but in them who answer it ill And truly the question hath done this good that it hath made the weakness of their cause appear who have deserted the Catholique Church Wherefore we will give our Adversary leave to say that we draw him to it rather then omit so necessary a Disputation The Bishop therefore proposeth diverse wayes of proving Scripture to be the word of God and in the first place falls to attaque our way who prove it by the Tradition and Authority of the Church For he urgeth that it may be further asked why he should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered that we believe it because the Church is Infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost he proceeds and demands how that may appear where he thinks we are brought to those straits that we must either say we believe it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit we object to others or else must attempt to prove it by Scripture which were a vicious Circle and yet he affirms we all do so But with his Lordships favour he conceives amiss and I desire his Followers to give us leave hereafter to answer for our selves and that they would not do it for us 1. Wherefore to this last demand in which onely there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost we answer that we prove it first in general not by the Scripture but by the Motives of credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner as the Infallibility of Moyses and other Prophets of Christ and his Apostles was proved which was by the Miracles they wrought and by other Signes of an Infallible Spirit Direction and Guidance from God which appeared in them Whence it is clear that we incurre no Circle 'T is true after we have prov'd the Churches Infallibility by these Signs and Motives namely by Sanctity of Life Miracles Efficacy Purity and Excellency of Doctrine Fulfilling of Prophesies Succession of lawfully-sent Pastours Unity Antiquity and the very Name of Catholique c. I say after we have prov'd in geneneral her Infallibility by these and the like Motives then having received the Scripture by this Infallible Authority proved as we see another way and independently of Scripture we may and Authours commonly do without any shadow of a vicious circle confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture-proofs are onely secondary and ex suppositione not Prime and absolute and most usually contain a proof ad hominem or ex principles concessis against Sectaries who denying the Infallibility of the Church and questioning many times or cavilling about our Motives of Credibility yet admitting the Divine Authority of Scripture are more easily convinced by clear Texts of Scripture then by the other proofs And in this we do no otherwise then St. Augustin hath done before us writing against Heretiques 2. But because we have often promised to prove the Infallibility of the Church it will be necessary to insist some what longer upon this point and declare the matter at large We say then that the Church is proved in general to be Infallible the same way that Moyses with other Prophets Christ and his Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible For the Israelites seeing Moyses to be a person very Devout Milde Charitable Chaste and endowed with the gift of working Miracles were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet and to believe him Infallible by acknowledging as true and certain whatever he proposed to them from God They believed our Lord and Moyses saith the Scripture Moreover for the Testimony of Moyses the Israelites believed the Scripture and other things more clearly and in particular concerning Moyses himself that in the House of God he was most faithful and that God spake to him mouth to mouth and the like The same we may say of Christ our Saviour For there appear'd in him so great Sanctity of life such Grace of speech and Glory of Miracles that all to whom he preached were bound to acknowledge him for the great Prophet and Messias as St. Andrew with the rest of Christs Disciples did when they said we have found the Messias Thus they were bound at first to receive him as Infallible and afterwards to believe whatsoever he taught them as that he was true God and Man that he was to redeem the world with his blood upon the Cross c. Neither can any man justly here reply that the Disciples and first Christians were obliged thus to receive our Blessed Saviour for the Scripture which gives Testimony of him Thus I say no man can justly reply For the Gentiles receiv'd not that Scripture and yet they were bound to acknowledge Christ and believe him Infallible And though some learned Jews might perhaps gather this out of Scripture yet even without the Scripture the works of Christ were of themselves abundantly sufficient to prove who he was both to the learned and unlearned Wherefore our Saviour alwayes referred them to his works as giving abundant Testimony of him I have said he greater Testimony then John for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect them the very works which I do give Testimony of me that the Father sent me The like we finde him saying elsewhere The works that I do in the Name of my Father give Testimony of me And if you will not believe me believe my works By these places it appears that the works of Christ without Scripture proved him to be the true Messias and Infallible This Doctrine is also verified in the Apostles who receiv'd Commission from Christ to preach every where and TO CONFIRME THEIR WORDS with Signs that followed by which signs all their Hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them and to acknowledge their words for Infallible Oracles of Truth as the Apostles themselves testified Acts 5. 28. Where we finde that a Controversie arising in those Primitive times among the Christians the Apostles and Ancients assembled together and having first concluded by themselves what was to be held for Truth in the matters controverted imposed their Decree as Infallible Doctrine upon all others in these words It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and Us c. As therefore Moyses our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles were prov'd Infallible by their works signs and miracles without Scripture so is the Church without help of the same sufficiently prov'd to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which being the effects and properties of the Church do Declare 〈◊〉 and Demonstrate her immediately and the Scriptures onely as they are found in her and acknowledged by her Wherefore though Heretiques have the Scripture yet being out of the true Church they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility of which see Bellarmin and other Catholique Authours discoursing more at large De notis Ecclesiae 'T is sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholiques
they were written some may and 't is not unlikely have been saved without any knowledge of Divine Scripture Such they are as have alwayes lived among Barbarous Nations where they have never heard of Divine Scripture for having invincible ignorance of this and believing other necessary points sufficiently propounded to them if they offend not God mortally in other things they will undoubtedly be saved Had some ignorant Calvinist cavill'd against this it had been no great marvell but I wonder so great a Scholar and so wise a man as the Bishop is presum'd to be should pick so deep a quarrell with nothing And questionless had it been so necessary a point the Apostles would have inserted the Belief thereof into their Creed Nay St. Irenaeus and St. Austin whom Bellarmin cites would have been in as deep an errour as he Seeing therefore Bellarmin and all Catholiques with him hold that Christians may sufficiently arrive to a Divine Belief of all the Fundamental Mysteries of Faith without an explicite Belief of Scripture what errour could he commit in his Assertion But it was some secret Project or other which made the Bishop here inveigh and argue so hotly against Bellarmin and by conjecture most likely this Scripture in his principles is the Sole soundation of Faith Therefore none can be saved without express belief of Scripture I think I have hit the nail on the head Let them first convince Bellarmin of this and then I le confess he deliver'd a great errour What he addes asterwards that being granted which is among all Christians that there is a Scripture is a meer cavill the question being not understood onely of Christians For I urge is it also granted amongst all Heathens that there is a Scripture What if a Heathen should be brought to believe all that is contained in the Apostles Creed and being Baptized should dye before he hear there is any Scripture cannot he be saved Questionless he may Bellarmin therefore speaks onely in such rare cases as these When his Lordship subjoyns God would never have given a supernatural unnecessary thing who sayes he would May not many supernatural things be necessary for the whole Church or for many states therein which are not necessary to salvation for every particular person What thinks he of Holy Orders Vowes Virginity c Again are there not hundreds of Histories and thousands of Sentences in Scripture which for every one in the Church to believe expresly is not necessary to salvation Who denyes the Scripture to be very necessary in all ages The question is whether it be absolutely and simply necessary for every one to Salvation to believe expresly that there is Scripture The Bishop here imagines he has given a great defeat to Bellarmin and that as he sayes upon Roman grounds in this his Marginall Syllogisme That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omnino necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omnino necessary to Salvation The fallacy of this Argument lies in the words necessary to believe there being some Articles of Faith so absolutely necessary to be believ'd that a man cannot be sav'd without an express belief of them which therefore School-Divines call necessary necessitate medii whereas there are other Articles of Faith which in some cases 't is enough to believe implicitely though all men are bound to an explicite belief of them when they are sufficiently propounded to them by the Church and these Divines tearm necessary necessitate praecepti This distinction suppos'd I answer thus in form That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary necessitate medii is omnino necessary to salvation I grant the Major That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe necessitate praecepti onely is omnino or absolutely necessary to salvation I deny the Major To the Minor I apply the very same distinction and deny the consequence By which you may easily perceive that Bellarmin stands firm upon his feet and with a wet finger wipes off all that the Bishop here layes to his charge 9. In his number 25. there is much adoe about Hooker and Brierley the latter of which the Relatour is pleased to call the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and seem well read Truly persecution hath deprived them of that plenty of Books which Protestants have so that in this respect they have more need of a Store-house yet I believe Catholique Priests are as industrious and learned as Protestant Ministers for the most part and daily experience testifies as much Now concerning Mr. Hookers Authority which the Bishop affirms to be cited with want of fidelity and integrity by Brierley I answer it is not Brierley but his Lordship who wants both these in quoting Hookers words For first Brierley cites Mr. Hookers words most faithfully as they stand in the places mentioned by him Secondly what he affirms Hooker to acknowledge viz. that the motive which assures us that Scripture is the word of God is the Authority of Gods Church is likewise true For that Author first speaks thus Finally we all believe the Scriptures of God are sacred and that they proceeded from God our selves we assure that we do right well in so believing We have for this point a demonstration SOUND AND INFALLIBLE But it is not the word God c. as it follows in his words cited by Brierley Now seeing Hooker affirms that this sound and infallible Demonstration that Scripture proceeds from God is not the word of God or Scripture it self he must either settle no infallible ground at all even in his Lordships principles or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground For seeing he assigns no other save the Authority of man which as the Bishop here acknowledges is the name he gives to Tradition it must necessarily follow that either we have no infallible ground at all to believe Scripture to be the word of God or it is Tradition Now that it is Tradition onely which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the word of God Hooker delivers clearly enough in that place where he addes these words Yea that which is more utterly to infringe the force of MANS AUTHORITY that is Tradition were to shake the very Fortress of Gods Truth by which Fortress he means the Scriptures as the following words declare Now how can this Fortress be shaken by infringing Mans Authority were not that Authority esteem'd by him the ground of that Fortress And presently after he inferres Some way therefore notwithstanding mans infirmity his Authority may inforce assent If mans Authority may inforce assent it must necessarily be the ground of our assent to assure us as Hooker afterward affirms it doth that Scripture is the word of God But now let us
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
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
then that an Angel may feele tast heare because this Proposition is true An Angel would seele tast or heare if hee had a body a tongue or corporall eares But to what purpose does the Bishop goe about to shew that Councils are not to bee our Iudges in points that are cleerly taught by reason or scripture wee shall neuer haue recourse to Councils to know whether the whole bee greater then the part nor whether Jsaac had two sons Iacob and Esau. Neither ever will there arise any case in which all wise persons of the Roman Church will outwardly profess the Doctrine defined by Councils and inwardly aslent that it is contrary to the word of God and to euident demonstration The Controuersie which the Bishop should haue resolu'd is this whether in case one partie pretend and verily beleeue they haue cleere scripture and demonstration for what they say and the other consisting of men at least equall if not superiour to them in point of learning vnderstanding Morall Honestie Prudence and all other helps conducing to right iudgement shall affirme the contrary whether in this case there bee not an absolute necessity of a liuing and infallible iudge to end the Controuersie and whether all Christians ought not to submitt to that iudge notwithstanding any reasons or seeming euidences to the contrary T is strange the Bishop should thinke Bellarmin to grant that a priuate man may lawfully dissent from a Generall Council by reason of some manifest and intolerable errour The Cardinall asserts indeed that inferiours may not iudge superiours whether they proceed lawfully or not vnless it manifestly appeare that an intolerable errour is committed by them But there hee speaks of the Council of the Iews which condemned our sauiour and in condemning him committed an intolerable errour And in that very place hee teaches that the Council of the Jewes wherein the High Preist presided could not erre in matters of fayth before the coming of the Messias but that after his birth they might according to diverse Prophesyes hee there alledges adding that at the very time when the Council was lyable to errour subiects were to submitt to their superiours viz. the people to their Council vnless it manifestly appear'd that an intolerable errour had been committed by them But how can the Relatour inferre from thence that such an errour may bee committed by our Generall Councils since the Cardinal expressly teaches in that very booke that our Generall Councils cannot possibly erre in their definitions of fayth The Bishops next quarrel is with Doctor Stapleton for teaching that the voyce of the Church in determining Controuersies of fayth in Generall Councils is Diuine telling vs that the Proposition stick 's in his throate as if the Doctor had felt some checke in the vttering of it Why because forsooth by way of explicating himselfe Stapleton adds that it is not simply but in a manner diuine Is this to retract in any sort what hee had sayd who sees not rather that 't is only to speake with that necessary caution which the cause requires and which the cauilling disposition of Heretiques doth particularly oblige vs to This Proposition The voyce of the Church determining in Generall Councils is in a manner diuine is doubtless not only most true in it self but also most consonant to Catholicke grounds to witt as expressing that it is not Gods immediate reuelation but only an infallible meanes of applying immediate reuelation to us His next obiection against the sayd Doctor is Blasphemy viz. for aucrring that the Church is the foundation of fayth in a higher kinde then scripture I answer that I haue diligently sought for the words alledged in Stapletons works and cannot finde them The Bishop quotes Relect. Contr. 4. quest 4. art 3. but that question hath no article at all in it 'T is true in the fifth question hee teaches that the Church is more know'n to us then scripture and that it is the meanes of applying to us both scripture and all things else that wee beleeue But this is neither Blasphemy nor Contradiction to his own grounds However should any such proposition bee found in Stapleton J am not bound to maintaine it seeing J haue only engag'd to defend the receiu'd Doctrine of the Catholique Church which no ways depends vpon any such assertion as is here layd to Stapletons charge 2. In the sixth Consideration the Relatour argues to this purpose if a Generall Council bee infallible the infallibility of it is eyther in the Conclusion alone or in the Meanes that proue it alone that is to say in the Premisses or in both together But the Council sayth hee is neither infallible in the Conclusion alone nor in the Meanes or premisses alone nor yet in both together ergo 't is not infallible at all Wee desire to bee breife and therfore not standing to consider the reasons why hee thinks 't is not infallible in the Meanes wee answer 't is infallible in the Conclusion that is in the Doctrine defined though it bee not infallible in the meanes or arguments vpon which it proceeded to the definition The reason is because the one viz. that the Conclusion or defined Doctrine of a Generall Council should bee infallibly true is necessary for the due gouernment of the Church But the other viz. that there should bee infallibility also in the Meanes or in the disquisition aboute the matter before it comes to bee defined is not necessary and it is a know'n maxime Deus non deficit in necessarijs nec abundat in superfluis which holds good in Theologie as well as in Nature God is not wanting in the supply of necessaries noris hee profuse in affording things superfluous To this our Aduersarie replies that 't is a thing altogether vnknow'n in nature and art too that fallible Principles can eyther as father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion But this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the childe of those principles as the fruite of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an infallible Conclusion what ever the premisses may bee This is necessary for the peace and vnity of the Church and therfore not to bee deny'd vnless an impossibility can bee shew'd therein But I hope no man will attacque Gods Omnipotency and depriue him of the power of doing this Hence it appeares how vainly the Relatour fancies to himselfe that Stapleton and all Catholiques are miserably hamper'd in this Argument whereas they all easily answer it as wee haue done What hee sayes next is a meere peruersion of Stapletons meaning whoe neuer teaches that the Church is Simply Propheticall eyther in the Premisses or Conclusion but rather the quite contrary as the Relator might haue seen if hee had pleas'd in the place hee cites T is true hee vses the word Propheticall sometimes speaking of the Conclusion or Definition of a General Council but
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
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
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
We grant they did so but what follows thence Ergo Scripture gives sufficient Divine proof to it self before it be believ'd infallibly to be Gods word This he was to inferre from it but how proves he this consequence which is the onely difficulty He doth it thus or no way at all The Fathers who precedently to the reading of Scripture believ'd infallibly that Scripture was the word of God prov'd by Scripture that it was such Ergo those who believe not infallibly that Scripture is Gods word may evince by Scripture that 't is the word of God Is not this a strong inference The difficulties occurring in this his Lordships Doctrine though slighted by him are as many as in that of the private Spirit the odium of which opinion he will never be able to avoid by desiring not to have it so much as nam'd in the state of the question For if the Church may erre yea and hath err'd according to Protestants in this point how can we have Infallible assurance either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition or of the Scripture it self We read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture yet see we not such convincing and infallible arguments as can give us assurance that those Books are infallibly the word of God which Protestants admit and no other Now when he sayes they resolve their Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolical and in the next number knows not how to be certain of that Tradition he dissolves what he resolv'd before and makes one part of his Resolution impossible Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolicall Tradition he would quite undoe what he said before that Scripture is the onely foundation of our Faith and not Tradition Thus he turns quite opposite wayes in his Labyrinth 7. Here therefore to averre without any further proof that there appears such light to Protestants and no others is in effect to challenge the Private Spirit to himself and his party which is something more then onely to allow it in general For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self why do not we see it as well as they seeing we read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as they do To say that all are blinde besides themselves or that all beside themselves have such perverse eyes such unsanctified understandings that they cannot see nor reach that light which Protestants most easily discern is very great presumption and the same may with as much reason be challeng'd by every Heretique for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them as shall occurre to his fancy Nor can he upon any just ground make the Scripture to be like those Principles which are known of themselves so soon as the Terms are understood For such Principles are either evidently or probably known of themselves Of the former sort are these and others of like nature The whole is greater then a part thereof The same thing cannot be and not be at the sametime Of the latter sort is this and such others Every mother loves her childe from which 't is probably concluded that Katharine for example loves her childe by this argument Every mother loves her childe But Katharine is a mother Therefore Katharine loves her childe Now if we speak of principles of the first kinde the Relatour grants that Scripture is no such principle and 't is manifest in it self that it is not otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God as all agree in those Metaphysicall Principles above-named Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort for of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God then some other Book which is not truly such And though it had some probability that it were such yet were it not sufficient for we must have certainty and infallible certainty too as his Lordship grants But how that can be had without the infallible Authority of the Church I am confident neither he nor any of his party will ever be able to shew But if we betake our selves to the infallible Authority of the Church we may be as certainly and infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God as those who heard the Apostles say that Scripture was Gods word For as the Signs and Motives which accompanied the Apostles prov'd them to be Infallible so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible insomuch that we can no more erre in taking the Scripture from the Church then the Christians of the Primitive Church could erre in taking it from the Apostles And yet as their Faith was of things not seen both in regard of the Object which is not seen and of the Subject that sees onely in aenigmate enigmatically and darkly so is ours Will the Bishop then account the greatest part or rather all the Fathers either blinde or sensual men who saw no such light for some hundreds of years after Christ as Protestants with his Lordship here pretend they see in some Books of Scripture Were all those of the Roman Church for so many ages before blinde when you of the new-found Church first began who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture as could evince it self to be the word of God to such as before believ'd it not to be so with Divine certainty Or will Protestants be content that we upon this their own principle account them all blinde and sensual men because they see not the light of many other Books which our Church recommends to them and us and which we believe to be Divine Scripture as a great part of the Ancient Fathers did before us What do any Sectaries in the world more then this either against us or them or one against another in asserting the Private Spirit For the Bishop and his party affirm themselves to be so enlightned that they can see and discover that in Scriptures which no other Christians beside themselves ever did or could even before they believe it infallibly to be Scripture 8. As for Bellarmin whom the Bishop will needs have to be 〈◊〉 and unable to stand upon his own ground for teaching lib. 3. De Ecclesia cap. 14. that 't is not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that which in it self hath no shadow of difficulty it being as Bellarmin asserts it a truth so evident that the Bishop himself could not have deny'd it And if his Lordship had not too hastily run over Bellarmin he would have found that he distinguishes times as well as Gandavo cited in the same page For he saith that to believe there are any Divine Scriptures 't is not absolutely necessary to salvation for his omnino signifies no more because many were saved who lived before Divine Scriptures were written and since
see the dextrous Windings the Bishop makes to turn Hookers words another way He first would inferre from these words of Hooker So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing that might assure c. that therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition supposing that Hooker spake of proving Scripture to be the word of God But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus Mr. Hookers adversaries the Puritans had affirmed that Scripture prov'd it self to be the word of God by its own light and authority Mr. Hooker asserts it impossible for Scripture to be its own proof After he had demonstrated this he tells his Adversaries that unless besides Scripture there be another proof c. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God Ergo sayes the Bishop he himself against himself holds Scripture to prove it self when every one that has his eyes open may see that Hookers meaning is there must be some other thing different from Scripture to prove the Scriptures to be Gods word and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture c. was occasioned by his adversaries opinion As if he had said unless beside Scripture which you Puritans have ungroundedly put for its own proof there be some other it can never be prov'd sufficiently to be Scripture because I have demonstrated that Scripture which you falsly suppose to be that proof is no such proof at all But let us hear Mr. Hooker make his Apology for himself in his own words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his word For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way So that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure us that we do well we could not think we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy Rule of doing well Hooker lib. 2. § 4. Is there any thing here which proves Scripture to be a ground to it self that 't is the word of God Nay is not the impossibility hereof clearly asserted Is not Hooker in search after an assuring ground upon which Scripture must stand But the Bishop will have this ground whether Mr. Hooker will or no onely concomitant with Scripture that is Church-Tradition onely to lead in and help in assurance which assurance we get by the sole light of Scripture whereas Mr. Hooker will have that assurance both that Scripture is a rule of living well and that we do well in holding it to be so and also that it is the word of God as his words now cited declare to be precedent to Scripture and no other then Church-Tradition If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to it self that it is the word of God in his own opinion he maintains the very same in effect that we say and the quite contrary to the Bishop viz. that supposing we are assured by a proof precedent to Scripture that Scripture is the word of God this I say presupposed Scripture as by a secondary proof can confirm its own Authority viz. either where it teacheth that we are to believe the Church which so assures us primarily or that it self is the word of God This Turn being ended he begins another and that a double one and endeavours to shew that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to shew that Scripture is the word of God is the Tradition of the Church For that Author sayes he states the question in these words The Scripture is the ground of our Belief the Authority of man that 's the name Hooker gives to Tradition is the key which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture Now see his Meanders Hooker sayes the Bishop affirms that Scripture is the ground of our Belief But are those all Hookers words in that Sentence No for I finde amongst them a therein which is neatly hidden in a dark corner Although sayes Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief This one concealed word relates to something which would have quite spoil'd the Bishops market had it been fairly express'd What means he by Therein The words immediately going before tell us Whatsoever sayes Hooker we believe concerning Salvation by Christ although the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief Whence it appears that Hooker rather excludes Scripture from being a ground of our Belief concerning that which the Bishop here pretends viz. that Scripture is the word of God For the word therein which Hooker useth is in this place clearly relative and restrictive and tyes his speech to the particular matter precedent viz. to all things concerning Salvation by Christ. As if Hooker should say Good assurance being presupposed by some antecedent proof that Scripture is the word of God Scripture it self may then be a ground of our Belief touching all other things which concern our Salvation by Christ. How does this place of Hooker now fully and faithfully cited favour his Lordship There is no man that has his brains about him to use his own words but sees how little it makes to his purpose But let us go on The Authority of man sayes Hooker cited by the Bishop is the Key which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter and shew what he means by opening the knowledge of Scripture He speaks thus The Scriptures do not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things Stay a while By this Key therefore which opens the entrance into the knowledge of Scriptures is not meant in this place that Church-Tradition fallibly assures us that Scripture is the word of God as the Bishop would fain interpret Hooker but that it teaches us the meaning of the words of Scripture and thereby opens to us the knowledge of Scripture By what hath been said 't is evident his Lordship had very little reason to fall so hotly upon Brierley as to tax him of falsification as he does num 25. For Hooker clearly teaching that besides Scripture we must have the Authority or Tradition of the Church to assure us that Scripture is Gods word and Brierley affirming no more of him then this I wonder that for speaking truth he should be thought to deserve so sharp a censure from his Lordship CHAP. 8. A further discovery of our Adversaries indirect proceedings in the Question ARGUMENT 1. The Question declined by the Bishop 2.
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.
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
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
and contrary opinions in Religion that I see nothing in the world more likely to animate and encourage them still to persist in their obstinate refractariness and to cast off euen all sense of due obedience and reuerence of the Churches authority 7. But the Bishop beeing so well content as he tells vs with men's opinion of his weakeness it will be no hard worke for his friends to excuse his ouer-confidence in this particular when they please vpon that ground only of pride he is not willing to be taxed For which reason A. C. hauing told him as most iustly he might that he could not proue any errour or superstition to be in the Roman Religion but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himselfe or some of his fellowes to be iudge of controuersies and taking authority to censure all for superstition and errour that suites not with their fancies he complaines as beeing in this deeply censur'd by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appeare I answer his own confession sufficiently shewes that in the very next lines where he sayes indeed if I tooke this vpon mee J were guilty of great pride This that is to make himselfe or some of 〈◊〉 fellowes iudge of controuersies or to endeauour to proue errour and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority vpon him he confesses were great pride Well But how does he cleere himselfe of the charge How does he conuince the Roman Church of errour and superstition otherwise then by taking this authority him and making himselfe or some of his fellows Iudge of Controuersies To say only as he does I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councill iudge of conerouersies by and according to Scripture will not serue his turn by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the generall practice of Protestants hitherto none but himselfe and some of his fellowes shall be iudge whether the Councill be lawfull and free or not For if eyther it consists of such as fauour not their opinions or will not obserue such conditions as he and his fellows thinke good to prescribe though neuer so contrary to the Canons and legall proceedings of former Councils wee are sure enough it will neuer be acknowledg'd for free or lawfull by our Aduersaries Againe standing to the Bishops principles and the common practice of his partie expounding them who but himselfe and his fellowes shall be iudge whether a lawfull and free Generall Councill hath defined or doth define by and according to Scripture Doth not the Relatour himselfe expressly teach § 38. num 15. that if a Generall Councill shall forget it selfe and take vpon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and actually beleeu'd by all neither it nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians euery priuate Christian he sayes num 23. may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils Likewise doth he not tell vs Ibidem num 24. that it is no pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours defin'd by Councils instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran Constance and Trent as hauing made erroneous definitions in matter of Fayth what is this in effect but to teach that noe man is bound to admitt the doctrine defined by Generall Councills meerly for the Authority of the sayd Councills and if not who sees it not manifestly to fallow that cuery priuate Christian that is in other terms himselfe or some of his followes is by our Aduersarie made iudge of Controuersies and allowed to take the Authority vpon them of censuring all for superstition and errour that suites not with their priuate iudgement which is the thing his Lordship but euen now confessed to be great pride But the Relatour will proue from the testimony of A C. himselfe that he is not guilty of pride in this particular viz. of making himselfe Judge of Controuersies etc. For why A C. taxes him for giuing too much power to Generall Councils and binding men to a strict Obedience to them euen in case of errour Therfore sure sayth he most innocent I am of the intolerable pride which he is pleas'd to charge vpon mee J aske is this testimony of A C. true or not If it be not true how can he from a false testimony inferre his own innocency If it be true viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine doth really binde men to a strict obedience to the definitions of Generall Councills euen in case of errour how grossly doth he contradict himselfe when he sayes ' tir noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours euen of Generall Councills and teaches that a priuate man vpon iust grounds may both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils This surely is in effect to deny both internall and externall obedience too to Generall Councils For if wee may deliberately doubt where is internall obedience If wee may constantly denie where is the externall Doth he not also teach Ibidem num 23. that a priuate Christian may not only consider and examin the definitions of Generall Councils both for his own and the Churches satisfaction but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine in such manner as the whole Church shall be oblig'd to call an other Generall Councill to consider of the matter etc How can this be done without expressing dislike or shewing some externall disobedience to the precedent Councill lett our Aduersarie if they please shew how But wee haue already chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subiect To as little purpose is it for him to plead that be submitts his iudgement in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church But that this is a false pretense wee haue all along in this treatise demonstrated but more particularly chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds saying that he submitts vpon new and necessary doubts to the iudgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councill Fairly spoken Vpon new and necessary doubts he will submitt not otherwise But wee must know in the Bishops sense and according to the principles already aduanc'd and resolutely insisted vpon by him noe doubts are necessary but such as concern matters Fundamentall in Fayth that is as he perpetually explaines himselfe absolutely necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all Christians for Saluation So that in all other points of doctrine eyther determin'd and defin'd already or hereafter to be determin'd and defin'd by the Church he does vpon the matter openly profess that he will not submitt to the iudgement of a Generall Councill but follow his own priuate opinion though contrary to it Now what is this but to take vpon him to be iudge of controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills and to censure for superstition and errour what suites not with his priuate fancie 8. But our Aduersarie would haue A.C. consider how iustly all
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
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.
My Lord having been sufficiently informed of your eminent Authority and great Learning I desire to receive some satisfaction from you in matter of Religion but being not verst in your Christian Principles I am uncapable of accepting of any save what can be evidenc'd to me by the light of Natural Reason Bishop I willingly condescend to your request and doubt not to render you fully satisfied by the means you require Heath I understand by your learned Relation of a Conference c. that the sole Foundation of your Faith is a Certain Book called by you the BIBLE which contains many different Tracts and Histories written in very distant times by several Authours and bound up together in one volume And this you say must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of your Religion as it ought to be believed Now I have employed sometime in perusing this your Bible and am no way inclined by the light of Reason to assent that it is Gods word in such manner as you believe it Bish. Surely you have not employed the Talent of Reason as reason required you should have done otherwise you would have discerned this Book to be the very Word of God For our Faith contains nothing against Reason neither is Grace placed but in a Reasonable Soul Heath But yet your Faith is above Reason and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature so that by Reasons light I can reach neither of them nor can my reason without Grace say you see my way to heaven nor believe this Book Bish. I confess it is so yet Natural Reason is cleared by Grace to see what by Nature alone it cannot Heath Tell not me of Grace I understand nothing of that and believe as little Unless therefore you satisfie me that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being Gods word by conviction of naturall Reason my search is at a stand Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the Question yet I must tell you you may not think that this Principle of Religion That Scriptures are the Word of God is so indifferent to a natural eye that it may as justly lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other for 't is strengthned abundantly with Probable Arguments even from the light of Nature it self Heath A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthned with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may be also said to be but probably false Wherefore I fear Naturall Reason goes not very far in the decision of this question Bish. Say not so For Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason then any thing in the world which any Infidell or meer Naturalist can adhere unto against it Heath This your assertive Answer is doubly defective as I conceive First because it is not enough for one to prove his Religion to stand upon surer grounds then another mans since 't is possible there may be a third Religion resting on surer grounds then either of the other two Secondly because in your own Principles you are not to prove your Bible by your Religion as you here seem to endeavour but your Religion by your Bible which must therefore be first proved and that by Naturall Reason too for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it Bish. This Canon of Scripture the Container of Christs Law is or hath been received and believed for infallible Verity in almost all Nations under Heaven which could never have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason Heath Did the Nations you speak of receive the Scriptures on the sole Account of Reason and thereupon by diligent reading and conferring of Texts became Christians or were they first made Christians and after upon the Churches Authority received them for Gods undoubted word The Authors by you cited in your Book averre not their reception of them for Gods word before they were made Christians What wonder then if I who am yet no Christian see not sufficient reason to receive them for such Truly to me by what has hitherto been said it seems impossible to prove by Reason that your Bible is Gods Infallible Truth Bish. Nay it is not impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth Infallible or make you deny some apparent Principle of your own Heath Evidence me that and your Lordship will accomplish a great work Bish. 'T is an apparent Principle with those of your perswasion that God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of possession since if he could he were neither Absolute nor God in your own Theology But your Gods have been forced out of possession viz. out of the Bodies they possessed by the name of the true God and Christ whom the Scriptures teach and we believe to be the onely true God Therefore Heath Therefore what By what kinde of Logick can you inferre even out of your own premises which yet I might well question that therefore the Scripture is Gods word Bish. Does it not follow that you must either deny your own Gods or your own Principle in Nature And if it be reasonable to deny him for God who is under command why is it not also reasonable to believe that the Scripture is Gods word since there you finde Christ doing that viz. dispossessing Bodies and giving power to do it after Heath My Lord I cannot a little wonder to see you swerve so grosly from the known Rules of Logick as to beg the Question which here you do most palpably while you rest on the sole Authority of Scripture for proving the same Scripture to be the word of God If this be not a meer petitio principii I know not what is Bish. I perceive you are willfull and self-conceited for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard However I shall adde this more that if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if even in the Mathematiques where are the exactest Demonstrations there be quaedam postulata some things to be first demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed who can justly deny that to Divinity a Science of the highest object which he easily 〈◊〉 to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach There must therefore in Reason some principle be supposed in Divinity viz. the Text of Scripture as a Rule which Novices and weaklings may be taught first to believe that so they may come to the knowledge of the Deducibles out of this rich Principle I see not how right Reason can deny this ground Heath I did not think to finde your Lordship so disingenuous as not onely to contradict your self by unsaying all
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
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
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
any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may accuse witness judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children To this the Bishop replies that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument but addes withall that no moderate Prince ever thought it just or took upon him to be Accuser Witness and Judge in any case of moment against his Subjects I answer that a Prince being liable many wayes to errours and mistakes in judgement ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge in all matters of personal and private interest between him and his Subjects though in matters of publick concern as of Treason or the like where the business is evident and admits not the delayes of legal Formality I think it would not be accounted unjust for the Prince to be Accuser Witness and Judge too againct a Traiterous Subject However the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith and hath full Authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature As for Parents the Bishop grants that while Children are young they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then themselves and the Children are not withstanding such correction to give them reverence But saith he when Childen are grown up and come to some full use of reason there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother if she forget all good nature and turn stepdame unto them which I willingly grant and leave such injur'd Children for remedy to the Magistrate and the Law to both which the Children may lawfully appeal and the Mother ought to submit as to her Superiours But the Catholique Church duly and compleatly represented in a General Council hath no superiour on earth neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians upon any pretence to appeal from her to any Third Person in causes of Faith the case therefore is not alike Secondly I deny the Bishops supposition viz. that the Roman Church taken in the sense we take it is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children or so far forget her duty both to God and them as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants her undutiful and rebellious sons bring against her and therefore towards them as well as towards the rest of her children she still retains the rights of a Mother and they must not take it ill if as occasion serves she exercise towards them some part of her Motherly Authority but rather bethink themselves of returning to their Due Obedience and conforming themselves to that holy Exhortation of St. Peter which for their better content I shall give them out of their own Bible viz. that laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and evil speakings as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word that is the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine that they may grow thereby to salvation 2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith her proceedings towards Protestants will be found upon due examination most just For though a Prince or Parents may not in all cases be Accusers witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children because it may possibly be evident that they tyrannize over them or treat them injuriously yet when matter of fact is so evident that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children or Subjects when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evidently declare the things criminal for which they are punish'd what need is there absolutely speaking of any further Witness or Judge to punish them Now this is our case The things for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants are clearly matter of Fact viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught actual disobedience to her Canons separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion c. all which are criminal actions and clearly punishable not onely by the Canons of the Church but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholique Countrey No need surely of Accusers and Witnesses where the Offence is notorious Well therefore might the Pastours of the Church who were their proper Judges proceed to Canonical Sentence against them seeing as I said it was notoriously evident and by themselves not deny'd that they oppos'd and contradicted not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world but also the Laws both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Statutes Decrees Customs and Practises universally in force in all Nations where they began their pretended Reformations When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible nor to act by any Infallible Rule for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State and their Rule not the Scripture which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves but either the Book of Common Prayer or the thirty nine Articles or the Queens Injunctions and Book of Canons Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles Did they not for this reason ordinarily summon Anabaptists Brownists Familists and other Separatists to appear at their Spiritual Courts as they call them did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication and other Censutes as the case requit'd and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do Nay did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches did they not bring us into Sequestrations Imprisonments and a thousand other troubles Would they hear us when we appeal'd either to Scripture Fathers Church Councils or any other third person to be Judge between them and us Behold a very just proceeding When they fall foul either upon us or their own Separatists they are content to be Accusers Witnesses and Judges but when they are call'd to justifie their actings against the Roman Church then forsooth 't is an unjust and unreasonable thing then they call for a Third Person to judge not because they are indeed willing to be judged or regulated by any authority under heaven except themselves but because they know that a competent Judge between the Roman Church and them distinct from the Roman Church is impossible to be found A. C. therefore had reason to tell the Bishop that never any competent judge had so censured the Church as he had done and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self could so far prevail against the
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
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament how is it possible that a man should be moued to this beleefe by the common consent of Catholiques Lutherans and English Protestants seeing only these last agree in this point That which the Relatour adds to this is no less absurd He cites 〈◊〉 a Catholique diuine as teaching that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques as if he had ouercome them with their own arms asking A. C. what he can say to this and seems to admire the force of truth which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie But J answer what matter is it though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation were that sufficient ground to say that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour or noc point of Catholique Fayth because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation very true it is all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church is an article of Fayth which may neither be doubted of nor disputed yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined by an express act A Protestant versed in scripture would thinke it a sinne if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent yet J conceiue he will hardly say that it is Simply necessary to Saluation or that he is bound absolutely Speaking to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation But the truth is Suarez speaks to no such purpose as the Bishop alledges him He confesses indeed that the manner of explicating the change or conuersion that is made in the B. Sacrament which Schoole-men vse is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles but as for the conuersion it selfe or Transubstantiation it is most euident that he holds it for a point of Fayth which to deny were Heresie His words are these in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes Secundò infero etc. Secondly Sayth he J inferre that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as also the absense of bread yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body he falls into Heresie because the Catholique Church hath defined and doth teach not only the two first but also this last what say you to this Protestants you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church was it truth and honestie thinke you that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour They that please to consult the Author himselfe in the place alledged will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it but a farre different thing as wee haue sayd aboue His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent whome he censures forsooth of tediousness and for making as he conceiues an intricate and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion a thing which in the Relatours opinion neither Diuinity nor Philosophy euer heard of till then But let the indifferent reader be Judge Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition and becomes a liuing and animate part of man not because the soule which informs it is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd but because the same soule which was in the body before begins now to be in the new matter so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion the bread is turned into the Body of Christ not as if Christs Body were properly speaking produced vnder the elements for it was preexistent before and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense be sayd to be produced but because it was not there before and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms by vertue of Consecration Lett any man iudge whether this explication be not farre more intelligible then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence First of all he affirms with Bishop Ridley and other Protestants cited by him that the true reall naturall and Substantiall Body of Christ that very Body which was born of the Virgin which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead is truly really and Substantially in the B. Sacrament and yet for all this denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation that is in effect he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament yet neither with the Substance of bread nor without it He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time and yet stiffly denies with all Caluinists that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once Is not this to say in effect that Christs Body really is only in Heauen and no where else and yet to acknowledge that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth But who is able to vnderstand and reconcile these speeches His saying that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth by Grace and the like is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence which in no true sense can be called reall In my opinion Zuinglius Peter Martyr and those of the Sacramentary party deale faric more candidly in this point who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence both name and thing then the Bishop and some other Protestants alledged by him who confess the name but deny the thing 6. The Catholique Authors which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter are grossly eyther misunderstood or misexpounded by him For 't is euident when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane for the most part that which is by desire and deuotion only when for want of opportunity or some 〈◊〉 reason wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament but yet doe vse most of those affections and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God and our B. Sauiour which wee are wont to practise when wee doe really communicate Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament where he is present not like a bodily substance but rather like a spirit that is whole in the whole consecrated host and whole in euery part of it But sure
if our aduersaries like not his answer wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church Moreouer wee auerre that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned A. C. inference is rightly gathered namely that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle then solid when to make good his denyall of it he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point granting the first of these viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points to follow out of Doctor Whites concession but not the second viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall But with what ground or consonancy to himselfe and truth lett the Reader iudge His precense is that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression as he calls it or bare letter of the Article but hath err'd in the exposition or sense of it J answer if she hath err'd in the exposition and sense of an Article how can she be truly sayd to haue held it Can any man with truth say that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity or the Antitrinitarians the doctrine of three diuine Persons because they allow and hold Scriptures in which these Mysteries are contain'd who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold in a question of Fayth to signifie no more then profession or keeping of the bare letter of the Article and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense Is it not all one to say Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say they beleeue the sayd doctrines Jf then it be true that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points 't is likewise true that she hath euer beleeu'd them and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any there beeing noe other way properly and truly speaking wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth but only by disbeleeuing it If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points it is by necessary consequence likewise granted that she neuer erred in any such points how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so He tells vs indeed but his accusation has noe proofe that our Church hath erred grossly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them lastly that her beauty in this respect is but meere painting as preseruing only the outside and bare letter of Christs doctrine but in regard of inward sense and beleefe beeing neither beautifull nor sound Thus he But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd Let our aduersaries shew in what one Article of all the three Creeds the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense or err'd in her exposition of it Beside they must likewise shew how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe and not in the bare letter how can those which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion beleeuing all things as she teacheth and noe otherwise attain Saluation 3. The Lady here asks a second question whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats vpon my soule sayes the Bishop you may vpon my soule sayes Mr. Fisher there is but one sauing Fayth and that 's the Roman You see their mutuall confidence but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes and condition also of Saluation viz. Catholique Fayth which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed saues none witness St. Athanasius in his Creed admitted by Protestants The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils so much magnifyed by Antiquity to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation This in fine is the ground of the Bishops confidence But I answer his Lordship failes in two things The first that he doth not shew that such a Fayth as he here mentions is sufficient to Saluation notwithstanding whateuer errour or opinion may be ioyned with it The second that he doth not shew that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth that is in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 For as to the first of the pariculars did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme that St. Cyprians followers were lost without repentance because they opposed the authority of the Church which in and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous Put case then that in after-times the whole Church or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice should declare some other opinion to be erroneous which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so eyther by Scripture Creeds or those Fowre first Generall Councils were not he that should hold it after such definitiue declaration of the Church or Council in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils If not lett our aduersaries shew why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church or the Councils definition and other people who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority should not Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne to oppose the definition of a Generall Council when he auerrs that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience and submission till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times and inconsistent with the Churches peace How can this possibly be made good if to beleeue Scripture and the
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
doth not with any presumption signify that a man is a Protestant which falls out otherwise in England For here it hath always been held a conformity to and with the Protestant Religion professed in England to goe to Church and therfore not allowed by any of our Diuines who neuer giue way to the profession of false doctrine Now who is more guilty of dissimulation in Religion which the Bishop charges vpon some of our partie then the Bishop himselfe Doth he not § 35. punct 5. professedly allow possibility of Saluation to such Catholiques as doe both wittingly and knowingly associate themselues euen to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church and such as come euen neere to Idolatrie only because they beleeue the Creed and hold the Foundation what is this but to teach it lawfull at least no sinne excluding Saluation to ioyne ones selfe outwardly to a superstitious Church in a superstitious false and euen Idolatrous way of worshipping God contrary to ones knowledge and constience only for some temporall and worldly respects and consequently that men are not alwayes bound to seeme and appeare as they are but sometimes at least may haue liberty to weare a masque But certainly that which followes is a most strange and inconsequent Paradox if euer any was Jf the Religion of Protestants sayes the Bishop be a know'n false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too For their Religion meaning Catholiques and Protestants is the same sayth he nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants sett vp a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion and the difference is in certaine gross corruptions to the very endangering of Saluation which each side sayes the other is guilty of What is this but to heape absurdities one vpon an other which of all these propositions is maintainable in any true and proper sense The Religion of Catholiques and Protestants is the same The church of Rome and the Churches of Protestants sett not vp different Religions Christian Religion is the same both to Catholiques and Protestants they are of the same Religion and yet differ in it First are wee of the same Religion because wee agree in some few generall points why might he not as well haue sayd that Arians and all other Heretiques are of the same Religion with vs. by reason of their agreement with vs in some points of Fayth Secondly is Christian Religion J meane in the necessary soundness and integrity of it common both to Catholiques and Protestants what Protestant will affirm that it is and if it be not why would the Relatour trifle and abuse his Reader with such vaine and pernicious amphibologie as he here vseth in a business of so great importance Thirdly if wee Catholiques be of the same Religion with Protestants how can wee be sayd to differ from them in the same Religion as the Relatour here expressly sayes wee 〈◊〉 can I be of the same 〈◊〉 with my neighbour and yet differ from him in the same thing surely if our Religion and that of Protestants be the same wee are not to be sayd to differ but to agree in it vnless our aduersary and his party thinke they may vary the common sense and notion of words at their sole pleasure Beside those points about which vnder the notion of corruptions and errours the Bishop himselfe acknowledges that wee doe differ eyther they are parts of Chrstian Religion or they are not So they be parts of Christian Religion seeing by his own confession wee differ in them from Protestants how is Christian Religion in gross sayd to be common to vs both how is it the same to Catholiques and Protestants If they be not parts of Christian Religion how can wee by reason of them be sayd to differ from Protestants in Religion or in the same Christian Religion But what sayes the Bishop cannot I proue any superstition or errour to be in the Roman Church none at all A.C. it seems had told him so now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome were so happy and the Catholique Church thereby 〈◊〉 with truth and peace For J am confident such truth would soone eyther command peace or confound peace breakers But is there 〈◊〉 superstition in adoration of Images None in Inuocation of Saynts None in adoration of the Sacrament Js there 〈◊〉 errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giuing it but in one kinde None about Purgatory and common prayer in an vnknowen tongue These and many more are in the Roman Religion and 't is noe hard worke to proue euery one of these to be errour or superstition or both Wee answer 't is a harder worke to proue them to be so then barely to affirme them to be so otherwise wee are confident his Lordship would haue been as liberall of his proofs in this kinde as he is of his 〈◊〉 for surely it more imported him to proue then to accuse But wee aske how will his friends and adherents after him proue them to be superstitions and errours By Scripture only who shall be iudge that the places alledged out of Scripture to that purpose beare the sense in which Protestants vnderstand rather then that in which Generall Councills vnderstood them when they defin'd the recited particulars as the present Roman Church beleeues and obserues them at this day when they haue done all they can the finall resolution of the business must according to Protestants be reduced to priuate iudgement which in such matters as these according to St. Austin is most insolent madness Nor doe J see vpon what ground the Relatour could be so confident that if the Roman Church were so happy as to teach nothing but truth to witt in Protestants sense that is to agree with Protestants in condemning the worship of Jmages Jnuocation of Saynts Adoration of the Sacrament Purgatory etc. it would so certainly eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers as he imagins What confusion I pray would it be for such people to disagree from a Church which proclaymes her owne erroneousness to all the world by beginning now to teach contrary not only to her selfe and her own former beleefe but contrary to the generall beleefe of all Christendome beside for many hundred of yeares would not the very alteration of doctrine which in this supposition the Roman Church must necessarily make render it euident to all men that both her selfe and the whole Church of Christ with her may erre and hath erred in points of greatest importance concerning the Fayth what peace-breakers would be confounded with the authority of a Church so apt to fall into errours and superstitions of such dangerous nature Truly for my part I am soe farre from thinking such an impossible case as the Bishop here putts would eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers that is the Authours or Abettours of priuate
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
upon Scripture that is 't is true if themselves may be competent judges in their own cause But his Lordship not liking that Qualification of his speech professeth for himself and his party that they are willing to be judged by the joynt consent and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first Four or Five hundred years after Christ when the Church was as he sayes at the best and by the Councils held within those times and that they will submit to them in all those points of Doctrine This offer is very fair and we do for our selves as Solemnly promise the same and will make it good upon all occasions 9. But to shew the Bishop cannot perform what he hath undertaken Mr. Fisher endeavours to confute him in the point of Infant-Baptisme which saith he is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it words not vainly and cunningly as the Relatour pretends but soberly and discreetly spoken For a point may be exprest and yet not evidently exprest Otherwise there could never be any doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now the Baptisme of Infants must not onely be exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently that is undenyably by Scripture alone For if it be there exprest onely probably it may be probably denyed to be expressed and so Disputations can never have an end out of the Scriptures expression alone For the same reason he addes that Infant-Baptisme is not at least demonstratively concluded out of Scripture because if it be prov'd directly yet onely probably as was said it may probably be denyed and so we shall finde no more end here then in the former Dispute Wherefore our Adversaries cannot in reason mislike this addition of evidently exprest and demonstratively concluded because without this we shall never have an end of Disputations This was it made Mr. Fisher adde those words though the Bishop knew full well that there are many things in good Logick concluded directly which are not concluded Demonstratively as he well shewes But he is much out nay contradicts himself in what he urges That whatsoever is by direct consequence proved out of Scripture is Demonstratively and Scientifically proved For first he supposes Scripture to be a prime principle in Christian Religion that is such a principles as has no dependance on any other to declare it such infallibly to Christian people which he knowes all Catholiques deny Secondly though I should grant Scripture and every Text of it to be a principle amongst all Christians whereof no man should desire any further proof yet unless both Propositions the Major and Minor were evidently in Scripture the Conclusion might directly be inferred but not evidently out of Scripture For in case one Proposition onely be evidently express'd and the other inevidently or but probably the Conclusion indeed will follow directly but not demonstratively This is much more clear if but one Proposition be evidently express'd in Scripture and the other neither in Scripture nor evident to natural reason but onely probable For as Logicians speaks Conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem The Conclusion alwayes follows the nature of the weaker Proposition This will appear to be so in Infant-Baptisme For though no man ought to deny but that many things are Demonstrable in Divinity yet all are not For in this respect as Canus here cited affirms Divinity is like other Sciences which prove not all things Demonstratively but many things onely Topically or probably To illustrate this doctrine a little further by instances First that a Thing may be expresly in Scripture and yet not evidently exprest even according to some Protestants Our Saviour sayes Mat. 26. c. This is my Body where he affirms expresly that what he had then in his hands was his Body and yet according to the Zuinglians this is no evident expression to signifie his reall Body for if that were evidently exprest by these words no man that believes Scripture could deny it as those Heretiques do For 't is impossible to deny an evidence Thus again Mark 16. 16. it is exprest Qui crediderit Baptizatus fuerit Salvus erit yet is it not evidently exprest that every one who believes and is Baptized shall be saved because many are Baptized and Believe who are afterward damned Secondly that a thing may be directly deduced from Scripture and yet 〈◊〉 demonstratively I give these instances All Scripture Divinely inspired c. is profitable c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. But St. James his Epistle is Scripture Divinely inspired Ergo it is profitable c. This consequence is directly deduced in perfect forme from Scripture yet is it not evidently deduced from it for if it were the Lutherans could not deny the consequence as they do because the Minor is not evident in Scripture Or thus Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. But children unbaptized are not born again of water and the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This is directly deduced from Scripture yet all Calvinists must say it is not evidently deduced Or lastly thus That which our Saviour Consecrated in his last Supper was the usual Bread of that place and time but no Bread save what was made of Wheat was the usual Bread of that place and time Ergo that which our Saviour Consecrated was no other save that which was made of Wheat The Major is clear in Scripture but the Minor is onely historically certain so that the consequence is deduced directly but not Demonstratively 10. His Lordships first Demonstration therefore of the necessity of Baptisme to the salvation of Infants is much defective if we stick to sole Scripture as now he is to do For a Pelagian Anabaptist will most easily answer that the Text of John 3. Except a man be born again by water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God speaks onely of such as can be born again Now none can be born again save those who were dead in sinne wherefore Infants having no sin at all as Pelagians hold cannot be born again and consequently must not be Baptized insomuch that this Text is so far from proving against such Anabaptists that Infants must be Baptized that it rather proves the contrary His second That Infants ought to be baptized which he sayes is very near an expression in Scripture it self hath nothing in it at all either of an expression or demonstration For to omit that the word children signifies not Infants but filios or liberos children grown up to years and that by promise is not meant the particular promise there mentioned but the promise of the new Law in Christ the very Text it self confutes him For if the promise be made to their Children which