other Councils named by Bellarmin But I answer our dispute is about lawfull Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope such as neither of these were nor any of those other which Bellarmin mentions in the place quoted by the Bishop neither can it bee sayd that those subsequent Councils which reformed the errours concluded at Ariminum and Ephesus were called by the Authority of the whole Church in generall but by the Pope in the same manner as that of Trent and others were Hee grants that the Church though it may erre hath not only a Pastorall power to teach and direct but a Pretorian also to controule and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamentall or of great consequence Are not the Reall Presence Purgatory praying to Saynts the fiue Sacraments of seauen which Protestants denie and diuerse other points wherein they differ from us and the Church things of great consequence And did not the whole christian Church generally teach and profess these points both long before and at the time of Luthers departure from the Roman Church why was it not then in the power of the Church to controule and censure him with all his followers for opposing her Doctrine in the sayd points Againe if wee ought to obey the Church in points Fundamentall and of great consequence as the Bishops doctrine here cleerly implies why must wee not obey her likewise in taking those points to bee Fundamentall and of great consequence which shee holds to bee such and by her definition declares to bee such Certainly Heretiques will neuer want reason to iustifie their disobedience to the Church if allowing her authority to controule and censure only in points Fundamentall and of great consequence wee allow them the liberty to iudge and determin what points are such what not His instance of a mothers authority viz. that Obedience due to her is not to bee refused vpon her falling into errour holds not in the Church because the authority of a naturall mother is not in order to Beleefe but to Action and it does not follow that because shee hath commanded amiss in one thing that her child is not to obey her in an other which it shall not know to bee vnlawfull But the authority of the Church ouer her children consists not only in directing them what they are to doe but in obliging them to beleeue firmly and without doubt what euer shee shall esteem necessary to difine and propound to them as matter of Beleefe Now its impossible that the vnderstanding which can assent to nothing but what it apprehends to bee true nor infallibly beleeue but what it apprehends to bee infallibly true should bee mou'd with any respect due to the Church to beleeue without doubt any defined point which it did not before so long as it giues way to this opinion viz. that shee may and has defin'd and also commanded vs to beleeue as a point of Fayth a thing false in it selfe As to his citing St. Austins authority in the margent touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not hauing Spot nor wrinckle c. it maks nothing against vs. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to bee vnderstood of the Church Militant but only that they are not to bee vnderstood of her in the sense giuen them by the Pelagians my meaning is hee doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholique Church vniuersally receiu'd or defin'd as matter of fayth to bee without Spot of errour but hee denies the liues of Christians euen of the most iust and perfect in this life to bee altogether without Spot of sin Neither doth St. Austin read vs any such lesson as this that the Church on earth is no freeer from wrinckles in doctrine and discipline then it is from Spots in life and conuersation but it is the Bishops own voluntary scandalous and inconsiderate assertion if hee speaks of doctrine vniuersally receiu'd and approu'd by the Church if only of doctrine and errours taught by priuate persons what is it to the purpose An other thing considered is that if wee suppose a Generall Council infallible and that it proue not so but that an errour in fayth bee concluded the same erring opinion which maks it thinke it selfe infallible makes the errour of it irreuocable and so lenues the Church without remedy I answer grant false antecedents and false premisses enough and what absurdities will not bee consequent and fill vp the conclusion an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility euen of the Bible it selfe in the Bishops own style thus This Booke which you call the Bible and suppose to bee Gods word immediate Reuelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it sayes IF IT PROVE NOT SO but that it were written only by man and containes errours THE SAME ERRING OPINION that makes you thinke 't is Gods word c. makes all the sayd errours contain'd in it wholy irreuocable and of necessity for euer to bee beleeu'd as Gods word and Diuine Reuelation Can any man deny this consequent granting the Bishops antecedent if it proue not so The inconuenience therfore which the Relatour here obiects beeing only conditionall and the condition vpon which it depends such as wee are neuer like to grant nor our aduersaries to proue wee pass it by as signifying else nothing but how willing his Lordship was to heap vp obiections against vs though such as hee and his party must answer 5. But how does the Bishop proue that a Generall Council hath erred Thus. Christ sayth hee instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To breake Christs institution is a damnable errour this errour was committed by the Council of Constante whose words are these cited and englished by the Bishop LICET CHRISTVS c. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples after supper vnder both kindes of bread and wine yet NON OBSTANTE notwithstanding this it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faythfull vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiu'd by Laymen only vnder the kinde of bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused And to say this is an vnlawfull custome of receiuing vnder one kinde is erronious and they which persist in saying so are to bee punished and driuen out as Heretiques The force of the obiection depends wholy on the words NON OBSTANTE which the Bishop conceiues to import that the Council defin'd receiuing vnder both kindes not to bee necessary NOTWITHSTANDING that our Sauiour so instituted it viz. in both kindes I answer Bellarmin rightly obserues that the words non obstante haue no reference to receiuing vnder both kindes but to the time of receiuing it after supper which though the Bishop bee not satisfy'd with but obiects that the NON OBSTANTE
whose definitions according to him must stand in force and bee obeyed by all particulars and consequently by the whole Church till euident scripture or demonstration bee brought against them If it hath then the whole Church cannot but cleerly perceiue the sayd errours of the former Council and know them to bee such and then what need of an After-Council what good can it doe shall it bee called to declare that which euery man sees already or to define that about which there is no controuersie nor can bee any so long as men continue in their right mindes and doe but consider what they say or thinke You will say a Council ought to bee called in this case to abrogate the law or definition of the precedent Council which erred I answer that supposes the definition of the sayd precedent Councill to bee still in force which is false first because it is vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue anything as matter of Fayth solely upon the authority of a Council that is lyable to errour both against scripture and demonstration Secondly because 't is more vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue what wee cleerly see to bee errour and contrary both to scripture and demonstration and yet in no other case but this euen by the Bishops leaue can the whole Church call an other Council to reuerse the decrees of the former Thirdly because as it did not binde the whole Church from prosessing her dislike of the errours defin'd and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to prosess outwardly a disbeleefe or doubt thereof Wherfore it is euident that his Lordship vpon this subiect says and vnsays the same and what hee seemes to attribute to Generall Councils in one proposition hee takes away in an other The Bishop pretends the Catholique opinion touching infallibility to bee yet more vnreasonable because wee make not only the definitions of a Generall Council but the sentence of the Pope also infallible For a Generall Councill sayth he may erre with vs if the Pope confirm it not So vpon the matter the infallibility wee contend for rests not in the representatiue Body the Council nor in the whole Body the Church but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome and if this bee so to what end sayth he so much trouble for a Generall Council and wherein are wee neerer to vnity if the Pope confirm it not wee answer first the Bishop stumbles at the thresholde a Generall Council is not held by vs to bee infallible at all vnless it inuolue the Pope or his confirmation and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our aduersary to compare together viz. of the Council and the Pope but One infallibility only to witt of the Pope presiding in and confirming the votes of a Generall Council or if you will a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope Secondly wee confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Popes infallibility The first and the more con men is that the Pope euen without a Generall Council is infallible in his definitions of Fayth when he teaches the whole Church The second is that he is not infallible in his definitions faue only when he defines in and with a Generall Council Now had the Bishop as he 〈◊〉 to haue done taken due notice of this second opinion and proceeded in the point accordingly these Doctours would quickly haue satissy'd his obiection and told him that as the Ccuncil is not infallible without the Pope so neither is the Pope infallible without the Ccuncil and that infallibility proceeds ioyntly 〈◊〉 both and is the prerogatiue of both not separately consider'd but as vnited and making vp the compleate representatiue of the Church But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence framing his argument wholy against the other as if it were the opinion of all Catholique Doctours But of this wee haue sayd enough hauing prosesled at the begining that wee intended not to meddle much with any matters of priuate dispute or opinion Wherfore I shall briefly pass cuer what his Lordship hath further touching this matter and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his 7. His first is that if the Pope bee infallible then the Council is called but only in 〈◊〉 to heare the Pope giue his sentence in more state I answer 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time viz. that 't was con only to heare St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state in regard it will not bee deny'd but St. Peters definition alone had been as infallible and as much binding as that of the whole Council Secondly I answer more directly this followes not with any the least shadow of consequence in their opinion who hold the Pope to bee fallible out of a Generall Council as is manifest and in the other opinion 't is easily answer'd For seeing the Pope when euer he defines matters of Fayth ought to proceed maturely and vse all meanes morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth and seeing that the deliberations and notes of a Generall Council are the most proper and efficacious in that kinde it followes euidently enough to all vnpreiudic'd and impartiall iudgements that the Council is called really to help and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affaire and which equally concerns the whole Church also that the aduice of the Councill in such cases is not only a profitable and fitt but speaking in a morall sense a Necessary medium to this Holyness wherby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton here alledged by the Bishop affirms according to his own principles viz. that the Pope acquires no new power or authority or certainty of iudgement by beeing ioyned to the Council For though he acquires no new power authority or certainty of iudgement which in this Doctours opinion he hath whether he be with or without a Councill yet he may acquire some thing which doth connaturally worke and conduce to the due exercise of that power authority and certainty of iudgement to witt counsell aduice and conuenient information touching the matters in Controuersie The like is to be sayd to that of Cardinal Bellarmin when he asserts that the firmeness of a Council to which the Relatour adds of his own Infallibity comes from the Pope only For he intends to shew how the matter passes in regard of vs who are assured no other way of the firmeness of the Councils definition then by the Popes confirmation alone You will obiect that if the Pope be infallible without the Council and the Council subiect to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the infallibility of Generall Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council I answer the Assertours of that opinion
two A. C. could not doubt but that really it was intended and must necessarily be included in the sense of those words of the Apostle how shall they preach etc. no less then the former J say that speciall annunciation or preaching of Christian doctrine must necessarily be included in the latitude of those words wherby the Prelats of the Church doe sufficiently applie diuine reuelation to Christian people for the grounding and eliciting an assent of true diuine Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done by any Authority or meanes which is not infallible A. C. therfore takes not the whole but only the principall part or one principall kinde of preaching Christs Gospell when he so glossed vpon St. Pauls words And well might he so doe it beeing that without which the preaching of all particular Pastours to their particular flocks would be to little purpose for they could preach nothing but vncertainties or at best but probable doctrine As little cause had his Lordship to taxe A. C. of bragging because he auerrs that wee Catholiques vse to interpret Scripture by vnion consent of fathers and definitions of Councils For in a iust and true sense soe wee doe in as much as wee neuer decline but alwayes follow that interpretation of Scripture which hath consent of Fathers and the definition of Generall Councils Can Protestants say so much for themselues And yet our meaning is not that noe exposition of Scripture is good but what hath express consent of Fathers or the definition of some Generall Councill to backe it wee doe not deny but euen priuate persons may discourse vpon Scripture and declare their iudgement concerning the sense and meaning of it prouided they neither hold nor obtrude any sense contrary to the common consent of Fathers or the definitions of Generall Councils but hold and doe all things with due submission to the Church But the Relatour will proue from the authorities of Scotus and Canus cited in his margent that the Apostle in this place speaks not at all of infus'd that is of diuine and infallible Fayth but of Fayth acquit a to witt by naturall and humane industrie and meanes which beeing not infallible nor requiring any infallible Authoritie in them that preach it the Bishop thence concludes that A. C ' Gloss is not good but rather that he grossly abuses the text by it J answer first the precedent discourse and reason giuen for the gloss doe sufficiently discharge A. C. of that imputation leauing the note of a Precipitate censure vpon his aduersary Secondly I say the Bishops information abuses him there beeing not one word or syllable in Scotus which denyes infused that is supernaturall diuine true Christan and infallible Fayth to be vnderstood in that Tex't of the Apostle T is true Scotus alledges the words in particular proofe of Fayth acquir'd viz. of that Fayth which is gained by hearing of particular Preachers and depends only on their Authoritie But yet he there maintaines with all Diuines an absolute necessity of Fayth infused or supernaturall which as the Bishop himselfe here proues out of Canus must rest vpon some infallible motiue and consequently requires an infallible preaching to applye it sufficiently to vs which is all that A. C ' gloss imports Adde hereunto that acquired Fayth beeing according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence prerequired and antecedent to Fayth diuine and supernaturall as Canus likewise here teacheth it cannot in any sort be suppos'd to exclude it Lastly by an argument a fortiori 't is euidently concluded that the text ought to be extended to diuine and infallible Fayth as well as to humane and acquired For if wee cannot beleeue euen with naturall and acquired Fayth without a Preacher surely much less can wee beleeue with infus'd and supernaturall Fayth without one still speaking according to ordinary course which Preacher must also be infallible eyther in his owne person as all the Apostles were or as he deliuers the doctrine and performes the office committed to him by an infallible autority such as is that of the Church by whome euery particular Preacher is deputed to deliuer the doctrine which she holds I might vrge also the common consent of interpreters who expound the place of noe other Fayth but that by which Christians are iustify'd and sau'd which surely can be noe other but supernaturall and infused Fayth And this is most certain whateuer Biel out of his priuate opinion asserts to the contrary But wee haue stood longer vpon this subiect then the small importance of it requires since neither our nor A. C ' doctrine touching the infallibility of Generall Councils does at all depend vpon this text but is sufficiently prou'd by those other already alledged to that purpose 3. The Bishop in the next place tells A. C. he has ill lucke in fitting his conclusion to his premisses and his consequent to his antecedent The business is because he seems from the assistance of the holy Ghost to inferre infallibility But J answer our Aduersary hath not much better lucke so often to mistake and peruert A. C ' meaning For certainly A. C. does not deduce infallibility eyther of Church or Councils from any assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer but from such assistance as is necessary for them both and from thence infallibility is rightly and inuincibly concluded as wee haue often shew'n by the grand inconueniencies which otherwise would vnauoydably follow both to Religion and the Church What therfore he vrges that the ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Church were assisted by Gods Spirit and yet not held to be of infallible creditt is beside the purpose A. C. making no such inference as the Relatour by this obiection supposes him to doe As for the question which A. C. asks if a whole Generall Council defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible Creditt what man in the world can be sayd to be infallible the Bishop seems rather to slight then satisfie it when he sayes I 'le make you a ready answer noe man no not the Pope himselfe No. Lett God and his word be true and euery man a lyar citing Scripture for it Rom. 3. 4. But what cannot Gods word be true vnless the Pope and Generall Councils be held fallible and subiect to erre when they define matters of Fayth were not those words of the Apostle true when both himselfe and all the rest of his Fellow-Apostles liu'd vpon earth and were infallible And if they were true then why not also now though the Pope and Generall Councils be held infallible Certainly A. Cs. question deseru'd a better answer then this or rather was vnanswerable by the Bishop without deserting his auowed principles For thus J argue ex concessis Jf Generall Councils defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible creditt noe man nor men in the world can be sayd to be so this the Bishop grants But then
not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church which point of Infallibility the Bishop sought to evade saying That neither the Jesuit nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly if she said she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church because an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible 2. Here already you may observe the Bishop falling to work on his projected Labyrinth by making its first Crook which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective For though he could not be ignorant that the Lady sought not any one Particular Infallible Church in opposition to another Particular Church not Infallible but some Church such as might without danger of Errour direct her in all Doctrinall Points of Faith call it an or the Infallible Church as you please for she had no such Quirks in her head yet the Bishop will by no means understand her sincere meaning but instead of using a charitable endeavour to satisfie her perplexed Conscience vainly pursues that meer Quibble on purpose to decline the difficulty of giving her a satisfactory Answer in his own Principles Neither indeed does that expression an Infallible Church denote a Particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible but positively signifies a Church that never hath shall or can erre in Doctrine of Faith without connotating or implying any other Church that might erre Nor can it be pretended that the Particle a or an is onely appliable to Particulars seeing the Bishop himself applies it to the whole Church For omitting other places see page 141. where speaking of the whole Militant Church he sayes And if she erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then she may be a Church of Christ still Here sure he cannot mean a Particular Church by this expression A true Church but the whole Catholique or Universal Church unless he intended to speak non-sense viz. That the whole Militant Church is a Particular Church And what Learned Interpreter ever understood those words of Saint Paul Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit to himself A glorious Church c. of any other save the Universall Church of Christ And seeing the Lady made enquiry after that Church IN WHICH one may and OUT OF WHICH one cannot attain Salvation as the Bishop sets down the words of Mr. Fisher page 3. it is evident that really and in effect she sought no other save the Universall Visible Church of Christ which A. C. to take away all doubt of her meaning expresses pag. 1. by saying that she desired to depend upon the judgement of THE TRUE Church Why then might not the Lady express her self as the Bishop himself does in the place above cited by the Particle a or an and yet not speak so improperly that he must needs mistake her meaning The truth is it was an affected mistake in his Lordship as any man may easily perceive that has not lost his discerning faculty But the Bishop having now entred his hand and willing to shew his dexterity betimes immediately redoubles the Crook he had made while to countenance his former trisling with the Lady touching an Infallible Church he craftily attacks Bellarmin for maintaining an Infallibility in the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholiques which it is not and by confuting it to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholique Church Now though Bellarmins opinion is indeed That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot erre in Faith and desert the Pope so long as his Chair remains in that City yet the Bishop knew very well that the Catholique Church doth not restraine the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin it being sufficient for a Catholique to believe that there is an Infallibility in the Church without further obligation to examine whether the Particular Church of Rome be Infallible or not By what has been hitherto faid a man may easily perceive the candour of the Bishops proceeding and what he is to expect from him throughout his whole Work which will I assure you for the greater part be found to correspond with that you have already seen 3. From the fourth page to the twentieth he goes on disputing against severall Opinions of Bellarmin as whether the Popes Chair may be removed from Rome and in case of such Removall whether that Particular Church may then erre which seeing they are but Particular Opinions I shall not expostulate them with the Bishop as being no part of the Province I have undertaken And as to the Authorities here quoted by Bellarmin out of St. Cyprian St. Jerom St. Gregory Nazianzen c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Articles held de Fide among Catholiques nor impugned by the Bishop but as insufficient to make good those particular Opinions though he hoped the Reader would make neither of these reflections I cannot hold my self oblig'd to take notice of his pretended Solutions till I finde them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholique or Roman Church in its full Latitude as Catholiques ever mean it save when they say expresly the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as here Bellarmin doth However I intend to examine them when I come to treat the Question of the Infallibility of the Universal Church Where I make no doubt but I shall clearly evince against his Lordship and the whole party these particulars following First that to draw the word perfidia which St. Cyprian useth to his own sense the Bishop leaves out two parts of the Sentence which he ought necessarily to have expressed Secondly that by glossing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alledged he makes that Father give no more Priviledge to Rome then what was due to every particular Church yea to every Orthodox Christian of those times quite contrary to St. Cyprians intent Thirdly how he presses St. Cyprians not being tax'd by the Ancients for holding a possibility of the Popes teaching Errour in matter of Faith but never reflects that he was as little tax'd by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universall and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization embrac'd and practised against him by the whole Church Fourthly I shall shew that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is meerly Nugatory making him advertize Ruffinus that the Apostolicall Faith first preach'd at Rome could not in it self be any other then what it essentially is that is it could not be changed so long as it remained unchang'd Fifthly that he trifles as much in the allegation of St. Gregory Nazianzen For though that Father useth the word Semper retinet as
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.
interpretation suits not with those high Elogium's given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church as being the Principal Church the Church whence Unity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches Nay this interpretation gives no more Prerogative to the Church of Rome then to that of Alexandria or 〈◊〉 c. to none of which in those Primitive times Errour in Faith could have easie access At length after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for Errour in Faith or for perfidious Misbelievers and Schismaticks who had betray'd their Faith but then he cavils with the word Romanos This must be limited onely to those Christians who then lived in Rome to whom quatales as long as they continued such Errour in Faith could have no access Is not this a great praise As if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters Sea could not erre so long as it continued constant in the Truth What Nationall Church nay what faithfull Christian then living might not have challenged as much priviledge as this Finally he concludes St. Cyprian meant no Infallibility in the Roman Church by the sentence alledged because he himself had some Contrast afterward with Pope Stephen touching the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Heretiques But his Lordship should have remembred that common distinction of Divines whereby they consider the Pope sometimes as a Private Doctour and sometimes as the Doctour or Pastour universall of all Christians and that St. Cyprian might very well be suppos'd to think the Pope err'd onely in the first sense For Pope Stephen did not properly define any Doctrine in that contestation which was between them but onely commanded that those in Africa should alter nothing that was observed in the ancient practice about receiving such into the Church as had been Baptized by Heretiques Nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est neither had the Council of Carthage any just cause to mention it as an errour in St Cypirian for thinking the Pope might erre in quality of a Private Doctour Again if this be a good Argument against the Infallibility of Popes viz. St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith it will be good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd even whilst he maintain'd an universal immemorial Tradition receiv'd and practis'd as such by the whole Catholick Church ever since the Apostles ergo the Pope may erre even whilst he follows such an Universal Immemorial Tradition By this manner of arguing not onely the Popes infallible Authority but the infallible Authority of the most Universal Immemorial Traditions in the Church will be infring'd through St. Cyprians erroneous judgement and if it be plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman infallibility as the Relatour here sayes it is it will be also plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the infallibility of such an Universal Tradition which is altogether absurd The Bishops exceptions therefore to this Text of St. Cyprian being of no force it remains that his meaning must be this and no other viz. that the Sea of St. Peter which is the principall of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church which is a School-question and as such disputed here by Bellarmin yet at least as the Head of the Universal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Unity which St. Cyprian here plainly affirms that Church and Sea to be The second Authority is out of St Jerome who speaks in this manner to Ruffinus Scito Romanam fidem Apostolica voce laudatam cjusmodi praestigias non admittere etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mutari I will not here dispute whether Bellarmin by Romanam Fidem means Romanos Fideles or no yea I most willingly agree with his Lordship in this that by Romanam Fidem St. Jerome understands the Catholique Faith of Christ. But by the way 't is worth noting how inconsequently our Adversaries speak who usually condemn us for joyning as Synonyma's Roman and Catholick together viz. when we say the Roman-Catholick Faith or the Roman-Catholick Church and yet the Bishop has no other way to avoid the force of St. Jeromes words but by acknowledging in this place that the Roman and Catholick is all one Well then be it granted that in St. Jeromes time the Roman was accounted the Catholique Faith what will this advantage the Bishop Very much as he imagins at least For thus he discourses The Roman being here taken for the Catholique Faith and the Catholique Faith being uncapable of any change or of admitting any praestigias that is Illusions or Alterations it will of necessity follow that Saint Hieromes words evince not the perpetuall unchangeableness of the Faith as taught and professed in the Church of Rome Excellent But did not his Lordship see how easily this exposition of his might be blown away Can it be thought a thing any way suitable to Saint Hieromes wisdom to tell Ruffinus so great a Scholar as he was known to be that the Catholique Faith in abstracto in its own precise nature can never be any other then what it is knew not Ruffinus as well as St. Hierome himself that neither Faith nor any thing else can change its essence would he make St. Hierome so simple as to perswade Ruffinus not to go about to undermine the people of Rome for such a reason as this because the Catholique Faith abstracted from those who teach and maintain it can never be but what it is essentially Seeing that notwithstanding any such Immutability it might easily enough be extirpated out of the hearts of the people of Rome and the contrary errours admitted how unalterable soever the Faith in it self be The unchangeableness therefore of the Catholique Faith in this sense could no way hinder Ruffinus from spreading such Books among the Romans as might endanger their perversion but rather the Immutable Faith of the Sea Apostolique so highly commended both by the Apostle and St. Hierome which is founded upon such a Rock that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it The third Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nazianzen whose Elogium in behalf of the Roman Church is very Emphatical Vetus Roma sayes he ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem semper eam retinet sicut decet urbem quae toti orbi praesidet semper de Deo integram 〈◊〉 habere For the clearing of which passage I say first the Bishop is not faithful in his Translation of him for he leaves out the word Ever in the latter part of the sentence whereas St. Gregory speaking of the sound and entire Faith of the Roman Church sayes that Rome alwayes holds it as becomes
that City which is Governess over the whole world to have EVER an entire Faith in and concerning God Secondly in his Gloss upon the Sentence he omits the same word again saying onely it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire Well but how long for some years onely or an age or two doth St. Gregory limit any time No he saith semper it becomes that city alwayes to hold the true Faith not onely till St. Gregories time but for ever to all posterity The Bishop indeed sufficiently intimates what he drives at in those words of his In St. Gregory Nazianzens time Rome did certainly hold both RECTAM ET INTEGRAM FIDEM the right and the entire Faith of Christ but there is no promise nor prophesie in St. Gregory that Rome shall ever do so I answer though there be no prophesie yet there is a sufficient acknowledgement in those words of St. Gregory that Rome shall ever do so For are not these his very words Rome saith he of old hath the right Faith and alwayes holds it as becomes the City which rules over the whole world to have EVER the entire Faith concerning God Does he not expresly affirm Rome had the right Faith of old and that she alwayes holds it as becomes such a City to hold the right Faith of God I put my Argument into form thus It alwayes becomes that great City to have and likewise to hold INTEGRAM FIDEM the entire Faith of Christ. But St. Gregory here affirms that Rome alwayes holds the entire Faith as becomes that great City to have and hold it Ergo he affirms that Rome holds alwayes the entire Faith of Christ and not for some ages onely or to St. Gregories time The Major is his Lordships own words The Minor is prov'd from St. Gregory's express words which are even according to that Translation of them which the Bishop cites semper eam retinet sicut decet urbem c. semper de Deo integram fidem habere He sayes not onely Rome ever holds the true Faith but that it ever holds it as becomes that City EVER to hold it which presides over the whole world that is with full Authority teaching it and by continual profession maintaining it in all future ages The Bishop at length acknowledges a double semper in St. Gregories words but misplaceth the latter with what pure intention let any indifferent man judge His words are plain sayes the Bishop semper decet c. it alwayes becomes that City to have and hold the entire Faith c. Whereas St. Gregory sayes not semper decet it alwayes becomes but decet it becomes that City which governs the whole world alwayes to have the entire Faith of God Now who sees not a manifest difference betwixt these two Propositions It alwayes becomes that City to have and it becomes that City to have alwayes even as it is one thing to say It alwayes becomes a man to keep honest company and another thing to say It becomes a man to keep honest company alwayes seeing this last implies that a man must never cease from keeping such company or never be out of such company In like manner 't is one thing to affirm it alwayes becomes Rome to hold the entire Faith for this onely signifies the keeping of the Faith entire whensoever it is done is a thing well-becoming the City of Rome and another thing to say It becomes that City to keep the entire Faith alwayes for that signifies it must never fail or cease to keep it His Criticizing upon the present Tense of the Verb retinet holds saith he not shall hold is a meer impertinency derected sufficiently by what we said in the first Chapter For to speak nothing of the Tautology he fastens upon St. Gregory if the Verbs habet and retinet relate to the present or past time onely 't is to be observ'd St. Gregory sayes not barely it holds ever the true Faith but it holds it sicut decet c. in such manner as becomes that Capital City to hold it viz. for ever which of necessity relates to all future times and therefore is as much as semper retinebit From St. Gregory the Bishop passes to or rather by St. Cyrill and Ruffinus pretending that Bellarmin names indeed these Authors but neither tells us where nor cites their words Truly no small fault if not untruly objected especially in a man so learned to amuse his Reader with empty names onely But surely his Lordship read Bellarmin but superficially and perhaps with other mens eyes more then his own when he wrote this For otherwise how was it possible he should oversee both himself and his Authour so much as not to perceive that Bellarmin refers his Reader to the Authorities of St. Cyril and Ruffinus above-mentioned St. Cyrils words are clear enough to be seen in Bellarmin cap. 3. § 〈◊〉 and the Authority of Ruffinus in the same Chapter § Quinto probatur St. Cyril is quoted apud D. Thomam in Catenâ Ruffinus in exposit Symbol But peradventure our Adversary had no great minde to encounter with such pregnant Authorities and therefore by a figure which is call'd Omissio Rhetorica pass'd them over in silence St. Cyrill averres that according to the promise of our Saviour which is not limited to any time the Aposlolical Church of St. Peter remains free from all spot of seducing and Heretical circumvention c. Ruffinus also affirms That in the Church of Rome never any 〈◊〉 took its beginning and that the ancient Custom which where 't is well observ'd excludes all Innovation in matter of Faith is there kept But the Relatour seems willing to make us amends and seeing change is no robbery he restores Bellarmin another Text of St. Cyril in lieu of that he took from him yea if we believe his Lordship the most pregnant place in all St. Cyril But it is not his part to finde Authorities for us but fairly and ingenuously to satisfie those we urge against him It was not for Bellarmins purpose as it seems to press that so pregnant place nor is it for mine to maintain it Valeat quantum valere potest I make no doubt but they who urge it will be found able to defend it against all his evasions The place in Ruffinus he himself findes at last but it likes him no better then the other and much discourse he useth to invalidate the force of it But our Answer is Bellarmin brings it onely in favour of his own private opinion touching the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome which being onely matter of probable and disputable opinion not of Catholique and necessary Belief as I resolv'd in the beginning not to undertake the defence of any such points so I hold not my self oblig'd to maintain the proofs of them I return therefore to his Lordship who taking his best advantage from St. Cyrils pregnant place
lye But whether the Bishop said the Protestants did make the Schisme or the Rent or a Division or Breach 't is not a straw's matter The words 't is true are different but the sense is the same Well therefore might the Jesuit be said to relate at least in sense what the Bishop utter'd without either enterfeiring or shuffling His Lordship therefore ought not to have boggled at this but clearly have granted That Protestants did depart from the Roman Church and gat the name of Protestants by Protesting against her for this is so apparent that the whole world acknowledges it and the Relatour himself cannot deny it without retracting his own words § 20. num 5. pag. 131. where speaking of Luther he grants he made a breach from it And 't is a very poor shift to say Protestants gat not that name by protesting against the Church of Rome but against her Errours and Superstitions for who sees not that this is the common pretext of all Heretiques when they sever themselves from the Roman Catholique Church There is nothing more ordinary with Protestants then to reproach the Roman Church and belch out virulent execrations against her yet all must be understood forsooth not against the Church but against her Errours As if Mr. Fisher and A. C. could be ignorant of this or stood in need of such a needless Comment to understand what Protestants mean when they protest or use uncivil language against the Church But sayes the Bishop if you take the whole Body and Cause of Protestants together you cannot so easily charge them with departing from the Church I know not well what this passage means but desire to have any either whole Body or part of Protestants shew'n who by their Professions and practices did not effectively make a true and real departure from the Roman Church and in so doing remained separate from the whole Church Nor doth it much mend the matter to say as he doth in the Margent that the Protestation made by his party in the Year 1529. from whence they took their name of Protestants was not simply against the Roman Church but against an Edict viz. that of Worms which commanded the restoring of all things to their former Estate without any Reformation For to stand as they did for Innovation in matters of Religion and to protest against restoring of things to their former estate which had been unwarrantably and wickedly alter'd by certain lawless people without any colour of Authority was surely in effect to protest against the Roman Church and seeing the things protested against were points of Faith and Christian piety wherein the Roman and all other true visible Churches in the world agreed to protest against them was with the same breath to protest against all the particular true visible Churches in the Christian world which none but notorious Heretiques or Schismatiques use to do It is not then the word Protestation that we dislike so much but the Thing that is the Protesting and standing for novel and corrupt Tenets against the ancient and undefiled Doctrine of the Roman Catholique Church Besides 't is worth the noting that the Relatour here addes a little to his Author when he sayes the Edict of Worms was for the restoring of all things to their former estatc without any Reformation at all as if the Edict had cut off all hopes of Reformation even in those things which needed it viz. Abuses in Manners and Discipline which is most false and confuted by evidence of fact For even the Popes themselves alwayes professed reformation in such things to be necessary and intended by them according as it was not long after effectually ordain'd by the Council of Trent 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop goes on and tells us that though the Church of Rome did thrust Protestants from her by Excommunication yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching Opinions contrary to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church which to do St. Bernard thinks is pride and St. Austin madness At this his Lordship takes several exceptions and first begins with the supposition of Errors and Superstitions in the Roman Church which in my opinion saith he were the prime cause of the Division and forced many men to hold and teach contrary to the Roman Faith To which we answer that the Bishop of Rome being St. Peters Successor in the Government of the Church and Infallible at least with a General Council it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries should ever finde such Errors or Corruptions definitively taught by him or receiv'd by the Church as should either warrant them to preach against her Doctrine or in case she refuses to conform to their preaching lawfully to forsake her Communion Secondly he quarrels with A. C. for styling it the Roman Faith when he speaks of the general Faith of all Christians It was wont sayes the Bishop to be the Christian Faith but now all 's Roman with A. C. and the Jesuit But first 't is no incongruity of speech to style the Christian or Catholique Faith sometimes the Roman For the Bishop of Rome being Head of the whole Christian or Catholique Church the Faith approv'd and taught by him as Head thereof though it be de facto the general Faith and profession of all Christians may yet very well be called the Roman Faith why because the Root Origin and chief Foundation under Christ of its beingpreach't and believ'd by Christians is at Rome And there is nothing more frequent then Denominations taken à parte digniori Again here 's a manifest robbery of part of A. C's words for which his Lordship is bound to restitution A. C. as it were foreseeing this cavil warily addes to Roman Faith these words and practice of the Church which the Relatour for reasons best known to himself craftily leaves out and makes him speak as if the opinions by which the Protestants stand divided from the Roman Church and for which they are excommunicated by her were onely contrary to the Roman Faith as Protestants usually understand the word Roman viz. as contradistinguisht from Catholique or the Church in general whereas A. C. to prevent any such mistake as expresly as he could said they were contrary both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church But we must excuse our Adversary for this slip though it be an unhandsome one For the truth is he had no other way to hide the guiltiness of his own pen in styling the Doctrines and practices of the Church Corruptions and Superstitions For to have charg'd the whole Church with Superstitions and Corruptions had been perhaps a little too bold a check especially for a person of his Lordships temper and would have brought him too apparently under the lash of St. Bernards and St. Austins Censures intimated by A. C. whereas to charge onely the Church of Rome with them is a thing the modestest man in all that party
use his own language enterfeires shrewdly For speaking of the whole Church Militant he tells us if she can erre either FROM the Foundation or IN it she can be no longer Holy and that Article of the Creed is gone I BELIEVE THE HOLY CATHOLIQUE CHURCH yet presently after speaking of the same Church he saith If she erre IN the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental points of Faith then she may be a Church of Christ still but not Holy but becomes Heretical These words I say hang not well together for an Heretical Congregation cannot be a Church of Christ because by pertinacious and obstinate erring especially against the Fundamental and prime Articles of the Creed it becomes neither Holy nor Church of Christ believing no more any part of Christian Doctrine with Divine and Supernatural Faith then if it had faln into a general Apostacy from the whole Foundation 'T is therefore very strange to hear him say that if the Church erre in one or more Fundamental points then she may be a Church of Christ still though not Holy but Heretical Are there two sorts of Christs-Churches upon earth one Holy the other unholy one Catholique the other Heretical Is a Church erring in the very Foundation it self and that in more then one point of it a Church of Christ still what calls he then I pray the Synagogue of Satan Had he so quite forgot that by the unanimous consent of all Christians both Ancient and Modern all Heretical Congregations whatever are esteemed sever'd from the Catholique Church I adde therefore and confidently averre that any errour in Faith whatever much more in and against the Foundation pertinaciously defended against the Church renders the Congregation that maintains it no Church of Christ. No errours thus defended are to be accounted of mean alloy or weak tincture they are all dyed in grain they all remove Holiness from the Assembly that so erres and wholly un-Church it The reason hereof hath been given above viz. because all such errour implicitely and virtually at least either affirms something to be Gods word which is not or denies that to be his word which is it either asserts errour to be Gods word or Gods word to be an errour both which being in so high a degree injurious and derogatory to the Veracity of God can be no less then Mortal Sins against the vertue of Divine Faith and by consequence destructive of it which is also in effect warranted by that saying of our Saviour in the Gofpel Si Ecclesiam non audierit c. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican that is account him no Christian whatever he seems to profess Hence it appears that A. C's inference was very reasonable when he told the Bishop he might safely grant not onely that Protestants did make the Division but further that it was ill done of them who first made the Separation I may justly adde it is likewise ill done of those who continue in it For as all the Fathers teach and the most learned of English Protestants acknowledge there neither was nor ever can be just cause given for any man or number of men particular Church or Churches to separate themselves or continue in Schisme out of the Communion of the Holy Catholique Church CHAP. 12. Of keeping Faith with Heretiques ARGUMENT 1. That Faith ought to be kept with Heretiques is the constant Tenet of all Catholique Divines 2. What kinde of Safe-conduct John Huss had from the Emperour and Hierome of Prague from the Council of Constance 3. The Councils Decree in this business insincerely cited by the Bishop and Simancha egregiously Sophisticated 4. Neither the Council nor the Emperour justly blameable in their proceedings 5. The absurd partiality of Protestants imposing most unequal conditions upon the Church while they admit not any to be impos'd on themselves 1. MR. Fisher having in the precedent discourse briefly yet very justly and truly charged Protestants with the Crime of Schisme A. C. prosecutes the matter and undertakes to justifie and clear the Church's proceedings towards them from such imputatitions as they usually cast upon her To this purpose he thinks fit to minde his Adversary that after this Breach was made the Church of Rome did invite the Protestants publickly with Safe Conduct to Rome to a General Council freely to speak what they could for themselves This passage of A. C. gives the Bishop a new Theme viz. concerning keeping Faith with Heretiques a Theme which for the most part our Adversaries love to dwell upon as thinking they have some great advantage against us therein The Relatour glosses upon A. C's words and tells us this kinde Invitation was onely to bring them within our Net that the Conduct granted was Safe for going thither viz. to Rome but not for coming thence that the Jesuits write and maintain That Faith given is not to be kept with Heretiques that John Huss and Hierome of Prague were burnt for all their Safe Conduct Thus the Bishop Beoanus treating this matter very well observes that our Adversaries in this are like the Pharisees of old who though they heard from our Saviours own mouth that they should give to Caesar the things which belong to Caesar yet had the face openly before Pilate to accuse him of forbidding Tribute to be given to Caesar. In like manner we do both privately and publiquely in word and writing teach and profess that Faith is to be kept as well with Heretiques as Catholiques yet our Adversaries by their clamorous accusations seem as if they would force us to hold the contrary whether we will or no. But before I prove that Faith hath been kept with Heretiques even in those examples which the Bishop alledges I observe that he himself keeps not Faith with Catholiques at least in his Citations otherwise he would not have miscited his Adversaries words for thus he makes him speak But A. C. goes on saith he and tells us that after this Breach was made yet the Church of Rome was so kinde and carefull to seek Protestants that she invited them publiquely with Safe Conduct to Rome to a General Council freely to speak what they could for themselves Whereas the words of A. C. speaking of the Church of Rome's proceeding with Protestants in this case are onely these Which did AT FIRST seek to recall them from their novel Opinions and AFTER THEIR BREACH did permit yea invited them publiquely to Rome to a General Council c. In A. C's words rightly cited the Church of Rome is onely said to seek to recall Protestants from their novel opinions or errours a thing no way liable to cavil whereas in the Bishops allegation of the words they are so plac'd and such words of his own added to them as if the Church of Rome by her seeking had aim'd at nothing else but how to entrap Protestants when A. C. not
POWER was given by our Lord Jesus Christ to FEED RULE and GOVERN the Universal Church as 't is likewise contain'd in the Acts of other Oecumenical Councils and in the Sacred Canons So that Occham or any other that seem to oppose this if they be Catholiques must be understood to speak onely de possibili of what Christ our Saviour might have done if he had pleas'd or to mean onely that the Pope doth not govern the Church in such an absolute Monarchical way as that he alone is the onely Governour jure Divino in it and that all other Bishops are but his Vicars and Substitutes CHAP. 19. Of the Council of Trent ARGUMENT 1. The Council of Trent as Legal as any other General Council whatsoever 2. The Popes Presiding therein necessary and of Ancient Right 3. The Place it self indifferent for all parties 4. No Oath taken by the Bishops but what the Ancient Canons prescrib'd and was wont to be taken a thousand years before 5. The Council Full especially in its latter Sessions towards the end when the Acts formerly passed were consented to de Novo by all the Prelates 6. No real Disparity as to Legalness between the Council of Nice and that of Trent 7. Neither the Number nor the Quality of Italian Bishops any prejudice to the Councils Liberty 8. Groundless Suspicions evince nothing either against the Pope or Council 9. Protestants no less Censured in effect by the Greek Church then by the Latin 1. THe Bishop pleading so much the necessity of General Councils as if he meant to submit to their Determinations occasion'd A. C. to tell him that a General Council viz. that of Trent had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This was indeed to lay the Axe to the root and bring the cause to a speedy issue but the Relatour will not be taken unprovided He answers therefore the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Why not Legal It had all the Conditions ever yet required by Catholiques to the Legality of a General Council and why not General seeing all Bishops were invited to come and that a greater number actually came and assisted at the end of the Assembly then were present at some other Councils confessedly General But let us hear the Bishops exceptions against this Council His first exception is that the Abettours of this Council maintain publickly that 't is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it DE FIDE and so in our judgement FUNDAMENTAL though it be not contain'd in Scripture nor so much as probably deduced thence and for this opinion Doctor Stapleton is cited in the Margent I answer No Catholique Authour ever taught that it is lawful for the Council to make what ever they please Matter of Faith as the Bishop would seem to insinuate but onely that which is exprest or involved in the word of God written or unwritten that is Tradition And this indeed is defin'd by the very Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not onely upon Scripture but also on Tradition Now that this doctrine is true hath been already prov'd and that it cannot make the Council illegal is manifest even from the Bishops own Principles For he confesseth that Apostolical Tradition when it can be certainly known for such is as truly the word of God as Scripture it self and 't is certainly known to be such by the Tradition or Definition of the Church as hath been likewise heretofore prov'd and by the Bishop himself granted in the question touching Scriptures-being the Word of God Nor did the Council herein proceed in a different manner from other lawful and Oecumenical Councils whiles she grounded her Definitions partly on Scripture partly on Tradition even in matters not deducible by any particular or Logical inference from Scripture 2. A second exception is that the Pope the person chiefly to be reform'd Presided in the Council of Trent and was chief Judge in his own cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humane But the Pope by his Legates presided also in the fourth General Council at Chalcedon as the Bishop himself acknowledges and yet 't is esteem'd by all parties a Lawful and Authentical Council Nor can it be prov'd that the Pope was more the person to be reform'd at Trent then at Chalcedon 'T is true the persons condemn'd by both these Councils pretended that excepting onely themselves the whole Church and chiefly the Pope err'd and by consequence were to be reform'd but as the former complain'd without ground in the opinion of all but themselves so did the latter and so do all their Adherents Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria was esteem'd a great Party and Delinquent by the Arrians for having acted so zealously in defence of the Catholique Faith against their Master Arius Yet he sate a chief Judge with the other Bishops and had both a Prime place and Vote in the first Council of Nice where their Heresie was condemn'd Saint Cyril presided in the Third General Council though by the Nestorian Heretiques there condemn'd he were counted a Party Adde to this that in the abovemention'd Council of Chalcedon the cause was very particular between Pope Leo and Dioscorus and yet not onely the Legats of the said Pope presided in the Council during the whole agitation of the business but the condemnation of Dioscorus was even fram'd by Pope Leo and approv'd by the whole Council So far was it from being thought a solid objection against him that he was a party in the cause or the person to be reform'd We deny not but the other Bishops being also Judges in the Council may proceed even against the Pope himself if the case do necessarily require it as should he for example manifestly appear to be an Heretique Protestants therefore have no just cause to quarrel the Popes presiding in Councils especially so long as he is not justly accusable of any crime but such as must involve not onely the Council but the whole Church as much as himself as 't is evident he was not when he presided in the Council of Trent 'T is not therefore contrary but conformable to all Law Divine Natural and Humane that the Head should preside over the Members and to give Novellists liberty to Decline the Popes judgement or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiours upon 〈◊〉 of their being parties or by them accus'd of errour who sees not that it is in effect absolutely to exempt such people from all legal censure nay even to grant there is no sufficient means left effectually to govern the Church or condemn Heresie Schisme and other offences against Religion But the Bishop in his large Margent denyes as well matter of Fact as matter of Right in this question of the Popes presiding in General Councils telling us that in the First Council of Nice Hosius was President and not the Bishop of Rome either
Communion that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques as then respectively call'd either for Reformation or such a Free Council as Protestants now do viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever profefsing the name of Christ. Again the Oath which the Bishops usually take does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but onely that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded But I answer first the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come making no exclusive mention of any Secondly the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme had excluded themselves and perhaps durst not venture to come as knowing that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission it being confess'd that no known Heretique or Schismatique hath right othertherwise then by special leave or permission to sit in Council Those Greeks whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope as the Relatour surmizes but expell'd and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope and had right of assisting in the Council as true Bishops of the Greek Church We are told again that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present and not above forty or fifty Bishops and for the west nearer home it reckon'd no more then one English viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph I answer many more were both call'd and expected who likewise came long before the end of the Council and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming which was sufficient Concerning those of our Countrey the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council as he might have been otherwise he would have found beside the Bishop of St. Asaph Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session and divers others As for his Authority or Right to sit there being not sent or deputed by the English Church we answer such Mission or Deputation is not of absolute necessity but onely of Canonical Provision when time and state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope Now 't is undeniable that for some years before the Council ended the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey we cannot give much credit to him in what he affirms either of France or Spain It sufficeth that in diverse Sessions of this Council many Bishops of both these Nations were present and might have been in all the rest had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them The impediment was not on the Councils part and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority Legality or Liberty of it and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats 't is manifest the Council was so full that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils which even our Adversaries themselves account General 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice But to this the Bishop will by no means yield telling us the case is not alike between the said Councils and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects First saith he the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed not to depart from Scripture but engaged to prove what they defin'd by many testimonies thereof whereas the Council of Trent as the Relatour affirms concluded many things simply EXTRA out of all bound of Scripture leaving both its Letter and sense I answer the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture they alledged Scripture for their Heresie they said in effect to the Father 's then what the Bishop and his party say to us now we are sure and we are able to prove that the Council of Nice had not Scripture for them There is therefore no such disparity between them as the Bishop pretends The truth is both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined but neither of them hold it for their onely rule or so made use of it as to reject Tradition for which the Scripture it self is admitted In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius but because Tradition was the principal thing that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side the Arians partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts which Catholiques brought against them and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion against the Catholique Doctrine As to what he addes in the Margent that the whole Church concluded that Scripture was against the Arians and agreeing with the Council of Nice but that the like consent is not that Scripture is for the Council of Trent and against Protestants We answer the like consent of the whole Church both is and was when Protestants first began that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition which is equivalent to it was for the Council of Trent and against Protestants Is it not evident to go no further back then the Year 1500. that
Council till her forbearance therein may be interpreted a Neglect or Refusal to do it Fifthly he scores us out no way how we should go to work to obtain the necessary Concurrence of all Christian Princes to the actual Assembling of this new model'd Council It would be too long to point out all the inextricable Difficulties that attend this uncanonical way of proceeding in Religion recommended by the Bishop A Doctrine so far from being a Remedy against the pretended intolerable failings of a former General Council upon supposition of the whole Churches neglect or refusal to call a Council and examin them that it is highly instrumental to Division both in Church and State giving as good title if not better to any new Body of Sectaries to reform Protestantism when they get power into their hands as it did to Protestants to reform for themselves against the whole Church 4. However the Bishop still goes on harping upon the same string and in lieu of giving us solid Arguments to evince the Truth of what he would perswade viz. that his opinion touching a General Councils possibility of erring in points of Faith is most preservative of peace established or ablest to reduce perfect Unity into the Church he falls into a tedious discourse which he sayes he will adventure into the world but onely in the nature of a Consideration which yet he divides into many entring upon the First with Two very erroneous Suppositions which he layes for the foundation of a tottering Superstructure The one that the Government of the Church is no further Monarchical then as Christ is the Head The other that all the Power an Oecumenical Council hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in its Determination it hath it all from the Universal Body of the Church because the Representative of a Commonwealth hath no more power then what it receives from the Body it represents The first of these viz. that the Church is not governed by one in chief under Christ is a supposition more then once confuted To the second which we have already impugned above we further answer that the Power and Assistance which General Councils have to determine Controversies of Faith so as not to erre in the Determination cannot possibly be communicated to them by the Church but must chiefly proceed from the same Fountain now it did in the Apostles time viz. from the Direction of the Holy Ghost This Spiritual power for the government of the Church being not of Humane but Divine Institution nor proceeding so much from the Natural Wisdome Knowledge Vertue and Abilities of the Ecclesiastical Governours assembled in Council as from the cooperation of the Holy Spirit with them Whereas in a Civil Commonwealth which is of Humane Institution its representative cannot pretend to any other Power then what is derived from the said Commonwealth Secondly the Bishop considers that though the Act that is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the childe of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special Assistance of the Holy Ghost This we no way contradict but adde that this special Assistance of the holy Ghost is so far ever afforded to a Lawful General Council as to render all it s compleated Definitions of Faith Infallible 5. Thirdly he considers that the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour that sayes he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all Assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such an high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Council in matters Fundamental in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike Infallible By this expression alike Infallible the Bishop seems to grant that all the Definitions of a General Council even in Deductions as well as Fundamentals are Infallible and onely to doubt whether they be alike Infallible I see no necessity of graduating Infallibility in the present question since any real Infallibility is as much as Catholique Authors assert in all Decisions of Faith be they Fundamental or remote Deductions in the Bishops sense seeing that as to our obligation of believing them they are alike Fundamental as we have prov'd in the second Chapter Here the Bishop intends to examine the Texts which he sayes Stapleton rests upon for proof of Infallible Assistance afforded to General Councils viz. John 16. 13. I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And John 14. 16. This Spirit shall abide with you for ever And Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you to the end of the world Likewise these which he sayes are added by others viz. The Founding the Church upon the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. and Luke 22. 32. Christs Prayer for St. Peter that his Faith fail not and Christs promise Mat. 18 20. That where two or three are gathered together in his Name he will be in the midst of them And that in the Acts chap. 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us A man would imagine these Texts sufficiently clear in themselves to evince the Truth of the Catholick Assertion touching General Councils but the Bishop is partly of another minde affirming that no one of them does infer much less inforce Infallibility He was loath to say all of them together did not But let us hear how he quarrels them in particular To the first which speaks of leading into all Truth and that for ever he answers ALL is not alwayes universally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth but for ALL TRUTH absolutely necessary to Salvation I reply neither do we averre that it is here universally taken or doth signifie simply all Truth for then it would comprehend all natural Truth and matter of Fact which we deny no less then the Bishop but that it signifies all Truth necessary for the Apostles and their Successors to know for the Instruction and Government of the Church whether expressed or but infolded in Scripture or Tradition As to his limiting the words to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation we say this is but gratis dictum and a meer groundless restriction depending wholly on the Bishops voluntary assertion as we have already shewn It is also clearly refuted by the Context vers 12. where our Saviour having told his Disciples he had many things to say to them which they could not then bear addes immediately as it were by way of Supplement to their present weakness the forecited words that when the Spirit of Truth should come he would guide them into all Truth that is into all those Truths which Christ had to say to them and which they were not as yet in a capacity to bear But can any man imagine Christ had not already
'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
Pope Alexander How sharp-sighted therfore our aduersarie is in his obseruations against vs appeares by this But seeing these forked syllogismes so Dilommas are sometimes called by Logicians are such Currant Coine with his Lordship it will not I hope be thought vnreasonable if wee pay him one for many Thus then I argue Either the Bishop knew his Relation touching Peter Lombard to be false or he know it not If he knew it not his ignorance in a point wherein he would seeme knowing is hardly excusable and his temerity in affirming without sure ground such a thing as this to the scandall of the 〈◊〉 Pastour of the Church and of a synod of three hundred Bishops and Archbishops by his own confession altogether blameable If he knew it to be false and yet would affirme what he did where is his honestie The like is to be sayd of his 〈◊〉 touching Pope 〈◊〉 and the eight Generall Council defining against Honorius there 's a mistake in it For neither did Pope Honorius really maintaine the Monothelites Heresie nor doe wee maintaine but in a question of Fact as this was viz. whether the sayd Pope had really asserted that Heresie both the Pope and a Generall Council through Misinformation or other Jucidents may iudge amiss The Bishop proceeds asking vs in the next paragraph to this effect that since the doctrine of the Popes infallibility had been so easie a way eyther to preuent all diuisions about the Fayth or to end all controuersies of that nature whensoeuer they should arise why this briefe but most necessary Proposition THE BISHOP OF ROME CANNOT ERRE IN HIS JUDICJALL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FAYTH is not to be found in letter or sense in any stripture Council or Father of the Church I answer first that in the sense wherein Catholiques maintaine the Popes infallibility to be matter of necessary beleese to all Christians it is found for sense both in scripture Councils and Fathers as wee haue already sufficiently proued in prouing the infallibility of Generall Councils of which he is the most principall and most necessary member Secondly euen in the sense wherein the Bishop with perpetuall impertinency 〈◊〉 it viz. as it signifies his personall infallibity without a Generall Council who knowes not that the maintainers of that opinion alledge both scriptures Fathers and Councils for it probably at least as may be seen in their 〈◊〉 disputations vpon that subiect To omitt scripture wherein wee confess there is no express mention of the Pope but only of S. Peter in whose Right the Pope succeeds what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doth not that Council seem to say in effect that the Pope is infallible when vpon reading of his 〈◊〉 to them in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Heresie the 〈◊〉 Assembly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out with acclamation and profess that St. Peter who was infallible spake by the mought of Leo and that the Pope was Interpreter of the Apostles voice what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doe not the Fathers in that Council seeme to attribute infallibility to the Pope when they acknowledge that St. Peter was Head and Foundation of the Church and that he STILLL 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 causes of Fayth in and by his successours the Bishops of 〈◊〉 Doth not St. Hierome seeme to make Pope Damasus infallible when speaking of him and his particular Sea he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. vpon this Rocke J know the Church which can 〈◊〉 faile or fall away from the 〈◊〉 Fayth is built Did not St. Austin doe the same with the whole Council of 〈◊〉 when beside their own suffrage which was but of a particular Prouinciall Council they requir'd nothing but the 〈◊〉 sentence only to the full and effectuall condemning of the Pelagian Heresie doth he not speake also to the same effect When he 〈◊〉 that the succession of the Roman Bishops is that very Rock of the Church against which the proude Gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile I might adde St. Cyprian formerly alledged as also St. Leo Pope Innocent the first Pope Gelasius St. Gregory with others but I feare it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their owne cause Beside hauing hitherto wholy declined the defence of that assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope infallible in and with Generall Councils only I haue no obligation to engage further in that business nor can I thinke it any way expedient to make the entrance into Catholique Communion seeme narrower to our aduersaries then in truth it is and of necessity must be maintayn'd to be CHAP. 22. The Bishops vaine endeauour to finde out Errours in Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope ARGVMENT 1. The Councils of Florence and Trent err'd not in defining the Priests intention to be necessary to the validity of Sacraments 2. Why the Popes Confirmation is necessary to the definitions of Generall Councils 3. Transubstantiation no errour nor any such late or new doctrin as the Relatour pretends without shew of proofe 4. Communion under one kinde no errour but the allowed practice of the Church in Primitiue times 5. Inuocation of Saynts no errour but the doctrine and practice of the Fathers 6. Not derogatory eyther to the Merits or Mediation of Christ our Sauiour 7. Adoration or worshiping of Images as allowed by the doctrine of the Church neither Idolatrie nor Errour 8. Optatus both partially and impertinently alledg'd by the Bishop 9. Priuate abuses in this or any other matter not iustly imputable to the Church 10. Cassander qualis vir 11. Llamas misunderstood by the Relatour 1. THe Bishop here and in the Following paragraphs brings in a fresh charge of errours in matter of Fayth committed by such Generall Councils as the Pope confirmed The first in the endictement is that of the Priests Jntention which the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirm'd by the Pope defin'd to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament which the Bishop thinks is an errour But before he goes about to proue it to be such he forgets not to tell vs that the Popes infallibility of which wee talke so much is a vayne and vseless thing Why I pray His reason is for that before the Church or any particular man can make vse of it that is be settled and confirm'd in the truth by meanes thereof he must eyther know or vpon sure ground beleeue that he is infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be beleeu'd of him as he is St. Peter's Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the Relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to haue such certaintie as is sufficient to ground an infallible beleefe Why because the knowledge and beleefe of this depends vpon his beeing truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly baptised none of all which according to our principles can
be certainly know'n or beleeued because forsooth the intention of him that administred these Sacraments to the Pope or made him Bishop Priest etc. can neuer be certainly know'n and yet by the doctrine of the Councils of Florence and Trent it is of absolute necessity to the validity of euery one of those Sacraments so as without it the Pope were neither Bishop nor Priest This is the summe of a much longer discourse which the Relatour makes to this purpose In answer to which in the first place I obserue though the Bishop leuels his argument only against the Popes infallibility yet it hath the same force against the infallibility of the whole Church in points fundamentall For seeing the whole Church cannot consist of other persons then such as are truly baptised and that no infallible assurance can be had that eyther all or any one in particular is baptised how is it possible wee should be infallibly sure that there is such an assembly in the world as the Bishop calls the Church that is a company of true Christians beleeuing all points fundamentall or absolutely necessary to saluation since wee cannot be infallibly sure that any of them are baptised Secondly I answer that both a Generall Council and the Pope when they define any matter of Faith doe also implicitely define that themselues are infallible and by consequence that both the Pope in such case and also the Bishops that sit in Council are persons baptised in holy Orders and haue all things Essentially necessary for that function which they then execute Neither is there any more difficultie in the case of the Pope now then there was in the time of the Prophets and Apostles of old whome all must grant that with the same breath they defin'd or infallibly declar'd the seuerall articles and points of doctrine propos'd by them to the faythfull and their own infallibility in proposing them Here therefore the Bishops argument hath equall force against all parties his own as well as ours and all must answer as wee doe narnely that it is not necessary first to beleeue the infallibility of the proposer to wit prioritate temporis or in respect of time and afterwards the infallibility of the doctrine he proposeth but it sufficeth to beleeue it first prioritate naturae so as the infallibility of the teacher be presuppos'd to the infallibility of his doctrine as without which this latter could not subsist or be beleeu'd by vs. Thus wee conceiue the Relatours Achilles is fall'n and truly it may seem much that in all his discourse he should take no notice of this answer to this obiection which is commonly giuen by diuines Was it because he knew it not or wanted a sufficient replie But this is but as it were the Prologue to the Play the Relatours maine business is about the Priests intention concerning which he first of all positiuely layes down that it is not of absolute necessitie to the essence of a Sacrament so as to make it voyd though the Priests thoughts should wander from his worke at the instant of vsing the essentialls of a Sacrament yea or haue in him an actuall intention to scorn the Church After which he tells vs a story how learnedly a Neapolitan Bishop in the Council of Trent disputed against the common opinion viz. which holds the Priests intention to be necessary himselfe pressing the grand inconuenience which he thinks would follow if any such intention were held to be essentially necessary in these words namely that then no man should be able to secure himselfe upon any doubt or trouble in his conscience that he hath truly and really been made 〈◊〉 of any Sacrament whatsoeuer no not of Baptisme and so by consequence be left in doubt whether he be a Christian or no. I shall speake first to his principall assertion which is that the Priests intention is not absolutely necessary to the essence or validity of the Sacrament If it be not I desire a reason of our aduersaries why wee should not thinke a Priest consecrates the Body of Christ as much at a table where there is wheaten bread before him and that eyther by way of disputation or reading the 26. Chapter of St. Matthew he pronounces the words Hoc est corpus meum as he doth at the Altar what is here wanting to the essence of a Sacrament according to the Relatours principles Here is the true forme Hoc est corpus meum Here is the true matter wheaten bread He that pronounces the Forme is a true Priest and yet in all mens iudgement Here 's no true Sacrament made Some thing else therfore is necessary to the essence of a Sacrament beside what is here found and what can that possibly be if it be not the intention which the Church requires you will say perhaps that the outward circumstances at least must shew to the standers by that the Priest really intends to make a Sacrament I answer first if it be not absolutely necessary that such an intention should be had why is it absolutely necessary it should be signified Secondly J deny that any such externall signification by circumstances is essentially necessary to a Sacrament Might not a Catholique Priest to saue the soule of some dying infant baptise it if he could without making any such signification by circumstances Might he not vpon pretense that he had skill in Physick and that it were good for the child to haue it's face often sprinckled with cold water take occasion himselfe euer and anon to be sprinkling the childs face and at one time amongst the rest to pronounce eyther softly or by way of discourse the words Ego te 〈◊〉 c. with intention to conferre the Sacrament and will any man doubt but that the Priest doing this out of a reall intention to baptise the child is really baptis'd though none of the standers by take notice by any circumstances of what that Priest does I aske therfore if in this case a true Sacrament be made though no circumstances doe outwardly signify that the Priest intends to make it why is it not likewise so in the other case viz. where a Priest hauing due matter wheaten bread before him pronounces the 〈◊〉 or words of Consecration meerly by way of discourse or reading Can any reason hereof be so much as imagin'd saue only this that in the former case the Priest hath a reall intention to make a Sacrament or to doe what the Church doth or what Christ did institute to be done but in the other he hath no such intention As for the inconuenience which the Bishop pretends would follow out of this doctrine viz. that no man can rest secure that he hath been really made partaker of any Sacrament no not of Baptisme it selfe I answer first that as to the farre greater part of Christians the inconuenience follows as much out of the Bishops principles as ours they cannot be absolutely certaine that they are Baptis'd For the Bishop
himselfe holds that both matter and 〈◊〉 are essentially necessary and that without them the Sacrament were voyd But who sees not how easie it is for the Priest especially in Country-Churches and villages amongst poore ignorant people and in priuate howses too when he is call'd to Christen children ready to dye Jsay how easie it is for the Priest if he will be so wicked to vitiate something pertaining to the Essentialls of Baptisme without beeing perceiu'd which if he does the Baptisme is voyd Secondly as to his pretended inconuenience that then people should not be absolutely and infallibly certaine that they are truly Baptis'd is not Morall assurance or such as is lyable to no iust cause of doubting and suspecting the contrary sufficient or can any man in his witts pretend to more assurance then this touching his Baptisme Such Metaphysicall and rare cases therfore as the Relatour seems to put ought not to trouble sober men much less to fright them out of the true beleese of the Church they only prouing that wee cannot by ordinary course without speciall reuelation haue absolute and infallible certainty of our Justification and Saluation which is no way contrary to Catholique Fayth but most consonant to it As for those wandring Thoughts the Bishop speaks of wee easily grant they doe not nullyfy the Sacrament because they well stand with a virtuall intention which in the generall doctrine of our diuines is sufficient to the essence of the Sacrament Virtuall intention is when the Priest really does operate or celebrate the Sacrament in vertue of an express intention which he had to doe it but now at this or that instant hath not by reason of some distraction of minde or that his thoughts are vpon some other thing which wee may illustrate by an example or two A Seruant vpon command of his Master vndertakes a iourney When he first receiues the command and is bidden to prepare himselfe no doubt but in obedience to his Master he hath an express intention to doe what he is commanded which probably continues till his first setting out and some time after But vpon the roade he meets with frends lights vpon company falls into discourse c. so that he hath no longer that express intention vpon the business he goes about which at first he had but yet he still goes on his way by vertue of his intention to obey his master A labouring man that is hir'd to a dayes-worke whilest he sings or talks to his fellow-labourers hath not any express intention of getting money yet certaine it is he labours all day in vertue of an intention to get money though grown so flacke that he cannot perceiue it So is it in the administration of Sacraments and in all other actions of like nature wee doe not alwayes expresly intend the worke wee doe for that 's morally impossible but wee doe alwayes virtually intend it if euer wee went seriously and deliberately about it vntil wee doe expresly and actually cease or intend the contrary For seeing the hand moues not without some impulse of the will nor the will act at any time without some motiue represented by the vnderstanding 't is cleere in all these cases that the motiue which was first represented to the will and by which the wil was first of all moued doth stil remaine and operate vpon the will though so obscurely and vnperceiuedly by reason of other obiects interuening that it can hardly be discerned to moue vs. Let the Priest therefore be neuer so much distracted in his thoughts and wander at the instant of applying the matter and forme of the Sacrament if he begun the action not with an intention to deride the Church but to doe what is vsuall for Christs Ministers to doe in the like occasions he makes a true Sacrament by virtue of that first intention though he does not cleerly perceiue it Now as for the Neapolitan Bishop wee answer that the most Eminent Sforza Palauicino late of the Societie of IESVS and now Cardinal in his elaborate and learned tomes of the historie of the Council of Trent obserues that the Council in their definition touching the Priests intention in the Sacrament aym'd only at the condemning of that errour of Luther which denyes all vertue to the Sacrament and auerrs it to haue its full effect from the Receiuers Fayth alone so farre as though the whole action were done in mockage and derision of the Church yet it should be to him that receiues it a true Sacrament This doctrine the Council expresly condemn'd as indeed it deseru'd beeing so apparently vnsuitable both to the wisdome of our Sauiour and the Decorum of his Church contrary to the vniuersall apprehension of the Faythfull and repugnant to the nature of all other humane actions But as for Catharinus who is the person the Relatour meanes by the Neapolitan Bishop who as his Lordship sayes disputed so learnedly against the common opinion in the Council of Trent the Cardinal aboue mention'd is cleere of opinion that the Council decreed nothing against him because he deny'd not an intention to be necessary in the Sacrament but only explicated the thing differently from the common way of schole-men into which dispute neither the Council of Florence nor Trent thought it necessary to engage but defin'd in generall terms that in the Minister of the Sacrament an intention was requir'd faciendi quod facit Ecclesia of doing what the Church doth which Catharinus did not deny 2. Thus haue wee I hope sufficiently answer'd the Bishops first Charge of Errour against Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope Before he brings in the second he presents the Reader with such a quaint subtletie against the Popes Right to confirme them and the necessity wee maintaine of their beeing so confirm'd by him that wee cannot well auoid taking notice of it Thus then he argues Noe Councill is confirm'd till it be finished and when 't is finished euen before the Popes confirmation be putt to it eyther it hath erred or it hath not erred 〈◊〉 it hath erred the Pope ought not to confirme it and if he doe 't is a voyd Acte for no power can make Falsehood Truth If it hath not erred then it was true before the Pope confirm'd it so his Confirmation 〈◊〉 nothing but his own assent Thus the Relatour But I answer wee must distinguish in the business A Generall Council makes a definition in matter of Fayth eyther with the ioynt consent of the Pope or without it By defining with the Popes ioynt consent I vnderstand that eyther the Pope be personally present in the Council and concurre with it which happens but seldome or that his Legats doe it following the Popes instruction in eyther of these cases the definition of a Generall Council is vnquestionably infallible By defining without the Popes consent I meane when neither the Pope is present in the Council nor haue the Legats that are present any instruction from
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
he doth say and with truth can say noe more standing to his own principles 10. The implicite Fayth of Catholiques at which the Relatour againe glanceth in points they are oblig'd to know only implicitely giues them sufficient infallibility in their Fayth but hath noe place in this present debate For wee now treate only of such points as are Fundamentall quoad rem attestatam as wee haue formerly distinguish't them that is according to the importance of the matter they containe such as are the prime radicall Articles of our Fayth which euery one is oblig'd necessitate medij or praecepti to know expressly in so much that where ignorance of these points is culpable and through our owne default wee are soe farre from thinking that implicite Fayth can be sufficient for the attaining of Saluation that wee teach the cleane contrary asserting likewise that in those of the first kinde viz. which are necessary by necessity of meanes euen inuincible ignorance will not serue the turn So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells vs by way of Irony and scoff that a Roman-Catholique may vse implicite Fayth at pleasure As to his carping at the word know vsed by A. C. the Relatour should haue know'n that his aduersary takes it not in the most proper sense for demonstratiue or scientificall knowledge as some speake but only for certaine assurance and for infallible beleefe as it is frequently taken by others But as for Protestants standing to the Bishops grounds it is impossible they should haue infallible Fayth eyther explicite or implicite of any thing they bleeue because the authority of the Church beeing in his opinion fallible they can neuer by force thereof be infallibly certain that the books of Scripture which it commends are all or any of them the word of God or that the exposition of Scripture made eyther by the Church or any priuate man is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost Now so long as he is not infallibly certaine of this it may happen for ought he knowes to the contrary that some of them may proue not to be Gods word and seeing the Churches authority attests them all alike he may if he please conceiue a like feare of every one of them What he further adds in this page viz. 337. is only matter of references to what himselfe hath formerly deliuer'd so as I thinke it also sufficient to referre my reader to what I haue answer'd in those places viz. § 25. num 3. § 33. Consid. 3. num 1. § 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to heare him affirme here that he holds the authority of the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. does This surely must be accounted a Paradox or nothing can be iustly taken for such For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himselfe and A. C. toutching the extent of the Churches infallibility and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustaine and endeauour to proue that she is fallible both in the deliuery of Scriptures and in the defining of all points in his opinion Not-Fundamentall and also in her Traditions euen immemoriall and vniuersall And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him maintaine and assert the Churches infallibility in all these But J wonder yet more at the proofe he brings for this assertion to witt his referring vs to § 21. num 5. of his owne booke For there pag. 139. he expresly limits the Churches infallibility to absolute Fundamentall doctrines which A. C. neuer doth and in the progress of his discourse explicating the sayd infallibility euen in Fundamentalls too he falls so low and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church that he brings it down at last to this pittifull state and if she erre sayth he in some ONE or MORE Fundamentall points she may be a Church of Christ still but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. doth not to vrge here the dangerous consequence and also inuolued implicancy of the assertion it selfe which I haue already noted in my answer to that place The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating obiections which haue been more then once sufficiently answer'd viz. concerning Transubstantiation Communion vnder one kinde etc. wherein wee cannot thinke our felues oblig'd to follow our Aduersaries example but rather to remitt the Reader to the places where wee haue already giuen satisfaction touching those matters As little notice shall wee take of his obiecting againe to vs the doctrine of deposing and killing of kings This was added to inuenome the rest of his arguments which he knew otherwise would not be mortall to vs. Wee hope our demeanour in these late dismall distracted times of tryall hath sufficiently cleer'd vs from all such aspersions in the iudgement of indifferent persons nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemyes For who knowes not that vnder the late vsurping powers the greatest crime layd to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Souereign in so much as 't was held by all that partie a thing almost impossible for a man to be a profess't Catholique and not a Caualier too But to this obiection wee haue likewise already spoken what may suffice To summe vp all in briefe wee vtterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoeuer preiudiciall vnto or destructiue of that loyall obedience and Fidelity which is due to all Souereign Princes and Magistrates And if any thing of that nature hath perchance dropt srom the pen of any of ours wee owne it not but censure it deeply prohibite it strictly and in case it be obstinately maintained punish it seuerely and lastly command all books to be corrected that containe any such doctrine CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point touching the vnchangedness of the Roman Fayth with a defence of Purgatory ARGVMENT 1. A. C. Argument that the Roman Fayth is still the ONE SAVING CATHOLIQVE Fayth made good 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruauerit etc. vindicated from the Bishops Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeuing the Creed in its true sense and forcing a wrong sense vpon it vayn and impertinent 4. Protestants are chusers in point of beleefe noe less then all other Heretiques 5. They are not guided by the Church further then they please themselues 6. Church-infallibility to what it amounts according to the Bishops measure 7. In what sense Generall Councils may be sayd to be infallible euen a parte antè or at first sitting down 8. All the ancient Fathers generally speaking beleeu'd Purgatorie 9. Prayer for dead as vsed by the ancients necessarily inferres Purgatory 10. The Relatour labours in vayn to auoyd the Authorities of the Fathers in this point 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret euen by his owne confession cleere for Purgatory 12. St. Austin not wauering
eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and resule of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church disfusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church difsusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their desinitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a mans own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or auow that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doc they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt no otherwise then euery true Proposition is or may be sayd to be infallible that is hipothetically and vpon supposition only For surely no true Proposition quâ talis or soe farre as t is suppos'd or know'n to be true though but by some one person can deceiue any man or possibly be false Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique Quicquid est quando est necesse est esse Euery thing that is has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing since it cannot but be so long as it is And is it not thinke you a worthy prerogatiue of the Church to be thus infallible in her definitions Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much
giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and result of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church diffusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church diffusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their definitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a his own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or 〈◊〉 that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doe they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny such definitions and yet tells vs he must submitt both himselfe and grounds to the Church in that or an other Council Eyther his grounds are really such as he speaks of viz. 〈◊〉 certaine and demonstratiue or only seemingly such If only seeming such what is it but to giue power to euery Phanatique and presumptuous spirit to oppose Generall Councills and contradict their definitions whensoeuer he fancies to himselfe to haue an cuident text or conuincing argument against them how foolish and fallacious soeuer it be If reall and true demonstrations how can he that knows them submitt himselfe and his grounds to a Generall Councill Can any thing be more absurd and vnreasonable then that a true demonstration and a true iudgement grounded vpon it should yeeld to a fallible Authority such as that of all Generall Councils is suppos'd to be Againe who shall assure vs that the Generall Councill to which he submitts shall not desine the same article or errour which was defin'd before In this case eyther he is bound to beleeue the article de nouo defin'd or he is not If he be not bound to beleeue it why doth the Bishop teach that notwitstanding a man may constantly deny the definitions of a Generall Councill vpon monstratiue grounds yet he is bound to submitt himselfe and his grounds to an other Councill if it be lawfull for him to oppose the second Councills definition as well as the first 's where 's his submission If he be bound to beleeue as the second Council defines 't is euident he is bound to preferre a fallible Authority before a true demonstration and know'n to be such which is not only absurd but also impossible 8. As to that text of St. Austin which the Bishop cites againe in his margent touching the emendation of former Generall Councils by latter wee haue already answer'd the obiection taken from it
if neither Generall Councils nor any man in the world be of infallible creditt who sees it not to follow there can be noe infallible creditt amonge men noe not in the whole Church euen in points Fundamentall For seeing noe testimony can be of infallible creditt except it be know'n and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know eyther who those are that make vp the whole Church in the Bishops sense or that they doe all of them beleeue and testifie such a point of doctrine to be Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to saluation how is it possible for the whole Church in that sense to be of infallible creditt or to giue infallible certainty to any points whatsoeuer whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation To his Aduersaries demand why a Generall Councill if it may erre in defining one diuine truth may not erre in defining an other and so in all the Relatour answers by way of Confession that it may erre euen in all to witt of like nature vsing this limited manner of speech in all of like nature on purpose to auoyd inconueniencies and that he might vpon occasion take the aduantage of his wonted distinction between Fundamentall points For so presently as it were by way of anticipation he tells the Reader that of things not absolutely necessary to Sabuation or not-Fundamentall there can be noe necessity of infallible certaintie in the whole Church much less in a Generall Councill and consequently quently 't is noe matter with him though a Generall Councill be suppos'd lyable to errour in all such points as well as in any one But it sufficeth that wee haue already shew'n the contrary both for Church and Councill namely that in many cases it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to haue infallible certaintle of points in their owne nature not absolutely necessary to saluation or which is all one to haue such points when brought into controuersie amongst Christians infallibly defined by a Generall Councill so as wee need not trouble the Reader here with repetitions Nor could it serue his turn or iustify his assertion from beeing in the highest degree iniurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of Generall Councills though it were otherwise that is though wee had not already prou'd a necessity of infalliblydefining by Generall Councills all controuerted points of Religion whatsoeuer whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation For 't is certaine enough the Relatour holds that Generall Councills may possibly erre euen in points that are absolutely necessary to Saluation or Fundamentall as wee haue heretofore obseru'd though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine But this suppos'd lett his adherents tell vs what does his maxime if in one possibly in all proclaime but that a Generall Councill may not only fall into errour in defining some one or other point of Christian Fayth but euen totally Apostatize and define against Christianity it selfe A proposition sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety and which may iustly serue for a second instance of our Aduersaries sincerity when they profess fo much esteem and reuerence towards Generall Councills 4. Wee doe not say that Christ our Sauiour left infallibility in his Church to satisfie eyther contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits as the Bishop would seeme to impose vpon vs for 't is euident enough by the experience the world hath of the seuerall sects and Heresies of Protestants that such kinde of people will be satisfy'd with nothing but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous phansies Nor will wee Catholiques euer desert the confession and defence of it because such people will not be satisfy'd But wee tell them Christ left that legacy to his Church for these ends viz. to guide the humble and sober-minded securely and certainly in the right way of Saluation he left it also to curbe the contentious to restraine the curious and to giue sufficient checke to such presumptuous spirits as should dare in matters of such high and difficult nature as the truths and Mysteries of Religion are to be wise in their own eyes and to preferre their priuate phansies before the publique and generall iudgement of the Church and their own lawfull Ecclesiasticall superious none of all which ends could be effectually attain'd or duly prouided for without the sayd infallibility which therfore for the Relatour or any other out of priuate opinion to goe aboute to take away from the Church is without doubt both intolerable presumption and errour especially doing it vpon no better grounds and pretense of reason then he layes down here viz. because the Foundation that is in his sense all Fundamentall and absolutely-necessary doctrine is so strongly and plainly layd down in Scripture and the Creed Stongly and plainly layd down does he say Surely the Bishop when he wrote this thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretiques who deny such points of Fayth as he himselfe grants to be Fundamentall To say those points are so strongly or plainly deliuer'd in Scripture c. as not to require some other infallible authority beside Scripture to support and make good our beleefe of them must needs argue a very strong preiudice to any man that duly considers how those controuersies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them and how equally those Heretiques bandy texts with their Aduersaries both wayes that is to say as well vpon the offensiue as defensiue part as well by opposing the truth with the pretense and allegation of many Scripture-texts as by answering and euading what euer is by their Aduersaries argued out of Scripture for it or against them So as indeed a modest man to borrow a little of his Lordships own style may iustly wonder whither the Bishop would haue vs to runne for infallible certainty in those points if not to Generall Councill which yet he will by noe meanes allow vs to doe 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop hath more questions to aske His next is how wee can according to ordinary course be infallibly assur'd that a Council erres in one and not in an other point when she equally defines both by one and the same authority to be diuine truths This may be thought a shrewd question too and the Relatour does a little discouer himselfe nettled by it in telling vs that A. C. turns Questionist here to disturb the business viz. which his Lordship had with Mr. Fisher and indeed the Church as much as he can Howeuer he answers the question by distinction thus If a Generall Councill erres sayes he eyther it erres in things absolutely necessary to Saluation or in things not necessary If in the first sort wee may be infallibly assur'd by the Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generalls Councills and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in an other point Jf in the latter sort 't is not
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
This and very little else as the experience of all ages and times shew is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills Not to vrge that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is or may be For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other and may if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause as lawfully doubt and deny the desinitions of the one as the resolution of the other wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council then J doe to a priuate person Seeing 't is euident that neither the one nor the other haue further Authority with mee or command ouer my vnderstanding then their seuerall reasons in my own iudgement deserue and that if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill 7. His asserting so confidently that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills beside the fowre first seemes noe less strange and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils since the fowre first been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill or second of Constantinople was it not matter of Fayth and necessary to Saluation what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents what thinke they of the sixth against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ defin'd by this Councill in the Bishops opinion as Fundamentall in the Fayth as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures defin'd by that of Chalcedon Againe may not fresh errours arise may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters in Religion Jf they doe shall it not be necessary for the Church that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own very honest and learned men as he is pleas'd to qualifie them when it serues his turn are of the same opinion with him in this point citing in proofe hereof certayn words as he pretends of Petrus de Alliaco an ancient Schoole-Author otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis Vertsstmum esse c. 'T is most true all things pertaining to Religion are well order'd by the fathers if they were as well and diligently obserued But first here 's a great mistake The words which the Bishop cites are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae and presented to the Councill of Constance but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it with diuerse other small tractates of that nature in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke Secondly admitting they were or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect yet were it little to the Bishops purpose For the Authours meaning is that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques that if they were well obserued there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine But he does not deny but that vpon new emergent occasions other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church and of many Heresies springing vp the Authority of an other Generall Councill to witt of Constance was necessary as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth as to extirpate the Schisme and all other abuses and disorders in the Church With what truth then could the Bishop pretend that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer after the fowre first And as for Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition or vniuersall Tradition of the Church yet doubtless when it is know'n to be so and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop neither he nor any other Catholique Authour will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie to hold it St. Cyprian here likewise alledged speaks cleerly of such matters as were then vndefined and were not till a long while after defin'd by the Councill of Nice St. Thomas speaks only deminis et opinionibus as his words shew of small matters and priuate opinions which in no sort concern our present controuersie and wherein wee acknowledge with the Relatour Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth or Christian charity necessary to Saluation But for matters which the Church hath found necessary for preuention of Schismes preseruation of vnity and for vindicating or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour once to determine by Generall Councils how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name ancient or modern who taught that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined This the Relatour should haue shew'n had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader and not meerly to amuse him by filling his pages with Authorities cited to noe purpose 8. Had not the Apostles those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world Reuclation from God not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. as the Protestants translate it with command and obligation that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world entirely and
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 translates him and doth not expresly say Semper retinebit it ever holds and not it shall ever hold the true Faith speaking of the Roman Church yet certainly in this place the word retinet coming after these other ab antiquis temporibus habet and having Semper annexed to it must in all reason be understood to relate to the severall Differences of Time past present and to come Sixthly that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alledging of St. Cyril and Ruffinus as holding his opinion about the particular Church of Rome whereas Bellarmin hath not so much as St. Cyrils name in that whole Chapter nor Ruffinus's but onely when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him and when he alledges those two Authors in his third Chapter he expresses both the places and their words but it is to prove another Proposition and that of St. Cyril is a quite different Text from what the Relatour thrusts into his Margent Thus eagerly fights he by Moon-light with his own shadows Seventhly that his Lordship confounds two Questions that are distinct and distinctly treated by Bellarmin viz. Whether the Pope when he teaches the whole Church can erre in matters of Faith which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastour of the Church with this whether the particular Roman Church that is the Roman Clergy and People cannot erre in Faith which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th Chapter Lastly that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus c. Thou art Peter c. cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter as abstracted from his Person but onely to his Person as made in that occasion for and in vertue of that Confession perpetually to endure in him and his Successours THE ROCK of Christs Church But of these hereafter The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question concerning Infallibility whether to be admitted in any Church or not at length in the 20 th page removing St. Peters Chair out of his way and from the City of Rome and disporting himself a while in that particular City or Diocess in a kinde of Raillery upon its Infallibility his Lordship comes to the Greek Church on occasion of some words spoken by a friend of the Ladies in defence of that Church I believe that Friend did a friendly office to the Bishop in giving him a rise for a new Dispute and diverting the Lady from pressing him further for a satisfactory answer to her Querie 4. The question started by this friend was as I have already hinted about the Faith of the Greek Church which Mr. Fisher told him had plainly made a change and taught false Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that he had heard his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost This latter part of Mr. Fishers assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King whereas in truth he highly honour'd his Majesty and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judgement in that point touching the Holy Ghost But the Bishop with all his respect and present flattery is resolved to contradict his Majesty yet that he might seem to do it but in part he introduces this distinction viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two wayes 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errours and sins and the punishment that is due unto them 2. The other is when it loses not onely this Assistance but all Assistance to remain any longer a true Church Now the Bishop denyes the Greek Church to have lost the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in this latter Acception viz. totally which would render it no true Church but grants it to have lost that special Assistance specified in the first branch of the distinction But this he sayes is rather to be called an errour CIRCA SPIRITVM SANCTVM about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an errour CONTRA SPIRITVM SANCTVM against the Holy Ghost Thus he minces what he had said before That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost and that they erred against him But let us see what Arguments his Lordship brings in proof of his Assertion that the Greek Church continues a true Church and that their errour is not properly against the Holy Ghost Here the Bishop makes no great haste but breathing himself a while does very prudently prepare his Reader to expect no great matter from him in this kinde For dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds There is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man or that the personal defects of any man should press any more then himself Also that he entred not upon this service but by command of Supreme Authority there being as he sayes an hundred abler then himself to maintain the Protestant Cause This his acknowledgement as I have no reason to blame him for it so I cannot see what just cause his Lordship had to censure Mr. Fisher for thinking so humbly of himself as to confess there were a thousand better Scholars then he to maintain the Catholick Cause Before we come to the Bishops proofs I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words which are these I was not so peremptory viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamental Divers learned men and some of your own were of opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a question not simply Fundamentall I know and acknowledge that errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity After this he adds as a Theological proof of his own Since their form of speech is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father BY THE SON and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a TRVE CHVRCH though I confess them AN ERRONEOVS Church in this particular Are not these very specious expressions I was not so peremptory Divers learned men were of opinion I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grievous errour in Divinity I dare not deny them to be a true Church They seem to agree with us They think a diverse thing from us But I pass by his trifling and make way for truth It is to be considered that now for many hundred years the whole Latin Church hath decreed and believed it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of
yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise avoiding the strength of Catholick Arguments against them affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so small and inconsiderable that it is not sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make all the Churches of Christendome for many hundred years quite blinde and themselves onely clear and sharp-sighted which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learn't from St. Augustine that pride is the mother of Heresie will easily collect But though this perswasion had not been attested by such clouds of witnesses Theological Reason is so strong a Foundation to confirm it that I wonder how rational men could ever be induced to question the truth of it Is it think you enough to assert the Divinity and Consubstantiality and Personal Distinction of the Holy Ghost as the Bishop sayes to save from Heresie the denial of his Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle would not he that should affirm the Son to be a distinct Person from and Consubstantial to the Father but denyed his eternal Generation from him be an Heretick or he who held the Holy Ghost distinct from and Consubstantial to them both but affirmed his Procession to be from the Son onely and not from the Father would he not be highly guilty of Heresie It is then most evident that not onely an errour against the Consubstantiality and Distinction but against the Origination Generation and Procession of the Divine Persons is sufficient mattter of Heresie which being here most manifestly found either in the Affirmative maintained by the Latins or in the Negative embraced by the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son there must also be found sufficient matter to constitute the erroneous Tenet Heretical And seeing Protestants acknowledge with the Bishop here that the Greeks in this are the erring party how can they possibly excuse them from Heresie 5. But before I fall upon a particular examen of his proofs we must distinguish between Greeks Some are Ancient other Modern The Ancient Greeks though they did indeed in this question of the Holy Ghosts procession express themselves sometimes by the word per Filium by the Son yet the sense they gave them was Confignificative with à Filio from the Son Whereas the Modern Greeks since they rais'd this Dispute against the Latin Church will not admit that expression à Filio but per Filium onely and that too in a sense Dissignificative to à Filio For they so affert the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father by the Son that he proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son at all thereby making the words perrFilium to signifie the Medium onely not the Principle from which he is Originiz'd as truly as from the Father And that this is the erroneous perswasion of the Modern Greeks is manifest not onely by those long Discourses between the Greeks and Latins set down at large in the Council of Florence but by the free acknowledgement of Hieremias late Patriarch of Constantinople in his Book intituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae cap. 2. where expounding the Belief of the Modern Greek Church he hath these express words Spiritum verò Sanctum Dominum vivificantem EX PATRE SOLO procedentem Now after this distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks and their different meanings even under the same expression it will be seasonable to give solutions to all the Bishops proofs To the first therefore however the Bishop labours to excuse the Modern Greeks from a Fundamental errour he takes a wrong course to effect it and in stead of excusing them directly overthrows and condemns them nay renders those whom he endeavours to excuse incapable of that favourable exposition which the Authors he alledges in their behalf have made for some of the Greek Church For pag. 24. § 9. num 1. he acknowledges that errour of denying the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity and pag. 26. § 9. num 3. that the Greeks think a diverse thing from the Latins in this point as I have noted above Now to prove that these who erre thus grievously and differ from the Latin Church in re not in the words onely but in the thing do yet not erre Fundamentally he brings Testimonies from our Authors who speak of such Grecians even as he cites them which erre not at all in the opinion of those alledged Authors and which differ from the Latin Church onely voce in words and not in the thing or matter of their Doctrine Thus he cites Durandus Pluralitas IN VOCE salvata unitate IN RE non repugnat unitati Fidei Magist. Sentent Dist. 11. Sanè sciendum est quod licet in presenti Articulo à nobis Graeci VERBO difcordent tamen SENSU non differunt and the like sayings are in all the following Authors there cited by the Bishop But what a strange Medium is this to prove his intent He was to prove that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity erred not Fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity He was to prove that such as differ in re in the thing it self from the Latin Church about the Procession of the Holy Ghost erre not Fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as differ onely from us voce in words but not in the thing controverted Is not this strong Logick Let his Lordships Defender then prove from the said Authorities his Assertion viz. That those Greeks who erre grievously in Divinity and differ in re from the Latin Church erre not Fundamentally and he will have done more then my Lord himself has done or any other I presume can do In the mean time every half eye will discover how inappositely the Relatour hath reasoned hithertó and brought no Authority at all to make good his Assertion For the Master of Sentences he speaks only of such Ancient Authors as differed onely in voce in words and not in Substance from the Latin Church or at least who spake not so clearly against it but that their words might admit some tolerable interpretation But how proves this that those of the Greek party say now no more nor otherwise then the others did in those Ancienter times seeing it is manifest from the Council of Florence and from Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople that their Doctrine cannot admit of that Exposition which those Authors give to the Doctrine of the Ancient Grecians For they flatly and in express terms deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son and understand per Filium by the Son in that sense which excludes à Filio from the Son This difference of times was long since observed by St. Bonaventure in that very place wherein his Lordship cites him to wit in 1. Sentent dist 11.
there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
disputes which properly and directly question matters fully establish't by the Authority of the Church His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him recurrs to a second much weaker then the first For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spake he denyes it to follow thence that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith But against this I thus argue out of St. Augustin All those points the disbelief whereof shakes the Foundation are Fundamental in Faith But all the points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is defined by the Church are such as the disbelief of them shakes the foundation Ergo all points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is Defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith If he distinguish the Major that they shake some foundation of our Religion but not every foundation I disprove him thus Whoever shakes the foundation St. Augustin speaks of which is the Church shakes consequentially every foundation of our Religion This I have above proved because nothing can be infallibly believed when the Churches foundation is shaken But the denial of points defined by the Church shakes the Foundation St. Augustin speaks of that is the Church as the Bishop now supposes foundation to be taken Ergo the disbelief of points defined by the Church shakes every foundation of Religion His proving that some things are founded which are not Fundamental in Faith is very true for St. Pauls Steeple is well founded yet is no Fundamental point in Faith but as little to the present purpose as can be for who ever asfirmed that all things founded even upon the Authority of the Church are Fundamental in Faith and as little concludes that which follows about Church Authority For I have already proved that the Authority of the Catholique Church in defining matters of Faith whereof onely we now treat as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is either Divine in it felf to wit as informed with that Assistance or so necessary for the giving infallible assent to Divine Revelation that no man rejecting it can give an infallible assent to any point of Christian Faith For seeing upon that Authority only we are infallibly certified that the Articles of our Faith are revealed from God if in any thing we oppugne the firmness of that Authority we cannot believe infallibly that any one of them is revealed from God Though therefore it were granted that Church-Definitive Authority were not simply Divine yet is it so necessary to salvation that if it be rejected it destroyes salvation which is to be Fundamental in our present debate CHAP. 3. A Continuation of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. All Definitions of the Catholique Church concerning Doctrine Infallible and by many of the learned held Divine 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several wayes 3. NO MANS opinion confuted by his Lordship Bellarmin miscited 4. The Pope alwayes included in the Church and Councils 5. A. C's words cited by halves 6. How the Churches Definition is said to be her Foundation 7. A. C. corrupted the second time 8. Vincentius Lirinensis falsified thrice at least 9. Stapleton and Bellarmin good Friends notwithstanding the Bishops endeavour to make them jarre IN the first place we grant what is here set down viz. that Things may be founded upon humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith for we say nothing that hath any shadow of contradicting this But our Assertion is that those Things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church because this is according to St. Augustin to shake the Foundation Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority Definition Declaration or Determination use what tearm you please of the Church are Fundamental to wit in respect of the formal object of Gods revelation contained in them as we have often said 1. Now concerning what is added that full Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply Divine I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from Gods Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that This or That is revealed by God but onely the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith This Discourse may be granted I say and yet the Church be denyed to be of Divine Authority notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be tearms Convertible And Stapleton whom the Bishop cites in the Margin is farre from denying it as would have better appeared if his words had been fairly cited For I finde him thus to write Si quaeratur quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus quia DEUS PER ILLAM loquitur If it be asked why the Church is so certain a witness of Truth we answer because God speaks by her Thus he Now if God speaks by the Church certainly she is of Divine Authority The same doctrine we finde elsewhere taught by him Deum per Ecclesiam loqui non ex solo Ecclesiae testimonio sed ex ipsis maximè Scripturis Fidei Symbolo ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat That God speaks by the Church is most certain not onely by the Testimony of the Church but by the Scriptures themselves the Greed and the common perswasion of Christians The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church that no erring Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in general Councils layes yet he adds that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring disputant may not be allowed it Must have room that is must be allowed to shake the Foundation which the Church in General Councils layes For that is the necessary sense of his words An Assertion truly worthy of a Protestant Primate But I shall not here insist upon the manifold inconveniences of it I onely tell his Lordship at present that it begs the question and supposes what never was nor ever will be proved viz. that there can be plain Scripture in the true sense thereof or a full Demonstrative Argument brought against the Definition of a lawfull Generall Council We deny that any such case can happen or that the Definitions of a General Council in points of Faith can ever be so ill founded 2. Here therefore if we observe it the
IMPIORUM FUROR But God avert saith he this evil from the mindes of his and be it rather the fury of the impious to do so whoever therefore are so audacious as to adde Novelties to the Ancient Doctrine of the Church are judg'd by Vincentius to be impious persons raging in a fury of madness which how justly or truly it can be affirmed of Christs true Church let any discreet man be judge But if this be not sufficient to demonstrate what this Authours opinion was of Christs Church in this particular take a further Description which he gives of her cap. 22. Christi vero Ecclesia sedula cauta Depositorum apud se Dogmatum custos nihil in iis unquam permutat NIHIL MINVIT NIHIL ADDIT non amputat necessaria non apponit superflua non amittit sua non usurpat aliena Where we see in opposition to those impious and furious Adders of Novelties mentioned in the last words of the precedent chapter how effectually and fully in the very beginning of this he clears the Church from that foul aspersion which the Bishop would cast upon her But the Church of Christ saith he as a careful and wise Depositary or keeper of the Truths committed to her NEVER CHANGES any thing at all in them lessens nothing ADDES NOTHING neither cuts away things necessary nor adjoyns things superfluous neither loses what is hers nor usurps what belongs to others c. Words as Diametrically contrary to what the Relatour pretends unto in this passage viz. suspicion and possibility of the Churches adding NOVITIA VETERIBVS and of making a change in the Doctrine which she first received from Christ and his Apostles as any thing can be imagined But to return to that lame sentence which he cites out of Lirinensis the very same does clearly shew that Lirinensis never taught or imputed to the Church that she added New Doctrines to the Old For if she be a Keeper of the Old and never labour'd in her Councils to do more then preserve id quod antea that which was before and that Vincentius expresly averres this how can he in reason be suppos'd to teach that this very Keeper of old Doctrines and Rejecter of Novelties should either corrupt the one or introduce the other nay the very words the Bishop cites demonstrate evidently that the Church cannot in this Authors opinion be understood to make these Additions For those who make them may at length by such Additions come to change the Church in errorum Lupanar But 't is impossible the Church should change her self or do any thing whereby to be chang'd in errorum Lupanar for so she should be no more the Church of Christ unless he would have Christs Church while it remains his Church to be errorum Lupanar which 〈◊〉 as Vincentius abhors so I presume the Bishop himself would never in terms and directly have admitted Lastly the Bishops own exposition of Vincentius his words destroyes this unworthy imputation cast upon the Church He interprets Dogmata as we have seen to be the Maximes or Prime Principles of Christian Doctrine whereof no one part can be rejected without opening a way to reject another till the whole be destroyed Therefore to make Lirinensis his discourse uniforme and coherent who still goes on in the former matter and gives not the least hint that he speaks onely of Fundamentals in the former part of his discourse when he mentions changes in dogmatibus fidei and of not Fundamentals in those Additions of Novelties I say to make this Discourse of Vincentius uniforme and coherent he must understand the Novitia which Vincentius sayes are added Veteribus to be added as new principal Maximes to the other principal Maximes of Faith no less then the Ancient Maximes were Now such an Addition would be a Fundamental errour destructive of the Church as he also grants Wherefore it is impossible that the true Church remaining still the true Church should make any such addition even according to the Relatours exposition of Vincentius Whence it appears to what straits this place of Lirinensis put him seeing that whilest he labours to avoid one inconvenience he falls into another like him of whom the Poet sings Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim while he endeavours to avoid the Charybdis as he accounts it of acknowledging from thewords and Testimony of Lirinensis the Churches Infallibility in not Fundamentals he runs and splits himself upon the Scylla of making the whole Church erre in points Fundamental But he is resolv'd to make all seem as fair for himself as he can to which end observe a little how he uses the Text. Ecclesia depositorum apud se Dogmatum Custos That 's well His Lordship could neither deny nor dissemble but that the Church in the judgement of Vincentius is a Guardian or Keeper of the Truths deposited with her But yet that it might not appear what kinde of Keeper she is whether Faithful and Diligent or Unfaithful and Negligent whether apt to admit the Addition of other New and Strange Doctrines which she received not or to lose and corrupt any of those which she did receive he unfairly leaves out the first words of the sentence which would have cleared the doubt Sedula cauta The Church is a diligent and wary Keeper of the Truths committed to her charge She suffers nothing to be lost or embezzel'd either through neglect of duty or unskilfulness to perform it In brief that it might not appear in how exact a manner the Church executes this office of Depositary and Guardian of Divine Truth he wraps up all the following words Nihil in iis unquam permutat nihil minuit nihil addit and the rest which follow in which the Churches singular Care and Faithfulness in this affair is most Emphatically and truly avouched with an c. a Fatal but Faithless c. Whereas Vincentius as we heard above out of the words themselves directly and positively asserts that the Church never changes any part of the Doctrine committed to her addes nothing diminishes nothing to wit by any corruptive Addition or Diminution or by any change that perverts or destroyes the Truth formerly Deposited with her The like By-turn he makes in the third Text cap. 31. where citing it thus abruptly and unintelligibily Impiorum turpium errorum Lupanar that it might be thought the Church her self makes this Addition of Novelties he leaves out the word adiiciunt they adde that is Heretiques and Novelists do adde for so Vincentius speaketh he sayes not adiicit she or the Church addes For they are Heretiques and not the Catholique Pastours of the Church who by their Novel Additions labour to pervert and overthrow the True Doctrine of the Church We grant not unwillingly what the Relatour here asserts That a whole frame of Building may be shaken and the Foundation whereon it is laid remain firme So may Hope Charity and other vertues be shaken and
English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christs Descending into Hell But the Bishop will needs have the English Church resolved in this point I will not much trouble my self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours But Mr. Fisher grounded his speech upon those words of Mr. Rogers viz. In the interpretation of this Article there is not that consent that were to be wished Thus he Whereupon the Relatour also confeffeth That some have been too busie in Crucifying this Article As for Catholiques upon whom the Bishop would lay the same charge they all believe it as it lyes in the Creed and is proposed by the Church But it being not defined by the Church whether we have this Article from Tradition onely or also from Scripture I hope Divines may be permitted to hold different opinions about it without prejudice to the Unity or Integrity of Faith Durand may also be suffered to teach though somewhat contrary to the common opinion that the Soul of Christ in the time of his death did not go down into Hell really but virtually and by effects onely The like may be said of that other question whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in its Essence into the Lower Pit and place of the Damned or really onely into that place or Region of Hell which is called Limbus Patrum but Virtually from thence into the Lower Hell Our Adversaries may know that all Catholique Divines agree Durand excepted that Christ our Saviour in his Blessed Soul did really descend into Hell our School Disputes and Differences being into what part of Hell he really descended as likewise touching the manner of exhibiting his Divine Presence amongst the Dead and of the measure of its effects to wit of Consolation and Deliverance towards the Good or of Terrour Confusion and Punishment towards the Bad. And though they should differ in their opinions more then they do in this or any other question concerning Religion yet they all submitting their judgements as they do to the Censure and Determination of the Church when ever she thinks fit to interpose her Authority and define the matter all these seeming Tempests of Controversie amongst us will end in a quiet calme I could wish his Lordship had been in his time and that his Followers would now be of the same Temper for then all Disputes and Differences in matters of Faith would cease yet School-Divinity remain entire Wherefore to what the Bishop asserts That the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without further Dispute and in that sense which the Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in I answer all Catholiques profess to do the same so that the question can onely be touching the sense of the words as they lye in the Creed and the sense of the Primitive Church concerning them Now as for Stapletons affirming That the Scripture is silent in the point of Christs descending into Hell and in mentioning that there is a Catholique and Apostolique Church suppose we should grant that Christs Descent into Hell were not exprest in Scripture yet his Lordships party will not deny it to be sufficient that it is in the Creed And for the other point Stapleton was not so ignorant as to think there was no mention of the Church of Christ in Scripture for every ordinary Scholar knows that place of Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Nor that she was to be even by the testimony of Scripture both Catholique and Apostolical for how often and invincibly doth this most worthy Doctor prove both these points from Scripture in several parts of his works wherefore in the place alledged 't is evident his meaning was onely to deny that the words Catholique and Apostolique were expresly in Scripture though they be there in sense and effect as I presume our Opponents themselves will not be so hardy as to deny So that his Lordships facetious discourse here upon Stapleton and some Texts of Scripture may rather be taken for a jeast to please his own humour then for an Argument against us This Incidental quarrel with Stapleton being over the Bishop fiercely again falls to expostulate both with Mr. Fisher and A. C. for citing Mr. Rogers Authority for the Doctrine of the Church of England But with how little reason it appears by the very Title of Mr. Rogers's Book which as the Bishop himself acknowledges runs thus The Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England and for this gives him a jerk that possibly he might think a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title Truly I conceive it of small importance to bestow much time upon this Subject either in relation to the Bishops Disagreement with Master Rogers or the pretended variance between Vega and Soto touching mens certain assurance of Justification or Salvation which jarre is denyed by Bellarmin who cites both of them for the Common opinion that a man cannot be certain of his Justification or Salvation by certainty of Faith without an especial Revelation 5. However I cannot but observe that though Catharinus disagrees from Bellarmin and the Common opinion concerning the foresaid point as the Bishop objects yet he dissents not formally from the Decree and Doctrine of the Church whose sense he professeth to follow submitting himself in that and all other his opinions to her Censure So that though I grant him to have fallen into an errour yet he is not accusable of Heresie as not being obstinate in his mistake 6. The Bishop is our good friend in saying that all Protestants he might have added all other profest enemies of the Catholique Church do agree with the Church of England in the main exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and onely one by unity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions Now that our Authours disagree not in Faith we have shewed a little before The Relatour doth much perplex himself about the Catholique Churches pronouncing Anathema But this is not done so easily as he imagined For this Anathema falls onely upon such as obstinately oppose the Catholique Church And if in such cases it should not be pronounced we should be so far from being in peace and quietness that all would be brought to confusion as appears by the concord we finde in our own Church and those sad Dissentions and Disorders most apparent in theirs Wherefore I believe that reason will rather ascribe the troubles of Christendome to the freedom which others take and give in matters of Faith by permitting every one to believe what he
pleases then to any severity in the Church of Rome which is known to be a pious Mother and never proceeds to Excommunication but when obstinacy and perverseness enforce her As to what the Bishop objects that the Roman Church makes many points to be of necessary belief which had for many hundred of years passed onely for pious opinions if his Lordship had assigned any such points in particular they should have received an answer The Relatour dislikes Mr. Fisher for saying The Church of England in her Book of Canons Excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles viz the 39. Articles But although these were not the precise words of their Canon yet the Church of England excommunicating all such as affirme they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto them as 't is manifest she does by the very Canon which the Bishop cites she doth in effect excommunicate all that hold any thing contrary to the said Articles As for the pretended severity of the Roman Church we have answer'd it already and shew'd that the Freedom and Liberty granted by her enemies would afford no more prosperity to her then it hath done to them 'T is true the Church of Rome as his Lordship takes notice imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of Damnation but it is not in her power to do otherwise because Christ himself hath commanded her so to do in these words Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican 7. His exceptions here against A. C. are but as so many Meanders For first he sayes that the words objected by A. C. are not the words of the Canon I answer nor did A. C. affirm they were Secondly he addes and perhaps not the sense because privately holding within himself and boldly and publickly affirming are different things True But where doth A. C. mention those words privately holding within himself or where does the Canon say boldly and publickly affirming as the Bishop would impose on the Reader And as to the sense of the Article the Bishop himself durst not boldly and publickly affirme that A. C. missed it but sayes onely perhaps he did and then perhaps he did not But without all perhaps and peradventure he gave the genuine sense of the Canon seeing 'tis against all reason to imagine that a man should be held punishable with Excommunication for a meer internal Act. He must mean therefore by the word holding an external Act which cannot amount to less then Affirming 8. The question is not whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more Severe but whether the English Protestants Severity in Excommunicating those that affirme any part of the thirty nine Articles to be 〈◊〉 be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For what is it less then unreasonable Tyranny to cast men out of their Church which they esteem a True one deliver them up to Satan and lay Gods and their Churches curse upon them for affirming that to be erroneous which for ought they know may possibly be such indeed especially when the Impugner fully perswades himself that what he affirms to be erroneous in them is really so For Excommunication being the most grievous punishment the Church can inflict must require a Crime proportionable to it But can any man perswade himself that to oppose a Doctrine against which the opposer verily perswades himself he hath either an evidence from Scripture or a Demonstrative reason in which cases the Bishop grants that one may yea ought to oppugne the Churches errours can any man I say perswade himself that this is a Crime proportionable or a sufficient cause of Excommunication Every just Excommunication therefore inflicted for the opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground Whence likewise it follows that Protestants while they confess on the one side that all their thirty nine Articles are not Fundamental points of Faith and by consequence in their sense and according to their principles not infallibly true but subject to errour yet on the other side proceed to Excommunication against any that affirm them or any part of them to be superstitious or erroneous do themselves exercise a greater Tyranny and injustice towards their people then they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which as they well know excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both Infallibly true and also Fundamental at least according to the formal Object As little is it the question whether the Roman Churches Excommunications be of a much larger extent then those of the English Protestants for this argues no more then that one is the Universal Church the other not but the question is as hath been said whether Protestants Excommunications be not unreasonable nay most enormious as inflicted by those who acknowledge themselves fallible and subject to errour in that very point for which they Excommunicate Again as to the larger extent of our excommunications might not the same have been objected against the excommunications of the Apostles themselves by any particular Heretical Conventicles in those times to wit that their pretended Excommunications reached no further then the bounds of their own private Congregations whereas the Apostolical Excommunications extended to the utmost limits of the whole Christian World What follows ha's been often answered For we grant the Scripture is sufficient for some mens Salvation if we regard the material Object onely or the chief points of Faith because all the Prime Articles of our Faith are expressed in Scripture which Prime Articles are Fundamental onely in the first sense so often declared But hence it follows not that some things not exprest in Scripture are not Fundamental in the second sense formerly delivered Amongst these Tradition must be numbered for which we admit Scripture it self In this truly to use his Lordships Rhetorique the Fathers are plain the Schoolmen are not strangeis and Stapleton whom he stiles an angry opposite confesses as much Moreover where there is any difficulty about the sense of Scripture or the point to be believed we are not so to stand to Scripture as that we refuse to hear the Church appointed by Christ to interpret it and to declare what ought to be believed For otherwise there would be no end of Controversies every Heretique pretending Scripture and crying it up as much as the Bishop or any other of his party can do Nor can the Church obtrude any thing as Fundamental in the Faith which is not so in it self she being Infallible as shall hereafter be proved the Bishop here wrongfully supposing the contrary Mr. Fisher sayes 'T is true That the Church of England grounds her POSITIVE Articles
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
Scriptures morally speaking more obnoxious to alteration then Universall Tradition 3. He mistakes his Adversaries words contradicts his Brethren and himself falsifies A. C. and most unhandsomely traduces the whole Order of the Jesuits 4. Texts of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility maintained 5. Why each Apostle Infallible and not each Bishop 6. Christs promises to his Apostles when to be extended to their Successours 7. Not the Apostles onely but their Successours also settled in all Truths 8. The Scripture the Church and her Motives of Credibility not unfitly compar'd to a Kings Word his Embassadours and his Credentials 9. Vincentius Lirinensis and Henricus a Gandavo misconstrued and the Fathers misalledged 1. THe Bishop num 26. of this Paragraph to withdraw his Reader from the Thesis or main matter in question viz. the Church descends very dextrously indeed but yet without any necessity to the Hypothesis or Church of Rome For though A. C. believes that the Roman in a true sense is the Catholique Church yet here he abstracts from that question and means no more then he plainly asserts viz. that the Tradition of the Catholique Church is Infallible c. But whether theirs or ours or some other Congregation of Christians be the Catholique Church that 's another question of which A. C. affirms nothing in this place yet the Relatour as if he were somewhat nettled is pleas'd to say that after a long silence he thrusts himself in again and desires the Bishop to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit in which sense he might easily finde it to be Infallible Truly in my opinion A. C. deserv'd no rough language for his respects to the Bishop in being so long and silently attentive to his discourse though at length through zeale he became something earnest in the business out of a desire to bring his Adversary into the right way and to this end urged him to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is a Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit and not assisted by them in any common way but in such a manner as reacheth to Infallibility For such assistance is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof Such assistance the Relatour confesseth the Prophets to have had under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New The like we say the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of the 17. of Deuteronomy verse 8. c. where in doubts the people were bound not onely to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in points of Faith amongst all the different Sects of Christians that deny it Neither had he any reason to break forth into those exclamations Good God whither will these men go For they go no further then Christ himself leads them by promises made unto them in the places of holy Scripture which shall be set down 〈◊〉 And the Pastours of the Catholique Church may very well acknowledge this Infallibility yet make it no occasion to Lord it over others unless he will also accuse the Apostles upon the same account Neither do they equal the Tradition of the present Church as the Relatour urgeth to the written word of God and this hath been shew'd before Touching what he writes of Divine Infallibility we have already declar'd that 't is sufficient to our present purpose to assert Church-Tradition to be Infallible whether it be simply Divine or no is another question to be determin'd when time and place requires Whence it follows that there 's no necessity of equalizing Church-Tradition to the Word of God For we have already acknowledg'd that 't is not in all respects equal to Scripture Again he falls from the Thesis to the Hypothesis We have nothing now to do with this question whether the Roman Bishop and his Clergy be the Head of the Catholique Church or no but whether that which is the Catholique Church be able to breed in us Divine Faith or no whatsoever Congregation of Christians it be So that his impeaching the Roman Church of errours here whilst we are in dispute about another question is wholly out of season His answer to St. Basils Text Parem vim habent ad pietatem that unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word is very deficient First 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions yet of such as were come down from their times to St. Basils For otherwise how should they have had in his time any force at all to move to piety as he said they then had Parem vim habent ad pietatem Secondly his exception taken against that Work of St. Basil from Bishop Andrews and that borrowed from Erasmus and he collecting it onely from the stile which yet others far more ancient and better acquainted with St. Basils stile then Erasmus acknowledge to be his this exception I say we esteem of no great force Thirdly St. Basils making the unwritten Traditions whereof he speaks to be such as are not contrary to Scripture proves not Scripture it self so to be the Touch-stone of Apostolical Tradition as that Scripture must therefore needs be of greater force and superiour dignity then that of Tradition For the Bishop himself grants Prime Apostolical Tradition to be equally divine with Scripture and yet 't is true to say that those Prime Traditions are such as are not contrary to scripture But the sense of Stapletons words is quite perverted by the Bishop For he speaks as his words clearly intimate of later and fresher Traditions then are the Prime Apostolical viz. such as were begun by General Councils or perhaps in some particular Church His words are recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem c. which do not signifie such Traditions as we now treat of viz. Traditions primely Apostolical deliver'd from hand to hand in all succeeding ages by the universal and constant Tradition of the Church and conveighed as such unto us by the Tradition of the present Church 2. A. C. urging the present Copies of Scripture c. presses the Relatour very hard as I have already shew'd Now I adde what if the Ancienter Copies disagree How shall we know which is the true Word of God His saying that true Scripture may be more easily known then true Tradition because the one is written and not the other is not consequent
in this point upon this particular Text or no is little material 'T is sufficient they acknowledge the thing we contend for viz. the Prerogative of Infallibility and Immunity from errour in the Church and that they generally derive it from our Saviours special Promises unto the Church and his Presence with it which Presence and Promises this Text with others of like nature do clearly contain as the Bishop himself acknowledges Wherefore with far greater reason we return the challenge upon himself and press the Relatours party to produce any one Father that ever deny'd the sense of this place to reach to infallible assistance granted thereby to all the Apostles Successours in such manner as we maintain it The like answer of our satisfies his exposition of the third place John 14. 16. For what was promis'd there for ever must in some absolute sense so far as is necessary to the preservation of the Church from errour be verified in future ages He frames also an answer to a fourth place viz. John 16. 13. which speaks of leading the Apostles into all truth This he restrains to the persons of the Apostles onely And he needs not tells us so often of simply all For surely none is so simple as not to know that without his telling it But we contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart 't is also to be understood in relation to their Successours assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church 5. Now one main reason of this difference between the Apostles and succeeding Pastours of the Church I take to be this that every Apostle apart had receiv'd an immediate Power from our Saviour over the whole Church so that whatever any one of them taught as Christian Faith all the Church was oblig'd to believe and consequently had he err'd in any thing the whole Church would have been oblig'd to follow and believe that errour Whereas on the other side the succeeding Bishops generally speaking were not to be Pastours of the whole Church but each of his own respective Diocess so that if particular Pastours preach'd any errour in Faith the whole Church was unconcern'd in it having no obligation to believe them But in regard those respective Pastours when they are assembled in a lawful Representative or General Council are in quality of the Pastours of the whole Church if they should erre in such a body the whole Church would be oblig'd to erre with them which is against the promises of our Saviour Hence also it follows in proportion that the Bishop of Rome being Pastour of the whole Church when he teacheth any thing in that quality viz. as Pastour of the whole Church and intending to oblige the whole Church by his Definition cannot in the common opinion erre for the same reason 6. To give also the Fundamentall Reason for this Exposition one and that a certain way to know when our Saviours words spoken immediately to the Apostles are to be extended to their Successours in all ages is this that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words in future ages no less then it requir'd it in the Apostles times then we are to understand that his words extend themselves to those ages unless there be some express limitation added to his words tying them to the Apostles onely Thus when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to Preach Baptize Remit sins Feed their Flocks c. Seeing these actions are as necessary for all future ages as they were in the Apostles time 't is manifest they were to reach to all succeedinga ges Again in regard he also promised John 16. 13. to lead the Apostles by his Holy Spirit into all truth and seeing 't is as necessary now for those who act as Pastours of the whole Church as all succeeding Bishops do when they meet in a lawful Oecumenicall Council to be led into all those truths into which he promis'd to lead the Apostles for the reason but now alledged it evidently follows by vertue of our Saviours promise that they are alwayes and effectually so led And though it would be boldness as the Relatour terms it to enlarge that promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles so far as to give to every single succeeding Bishop as Infallible a leading into all truth as each of the Apostles had yet may it without any boldness at all be affirmed that the succeeding Bishops assembled as abovesaid have an infallible leading into all truth as being then Representative Pastours of the whole Church to teach and instruct her what she is to believe St. Austins words therefore which the Bishop cites calling them in a manner Prophetical are not with the least shadow of reason applyable to us but to a world of Phanaticks sprung from the stock of Protestancy and who still pass under the general notion of Protestants And this I may boldly assert in regard 't is clear that the said great Saint and Doctor held the self-same Doctrine we here maintain while for instance he accounts our obligation to communicate Fasting to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost of which Will of the Holy Ghost we are not ascertain'd by any Text of Scripture but by the Church alone 'T is manifest sayes he that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of our Lord they did not receive Fasting Must we therefore calumniate the Universall Church for alwayes receiving Fasting Since the Holy Ghost was pleased herewith that in honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of our Lord should enter into a Christians mouth before any other meat For this cause this Custom is observ'd throughout the world I might easily produce several other instances to the same effect if this one were not sufficient as I presume it is 7. Neither hath the Bishop any ground to averre that this promise of settling the Apostles in all truth was for the persons of the Apostles onely because the Truths in which the Apostles were settled were to continue inviolably in the Church What wise man would go about to raise a stately Building to continue for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable Building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continuall Assistance also to the succeeding Pastours of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those Truths wherein he first settled the Apostles as Vincentius Lirinensis above attests The Church never changes nor diminishes nor addes any thing at all nihil unquam no she changes nothing She neither cuts off any thing necessary nor adjoyns any thing superfluous she loses not what is her own she usurps not what belongs to another c. but onely
If there have been a change let it appear when and in what the change was made For the same reason also if it be now the true Church it was ever so having alwayes adhered to St. Peters Successor and the Doctrine by him delivered 1. But the Relatour asserts that the Church of Rome was and was not a right and Orthodox Church before Luther made a breach from it For in the prime times of it it was a most right and Orthodox Church but if we look upon the immediate times before Luther then it was a corrupt and tainted Church In this I say the Relatour begs the question for the Roman Church remained alwayes the same it was from the beginning because in this dispute the Roman signifies the Catholique Church according to that of Dr. Stapleton Apud veteres pro eodem habita fuit Ecclesia Romana Ecclesia Catholica amongst the Ancients saith he the Roman Church and the Catholique Church were taken for the same We adde they are now also to be held for the same and the reason given by Stapleton whatever the Bishop thinks doth not at all destroy the said Identity His reason is quia ejus communio erat evidenter certissimè cum totâ Catholicâ because the Communion of the Roman Church was most certainly and evidently with the whole Catholique and by consequence the whole Catholique with it Wherefore as the Catholique Church continued ever the same and incorrupt so did the Roman which is the same with the Catholique This A. C. sufficiently express'd when he mention'd the Roman Church not onely as it contain'd the City and Diocess of Rome but all that agreed with it in Doctrine and Communion For 't is clear by Roman Church in that sense he could understand no other but the Catholique We deny then that any abuses or errours did at any time more corrupt or taint the Roman Church then they did the Catholique Wherefore it seems very strange to hear his Lordship say that the Roman Church never was nor ever can be THE RIGHT or the HOLY CATHOLIQUE Church For when it was a right Church as he himself grants it once was if we take it in A. C's sense viz. not onely for that Church which is within the City or Diocess of Rome but for all that agree with it what difference will he finde betwixt the Holy Catholique Church and all others agreeing with the Church of Rome What he asserts of the immediate times before Luther or some ages before that then the Roman Church was a corrupt and tainted Church and far from being a right Church sounds very harshly in a Christians ears For if in all those ages the Roman Church that is the Church of Rome and all other Churches agreeing with her were wrong corrupted and tainted and all those likewise that disagreed from her viz. Hussites Albigenses Waldenses Wickleffists Greeks Abyssins Armenians c. had in them corrupt Doctrine during those ages as 't is certain they had neither could the Relatour deny it I say if the Roman Church was thus corrupt it follows that not onely for some time but for many ages before Luther yea even up to the Apostles times there was no one visible Church untainted incorrupt right Orthodox throughout the whole world And consequently that during the said ages every good Christian was in conscience oblig'd in some point of Christian belief or other to contradict the Doctrine and desert the Communion of all visible Churches in the world since no Church not confessedly Hereticall can be shew'n that did not communicate both in Doctrine and Discipline with the Roman during all that time Whence it would further follow that Schisme or Separation from the externall Communion of the whole Church might be not onely lawfull which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers as Dr. Hammond well proves in his Book of Schisme but even necessary which is impossible as being contrary to the very essentiall Predicates of Schisme which is defined to be a voluntary or wilfull Departure such as no just cause or reason can be given of it from the Communion of the whole Church 2. His great Marginal Note out of Petrus de Alliaco signifies but little For as it mentions not any false Doctrines taught by the Roman Church so neither doth it threaten that any shall be taught by it after his time but clearly speaks of Schismes and Heresies rais'd against the Church not foster'd by her in all parts of Christendom Otherwise we must esteem that learned Cardinal a man either very ignorant or very impious to make the Church it self Ecclesiam Dei as he speaks guilty of Schismes and Heresies which even in our Adversaries opinion are held to be incompatible with the Church of God and destructive of it 'T is certain Bellarmin acknowledges no errours in Popes but onely as they were private Doctours he admits not any errours to have been defined by them by Authority properly Papall or ex Cathedrâ for Christs Doctrine or to be believ'd by the whole Church And indeed he even clears them of Errours in the first kinde so far as to shew that they did never so much as personally or in quality of private Doctors erre or teach any errour in matter of Faith publiquely defined and admitted for such by the whole Church which though it be a very pious opinion yet no man is oblig'd to embrace it as a point of Faith For Catholique Faith in this particular onely obliges us to maintain that the Pope is Infallible when he defines with a General Council To what good purpose then does the Relatour in his Margin pin this following assertion upon Bellarmin Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminasse in Ecclesiâ Christi luce clarius est there being nothing like such a Proposition in the whole Chapter cited by the Bishop Almainus speaks not of Errours in Faith at all much less doth he say the Popes taught the whole Church such errours but onely of errours or rather abuses in point of Manners which might happen by the bad examples of Popes or their remissness in the execution of their Pastoral office But what if some of them should be prov'd to have taught errours in Doctrine as private men that destroyes not the Infallibility of the Church nor of the Pope as we maintain it no more then his permitting or suffering others through his negligence to teach such errours Hence also his Simile of Tares sow'n among Wheat is nothing to the purpose For if he means by Tares sow'n false Doctrine publiquely and definitively taught by the Pope or receiv'd by the Church in this sense we absolutely deny that ever any Tares were sow'n or ever shall be sow'n in the field of Gods Church But if he mean sow'n onely by private persons and growing up but for some time through negligence of particular Pastours until the Supreme Pastour either by himself or assisted with his Council
take due notice of them and weed them up 't is a thing we confess and the Bishop gains nothing by it No more doth he gain by alledging Cassander whose credit among Catholiques is so little that his testimony would be of no great weight were it positive and home to the purpose whereas 't is manifest he speaks doubtfully and dares not absolutely averre the Bishops had taught any Superstitions all he ventures to say is that through their covetousness he was afraid such Superstitions were continued and even this he ascribes rather to particular and inferiour Bishops then to the Pope 3. 'T is true there have been Schismes at Rome as it happened in the time of St. Cyprian when Novatus leaving Africk went to Rome and there raisd troubles Yea after him Novatianus proceeded so far as to cause himself to be made Antipope against Cornelius and had many followers by which means a Schisme sprung up but still a great part stuck to Cornelius the true Pope Wherefore even during the Schisme as well as before the Roman Church rightly and truly so called continued the Catholique and as incorrupt as ever And why because they that left the Communion of the true Pope and made the Schisme corrupted themselves but not the Roman and Catholique Church which adhered to him and were for the time of their separation of no Church at all but of the Synagogue of Satan Whence it appears that St. Cyprian could not imploy Caldonius and Fortunatus to bring the Roman Church to the Communion of the Catholique as the Bishop pretends but onely to reclaim the Schismatiques and bring those divided Members which followed Novatian to their due Obedience to Cornelius their lawful Bishop and thereby to the unity and communion of the Roman Catholique Church Still therefore the Roman or Catholique Church remained free and exempt from errour either of Schisme or Heresie and so shall ever continue maugre the malice of Hell and whatever vain objections to the contrary 4. A. C. further charges the Relatour to have confes'd that Protestants had made a Rent and Division from the Roman or Catholique Church here the Bishop is not a little nettled and flatly denies that ever he affirm'd or thought that Protestants made it For my part I think it an unprofitable dispute to question much what was said it more concerns us to see what could or can be said in this point Our Assertion is That Protestants made this Rent or Schisme by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholique Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a Separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawfull and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully empower'd to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently receiv'd throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective Seas Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living These and the like practices not the calling for truth and redress of abuses as the Bishop vainly pretends we averre to have been the True and Real Causes of Protestants-being thrust out of the Church For as Almighty God leaves no man who leaves not him first so neither doth the Church separate her self from any man or thrust him from her Communion who doth not first depart and separate himself from her by obstinate adhering to novel opinions contrary to the true Faith or by his wicked and enormous demeanour contrary to true Charity or by both together The Orthodox therefore did very well in departing from the Arrians as the Relatour notes in the Margin because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine and we are so far from denying that the sin of Schisme is theirs who depart first that we charge it upon our Adversaries for as the Arrians then departed first from the Church not the Church from them so did the Protestants now of late and the Faithful did well in both cases to avoid all Communion in matters of Religion both with the one and the other Nor does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying the cause of Schisme was ours and that we Catholiques thrust Protestants from us because they called for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schisme this has been granted already even by Protestants and to his calling for Truth c. I answer what Heretiques ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for Truth and redress of Abuses But he should have reflected that the Church of God is styled a City of Truth by the Prophet and a Pillar and Foundation of Truth by the Apostle and by the Fathers a rich Depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines or 〈◊〉 so that to charge her either with the want of Truth or opposition to the preaching of it and upon that ground to forsake her Communion as Protestants did is an inexcusable impiety and presumption That Woe therefore of Scandal mentioned by the Bishop whether Active or Passive falls most heavily upon his own party who first took effence without just Cause and afterwards gave just cause of offence by departing from the Church and making a Schisme A thing so clear and undeniable that to use the Relatours own expression our Adversaries may better defend their cause before a Judge and a Jury then before an Assembly of learned Divines After this the Bishop quarrels with A. C. for vindicating the Jesuit But what 's the subject of their quarrel The Jesuit averr'd the Bishop to have said That Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church The Bishop denies he said any such thing A. C. proves he said it either 〈◊〉 or aequipollentibus verbis because the Jesuit writ down his words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the passage Hereupon the Bishop falls into exclamations and admirations as if A. C. stood upon the brink of a Contradiction But I answer there is not here the least shew of a contradiction For though his Lordships words were very few though writ down by the Jesuit in fresh memory and upon special notice taken yet might the Jesuit well enough be said to quote them either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis For timorous and tender Consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a
findes no difficulty to do Thirdly his Lordship excepts against the Application of the places brought by A. C. out of St. Bernard and St. Austin But we answer his Exceptions do not weaken the force of the said places For first concerning that of St. Bernard let us suppose as the Relatour contends that St. Bernard by those words Quae major superbia c. What greater pride can there be then for one man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation as if he alone had the Spirit of God mean't onely that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching yet is his saying not unaptly apply'd by A. C. to our present purpose by an Argument à minore ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who preferre their private fanatick opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholique Church This certainly Protestants did by their Solemne Protestation and obstinate maintaining their private opinions What the Relatour addes That it is one thing for a private man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation and another thing for an intelligent man in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholique Church is of no advantage to him For first though we should grant his Lordship that Martin Luther Ulrick 〈◊〉 John Calvin Theodore Beza John Knox and the rest of that crew were to be accounted Intelligent Persons yet will he or can he say they propos'd their Doubts modestly to the Church surely not and whoever sayes so will easily be convinc'd of ignorance in their opinions or practices But put case a more modest propounding of Doubts had been used as the Bishop seems to wish yet unless the Doubts were in points undecided by the Church the modest proposall of them could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their Doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholique Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful Heretical and damnable His exceptions against A. C's interpretation of St. Austin are no less weak The Holy Doctor affirms that it is a most insolent madness for a man to dispute whether that ought to be to be done which is usually held and done by the whole Church The Bishop first excepts that there is not a word of the Roman Church but onely of the Catholique yet having often shew'n that the Roman Church and the Catholique are all one and seeing A. C. adds to Roman Faith the practice of the Church this Authority remains still entire against him Next he sayes A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith whereas 't is spoken of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church But first I answer A. C. applies the place both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church of which practice the place is most properly understood even in that sense which the Bishop himself gives to the words Secondly if it were madness to dispute against the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church much greater would it be to dispute against any point of Faith held by the Church so that the Application of the place is still good by the Rule à minore ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God The reason may be because there is alwayes some point or matter of faith involv'd in every universally-practis'd Rite and Ceremony of the Church Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholique Church teacheth is by St. Austin tearm'd a most insolent madness We deny not but a right-sober man modestly proceeding may in some case dispute a point with the Roman either Church or Prelate as Irenaeus did with Pope Victor in the Controversie which arose toward the end of the second Century provided it be done with Submission and profession of Due Obedience to that Church and Prelate which can never be unless the dispute be about matters as yet undecided by the Church 6. Touching A. C's illation I answer since it is certain the whole Catholique or Roman Church in the sense often explicated cannot erre A. C. doth well inferre that there can be no just cause to make a divorce or Schism from it The Relatour grants that the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolute fundamental Doctrine and blames Bellarmin for needlesly busying himself to prove that the visible Church can never fall into Heresie But I answer Bellarmins labour was not needless since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errours save onely in Fundamentals as they call them whereas Bellarmin proves it equally of all Fundamentals or not-Fundamentals Moreover Bellarmin well observes that Protestants generally grant this onely to the Invisible Church whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible and though the Bishop in the Margent endeavours to shew they hold the same also of the Visible Church yet this onely proves that Protestants contradict one another which we deny not and Bellarmin likewise observes it elsewhere yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop when he saith the Church cannot erre addes this restriction if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture So that if she do it seems according to him she may erre But I must confess I have often desired and do yet much long to know which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all mens salvation according to the opinion of Protestants I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down Our Tenet is that the Catholique Church is Infallible in all points of Faith and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholique Church cannot be denied under pain of damnation and consequently is Fundamental to us and to all true Christians So that these following words of the Bishop viz. That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule are injurious to the Church and inconsistent with that Prerogative of Holiness which as he himself in this very place confesses alwayes accompanies the true Church 7. This Holiness consists chiefly in the verity of Faith So the Relatour himself professes in these words The Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners c. Insomuch that if the Church failed in the verity of Faith she could be no longer Holy nay it would follow that the Gates of Hell had prevailed much against her contrary to the promse of Christ. I assert therefore that the present Church is no more liable to errour through curiosity or weakness then was the Primitive nor the Vicar of Christ with a General Council more subject to erre upon that account then were the Apostles of Christ. In the following words the Relatour to
will become of Ecclesiastical Authority Immunity Liberty c. Every Heretique or Sectary how turbulent and seditious soever if he can but procure a Safe Conduct or the word of some Temporal Prince for his Security shall be exempt from Censure may preach write spread Heresie without check or controul Wherefore the Council sayes no more in effect then is in it self evident viz. that an inseriour Tribunal cannot hinder the proceedings of a superiour But enough of this matter To his Lordships Question why they should go to Rome to a General Council and have their freedom of speech since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing I answer Protestants were never invited to a General Council at Rome to reform the Church that 's a work to which they can pretend no competent Authoriy but they were invited thither to be better instructed and reclaimed from their errours The Roman Church is sufficiently authoriz'd by Saint Paul viz. that though an Angel from heaven should teach otherwayes then shee had taught he ought not to be believ'd In like manner the Fathers in the Council of Trent might with good reason be resolv'd firmly to stick to the Doctrine they had formerly been taught by the Catholique Church notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it either by Bishops or any other person 5. His Lordship goes on and blames both A. C. and F. Campian too for their boldness in saying that no good answer can be given by English Protestants why they refuse to grant a publique Disputation to Catholicks The Bishop thinks it a very good Answer to say that the Church of England hath no reason to admit of a publique Dispute with us till we be able to shew it under the Seal and Powers of Rome that the Roman Church will submit to a Third who may be an indifferent Judge between Catholicks and Protestants or to such a General Council as is after mentioned But I would fain know who this Third indifferent Judge should be If he prove an Heretique or Schismatique he will hardly be found indifferent 't is to be fear'd he will be partial in the cause Perchance he shall be some Atheist Turk or Jew Judges fitly chosen indeed to sit upon the Church of God But would his Lordship think you have taken it for a satisfactory Answer if some Brownist or other Sectary in his time upon his Lordships vouchsafing to dispute with them in hope to reduce them to union and obedience should have answered we will admit a Dispute provided your Lordship and the rest of your Prelatical Church of England will accept of a Third to be Judge between you and us might not the Arrians or any other Ancient Heretiques have as well required a Third to judge between them and Catholiques in Controversies wherein they differed Yea may not every known Rebel upon the like pretense demand a Third to be Judge between him and the King his Sovereign and in case of refusal remain obstinate in his rebellion even as well as the Protestants do persist in their spiritual Disloyalty to the Vicar of Christ because a Third person is not accepted to be Judge between him and them To what he intimates of a General Council we say if it be a lawful one viz. call'd and approv'd by the Pope as Head of the Church as all lawful General Councils hitherto have been we shall never refuse to submit to it but heartily wish that all the Relatours party would do the same CHAP. 13. Protestants no part of the Church ARGUMENT 1. How the Separation of Protestants from the Church was made 2. Whether the Roman-Catholiques or They do imitate the Ten Tribes 3. The Roman Doctrin concerning the Holy Ghosts Proceeding c. more antient then the Bishop pretends 4. In what cases Particular Churches may declare Articles of Faith 5. The word Filioque when added to the Creed and why 6. No Particular Church hath power to reform what is universally taught and receiv'd 7. The Protestants Synod at London 1562. neither General nor Free 8. Gerson and all his other proofs fail the Bishop 9. Protestants never yet had either true Church or Council 1. WE are again told that Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome but were thrust out by her without cause What the cause of their expulsion was we have already declar'd and shall not refuse here again briefly to repeat It was because by their Heretical doctrine and Schismatical proceedings they had first separated themselves from the Church and became both unworthy and uncapable any longer of her Communion They had raised a new Separate and mutinous Faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholique or general Body of the Church They had chosen to themselves new Pastors independent of any ordinary and lawful Pastours of Christs Church that were before them They had instituted new Rites and Ceremonies of religion fram'd new Liturgies or Forms of Divine Service They had schismatically conven'd in several Synods or Conventicles and there broacht new Heretical Confessions of Faith contrary not only to the true Catholique Faith but to the Faith of all particular Churches what ever existent in the world immediately before they began Thus Protestants of themselves first departed from the Churches Doctrine and Communion and persisting obstinate in their evil opinions and practises the Church was forc'd to proceed against them according to the Canons and by just censure cast them out of her bosom lest otherwise by their scandalons division high disobedience and pestilent doctrine they might further infect the Flock of Christ which was committed to her charge The Bishop denies he ever granted that Protestants did first depart otherwise than he had before expressed § 21. num 6. But that is enough he there acknowledges that an actual separation at least was made by Protestants and A. C. here asserts no more Whether this actual separation were upon a just cause preceding as the Relatour pretends is a thing to be disputed between A. C. and him although indeed it be of it self clear enough to any who duly considers it that Protestants neither had nor could have any just cause for such a Separation as A. C. pag. 55 56. and all Catholiques do charge them with For it was a Separation not onely from the Church of Rome but as Calvin himself Epist. 14. confesses à toto mundo from the whole Christian world and such a Separation necessarily involves separation from the True Catholique Church from which as it hath been often urg'd already even by the confession of Protestants themselves 't is impossible there should ever be just cause to separate The Bishop grants that Corruption in manners onely is no just cause to make a separation from the Church of God yet cannot forbear to have a fling at the corrupt manners of the Church of Rome quoting for that purpose Dr. Stapleton But I wonder our Adversaries take notice of
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
poverty of St. Peter himself the first of them yet could not his Spiritual Authority suffer the least Diminution by it Wherefore to make short it concerns us not to take further notice of his many Historical Criticismes and meer Conjectures upon this subject unto num 13. And whereas he again en passant touches upon the Popes Election approv'd and 〈◊〉 by the Emperour it hath receiv'd a full answer above 6. His next endeavour is to infringe A. C.'s proof of the Popes Supream Pastoral Authority out of St. Irenaeus To which purpose we are told by way of Caveat how unlikely a man St. Irenaeus was being a Gallican Bishop to captivate the Liberty of that Church under the Principality of Rome As if forsooth the so much talk'd of liberties of the Gallican Church had been things known or heard of in St. Irenaeus's time But Irenaeus sayes the Bishop reprehended Pope Victor for excommunicating the Asian Churches citing for this in the margin Euseb l. 5. c. 25. it should be c. 24. We answer Eusebius hath not a word importing reprehension but rather a friendly and seasonable perswasion his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he exhorts him after a handsome manner as reflecting on the Popes Dignity and clearly shews that the Pope had of right some authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church For otherwise it had been very absurd in St. Irenaeus to perswade Pope Victor not to cut off from the Church so many Christian Provinces had he believ'd as Protestants contend he did that the Pope had no power at all to cut them off Just as if a man should entreat the Bishop of Rochester for example not to excommunicate the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of his Province over whom he hath not any the least pretence of Jurisdiction But admit St. Irenaeus had indeed reprov'd Pope Victor for what he did in the case of the Asian Bishops it being a matter of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction onely in the exercise whereof 't is not deny'd but the Pope through misinformation incident to humane frailty may sometimes go too far what does it prove more then that possibly the Pope proceeded a little too severely or hastily with those Christians whose fault did not in the judgement of St. Irenaeus and some others deserve so heavy a censure But who sees not that all this rather confirms the Popes power Doth St. Irenaeus or any other beside him complain of the Popes usurpation in this case Do they charge him with taking more upon him then he had authority to do Do they tell him he had no authority to excommunicate those Asian Bishops or use any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them as Protestants tell him in reference to themselves And yet who can doubt but this they would have told him and with great bitterness too considering the provocation had they had just ground to do so or could have done it without proclaiming themselves ipso facto Schismatiques and shaking the very Foundation of the Churches Discipline and Unity But these are onely his Lordships light Skirmishes he ventures at last to grapple with the Authority it self alledg'd by A. C. out of S. Irenaeus whose words though faithfully cited by him in the Latine yet in rendring them English he cunningly windes about in his Labyrinth For first he translates UNDIQUE round about as if St. Irenaeus spake onely of those neighbouring Churches round about Rome and not the Churches throughout the World whereas undique as naturally signifies every where and from all parts witness Thomas Thomasius where the word undique is thus Englished from all places parts and corners every where which is also seconded by the Greek Lexicons where these Adverbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which undeniably signifie from all parts universally are rendred by the word undique And that here it must needs signifie every where or from all parts is clear from the very scope of St. Irenaeus's discourse which was to prove that the Tradition of the Roman Church was a full Evidence plenissima ostensio of the Doctrine preach'd by the Apostles all over the world in toto mundo And this he evinces from the necessary recourse which in all doubts of Faith all Churches or all the Faithful were to have from all parts to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem for her more powerfull Principality as to their constant Guide therein and by vertue of which recourse all the Faithful every where had alwayes conserv'd the Integrity of Apostolicall Tradition In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio This Argument did Irenaeas use in confutation of the Hevetiques he disputed against in France which taking his words in the True and Genuine sense was a very pregnant one and given as a Rule to teach not onely Heretiques but all Christians that the Doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church was as it were the Touch-stone of all Apostolical Doctrine If now we turn the Medal and look upon this Holy Doctors argument in the sense the Bishop takes his words we shall finde it speak little more then non-sense His Lordship to avoid the Prerogative ascrib'd by St. Irenaeus and all Catholiques to the Roman Church will needs as I have said make undique to signifie no more then round about thereby restraining that more powerful Principality St. Irenaeus speaks of to the Provinces of Italy and Islands about it as the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome beyond which the power of that Church extended not In which supposition 〈◊〉 will be found to argue thus against the Heretiques of his time 'T is necessary that all the Churches or the Faithful round about Rome viz. those onely of Italy and the Islands adjacent which make up the Roman Patriarchate should have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem that is for its Bishops precedence of place or in regard of his Patriarchal Power within the aforesaid Precincts Therefore the Gnosticks and other Heretiques in France or any other part of the world are convinced of Heresie for not having recourse to the Church of Rome Is not this fine Meandrick Logick well beseeming so noble a Labyrinth But let us observe how the Relatour deals with the latter part of this Fathers Text In quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio which he thus translates In which Church is conserved that Tradition which was deliver'd by the Apostles and not according to his Authour who sayes alwayes conserved The word alwayes was not to appear in English for fear it might induce some impartial Readers to entertain too worthy an opinion of the Roman Church Neither did he think it fit to give his Reader the English of these words ab his qui sunt undique though inserted among the former which would too much
have opened the Fathers meaning viz. that not onely the Church of Rome as 't is a particular Church kept intirely the Apostolical Tradition but that in it all the Faithful every where did keep the same Apostolical Tradition by being in unity and Communion with her Thus you may see to what shifts and upon what shelves even learned men are often driven by maintaining errour From the Premises I argue thus All the Faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem by reason of her more powerful Principality This is St. Irenaeus his Proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful Principality if her said power exended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful Principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the Faithful every where and not onely to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocess of Rome as the Bishop pleads 7. Little therefore is it to his advantage what he pretends to shew out of Ruffinus viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contain'd within the Islands and Precincts of Italy since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity and gives St. Irenaeus the lye Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less then any of the other Patriarchal Churches yea of much less extent then many Metropolitan Churches To which I add 't is contrary even to the common compute of Protestants themselves who often grant the Bishop of Rome to have been Patriarch of the West which undeniably contains many vaste Provinces and Nations beside Italy and the Islands about it Wherefore as the Bishop could not altogether deny but the word Suburbicary was unduly added by Ruffinus in the Translation of the Nicene Canon so I say 't is necessary to understand it unless we will contradict all the world not in the Bishops sense as signifying onely the Churches of Italy and the Islands thereto belonging but as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any way suburdinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known as also to this day by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Prefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded onely those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this Subject This exposition of Ruffinus his term Suburbicary wants not ground even in his own Text who makes as it were a contradistinction between Egypt and the Suburbicary Churches Now under Egypt he comprehends Lybia Pentapolis and Ethiopia which being without the Precincts of the Empire were committed to the power and care of the Patriarch of Alexandria but all Suburbicary Cities that is such as were under the City of Rome as it was Imperial were left under the Bishop of Rome and he by reason of his Seat at Rome was still to be their chief Prelat and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them then he had over those other Cities which were out of the Empire though as St. Peters Successour he had the universal care of the whole Church and that full Potentiorem Principalitatem which St. Irenaeus ascribes unto him 8. Touching Calvin's conjecture that recourse was therefore had to Rome because at that time the Roman Church was more constant to the Truth and less distracted with dangerous opinions it is wholly inept For 't is false that before St. Irenaeus's time Rome was more constant in the Faith then the other Churches of Greece and Africk had been seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresie as Rome 9. The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest from us a Text or two of Epiphanius touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successours wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wonted reservedness that St. Peters person is understood in that Text of the Gospel Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be perswaded to extend it any further then his person But we affirm 't is clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter is derived to his Successours For first after the words Et Portae inferorum c. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it this Father immediately addes Quarum Portarum nomine Hereses Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authours of Heresies are understood that is to say All Heresies and all Authours of Heresies whatever shall arise Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal True it is the Bishop omits these last words by his wonted Et caetera However since he acknowledges that by the Firm Rock whereon our Saviour according to Epiphanius promised to build his Church St. Peter is personally understood we shall easily make good our Argument from it and solve his objections For he must consequently acknowledge the Church so founded on St. Peter as by vertue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies and Inventors of Heresie that should at any time impugne the Churches Faith which could not possibly be verified in case Christs promise were to be limitted to St. Peters person alone For else why might not Heresies and Heretiques after St. Peters death prevail against the Church yea so far prevail as utterly to extinguish the true Faith Wherefore the Bishops long discourse by way of Gloss on this and some other Texts of the same Father concerns us not at all For it being once granted that St. Peter was personally to uphold the Church in the profession of the true Faith as its principal Foundation under Christ we have our desire Nevertheless we deny that he hath any ground to limit to St. Peter onely those Elogiums given him by St. Epiphanius and not allow them extendible to his Successours so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith Wherefore as St. Peters Authority is by the Bishops own confession rightly urg'd by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Hereticks that deny'd it so doubtless by vertue of the same promise and institution of Christ may and ought the Authority of his Successors be urg'd in time to come in proof of any other contested Article or point of Faith Though therefore we affirm not as the Relatour is frequently imposing upon us that St. Peter and his Successours are by vertue of this Text to governe the Church as Princes and Monarchs yet we say that by vertue
pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority who shall determine or how shall men satisfie themselves whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent The Bishop gives us no light in this particular but leaves us to grope in the dark But let us indulge so much to our Adversary as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have General and of Equal Authority yet Maldonats Argument which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one evinces clearly that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word there would need another Council and then another to try that and so in infinitum The result of which would be that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self To this the Bishop answers that no General Council lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM which is either as ambiguous as the rest or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity But this is neither to exclude possibility nor fear of erring c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 Here the Bishop sayes I might have returned upon you again If a General Council not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Council He tells us we may say yes because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer But let this piece of Disingenuity pass and let us examine how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader while he insinuates to him that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope alone as Head of the Church is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions which is but an opinion of particular Doctours and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer as the Bishop does for us viz. That a General Council is necessary because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre but rather the contrary That a General Council is needfull because it is not De fide or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council as all Catholiques unanimously believe he ever does when he defines with it What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us 3. But the Bishop foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity and unless it the Council erre manifestly and intolerably In which cases you may see the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity to fall into another as great viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity nor what manifestly intolerable but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy to exclaim as warranted by the Bishop against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity or manifestly intolerable in both which cases they may with the Relatours license spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom or Commonwealth The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching Declaring and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable and changing according to Circumstances of Time Person Place c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good and necessary to be repealed which can never happen in Decisions of Faith The truth of this is evident even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment Corporal or Pecuniary whereas the Spiritual viz. a General Council layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions Witness the first Four General acknowledg'd for such by Protestants which were they fallible as the Bishop contends they are would be the greatest tyranny not to say Impiety imaginable Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts against Catholique Doctrine 'T is true some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him not for him But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd which is that National or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour if the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council and examine it Sure the Bishop had very ill luck or a bad cause to maintain otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities in so little a Compass as he does For first he leaves us to divine what those Errours are which we must esteem intolerable Secondly he forgets to tell us whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church or its Representative while as is supposed there 's no General Council yet in being Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a
and that General Councils are at least collaterally and by way of consequence comprehended in it is evident to reason For how else can St. Peter be said in his Successours to confirm his Brethren in the Faith which is the following part of the Text if the Pope at least in a General Council be not Infallible the Church Universal being indispensably oblig'd to follow the Doctrine of such a Council 6. The fifth place is Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them the strength of which argument as the Bishop well observes is not taken from these words alone but as they are continued with the former which his Lordship omitting to set down of necessity we must They are these Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask it shall be done for them of my Father ver 19. These 〈◊〉 taken together Bellarmin averres to be a good proof of the Infallibility of General Councils the Argument proceeding à minori ad majus thus If two or three gathered together in my name do alwayes obtain that which they ask at Gods hands to wit Wisdome and Knowledge of those things which are necessary for them how much more shall all Bishops gathered together in a Council alwayes obtain Wisdome and Knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church This indeed is the summe of Bellarmins discourse upon this Text and I conceive the inference for the Infallibility of General Councils to be so clear that every intelligent and unbyassed Reader will perceive it at first sight seeing it can neither be deny'd that the Pastours of the Church assembled in a General Council to determine Differences in Christian Faith are gathered together in the name of Christ nor that they do in all due manner beg of God Wisdome Understanding and all necessary Assistance to determine the Controversies aright However the Bishop makes several exceptions against this Text. His first is that most of the Fathers understand this place of consent in Prayer So do we too Is it not the very ground of our Argument Do we pretend that General Councils are prov'd Infallible from this Text for any other reason then because the Prelats in Council assembled do unanimously and duly pray that God will preserve them from Errour and because he hath promised to hear their prayers His second exception is that he doubts the Argument A MINORI AD MAIUS holds onely in Natural and Necessary things not in things Voluntary and depending upon promise I answer without any doubt that the Argument à minori ad majus holds as well in things promised as natural where the motive is increased and neither Power nor Goodness wanting in the Promiser If therefore God have promised to grant the just and necessary Petitions of two or three assembled in his Name he does therein impliedly promise à fortiori to grant the Petition of a General Council when being assembled they unanimously beg that they may by the Divine Assistance be preserv'd from Errour in their Dicisions of Faith Here the motive is greater then in the former case the necessities of the whole Church do more forcibly ingage the Power Love and Honour of God then the necessities of a few By this it appears that what he averres that the Argument from the less to the greater can never follow but where and so far as the thing upon which it is founded agrees to the less makes not any thing against us since we deny not but God is ready to grant the just and necessary Petitions in both cases Thirdly he tells us from St. Chrysostome there are diverse other conditions besides their gathering together in the name of Christ necessarily requir'd to make the prayers of a Congregation heard We agree to it but must suppose that a General Council lawfully assembled knows what those Conditions are and also duly observes them till the contrary be clearly evinced We also agree with his Lordship that where more or fewer are gathered together in the Name of Christ he is in the midst of them to assist and grant whatsoever he shall finde fit for them and thence inferre that Christ is alwayes present with the Prelats lawfully assembled in General Councils to assist and grant them immunity from errour in their Decisions of Faith which he findes not onely fitting but highly necessary for the Direction and Settlement of his Church His last evasion is to make our Authours seem to clash one against another viz. Stapleton and Valentia against Bellarmin To which I answer the difference between them is more in words then sense For neither Stapleton nor Valentia denies but the Infallibility of General Councils confirm'd by the Pope may by good consequence be collected from this place by an Argument à minori ad majus as Bellarmin urges Nay Stapleton himself even where the Bishop cites him expresly acknowledges that the Council of Chalcedon did rightly use this very Argument to the same purpose in their Epistle to Pope Leo. Their opinion is that our Saviour did not primarily and directly intend that particular Infallibility when he spake those words nor does Bellarmin affirm he did but onely that he signified in general that he would be present with his Church and all faithful people gathered together in his Name so often and so farre as their necessities requir'd his presence they duly imploring it This we confess was all our Saviour directly and immediately signify'd by the words where two or three are gathered together c. from which notwithstanding Bellarmin and other Catholique Authors do rightly inferre the Infallibility of General Councils in the manner declared Nor does it from this Doctrine follow that the like Infallibility is extendible to a National or Provincial Synod or to two or three private Bishops gathered together in Christs name as his Lordship pretends to argue from Valentia For though Christ promiseth indeed to be present with all that are gathered together in his name yet not the like manner of presence with all or so as promiscuously to grant all Graces to all persons but to each according to their peculiar exigencies and necessities of which there can be none for the Infallibility we maintain in any Council but a General 7. The sixth and last place alledg'd for the Infallibility of General Councils is that of Acts 15. 28. where the Apostles say of the Council held by them VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Us intimating thereby that the Decrees of General Councils are to be receiv'd by the faithful not as the Decisions of men but as the Dictates of the Holy Ghost The Bishop here tells us The Apostles might well say it viz. VISUM EST c. for that they had
and that wee could be heard in our prayers and expect releefe not from the Jmages but from the Prototypes which as it is the plaine doctrine of the Church declar'd by the Councils of Nice and Trent so 't is all that in this question I haue vndertaken to defend CHAP. 23. Of the Bishops Confession that Saluation may be had in the Roman Church and the Consequences therupon ARGVMENT 1. The Bishop though not willingly grants in Express terms that some Catholiques may be sau'd and in effect that all 2. A 〈◊〉 Argument That ours is the SAFER way because Protestants as well as wee confess it SAFE explicated and defended 3. Catholiques not iustly tax'd with want of Charity for telling Protestants they cannot be sau'd out of the Communion of the Ro man Church 4. Nothing to be concluded in fauour of the Bishop against A 〈◊〉 Maxim from the agreement of old betwixt Catholiques and Donatists in point of Baptisme 5. Catholiques and Protestants doe not agree in any reall participation of Christ proper to the Sacrament 6. what Catholique Authors meane when they speake of Spiritually-receiuing Christ and of a Spirituall presence in the Eucbarist 7. No perill of Schisme Heresie c. in Communicating with the Roman Church 8. The Relatours various windings vpon this subiect obseru'd 9. No Parallel betwixt A C. argument and that of Petilian the Donatist 10. A C. vniustly tax'd with vntruth By the Bishop 11. Our aduersaries Remainder of instances consider'd and satisfy'd 1. IN this Paragraph the Bishop brings in the Lady asking him whether shee might be saued in the Roman Fayth and though by his answer he grants cleerly enough that there is possibility of Saluation in the Roman Church yet who those are amongst vs whome he thinks may be sau'd is not so cleer Sometimes he seem's to say that those only may be saued who though they erre yet want sufficient ground eyther to doubt or know their errours as for instance when he writes the ignorant that cannot discern the errours of the Church so they hold the foundation and conforme themselues to a religious life may be saued And afterwards wee haue not so learned Christ as to deny Saluation to some ignorant silly soules whose humble peaceable Obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the foundation Christ. Likewise there 's no question but many were saued in corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented besore death were lost In other places he seemes to intimate that men may be sau'd in the Roman Church though the Truth by which he meanes the doctrine of Protestants be sufficiently proposed to them but not acknowledged by them as where he sayth Protestants indeed confess there is Saluation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withall that the errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to goe that way to Heauen especially to them that haue had the Truth manifested Now surely if it be but very hard going that way to Heauen it is not altogether impossible Againe I am willing sayth he to hope there are many among them which keep within that Church meaning the Roman and yet wish the superstitions abolished which they know and which pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not and which hold the Foundation sirme and liue accordingly and which would haue all things amended that are amiss were it in their power And to such I dare not deny a possibility of Saluation for that which is Christs in them though they hazzard themselues extremely by keeping so close to that which is Superstition and in the case of Images comes too neere Idolatrie Item I doe indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of Saluation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeue the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselues wittingly and willingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church Js not this plainly to confess that euen those of the Roman Church who doe willingly and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of that Church may possibly be saued though not indeed as they doe this but as they are Christians and beleeue in the Foundation Christ Lastly when he asks as it were in anger would you haue vs as malicious or at least as rash as your selues are to vs and deny you so much as possibility of Saluation Euen Mistaken Charity if such it were is farre better then none at all And if the MISTAKEN be ours the NONE is yours etc. Doth he not cleerly pretend by this to be more Charitable that is to grant more to vs Catholiques in this particular of beeing sau'd then wee doe to them Seeing then that euen wee Catholiques grant possibility of Saluation to those who ioyne with the Protestant Church if theyr ignorance be inuincible wee cannot but suppose his pretended charity grants more to vs namely that there is possibility of beeing sau'd to those that ioyne with the Roman Church though their ignorance be not inuincible and though all or the chiefe motiues which Protestants bring against vs be neuer so sufficiently propos'd to them Now if on the one side both Catholiques and Protestants agree in this that such as hold all the opinions of our Church and continue in them till death notwithstanding their beeing thoroughly acquainted with all the contrary reasons and doctrine of Protestants may attayne Saluation and if on the other side all Catholiques as well those that now are as the infinite multitude which hath been since a thousand yeares last past according to Protestants own account and confession doe deny possibility of beeing sau'd to such as liue and dye in the Protestant Church except in case of inuincible ignorance who can doubt but that our Church is cleerly the safer way of the two to Saluation and therfore in prudence to be embraced rather then that of Protestants 2. But what shall wee say to those Protestants who grant no more to vs then wee doe to them in order to Saluation How shall those among our Aduersaries be conuinc'd that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Heauen who will allow none of our Religion to be in a capacity to Saluation but such as are in no capacity of knowing and vnderstanding their errours J might bring many arguments to conuince them in this point but for breuity sake J shall confine my selfe to these only which follow That Church and Religion is the more safe way to Saluation in which many are saued according to the principles which are granted on both sides then an other in which many are sau'd only according to the principles or doctrine of one party but very few or none according
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
greatest and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage and eating certaine meats was a doctrine of 〈◊〉 and that those who held it should sall from the 〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church as well as the Donatists and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions which in the Bishops iudgement doe Shake but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines what shall hinder but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ may notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉 bound to heare and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here good Reader what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow vnder paine of beeing in as bad or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition then an Heathen and Publican 4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation because both parties viz. Catholiques and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it but doe not both of them agree that it may be had in the Protestant Church and Religion The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to shew that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to thinke that ours is the safer way His first instance is this The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes and the Orthodox also but that of the Orthodox was held true and valid only by the Orthodox and not by the Donatists yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two How then does it follow that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion as the safer way to heauen because both parties agree that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants This is the Summe and 〈◊〉 of his first instance To which J answer that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists as the safer way but he must committ two sins the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques in diuine Rites such as the administration of Sacraments is the other against Fayth which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity when the greatest and most considerable 〈◊〉 to witt that of the Orthodox hold it cannot be done except in case of necessity without damnable 〈◊〉 which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite different from this For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉 his Saluation whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉 But no 〈◊〉 did euer grant that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉 reasons and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary or that a man who had so embrac't the Baptisme of Donatists might liue and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault and repented of his 〈◊〉 You will say perhaps that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme thought valid in the iudgement of both parties because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉 and forbad it vnder paire of sinne so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant who is taught by scripture or otherwise and is fully persuaded that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours contrary to Gods words embrace the Roman Church and Religion though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church and Religion J. answer and acknowledge that as a few 〈◊〉 or Arian is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉 beleefe so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion so long as his conscience tells him that it 〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word But J say withall that as a few Mahumetan and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth if sufficient motiues were propounded to him and that according to the principles of both parties the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours were offer'd to him and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants and Catholiques that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation Now that by the ioynt principles or doctrine both of Catholiques and Protestants our Religion or Fayth is the safer way wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours whensoeuer they will attend to them is sufficiently euidenced from hence seeing an infinite multitude of persons who haue as good naturall witts as themselues as tender consciences as themselues haue read and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as themselues vnderstand all contrary reasons and obiections as well as themselues yet belecue with absolute certainty as diuine Truths those very points which Protestants conceiue to be errours 5. Tho other instances which he brings seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement then in the Argument he impugns In the point of the Eucharist sayth he all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England then with the Roman and Lutheran because all agree in this truth not in any other opinion Here are many words spent to small purpose For first can a man be sayd in any true sense to communicate rather with the Church of England then with the Roman or Lutheran only by beleeuing that where in they all agree and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this But put case by
J am they neuer say or thinke he is there by such a spirituall presence as Protestants meane that is exclusiue of his truly-reall presence and by Fayth only or that he is not there as truly and really as he is in heauen whether wee exercise an act of Fayth or no. Now when the Bishop insists so much vpon a spirituall participation of the true and reall Body and Bloud of Christ truly and really by Fayth eyther he meanes such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament and cannot be had saue only in the orall and actuall receiuing of the Sacramentall elements or he meanes such a participation of Christs Body and Bloud as deuoute persons may haue in their soules whether they receiue those elements corporally or no. If he meanes this second only then both parties cannot be sayd to agree in the proper point of Sacramentall participation seeing it is now suppos'd to be such but only a spirituall kinde of receiuing Christ common to other devoute offices of Christian pietie as well as to the Sacrament If he meanes the first viz. such a participation of Christs Body as is proper only to the Sacrament and cannot be had but when the Sacrament is orally and actually receiu'd to make it appeare that wee agree with Protestants in it they must first shew what it is and particularly that it is something really different and distinct from a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits etc. otherwise they relapse into the former difficulty viz of putting such a participation of Christ as is not proper to the Sacrament for certainly none of all those participations of Christ last mentioned are proper to the Sacrament but may be exercised at other times and by other meanes as namely when one eates his common food at the table when he drinks wine or beere when he looks vpon a Crucifix when he prayes meditates or the like But this neither the Bishop not any of his partie can shew standing to Caluin and their own principles that is they cannot shew what their spirituall participation or receiuing of Christ signifies in effect more then a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits or something of like nature done and performed oftentimes as really without the Sacrament as with it and consequently it can neuer be sayd that both parties viz. Roman-Catholiques and Protestants are of the same sentiment or doe agree in any reall reception or participation of Christ proper to the Sacrament For all the world knows the 〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament which Catholiques beleeue signifies a quite different thing from this 7. Lett vs now consider what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming there is no perill of any damnable Heresie Schismo or other sinne in resoluing to line and dye in the Roman Church This the Relatour cannot digest therfore he replies not so neither For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution is presum'd to beleene as that Church beleenes and he that doth so in the Bishops opinion is guilty more or less not only of the schisme which that Church caused at first by her corruptions and now continues by her power but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbeleefe and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbeleefe of that Church leads him into He seemes by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques For how can they possibly be sau'd that liue and dye in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins or what sort of Catholiques are they whome the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Saluation are they such only as doe not beleeue as that Church viz. the Roman beleeueth but only liue in outward Communion with her and making only outward shew and feigned profession to beleeue that which in heart they disbeleeue He giues indeed some cause to thinke that this is his meaning when he tells vs how willing he is to hope there are many among vs which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished and would haue all things amended that are amiss if it were in their power etc. and of such particularly professeth that he dares not deny them possibility of Saluation But how could it possibly sinke into a sober mans head to iudge him capable of Saluation that for temporall and sinister ends only contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinfull and Jdolatrous practices all his life long and deny it to him who hates all superstition and sin in his very soule and would not comply with any if he knew it but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church meerly for conscience sake and for noe other reason but because he simply and sincerely beleeues all her doctrine to be true and consonant to Gods word and all her allowed customes and obseruances to be pious and holy what is this but to say he is an honest man that takes his neighbours goods wittingly and willingly from him knowing them to be his and that he is a knaue and deserues to be hang'd that takes them vnwittingly and verily beleeuing that they are his own Secondly he tells vs that 't is one thing to liue 〈◊〉 Church and not to comunicate with it in Schisme or in any false worship and an other thing to liue in a Schismaticall Church and to Communicate with it in the schisme and corruptions which that Church teacheth wee grant it beeing our selues in some sort an instance of this truth whome the Catholique Church permuts both in England Germany and other Countries to liue amonge those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretiques too though wee thinke this is not properly speaking to liue in a schismaticall Church yet she does not permit vs to communicate with them in their shisme But when he proceeds therevpon to charge the Roman Church with beeing worse and more cruell then the Church of Israell euen vnder Achab and Jezabel was when so many worshiped the calues in Dan and Bethel because forsooth he doth not finde that this doctrine YOV MVST SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES or this YOV MVST NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN HIERVSALEM was eyther taught by the Priest or maintained by the Prophets or enioyned by the Sanedrim Whereas the Church of Rome sayth he hath solemnly decreed her errours and imposed them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties yea and erring hath decreed withall that she cannot erre wee answer this is not to argue as a Logician should ex concessis or probatis but rather vpon false and vnproued suppositions to bring in lieu of argument railing accusation against our superiours which the Apostle Jude 8. 9. vtterly condemned Is it sufficient for the Relatour to say that Transubstantiation Purgatory
Forbearance of the Cup are improbable opinions and contrary to the express command of our sauiour 8. Againe what I pray does our aduersary meane by his Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel when he says the Church of Rome is worse and more cruell then she does he meane the true Church there that is the number of those Faythfull Israelites which as the scripture testifies of them neuer boued their knees to Baal Jf so his Lordship surely committs a huge Solecisme when pretending to aggrauate the crime of the Roman Church he sayes she was worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel as if that Church at that time had deseru'd the character of bad or cruell If he meanes the other part of the Israelites who were fallen from the true Religion and worshiped Ieroboams calues wee wonder vpon what ground he stiles them the Church of Jsrael seeing manifest Idolaters are no way to be accounted parts of the true Church But in what respect is the Church of Rome worse then that of Israel in the time of Iezabel because sayth he the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her errours and impos'd them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties viz. of Excommuncation etc. whereas the Church of Israel did neyther solemnly teach that men ought to Sacrifice in the high places nor punish men for going to Sacrifice at the one Altar in Hierusalem Admitt this were true though it be more then the Bishop can proue seeing Elias complaind in those times that Gods Altars were throw'n down and the Prophets persecuted and slaine with the sword which argues there was no such liberty as the Bishop pretends admitt I say it were true yet if there be any force in this argument it concludes more against himselfe then against the Roman Church The Bishop grants that a Generall Council lawfully called and orderly proceeding may define errours contrary to scripture and that in matters euen Fundamentall and of maine importance to Saluation yet he teaches withall that the decrees of such a Council must stand in force and binde all particular men at least to externall obedience till the whole Church by an other Generall Council reuerse the definitions of the former Is not this likewise to be worse then the Church of Jsrael Is not this to oblige people to make profession of false doctrine contrary to scripture and euident reason or demonstration yea is it not to be in this respect farre worse then the Church of Rome which requires indeed that all persons doe submitt to the decrees of Generall Councils but doth not require this as granting Councils to be fallible or subiect to define errour in stead of truth in matters of Fayth but as assuredly perswading her selfe that they are by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost infallible and cannot define any thing in such cases but what is truth Lastly if inference be to be made from the practice of the Jewish Church it will serue rather to iustisie then to condemne the proceedings of the Roman When power resided in the true Prophets of God and in his true and lawfull Priests Idolatrie and disobedience to the law of Moyses was seuerely punish'd but in corrupted times euery one had libertie to doe what ill he listed The Roman Church therefore is rather to be commended for her zeale and imitating the Synagogue in the times of its greatest 〈◊〉 to witt by exacting strict obedience to her doctrine lawfully declar'd and established by Generall Councils which she also beleeues and is as well assured to be according to diuine reuelation and not repugnant to Gods honour as the Synagogue was of their doctrine the Roman Church I say is rather to be commended for this euen from the example of the Iewish Church then to be tax'd with cruelty for not symbolizing with the corrupted and Apostatiz'd Synagogue in giuing promiscuous liberty to all to beleeue and practise what they list in point of Religion As for what he auouches concerning Transubstantiation Purgatorie and Forbearance of the Cup that they are improbable opinions and contrary to Gods word wee answer 't is according to his custome to speake without proose and therfore wee are not troubled at it 'T is that which euery Heretique may say if he please an Arian as well as an English Protestant the doctrine of the Roman Church is improbable is contrary to Gods word where it contradicts their particular Heresie Nay is it not a thing they might as iustly say of the English Church as of the Roman viz. that she is in this regard worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel that she hath Solemnly decreed improbable opinions to witt the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and to keep of disobedience how false soeuer her doctrine be she binds it vp vnder paine of Excommunication yea and kindles the fagot too sometimes when nothing else will serue the turn Witness the books of Canons which inflicts Eccommunication ipso facto vpon any that denyes the 39. Articles of the Church of England and the proceedings against seuerall persons who haue been burn't hang'd draw'n and quarter'd in this nation meerly for Religion since Protestantisme bore sway here To false premisses the Bishop ioynes a Conclusion as enigmaticall and ambiguous This then sayth he may be enough for vs to leaue Rome though the old Prophet 3. king 13. 11. left not Israel By leauing Rome 〈◊〉 vnderstands surely their refusing any longer to adhere to the Roman Church and to communicate with her in those things which they account superstitions and errours But did not both that old Prophet and also all the true Prophets and people of God in this sense 〈◊〉 corrupted Israel in the time of Aobaband and Jezabel did they ioyne thinke you with the Idolatrous Tribes in the Sacrifices at Dan and Bethel 9. The like is to be sayd of the comparison he mak's between A. C. and Petilian the Donatist it signifies not much For who sees not a manifest difference in the case and argument of these two Petilian would haue Catholiques refuse and desert the Churches Baptisme to embrace that of the Donatists only because Catholiques or the Catholique Church acknowledg'd the Donatists Baptisme to be in it 〈◊〉 valid or true Baptisme though by reason of their 〈◊〉 the same Church likewise taught it to be 〈◊〉 sinne and inconsistent with Saluation for any Catholique to seeke their Baptisme voluntarily or to admitt of it otherwise then in case of extreme necessity whereas A. C. would haue Protestants become Catholiques vpon this ground viz. because that euen Protestants themselues at least the most learned most wise and most considerable amonge them Doc grant vs possibility of Saluation notwithstanding any thing that wee beleeue or doe How then can the Bishop as he pretends answer A. C. iust as St. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist That which deceiu'd him is that he did not well obserue
the force of A. Cs. maxime viz. that 't is safest in order to Saluation to take that way which both parties agree in which imports not any agreement whatsoeuer indefinitely speaking but determinately and specially such an agreement or an agreement so farre betwixt aduerse parties concerning such a point or thing as to acknowledge the beleefe or doing of it doth not destroy Saluation or doth not hinder the parties beeing sau'd that does it Had due notice been taken of this it would haue sau'd him the trouble of bringing this and so many other instances to noe purpose of which more in due place Jn the meane time wee conceiue the disparity betwixt the case and argument of Petilian and A. C. so manifest that it needs no further illustration 10. But here the Relatour growes into choler taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉 vntruth and such as an ingenuous man would not haue spoken for no other reason but for saying there is confessedly noe perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church J answer whateuer the Bishop granted or granted not in express terms to A. C. touching this matter 't is certaine that from what he doth confess it really and necessarily followes that there is no perill of damnation per se loquendo or precisely by liuing and dying in the Roman Church For first as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errours of our Church but cannot discern them those he professedly exempts from perill of damnation if they conforme themselues to a religious life Secondly he grants that such others of the Roman Church as doe euen 〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and liue accordingly are not to be deny'd Saluation Whence I argue If according to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary nor inuoluntary superstition excludes a Papist from possibility of beeing sau'd it is no lowd vntruth nor indeed so much as a mistake to say that in the Roman Church there is confessedly noe perill of damnation in the sense abouesayd that is meerly by liuing and dying in that Communion What he adds after this of some amonge vs who wish the superstitions abolished which they know and pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not and would haue all things amended that are amiss were it in their power if he meanes that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion or that they would haue any thing amended in the Churches publique Authoriz'd doctrine he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion it beeing contrary to Catholique Fayth to beleeue that any such errours or uperstitions can be taught by the Church and he might as well suppose if he had pleas'd that those are Protestants who goe to Church and ioyne with Protestants in exteriour seruice only to saue their estates or for some other temporall ends though they hold the Protestant Tenets contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church for no better then Heresies and would if it were in their power much more willingly heare Mass then common prayer when they goe to Church Neither can he be a Catholique who prayes to God to forgiue his errours in any matter or point defined by the Church for that implies a beleefe or doubt that the Church may haue erred in defining some doctrine of Fayth which according to vs is absolutely inconsistent whith true Fayth no more then wee presume he could haue been thought a Christian or Protestant in the Bishops opinion who should aske God forgiueness for beleeuing some thing deliuered in Canonicall scripture Jn answer to A. Cs. Assertion wherby he preferrs both for number and worth those who deny there is any perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church before those who affirm there is the Bishop that he might more easily confute the passage first of all cunningly diuides it and endeauours to shew that number alone is no sufficient ground of truth Who sayes it is Not A. C. J am sure who as cleerly as he could ioyn'd both together worth to number as a necessary supplement and concluds what he intends ioyntly from them both Now this term worth comprehending not only eminency of power and authority but also of vertue learning zeale prudence sanctity etc. can any man doubt but those who haue the greater number and worth on their side are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth then those who haue incomparably less or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them His long marginall allegations therfore which mention number only serue to no purpose but to amuse And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of vs say that our Fayth rests vpon the number or worth of men as the Bishop will needs insinuate but vpon Gods infallible veracity and authority number and worth of men beeing only motiues of credibility to induce and direct vs prudently to determin to which of the two parties wee are to giue credit when they teach vs contrary doctrines A. C. thought it so euident a thing that those of the Catholique beleefe in the points controuerted betwixt vs and Protestants doe incomparably exceed those of the contrary partie as the Bishop would neuer haue call'd for a proofe of it as indeed it needs none For if wee compare those spread ouer the whole face of Christendome for the last thousand yeares a space of time commonly granted vs by our aduersaries who beleeu'd as wee beleeue and neuer dream't of any perill eyther of schisme Heresie or sinne by liuing and dying in the Roman Church with those few that since yesterday as it were began to dissent from vs and pretend there was perill of schisme c. by liuing and dying in the sayd Church wee shall finde these in worth and number iust nothing in regard of the other So that in truth the Relatour himselfe had he well consider'd it should haue blusht at his own extrauagant obiection you haue not yet prou'd your partie more worthy for life or learning then the Protestants and not bid his aduersary blush for speaking the truth For in this case who sees not that all true Christians who for a thousand yeares together liu'd in the world were and are of our party II. But let vs consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. Cs. maxime that 't is safest to follow that way in Religion in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Saluation His first is taken from the article of our Sauiours descent into hell The Church of Rome sayth he and the Church of England dissenting parties doe agree that our Sauiour descended into hell and that hell is the place of the damned Therfore according to A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue that our Sauiour descended into the place of the damned But this
so vsed as here it is but that Protestants as well as wee must be supposed good Catholiques J answer 't is cleere enough A. C. mean't only this that Protestants in some things beleeue the same truth with other people who are good Catholiques which is very true but farre from implying that confession which the Bishop would inferre from him Howeuer I thinke not the matter worth standing vpon The Bishop himselfe acknowledges A. C. intended 〈◊〉 to call them Catholiques and if vnawares some thing slipt from his pen whereby he might seeme to call them so what matter is it seeing 't is incident euen to the best Authours sometimes to lett fall an improper expression 5. To as little purpose is it for him to tell vs that next to the infallible Authority of Gods word Protestants are guided by the Church For as wee sayd before so farre as they please they are guided by the Church and where they chinke good they leaue her Wee entreate our Adversanes to tell vs what is this but to follow their own fancy and the fallible Authority of humane deductions in beleeuing matters of Fayth both which the Bishop doth so expressly disclayme in this place To what A. C. adds that by the Church of God he vnderstands here men infallibly assisted by the spirit of God in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils the Relatour answers according to his wonted dialect that he makes no doubt the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation The whole Church cannot doe thus Surely his kindeness is great and the Catholique Church is much obliged to him for allowing her such a large prerogatiue and portion of infallibility as that of necessity some one person or other must still be sound in the Church beleeuing all the Articles of the Creed or if that be too much at least all Fundamentall points in Protestant sense For so longe as but two or three persons hold all such points it will be true that the whole Church is not by any errour totally sallen away from Christ the Foundation All the lawfull Pastcurs of the Church may in the Bishops opinion erre euery man of them and fall away euen from Christ the Foundation yea draw all their people to Hell with them without any preiudice to the promises which Christ made to his Church if but two or three poore soules be still found whome God preserues from such errour as our Aduersaries call Fundamentall All is well the gates of Hell doe not prevaile ouer Christs Church though euery particular Christian saue only some few in an age perish by Heresie the holy Ghost doth not cease to teach the Church all necessary truth notwithstanding that in all ages and times of the Church he suffers such an vniuersall deluge of all damning and Soule-destroying errours as this to ouerspread the whole face of Christendome 6. This is the infallibility our Aduersary grants the whole But A. Cs. words concerning the holy Ghosts assistance in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils oblige the Bishop some what further to declare himselfe in that point wherein though wee sufficiently know his minde already yet it shall not be amiss to heare him speake He vtterly denies therfore and that twice ouer for failing that Generall Councils be they neuer so lawfully called continued and confirmed haue any infallible assistance but may erre in their determinations of Fayth Whether they can or no hath been already sufficiently handled and the Relatours assertion confuted so that there is noe necessitie of repeating what hath been sayd All that I shall desire of the Reader here is that from this and the former passage of the Bishop he would take a right measure of his iudgement and of the iudgement of all his followers in this maine point concerning the Churches Authority and to reflect how much they doe in reality attribute to it They are oftentimes heard indeed to speake faire words and to profess great respect to the Church and to Councils especially such as be Generall and oecumenicall pretending at least to refuse none but for some manifest defect or faultiness as that they were not truly or fully Generall or did not obserue legall and warrantable proceeding in their debates etc. But lett them giue neuer such goodly words lett them counterfeite Iacobs voyce neuer so much here 's the touch-stone of their iudgement and inward sense whatsoeuer they say this they all hold Generall Councils how lawfullysoeuer and how lawfully and warrantably soeuer proceeding haue no infallible assistance from God but may erre and that vniuersally too for so he meanes as wee haue already proued that is in all matters and points whatsoeuer Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall But you will replie the Bishop grants infallibility to a Generall Council to witt de post facto as his words are after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church I answer this is to giue as much infallibility to a Generall Council as is due to the meanest Society or Company of Christians that is For while they iudge that to be an Article of Christian Fayth which is so indeed and receiu'd for such by the whole Church they are euery one of them in this sense infallible and can noe more be deceiu'd or deceiue others in that particular iudgement then a Generall Council or then the thing that is true in it felfe and also found to be true by the whole Church can be false In this indeed the Relatour is iust as liberall now to a Generall Council as he was formerly to the whole Church in granting it not to erre while it erres not The truth is he vainly trifles in the whole business and dallyes with the Reader by obtruding vpon him a Grammaticall or at best but a Logicall notion or sense of the word infallible in stead of the Theologicall For how J pray or in what sense is a Generall Councill acknowledg'd by the Relatour to be infallible euen de post facto after t is ended and as he will haue it confirm'd by the Churches acceptance Certainly if you marke it no otherwise then euery true Proposition is or may be sayd to be infallible that is hipothetically and vpon supposition only For surely no true Proposition quâ talis or soe farre as t is suppos'd or know'n to be true though but by some one person can deceiue any man or possibly be false Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique Quicquid est quando est necesse est esse Euery thing that is has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing since it cannot but be so long as it is And is it not thinke you a worthy prerogatiue of the Church to be thus infallible in her definitions Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the
wee not all acknowledge with St. Austin that in respect of the Saynts or Blessed in Heauen such commemorations and prayers as the Primitiue Church vsed for the dead were thanksgiuings to God sor the glory which the Saynts had obtain'd and as it were Congratulations with them vpon that account but in respect of other Faythfull departed they were Propitiations that is to say good offices done out of intent and desire to make God 〈◊〉 and fauorable to them But whereas that answerer of the Iesuit would by those allegations of his insinuate to the Reader a conceite that the Ancients vsed prayer for the dead only for these two reasons and noe other viz. that the body might be glorifyed as well as the soule and to praise God for the finali happy end of the deceased as 't is cleerly his intent to doe this wee must needs auouch to be most lowdly vntrue and soe manifestly contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Fathers as nothing can be more The practice of the Fathers is to pray for the soule and not for the body they teach that soules departed want our help and not their bodies and that when wee pray for them they receiue ease comfort and refreshment by our prayers they teach that wee obtaine pardon and mercy and deliuerance from paine for them and that by the help of our prayers they are brought to eternall rest and happiness Jn this manner and to these ends the fathers both commend and practise prayer for the dead whateuer the Bishop and his Authour most falsely pretend to the contrary Neyther doe the fathers always or only praise God or giue him thanks for the faythfull person departed much less for his finall happy end or departure of which for the most part they haue noe certainty but supplicate God on his behalfe and deprecate by way of intercession the seuerity of Gods iustice towards him as wee haue in part shew'n already and shall further euidence in this following discourse At present wee desire the Reader to take notice of what this alledged Authour Doctor Vsher himselfe professeth in the very beginning of the chapter which the Bishop cites Prayer for the dead sayth he as it is vsed in the Church of Rome doth necessarily suppose Purgatorie If it doth lett our Aduersaries shew what kinde of prayer for the dead the Roman Church now vseth which the ancient Church did not vse Wee maintaine it is the very same and consequently that as the prayers of the present Church of Rome doe by our Aduersaries own confession necessarily suppose Purgatorie so likewise doe those of the Ancients Againe is not Dionysius Areopagita an Authour of the first three hundred yeares You will say perhaps no and call Erasmus Laurentius Valla and some few others to witness that the bookes de Caelesti and de Ecclesiasticâ Hierarchiâ and de Diuinis Nominibus etc. father'd commonly vpon him are not the works of that Dionysius conuerted by St. Paul Acts. 17. 34. as is pretended but of some other later Authour I answer Catholique diuines haue so largely prou'd the contrary and so euidenc'd the sayd writings to be the genuine and vndoubted works of that St. Denys mention'd in the Acts that I suppose few learned men doe at present doubt of the matter Howeuer it may suffice that the Authour of these bookes is confessedly by all acknowledg'd for a writer of great Antiquity and more particularly in our present case that the now-cited Primate of Armagh himselfe a famous Antiquary doth profess of him that in his writings he takes vpon him the person of St. Pauls Scholar though for his own part indeed he holds backe which the rest and will not expresly acknowledge him for more then an ancient writer I say then be it St. Denys the Areopagite or be it some other Authour of primitiue times doth not this ancient writer in effect teach Purgatory when describing the customes of primitiue Christians for and about the dead he tells vs that when the body is made ready for buryall the venerable Prelate or Priest comes and makes a prayer ouer him in which he beseeches the diuine Goodness TO FORGIVE the party deceased all THE SINNES he had committed through humane frailty in his life time and to place him in the light and country of the liuing etc would not both the Archbishop and Primate haue thought that man a Papist who should haue made the like prayer for his deceased friend in their hearing 10. But lett vs see how the Bishop endeauours to euade the authorities wee haue already alledged in proofe of Purgatory together with others which Bellarmin brings to the same purpose out of the Fathers First Tertullian sayth he speaks expresly of Hell not of Purgatory But this is expresly a very poore shift it beeing a know'n thing that Purgatorie is commonly taken to be a part of Hell and as it were an vpper region of it confining vpon the Hell of the damned and therfore not vnusually expressed in ancient writers by the generall name of Infernus or Hell Beside that refreshment or ease of paine which the Christians in Tertullians time as appeares by his testimony already cited begg'd of God for the departed soules cannot be vnderstood of any soule in Hell taken in the Bishops strict sense for the Hell of the damned for there is noe comfort nor ease to be expected nor yet can it be vnderstood of any soule in Heauen where there is noe paine nor griefe Wherfore of necessity it must be vnderstood of soules in some third place where both paine is suffered and case or refreshment may be obtain'd and that is Purgatory Secondly he thinks St. Cyprian speaks not of Purgatory as wee would haue it because he mentions a purging to amendment which cannot be after this life which certainly is both a frigid reason and a great mistake in the Bishop for as Gold is refined and amended by the furnace so is a soule in Purgatory refin'd and purg'd from the dross of veniall sinnes which rendred it less acceptable in the sight of God and consequently she is therby amended or made better then she was And J would gladly know of what place or condition of soules St. Cyprian should speake if he meant not to speake of those in Purgatory For surely there 's noe amendment of any soules in Hell nor no suffering of paines nor purging of soules in Heauen and yet 't is certaine he speakes of the state of soules after this life Origen is granted to haue taught Purgatory but withall tax'd with errour concerning that point which I will not deny J only say his adding to the true doctrine of the Church concerning Purgatory that false opinion of his own viz. that all euen the Deuills themselues after a time shall be saued can be noe preiudice to the weight of his testimony in that wherein he neuer was tax'd of errour but acknowledg'd to haue taught
without defaulking of any part And did they not intend that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer And how can the Church performe this if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them How can she be accounted in those respects the Pillar and Foundation of truth as 't is certain euen by the exposition of Protestants St. Paul doth style her 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be J say how is it possible the Church should be accounted eyther a sure Foundation Faythfull Depositary Guardian or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion as she is by Scripture and all Antiquity generally if eyther through ignorance and ouersight she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often euen where Religion is pretended from men and their humours rather then from things and errours to be found in them J grant it to be very true in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture which is the practice of Protestants and all Heretiques before them and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise lett them fairly make it appeare that the disagreement which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents but meerly from the Sectaries who it cannot be deny'd alledge scripture abundantly and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition both in doctrine discipline and worship no less then they accuse vs of the same faults 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense although euen by his own supposition they be diuine truths and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules His reason is because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse c. there must be Heresies whence he concludes 't is out of doubt Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance as is able to preuent them or such a mastering power in his Church as is able to ouer-awe them But J answer what consequence is here There must be 〈◊〉 there will vnauoydably be Heresies crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them and to vindicate the contrary truth To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp amongst Christians therefore the Pastours of the Church haue and ought to haue all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose should eyther themselues happen to crre or to determine the truth withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty But as to the obiection it selfe the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies it is not mean't that they shall not be at all but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church Heresies may be but the Faythfull members of the Church hauing due care of themselues and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours shall be euer fully secured against their snares and none deceiued by them at least not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence suffer themselues to be misted by them Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes on her part when she certainly declares the truth and rightly determins the matter about which Christians began to contend and to be diuided in opinion one from another when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them This is preuention both necessary and also sufficient on the Churches part and this beeing done if the effect follow not it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church but only to the incorrigible pride obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children which nothing but the hand of God can ouerrule and master A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's prudently instituted wherein when seditions and rebellions happen to arise and they doe happen sometimes in the very best wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate or state to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature are incident to mens mindes and which can neither be foreseen nor quelled in an instant by any power on earth J adde that the Relatours obiection oportet Haereses esse c. has as much force to proue the Church not infallible euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church to preuent errours contrary to such points which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions For the words of St. Paul ther must be Heresies are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points as other and there will be Heresies more or less in all ages in matters absolutely necessary as well as in things not necessary Yea surely according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points in regard they say that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer So that if because Heresies must be or will be the Bishop will conclude there is neither infallible certaintie nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth in such points as are contested by Heretiques as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude by his allegation of this text he must in consequence also confess there is noe infailible
cunning or malice of this speech or what does it containe but plaine reall truth and 〈◊〉 A. C. had prou'd through his whole discourse as wee likewise haue 〈◊〉 to doe in this or ours and the lady 〈◊〉 that the Protestant Church was not an Orthodox but 〈◊〉 Church that it protessed a salfe and corrupt Fayth so as a man could not communicate with it without making himselfe guilty of Heresie To 〈◊〉 this and yet goe to Church were euidently to halt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two opinions which in Religion is neuer lawfull 〈◊〉 doe It were to serue God and Baall too though neither of 〈◊〉 well Lastly it were to dissemble in that wherein it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man more then in all other matters to be sincere and vse 〈◊〉 doubling 〈◊〉 to walke with integrity and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 before God and the world For as the Scripture sayth 〈◊〉 2. 12. fearfull 〈◊〉 fearfull hearts and 〈◊〉 hands and to the 〈◊〉 that gods TWOE WAYES one in outward shew and protession and an other in the inward iudgement of conscience Is there now any such cunning or 〈◊〉 to admonish one of 〈◊〉 But the Relatour tells vs he neuer went about to proue that a Roman-Catholique beeing and 〈◊〉 such might against his conscience goe to Church Neither doth A. C. tell him that he euer 〈◊〉 about to proue it but yet in effect he did say it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he affirin'd that life lady beeing so persuaded as the was by Mr. Fishers report and as the Bishop himselfe 〈◊〉 did nor could 〈◊〉 her to haue been might more eastly 〈◊〉 to God for her coming to the English Protestant Church then for her going to the Roman which though he be pleas'd to 〈◊〉 with the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 yet that afters not the case at all to the 〈◊〉 who was otherwise persuaded of those things which he calls superstitions and errours nor doth it 〈◊〉 his assertion to plead as he doth that the Church of England is an 〈◊〉 Church and that he hath prou'd it so For still wee say the lady was otherwise 〈◊〉 she neither did nor could possibly thinke beeing thus persuaded in iudgement that the Church of England was an Orthodox Church or that the Bishop had sufficiently 〈◊〉 it to be such but rather 〈◊〉 the contrary How then is it possible for the Bishop to make good what he 〈◊〉 that though the lady were a Roman-Catholique yet she might more easily answer to God for coming to the Church of England then by 〈◊〉 English Church to communicate with Rome which is as much as to 〈◊〉 that she might more easily answer to God for coming to a Church wherein she verily beleeu'd Heresie and false doctrine was taught then for ioyning her selfe to a Church whose communion she verily beleeu'd was necessary to Saluation and wherein she was firmly persuaded that noe 〈◊〉 doctrine was taught by any publique allowance nor superstition practised for all this is necessarily implyed in beeing a Roman-Catholique Nay is it not manifestly contrary to his own professions here J say the same thing with A. C. viz. that 't is not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to serue and worship God because that were to halt on both sides to serue two masters to dissemble with God and the world and that noe man may outwardly profefs a Religion in conscience know'n to be false 〈◊〉 Scripture for it Rom. 10. 10. For with the heart man beleeueth to righteousness and with the mouth he consesseth to Saluation adding withall that noe man can confess a know'n false Religion to his saluation Whence I argue Jf a Roman-Catholique beeing and continuing such may not against his conscience goe to the Protestant Church if it be not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to ferue and worship God if noe man ought to beleeue Religion after one sort and practice it after an other if it be sinne to dissemble with God and the world in such maine points of Religion as are in controuersie betwixt Catholiqucs and Protestants how could the lady beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique better answer to God for coming to the English Church and leauing the Roman then for continuing to communicate with the Church of Rome what sinne could the Bishop thinke she committed by communicating with the Roman Church if in her heart she were a Roman-Catholique and apprehended nothing as superstitious and vnlawfull that was allowed by that Church but rather pious and godly In this she did nothing contrary to her conscience but in going to the Protestant Church she did that which was cleerly against her conscience and by consequence sinned in doing it Againe admitt there were errours and superstitions in the Roman Church as the Bishop will needs suppose yet how will he proue the lady should be in any sort answerable for them vnless wee suppose also that she held them against her conscience or by holding and practising them opposed the know'n truth which to doe were contrary not only to all Christian charity but euen to the 〈◊〉 own maximes who confesses that none but God and a mans selfe can know how farre he opposes truth in that manner and § 37. num 1. tells A. C. thus you are the happier in your errour that you hold nothing against your conscience especially if you speake not against conscience while you say so But this noe man can know but your selfe For noe man knowes the thoughts of man but the spirit of man that is within him 1. Cor. 2. 11. if now errours in Religion be not sinne so long as the person that holds them opposes not the know'n truth or holds them not against conscience and that by the Bishops own confession also 't was not possible for him to know that the lady by embracing our Fayth and Church did any thing contrary to her conscience or oppos'd any truth she knew vpon what ground could he condemn her of sinne in what she did or say as in effect he doth that she could not so easily answer to God for her doing so as she might for going to his English-Protestant Church wherein euen by his own grounds beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique she did manifestly committ sinne in doing against her conscience which is always sin more or less in dissembling with God and the world in matters of so great moment in halting on both sides and in beleeuing Religion after one sort and practising it after an other 6. As for what concerns Catholique Authours who may possibly affirm it lawfull in some cases and with due limitations for Catholiques to goe to Protestant-Churches there doctrine is necessarily restrained vnto such countries and places in which going to Protestant-Churches is no distinctiue signe of Religion that is where it
infallibility of iudgement in teaching and power of iurisdiction or gouernment ouer the whole Church-Wherfore seeing as they suppose 't is manifest from this text that an Apostleship must always be in the Church and that noe other Ecclesiasticall Pastour can with any probable pretense lay clayme to that office but only the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters successour they conclude that the successour of St. Peter must of necessity haue those two 〈◊〉 of Apostleship vested in his person that is he must be infallible in his doctrine and haue iurisdiction ouer the whole Church So that it could not haue been counted a meere begging the question in A.C. had he alledged this text expressly in proofe of the Popes infallibibility which yet the Relatour himselfe cannot affirme that he did And 't is of it selfe cleere enough that A. C. alledges it to proue the continuall succession of Pastours and doctours in the Church who haue brought down the vnchanged Fayth of Christ from the Apostles to our dayes this beeing one part of the proposition he had layd down and by consequence was to proue and none of his other marginall allegations viz. Matth. 16. 18. †18. 18. Luc. 22. 32. looking that way but only at the infallibility of Generall Councills or of the Popes Pastorall iudgement in them which was the second part This succession of lawfull Pastours A. C. auerres it apparent in the Church of Rome and cannot be shew'n in the Protestant Church The Bishop not beeing able to deny but a continuall succession of lawfull Pastours is rightly concluded from this text has this only to answer that 't is not necessary that this succession should be personall in any one particular Church Roman or other Admitt it were not necessary what doth this help the Bishop or his party Protestants are farre enough from shewing any succession for themselues eyther in a particular Church or in the Church vniuersall And the scope of A. Cs. argument here beeing only to exclude or barre Protestants and with them all other Nouellists and Sectaries beside from beeing eyther in whole or in part the true Church of Christ it serues his turn well enough that they can shew no such personall continued succession at all for thence 't is conuinc'd they are noe part of the true Church which 't is confess 't must haue alwayes such a personall succession of lawfull Pastours somewhere or other in some Church or other handing downe the vnchanged Fayth of Christ in all ages from the Apostles to the end of the world and if our Aduersaries doe pretend to such a succession lett them shew it But then secondly I say though it appeares not precisely by this text alone that the abouesayd succession should be personall in any one particular Church yet seeing 't is certaine our Sauiour did chiefly radicate and fown'd this succession in him that was to be the chiefe of these Pastours to witt St. Peter and in the line of those that were perpetually to succeed him of necessity it was to be more eminently visible and perpetuall in 〈◊〉 and them then in any other Wee confess also that if St. Peter had continued as by his first institution he was only vniuersall Pastour of the whole Church and had not been particular Bishop any one citty or Diocess his successours would haue succeeded him only in his vniuersall charge But seeing besides this St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed Bishop of that Sea and that his successours in the vniuersall Pastourchip haue likewise alwayes hitherto succeeded him in that particular charge viz. as Bishop of Rome per accidens at least and de facto though not absolutely and by vertue of any diuine institution it comes to pass that this succession of Pastours is now determined vnto a particular Church and is as visible perpetuall vninterrupted in a particular Church as it is in the Church vniuersall and so must necessarily continue vntill St. Peters successours shall cease to be Bishops of that particular Church For till they doe the Pope wheresoeuer he chances to liue or dye is still true Bishop of Rome and by vertue of his beeing so the succession of lawfull Pastours founded vpon him is still vninterrupted in the Roman Church In this then and in noe other sense doe wee maintaine the succession of lawfull Pastours to be local or determined to a particular place or Church Nor is it by any thought so absolutely necessary as that if eyther the citty of Rome should be quite destroyed or wholly possess 't by Jnfidells or by any other accident made vncapable of beeing any longer the Sea of St. Peters successour and therevpon the Apostolique Sea be remou'd from thence to some other citty that therfore the succession it selfe wherby the Gouernment of the supreme Bishop or Pastour of the Church is perpetuated should faile or be broken off Neuertheless it cannot be deny'd but the Fathers who in this point looke vpon the principall and adiunct as one thing that is vpon the vniuersall Pastourship as connex't and as it were fix't to the particular Diocess of Rome doe cleerly make the locall and particular succession of the Bishop of Rome a signe and marke of the true Church Witness St Jrenaeus reckoning vp the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Pope Eleutherius who sate in his time and testifying that by this succession all Heretiques are confounded And if the same Father mentions the like succession in some other Churches of Asia as the Relatour vrges yet it is with manifest deference to the Church of Rome to which he there professeth that all Churches or the Faythfull from all parts of Christendome must haue recourse by reason of its more powerfull principality Witness likewise St. Austin who in confutation of the Donatists opinions and practises makes a Catalogue of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to Anastasius who was St. Austins contemporary auerring that same series or succession of Bishops to be the Rocke against which the gates of Hell preuaile not and finally by way of reproach telling them that in the whole order of that succession there was not one Donatist Bishop to be found Wee might adde nor any Protestant Other Fathers you may finde to this purpose cited by Bellarmin 'T is true Vincentius Lirinensis makes noe speciall or distinct mention of this note of continuall succession contenting himselfe only to name Antiquity vniuersality consent But is it not manifestly inuolued in the two first at least it cannot but be thought so as Vincentius explicates himselfe Lett vs hold sayth he that which hath been beleeu'd by all euery where and alwayes Is not this in effect to teach a continuall succession of Pastours and doctours euer deliuering the same Faith without doubt what is alwayes deliuer'd must be deliuer'd by continuall succession But wee are told the succession mean't by the Father is not tyed to place or persons only but is tyed as
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
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