall be innocent and if the last 〈◊〉 will be nocent To this I answer We have already prov'd the 〈◊〉 Church in the sense we understand Roman Infallible and therefore she ought not to be accus'd for teaching errours Neither can she submit her self to any Third to be judg'd in this point both because there is no such competent Third to be found as also because it were in effect to give away her own right yea indeed to destroy her self by suffering her Authority to be question'd in that whereon all Certainty of Faith depends for such is the Catholique Churches Infallibility 1. Again I make this demand Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon or some other Heretique of the Apostles times separating themselves from the Apostles and Christians that adhered to them should have accus'd them of false doctrine and being for such presumption excommunicated by the Apostles would it have been a just plea think you for the said condemned Heretiques to have pretended that the Apostles were the party accused and that they could not be Witnesses and Judges too in their own cause but that the trial of their doctrine ought to be resert'd to a Third person I suppose no man will be so absurd I say then Whatever shall be answer'd in defence of the Apostles proceeding will be found both proper and sufficient to defend the Church against her Adversaries For if the Apostles might judge those Heretiques in the Controversies abovesaid then the persons accused may sometimes and in some causes be Judges of those that accuse them and if the Infallibility of the Apostles judgement together with the Fullness of their Authority were a sufficient ground and reason for them to exercise the part and office of Judges in their own cause seeing both these do still remain in the Church viz. Infallibility of Judgement and Fullness of Authority doubtless the lawful Pastours thereof duly assembled and united with their Head may lawfully nay of duty ought to judge the Accusers of their doctrine whoever they be according to that acknowledged Prophesie concerning Christs Church Isa. 54. 17. after our Adversaries own Translation Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement or that accuses thee of errour thou shalt condemn Protestants indeed having neither competent Authority nor so much as pretending to Infallibility in their doctrine cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church much less Judges in their own cause Wherefore A.C. addes that the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church and that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in
those points are which he calls simply fundamental or simply necessary to all mens salvation Bellarmin from very good Authority tells us that some barbarous and ignorant people have been saved without believing Scripture at all and if trial were made I believe it would be found the more common opinion even amongst Protestants themselves that the Explicite Belief of the Trinity or Incarnation it self as the Catholique Faith and Oecumenical Councils declare it is not simply necessary to all mens salvation So that if the Church be exempt from errour onely in such points the promises of Christ will be brought to little more then nothing and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk into so narrow a compass that most of the Hereticks she ever yet condemned will be found to have been out of her reach and may require her if not to reverse yet at least to review her sentence against them since his Lordship will have it Fallible lest perhaps she might erre in pronouncing it Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing onely in general that the Church cannot erre in matters simply necessary to all mens Salvation if he be not withall determinately inform'd which are those points For so long as he knows not what is or is not so universally necessary how can he be assur'd whether the Church may not erre or hath not err'd in Defining such and such a particular matter Let it therefore be first established either by a determinate Catalogue of such simply necessary and Fundamental points or by some certain and determinate Rule whereby we may undoubtedly know them otherwise we speak at random 5. The strength of the places formerly alledg'd by A. C for the Churches Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate telling us first that they are known places and cited by A. C. three several times and to three several purposes What matters this They lose nothing of their force for being thrice cited by A. C. and more then thrice by Stapleton Bellarmin and other Champions of the Catholique Faith circumstances so requiring it And does it seem strange to his Lordship that A. C. should apply them to several purposes he should have remembred how often Scripture it is stiled by the Fathers gladius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a two-edged sword which surely cuts-several wayes Bellarmin Stapleton and A. C. following the receiv'd assertion of most Catholiques viz. that the Pope is Infallible even without a General Council when he defines any thing ex Cathedrâ and with intention to oblige the whole Church urge the places to that purpose as with very great probability they may yet because some Catholique Divines deny it the matter it self being not yet clearly De Fide I shall be content that the said places prove at least the Infallibility of the Church in general or of the Pope and a General Council which in this question are to be accounted all one For if the Pope and a General Council may erre the whole Church might erre as being oblig'd to follow the Doctrine and Definitions of such a Council and if the whole Church be fallible what infallible certainty can we have of any Tradition Wherefore seeing the Infallibility of the Church Councils and Tradition depend so necessarily upon each other whatever Authorities prove the Infallibility of any one do in effect and by good consequence prove the same of all the rest 6. But let us come to the places in particular The first assures us that Hell gates shall never prevail against the Church Here the Bishop speaks loud and sends us a challenge There is no one Father of the Church sayes he for twelve hundred years after Christ that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this place And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can St. Austin had he been more fully cited by the Bishop would alone have been able to answer this challenge Let us hear him speak Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta sayes he Ecclesia una Ecclesia vera Ecclesia Catholica contra omnes haereses pugnans Pugnare potest expugnari tamen non potest She is the Holy Church the onely Church the true Church the Gatholick Church WHICH FIGHTS AGAINST ALL HERESIES therefore yields to none complyes with none Fight she may but she cannot be overcome All Heresies depart from her as unprofitable branches cut off from the Vine But she remains still in her root in her Vine in her Charity the Gates of Hell shall not overcome her Thus Saint Austin Can any man doubt but this holy Doctour in the precedent words doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible when he sayes she perpetually fights against all Heresies or Errours in Faith and that she can never be over come by them Doth he not clearly prove this truth by the allegation of this Text in the close of them But I shall adde one or two Authorities more to this purpose First St. Cyrils Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri c. According to this promise saith he the Church Apostolique of St. Peter abides alwayes immaculate or free from all spots of Heretical Circumvention and Errour The Text hath been cited already You may observe the like sense in St. Epiphanius Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum PETRAM FIRMAM supra quam c. Our Lord saith he speaking of St. Peter ordained him chief of the Apostles A FIRM ROCK upon which the Church is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her which Gates of Hell are Heresies and Arch-heretiques 6. For the better understanding of which Texts 't is necessary to know that every errour contrary to Divine Faith is Heresie as St. Austin and all Divines generally teach Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has reveal'd she should teach Heresie and contradict these Fathers who all clear the Church from that aspersion by vertue of this promise of Christ Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and withall tacitly at least acknowledge that if she did teach Heresie at any time the Gates of Hell in that case would be found to have prevail'd against her Seeing therefore every errour in Faith or against Divine Revelation is Heresie and since the Church in the judgement of these Fathers grounded upon this promise cannot teach Heresie it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fathers she cannot erre in any point of Faith whatever by vertue of the same promise How the Infallibility of the Church is gather'd out of the second place hath been shew'd already and is here confirm'd even by his Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is that Christ in that place promis'd to be present with his Ministers in all those things which he committed
but this viz. that its Decrees are universally receiv'd as obligatory by all particular Churches or the whole Church Diffusive Neither is this Confirmation so simply and absolutely necessary but that the Decrees of a General Council lawfully assembled and duly confirm'd by the Pope are obligatory without it and antecedently to it But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop cites him for viz. to prove that 't is the consent of the whole Church Diffusive that confirms the Decrees of General Councils and not the Popes Authority His words are these Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ quid in hâc re sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset visum est ei c. where 't is evident the Father speaking of St. Cyprians errour the whole drift of his speech is to tell us it was the more excusable in him because he defended it onely before the consent of the whole Church had by the sentence of a General Council established what was to be held in that point Is this to say that the Decrees of a General Council are to be confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it and not otherwise as the Bishop will needs perswade us Surely no. To conclude therefore we think the Bishop could not well have more effectually justifi'd our assertion concerning the Authority both of the Church and a General Council then by citing this Text of St. Austin Since it clearly signifies that the Church doth settle and determin matters of Controversie by the sentence of a General Council in which the whole Churches consent is both virtually included and effectually declared 8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his angry exceptions against him for interposing as he tells us new matter quite out of the Conference But how can it be called new matter as not pertinent to the question debated in the Conference if A. C. urg'd and prov'd by what reasons he could the necessity of the Popes Authority for ending Controversies in Faith that being the point his Adversary most especially deny'd A. C. desires to know what 's to be done for reuniting the Church in case of Heresies and Divisions when a general Council cannot be held by reason of manifold impediments or being call'd will not be of one minde Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this case provided no Rule no Judge Infallible to determine Controversies and procure unity and certainty of Belief Yes sayes the Bishop He hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture But this Answer A. C. foreseeing prevented by his following words had the Relatour pleas'd to set them down which shew the inconvenience of admitting that Rule as Protestants admit it since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain What sayes the Bishop to that First he cunningly dissembles the objection takes no notice of A. C. s discourse to that purpose and yet finding it necessary to apply some salve to the sore he addes in the second place as it were by way of Tacit prevention In necessaries to Salvation the Scripture by the manifest places of it which admit no dispute nor need any external Judge to interpret them is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief amongst Christians and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermin'd they be But surely here the Bishop went too farre and lost himself in his own Labyrinth For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands onely such as are of absolute necessity to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians necessitate medii as Divines speak though we should grant they were so clear in Scripture as not to fall under dispute among Christians yet to affirm as he does that there ought to be no contention to a separation about any other points is to condemn the perpetual practice of the Catholique Church which hath ever oblig'd her Children under pain of Anathema to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretiques as namely from the Montanists the Quarto-Decimani the Rebaptizers Monothelites Pelagians Semi-Pelagians Vigilantians Iconoclasts and the like who held all those foresaid necessary matters and err'd onely in such as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians whatsoever But if by necessaries to salvation he mean any of those which Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti he should have assign'd them in particular for till that be done such General Answers as the Bishop here gives signifie nothing either to the just satisfaction of us or security of their own proceedings since they cannot possibly know in what points they ought to hold contention to a separation and in what not Moreover we having already prov'd at large Chap. 2. and in other places that 't is necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church whether clearly contain'd in Scripture or not it follows there must be some other Infallible Rule beside Scripture whereon to ground our Faith of such Things as are not clearly deliver'd in Scripture The Holy Scripture alone is not qualifi'd for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is For though it may be granted to be certain and Infallible in it self yet is it not so in order to us nor so much as known to us for Gods Word without the Authority of the Church assuring us of that truth and he is very much mistaken when he supposes the Ancient Church had no other Additional Infallible Rule viz. Tradition by which to direct their Councels Nor is there any thing alledgeable out of Bellarmin contrary to this sense if his words be candidly interpreted Tertullian indeed calls Scripture the principal rule and we if we have not sufficiently acknowledg'd it already upon sundry occasions will now say so too it is the principal not the onely Rule He adores the fulness of Scripture so do we as to that particular point about which he then disputed We confess the Scriptures do most fully prove against Hermogenes the Heretique that the world or matter whereof this world consists was not eternal but created by God in time Again 't is no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fulness of Seripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition which in other parts of his works he maintains more expresly then many other of the Fathers What 's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus but to shew that Heretiques cannot be confuted by Scripture alone without Tradition Now we say both with him St. Hierome and St. Basil that to superinduce any thing contrary to what is written is a manifest errour in Faith and that it hath a woe annexed to it but to superinduce what is no way dissonant but rather consonant and agreeable to Scripture hath no such curse
Prouinces of Christendome so publiquely auouch it to haue been a Tradition of the Apostles to worship Images if it had not been a thing confessedly practis'd amonge Christians euer since the Apostles times and with their knowledge and allowance Is it credible that so many Catholique and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceiue the world with such a lowde vntruth if it had been otherwise As for Transubstantiation which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitiue Church did not beleeue wee haue already shew'n that what is signifyed by the word to witt a true and reall change of the substance of bread into Christs body was cleerly held and taught by diuerse ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church His bare saying 't is a scandall to both Iew and Gentile and the Church of God signifies but little Christ crucifyed was a scandall both to Iew and Gentile but yet a true obiect of our Fayth nor are they the Church or any part of the true Church that are scandaliz'd at it but Infidells and Heretiques who will be scandaliz'd at any thing that suites not with their own fancies As little can he inferre against vs from the difficulty which Catholique Diuines haue to explicate Transubstantiation Js not the Mystery of the B. Trinity in the Bishops own opinion as inexplicable and yet firmly to be beleeu'd why then must Transubstantiation be reiected or disbeleeu'd meerly vpon that ground or because 't is hard to be explicated Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely which bred that pretended scandall in Auerroes but the Reall Presence as his words shew cited by the Bishop Yet the Relatour himselfe and his master Caluin too sometimes make profession to beleeue the Reall Presence After so many vnaduised assertions our aduersarie falls at last to quibble vpon those words of A. C. Roman Catholiques cannot be prou'd to depart from the Foundation so farre as Protestants telling vs 't is a confession that Romanists may be prou'd to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so farre as Protestants doe A doughty inference I promise you But what gaines he by it Doth not the Bishop himselfe num 1. of this very Paragraph vse the like speech of vs when he sayth you of Rome haue gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Fayth then can euer be proued wee of the Church of England haue done If this must not be accounted a Confession that the Church of England hath departed from the Foundation why must that of A. C. be see interpreted as the Bishop will haue it what euer explication be giuen to the Bishops words will serue A. C. as well whose meaning only was that there cannot be brought any arguments to proue our Churches departing from the Foundation but more and better may be brought to proue that Protestants doe likewise depart from it in more and greater points It is not to grant that the arguments which Protestants bring to proue our departing from the Fonndation are solid and conuincing or doe really proue that for which they are brought This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himselfe and to insinuate which A. C. absolutely denyes And as the Bishop had noe reason to inferre any such Confession cut of A. 〈◊〉 words so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalfe of his Church of England Let A. C. instance if he can in any one point wherein she hath departed from the Foundation etc. For that was already done to his hand A. C. had already giuen him this very errour for instance viz. the Church of Englands denying infallible authority to lawfull Generall Councils this beeing in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church and by consequence to subuert the ground of all infallible beleefe in any articles or points of Fayth whatsoeuer Nor does it help him to say there 's a greate deale of difference betwixt a Generall Council and the whole body of the Catholique Church For what euer difference may be in other respects in this viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Fayth and infallible beleeuing what is so taught there is no difference betwixt the Catholique Church and a Generall Councill For if such a Council may erre the Church hath noe infallible meanes to rectifie that errour or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholique doctrine to be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a Generall or oecumenicall Council shewes nothing but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintaines That which was neuer styled or esteem'd by Catholique antiquity but Praedatoria Synodus and Latrocinium not Concilium Ephesinum a den of Robbers and Free-booters a Conuention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretiques that euer troubled or dishonoured the Church by their vnlawfull actings where nothing but secular violence rage and cruelty bore sway euen to bloud-shed and murther of the B. Prelate St. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople this his Lordship brings for an example of a Generall Councils erring Very worthily indeed lett his friends make their benefitt of it Jn the meane time they may know that as on the one side wee readily confess it very necessary the Church should haue remedy against such Councils as this so on the other side wee auerre that the infallibility of Generall Councils truly and rightly so called is such a Foundation of the Roman that is the Christian Catholique Fayth that without it wee know not what can be nor has the Bishop as yet shew'n how any thing can be certaine in the Fayth 6. A. C. after this endeauours by interrogatories to draw from his Aduersarie the confession of truth in answer whereto seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already consuted especially in the 7th and 8th Chapters of this treatise it will oblige vs to avoyd tediousness to be more briefe in our replie A. 〈◊〉 first Querie is how Protestants admitting noe insallible rule of Fayth but Scripture only can be infallibly sure that they beleeue the same entire Scripture Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitiue Church beleeu'd them The Relatour in answer to him tells vs that he beleeues Scripture 1. by Tradition 2. by other motiues of Credibilliy 3. by the Light of Scripture it selfe But first this is not to make a direct answer to the question which is not whether Scripture can be any way beleeu'd or no standing to the Bishops principles but whether and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does beleeue concerning it Secondly 't is vndenyable in the common principles of all Protestants and prou'd already that the two first of these viz. Tradition and the motiues of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Fayth or assurance concerning Scripture and for the third viz. Light of Scripture it selfe it is not only petitio principij a begging of the
so vsed as here it is but that Protestants as well as wee must be supposed good Catholiques J answer 't is cleere enough A. C. mean't only this that Protestants in some things beleeue the same truth with other people who are good Catholiques which is very true but farre from implying that confession which the Bishop would inferre from him Howeuer I thinke not the matter worth standing vpon The Bishop himselfe acknowledges A. C. intended 〈◊〉 to call them Catholiques and if vnawares some thing slipt from his pen whereby he might seeme to call them so what matter is it seeing 't is incident euen to the best Authours sometimes to lett fall an improper expression 5. To as little purpose is it for him to tell vs that next to the infallible Authority of Gods word Protestants are guided by the Church For as wee sayd before so farre as they please they are guided by the Church and where they chinke good they leaue her Wee entreate our Adversanes to tell vs what is this but to follow their own fancy and the fallible Authority of humane deductions in beleeuing matters of Fayth both which the Bishop doth so expressly disclayme in this place To what A. C. adds that by the Church of God he vnderstands here men infallibly assisted by the spirit of God in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils the Relatour answers according to his wonted dialect that he makes no doubt the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation The whole Church cannot doe thus Surely his kindeness is great and the Catholique Church is much obliged to him for allowing her such a large prerogatiue and portion of infallibility as that of necessity some one person or other must still be sound in the Church beleeuing all the Articles of the Creed or if that be too much at least all Fundamentall points in Protestant sense For so longe as but two or three persons hold all such points it will be true that the whole Church is not by any errour totally sallen away from Christ the Foundation All the lawfull Pastcurs of the Church may in the Bishops opinion erre euery man of them and fall away euen from Christ the Foundation yea draw all their people to Hell with them without any preiudice to the promises which Christ made to his Church if but two or three poore soules be still found whome God preserues from such errour as our Aduersaries call Fundamentall All is well the gates of Hell doe not prevaile ouer Christs Church though euery particular Christian saue only some few in an age perish by Heresie the holy Ghost doth not cease to teach the Church all necessary truth notwithstanding that in all ages and times of the Church he suffers such an vniuersall deluge of all damning and Soule-destroying errours as this to ouerspread the whole face of Christendome 6. This is the infallibility our Aduersary grants the whole But A. Cs. words concerning the holy Ghosts assistance in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils oblige the Bishop some what further to declare himselfe in that point wherein though wee sufficiently know his minde already yet it shall not be amiss to heare him speake He vtterly denies therfore and that twice ouer for failing that Generall Councils be they neuer so lawfully called continued and confirmed haue any infallible assistance but may erre in their determinations of Fayth Whether they can or no hath been already sufficiently handled and the Relatours assertion confuted so that there is noe necessitie of repeating what hath been sayd All that I shall desire of the Reader here is that from this and the former passage of the Bishop he would take a right measure of his iudgement and of the iudgement of all his followers in this maine point concerning the Churches Authority and to reflect how much they doe in reality attribute to it They are oftentimes heard indeed to speake faire words and to profess great respect to the Church and to Councils especially such as be Generall and oecumenicall pretending at least to refuse none but for some manifest defect or faultiness as that they were not truly or fully Generall or did not obserue legall and warrantable proceeding in their debates etc. But lett them giue neuer such goodly words lett them counterfeite Iacobs voyce neuer so much here 's the touch-stone of their iudgement and inward sense whatsoeuer they say this they all hold Generall Councils how lawfullysoeuer and how lawfully and warrantably soeuer proceeding haue no infallible assistance from God but may erre and that vniuersally too for so he meanes as wee haue already proued that is in all matters and points whatsoeuer Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall But you will replie the Bishop grants infallibility to a Generall Council to witt de post facto as his words are after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church I answer this is to giue as much infallibility to a Generall Council as is due to the meanest Society or Company of Christians that is For while they iudge that to be an Article of Christian Fayth which is so indeed and receiu'd for such by the whole Church they are euery one of them in this sense infallible and can noe more be deceiu'd or deceiue others in that particular iudgement then a Generall Council or then the thing that is true in it felfe and also found to be true by the whole Church can be false In this indeed the Relatour is iust as liberall now to a Generall Council as he was formerly to the whole Church in granting it not to erre while it erres not The truth is he vainly trifles in the whole business and dallyes with the Reader by obtruding vpon him a Grammaticall or at best but a Logicall notion or sense of the word infallible in stead of the Theologicall For how J pray or in what sense is a Generall Councill acknowledg'd by the Relatour to be infallible euen de post facto after t is ended and as he will haue it confirm'd by the Churches acceptance Certainly if you marke it no otherwise then euery true Proposition is or may be sayd to be infallible that is hipothetically and vpon supposition only For surely no true Proposition quâ talis or soe farre as t is suppos'd or know'n to be true though but by some one person can deceiue any man or possibly be false Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique Quicquid est quando est necesse est esse Euery thing that is has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing since it cannot but be so long as it is And is it not thinke you a worthy prerogatiue of the Church to be thus infallible in her definitions Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the
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
quest 1. art 1. ad 3 um 4 um His words are these Ad illud quod objicitur de Damasceno dicendum quod non est in istâ parte ei assentiendum Sicut enim intellexi ipse fuit in tempore quando orta est contentio Vnde non est in hoc sustinendus quia simpliciter fuit Graecus tamen ipse cautè loquitur Unde non dicit quod Spiritus non est a Filio sed dicit NON DICIMVS A FILIO quia Graeci non confitebantur nec tamen negabant Sed modò eorum maledicta progenies addidit ad paternam Dementiam dicit quod non procedit à Filio nisi temporaliter ideo tanquam Haereticos Schismaticos Romana eos damnat Ecclesia To that sayes he which is objected from Damascen it is to be answered that we are not to assent to him in this particular For as I understand he lived in the time when this Controversie was sprung up Wherefore we are not bound to maintain him in this point because absolutely speaking he was a Grecian yet himself speaks warily For he doth not say the Holy Ghost is not from the Son but he saith we say not from the Son For the Grecians as they did not confess so neither did they deny to wit the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son But now their accursed off-spring hath added to the madness of their Fore-fathers and professeth that the Holy Ghost doth not at all proceed from the Son otherwise then Temporally and therefore the Roman Church condemns them both as Heretiques and Schismatiques But let us adde a word or two more in particular to his Authorities cited Durandus his words give onely a general Doctrine which is most true viz. That difference IN WORDS is not repugnant to the unity of Faith The Master of Sentences we said but even now speaks of those Ancienter Greeks who spake moderately and warily in this point Bandinus is cited but no words of his alledged St. Bonaventure is quite against his Lordship For in that very place which he cites St. Bonaventure brands the Greeks of his time who had deserted the Roman Church with the note of Hereticks and Schismatiques Now the Bishop uses some cunning in not giving notice of those precedent words and thereby perswading his Reader that St. Bonaventure by not answering to the Objection pressed by the Greeks viz. That Salvation might be had without that Article A PATRE FILIO QUE PROCEDIT but onely saying that such a determination was opportune by reason of the danger tacitly grants that Salvation may be had without it And consequently was of opinion that the Greeks who separated from the Church of Rome in his time were capable of Salvation even in that Separation Whereas it is most manifest in that very Paragraph that St. Bonaventure as is said holding them Heretiques and Schismatiques excluded them from Salvation And this would have appeared had not St. Bonaventures former words been concealed by the Bishop But this is not all the Art he useth in this Citation He was to prove that according to St. Bonaventure the Grecians opposite to the Roman Church notwithstanding their Errour and Separation were capable of Salvation even supposing the Declarations and Decrees of the Roman Church in his time against them and to prove this he alledges an Answer of St. Bonaventure to an Objection about the addition of the word Filioque to the Creed Now this addition was made before the succeeding Declarations of the Church against the Grecians and consequently seeing for many hundred years the Creed was without this addition it was most evident that Salvation might be had and was had without it nay even after the addition was made till the necessity of it was sufficiently declared by the Church and the point fully defined against the Grecians who opposed it it was not happily so necessary but some might be saved without it But by what reach of Logick will the Bishop be able to prove this Consequence St. Bonaventure tacitly grants that Salvation might be had without that Article before it was added and decreed by the Church to contain a Point of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation Ergo St. Bonaventure holds that even after such decrees were made Salvation might be had without it and even by those who obstinately contradicted the Truth contained in it For before it was added and at the first addition before the said Declarations Christians might be excused by ignorance but after such Declarations were made those who knew them as the Greek Church did could by no ignorance be excused Jodocus Clictoveus is cited to small purpose For the question is not whether quidam ex Graecis some of the Grecians hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Sou for that is true even at this day but whether those who violently oppose the Church of Rome that is to say the Patriarchs Bishops Clergy and people who take part with them which we now term the Greek Church hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son Scotus is of as little force as Clictoveus For the Bishop was to prove from this Author as he undertakes that the present Greek Church errs not Fundamentally And to prove this he alledgeth him saying That the Ancient Greeks differed rather in Words then in Substance from the Latin Church which was not at all touched in the Controversie between them For all of ours grant that the Ancient Grecians were guilty of no real errour at all land so of no Fundamental errour But how does that excuse the present Greeks from Fundamental errour His Lordship should have shew'n this And Bellarmin is as far from proving the present Greek Church not to erre as his words point from the time of it For he speaks of St. John Damascen who flourished six hundred years before Bellarmin was born and who spake so warily and moderately in the point that as St. Bonaventure observes his words may be taken in a favourable sense to wit as not denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as the latter Grecians now do but onely saying non dicimus we use not to say ex Filio but rather per Filium neque affirmando nec negando formalizing as 't is evident at the manner of expression but not at the thing Lastly when the words of Tolet and of the Lutherans to Hieremias the Patriarch shall be cited they shall receive answer Onely this is most certain that Tolet holds with all Catholique Doctors that the Modern Grecians are Hereticks and so do erre Fundamentally and the Lutherans oppose Hieremias who denyes in express terms the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as we have already shew'n His second and Theological Argument is that since their forme of speech is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons they
Term Fundamentall all strangers to the Question 3. What must be understood by Fundamentall Points of Faith in this Debate 4. His flying from the Formall to the Materiall Object of Faith 5. The distinction of Points of Faith into Fundamentall and not-Fundamentall according to Protestan Principles destroyes it self 6. No Infallibility in church-Church-Authority no Faith 7. How Fundamentals are said to be an Immoveable Rock 8. How the Churches Authority renders us certain of Divine Revelations 9. How Superstructures may become Fundamental and how Fundamentals must be known to all 10. Scotus vindicated from one foul corruption and St. Augustin from another THe Bishop in the end of the ninth § parting friendly with the Greeks before he enters into war again with the Roman Church in the tenth § he scoureth up his best Defensive weapon the Point of Fundamentals having hitherto given us but a glimpse of it He tells of Mr. Fisher that he read a large discourse out of a Printed Book saying 't was his own his Lordship would seem to mistrust it written against Dr. white concerning Fundamentals The Bishop sayes not what he answer'd to this Discourse but puts all off with an I do not remember might he not have call'd to his Chaplain for Mr. Fishers Book if he had minded an Answer But I see him now drawing up his great Artillery of Fundamentals to attack his Adversary for saying All Points Defined by the Church are Fundamentall yet this proves but a Squib for he presently goes out of the question to disport himself with a fancy of his own a piece of Policy forsooth which he hath spied in the Roman Church 1. Rome sayes he to shrivel the credit of its Opposers blasts them all with the name of Heretique and Schismatique and so by that means grew into Greatnesse To make good which proceeding this course was taken The School must maintain that all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the Substance of Faith and then saith he leave active Heads to determine not what is truest but what is fittest for them Now what a weak discourse have we here from a grave Primate of England Thinks he all the world is turn'd mad or Heathen No truth left upon earth but all become Juglers Is the whole business of Religion but a Legerdemain to serve the Popes Ambition a puff of winde Is it credible so many learned and Venerable Prelates and other Holy men whose eminent Sanctity it hath pleased God to illustrate by the Testimony of glorious Miracles so many famous Doctors and Heads of Schools so many Austere and Religious Persons as have secluded themselves from all Temporal Concernments to attend wholly to the Service of God and Salvation of their Souls is it credible I say that all these were such egregious dissemblers as to prostitute their own Salvation to the Popes Greatness by determining not what they conceived Truest but what they esteemed fittest for his Temporal ends Such stuff as this might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble to deceive the giddy multitude and to cast a mist before their eyes that they might not see the Impurity of their own English-Protestant Church even in its first rise under Henry the eighth and the People-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth as may be seen in History But who could have imagined his Lordship would betray so great a weakness of Judgement nay so much want of Charity as to affirm so groundless so impossible a slaunder But let it pass for one of the Bishops Railleries Yet I must confess it becomes not one that would be esteem'd a grave Doctor of the English Church an alterius orbis Patriarcha as the Ancient Primates of England have been called 2. After his Lordship has sported thus a while with all that can be serious upon earth Mans Salvation he returns again to the question Whether all Points Defined by the Church be Fundamental and like one that provides for a Retreat or Subter-fuge he cuts out a number of ambiguous Distinctions as so many Turnings and Windings to fly away by when he shall be put to it He blames Mr. Fisher for not distinguishing between a Church in general which he supposes cannot erre and a general Council which he sayes he grants not that it cannot erre Would he have Women and Children come to determine Doctrines you will finde he alwayes perplexes the Question he staggers in the delivery of his own judgement he sayes he is slow in opposing what is concluded by a Lawful General and consenting Authority this must needs be a Church in General It seems then sometimes he opposeth it or staggers at it as those sometimes do that go slowly One while hee 'l take Fundamental for a point necessary to be believed explicitè as distinguish't from a point that is necessary to be believed onely implicitè Another while he takes it for a Prime and Native Principle of Faith as contradistinguish't from what he calls a Superstructure or Deducible from it Now he takes Fundamental for a point common to all and contain'd expresly in the Creed then for a point necessary to be known of all in order to Salvation as distinguish 't from a point necessary onely to some particular mens Salvation and thus by shifting from one acception to another he carries on the design of his Labyrinth with so much Art that the Reader is in great danger to be lost in following him 3. Having therefore seen the word Fundamental used in so many different senses we will first deduce even from the Bishops own Discourse the right sense in which for the present we ought to take the word Fundamental His Lordship and Mr. Fisher fell upon this Dispute about points Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation occasionally from what was touched in their Debate concerning the Greek Church where the Bishop affirmed that though they had grievously erred in Divinity yet not in a point Fundamental sufficient to un-church them which must needs have happened had they erred in a point necessary to Salvation Wherefore the Bishop in his 25 th page takes it for the same to put the Greeks out of the Church and to deny to them Salvation We have also seen how in the words lately cited he calls Fundamental what ever is necessarily to be believed Nor can the Lady be thought to have required satisfaction concerning Fundamentals in the Bishops sense For she is to be supposed to have understood what both Catholiques and Protestants usually mean in this Dispute and Mr. Fisher pag. 42. even as the Bishop § 2. pag. 2 cites his words gives an express Advertisement that by points Fundamental neither he nor the Lady understood any other then Points necessary to Salvation when he sayes thus in all Fundamental Points that is in all Points necessary to Salvation The question then in Controversie between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher was Whether all Points
Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
being declared by the Church to us as points of Faith may lawfully that is without peril of sin and damnation be denyed or doubted of For in this they hold the Affirmative we the Negative The reason why we have no occasion in this Controversie to treat this distinction in any sense save this is because it relates onely to our Adversaries who maintain they are not obliged under pain of damnation to believe some Definitions of the Church made in lawful General Councils even whilest they expresly know them to be so defined because say they those Councils may erre in such Definitions by reason the matter they contain is not-Fundamental Wherefore we neither say nor intend to shew it Sub Anulo Piscator is which are his Lordships tearms that 't is as necessary to believe St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men as that Christ dyed and rose again the Third Day We hold the contrary the one being a Prime Article and Fundamental in the first explicated sense the other neither Prime nor Fundamental But we stand to this That whoever shall finde in Scripture That St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and yet question or deny the truth of it cannot for that time believe any thing with Divine Faith Therefore in the second sense it is Fundamental to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and though the contrary should be shewed under the Great Seal of England I would not believe it Now if the belief of every point of Faith decreed by the Church be as necessary to Salvation when sufficiently propounded to us for a point decreed by the Church as it is necessary to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made by our Saviour Fishers of men when it is sufficiently propounded to us as clearly delivered in Scripture then it will be as necessary to Salvation that is as much a Fundamental point by reason of the Authority which delivers it as the other CHAP. 4. The Conclusion of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. What points Fundamental what not a Necessary question 2. The Apostles Creed confessedly contains not all Fundamentals in particular 3. Albertus Magnus cited to small purpose 4. A. C's words wrested in defense of Mr. Rogers 5. Catharinus might erre but was no Heretique 6. How Protestants agree 7. A. C. mutilated the second time in favour of the English Canons 8. English Protestants excommunicate Catholiques as much as Catholiques them 9. Some Things contain'd in Scripture expresly not evidently Some Truths deduced from Scripture directly not demonstratively 10. Baptisme of Infants not demonstratively proved by the Bishop from Sole Scripture 11. What St. Augustin thought of that matter 12. The Bishop proved to contradict himself 1. 'T Was a very pertinent question which Mr. Fisher afterwards moved requiring to know what points the Bishop would account Fundamental For if he will have some Fundamental which we are bound to believe under pain of Damnation and others not Fundamental which we may without sin question or deny it behoves us much to know which they are I have ever desir'd a fatisfactory answer from Protestants to this question but could never yet have it in the sense demanded 2. What if the Council of Trent call the Creed the onely Foundation it containing the Prime points of our Faith which all are obliged to know and expresly believe yet I hope his Lordships followers will not grant that we may question or deny every thing that is not exprest in the Creed and yet this must be done if the Creed onely be held for Fundamental in the sense the question was propounded in If they should reply that not onely those points are Fundamental which are exprest in the Creed but those also which are there infolded by this means they may as the Bishop speaks lap up in the Creed all particular points of Faith whatever And truly seeing his Lordship goes so far as to include all the Scripture in the Creed there appears no great reason of Scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other points especially of that Tradition for which we admit Scripture it self For this would not make the fold much larger then it was before and if it did yet I see no hurt in it But let us briefly reflect how well the Bishops Answer satisfies the question propounded by Mr. Fisher. The matter proceeded thus The Jesuit had said that the Greek Church was not right because it held an errour concerning the Holy Ghost The Bishop confessed that what the Greeks held in that point was an errour and a grievous one in Divinity but not Fundamental and so hindered them not from being a True Church Whereupon that it might appear whether the errour of the Greek Church were Fundamental or not Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop what points he would account Fundamental To this question the Bishop after diverse artificial flourishes serving to little or no purpose but to draw the Readers attention from the Obligation he had to give a perfect list of his Fundamentals answered All points in the Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental but soon after affirms that he never either said or meant that they onely are Fundamental By which it evidently appears his Lordship neither gave nor meant to give a Categorical Answer to the question but did industriously decline it while granting there were other points Fundamental beside those contain'd in the Apostles Creed he would not assign them in particular Wherefore though the Greeks errour were not contrary to any point expressed in the Creed yet seeing it might be contrary to some other Fundamental point not contained therein Mr. Fisher must needs remain as unsatisfied as before whether the Greeks erred in a Fundamental point or not Is not this fine shuffling 3. Before I leave this § I shall note by the way that to prove this Proposition that the Belief of Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed he cites Albertus Magnus in these words Regula 〈◊〉 Concors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Articulis Fidei c. the Rule of Faith is the Concordant sense of Scripture with Articles of Faith Now first here 's nothing of believing the Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible for that 's presupposed but onely what sense the Scripture must have to be the Rule of Faith Secondly here 's no mention of the Creed but of Articles of Faith which Albertus held to be many more then those specified in the Creed Thirdly this sentence of Albertus makes the Scripture no further a Rule of Faith then as it accords with the Articles of Faith first delivered by Tradition 4. By what hath been said is confuted whatever the Bishop hath to pag. 44. where Mr. Rogers is brought in by Mr. Fisher as acknowledging that the
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
is that they amend their lives and be Baptized and they shall receive the Holy Ghost it cannot appertain to their Children till they be capable of mending their lives which Infants as all know are not And therefore by a new Turn he tells us the means to receive the Holy Ghost was Baptisme as if nothing but Baptisme had been exacted by the Apostle in that place when he expresly requires amendment of life as well as Baptisme 11. Notwithstanding all this I would not have it thought I intend to weaken the Argument out of John 3. for proving the Baptisme of Infants for I have onely endeavoured to shew that it cannot be demonstratively proved out of that Text of Scripture alone against a perverse Heretique We must therefore embrace St. Augustins counsel cited by his Lordship who fayes The custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition In which words St. Augustin expresly asfirmeth that the point of Baptizing Infants were not at all to be believ'd but for Tradition Therefore it is not demonstrable out of Scripture alone for if it were we should be bound to believe it though we had it not from Tradition which is contrary to St. Augustins words 'T is true this Father having first learn't the abovesaid Doctrine from Tradition proves it or rather confirms it out of Scripture and so do other Catholique Authours But all these proofs would be far from Demonstrations were it not for Tradition Writing against Pelagius he applyes that saying of our Saviour Matth. 10. 14. Suffer little ones to come unto me to the Baptizing of Infants yet no man ever brought this place for a Demonstration or a Text evidently proving of it self without Tradition that Infants ought to be Baptized For those our Saviour spake of came not unto him to be Baptized but to receive his Benediction And 't is clear that he spake of the Children of the Jews who were either circumcized or otherwise justified and if we stick to the sole words they may be understood of such as were capable to understand what was commanded or forbidden them and consequently had some use of reason which the Text it self intimates nolite prohibere eos forbid them not For as I have said we grant that Tradition being supposed this point is proveable out of Scripture Wherefore 't is true that it hath a root and foundation in Scripture yet so obscurely that it could not be sufficiently discovered without Tradition because an Anabaptist might give a probable solution to all our Arguments had we onely Scripture and not Tradition for this point of Faith Wherefore though Scripture may in some general sense be said to contain in it all things necessary yet it cannot be said to contain expresly and evidently all things necessary in particular 12. I prove my Assertion that Infant-Baptisme must be believed by Divine Faith as 't is an Apostolical Tradition that is considered purely as delivered orally by the Apostles whether it can be prov'd by Scripture or no. My Argument is ad hominem against the Bishop thus He grants expresly pag. 66. and 67. that unwritten Apostolical Traditions if any such can be produced are as properly and formally the word of God and to be believed with Divine Faith as Scripture it self Ergo Baptisme of Infants considered onely as an unwritten Apostolical Tradition as he considers it precedently to its being drawn from Scripture is to be believed with Divine Faith being in that precise consideration the proper and formal object of Faith to wit the true word of God So that according to this his doctrine not onely such Traditions as are not at all written are Gods word but such as are both delivered by word of mouth and also by writing are the word of God as well by reason they were delivered by word of mouth as by writing because God hath equally revealed them by both these means When therefore he sayes pag. 52. that the Scriptures onely are the Foundation of Faith it must be acknowledg'd that he speaks contrary to what he sayes pag. 57. That Baptisme of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition which he there takes as contradistinguisht from Scripture and therefore to be believed For if it be therefore that is because it is an Apostolical Tradition even precedently to Scripture proofs to be believed not onely the Scriptures but Apostolical Tradition also as contradistinguisht from Scripture will be a foundation of Faith If he should reply that when he sayes therefore to be believed he means not as the formal object and foundation of Faith but as a disposition preparing us to found the belief of it in Scripture as he seems to insinuate though something obscurely pag. 57 he contradicts himself pag. 66 67. where he grants that assured unwritten Tradition is the true word of God and by consequence properly to be believed as having in it the formal object of Faith to wit Gods Revelation CHAP. 5. Of the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in their Resolution of Faith 2. The Church prov'd Infallible by the same way that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so 3. The Difference between Principles of Science and Faith 4. No Necessity that the Churches Definitions should be held the formal object of Faith but onely an Infallible Application of the Formal Object to us 5. His Lordships Argument disproved by Instances HAving ended our large discourse of Fundamentals drawn out to so great a length by necessity of following our Adversary through all his Doubles and ambiguous Windings wherein yet I hope we have given Satisfaction to the judicious Reader we are come at last to that main Question How Scriptures may be known to be the word of God and in particular Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. These are believ'd to be the word of God though not proved so out of any place of Scripture but onely by Gods unwritten word Tradition His Lordship thinks this too curious a question but it is not so much a question of curiosity as of necessity that so we may know how to resolve our Faith and give an account thereofto others But the plain truth is that though this question hath no difficulty at all in our principles who say we believe them to be the true and undoubted word of God because the Catholique Church delivers them as such to us yet was it so insuperably hard to be solved in Protestant principles that I fear the Relatour had rather have given it a put off by a Turn in his Labyrinth then engaged himself therein could the business have been conveniently avoided Now if some do prove Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture falling into that faulty kinde of Argumentation which the Schools call Circulus vitiosus the blame lyes not in him that asks the question
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
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 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
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
builds the Catholique Church upon the Faith onely and not upon the Person of St. Peter professing that Faith But first this assertion of the Bishop is refuted by the words of St. Cyril himself who calls the Faith upon which he sayes the Church is founded c inconcussam firmissimam Discipuli Fidem the invincible and most firm Faith of Christs Disciple which words clearly include St. Peters Person with his Faith For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm but onely in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it We our selves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peters Shoulders but upon his Faith viz. as 't is constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person and the person of his Successors as occasion requires Secondly 't is no less contrary to the words of Holy Scripture Matth. 16. 18. I say unto thee Peter Thou art A ROCK and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church c. where 't is plain that by these words This Rock Christ meant no other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the preceding words Thou art a Rock For our Saviour spake in the Hebrew or Syriack Language Thou art CEPHAS which signifies a Rock and upon this CEPHAS that is upon this Rock will I build my Church The same is in the Greek Translation For even there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisies a Rock as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the Catholique Translators of the New Testament who follow the vulgar Latine Translation render it thus Thou art PETER and upon THIS ROCK will I build my Church yet have they noted that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our Blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word to wit Cephas which signifies a Rock when he made that promise to Saint Peter To make this plain by an instance drawn from our own affaires Suppose Matthew Parker presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied with John Scory Miles Coverdale William Barlow Jobn Hodgskins c. his Associates and Consecrators as Mr. Mason will have have it should have addressed themselves to the Queens Presence-Chamber to kiss her hand and the Queen should have asked them Quid dicitis vos de Filiâ Henrici octavi what say you of the Daughter of Henry the Eighth and Matthew Parker as chief among them answering according to the then-newly-enacted Belief Tu es Elizabetha Supremum Caput Ecclesiae c. Thou art Elizabeth Supream Head of the Church of England if the Queen thereupon should have return'd him this gracious Answer Et ego dico tibi TU ES PRIMAS super HUNC PRIMATEM aedificabo Ecclesiam meam And I say to thee Thou art Primate and upon this Primate I will build my English Church had this I say happened would any one have been so simple as to doubt whether by hunc Primatem this Primate she meant any other then Matthew Parker to whom onely she then spake Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referr'd to the Confession of St. Peter For that being a remote Antecedent mention'd onely in the verse before and Peter or Rock the immediate mention'd in one and the same verse with hanc Petram the words in question had our Saviour understood by hanc Petram This Rock not St. Peter himself but the Confession he made of Christs Divinity he should not have said super HANC Petram but super ILLAM Petram not upon THIS Rock will I build my Church but upon THAT Rock viz thy Confession because I say that was the remote Antecedent mention'd in the former verse and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour Super hanc Petram c. Seeing therefore our Saviour sayes not That but This Rock he must be understood according to strict rules of Grammar by the Demonstrative hanc or This to mean the immediate or next Antecedent viz. St. Peter himself not that which was further off viz. his Confession of Christs Divinity I adde that if our Saviour had meant St. Peters Confession onely without his Person he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And saying Thou art Peter AND upon this Rock c. but he should have us'd the Conjunction Discretive or Exceptive But saying Thou art Peter that is a Rock in name BUT upon that Rock of thy Confession will I build my Church Wherefore seeing our Saviour doth not so speak but uses the Conjunction Copulative And he plainly tyes his speech to the Person of St. Peter to whom onely he spake in the words immediately precedent and this as necessarily as the subsequent And in the next following sentence AND to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. doth shew the said words or sentence to belong to St. Peter onely Beside what coherence do you think our Saviours discourse will have if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peters person onely and the middle of a quite different thing Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion that he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different maner from that which the Church of Rome doth now adayes And therefore sayes he either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome Infallible or else the Church of Rome this day reckons up more Books in the Canon then heretofore she did If she do so then she is changed in a main point of Faith viz. the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible But this Argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing For though it should be granted that the Catholick Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon then she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could prove no errour in her unless it could be likewise shew'd which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those Books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine and Canonical For as now she defines some Truths which in former times were left under dispute without the least shadow of errour so without errour may she now admit some Books for Canonical and Divine Scripture which before she left under dispute that is so undeclared by her for Canonical that Christians were not obliged to receive them for such Books which now after her Declaration they are obliged to do What he says here of the Church of Rome will not I conceive be found very pressing viz. that she is driven to a hard strait for using the Authority of her Adversary meaning Ruffinus to prove her Infallibility For though it should be granted that Ruffinus was an Adversary of the Romane Church yea a condemned Adversary rejected and branded by her as the Bishop speaks yet certainly this is so far from
driving the Church of Rome to a hard strait that it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it Neither did the Roman Church reject all that Ruffinus writ even in that Book wherein he exprest his Heresie but onely such parts of it as were dissonant to the received Doctrine of the Catholique Church And if one condemned of errour by another may not be cited in any thing wherein he favours the party that condemned him why does the Relatour so often cite our Authours whom he condemns of errours in Faith when they seem to favour him The Bishop having examin'd Bellarmins Authorities in the manner you see returns again to A.C. and the Jesuit telling us in very positive terms that no Jesuit nor any other is able to prove any particular Church Infallible But to this I have often answer'd that it was neither to the Ladies purpose nor ours to dispute concerning a particular Infallible Church it sufficeth that the Pope is infallible at least with a General Council which question as I have often observ'd the Relatour wisely declines and diverts another way namely to an unnecessary dispute with Bellarmin about the Infallibility of the particular Church or Diocess of Rome viz. whether the Roman Clergy can at any time forsake the Pope and his Doctrine or not or whether the Chair of St. Peter can be transferred to another place and the Roman Church upon that account be left subject to errour as being no longer the Sea Apostolique both which are matters of that nature that they do no way engage me to contend with his Lordship about them further then to tell him that they are nothing at all to his purpose nor to the satisfaction of the Lady and seem to have been thrust into his book onely to fill up some vacant pages and to avoid the question which he was obliged but not able directly to answer In the same page I observe the Bishop charges the Romane Church with erring in the Worship of Images in altering Christs Institution in the Blessed Sacrament by taking away the Cup from the people and divers other particulars but because he endeavours not in any sort to prove his charge I presume I may take liberty to answer in a more convenient place to wit where the Bishop disputes formally against them But his Lordship will not part without another fling at Bellarmin he thinks he hath spy'd a great inconsistency in some words of the Cardinal The matter thus Bellarmin lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. § 2. as the Bishop cites him of this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith so long as St. Peters Chair is at Rome sayes 't is A MOST TRUE Proposition but presenty after speaking of it sayes onely PERADVENTURE 'T IS AS TRUE AS THIS viz. the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre At this the Bishop exclaims as at a great absurdity of speech What sayes he A Proposition MOST TRUE and yet but PERADVENTURE as true as another That 's not possible with him But soft and fair What needs so much noise Let 's see what grounds the Relatour has for this Criticisme First he should have reflected that in such expressions as this there is alwayes a latitude of moral sense and meaning to be allow'd even by common right and custom of speaking When I say for example such a man is vir prudentissimus or vir optimus a most wise and most honest man I am not presently thought to prefer him in those respects before all the men in the world nor shall I be counted I hope a lyar though some other men be found as wise and honest as he Bellarmin therefore might have been excus'd with indifferent Judges for saying what he did upon no other ground but this But I shall not here use this plea let the word Verissima be taken in the strictest rigour of Scholastical sense that can be yet may not a Proposition be rightly said most true viz. in its proper Rank and order of such Propositions and yet be but peradventure as true as a Proposition of another and higher rank for certainty or infallibility of Truth 'T is manifest Bellarmin held his first Proposition touching the Popes Infallibility when he teaches the whole Church to be true Veritate fidei for he holds it to be a proposition of Faith but this other touching the Roman Clergies not erring or not departing from the Popes Doctrine so long as the Sea Apostolique continued there to be true onely Veritate Theologiae as other Theological Propositions are True which are not Divinely revealed but meerly by humane Discourse and way of Argument deduced from other Theological Propositions and Principles whose Truth consequently is never so absolutely infallible as that of matters of Faith but onely more or less certain according as the Principles or Propositions whence we deduce them are more or less Infallible and the Deduction of them from such Principles more or less evident and necessary What absurdity then was it for Bellarmin to say this Proposition viz. of the Roman Clergies never forsaking the Popes Doctrine c. is most true meaning in the quality of a Theological Conclusion and yet but peradventure as true as that other viz. of the Popes not erring when he teacheth the whole Church which latter Proposition Bellarmin undoubtedly held to be a Proposition of Divine Faith but did not hold the other to be such Truly just as much absurdity as 't is to say of a little man that in comparison of a Pygmie he is a tall Fellow but in comparison of some Yeoman of the Guard he is but a Dwarf Thus having acquitted my self of what I stood obliged by promise at the beginning of this Treatise I return again to the Bishop in pursuit of his present Discourse CHAP. II. Protestants Schismatiques ARGUMENT 1. No pure Church in the world since the Apostles time if the Roman Church corrupt 2. Petrus de Alliaco favours not the Bishop Card. Bellarmin most falsly quoted by him Almainus Cassander c. not for him 3. Schismes and Heresies in Rome but not in the Roman Church 4. who made the present Schisme Roman-Catholiques or Protestants 5. St. Bernards and St. Austins words rightly urged by A. C. and Bellarmins as wrongfully by the Bishop 6. Protestants though they will have the Church unerrable in Fundamentals onely yet can never be brought to give a list of them 7. Christs Church by inseparable property both Caththolique and Holy THe Relatour is still making personal reflexions upon A. C. Here he will have him troubled again about the form of the Ladies question but I see no reason he had to be troubled whether the Lady askt her question by Be or Was because if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shew'n in her Doctrine
If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made For the same reason also if it be now the true Church it was ever so having alwayes adhered to St. Peters Successor and the Doctrine by him delivered 1. But the Relatour asserts that the Church of Rome was and was not a right and Orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For in the prime times of it it was a most right and Orthodox Church but if we look upon the immediate times before Luther then it was a corrupt and tainted Church In this I say the Relatour begs the question for the Roman Church remained alwayes the same it was from the beginning because in this dispute the Roman signifies the Catholique Church according to that of Dr. Stapleton Apud veteres pro eodem habita fuit Ecclesia Romana Ecclesia Catholica amongst the Ancients saith he the Roman Church and the Catholique Church were taken for the same We adde they are now also to be held for the same and the reason given by Stapleton whatever the Bishop thinks doth not at all destroy the said Identity His reason is quia ejus communio erat evidenter certissimè cum totâ Catholicâ because the Communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholique and by consequence the whole Catholique with it Wherefore as the Catholique Church continued ever the same and incorrupt so did the Roman which is the same with the Catholique This A. C. sufficiently express'd when he mention'd the Roman Church not onely as it contain'd the City and Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it in Doctrine and Communion For 't is clear by Roman Church in that sense he could understand no other but the Catholique We deny then that any abuses or errours did at any time more corrupt or taint the Roman Church then they did the Catholique Wherefore it seems very strange to hear his Lordship say that the Roman Church never was nor ever can be THE RIGHT or the HOLY CATHOLIQUE Church For when it was a right Church as he himself grants it once was if we take it in A. C's sense viz. not onely for that Church which is within the City or Diocess of Rome but for all that agree with it what difference will he finde betwixt the Holy Catholique Church and all others agreeing with the Church of Rome What he asserts of the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that then the Roman Church was a corrupt and tainted Church and far from being a right Church sounds very harshly in a Christians ears For if in all those ages the Roman Church that is the Church of Rome and all other Churches agreeing with her were wrong corrupted and tainted and all those likewise that disagreed from her viz. Hussites Albigenses Waldenses Wickleffists Greeks Abyssins Armenians c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages as 't is certain they had neither could the Relatour deny it I say if the Roman Church was thus corrupt it follows that not onely for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one visible Church untainted incorrupt right Orthodox throughout the whole world And consequently that during the said ages every good Christian was in conscience oblig'd in some point of Christian belief or other to contradict the Doctrine and desert the Communion of all visible Churches in the world since no Church not confessedly Hereticall can be shew'n that did not communicate both in Doctrine and Discipline with the Roman during all that time Whence it would further follow that Schisme or Separation from the externall Communion of the whole Church might be not onely lawfull which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers as Dr. Hammond well proves in his Book of Schisme but even necessary which is impossible as being contrary to the very essentiall Predicates of Schisme which is defined to be a voluntary or wilfull Departure such as no just cause or reason can be given of it from the Communion of the whole Church 2. His great Marginal Note out of Petrus de Alliaco signifies but little For as it mentions not any false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church so neither doth it threaten that any shall be taught by it after his time but clearly speaks of Schismes and Heresies rais'd against the Church not foster'd by her in all parts of Christendom Otherwise we must esteem that learned Cardinal a man either very ignorant or very impious to make the Church it self Ecclesiam Dei as he speaks guilty of Schismes and Heresies which even in our Adversaries opinion are held to be incompatible with the Church of God and destructive of it 'T is certain Bellarmin acknowledges no errours in Popes but onely as they were private Doctours he admits not any errours to have been defined by them by Authority properly Papall or ex Cathedrâ for Christs Doctrine or to be believ'd by the whole Church And indeed he even clears them of Errours in the first kinde so far as to shew that they did never so much as personally or in quality of private Doctors erre or teach any errour in matter of Faith publiquely defined and admitted for such by the whole Church which though it be a very pious opinion yet no man is oblig'd to embrace it as a point of Faith For Catholique Faith in this particular onely obliges us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines with a General Council To what good purpose then does the Relatour in his Margin pin this following assertion upon Bellarmin Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminasse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est there being nothing like such a Proposition in the whole Chapter cited by the Bishop Almainus speaks not of Errours in Faith at all much less doth he say the Popes taught the whole Church such errours but onely of errours or rather abuses in point of Manners which might happen by the bad examples of Popes or their remissness in the execution of their Pastoral office But what if some of them should be prov'd to have taught errours in Doctrine as private men that destroyes not the Infallibility of the Church nor of the Pope as we maintain it no more then his permitting or suffering others through his negligence to teach such errours Hence also his Simile of Tares sow'n among Wheat is nothing to the purpose For if he means by Tares sow'n false Doctrine publiquely and definitively taught by the Pope or receiv'd by the Church in this sense we absolutely deny that ever any Tares were sow'n or ever shall be sow'n in the field of Gods Church But if he mean sow'n onely by private persons and growing up but for some time through negligence of particular Pastours until the Supreme Pastour either by himself or assisted with his Council
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
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
to their execution But surely one and a chief one of those ALL was to teach Infallibly the whole doctrine of Christs Gospel Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers inabling them to perform this so important a work when 't is necessary to be executed that is when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversie among Christians to be determined Nor will that conclusion hence follow which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastour of the Church would be Infallible for 't is no wayes necessary that every particular Pastour should be Infallible but 't is absolutely necessary that the Church in general or a General Council should be Infallible because otherwise there would no means be left in the Church sufficient to determine Controversies of Faith or prevent the spreading of Schismes and Heresies To the end my Reader may the better conceive this he is to understand there are divers degrees of Christs presence and assistance in reference to the Ministers of his Church All of them cannot challenge all priviledges but must be content with those that properly belong to their respective state and condition in the sacred Hierarchy And yet as all the said degrees are grounded upon this and the like promises of our Saviour so 't is necessary they be all verify'd according to the respective necessities of the Church The Supream Degree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance and therefore assign it onely to those who have Supream Authority in the Church and in cases onely of most urgent necessity for preventing of Heresies and Schismes In all other cases and in reference to all other Ministers of the Church we profess that so long as the Teaching and Governing part of them is continually so assisted by Christ that it generally leads not his Flock into errour in Faith nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded the promise is sufficiently perform'd on Christs part and St. Leo's words In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda rightly enough explicated though every private Pastour become not a Prophet and every Pulpit an Oracle as the Relatour vainly surmizes The third place urged by A. C. is out of St. Luke 22. 32. where Christs prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church against all errours in Faith whatsoever The words are these Simon Simon Behold Satan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have prayed for Thee that thy Faith fail not and thou once converted confirm thy Brethren 'T is clear that Christ here prayed that Faith in the Church might not fail either by praying for St. Peter as he was a Figure of the whole Church which is the exposition of the Parisians or by praying immediately for St. Peters person and mediately for the whole Church which he represented Aud thus at least that our Saviour in that Taxt prayed for the whole Church Bellarmin expresly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the Bishop It seems strange therefore that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviours praying here for the Church The prayer then of Christ extended it self to St. Peter and his Successors and by them to the whole Church according to those words of St. Bernard Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est aliquando Ego rogavi pro Te ut non deficiat fides tua c. I think it fitting saith he that the damages in Faith should be there chiefly repaired where Faith can suffer no defect For to what other Chair was it ever said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Take therefore which of these Expositions you please if an Infallible Assistance of Christ be once granted whereby his Church is sufficiently preserv'd from all errour in Faith whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors as Supream Teachers of the Church or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter yet still the Church will be Infallible by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour 8. The fourth place named by A. C. is that of St. John chap. 14. 16. to which he addes a consequent place John 16. 13. both of them containing another promise of Christ to his Apostles and in them to his Church viz. that the Comforter the Holy Ghost shall come and abide with them for ever teaching them all things c. and guiding them into all Truth We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Churches Infallibility So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishops various Trippings and Windings in his review of them First he sayes these promises if you apply them to the Church consisting of all Believers and including the Apostles are absolute and without any restriction which certainly is but a loose assertion taking it in the Bishops sense which is that the Apostles were free not onely from all errour but from all ignorance in Divine Things for so his Authour a Dr. Field speaks whom he cites in the Margin Were the Apostles not ignorant of any Divine matters why then doth St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 13. 9. We know in part Did the Apostles understand the whole counsel of God concerning mankinde why then doth the same Apostle cry out Rom. 11. 33 35. O the depth of the Wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements c. and who hath known the minde of our Lord Secondly if these promises of Christ be so absolute and without any restriction in regard of the Apostles to what purpose is that Text of Theodoret cited in his Margin which sayes expresly they ought to be limited in regard of them and that they did not signifie the Apostles should be led simply into all Truth but into all Truth necessary or expedient to Salvation Thirdly the Bishop having limited the promises of being taught and led into all Truth as they relate to the present Church onely to Truths necessary to Salvation he is not yet satisfied but addes another limitation to that viz. Direction of Scripture Against this Truth saith he meaning Truth necessary to Salvation the whole Catholique Church cannot erre keeping her self to the Direction of Scripture as Christ hath appointed her But I ask what Priviledge then has the Catholique Church in these promises of Christ more then every private Christian Surely with this condition of following the direction of Scripture there is none of the faithful but may pretend to be as Infallible as the Church Fourthly they must be limited sayes he to all such Truths as our Saviour had told them But the Apostles were taught divers things of principal concernment in order to Salvation by the Holy Ghost
even after our Saviours Ascension had they no promise of Divine Assistance in the delivery of those Truths Thus the promises of Christ come to nothing But if one should ask some of this Bishops Disciples how their Master proves that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truths necessary to Salvation they must answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipse dixit just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old when they were urg'd to give a Reason of their Masters Philosophy For where I pray hath Christ so limited his promises where do the Apostles teach us to understand them with such limitation Neither do we extend them to Truths wholly unnecessary or to curious Truths as the Bishop seems willing to insinuate No We tell him there is a medium a middle sort of Truths between those which are absolutely necessary for all mens Salvation and those which are simply unnecessary or curious We extend these promises to all Truths of this middle sort that is to all such Truths as the Church findes consonant to Catholique Faith and Piety and necessary to be defin'd for the preventing of Heresies Schismes and Dissentions among Christians But I pray observe our Adversaries unparallel'd Subtlety in the close of all Christ saith he hath promis'd that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth but he hath no where promis'd that the Church should follow her leader What a rare Acumen is here Then belike to lead and to follow are not Relatives in Protestant Logick But let them take heed 't is to be fear'd they will be found Relatives and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresie and other sins nothing will help but they must infallibly follow him And I wish that all his Lordships party would duly consider this as often as they interpret Scripture after this manner CHAP. 15. Of the Roman Churches Authority ARGUMENT 1. Whether Protestants beside reforming themselves did not condemn the Church of errour in Faith 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ then the rest of the Apostles 3. The History or matter of Fact touching the Donatists appealing to the Emperor related and how little it advantages the Bishop or his party 4. St. Gregories Authority concerning the question of Appeals and the Civil Law notably wrested by the Bishop 5. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York twice appealed to Rome and was twice restor'd to his Bishoprick by vertue of the Popes Authority 6. The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peters placing his Sea at Rome no ground of his Successors Supremacy 8. Why the Emperours for some time ratified the Popes Election 9. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome 10. The Pope never accus'd by the Ancients of falsifying the Canons and that he might justly cite the Canons of Sardica as Canons of the Council of Nice BY the precedent Discourse it appears that the Bishops main task for a long time hath been to prove that the General Church may erre and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith this being the thing which A. C. most constantly denyes But his Lordship finding the proof of this not so easie by little and little was fain to slide into another question concernig the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves thinking by this to Authorize the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage Rome Gangres Toledo c. § 24. num 5. which how they succeeded the Reader may easily have perceiv'd by our Answers in the precedent Chapter 1. He goes on with his wonted Art which is to alledge his Adversary with not overmuch sincerity A. C. treating the abovesaid question touching the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves and not denying but in some cases particular Churches may reform what is amiss even in matter of Faith for greater caution addes these express words pag. 58. WHEN THE NEED of Reformation IS ONELY QUESTIONABLE particular Pastours and Churches may not condemn others of Errour in Faith But these words when the need is onely questionable the Bishop thinks fit to leave out to what end but to have some colour to contradict his Adversary and abuse his Reader Let us now see whether his Lordships party be far from judging and condemning other Churches as he seems to make them by his simile A man that lives religiously sayes he doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers But yet while he is silent his very life condemns them First of all Who are these men that live so religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry Wives contrary to the Canons and bring forsooth Scripture for it Non est bonum esse hominem solum and again Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi Who are these men I say that live so religiously They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women They who cast Altars to the ground They who partly banish Priests partly put them to death They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even after they are dead These are the men who live so religiously But who are according to his Lordship prophane Livers They who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors They who for the Catholique Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations Imprisonments Banishments Death it self They in a word who suffer Persecution for Righteousness These in his Lordships opinion are Prophane Livers I return now to the Relatours men that live so religiously Do these men never condemn the Catholique Church but by their vertuous lives which you have seen Surely they condemn her not onely by quite dissonant lives but also by word of mouth by their pens nay by publick and solemn Censures Witness to go no further the Protestant Church of England Artic. 19. where she condemns of errour not onely the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria but even of Rome it self Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and Comment upon the said Article pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not onely shamefully err'd in matters of Faith but that the whole visible Church may likewise erre from time to time and hath err'd in doctrine as well as conversation Do they not say Artic. 21. that General Councils may erre and have err'd even in things pertaining to God Do they not pronounce of Purgatory Praying to Saints Worship of Images and Reliques c. Artic. 22. of Transubstantiation Artic. 28. and of the Sacrifice of the Mass Artic. 31. respectively that they are fond things vainly invented by men contrary to Gods Word Blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits Though it be as clear as the sun at noon-day that both these and many other points deny'd and rejected by Protestants were the doctrine and
have opened the Fathers meaning viz. that not onely the Church of Rome as 't is a particular Church kept intirely the Apostolical Tradition but that in it all the Faithful every where did keep the same Apostolical Tradition by being in unity and Communion with her Thus you may see to what shifts and upon what shelves even learned men are often driven by maintaining errour From the Premises I argue thus All the Faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem by reason of her more powerful Principality This is St. Irenaeus his Proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful Principality if her said power exended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful Principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the Faithful every where and not onely to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocess of Rome as the Bishop pleads 7. Little therefore is it to his advantage what he pretends to shew out of Ruffinus viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contain'd within the Islands and Precincts of Italy since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity and gives St. Irenaeus the lye Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less then any of the other Patriarchal Churches yea of much less extent then many Metropolitan Churches To which I add 't is contrary even to the common compute of Protestants themselves who often grant the Bishop of Rome to have been Patriarch of the West which undeniably contains many vaste Provinces and Nations beside Italy and the Islands about it Wherefore as the Bishop could not altogether deny but the word Suburbicary was unduly added by Ruffinus in the Translation of the Nicene Canon so I say 't is necessary to understand it unless we will contradict all the world not in the Bishops sense as signifying onely the Churches of Italy and the Islands thereto belonging but as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any way suburdinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known as also to this day by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Prefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded onely those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this Subject This exposition of Ruffinus his term Suburbicary wants not ground even in his own Text who makes as it were a contradistinction between Egypt and the Suburbicary Churches Now under Egypt he comprehends Lybia Pentapolis and Ethiopia which being without the Precincts of the Empire were committed to the power and care of the Patriarch of Alexandria but all Suburbicary Cities that is such as were under the City of Rome as it was Imperial were left under the Bishop of Rome and he by reason of his Seat at Rome was still to be their chief Prelat and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them then he had over those other Cities which were out of the Empire though as St. Peters Successour he had the universal care of the whole Church and that full Potentiorem Principalitatem which St. Irenaeus ascribes unto him 8. Touching Calvin's conjecture that recourse was therefore had to Rome because at that time the Roman Church was more constant to the Truth and less distracted with dangerous opinions it is wholly inept For 't is false that before St. Irenaeus's time Rome was more constant in the Faith then the other Churches of Greece and Africk had been seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresie as Rome 9. The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest from us a Text or two of Epiphanius touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successours wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wonted reservedness that St. Peters person is understood in that Text of the Gospel Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be perswaded to extend it any further then his person But we affirm 't is clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter is derived to his Successours For first after the words Et Portae inferorum c. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it this Father immediately addes Quarum Portarum nomine Hereses Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authours of Heresies are understood that is to say All Heresies and all Authours of Heresies whatever shall arise Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal True it is the Bishop omits these last words by his wonted Et caetera However since he acknowledges that by the Firm Rock whereon our Saviour according to Epiphanius promised to build his Church St. Peter is personally understood we shall easily make good our Argument from it and solve his objections For he must consequently acknowledge the Church so founded on St. Peter as by vertue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies and Inventors of Heresie that should at any time impugne the Churches Faith which could not possibly be verified in case Christs promise were to be limitted to St. Peters person alone For else why might not Heresies and Heretiques after St. Peters death prevail against the Church yea so far prevail as utterly to extinguish the true Faith Wherefore the Bishops long discourse by way of Gloss on this and some other Texts of the same Father concerns us not at all For it being once granted that St. Peter was personally to uphold the Church in the profession of the true Faith as its principal Foundation under Christ we have our desire Nevertheless we deny that he hath any ground to limit to St. Peter onely those Elogiums given him by St. Epiphanius and not allow them extendible to his Successours so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith Wherefore as St. Peters Authority is by the Bishops own confession rightly urg'd by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Hereticks that deny'd it so doubtless by vertue of the same promise and institution of Christ may and ought the Authority of his Successors be urg'd in time to come in proof of any other contested Article or point of Faith Though therefore we affirm not as the Relatour is frequently imposing upon us that St. Peter and his Successours are by vertue of this Text to governe the Church as Princes and Monarchs yet we say that by vertue
is confest by his Lordship and other Protestants The Conclusion therefore is undenyable viz. that 't is necessary for the Due Government of the Church that one should be endow'd with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages Adde hereunto that so long as the End is but in Acquisition and not compleatly gained the Necessary Means to obtain it is alwayes necessary But the End in our present case viz. the Due Government of the Church the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholick Faith and Christian Charity is and ever hath been since the Apostles time but in Acquisition and shall not be compleatly gained till the end of the world Ergo the Necessary Means viz. the Supreme Authority of One over All in the Government of the Church is hath been and ever will be necessary to the Worlds End CHAP. 17. The Popes Authority asserted and vindicated ARGUMENT 1. Our Saviours prayer for St. Peter extended to his Successours 2. What it effected for St. Peter and what for them 3. PASCE OVES AGNOS John 21. 15. 17. a Special charge to St. Peter and not common in all respects to the rest of the Apostles 4. A.C. begs not the question but proves it 5. The Bishop willingly mistakes him about the Notion of a General Council 6. Optatus and St. Austins words cited nothing to the purpose 7. The Popes Ancient and undoubted right to confirm General Councils 8. The Bishops Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies examin'd and shew'n to be vain 9. The Popes Authority duly acknowledged sufficient to prevent Schismes and Heresies 10. The Government of the Church not purely Monarchical but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope and other Catholique Bishops differ'd 1. THe Bishop himself in his Answers to the Argument drawn from our Saviours Prayer for St. Peter Luke 22. 32. Ego rogavi pro Te c. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not shews the insufficiency of his Evasions Card. Bellarmin by the Testimony of seven Popes most of them very Ancient proves that our Saviour by that Prayer obtain'd both for St. Peter and his Successours this priviledge namely that they should never teach the Church any thing contrary to True Faith What sayes the Bishop to this As for St. Peter himself he tells us it will be easily granted that such a priviledge was obtain'd for him but that it should be obtain'd or intended for his Successours also that never came within the compass of ROGAVI PROTE Petre. Yea Bellarmin's proof according to the Relatour is its own Confutation And why because forsooth all his proofs are from witnesses in their own Cause and from Interessed persons I answer first that all his proofs are not from Popes fot he gives several pregnant reasons for his Assertion drawn from the Text it self had the Bishop been pleas'd to answer them Secondly I ask How interressed so far as to assert a manifest untruth in a matter of so great importance to the whole Church Surely no. Can our Adversaries have the Confidence Temerity rather to affirm that Felix the first a most Holy Martyr about the year 273. that Lucius the first another most Holy Martyr as some think or as others say a Confessour about the year 337. and Leo the first a most Holy Pope as all Antiquity acknowledg'd about the year 440. would dare pervert and mis-alledge Scripture onely for Interest and to advance their own Authority had they not known it to be the just Authority of their Sea and rightly grounded on this Text Truly I could never yet understand this proceeding of Protestants who make so many publick professions to stand to the Fathers Authority of the first Five or Six hundred years yet when such Fathers are alledged fly presently back and reject their Authority upon such weak pretenses as these And though Pope Agatho were something after those ages viz. about the year 678. yet I see not how they can refuse his Testimony in this matter unless they be resolved to contemn not onely him but all the Fathers in the sixth General Council where the Epistle of this Pope was read and approv'd who could much better judge whether his words were written out of proper Interest then the Relatour or any of his party The other Three 't is confest are of somewhat a later standing yet the latest of them flourisht above four hundred years since and we desire to know what Authour of good repute ever taxed any of them as by assed with proper interest when they publish't that St Peter does in his Successours still teach the Church and confirm his Brethren in the True Faith by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour His assertion that Bellarmin upon the matter confesses there is not one Father in the Church before Theophylacts time that understands this Text as Bellarmin doth is wholly groundless Must he needs confess there are no more Authours citable in any subject but what he cites himself Certainly though Bellarmins Learning was great and his Reading much yet was he known to be a person of too great modesty and humility to pretend to this But suppose he had confest as much as the Bishop desir'd what follows onely this that till Theophylacts time none had given so full an Exposition of those words Ego rogavi pro Te c. as those seven Popes which is no wonder at all considering how few of the Fathers have purposely commented upon the place and how many of them do in effect deliver the same Doctrine drawn from other Texts of Scripture as Bellarmin also shews in other Chapters The force therefore of Bellarmins proof out of Theophylact is this If our Saviours prayer was to have a special effect in St. Peter because he was to be the Churches Foundation under Christ it must also have the like effect in those who were to be such Foundations in succeeding ages that is in all his lawful Successours Neither doth this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith belong to him precisely as an Apostle which the Relatour insinuates but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him 2. To what he addes touching the two Effects or Priviledges our Saviours prayer obtain'd for St. Peter and their descending to his Successours I answer Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his did effectively so descend But I confess 't is a disputable question whether every thing which Christ by this prayer intended and obtain'd for St. Peter was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours That some special priviledge both intended and obtain'd by this prayer was to descend to them is manifest both by the Authorities and Reasons brought by Bellarmin in proof thereof and this Priviledge was that none of St. Peters Successours should ever so far fall from the Faith as to teach Heresie or any
of Argument to disprove it but knowing it to be the sense of all Antiquity windes about and falls upon that odious question of Killing and deposing Kings wherein he presum'd it would be more easie for him to choak his adversary But it shall not serve his turn For we say first he commits a gross fallacy arguing à negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kinde of Logick For what is it else to inferre the Pope has no Universal Power or Supremacy at all over the whole Church because he hath not such or such a particular power over Christian Kings and Princes His Lordship should have remembred that we were yet upon the question An sit whether or no the Pope hath an universal Power and Authority over the whole Church which till it be fairly determin'd 't is but to make too much haste and pervert due order to fall upon the Question Quid sit and dispute wherein it consists and how far it extends Secondly we answer the point of killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation For what Pope ever kill'd or gave Command Warrant or Authority for the killing of any King or what Catholique Author ever taught that he had power from Christ so to do And as for deposing them I answer 't is no point of our Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore it is no part of my task to dispute it But what Protestants have both done and justifi'd in the worst of these kindes is but too fresh in memory 4. A. C. does not beg the question when he sayes The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock of Christ in such sort as no particular man or Church shall have just cause to make a separation from it seeing it is the clear inference of his precedent discourse it is rather a begging the question in his Lordship to tell us onely while he ought to prove it that Protestants have made no Separation from the General Church but onely from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now mis-call themselves THE WHOLE CATHOLIQUE CHURCH It is also in this case a begging the question to affirm the Roman-Catholique Church to be in errour since no man did ever grant his Lordship that she was so or hath he any where convinc'd her of errour He hath often said it and suppos'd it I know but where he hath prov'd it I know not 'T is therefore yet to be prov'd that the Roman-Catholique Church hath err'd in any Doctrine publiquely defined by her Again we deny there is any hazard in adhering to the Roman Church she being the unshaken Rock of Truth and solely able to shew a continual Succession of lawfully-Sent Pastors and Teachers from Christ to our present times who have hitherto taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly according to Christs promise continue so teaching it unto the worlds end From this onely Catholique Church Protestants have unhappily sever'd themselves as I have already prov'd and are through their own fault so absolutely depriv'd of all Communion with her that they can no more be esteem'd members of this Church in the condition they now stand then a wither'd branch can be accounted a part of the Tree from which it was broken In vain therefore doth the Relatour pretend that Protestants have not left the Church in her Essence but in her Errours The Essence of the Church consists in her Faith Sacraments Discipline In all these 't is too manifest to be deny'd Protestants have forsaken the Church yea and perpetually fight against her wherefore they have left her in things essential or pertaining to the life and being of the Church And yet they have the confidence to call these Essentials Errours which is a bold and erroneous presumption wherein they imitate no less the old Heretiques in the Primitive times of the Church viz. the Novatians Arians Nestorians c. then the Swarms of new Sectaries among themselves For which of all these did not or would not upon occasion plead they forsook not the Essence of the Church but her Errours they separated not from her Communion but Corruption 5. Well But after all disputes a man would imagine that our learned Antagonist would at length submit to a General Council For first he thus professes speaking to A. C. What greater or surer judgement you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted then a General Council I do not see And immediately after he cites a long Text of A. C's which speaks to this purpose That if all the Pastours of the Church be gather'd together in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Faith and hearing each Pastour declare what hath been the Ancient Tradition of this Church shall thereupon Decree some particular point or matter to be held for Divine Truth if the Pastours of the Church or General Council may erre in such a Decree what can be firm or certain upon Earth In answer to this he both professes that it seems fair and also freely grants that a General Council is the best Judge on Earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted This would make a man think the Bishop intended to conform himself to such a Decree But to the end all the world may see how unwillingly he yields to reason especially when it comes from an Adversary he presently again begins to quarrel with A. C. telling us there was never any such General Council call'd nor indeed possible to be call'd as A. C. speaks of viz. in which all Pastours were gather'd together As if A. C. were so simple as by all Pastours to understand Numerically and Individually ALL that is every one of them without exception and that a Council could not be thought sufficiently General nor an Obligatory Decree of Faith be made by it unless all the Pastours of the Church in this sense were gather'd together especially he having so clearly declar'd his meaning to the contrary in defending the Council of Trent to have been a true General Council where 't is manifest all Pastours whatsoever did not convene though there were as many as had met in some other General Councils esteem'd even by Protestants for such And strange it is to see how long the Relatour skirmishes with meer shadows and what inferences he makes meerly upon this most salsly-suppos'd and wholly-improbable sense of A. C's words All Pastours then in that Text of A. C. signifie no more then all that are requisite or so many of all as are in the judgement of Reason and Christian Prudence duly sufficient to constitute a True and Lawful General Council If so many lawfully call'd be gather'd together 't is the ALL that A. C. intends and
if these lawfully assembled pray for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost they questionless shall obtain it seeing our Saviour cannot fail of his word Another Exception against that cited passage of A. C. is that he speaking of Points decreed by a General Council makes Firm and Infallible to be Synonyma's But here again the Bishop fails in his observation A. C. onely tells us that the Decree of such a General Council was Firm and Infallible that is not onely Firm but also Infallible Is this to make them signifie the same thing Neither doth he speak so much of what is Infallible in it self as what is Infallible in order to us So that this and the Premises considered there must needs be some other visible and Infallible Judge viz. a General Council beside Scripture for setling Controversies in the Church and making all points of Faith not onely Firm but Infallible 6. What the Relatour brings in his swelling Margent out of Optatus and St. Austin serves onely to amuse his Reader We grant that Christ did not dye Intestate but left behinde him a Will which was afterwards written So that in rigour of speech he left onely a Nuncupative Will which was after deliver'd to the Church partly by Writing partly by Tradition However we stand not upon the terms but the thing it self and have recourse with St. Austin and Optatus to the Written Word or Will in matters of Faith We urge and plead it in almost all matters controverted in Religion between us and them But we demand what was to be done by those first Christians who liv'd before this Will was written or at least before it was generally receiv'd or known for such Again what are we now to doe when either this written Word is call'd in question or the matter in Controversie not so clearly set down therein as to put a period to contention Do the forecited Authours deny that in such case we must have recourse to Tradition Nothing less Certainly St. Austin believ'd the necessity of Infant-Baptism the unlawfulness of rebaptizing the duly-Baptiz'd by Heretiques with many other points which no man can evidently prove out of the written Word alone nay the Scripture it self he believ'd for no other reason then the Authority of the Church and Tradition Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder at those words of his Lordship to A. C. in the Margent where by way of defiance he tells him he could shew no Father of the Church who taught that Christ ever lest behinde him a NUNCUPATIVE OBLIGATORY WILL. First what means he by that restrictive expression a Nuncupative Obligatory Will Could any Will left by our Saviour whether Nuncupative or by Writing not be Obligatory Secondly how was it possible the Bishop should challenge us to prove by the Fathers that our Saviour left behinde him a Nuncupative Will since 't is in it self most evident and undeniable Did he leave I pray any other then a Nuncupative Will Was any part of the Gospel written either by himself or by any other at his command in his life time Did he not make his whole Will by word of mouth to his Disciples But we shall not insist wholly upon the self-evidence of the thing Is it not to be shewn out of the Fathers that Christ left a Nuncupative Obligatory Will First touching the word Nuncupative Will we hope it will be held sufficient if we prove the thing viz. an unwritten yet Obligatory Declaration of Christs Doctrine which is equivalent to a Nuncupative Will. And as to this we say that Bellarmin and all Catholique Divines who write of the word of God written and unwritten do effectually prove it not onely by the Authority of St. Austin and the unanimous consent of the Fathers but even by the very Text of Scripture it self Does not Saint Paul command us 2 Thess. 2. 14. TO HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS we have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Doth not this in effect signifie a Nuncupative Will and Obligatory Does not Saint Irenaeus teach us the same Oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis c. We must saith he follow the order of Tradition which they have deliver'd to us to whom the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches Doth he not tell us in the same Chapter of whole Nations of Christians even in his time which was somewhat above two hundred years after Christ who most perfectly believ'd the Christian Faith though they had not any part of the Scripture to direct them Doth not Tertullian teach the same together with Saint Cyprian St. Basil Epiphanius St. Hierome and divers others But we have spoken too much in a matter so evident let us pass on to that which follows 7. His next Marginal Exception against A. C. is for requiring the Popes Confirmation to a General Council telling us 't is one of the Roman Novelties to account that necessary for the validity of a General Council But surely he is not a little mistaken For in the first 〈◊〉 Councils do we not finde the Confirmations of the several Popes who then sate clearly acknowledged See the Acts and Synodical Epistles of the six first Councils and Gelasius epist. 13. ad Episcop Dardan Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 Neither can it rationally be thought that the Decrees of a Council should be taken for the Decrees of the whole Church Representative if the consent of the acknowledged chief Pastour and Head of the Church were wanting And whereas the Relatour brings St. Austin's Authority to prove that the Sentence of a General Council is confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it we answer his Allegation might well have been spar'd for we say so too We acknowledge the Acceptation of the Universal Church to be an Acoessory and Secondary Confirmation of the Decrees of a General Council and as the whole Church Representative or a General Council cannot erre in defining so neither can the whole Church Diffusive and Formal erre in accepting and believing whatever is defined So that ordinarily speaking we acknowledge a Double Confirmation of the Decrees made by a General Council the one of the Pope as Head of the Church the other of the Church it self extended throughout the several Provinces of Christendom But the Popes Confirmation is Primary Essential and absolutely necessary because without it what the Council declares neither is nor can be esteem'd the Act or Judgement of the whole Church Representative the Pope being the chief Member both of Church and Council The Churches Acceptation is as I have said a Confirmation also but this is onely Accessory for the further satisfaction of particular persons that may haply doubt either of the Authority or Proceedings of this or that Council in particular And there is no other ordinary means to assure private persons throughout the Church that such or such a Council was lawfully assembled proceeded duly voted freely and was Authentically confirm'd by the chief Bishop
the Kings inclination and the English Catholiques consent Is not this a gross delusion He tells us for a wonder That A. C. marvels what kinde of General Council he would have and what Rules observed in it that were Morally like to make an End of Controversies better then our Catholique General Councils Was this to express any backwardness to a lawfull General Council or could any thing be more reasonably demanded of him Could the Relatour expect an End of Contention between us by means of a General Council unless the Conditions and Rules by which the said Council should proceed were first known and consented to by both parties Are not Protestants themselves a sufficient proof of the Negative in their Cavillings against the Authority and Proceedings in the Council of Trent But what particular Conditions or Rules for the legitimating of a future General Council could he assign which had not been competently observ'd in former General Councils nay even in that of Trent whose Authority and Decrees nevertheless the Bishop with the whole party utterly rejects As to his profession that any General Council shall satisfie him that is called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observ'd in the Primitive Church it is too general to be ingenuous or give real satisfaction to the demand signifying nothing at all in relation to a finall End of our Controversies seeing Catholiques hold those general conditions as much as the Bishop or any of their opposers and yet our Differences are still the same as to particulars To as little purpose save onely to deceive the Reader cites he the Latin Text of Bellarmin in his Margent as though he concurr'd with him in the requisite conditions of a General Council whereas by those conditions are clearly excluded all Excommunicated Bishops Heretiques and Schismatiques from being any necessary part of a General Council But to come yet closer to the point who should call this his wished General Council If we follow the example of those most Ancient Councils which himself acknowledges for General and lawfully called then the Pope must be the Summoner of it or at least the Emperour with the Popes consent in both which cases we are not to divine with what contempt the Protestant party would look upon such a Council especially if it insisted in the steps of those Primitive Councils in which the Pope as we have shewn presided To call therefore for a General Council in the Protestants sense is a meer nothing an empty name to amuse silly people with since morally speaking 't is impossible there should ever be such a General Council as they fancy to themselves viz. an Oecumenical Council that should consist as well of Schismatiques Heretiques and Desertors of the Catholique Church as of true Catholique Bishops But if it were never thought reasonable in a Civil Commonwealth which yet the Bishop makes the pattern of his Spiritual one in point of Authority that Out-Laws and condemned persons should be admitted to sit with their Lawful Judges to determine whether they were Delinquents or not how instantly soever they might demand it how can it be thought to stand with any colour of Reason that Spiritual Out-Laws and Desertors of the Catholique Church that maintain many anciently condemned Heresies should be admitted to Sit and Vote in Council among their Lawful Judges whether they were guilty or not What Rebel would ever be found Criminial if he might be allow'd to be his own Judge 2. Here Mr. Fisher to shew the Bishop to how little purpose he called for a General Council asked him Whether he thought a General Council might erre viz. in its Decisions and Determinations of Faith To which the Relatour having answer'd in the Affirmative that it might erre Mr. Fisher thus further Queried If a General Council may erre what nearer are we to Unity after a General Council hath determined What the Bishop reply'd to this I shall not deliver out of the mouth of either Mr. Fisher or A. C. because he quarrels with them though to little purpose touching the precise words he used in the Conference wherein his memory might as well fail him as the other You shall have them from his own pen upon more mature deliberation But first hear how he disputes pro and con touching Mr. Fishers first Querie Whether sayes he a General Council may erre or not is a question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church without remedy against an errour once determined To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely disrespect former Councils of the Church but to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine To each member of this discourse I answer thus in order To say and but meerly to say it without good proof that a General Council cannot erre may leave the Church indeed without remedy against an errour But to say it cannot erre and prove it too both from Reason Authority and Gods Word as Catholiques do is so far from leaving the Church without remedy against an errour that it secures all the adhering members thereof from erring in any matter of Faith Now for the latter branch or member To say it can erre does not onely seem to expose as the Bishop hath it but does actually expose and abandon all the Adherents of that opinion to an inevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith and makes them utterly contemn all former and future Councils when ever they determine any thing contrary to these mens fancies Now to Mr. Fishers second Querie wherein are we nearer to Unity if a General Council may erre the Bishop thus positively answers The Determination of a General Council erring is to stand in force and to have external obedience at least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary make the errour appear and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority do reverse it Is not this a strange not to say an impious doctrine to be advanc'd without Authority either of Gods Word or of Antiquity nay contrary to all solid Reason that men should be tyed up by an Erring Conciliary Decision in points of Divine Truth against Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration of the Errour For till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it the errour is still to be submitted to by all men even when they know it This indeed is a rare effect of a General Council to oblige all the members of the Church to Unity in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had as I have already shewn And to mend the matter that is to make us still at a greater loss this
pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority who shall determine or how shall men satisfie themselves whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent The Bishop gives us no light in this particular but leaves us to grope in the dark But let us indulge so much to our Adversary as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have General and of Equal Authority yet Maldonats Argument which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one evinces clearly that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word there would need another Council and then another to try that and so in infinitum The result of which would be that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self To this the Bishop answers that no General Council lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM which is either as ambiguous as the rest or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity But this is neither to exclude possibility nor fear of erring c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 Here the Bishop sayes I might have returned upon you again If a General Council not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Council He tells us we may say yes because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer But let this piece of Disingenuity pass and let us examine how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader while he insinuates to him that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope alone as Head of the Church is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions which is but an opinion of particular Doctours and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer as the Bishop does for us viz. That a General Council is necessary because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre but rather the contrary That a General Council is needfull because it is not De fide or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council as all Catholiques unanimously believe he ever does when he defines with it What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us 3. But the Bishop foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity and unless it the Council erre manifestly and intolerably In which cases you may see the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity to fall into another as great viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity nor what manifestly intolerable but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy to exclaim as warranted by the Bishop against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity or manifestly intolerable in both which cases they may with the Relatours license spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom or Commonwealth The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching Declaring and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable and changing according to Circumstances of Time Person Place c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good and necessary to be repealed which can never happen in Decisions of Faith The truth of this is evident even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment Corporal or Pecuniary whereas the Spiritual viz. a General Council layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions Witness the first Four General acknowledg'd for such by Protestants which were they fallible as the Bishop contends they are would be the greatest tyranny not to say Impiety imaginable Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts against Catholique Doctrine 'T is true some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him not for him But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd which is that National or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour if the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council and examine it Sure the Bishop had very ill luck or a bad cause to maintain otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities in so little a Compass as he does For first he leaves us to divine what those Errours are which we must esteem intolerable Secondly he forgets to tell us whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church or its Representative while as is supposed there 's no General Council yet in being Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a
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
instructed his Apostles touching all points absolutely necessary to Salvation especially considering what himself professeth in his Prayer for them to the Father John 17. 8 14. I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me and they have received them c Can those words in any Protestants opinion signifie less then all points absolutely necessary to Salvation His Lordship here stumbles in the plain way endeavouring to impose this absurd Disjunctive upon his Reader viz. that all Truth must either signifie simply All whatsoever matter of Fact as well as Faith or be restrained to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation that is without which no man can in any circumstance be saved the apparent falsity whereof a man half blinde may perceive it being in effect to say that either All men are wise and learned or none but Socrates and Plato To as little purpose is his other limitation viz. that a Councill is then onely Infallible when it suffers it self to be led by the Blessed Spirit by the word of God By this again it seems that in things absolutely necessary to Salvation a General Council is not absolutely Infallible but may possibly refuse to be led by the Spirit and Word of God and consequently fall into Fundamental Errour in which the Bishop is not constant to himself professing the contrary when it makes for his turn But if it may so erre what a sad condition might the whole Church be in since what a General Council teaches is as obligatory to the whole Church as what the Parliament enacts is obligatory to the whole Kingdom His last shift to evade the force of those words leading into All Truth is that the promise of Assistance was neither so absolute nor in such manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles nor directly to a Council at all Who contends it was who makes it a question whether the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost were not more absolutely and directly intended to the Apostles then to the Church or not more absolutely and directly to the Chureh then to General Councils It sufficeth us if it were in any sort truly and really intended to them all and that so it was the very nature of the promise evinceth since otherwise neither the said succeeding Pastours northe Church of their times could infallibly decide any arising Controversies touching the sense of Scriptural Texts which are not onely ambiguous but lyable to damnable Interpretations as the Scripture it self averrs 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expresly deliver'd in Scripture as many are not But note that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever the Bishop sayes not any thing The truth is their clearness is not easily eluded To the second proof which is from Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you 〈◊〉 unto the end of the world the Bishop answers the Fathers are various in their Exposition and Application of this Text. We grant they are various in words but agreeing in sense and that the same in effect we here plead for The Fathers by the Bishops own Confession understood a presence of Aid and Assistance to support the weakness of the Apostles and their Successours against the Difficulties they should finde for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them no part of the Difficulties Christs Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel Sure they are And if this be the Native sense of the words as 't is in the Relatours opinion it follows necessarily that the said Ministers or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promis'd them in this place as effectually inables them to withstand and overcome those Difficulties which in reason cannot be more conveniently effected then by a General Council so assisted Declaring against them But sayes our Adversary few of the Fathers mention Christs presence in Teaching by the Holy Ghost What matters that The reason is because this is but one Special kinde of presence and the Fathers usually in their expositions of Scripture unless some particular occasion carries them to the contrary content themselves to express the general importance of the Sacred Text without descending to particulars And yet some of them as even the Bishop himself observes do expresly interpret this place of Christs presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost But they do not extend it saith he to Infallible Assistance further then the Succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit No more do we We confess the Succeeding Church could not be Infallible should it depart from or teach contrary to the word of the Apostles no more then the Apostles themselves could have been Infallible had they departed from the guidance of the Spirit But as the Infallibility of the Apostles consisted in their constant adhering to and following the guidance of that Holy Spirit in all matters concerning Faith and Religion so is there and the Fathers teach such a presence of Christ with the Succeeding Church as causeth her in all Definitions of Faith constantly to adhere to the word of the Apostles and as need requires infallibly to expound it all which we have sufficiently prov'd and could it otherwise happen Christ would not be alwayes found so present with his Church as to keep her from incurring ruine by erroneous Doctrines which this his promise must at least imply Lastly whereas Maldonat proves that this kinde of presence by Infallible Teaching is rightly gathered from this Text though not expresly signified by it the Bishop by his mis-translation makes him deny it to be the intention of Christ which learned Authour does not onely assert the Truth of this Exposition but brings in proof of it the testimonies of St. Cyril St. Leo and Salvianus To the Third Matth. 16. 18. touching the Rock on which the Church is founded the Bishop sayes first he dares not lay any other Foundation then Christ. We answer all the Apostles are styl'd Foundations of the Church witness St. Paul who was one of them Eph. 2. 20. Christ indeed was and is the Principal Foundation the Chief corner stone in the Churches building as the Apostle there speaks yet Ministerially and by Authority Derived from Christ not onely the Apostles but the Successours of the chief of them St. Peter may be and are in a true sense Foundations of the Church Secondly the Bishop sayes and he does but say it that St. Peter was onely the first in order whereas the Fathers teach and we have sufficiently prov'd that he was not onely the first in order but in Authority Thirdly he tells us that by the Rock is not meant St. Peters person onely but the Faith which he professed and for this saith he the Fathers come in with a very full consent I answer we pretend not to understand by the Rock
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
and that General Councils are at least collaterally and by way of consequence comprehended in it is evident to reason For how else can St. Peter be said in his Successours to confirm his Brethren in the Faith which is the following part of the Text if the Pope at least in a General Council be not Infallible the Church Universal being indispensably oblig'd to follow the Doctrine of such a Council 6. The fifth place is Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them the strength of which argument as the Bishop well observes is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former which his Lordship omitting to set down of necessity we must They are these Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask it shall be done for them of my Father ver 19. These 〈◊〉 taken together Bellarmin averres to be a good proof of the Infallibility of General Councils the Argument proceeding à minori ad majus thus If two or three gathered together in my name do alwayes obtain that which they ask at Gods hands to wit Wisdome and Knowledge of those things which are necessary for them how much more shall all Bishops gathered together in a Council alwayes obtain Wisdome and Knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church This indeed is the summe of Bellarmins discourse upon this Text and I conceive the inference for the Infallibility of General Councils to be so clear that every intelligent and unbyassed Reader will perceive it at first sight seeing it can neither be deny'd that the Pastours of the Church assembled in a General Council to determine Differences in Christian Faith are gathered together in the name of Christ nor that they do in all due manner beg of God Wisdome Understanding and all necessary Assistance to determine the Controversies aright However the Bishop makes several exceptions against this Text. His first is that most of the Fathers understand this place of consent in Prayer So do we too Is it not the very ground of our Argument Do we pretend that General Councils are prov'd Infallible from this Text for any other reason then because the Prelats in Council assembled do unanimously and duly pray that God will preserve them from Errour and because he hath promised to hear their prayers His second exception is that he doubts the Argument A MINORI AD MAIUS holds onely in Natural and Necessary things not in things Voluntary and depending upon promise I answer without any doubt that the Argument à minori ad majus holds as well in things promised as natural where the motive is increased and neither Power nor Goodness wanting in the Promiser If therefore God have promised to grant the just and necessary Petitions of two or three assembled in his Name he does therein impliedly promise à fortiori to grant the Petition of a General Council when being assembled they unanimously beg that they may by the Divine Assistance be preserv'd from Errour in their Dicisions of Faith Here the motive is greater then in the former case the necessities of the whole Church do more forcibly ingage the Power Love and Honour of God then the necessities of a few By this it appears that what he averres that the Argument from the less to the greater can never follow but where and so far as the thing upon which it is founded agrees to the less makes not any thing against us since we deny not but God is ready to grant the just and necessary Petitions in both cases Thirdly he tells us from St. Chrysostome there are diverse other conditions besides their gathering together in the name of Christ necessarily requir'd to make the prayers of a Congregation heard We agree to it but must suppose that a General Council lawfully assembled knows what those Conditions are and also duly observes them till the contrary be clearly evinced We also agree with his Lordship that where more or fewer are gathered together in the Name of Christ he is in the midst of them to assist and grant whatsoever he shall finde fit for them and thence inferre that Christ is alwayes present with the Prelats lawfully assembled in General Councils to assist and grant them immunity from errour in their Decisions of Faith which he findes not onely fitting but highly necessary for the Direction and Settlement of his Church His last evasion is to make our Authours seem to clash one against another viz. Stapleton and Valentia against Bellarmin To which I answer the difference between them is more in words then sense For neither Stapleton nor Valentia denies but the Infallibility of General Councils confirm'd by the Pope may by good consequence be collected from this place by an Argument à minori ad majus as Bellarmin urges Nay Stapleton himself even where the Bishop cites him expresly acknowledges that the Council of Chalcedon did rightly use this very Argument to the same purpose in their Epistle to Pope Leo. Their opinion is that our Saviour did not primarily and directly intend that particular Infallibility when he spake those words nor does Bellarmin affirm he did but onely that he signified in general that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his Name so often and so farre as their necessities requir'd his presence they duly imploring it This we confess was all our Saviour directly and immediately signify'd by the words where two or three are gathered together c. from which notwithstanding Bellarmin and other Catholique Authors do rightly inferre the Infallibility of General Councils in the manner declared Nor does it from this Doctrine follow that the like Infallibility is extendible to a National or Provincial Synod or to two or three private Bishops gathered together in Christs name as his Lordship pretends to argue from Valentia For though Christ promiseth indeed to be present with all that are gathered together in his name yet not the like manner of presence with all or so as promiscuously to grant all Graces to all persons but to each according to their peculiar exigencies and necessities of which there can be none for the Infallibility we maintain in any Council but a General 7. The sixth and last place alledg'd for the Infallibility of General Councils is that of Acts 15. 28. where the Apostles say of the Council held by them VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Us intimating thereby that the Decrees of General Councils are to be receiv'd by the faithful not as the Decisions of men but as the Dictates of the Holy Ghost The Bishop here tells us The Apostles might well say it viz. VISUM EST c. for that they had
'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
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
whose definitions according to him must stand in force and bee obeyed by all particulars and consequently by the whole Church till euident scripture or demonstration bee brought against them If it hath then the whole Church cannot but cleerly perceiue the sayd errours of the former Council and know them to bee such and then what need of an After-Council what good can it doe shall it bee called to declare that which euery man sees already or to define that about which there is no controuersie nor can bee any so long as men continue in their right mindes and doe but consider what they say or thinke You will say a Council ought to bee called in this case to abrogate the law or definition of the precedent Council which erred I answer that supposes the definition of the sayd precedent Councill to bee still in force which is false first because it is vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue anything as matter of Fayth solely upon the authority of a Council that is lyable to errour both against scripture and demonstration Secondly because 't is more vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue what wee cleerly see to bee errour and contrary both to scripture and demonstration and yet in no other case but this euen by the Bishops leaue can the whole Church call an other Council to reuerse the decrees of the former Thirdly because as it did not binde the whole Church from prosessing her dislike of the errours defin'd and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to prosess outwardly a disbeleefe or doubt thereof Wherfore it is euident that his Lordship vpon this subiect says and vnsays the same and what hee seemes to attribute to Generall Councils in one proposition hee takes away in an other The Bishop pretends the Catholique opinion touching infallibility to bee yet more vnreasonable because wee make not only the definitions of a Generall Council but the sentence of the Pope also infallible For a Generall Councill sayth he may erre with vs if the Pope confirm it not So vpon the matter the infallibility wee contend for rests not in the representatiue Body the Council nor in the whole Body the Church but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome and if this bee so to what end sayth he so much trouble for a Generall Council and wherein are wee neerer to vnity if the Pope confirm it not wee answer first the Bishop stumbles at the thresholde a Generall Council is not held by vs to bee infallible at all vnless it inuolue the Pope or his confirmation and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our aduersary to compare together viz. of the Council and the Pope but One infallibility only to witt of the Pope presiding in and confirming the votes of a Generall Council or if you will a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope Secondly wee confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Popes infallibility The first and the more con men is that the Pope euen without a Generall Council is infallible in his definitions of Fayth when he teaches the whole Church The second is that he is not infallible in his definitions faue only when he defines in and with a Generall Council Now had the Bishop as he 〈◊〉 to haue done taken due notice of this second opinion and proceeded in the point accordingly these Doctours would quickly haue satissy'd his obiection and told him that as the Ccuncil is not infallible without the Pope so neither is the Pope infallible without the Ccuncil and that infallibility proceeds ioyntly 〈◊〉 both and is the prerogatiue of both not separately consider'd but as vnited and making vp the compleate representatiue of the Church But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence framing his argument wholy against the other as if it were the opinion of all Catholique Doctours But of this wee haue sayd enough hauing prosesled at the begining that wee intended not to meddle much with any matters of priuate dispute or opinion Wherfore I shall briefly pass cuer what his Lordship hath further touching this matter and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his 7. His first is that if the Pope bee infallible then the Council is called but only in 〈◊〉 to heare the Pope giue his sentence in more state I answer 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time viz. that 't was con only to heare St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state in regard it will not bee deny'd but St. Peters definition alone had been as infallible and as much binding as that of the whole Council Secondly I answer more directly this followes not with any the least shadow of consequence in their opinion who hold the Pope to bee fallible out of a Generall Council as is manifest and in the other opinion 't is easily answer'd For seeing the Pope when euer he defines matters of Fayth ought to proceed maturely and vse all meanes morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth and seeing that the deliberations and notes of a Generall Council are the most proper and efficacious in that kinde it followes euidently enough to all vnpreiudic'd and impartiall iudgements that the Council is called really to help and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affaire and which equally concerns the whole Church also that the aduice of the Councill in such cases is not only a profitable and fitt but speaking in a morall sense a Necessary medium to this Holyness wherby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton here alledged by the Bishop affirms according to his own principles viz. that the Pope acquires no new power or authority or certainty of iudgement by beeing ioyned to the Council For though he acquires no new power authority or certainty of iudgement which in this Doctours opinion he hath whether he be with or without a Councill yet he may acquire some thing which doth connaturally worke and conduce to the due exercise of that power authority and certainty of iudgement to witt counsell aduice and conuenient information touching the matters in Controuersie The like is to be sayd to that of Cardinal Bellarmin when he asserts that the firmeness of a Council to which the Relatour adds of his own Infallibity comes from the Pope only For he intends to shew how the matter passes in regard of vs who are assured no other way of the firmeness of the Councils definition then by the Popes confirmation alone You will obiect that if the Pope be infallible without the Council and the Council subiect to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the infallibility of Generall Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council I answer the Assertours of that opinion
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
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
the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS
Forbearance of the Cup are improbable opinions and contrary to the express command of our sauiour 8. Againe what I pray does our aduersary meane by his Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel when he says the Church of Rome is worse and more cruell then she does he meane the true Church there that is the number of those Faythfull Israelites which as the scripture testifies of them neuer boued their knees to Baal Jf so his Lordship surely committs a huge Solecisme when pretending to aggrauate the crime of the Roman Church he sayes she was worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel as if that Church at that time had deseru'd the character of bad or cruell If he meanes the other part of the Israelites who were fallen from the true Religion and worshiped Ieroboams calues wee wonder vpon what ground he stiles them the Church of Jsrael seeing manifest Idolaters are no way to be accounted parts of the true Church But in what respect is the Church of Rome worse then that of Israel in the time of Iezabel because sayth he the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her errours and impos'd them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties viz. of Excommuncation etc. whereas the Church of Israel did neyther solemnly teach that men ought to Sacrifice in the high places nor punish men for going to Sacrifice at the one Altar in Hierusalem Admitt this were true though it be more then the Bishop can proue seeing Elias complaind in those times that Gods Altars were throw'n down and the Prophets persecuted and slaine with the sword which argues there was no such liberty as the Bishop pretends admitt I say it were true yet if there be any force in this argument it concludes more against himselfe then against the Roman Church The Bishop grants that a Generall Council lawfully called and orderly proceeding may define errours contrary to scripture and that in matters euen Fundamentall and of maine importance to Saluation yet he teaches withall that the decrees of such a Council must stand in force and binde all particular men at least to externall obedience till the whole Church by an other Generall Council reuerse the definitions of the former Is not this likewise to be worse then the Church of Jsrael Is not this to oblige people to make profession of false doctrine contrary to scripture and euident reason or demonstration yea is it not to be in this respect farre worse then the Church of Rome which requires indeed that all persons doe submitt to the decrees of Generall Councils but doth not require this as granting Councils to be fallible or subiect to define errour in stead of truth in matters of Fayth but as assuredly perswading her selfe that they are by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost infallible and cannot define any thing in such cases but what is truth Lastly if inference be to be made from the practice of the Jewish Church it will serue rather to iustisie then to condemne the proceedings of the Roman When power resided in the true Prophets of God and in his true and lawfull Priests Idolatrie and disobedience to the law of Moyses was seuerely punish'd but in corrupted times euery one had libertie to doe what ill he listed The Roman Church therefore is rather to be commended for her zeale and imitating the Synagogue in the times of its greatest 〈◊〉 to witt by exacting strict obedience to her doctrine lawfully declar'd and established by Generall Councils which she also beleeues and is as well assured to be according to diuine reuelation and not repugnant to Gods honour as the Synagogue was of their doctrine the Roman Church I say is rather to be commended for this euen from the example of the Iewish Church then to be tax'd with cruelty for not symbolizing with the corrupted and Apostatiz'd Synagogue in giuing promiscuous liberty to all to beleeue and practise what they list in point of Religion As for what he auouches concerning Transubstantiation Purgatorie and Forbearance of the Cup that they are improbable opinions and contrary to Gods word wee answer 't is according to his custome to speake without proose and therfore wee are not troubled at it 'T is that which euery Heretique may say if he please an Arian as well as an English Protestant the doctrine of the Roman Church is improbable is contrary to Gods word where it contradicts their particular Heresie Nay is it not a thing they might as iustly say of the English Church as of the Roman viz. that she is in this regard worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel that she hath Solemnly decreed improbable opinions to witt the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and to keep of disobedience how false soeuer her doctrine be she binds it vp vnder paine of Excommunication yea and kindles the fagot too sometimes when nothing else will serue the turn Witness the books of Canons which inflicts Eccommunication ipso facto vpon any that denyes the 39. Articles of the Church of England and the proceedings against seuerall persons who haue been burn't hang'd draw'n and quarter'd in this nation meerly for Religion since Protestantisme bore sway here To false premisses the Bishop ioynes a Conclusion as enigmaticall and ambiguous This then sayth he may be enough for vs to leaue Rome though the old Prophet 3. king 13. 11. left not Israel By leauing Rome 〈◊〉 vnderstands surely their refusing any longer to adhere to the Roman Church and to communicate with her in those things which they account superstitions and errours But did not both that old Prophet and also all the true Prophets and people of God in this sense 〈◊〉 corrupted Israel in the time of Aobaband and Jezabel did they ioyne thinke you with the Idolatrous Tribes in the Sacrifices at Dan and Bethel 9. The like is to be sayd of the comparison he mak's between A. C. and Petilian the Donatist it signifies not much For who sees not a manifest difference in the case and argument of these two Petilian would haue Catholiques refuse and desert the Churches Baptisme to embrace that of the Donatists only because Catholiques or the Catholique Church acknowledg'd the Donatists Baptisme to be in it 〈◊〉 valid or true Baptisme though by reason of their 〈◊〉 the same Church likewise taught it to be 〈◊〉 sinne and inconsistent with Saluation for any Catholique to seeke their Baptisme voluntarily or to admitt of it otherwise then in case of extreme necessity whereas A. C. would haue Protestants become Catholiques vpon this ground viz. because that euen Protestants themselues at least the most learned most wise and most considerable amonge them Doc grant vs possibility of Saluation notwithstanding any thing that wee beleeue or doe How then can the Bishop as he pretends answer A. C. iust as St. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist That which deceiu'd him is that he did not well obserue
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
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
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
Protestants to note it only in a word by the way haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church not that wee are vnable or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth Religion Church and all things pertaining thereto by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession iustly prescribe against our aduersaries and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they who are our aggressours in this case doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew that our possession is not bonafidei but gain'd by force or fraude or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes A Gentleman that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours is not to be outed of it because an other say's and perhaps beleeues he has a better title to it neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence but the other is bound to euict him and demonstrate that his possession is not good and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe that his own clayme is better otherwise in stead of gaining an estate he will get nothing but a checke In like manner the Lady beeing in possession of a Fayth which for many ages together had been professed by her ancestours and generally by the whole Christian Church 't is not the Bishops telling her that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome or iustly moue her to beleeue that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church but he must make it appeare to be so by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter is to be accounted folly and his confidence rashness I adde how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church English Protestants for example beleeue the Popes power iure diuino is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Bishops witness Tertullian and this long before the Canons of the Church or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority The Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians was not from men but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of St. Clement St. Anaclet St. Sixtus the first St. Pius the first St. Anicet St. Victor with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer So as euen the Centurists themselues and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity are forc'd to confess it They pretend indeed that these Epistles are counterfeite and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes A weake plea for beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them 't is certain that Isidorus Hispalensis who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time and professes that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops to make his collection out of them as well as out of other Epistles and writings which Protestants doe not question Not to vrge that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them and Rufinus himselfe others who was contemporary with St. Hierome nor yet the absolute conformity in point of doctrine and style that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church viz. Iulius the first Pope Damasus Syricius Innocentius Leo and others which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe nor can pretend to be forged but only say that the Popes of those times were arrogant men and began to take too much vpon them The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not according to Gods commandement acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing Vicar of Christ in the Church The Primitiue Church professed that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull to witt in matter of Religion and Fayth the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their Epistle to Pope Marcus that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things witness St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church Witness optatus Mileuitanus that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed to which all must repaire for the waters of life that she is the Rock vpon which the Church is built that to be out of her Communion was to be an Alien from the houshold of God to be out of the Church to be as a profane or vncleane person who might not come into the Campe or Congregation of Israel in briefe it was to belong not to Christ but to Antichrist witness St. Hierome The Bishops of the Primitiue Church beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome as to their proper and lawfull Judge for iustice and reliefe and were likewise by him righted and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe Witness the examples already alledged of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians also of St. Chrysostome The odoret and diuerse others Lastly not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise the Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer Witness St. Austin the Councils
Austin knew that Maximinus refus'd though very vniustly the Council of Nice as much as himselfe did that of Arimini 〈◊〉 that he might dispute effectually with him he thought fitt for the present to waue the argument taken from the authority of Councils and to vrge him only with such common principles as were admitted by them both such as were chiefly the holy Scriptures but yet not them alone for 't is euident he vsed other reasons against him beside Scripture founded vpon and deduced from such maximes of Christian religion as were not disowned by his Aduersarie And might not I pray any Catholique disputant at this day argue with a Protestant in some particular question only out of Scripture and tell him in these or the like words I will not vrge you with the Councils of Lateran or Trent I will conuince you of errour by Scripture only yea by your own Bible etc. might not I say a Catholique in some case speake thus to a Protestant but he should be thought presently to rerect the authority of those Councils or to esteem them not infallible in their definitions of Fayth 8. The Index Expurgatorius J consess is through misunderstanding such a common stumbling-blocke with all sorts of Protestants that wee doe not much wonder the Bishop himselfe should trip at it as he doth here obliquely and by way of insinuation at least accusing vs of hauing expunged some things out of the true and authenticall writings of the Fathers A heauy charge doubtless but our comfort is no less iniuriously imputed then heauy For how does he proue it What authours or places of authours does he alledge thus expunged by vs why nam'd he not the Index in which such expunctions are registred why cited he not some of his purer and more authentique Copies different from ours and where those texts are restor'd or standing vpon record which our Indexes are pretended to haue expung'd How came 〈◊〉 to finde out the true genuine and authenticall thenticall writtings of the Fathers if they were not so extant and preseru'd amongst vs and by vs of any thing to this purpose which yet alone could be to purpose in the present case the Relatour brings not the least syllable of instance thinking it enough only to accuse For as to what he pretends to alledge out of Sixtus Senensis his Epistle to Pope Pius Quintus whoeuer obserues it well will finde it really to speake the cleane contrary to what the Bishop would seeme to proue by it and directly to accuse not vs but Protestants of corrupting the works of the Fathers The Reader may see the whole text here in the margent at large whereof the Bishop thought not good to giue vs so much as one word but only to make vse of the authors name and therby cleerly perceiue that it was not to purge the ancient texts of the Fathers writtings but only the false readings spurious notes commentaries and interpretations of Heretiques vpon their sayd writings and texts that the Index Expurgatorius was commanded to be made by the authority of Pius Quintus while he was yet Cardinall and President of the holy Inquisition not to speake of their alike false and corrupt translations of them which were also forbidden J say therfore lett all our Jndices expurgatorij pass the sorutiny euen of our most rigid aduersaries and lett them shew vs if they can wherein any authenticall writings of the ancient Fathers haue been eyther purg'd or clipt by vs or any thing of the text alter'd in point of reading but vpon iustifyable and auowed reason namely the authority of some more ancient and better copie and if they cannot lett them here after for shame at least be silent and obiect the Index expurgatorius no more A. C. asks further whether Protestants be infallibly sure that they rightly vnderstand the sense of all that is expressed in their books according to that which was vnderstood by the Primitiue Church and the Fathers that were present at the fowre first Generall Councils and for this the Bishop finds great fault with him as asking the same thing ouer and ouer againe Wee answer first his Lordship might see by this how earnest A. C. was for a direct and punctuall answer to his Querie Secondly the Relatour should haue reflected that as yet A. C. had receiu'd no satisfactory answer to the demand and till satisfaction be giuen in such cases 't is consonant enough to the rules of arguing to repeate and vrge the demand and to doe otherwise were but to run from one thing to an other without end and neuer sift out the certaine truth in any question whatsoeuer The truth is the Querie is such that it will be matter of eueriasting vexation to all that follow or goe about to defend the Bishops assertions it beeing euidently impossible to giue a satisfactory answer to it without hauing recourse to the infallible authority of the Church as wee Catholiques doe when the like demand is made to vs by our Aduersaries The Relatour indeed out of his wonted liberalitie in this kinde is pleas'd to call it a dry shift but the reason he giues is no better then a gross mistake For the Churches authority does not always beget an implicite Fayth as the Relatour thinks but very often an explicite one to witt when eyther the definition it selfe expounds to me the sense of Scripture or that Church-Tradition concerning it is soe cleere that it needs not the definition or declaration of a Council to make it certainly know'n Whersore seeing Generall Councils by reason of their already-prou'd infallibility are always to be presum'd to speake in that sense which is agreeable to the doctrine of Christ and that the vniuersall tradition of the present Church is also an infallible witness of that doctrine wee Catholiques doe euidently shew according to our grounds how wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand the texts of our Bibles conformably to the sense of those fowre first Generall Councils and of the Primitiue Church of their times For why the sense of the Primitiue Church is necessarily inuolued in that of the Councils and if there happens to be obscurity in the words of any Councils by beeing infallibly sure that that only can be their sense which is conformable to the present Church-Tradition and that the opposite sense cannot possibly be theirs howeuer the words themselues may perhaps be wrested to it by consequence wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand Scripture in the same sense now which the sayd Generall Councils and Primitiue Church anciently did to witt by the infallible authority and Tradition of the present Church I answer to A. Cs. fourth Jnterrogatorie which is whether Protestants can be infallibly sure that all and only those points which they count Fundamentall and necessary to be expressly know'n by all were so accounted in the Primitiue Church the Bishop would seeme at last to tell vs which points are Fundamentall and
he doth say and with truth can say noe more standing to his own principles 10. The implicite Fayth of Catholiques at which the Relatour againe glanceth in points they are oblig'd to know only implicitely giues them sufficient infallibility in their Fayth but hath noe place in this present debate For wee now treate only of such points as are Fundamentall quoad rem attestatam as wee haue formerly distinguish't them that is according to the importance of the matter they containe such as are the prime radicall Articles of our Fayth which euery one is oblig'd necessitate medij or praecepti to know expressly in so much that where ignorance of these points is culpable and through our owne default wee are soe farre from thinking that implicite Fayth can be sufficient for the attaining of Saluation that wee teach the cleane contrary asserting likewise that in those of the first kinde viz. which are necessary by necessity of meanes euen inuincible ignorance will not serue the turn So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells vs by way of Irony and scoff that a Roman-Catholique may vse implicite Fayth at pleasure As to his carping at the word know vsed by A. C. the Relatour should haue know'n that his aduersary takes it not in the most proper sense for demonstratiue or scientificall knowledge as some speake but only for certaine assurance and for infallible beleefe as it is frequently taken by others But as for Protestants standing to the Bishops grounds it is impossible they should haue infallible Fayth eyther explicite or implicite of any thing they bleeue because the authority of the Church beeing in his opinion fallible they can neuer by force thereof be infallibly certain that the books of Scripture which it commends are all or any of them the word of God or that the exposition of Scripture made eyther by the Church or any priuate man is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost Now so long as he is not infallibly certaine of this it may happen for ought he knowes to the contrary that some of them may proue not to be Gods word and seeing the Churches authority attests them all alike he may if he please conceiue a like feare of every one of them What he further adds in this page viz. 337. is only matter of references to what himselfe hath formerly deliuer'd so as I thinke it also sufficient to referre my reader to what I haue answer'd in those places viz. § 25. num 3. § 33. Consid. 3. num 1. § 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to heare him affirme here that he holds the authority of the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. does This surely must be accounted a Paradox or nothing can be iustly taken for such For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himselfe and A. C. toutching the extent of the Churches infallibility and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustaine and endeauour to proue that she is fallible both in the deliuery of Scriptures and in the defining of all points in his opinion Not-Fundamentall and also in her Traditions euen immemoriall and vniuersall And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him maintaine and assert the Churches infallibility in all these But J wonder yet more at the proofe he brings for this assertion to witt his referring vs to § 21. num 5. of his owne booke For there pag. 139. he expresly limits the Churches infallibility to absolute Fundamentall doctrines which A. C. neuer doth and in the progress of his discourse explicating the sayd infallibility euen in Fundamentalls too he falls so low and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church that he brings it down at last to this pittifull state and if she erre sayth he in some ONE or MORE Fundamentall points she may be a Church of Christ still but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. doth not to vrge here the dangerous consequence and also inuolued implicancy of the assertion it selfe which I haue already noted in my answer to that place The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating obiections which haue been more then once sufficiently answer'd viz. concerning Transubstantiation Communion vnder one kinde etc. wherein wee cannot thinke our felues oblig'd to follow our Aduersaries example but rather to remitt the Reader to the places where wee haue already giuen satisfaction touching those matters As little notice shall wee take of his obiecting againe to vs the doctrine of deposing and killing of kings This was added to inuenome the rest of his arguments which he knew otherwise would not be mortall to vs. Wee hope our demeanour in these late dismall distracted times of tryall hath sufficiently cleer'd vs from all such aspersions in the iudgement of indifferent persons nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemyes For who knowes not that vnder the late vsurping powers the greatest crime layd to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Souereign in so much as 't was held by all that partie a thing almost impossible for a man to be a profess't Catholique and not a Caualier too But to this obiection wee haue likewise already spoken what may suffice To summe vp all in briefe wee vtterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoeuer preiudiciall vnto or destructiue of that loyall obedience and Fidelity which is due to all Souereign Princes and Magistrates And if any thing of that nature hath perchance dropt srom the pen of any of ours wee owne it not but censure it deeply prohibite it strictly and in case it be obstinately maintained punish it seuerely and lastly command all books to be corrected that containe any such doctrine CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point touching the vnchangedness of the Roman Fayth with a defence of Purgatory ARGVMENT 1. A. C. Argument that the Roman Fayth is still the ONE SAVING CATHOLIQVE Fayth made good 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruauerit etc. vindicated from the Bishops Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeuing the Creed in its true sense and forcing a wrong sense vpon it vayn and impertinent 4. Protestants are chusers in point of beleefe noe less then all other Heretiques 5. They are not guided by the Church further then they please themselues 6. Church-infallibility to what it amounts according to the Bishops measure 7. In what sense Generall Councils may be sayd to be infallible euen a parte antè or at first sitting down 8. All the ancient Fathers generally speaking beleeu'd Purgatorie 9. Prayer for dead as vsed by the ancients necessarily inferres Purgatory 10. The Relatour labours in vayn to auoyd the Authorities of the Fathers in this point 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret euen by his owne confession cleere for Purgatory 12. St. Austin not wauering
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
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
of Christ of Scripture and the whole Church in the falsely-defined Article that there is in the true and that the Scripture doth not equally giue eyther ground or power to define truth and errour what is it but to trifle tediously For wee neither say nor suppose any such thing So as the Bishop by his discourse here meerly labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius it beeing a thing wholy vnknow'n to vs yea impossible for vs to know infallibly and certainly when the Councill defines matters equally by and according to the Authorities of Scripture or the whole Church but by the Councils own Acte that is by her definition so express't and fram'd as there can be noe iust cause to doubt but that she defin'd or presum d herselfe to define both the one and the other point conformably to Scripture and the sense of the whole Church See now what great reason the Relatour had to obiect cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business Our Aduersarie here againe runnes from the marke A. C. in giuing the reason of his former demand speaks of examining only and not of iudging as his words shew If wee leaue this sayth he meaning the erring and not-erring of a Generall Councill in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly to be EXAMINE'D by euery priuate man the examination not beeing infallible will need to be examined by an other and that by an other Without end or euer coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers that he hath 〈◊〉 vs the way how an erring Councill may be rectifyed and the peace of the Church eyther preseru'd or restor'd etc. viz. § 32. num 5. § 33. consid 7. num 4. of his Relation and wee haue likewise shew'n all his pretended wayes to be deuicus and not to lead to the end he aymes at But does he there or any where else shew how wee may be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one point does not also erre in the other in the case aboue mention'd which is the only thing his Aduersary here vrges him withall does he shew that A. Cs. obiected process in infinitum can be auoyded by any priuate and fallible examination of the Councils decrees or does he prescribe any other meanes of examining them but what is in his own opinion fallible at least though perhaps not priuate First he assignes Scripture for a way to examin a Councils definition but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture beares that sense in which he vnderstands it and not that in which the Councill vnderstands it Secondly he assignes the fowre first Generall Councils but how can he be sure that their Authority in defining is such as euery one ought to obey and not that of after-Councils Thirdly he assignes the Creeds as containing all things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth but does he meane all of them all the three Apostolicall Nicen Athanasian By his words it seemes he doth for he makes noe difference betwixt them and in reason 't is necessary he should seeing 't is euident the Apostles Creed alone will not ferue the turn it making no express mention of the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost nor of the Mystery of the Trinity Jncarnation etc. which yet wee confidently presume are all of them Fundamentall points in the Bishops Creed But then wee aske how come these latter Creeds the Nicen and Athanasian to be infallible seeing their Authours in the composing of them were fallible and subiect to errour in the Relatours opinion How can they be a ground of infallible certaintie to me if possibly in themselues they man be false which though it cannot be sayd or suspected of the Apostles nor by consequence of their Creed as it was compos'd and publish't by them yet wee make a Querie what infallible Authority assur'd the Bishop or assur's vs now that the Creed which wee haue at present and commonly call the Apostles Creed is really the same which the Apostles first composed or that wee haue it entire and vnchanged Tradition or the Church by the Relatours grounds must not be pretended here seeing they are both of them fallible with him and may deceiue vs. It followes then euen from his own principles that he neither hath nor can haue infallible certainty for his beleeuing the Creeds and as for the fowre first Generall Councils the Relatour must needs haue less pretense of reason to alledge them for a ground of infallible certainty in beleeuing seeing in all his booke he neuer acknowledges nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge Councills to be infallible euen in Fundamentalls Where is then his infallible certaintie for that one Fayth necessary to Saluation 6. How farre the Relatour speakes truth when he sayes be giues noe way to any priuate man to be iudge of a Generall Councill lett any man iudge that considers his doctrine Liberty to examine euen the definitions of Generall Councils if they see iust cause he does expressly grant to priuate persons yea and some kinde of iudgement too he allowes them viz. that of discretion though not the other of power as he distinguishes But is there not a inake lurking in the grass here may wee not feare fome poyson vnder the gilded pill of his Lordships distinction This iudgement of discretion as he calls it especially if common experience and practice may expound it what does it signifie less then a power assum'd by euery priuate person not only to examin the validity of such reasons and grounds as confirme the defined article but constantly to deny both it and them if his priuate spirit or discretion tells him that he hath better reasons for the contrary or that the Councils definition is an errour Has not this always been the way and methode of Heretiques To what end doe they at any time put themselues vpon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of Generall Councills was it euer for any other reason but to see whether they could finde a flaw in them which when they persuaded themselues to haue once spy'd did they not presently in their own vayne hearts fall to despise the Councill which they suppos'd to erre as ignorant and ouerseen in their proper business did they not vsually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience in lieu of necessary obedience and submission Did they not forthwith imagin themselues inlightened persons and soone after that oblig'd in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people and vnder a pretense of informing weaker brethren draw them to the like discret examining of the Churches defin'd and generally receiu'd doctrine with themselues Js not this the know'n course of the humour Is not this Satans methode by degrees to vsher in publique and generall defections from the Authority both of Generall Councills and all the Lawfull Pastours and Gouernours of the Church See in effect the whole benefitt of the Bishops goodly deuise
This and very little else as the experience of all ages and times shew is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills Not to vrge that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is or may be For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other and may if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause as lawfully doubt and deny the desinitions of the one as the resolution of the other wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council then J doe to a priuate person Seeing 't is euident that neither the one nor the other haue further Authority with mee or command ouer my vnderstanding then their seuerall reasons in my own iudgement deserue and that if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill 7. His asserting so confidently that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills beside the fowre first seemes noe less strange and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils since the fowre first been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill or second of Constantinople was it not matter of Fayth and necessary to Saluation what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents what thinke they of the sixth against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ defin'd by this Councill in the Bishops opinion as Fundamentall in the Fayth as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures defin'd by that of Chalcedon Againe may not fresh errours arise may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters in Religion Jf they doe shall it not be necessary for the Church that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own very honest and learned men as he is pleas'd to qualifie them when it serues his turn are of the same opinion with him in this point citing in proofe hereof certayn words as he pretends of Petrus de Alliaco an ancient Schoole-Author otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis Vertsstmum esse c. 'T is most true all things pertaining to Religion are well order'd by the fathers if they were as well and diligently obserued But first here 's a great mistake The words which the Bishop cites are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae and presented to the Councill of Constance but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it with diuerse other small tractates of that nature in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke Secondly admitting they were or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect yet were it little to the Bishops purpose For the Authours meaning is that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques that if they were well obserued there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine But he does not deny but that vpon new emergent occasions other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church and of many Heresies springing vp the Authority of an other Generall Councill to witt of Constance was necessary as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth as to extirpate the Schisme and all other abuses and disorders in the Church With what truth then could the Bishop pretend that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer after the fowre first And as for Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition or vniuersall Tradition of the Church yet doubtless when it is know'n to be so and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop neither he nor any other Catholique Authour will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie to hold it St. Cyprian here likewise alledged speaks cleerly of such matters as were then vndefined and were not till a long while after defin'd by the Councill of Nice St. Thomas speaks only deminis et opinionibus as his words shew of small matters and priuate opinions which in no sort concern our present controuersie and wherein wee acknowledge with the Relatour Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth or Christian charity necessary to Saluation But for matters which the Church hath found necessary for preuention of Schismes preseruation of vnity and for vindicating or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour once to determine by Generall Councils how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name ancient or modern who taught that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined This the Relatour should haue shew'n had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader and not meerly to amuse him by filling his pages with Authorities cited to noe purpose 8. Had not the Apostles those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world Reuclation from God not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. as the Protestants translate it with command and obligation that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world entirely and
without defaulking of any part And did they not intend that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer And how can the Church performe this if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them How can she be accounted in those respects the Pillar and Foundation of truth as 't is certain euen by the exposition of Protestants St. Paul doth style her 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be J say how is it possible the Church should be accounted eyther a sure Foundation Faythfull Depositary Guardian or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion as she is by Scripture and all Antiquity generally if eyther through ignorance and ouersight she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often euen where Religion is pretended from men and their humours rather then from things and errours to be found in them J grant it to be very true in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture which is the practice of Protestants and all Heretiques before them and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise lett them fairly make it appeare that the disagreement which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents but meerly from the Sectaries who it cannot be deny'd alledge scripture abundantly and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition both in doctrine discipline and worship no less then they accuse vs of the same faults 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense although euen by his own supposition they be diuine truths and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules His reason is because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse c. there must be Heresies whence he concludes 't is out of doubt Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance as is able to preuent them or such a mastering power in his Church as is able to ouer-awe them But J answer what consequence is here There must be 〈◊〉 there will vnauoydably be Heresies crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them and to vindicate the contrary truth To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp amongst Christians therefore the Pastours of the Church haue and ought to haue all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose should eyther themselues happen to crre or to determine the truth withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty But as to the obiection it selfe the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies it is not mean't that they shall not be at all but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church Heresies may be but the Faythfull members of the Church hauing due care of themselues and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours shall be euer fully secured against their snares and none deceiued by them at least not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence suffer themselues to be misted by them Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes on her part when she certainly declares the truth and rightly determins the matter about which Christians began to contend and to be diuided in opinion one from another when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them This is preuention both necessary and also sufficient on the Churches part and this beeing done if the effect follow not it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church but only to the incorrigible pride obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children which nothing but the hand of God can ouerrule and master A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's prudently instituted wherein when seditions and rebellions happen to arise and they doe happen sometimes in the very best wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate or state to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature are incident to mens mindes and which can neither be foreseen nor quelled in an instant by any power on earth J adde that the Relatours obiection oportet Haereses esse c. has as much force to proue the Church not infallible euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church to preuent errours contrary to such points which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions For the words of St. Paul ther must be Heresies are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points as other and there will be Heresies more or less in all ages in matters absolutely necessary as well as in things not necessary Yea surely according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points in regard they say that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer So that if because Heresies must be or will be the Bishop will conclude there is neither infallible certaintie nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth in such points as are contested by Heretiques as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude by his allegation of this text he must in consequence also confess there is noe infailible
certainty nor meanes of infallible certainty less in the Church for the teaehing and beleefe of any points at all euen of the most absolutely and vniuersally necessary In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride who will not 〈◊〉 their private iudgements where with good conscience they may and ought Wee may easily diuine whom he meanes but are sure he could not exempt himselfe and his adherents from the sting of that censure though he endeauours it by saying 't is noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errouts Very good But wee aske what Sect or company of Heretiques in the world vses not this plea Doe not euen the Artans Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselues vrge it as earnestly against Protestants as Protestants doe against vs So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the conuocation of English Prelates and Clergie adherent to them should 〈◊〉 Dictatours in the business of Religion ouer all Christendome beside and determin vncontroulably what is what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous errour I see not what his discourse here signifies But whereas himselfe obiects errour to three Generall Councills at once viz. those of Lateran Constance and Trent yea such errour as in his opinion gaue a greater and more vrgent cause of breaking the vnity of the Church then any pride of men wee shall not for the present taxe him with want of modesly wee only tell his followers 't is as yet only saying without prouing and they cannot but acknowledge that in point of morality 't is oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man barely to deny a crime that is obiected to him but it is neuer sufficient nor euer honest barely to obiect it Beside wee haue much more reason to think that he a priuate Doctour is mistaken in his censure then that those three Generall Councils were deceiued in the matters of Fayth which they defin'd 10. His acknowledgement that it is noe worke for his pen to determin how farre the necessary points of soule-sauing Fayth extend would haue been ingenuous enough had he not made it intricate and meander-like by applying it to different persons but kept it in its absolute nature viz. what is simply necessary for all in which sense he hath treated the point all this time Now sure it the determining this maine and as I may say Cardinall difficulty be not worke for his pen neither was it of any right worke for his pen to draw vpon himselfe and his party a necessity of at least beeing call'd vpon and requir'd to doe it who counsells them contrary vnto and without the example of any Orthodox Christians to restraine the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controuersies of Religion to they know not what or to such points as they neither doe nor euer will be able certainly to know and determin For as 't is that only which brings our vnanswerable demand vpon them so till they haue answer 〈◊〉 and cleerly determin'd what those simply or absolutely necessary points are in which the Church cannot erre wee must proclayme they leaue all Christians that well consider what and vpon what grounds they beleeue vnsatisfy'd vncertaino and doubtfull how farre or in what matters they are oblig'd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue what is declar'd by the Church to be diuine truth and yet withall teach them that they neither can with true infallible Fayth nor ought nor lawfully may belecue her in all she teacheth because in much of it she cyther erres or is subiect to erre and teach them falsehood yea gross and dangerous errour in stead of diuine truth which if it be iust or reasonable in our Aduersaries to doe or tending to any thing else but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the mindes of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader iudge Nor can he to any purpose help himselfe here by what St. Thomas and our Authours teach concerning points precisely necessary necessitate medij For neither will the Bishop stand to that scantling as he calls it that is he will not dare to teach there are no more Fundamentall points in his sense then our Diuines teach there are points necessary necessitate medij nor is the case alike For that doctrine hath place only where inuincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express beleefe whereas here both sufficient proposition and actuall knowledge of all articles defin'd by the Church is supposed so as noe Jgnorance can be pleaded in excuse of the partie that erres and yet they teach that of these articles all equally so farre as concerns the Church defin'd and propounded some may be refused but all the rest must of necessity vnder paine of damnation be beleeu'd with diuine and infallible Fayth neuertheless giuing no certaine rule to know eyther the one or the other Is not this Daedalus-like to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth and there leaue them 11. Jn the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else but dally with his Reader in the equiuocation of words Catholique Roman Church particular vniuersall one holy Mother-Church etc. vpon all which he makes a briefe descant at pleasure But wee answer much is sayd nothing prou'd nor so much as offer'd to be prou'd to any purpose The Church of Rome in the sense that wee maintaine and haue often declar'd is not only one but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that wee maintaine she is holy all her doctrine defined all her Sacraments all her institutes are holy and tend to Holiness In the sense that wee maintaine she is Catholique or vniuersall both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine with continued succession of Pastours There is no Christian Countrie in the world where there are not some that acknowledge the Popes Authority and profess the Roman Fayth Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Fayth which is contrary to what the Catholique Church hath euer taught Lastly wee haue shewed that euen in the Primitiue Church or first siue-hundred yeares after Christ the Faythfull owned subiection to the Roman Church and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine Wee acknowledge the Church of Hierusalem is sometimes by Antiquity styl'd a Mother-Church and the Head of all other Churches But wee say withall 't is meerly a title of honour and dignity giuen her probably for this reason viz. because the first Foundations as it were of Christian Religion were layd there by the preaching and Passion of our Sauiour and because from thencë the first sound and publication of the Gospell was made by the Apostles to all the Churches of the Gentiles It was noe title of Authority and power properly so called as it was in the Roman Church Jf our Aduersaries thinke it was let them shew what Authority or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Church or Bishop of Hierusalem exercised ouer all other Churches eyther before it was
Nor doe wee make the infallibility of the Church to depend vpon the Pope alone as the Relatour perpetually insinuates but vpon the Pope and a Generall Councill together So that if this be granted by our Aduersaries wee shall acquiesce and require no more of them because this only is matter of Fayth 13. But neither the Pope by himselfe alone nor a Generall Councill with him doe euer take vpon them to make new articles of Fayth properly speaking but only expound and declare to vs what was before Yome way reueal'd eyther in Scripture or the vnwritten word Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority that wee are oblig'd vnder paine of eternall damnation neither to deny nor question any doctrine of Fayth by them propos'd to be bclceued by vs. This vnder Christ is the true Foundation of the Catholique Church and Religion Whosoeuer goes about to lay any other and to erect superstructures vpon it will finde in the end that he layd but a sandy Foundation and rais'd a tottering edisice which will one day fall vpon his own head and crush him to his vtter ruine Lett this therfore remaine as a settled conclusion that the Catholique Church is infallible in all her definitions of Fayth and that there is noe other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace which the Bishop will seeme so much to haue laboured for in his lifetime J beseech God to giue all men light to see this truth and grace to assent vnto it to the end that by liuing in the militant Church with vnity of Fayth wee may all come at last to meete in glory in the triumphant Church of Heauen which wee may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Sauiour Jesus-Christ to whome with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glorie world without end AMEN An Alphabetical Table of the most remarkable matters contained in this Book Apostles CHrists promises to his Apostles when extendible to their Successours and when not page 103 The Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible not by Scripture but by their Miracles page 56 57 As necessary for the Church in some cases that the Apostles Successors be guided and settled in all Truth as the Apostles themselves page 103 104 Appeals The Canons of the Council of Sardica expresly allow Appeals to Rome page 194 195 Appeals to Rome out of England anciently practised page 189 From all parts of Christendom in St. Gregories time page 〈◊〉 Councils that restrain them look onely at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing page 194 What the Council of Carthage desir'd of the Pope in the matter of Appeals Ibid. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden to Appeal to Rome page 188 Authority No Authority meerly Humane absolutely Infallible page 123 Nor able sufficiently to warrant the Scriptures Infallibility Ibid. Divine Authority necessary for the Belief of Scriptures Infallibility and what that is page 64 65 69 Authority of the Church sufficient to ground Infallible Assent page 75 78 108 The supream Authority of One over all as necessary now as ever page 207. And will be so to the end of the world Ibid. Authors Either misalledg'd or misinterpreted by our Adversary page 4 7 8 9 10 22 47 80 81 98 113 118 134 135 136 137 138 139 143 175 187 193 201 202 204 210 218 222 240 248 309 310 Baptism INfant-Baptism not evidently exprest in Scripture nor demonstratively prov'd from it page 51 52 53. Acknowledg'd for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin p. 26 53 67 That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Bishops Not meerly the Popes Vicars or Substitutes page 219 224 They govern in their own right and are jure divino Pastours of the Church no less then the Pope Ibid. Yet by the same law of God under the Pope Ibid. In what sense it may be said that all Bishops are equal or of the same merit and degree in the Ecclesiastical Priesthood page 222 The Bishop of Canterbury made Primate of England by the Pope p. 190 Universal Bishop The title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop anciently given to the Popes page 196 But never assum'd or us'd by them Ibid. Us'd by the Patriarchs of Constantinople but never lawfully given them page 196 What the more ancient Patriarchs of that Sea intended by their usurpt title Ibid. The Sea of Constantinople alwayes subiect to that of Rome page 196 197 198 In what manner Gregory the seventh gave the title of Universal Bishop to his Successors page 199 Likewise in what manner Phocas the Emperor might be said to give it Ibid. Catholick THe several Acceptions of the word Catholick page 130 Causally the particular Church of Rome is styl'd the Catholick and why Ibid. No such great Paradox that the Church in general should be styled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome Ibid. In what sense 't is both true and proper to say the Roman-Catholick Church page 132 Certainty No absolute Certainty of any thing reveal'd by God if the Churches Testimony be not Infallible page 29 30 Moral Certainty even at the highest not absolutely Infallible p. 123 Church The Church cannot erre and General Councils cannot erre Synonymous with Catholicks page 19 20 177 The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in it self but more certainly known to us page 21 24 How the Churches Definition may be said to be the Churches Foundation page 35 Nothing matter of Faith in the Churches Decrees but the naked Definitions page 64 What the ground of Church-Definitions in matter of Faith is and must of necessity ever be page 230 Roman Church The Principality of the Roman Church deriv'd from Christ. p. 183 The Roman Churches Tradition esteem'd of old the onely Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine page 202 No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church page 212 No Errours or Abuses in Religion at any time more imputable to the Roman then to the whole Catholick Church of Christ. page 142 The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman p. 190 191 The Roman Churches Defining of Superstructures or Non-Fundamental Points no cause of Schism page 332 The Roman Church rightly styl'd the Root and Matrix of the Catholique page 391 392 393 394 395 Church of Hierusalem Why with some others styled sometimes Mother-Church p. 389 390 and why Pamelius in his list of those Churches might reckon them before the Roman page 397 Contradictions Slipt from our Adversaries pen. page 51 54 70 83 90 99 112 124 146 150 223 249 308 310 Councils General and Oecumenical Councils of how great Authority page 32 The most proper remedy for errours and abuses that concern the whole Church page 165 National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith without consulting the Apostolick Sea page 164 166 167 168 To confirm General Councils no Novelty but the Popes ancient Right page 215 The Churches