Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
fall not into a Circle as his Lordship here pretends they do For they primarily and absolutely prove the Infallibility of the Church by the Motives of 〈◊〉 and not by Scripture though afterwards and as it were secondarily as we said before they prove it also especially to those who admit Scripture as Protestants do by the Scripture it self which we acknowledge with the Relatour to be a higher proof especially against them then the Churches Tradition Yet we deny that those other proofs from the Motives of Credibility can be in reason questionable as he sayes they are until we come to Scripture Neither do any Catholique Authours disagree in this because they unanimously teach that the Motives of Credibility make our Church EVIDENTLY CREDIBLE and by consequence she is sufficiently proved to be True by them alone Now as concerning that Assertion which the Bishop urges that the principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit then the Conclusion it self and his inference thereupon viz. that the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest being Conclusions and the Principles by which they are concluded being onely Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the Tradition is more Infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony I answer the ground of all this Discourse is the Authority of Aristotle whose words the Bishop thus cites in the Margent 1. Poster c. 2. T. 16. Quocirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia PER ILLA scimus credimus etiam posteriora Wherefore saith he if we know and believe all other things for or by vertue of the First Principles we know and believe them to wit the First Principles themselves much more because by them we know and believe all other things In which words we confess the Philosopher doth very well declare the proceeding of the Understanding or Minde of Man when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence or clearness of its Object but not when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and Free Acts 〈◊〉 or at least principally from the Impulse and Inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxime holds not viz. That the Principles of a Conclusion must be of more Credit then the Conclusion it self Now the Act of Believing is such an Act that is which the Understanding Elicites rather by a Voluntary and Free inclination and Consent of the will then from any Evident Certainty in the Object whereto it assents 3. That this may further appear I distinguish a double proceeding in Probations the one is per principia intrinseca by intrinsecal principles that is such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves The other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the Thing proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the Understanding to Assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such Probations are made And this kinde of proof is called Probatio ab Authoritate an Argument from Authority which Authority is nothing but the veracity knowledge and vertue of him to whom we give assent when we receive such or such an affirmation from him Now as I said above we our selves either hear immediately what he affirms and then we assent immediately and solely for his Authority or we hear it mediately from the report of others who if of unquestionable credit we assent that he did affirm it upon the Authority of the Reporters yet so as we should not give an undoubted assent to the thing it self but for the undenyable Authority of the First Deliverer To apply this doctrine when we believe any thing with Divine Faith it proceeds not from any probation per principia intrinseca from any thing that hath natural connexion dependence or inference of or with the thing believed but is purely propter principia extrinseca for and from extrinsecal principles to wit the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it Now the Prophets and Apostles assented to what God spake immediately unto them And the like is Affirmable in some proportion of their immediate Hearers But succeeding Ages had it viz. Gods Revelation both from Christ and his Apostles onely mediately and immediately from their respective Pastours Now that we may be assured hereof Infallibly we must have some infallible Testimony to ascertain it unto us which can be no other then the Church 4. Neither will it be necessary precisely for this reason to affirm in the Resolution of our Faith That the Churches Declaration in matters of Faith is absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions or that our Faith is Resolved into the voice of the Church as into its formal object but it is enough to say our Faith is Resolved into Gods Revelations whether written or unwritten as its formal object and our Infallible Assurance that the Things we believe as Gods Revelations are revealed from him is Resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations Seeing therefore our Faith in this way of proceeding is not resolved into the Churches Authority as the formal Motive of our Assent but onely as an assured Testimony that such and such Articles as the Church defines to be matters of Faith are truly revealed from God as she assures us they are it is not necessary the Churches Testimony should be a new immediate Revelation from God but onely Supernaturally Infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed If then it be demanded why we believe such Books as are contain'd in the Bible to be the word of God we answer because it is a Divine Unwritten Tradition that they are his word and this Divine Tradition is the formal object whereon our Faith relyes But if it be further demanded how we are certain that it is a Divine Tradition we answer the certainty we have thereof is from the Infallible Testimony of the Church teaching us it is such a Tradition Thus the Articles of our Faith are delivered from God but kept by the Church they spring from God as the Fountain but run down in a full Stream through the Channel and within the Banks of the Church they are sowed by the hand of God but grow up in the field of the Church They are spoken by the mouth of God but we hear them by the voice of the Church assuring us
Scripture is Gods Word from the sole Testimony of the Church Yet when both partles press this Circle against each other they alwayes suppose that Scripture is Infallibly and Divinely believ'd for Gods Word in some true sense by means of the Churches Testimony Otherwise it were as impertinent to press this Question to a Christian why believe you the Scripture to be the Word of God that has no further certainty of it then what is drawn from a probable and humane Testimony of the Church as if it were propounded to a Heathen who had onely heard Scripture recommended for Gods Word by persons very worthy of credit For both of these were equally to answer that they deny'd the supposition of an Infallible Belief since they did not believe as Christians take the word Belief that it is Gods Word And then no marvel if there be no Circle committed when there is no Christian Belief which both sides presuppose as a ground of this Circle where ever it is found When therefore the Relatour speaks of proving Scripture by the Church unless he mean proving it by a Medium sufficient to assure us infallibly that it is the Word of God which he constantly refuses to grant though he fall not into a Circle yet he falls into a Semi-Circle that is a Crooked Turn in his Labyrinth by mis-stating the question and bowing it another way then it ought to be and alwayes is propounded in this Controversie as I said above Wherefore if the Church give onely a humane Testimony to induce 〈◊〉 a fallible assent that Scripture is the Word of God and Scripture afterwards by its own light gives me an infallible Certainty that the Testimony of the Church was true there could never have been the least ground for wise and learned men to move this difficulty of a vicious Circle one against another no more then when I believe it probable that to morrow will be a fair day because Peter tells me so and after I know certainly that Peter told me true because I see the next day to be fair by its own light His Lordship therefore was either to suppose that those Beginners and Weaklings he speaks of have some degree of Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God by means of the Churches Tradition antecedently to the reading of Scripture or he commits the fallacy term'd ex falso supposito of making a false supposition and so by avoiding one errour falls into another For unless he believe infallibly that Scripture is Gods word upon the Testimony of the Church as a true Cause and Motive of his Infallible Belief he doth not answer the question seeing all that affirm they believe this for the Churches Testimony understand it so and if he do he forsakes his own principles falls to us and consequently into that pretended Circle he objects against us if his objections be of force His Lordships Resolution of Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition we have above evinced to be impossible supposing the immediate or present Church-Tradition to be fallible but were it possible we have also evidenced that it destroys his own grounds viz. of sole Scriptures-being the Foundation of our belief When therefore he averres that we may resolve our Faith into Prime Tradition when it is known to be such if he means by known as he must such a knowledge as may suffice to make that Prime Tradition an object of Faith he wheels quite about to amuse his Reader and sayes in effect we may then resolve our Faith into Tradition when that comes to pass which himself holds impossible ever to happen For if Prime Tradition can be onely gather'd by the perpetual succeeding Tradition of the Church as 't is certain it can onely be and that Tradition be fallible as the Bishop perpetually contends how shall any Prime Tradition be known sufficiently to make it self an object of Faith since nothing can do that but an Authority Infallible 〈◊〉 us Infallibly certain of that Tradition Hence he runs two contrary wayes at once desirous on the one side to resolve Faith into Prime Tradition that he may not seem repugnant to the Ancient Fathers and yet on the other so willing to be repugnant to us that by his grounds he makes that Resolution wholly impossible and to blinde these contrarieties pretends that Church-Tradition being not simply Divine cannot be such as may suffice for a formal object of Faith whereinto it is to be resolv'd when yet he knew full well the difficulty lay not there and that his Adversaries never affirm'd it was simply Divine or the formal object of Faith but spake alwayes warily and reservedly abstracting from that question as not necessary for the solving of his arguments or defence of the Catholick Faith against him Let the Bishops Adherents but confess that the Testimony and Tradition of the Church is truly infallible and we for the present shall require no more of them For that Infallibility suppos'd we have made it manifest that Prime Tradition is sufficiently derived to us in quality of the formal object of our Faith whereon to rest which in his Lordships principles is impossible to be done 4. Concerning the Relators endeavor to reconcile the Fathers whom he conceives to speak sometimes contrary to one another touching Scripture and Tradition though he doth not much oblige us in the number of those he brings in favour of our assertion for he names onely two and one of them somewhat lamely cited with an c. yet surely we are to thank him for his fair and candid exposition of those he quotes against us For he professes that when ever the Fathers speak of relying upon Scripture onely they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition wherein doubtless his Lordship delivers a great truth and nothing contrary to us But as for his challenge which follows we cannot but say that 's loud indeed but the sound betrayes its emptiness He will oblige us to shew that the holy Fathers maintain that which we need not affirm to be held by them For we never yet said that our Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word is resolved into the Tradition of the present Church but into Prime Apostolical Tradition of which we are infallibly certified by the Tradition of the present Church it being a condition or application of Prime Tradition to us And by this manner of defending our Tenets we have both gone along with A. C. and those Divines who affirm the voice of the Church not to be so simply and absolutely Divine as is the holy Scripture and given a full solution to all the Relatours arguments the most of which suppose us upon a false ground necessitated to acknowledge the voice of the Church to be so absolutely and simply Divine that our Faith is to rest upon it as its ultimate Motive and formall Object which must be no lesse then absolute Divine Authority But supposing we held our Faith to be
so resolv'd would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms resolving of Faith c. in the Ancient Fathers it being a School-term not used in their times It seems he would by his false citation of St. Austin in these words Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. contr Fund cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found nor any where else I am confident in all St. Austin For us it is sufficient that the Fathers frequently say We believe Scripture for Tradition we would not believe Scripture unless the Authority of the Church moved us that Traditions move to piety no less then Scripture c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms in the Fathers we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father who saith that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God infallibly for the Churches authority but must resolve it into the light of Scripture 5. I come now to his Considerations and begin with the first point touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology that must be pre-suppos'd without proof because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed I answer first he confounds Theology a Discursive Science with Faith which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will for Gods Authority revealing and not deduced by discursive Principles and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever in this particular Secondly I say I have already answered this matter to the full chap. 7. num 7. and chap. 6. num 5. in the Dialogue to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith which has further principles and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them He himself acknowledges that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition how was it then a Principle which cannot ought not to be proved but must be presupposed by all Christians Concerning his second point the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge For there the thing assented to remains obscure which in Sciences is made clear and all the difficulty is to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us and seeing he denies the Church to be it and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture we must have some further light clearer quoad nos then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition His third point contains no more in summe then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration I shall not therefore quarrel with it As to his fourth point we grant that the Incarnation of our Saviour the Resurrection of the dead and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church nor did we ever do it but into the Infallible Authority of God as we have often confessed In his fifth point recommended to Consideration there are also divers things which the Relatour himself should have better considered before they fell from his pen. For first he asserts on the one side that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence and that had it been clear in its own light to the Hearers of the Apostles that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge and not by Faith Yet on the other side almost with the same breath avoucheth that it appeared clear to the Prophets and Apostles that what ever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth and that they had clear Revelation What is this in effect supposing the Truth of his first Proposition but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful and make them in that respect like the Blessed in Heaven Comprehensores while they were yet in the way Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions that they walked by Faith not by Sight and that they saw onely per speculum in aenigmate Secondly in point of Miracles he avers that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing but what is actually converting which is a great mistake For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs since in themselves they deserve belief whether they actually convert or not and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said Had I not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned and again Woe be to thee Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida for had the Miracles done amongst you been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes Likewise The works which I do in my Fathers name bear witness of me and though you believe not me believe my works Thirdly the Bishops reasons brought in disparagement of Miracles seem as strange as his Doctrine First saith he the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested because forsooth there may be Counterfeit Miracles just as if a man should say Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not Secondly they are not convincing proofs because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Is not this a strange Paradox Do not all Divines even Protestants themselves confess that true Miracles are not feasable but by the special and extraordinary power of God That they are Divine Testimonies and that by them God sets as it were his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm that God bears witnesse to a Lye See the Margin It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other then false and feigned Miracles The sixth Point concerning the light of Scripture hath nothing but what is already answered chap. 7. num 5 6 and 7. Were Scripture by its own light capable of being the Prime Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge yet at least it must have something in it to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent Which in the Relatours Principles is not found The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows
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
't is apparent hee does it only in a lesse proper or Analogicall sense to signifie that by vertue of diuine Assistance and direction such a Conclusion or Definition in regard of precise verity is as infallibly true and certaine as if it were a Prophecy Neither is there any Contrariety in this betweeen Stapleton and Bellarmin for both agree that neither Church nor Council doe publish Jmmediate Reuelations nor create any New Articles of Fayth but only declare and vnfold by their definitions that doctrine which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered Both of them likewise confesse that whether the Principles from which the Church or General Councils deduce their definition haue intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine defined or noe yet the Conclusion or definition it selfe is of infallible verity the holy Ghost so directing the Council that it neuer defines any conclusion to bee of fayth but what is de facto matter reueasd by God eyther in those Principles from which the Council deduces it or at least in some other The Relatours whole Discourse therefore vpon this subiect of Prophecy falls of it selfe to the ground as beeing built vpon a pure I had almost sayd a willfull mistake viz that Stapleton maintaines the Decrees of a Generall Councill to bee Propheticall in a proper sense which hee does not and consequently that it was wholly needless for our aduersary to talke so much of Enthusiasms and tell vs so punctually what Prophecy is what vision and that neither of both are to bee gotten with study and Industry For wee know all this and therfore wee doe not style the definitions of Councils Reuelations or Prophesies or visions or the like but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study and industrie only wee aerre the study and industrie which the Prelats in Generall Councils doe vse for the finding out of Truth is always crowned by God with such success as infallibly preserues them from errour Stapleton goes on and giues vs the reason why a Generall Councill must necessarily bee infallible in the Conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Fayth not of Knowledge and that therfore the Church proposing it to bee 〈◊〉 though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art Meanes or Argument but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost else when wee embrace the Conclusion proposed it would not bee an Assent of Fayth but an Habit of Knowledge To this the Bishop replying seemes to broach a New Doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an Habit of Knowledge To this the replying Bishop seemes to broach a new doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an habit of Knowledg But surely Diuine Fayth is according to the Apostle Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which doe not appeare to wit by the same meanes by which wee giue this assent of Fayth otherwise our Faith would not bee free and meritorious T is true the same conclusion may bee Fayth to one and Knowledge to another according to St. Austin and St. Thomas cited by the Bishop but this must bee vpon different motiues and therfore Fayth as Fayth can neuer bee knowledge which is all that Stapleton vrges The motiues of Credibility then which wee haue for our Fayth doe not by euident demonstration shew the truth thereof though they make it euidently credible in so much as hee would bee imprudent who should refuse to giue his assent So though the Bishop doe truly assert that the Church in all ages hath been able to stop the mouthes of philosophers and other great men of reason when it is at the highest yet this is also true that our sauiour did neuer intend to sett vp a schoole of Knowledge but of Fayth and that Councils in their definitions relie not on any demonstratiue reasons but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost promised to them In like manner the Faythfull ground not themselues on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church but on Gods Reuelation obscurely but certainly and infallibly applyed to them by the Church In the seauenth Consideration the Relatour takes notice againe of a Querie that A. C. made to him viz. if a Generall Council may erre wherein are wee neerer to vnity by such a Council But in stead of giuing a punctuall and direct answer as hee should haue done hee falls a fresh vpon certaine new considerations which hee aduances vpon this subiect whether the Protestant opinion that Generall Councils may erre in defining matters of Fayth or the Catholique opinion that they cannot bee more agreeable to the Church and more able to preserue and reduce Christian peace which in effect is little else but to answer one Querie by many and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth by a gentle turn to lead him back againe through all the Meanders thereof howeuer wee must obserue his Motions 3. His First Querie or Consideration is whether an absolute infallibility bee promised to the present Church or whether such an infallibility will not serue the turn as Stapleton acknowledges I answer no doubt but it will Lett Protestants acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church as that worthy Doctour maintaines and wee shall bee agreed for that matter But the Truth is our Aduersarie does here only confound his reader and wrong the Author hee alledges by not declaring sufficiently in what sense hee speakes For Stapleton in the place cited expressly teaches that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree or Conclusion but also in the Meanes or Arguments and this he calls absolute or exact Infallibility whereas the present Church is only infallible in the Decree or Conclusion and this also it hath by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost yet not by a new Immediate Reuelation Whence it appeares that this Authour is cleere for the Churches Infallibility though hee doe not in all respects equall it to that of the Apostles and consequently that it is not hee but the Bishop himselfe that wriggles in the bussiness vnworthily endeauouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him Bellarmin is vsed no better whose doctrine is cleere that in the Decree or Conclusion a Generall Council is as certaine as the scripture because both are infallible and nothing can bee more certain then what is infallible though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtiues aboue Generall Councils as that it is Gods immediate Reuelation that there not only the Conclusion but Euery thing is matter of Fayth c. which agree not to a Generall Council 4. Howeuer to pass to this second Consideration or Querie wee shall not much quarrel his term of Congruous Infallibility but rest contented if Protestants will acknowledge such an Infallibility in the present Church as is congruous and agreeable to the promises of our sauiour and to the necessities of the Church so as by vertue
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
General Church as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith which is contrary to divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith could be needful in the General Church but onely in particular Churches citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us how unwilling he is in this troublesome and quarrelling age to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral he addes though the Church of England professeth that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent It matters not what she sayes or sayes not in this but our question is what she must say if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise For this is certain that many of those particular points of Faith which are rejected as errours by the English Protestant Church were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christendom when this pretended Reformation began If therefore they be dangerous errours as the Bishop with his English Church professes they are by good consequence it must follow that the English Protestant Church holds that the whole Catholique Church hath erred dangerously But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general yet at last he meddles with it and that very freely too for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If saith the Bishop he means no more then this viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary but his 〈◊〉 fiction What is this but tacitely to grant that the whole Church of Christ may universally erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salvation Is not this great modesty towards the Church Nay a great satisfaction to all Christians who by this opinion must needs be left in a wood touching the knowledge of Points absolutely necessary to their salvation 3. But the Bishop suspects a dangerous consequence would be grounded upon this if it should be granted that the Church could not erre in any point of Divine Truth in general though by sundry consequences deduced from principles of Faith especially if she presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as he affirms Bellarmin to say she may I answer When God himself whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd and Verasity such that he cannot deceive speaks by his Organ the Holy Church that is by a General Council united with its Head the Vicar of Christ what danger is there of Errour As concerning Bellarmin who is falsly accus'd I wonder the Relatour should not observe a main difference between defining matters absolutely without Scripture and defining without express Scripture which is all that Bellarmin affirms For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures yet they may be there implicitly and rightly deduc'd from Scripture As for example no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity as 't is declar'd by the Council of Nice and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves expresly in Scripture it is not there said in express terms that he is of the same substance with the Father or that he is God of God Light of Light and True God of True God c. and yet who doubts but the sense of this Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture and consequently that the Defining of this and other points of like nature by the Church was not done absolutely speaking without Scripture Besides who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions Wherefore if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith be according to Tradition though it be not express'd in Scripture yet the Church does not define it without Scripture but according to Scripture following therein the Rule which is given her in Scripture But 't is further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church may be ignorant of some Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture or otherwise Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre and teach her errour yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not nay perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth He addes to this that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuit can produce for her not erring in any Thus the Bishop To which I answer The Argument were there any force in it would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles as of the present Catholique Church For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths though the promise intimated by the Bishop of being taught all truth John 16. 13. was immediately directed to them and yet 't is granted by Protestants that the Apostles could not teach that to be Divine Truth which was not much less could they teach that as matter of Divine Truth which was contrary to it Ignorance therefore of some Divine Truths and for some time onely when they are not necessary to be known doth not inferre errour or possibility of erring in those Truths when they are necessary to be known The Apostles Matth. 10. 19. were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand what they should answer to Kings and Presidents being brought before them because it should be given them in that hour what to speak In like manner with due proportion is it now given to their Successours what to answer that is what to define in matters of Faith when ever emergent occasions require it Secondly I say that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour but taught and informed by a master that is infallible he may become infallible So that his Lordships Argument from bare ignorance concluding errour or an absolute possibility of erring is it self as erroneous as this A young Scholar of himself alone is ignorant and apt to mistake the signification of words Ergo he can do no otherwise then mistake while his Master stands by him and teaches him 4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself and puts in a Proviso Provided alwayes saith he that this erring of the Church be not in any point simply Fundamentall for of such points even in his own judgement the whole Church cannot be ignorant nor erre in them To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other answer but this We desire to know what
St. Peters person onely but his Faith conjoyned with his person or his person confessing and asserting the Faith and that the Fathers speak in this sense and no other when they say the Church is built upon St. Peters Faith Bellarmin proves by a whole Jury of the most Ancient among them and most of them the same the Bishop here pretends to bring for himself beside the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon consisting of above six hundred Catholique Bishops As to what he asserts that by Hell-gates-prevailing against the Church is not understood principally the Churches not Erring but her not falling away from the Foundation we have already fully prov'd the Contrary both by the Testimony of the Fathers and Solid Reason shewing that if any Errour in Faith could be admitted by the Catholique Church the Gates of Hell might in such case be absolutely said to have prevaild against her contrary to this promise of Christ. And how Bellarmin here cited by the Bishop is to be understood when he sayes there are many things DE FIDE which are not necessary to salvation is already shewn where we also prov'd that every errour in Faith contrary to what is propounded by the Church is Fundamentall But the Relatour as if his own word were a sufficient proof tells us finally that the promise of this stable Edification is made to the whole Church not to a Council Why not to both I pray to a General Council as well as to the Church The truth is it was made neither to Church nor Council directly and immediately but to St. Peter and his Successours as the Fathers above mentioned shew though for the good of the Church viz. her preservation from errour in Faith which morally could not be effected if a General Council lawfully called and confirm'd by St. Peters Successour be not Infallible or exempt from errour in its decisions of Faith To what the Bishop concludes with upon this Text that a Council hath no interest in this promised Edification further then it builds upon Christ that is upon the Doctrine Christ deliver'd the Rules he gave and the Promises he made to his Apostles and their Successours we agree with him but that a General Council confirmed by the Pope does ever reject or go contrary to these we absolutely deny To the fourth place viz. of Christs prayer for St. Peter that his faith should not fail Luke 22. 32. the Relatour will have the native sense of it to be that Christ prayed and obtained for St. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong Temptation which was to winnow him above the rest And you must take it if you please upon his bare word that by Faith is here meant Grace Had the Bishop weighed the pregnancy of Bellarmins Reasons in confutation of this Exposition he could not surely have been so positive in it It should be an unnecessary prolixity to insert them here where 't is sufficient to observe the contradiction involv'd in this pretended Native sense of Christs prayer Christ according to the Bishop obtain'd for St. Peter that he should persevere in Grace But St. Peter did not still persevere in Grace for he lost it when he committed that enormous sin of Denying his Master Therefore Christ obtain'd and did not obtain one and the same thing of his Eternal Father which is a formal contradiction Our Saviour therefore prayed according to his own expression in Scripture that St. Peter might not lose Faith by an Internal act of Disbelief though the Devil should so far prevail by his Temptations as to make him say contrary to his own knowledge I know not the man you have taken prisoner But the Bishop objects thus against this Text to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope or in his Chair or in the Roman Sea or in a General Council though the Pope be President I finde no Antient Father that dare adventure it I answer 't is no wonder that they do not sinde who are unwilling to see Bellarmin cites and that out of Authentique Records whatever the Bishop mutters against them as Counterfeit without the least proof Lucius Felix St. Leo and Petrus Chrysologus the last of which lived above twelve hundred years ago these I say Bellarmin affirms to have adventur'd to prove from this Text what the Bishop denies And though the three first of these were Bishops of Rome yet such was their Sanctity and Learning as might well vindicate them from the least jealousie of challenging either through ignorance or ambition more then of right belong'd to their office Nay the Church of Rome was so confessedly Orthodox in their dayes that even Dr. Heylin a man bitter against Catholiques thought it not fit in his Geography to term the Roman Bishops Popes till almost two hundred years after St. Leo the last of the three And as for Chrysologus his Contemporary and no Pope he adventur'd as it were to ground the Infallibility we plead for upon this Text when he said St. Peter as yet lives and presides in his Sea and affords the true Faith to those that seek it which speech the Bishop will have to be but a flash of Rhetorique an easie way of answering the most unanswerable Authorities Had Chrysologus written or addressed his words to the Pope there might have been some colour for the Evasion but speaking them to an Heretique whom he sought to reduce into the bosome of the Catholique Church who can imagine he intended to complement the Pope Nothing but a weak Cause could drive so learned a person as the Bishop to so poor a shift So the Testimonies of Theophylact and St. Bernard are slighted by him as men of yesterday though they lived the one above five hundred the other near six hundred years ago But whoever charges St. Bernard with corrupt Doctrine either in point of Faith or Manners might as justly charge St. Austin and the Fathers of his time in which time even by the acknowledgement of Calvin when he is sober the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles And for Theophylact he being a Greek Bishop and of the forwardest in siding against the Latin Church and in taxing her of Errour touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost it cannot be rationally imagin'd but what he speaks in favour of the Roman Church is extorted from him by the evidence of Truth and the known consent of all Catholique Christians in that particular As to the Gloss upon the Canon Law I answer it speaks onely of the Pope in his personal capacity as a private Doctour in which quality it is not deny'd but he may possibly erre even in Faith Hence may easily be perceiv'd how unsatisfactorily the Bishop endeavours to elude the force of this Text concerning Christs prayer for St. Peter which I have already prov'd to be extended to his Successours
this may be turned vpon himselfe viz. that be hath nothing to pretend THERE ARE NOT GROSS ERROVRS AND SVPERSTITIONS in the Roman persuasion as he calls it vnless by intolerable pride he make himselfe and his partie iudge of Controuersies But who sees not this is a most palpable vntruth All the world knows that A. C. and all his party submitt with most absolute humility of judgement to the desinitions of Generall Councills and so haue euer done A. C. makes not himselfe iudge of controuersies betwixt him and his Aduersaries but a lawfull Generall Councill yea all the lawfull Generall Councills that euer the Church had or esteem'd such To them he appeales to them he stands lett Protestants doe as much and the controuersies would not be hard to be ended So vtterly false it is what the Bishop affirms here that We will he iudg'd by none but the ` Pope and a Councill of his ordering Doe the Relatours Adherents thinke there was euer a Generall Councill in the Church well ordered lett them name it wee stand to its sentence Neither doe wee require that any Councill should be of the Popes ordering further then the Canons of the Church doe allow him and his Predecessours haue in effect done in all Generall Councills euen the fowre first True it is A. C. and all Catholiques with him acknowledge noe Councill to be a lawfull ludge of controuersies vnless it be approu'd and confirm'd by the Pope but in this there is noe pride For the right of confirming the decrees of Generall Councills wherein controuersies of Fayth are judged hath euer belong'd to St. Peters Successor as wee haue already shew'n and St. Austin Epist 62 with the whole Councill of Mileuis professes it to be grounded on Scripture yea the Canons of the vniuersall Church doe expressly allow it him witness euen Socrates himselfe noe very great friend of the Roman Church Sozomen with others and in the Generall Councill of Chalcedon Action 1. Dioscorus no meaner person then the Patriarch of Alexandria is for this very reason deny'd the priuiledge of sitting in Councill because he had presum'd to hold a Generall Councill to witt the predatory or pretended second Councill of Ephesus without the Popes Authority a thing which as the Fathers there acknowledge was neuer lawfull to doe nor euer done before NVNQVAM LICVIT NEC VNQVAM FACTVM EST. Why therfore shall A. C. be tax'd of pride if he beleeues the doctrine of the Roman Church to be true vpon the Authority of Generall Councills confirm'd by the Pope who sees not a great deale of difference betwixt him and his Aduersary in this regard A. C. in his vnderstanding of Scripture followes the exposition of Generall Councills the Bishop relyes vpon no interpretation but this own teaching that Generall Councills may erre in their exposition of Scripture euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation A. C. acknowledges he can be infallibly certaine of nothing in matter of Fayth by the bare letter of Scripture and the light of his own vnderstanding only the Bishop is confident that by the letter of Scripture only and his owne iudgement he can be infallibly assur'd of all necessary points of Fayth A. C. is ready to submitt his iudgement to a Generall Councill in any point of doctrine whatsoeuer seeming reasons or grounds he may priuately haue to the contrary the Bishop allowes a man vpon probable grounds to doubt and vpon cleerer grounds to deny and oppose the definitions of such a Councill A.C. thinks it an vngodly presumption to taxe Generall Councills of errour and superstition the Bishop makes noc scruple to censure diuerse of them for damnable errours A. C. holds it altogether vnlawfull for any Christian to dissent from the Catholique Church in any point of defined doctrine whatsoeuer great or small the Bishop maintaines that the whole Catholique Church may erre both grossly and dangerously in all points not Fundamentall and that all priuate Christians who vnderstand or perceiue such errours to be in the Church may dissent yea if need be that is if the Church will not reforme the sayd errours vpon their admonition separate from her as Luther and his followers did when they first began their reformation Lett any indifferent person then be iudge whether that which A.C. charges vpon the Bishop concerning pride and taking vpon him to be iudge of Controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills may be as iustly turned vpon himselfe as the Relatour here pretends His next Paragraph only tells vs what was the conclusion of his first-publish't Relation of the conference with Mr. Fisher wherein he falls againe to his wonted custome of charging his Aduersary indirectly at least with what he does not own A. C. doth not maintaine the Pope to be infallible in all controuersies of Fayth otherwise then in and with a Generall Councill witness his own words in the end of his answer I wish sayth he the Chaplain and his lord and euery other man carefully to consider whether it be not more Christian etc. to thinke that the Pope beeing St. Peters Successour WITH A GENERALL COVNCILL should be iudge of Controuersies and his Pastorall iudgement viz. in and with such a Councill be accounted infallible then to make euery man that can read Scripture an interpreter of Scriptures and decider of Controuersies euen to the controuling of Generall Councills or to haue noe iudge in controuersies of Fayth at all This is the summe of all that A. C. teaches touching the Popes infallibility and if the Bishop could really thinke this to be such a brayne-sicke deuice as he talks of I doubt it will be thought by some that his own head was not alwayes in good temper 9. A. C. to shew that in matters of Fayth wee ought to submitt our iudgements to such doctours and Pastours as by a continuall visible succession haue without interruption or change brought the Fayth down from Christ and his Apostles to these our dayes and shall by vertue of Christs promise in the like continued succession so carry it downe to all future generations till the end of the world makes vse of that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. etc. where 't is sayd that Christ ascending gaue some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saynts for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till wee all come in the vnity of the Fayth and of the knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a perfect man etc. 'T is true some from this place gather the Popes infallibility too as well as the necessary succession of lawfull Pastours because it is intimated there shall be noe more wanting in the sacred Hierarchy of the Church the office of of an Apostle then the office of a Pastour or teacher till the end of the world Now to the office of an Apostle two things are necessary viz.
all parties as could be page 233 The Summons general and exclusive of none that had right of Suffrage Ibid. No Oath taken by the Bishops but what was Canonical and of more then a thousand years use in the Church Ibid. The Summe of it Ibid. Some English Catholique Bishops present in that Council page 234 Want of Deputation from the English Clergy no just impediment to their Sitting and Voting there Ibid. For number of Prelates this Council more Full then some of the four first Ibid. The Prelates unanimous in their consent to all things defined by it Ibid. No material Disparity betwixt the Council of Trent and that of Nice page 234 235 237 The consent of the Church at the time of the Council of Trent as much against Protestants as at the Council of Nice against the Arians page 235 The Italian Bishops no prejudice to the Councils Liberty page 236 What the Popes Interest was at the Council of Trent page 236 237 The Bishops there neither overaw'd nor byassed by the Popes Interest page 237 Will or Testament CAtholicks in no sense maintain that Christ dyed Intestate or without a Will page 214 FINIS The Author doth desire the Reader to correct these following Errata with his Pen. PAge 11. line 48. for the Articles still read the Miters still page 16. line 4. for this supposition read his supposition p. 18. at these words Some modern Protestants beginning the Paragraph adde the figure 5. and p. 19. at these This I evidence adde the figure 6. p. 50. l. 23. ending the Paragraph there wants the interrogative point Ibid. l. 33. for strangeis r. strangers p. 64. l. ult for standing r. standing p. 103. l. 5. for of our r. of ours p. 238. l. 38. for Shismatique r. Schismatique p. 244. l. 18. for have have r. have p. 253. l. 39. for Naziazen r. Nazianzen p. 257. l. 5. for cuinces r. evinces Ibid. l. 10. for pronuncing r. pronouncing p. 259. l. 28. for as lawfully r. lawfully p 260. l. 16. for lawfull assembly r. awful assembly p. 265 l. 1 2 3. deleantur all these following words To this the replying Bishop seems to broach a new Doctrine THAT THE ASSENT OF FAITH MAY BE AN HABIT OF KNOWLEDGE p. 267. l. ult in the margin for ch 8. 2. r. ch 8. 20. p. 269. l. 18. for difine r. define p. 270. l. 3. for enery r. every Ibid. l. 12. for else nothing r. nothing else Ibid. l. 29. for erronious r. erroneous Item l. 12. in the margin for Laicis r. à Laicis p. 271. l. 36 for Sacrament r. a Sacrament p. 275. l. 4. for ke r. he p. 276. l. 35. for don r. done Ibid. l. 44. for notes r. votes p. 277. l. 1. for this r. his p. 278. l. 35. for day r. Sunday Ibid. l. penult for Cycly r. Cicli p. 279. l. 6. for Quarto-decimam r. Quarto-decimani Ibid. l. 8. for Avsntinus r. Aventinus p. 280. l. 14. for Stripture r. Scripture Ibid. l. 33. for mought r. mouth Ibid. l. 38. for stilll iveth r. still liveth Item l. voce ult for thta r. that p. 285. l. 48. for schole-men r. School-men p. 287. l. 44. for nonc r. none p. 292. l. 13. for Cristianity r. Christianity p. 293. l. 12. for our r. our Ibid. for the r. the Ibid. l. 16. for Mow r. Now Item l. 23. for interceede r. intercede p. 294. l. 10. for intellible r. intelligible Ibid. l. 34. for Images with a full point read Images with the latter part of a Parenthesis p. 297. l. 2. in the margin for 36 286 r. 36. pag. 286. Ibid. l. 6. joyn 1564. num 26. to the words ad Ann. l. 5. p. 298. l. 5. for intruction r. instruction p. 299. in the Argument of chap. 23. mend the pointing and for confess it Safe r. confess it safe p. 300. at the beginning of the Chapter adde in the margin § 34. p. 304. l. 5. for Divine Faith necessary r. Divine Faith is necessary p. 305. l. 13. for sure r. so sure Ibid. l. 31. for the r. thee Item l. 38. for in us to r. in us to p. 306. l. 41. for assigns the r. assigns thee p. 307. l. 42. for Gods words r. Gods word p. 309. l. 30. for Christ body r. Christs Body Ibid. l. 42. for tediousness r. tediousness p. 313. l. 15. for boued r. bowed Ibid. l. 13. for then she r. then shee p. 322. l. 9. in the Argument mend the pointing and for doctrine and r. doctrine and p. 327. l. 12. for Diviunity r. Divinity p. 331. l. 19. for therenhile r. therewhile Ibid. l. 40. for condem'd r. condemn'd Ibid. l. 42. for particular r. particular p. 337. l. 27. for aniversary r. anniversary Ibid. l. 37. for the General r. the sixth General p. 338. l. 45. for Fonndation r. Foundation p. 340. l. 22. for infallible assurance r. fallible assurance p. 343. l. 1 15. for writtings r. writings p. 344. l. 31. for I answer r. In answer Ibid. l. 46. for in evident r. inevident p. 347. l. 15. for tells r. tell Ibid. l. 47. for points in his r. points in his p. 352. l. 20 for well-grounden r. well-grounded p. 355. l. 25. for lawfully soever r. lawful soever p. 356. l. 20. for giving r. given Ibid. l. 28. for and and r. and p. 357. l. 30. for Hereticks r. Heretick p. 360. l. 5. for Ancients r. the Ancients p. 363. l. 6. for plumby r. plumbi p. 365. l. 16. for 1 c. 3. r. 1. Cor. c. 3. p. 369. l. 34. for of his holy r. of this holy p. 370. l. 16 for nature proceed r. nature to proceed Ibid. l. 24. for reast r. rest Item l. 45. for souls r. the souls p. 371. l. 32. for contempory r. contemporary p. 373. l. 25. for dever'd r. deliver'd p. 376. l. 46. for Fundamental points r. Fundamental and not-Fundamental points p 378. l. 5. for stongly r. strongly Ibid. l. 21. for General Council r a General Council p. 380. l. 24 for treahs r. treats p. 382. 1. 5. for man r. may p. 388. 1. 2. for sut r. sit p. 390. the citation § 38. num 27. in the margin must be brought down to the beginning of the Chapter Ibid. in the Argument 1. 9. for 〈◊〉 lawful r. lawful by p. 397. 1. 42. for her root r. her own root Ibid. 1. 43. for in own r. in her own p. 399. 1. 25. for Eccles r. Ecclus p. 404. 1. 30. for fallow r. follow p. 406. 1. 32. for this own r. his own p. 409. 1. ult for universa r. universality p. 411. 1. 1. for to the r. of the Ibid. 1. 43. for hane r. have p. 412. 1. 19. for Schims r. Schisms In the Preface p. 5. 1. 19. for shipt r. slipt Ibid. p. 6. 1. 7. for beside read aside § 1 2. § 3. num 2. pag. 3. § 18. num 5 § 3. num 3. pag. 4. § 3. num 3. 4 5 6 7