then two hundred African Bishops at once who being banish'd into Sicily for the Catholique Faith by the Arrian King Gelimer Symmachus Papa saith Paulus Diaconus UT SUA MEMBRA suis sumptibus aluit ac fovit liberalissimè Pope Symmachus maintain'd them most liberally at his own charge as members of his own body which is a convincing argument that he held them not for Schismatiques 7. In the next Paragraph the Bishop by a long discourse founded more upon his own conjectural presumptions then any thing else undertakes to shew how the Popes rose by degrees to that height of Authority which Protestants cannot endure to see in which discourse having first asper'st St. Hierome as being no great friend to Bishops which is both false and injurious to the reputation of so holy a Doctour at last he delivers his own assertion which is That the very Fountain of Papall Greatness was the Popes residence in the great Imperial City But we have often shew'd a far different Fountain thereof viz. the Ordinance of Christ making St. Peter Head of his Universal Church in that Text of the Gospel Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. according to the common Exposition of Fathers is it reason then we should take the Relatours bare word for it without proof Well but Precedency saith he is one thing and Authority another thereby insinuating that under the reign of Constantin the Bishop of Rome had onely Precedency or Priority of place in publique Assemblies before other Prelats by reason of his residence in the Imperial City without any proper Authority or Jurisdiction over them But we have often evidenc'd the contrary 8. After a slight glance at the Levity of the Eastern and Arrogancy of the Western Bishops wherein the Pope is no more concern'd then all other Prelats of the West he tells us of the Obedience Popes did anciently shew towards the Emperours enduring saith he their Censures and Judgements and accepting the ratification of their Election to the Popedom at the Emperours hands We confess all this They endured the Emperours Censures just in the same manner as all other oppressed persons are forc'd to endure the judgement of their oppressors But let all his Lordships party shew us one just judgement that an Emperour ever pronounced against the Pope They accepted the ratification of their Election at the Emperours hands but surely that except in some few cases where wicked Emperors apparently tyranniz'd over them and by force compell'd them to do what they pleas'd contrary to Law and Custom was no more then this The Emperour being duly inform'd that such or such a person was Canonically chosen Pope there issued forth of course some Declaration or other Authentick Act from the Emperour whereby he gave notice thereof to the principal Judicatures and Prefect ships of the Empire requiring them upon all occasions to acknowledge the said Elected person for Pope A thing very proper for the Emperour to do as the state of the Empire then stood as was also observ'd in the Election of most of the chief Prelats and Officers of the Empire But his Lordship was much mistaken if under the notion of ratifying the Popes Election he thought the Emperours had ever any just power to make whom they pleased Pope never any good Emperour pretended to more then to see that the Election were Canonical which in a matter so highly concerning the peace of the Empire could not with equity be deny'd them But had any Emperours refus'd to ratifie the Election of a Pope Canonically chosen no man but a stranger in Ecclesiastical History can doubt but all good Christians would in such case have adher'd to the said Pope and not to him the Emperour should have obtruded upon them We also grant that so long as the Pope remain'd a Subject of the Empire this custome continued but being afterward declar'd free from that subjection the reason ceased and the custome with it See Gratian. Decret Can. Ego Ludovicus Dist. 63. Can. Constitutio Dist. eâdem where the Emperours themselves renounce it After this to prove that the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were grown so ambitious that they could hardly contain themselves within the ordinary bounds of their own Jurisdictions the Relatour cites us three Greek words out of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie beyond their Priestly Power or Office to which I might well supersede the answer since he quotes not the place of his Author which it 's more then probable he industriously omitted Yet the place after some search we have found Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. and must needs say 't is such a place as clearly shews not onely that Socrates was an enemy of the Roman Church and a favourer of Heretiques as divers good Authours charge him but that even the Bishop himself was not so great a friend to Truth and Ingenuity as he ought For certainly the Historian utters the alledged words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meerly out of spleen against the said Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria for not suffering the Novatian Heretiques to exercise publiquely the profession of their Heresie in Catholique Churches for which how little it became his Lordship first to tax them of pride and then to palliate his injurious censure with the testimony of such an Authour let any man judge But all 's lawful with some men that 's done or spoken against the Roman Church Billius his observation of the Western Bishops objecting Levity to the Eastern and of these retorting Arrogancy to those of the West proves just as much as the Testimony of one Adversary against another and whether the world by this took notice of the Popes ambition or not sure I am there 's no unbyassed Judgement but will take notice our Adversary is very destitute of solid proofs who fills his pages onely with such impertinencies as these 9. His main design is to overthrow the Popes Supremacy by shewing it was not lawful to appeal to Rome But Catholique Authors frame an unanswerable Argument for his Supremacy even from the contrary thus It was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome in Ecclesiastical affairs from all the parts of Christendome therefore say they the Pope must needs be Supream Judge in Ecclesiastical matters This is evidenc'd out of the fourth and seventh Canons of the Council of Sardica accounted anciently an Appendix of the Council of Nice and often cited as the same with it I deny not but some ancient Authors may speak against too frequent appealing to Rome and declining ordinary Jurisdiction especially where the crimes were manifest and all just proceedings towards delinquent parties observ'd as who doubts but in Civil causes there may be just ground of complaint against the like appeals especially if the Courts to which the Cause is remov'd by Appeal be very remote but withall who sees not that such accidental complaints do rather confirm then weaken the confess'd Authority and Right
the whole Church when necessity required and particularly over the Bishops of Constantinople who were then risen to the Highest Patriarchall Dignity in the Church next the Pope In those very Epistles where Saint Gregory so much inveighs against the Title of Universal Bishop and him that arrogantly assum'd it 't is manifest that Pope 〈◊〉 St. Gregories Predecessour annull'd the Decree of the Council of Constantinople wherein this Title had been given to the Bishop of that City And did not St Gregory himself repeal it again and threaten to excommunicate John Bishop of Constantinople in case he desisted not from the usurpation of it Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 sayes St. Gregory I will use the Churches Authority against him Another Argument that St. Gregory takes not the word Universal in the Metaphorical sense when he calls it Antichristian and Blasphemous is that even in the Epistle here cited by the Bishop he teaches that the Care and Principality over the whole Church was committed to St. Peter which is all that the Metaphoricall sense of Oecumenicus or Universal contains and yet denies he was ever call'd Universal Apostle He grants likewise that the High Priest was supream Ecclesiasticall Governour of the whole Jewish Church yet was not call'd Universal Priest all which evidently shews that St. Gregory quarrels not the word in that signification Why because he acknowledges the lawfulness of the thing signified by it This premised it will not be hard to answer all the Bishop objects against us in this particular To his first objection we grant that according to the Literal sense of the word in which St. Gregory took it the assuming such a Title argued so great a pride in the Assumer as might portend the nearness of Antichrists time To his second taking the word Universal in the sense disclaimed by St. Gregory and the word Monarch in its rigorous propriety whereby it answers to the literal sense of Oecumenicus or universalis Episcopus I deny that there was ever any Vniversal Bishop or Monarch over the whole Militaut Church either for the first 600. years before St. Gregory or at any time since For to be a Monarch over the Church in propriety of speech or such an Vniversal Bishop is in effect to un-bishop all other Prelates of the Church and make them onely Officers ad placitum and Delegates of the said Vniversal Bishop or Monarch placeable and displaceable at his sole pleasure like the Officers of Temporall Monarchs To what he alledges out of Baronius of Gregory the seventh his giving the Title of Vniversal to the Bishop of Rome in a Councill about the year 1076. I answer it signifies no more then this that anciently the said Title still understood in the Metaphorical and lawful sense was due to the Bishop of Rome and to no other which is undeniably true Neither are we to think that those seven and twenty Dictatus Papae as they are call'd recounted by Baronius and objected here by the Bishop are all matters of Faith but as it were a Catalogue or Abridgement of such Priviledges as partly by Divine Institution partly by long Custom and Prescription partly by Canon and partly by probable consequences drawn from Principles of Faith were found agreeable to the Supream Authority of the Roman Bishop 5. What he sayes of Phocas the Emperour's conferring the Title of Universal Bishop upon Boniface the Third thereby intimating that it was never given to Popes before is most false For all that Phocas did was but to declare that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome onely which is a sufficient evidence that before the said Declaration it had been given to the Bishop of Rome Neither was there of this any question all the Dispute was whether it might not be also extended to the Bishop of Constantinople and this indeed was declar'd in the Negative by Phocas Now who seeth not that 't is a far different thing to declare a Title or Dignity to be of right due and another to conferre it de Novo upon any one If his late Majesty of glorious memory had been pleas'd when time was to have declar'd W. L. Patriarch of England we may well suppose his Lordship would not have granted the Title had been de Novo conferr'd on him seeing he has already contended that long before viz in Vrban the second 's time it was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury But put case Phocas had indeed conferr'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop upon Pope Boniface as a new Dignity not formerly belonging to him yet would it make but little to his Lordships purpose For we say again 't is not all one to have a Title conferr'd by another and to assume or use it ones self The Bishop should have prov'd that Pope Boniface us'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop in his ordinary style as the Bishops of Constantinople are prov'd to have done of late times and as anciently the said John and Cyriacus his Successour attempted to do which was the thing St. Gregory inveigh'd against The Bishop therefore makes here a fallacious Turn when he shifts the question from taking to giving and passeth from ones self to another person Let it be shewen that Boniface the Third or any other Popes his Successourss assum'd this Title as the Bishops of Constantinople did for till this be prov'd it will not follow that either Pelagius and St. Gregory erred in reproving and condemning the Bishop of Constantinoples undue assuming that Title to himself or that Pope Boniface and his Successours did erre by having it declar'd due to them by another Why may not the same person be very unwilling to take an extravagant Title upon himself and yet for good reasons be well content that another give it him Who knows not that anciently the Bishop of Rome was styled Caput Ecclesiae Custos Vineae and Vicarius Christi they being Titles due to his place and Office and though the Popes gainsay'd them not yet Christian Humility ever taught them to forbear the use of such titles themselves The Relatour here professes to give an Historical account how the Popes grew under the Emperours and by degrees attained the heighth they are now at To which I answer We deny not but that in Temporal Power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours But what is this to the purpose If he would have said any thing material he should have prov'd that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholique Church which is the onely thing they claim jure divino and which is so annexed to the Dignity of their Office by Christs Institution without the least dependance of any Emperours or Secular Powers that were the Pope depriv'd of all his Temporalties which can never be done by any Secular Power without committing a most enormous Sacriledge and reduc'd to the
thereof they so govern the Church as we may securely relie on them in matters of Faith at least in such as they definitively teach and promulgate to the whole Church But in the close the Bishop undertakes a strange task He will prove that Epiphanius in most express terms and that twice repeated makes not St. Peter but St. James Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church But he every way mistakes For first in the places he alledges there 's not a word of the Churches Principality Secondly he meerly equivocates in the words ante caeteros omnes which signifie onely priority of time because St. James was the first of the Apostles that was ordain'd Bishop of any particular place viz. at Jerusalem as both Eusebius and St. Hierome witness which is call'd Christs Throne because our Saviour himself had there preach't the Gospel and was principally and immediately sent thither Nor is it unusual in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to give the title of Christs Throne to any Episcopal Chair or Seat whatsoever To the Relatours assertion that we all say but no man proves that the Bishop of Rome succeeded in all St. Peters Prerogatives which are ordinary and belong'd to him as a Bishop though not in the extraordinary which belong'd to him as an Apostle I answer Bellarmin beside many Catholique Divines doth not onely say but prove that the Pope succeeds St. Peter not onely in the Prerogatives that belong'd to him as a Bishop but in all Prerogatives Apostolical which were of Ordinary necessity to continue in the Church for its Government and preservation of the True Faith as his Disputations upon this Subject sufficiently shew to any man that reads him with an unbyassed judgement For can any thing be more express then these words lib. 1. De Rom Pont. cap. 9. Mortuis autem Apostolis Apostolica Authoritas in solo Petri Successore permansit When the Apostles were dead the Authority Apostolical resided onely in St. Peters Successor Is this to say the Pope succeeded St. Peter onely in his Episcopal Prerogatives I adde that Bellarmin in the same chapter goes on shewing the difference between St. Peters Successour and the Successours of the rest of the Apostles viz. that they were Bishops onely and that their Authority reached not to a Jurisdiction over the whole Church as that of St. Peters Successours did who were therefore stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolical Bishops and their Sea the Sea Apostolique and their Office The Apostolate See his words in the Margin all which he there proves by the Authority of the Ancient Fathers Wherefore the Bishop 〈◊〉 very largely upon his Readers Credulity while he quotes Bellarmin for this Assertion that the Pope succeeds not St. Peter in any Prerogative that belong'd to him as an Apostle 10. However the Relatour is so kinde to St. Peter as to allow him a Primacy of Order but that is not so much as the Fathers allow him For by his own Confession Doctor Reinolds against Hart chap. 5. proves at large that the Fathers allow St. Peter and that in the way of Prerogative above the rest of the Apostles not onely Primacy of Order but Authority and Principality too which surely imply Power and I would have any man shew us some good Authour of ancient times in whom either the Latine word Primatus or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to it are attributed to any Ecclesiastical person as signifying onely Precedency in order and place and not a true Superiour Authority and Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom such a person is said to have Primacy or to be Primate Is not the contrary most evident viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes signifies Preheminence in Authority and Primatus more especially Preheminence or Superiority in Ecclesiastical Government Is the Primate of any Christian Nation no more then one that hath Precedence in place Doth that Title signifie no more in England then that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury ought to have the chief place in the Convocation-House Have not all Catholique Authours yea and many Protestants too ever thought they signified the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome both sufficiently and properly by the word Primatus Are there not many Volumes extant on both sides De Primatu Romani Pontificis Were their Authors ever tax'd for speaking ambiguously in using that terme wherefore if St. Peter had Primacy he had also Supremacy and if his Primacy were Universal over all his Supremacy was so too Since they both signifie the same thing viz. an eminency of Authority and Power in one above the rest Again St. Hierome speaking of this very subject saith Primatus Petro datur ut Capite constituto ' Schismatis tollatur occasio Can any man in his wits think that by Primatus he mean't onely Precedency of Order was that sufficient to prevent Schisme If therefore a True and Proper Primacy be granted by Protestants to St. Peters Successour also before and above all other Bishops and Patriarchs of the whole Church as divers of them grant the Fathers did it must be also granted that Supremacy of Power over all Bishops and Patriarchs of the Church is due unto him Now that Primacy or Supremacy of right belongs to St. Peters Successour no less then to himself I evince by this following Argument Whatsoever Power or Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schismes and procurement of Unity must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages But the Power and Jurisdiction of One viz. St. Peter or his Successour over all Christians whatsoever not excepting even the Apostles themselves was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schisms and procurement of Unity Ergo the Power and Jurisdiction of One viz. St. Peter or his Successour is à fortiori necessary in all succeeding Ages The Major viz. that whatsoever Power and Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church c. must needs be necessary in all succeeding Ages is clear from meer Inspection into those succeeding Ages to this present where it is visible by what degrees the great zeal of the Primitive Christians has decay'd and cooled even to this day to the production of infinite Schismes and Heresies which must needs ere this have overwhelm'd and utterly confounded the Church had not our Blessed Saviour that Divine Law-giver laid that original Platform of Church-Government which was to serve us as a pattern to the end of the world our Saviour Christ not so much regarding the need of it during the Apostles lives as the necessity his all-seeing wisdom foresaw would be of it in all future Ages The Minor is prov'd effectively by the precedent Discourse where St. Peters Primacy that is as we there shew his Supremacy over all
against this Monarchical Government they rather prove our Assertion being ordain'd by Sixtus the first in favour of such Bishops as were call'd to Rome or otherwise forc'd to repair thither to the end they might without scruple be receiv'd into their own Diocess at their return having also decreed that without such Letters Communicatory none in such case should be admitted Now what can more clearly prove that the Pope had power over all Bishops and all Diocesses in the Church then the making of such a Decree We deny not but the like Literae Communicatoriae were mutually sent from one Patriarch to another But as for that even equal and Brotherly way whereby the Bishop pretends that these Letters were sent reciprocally from other Patriarchs and Bishops to the Bishop of Rome for admitting any into Episcopal or Priestly Office that went from them to him as I finde nothing of it in Baronius who yet handles the matter at large so I doubt not but it is a meer Chimaera And had the Bishop pleas'd with all his professed diligence in the search to have afforded us any instance in a business of such importance there would doubtless have appear'd a manifest difference and inequality between them viz. that those sent to the Pope from other Prelates were meerly Testimonial to assure him that the person bringing them was capable of his Communion whereas those from the Pope to other Bishops were not onely Testimonial but Mandatory or such as enjoyn'd the reception and restitution of the Bringer to such place and office in the Church as he pretended to Witness beside many other examples in Ecclesiastical Story the case of St. Athanasius and those other Catholick Bishops persecuted and expell'd their Seas by the Arrians and restor'd by vertue of the Popes Letters Communicatory But should the Pope voluntarily submit to the Equity of his own Law that is not onely allow such Letters to be written from others to him as he writes to them but also permit them to be so far of force as equity requires what would this prejudice his just Authority It might argue indeed the Humility of his Spirit but could surely be no Argument against his Right and Power to do otherwise if he saw cause CHAP. 18. A Continuation of the Defence of the Popes Authority ARGUMENT 1. Gersons Book de auferibilitate Papae proves nothing for the Bishop or his Party 2. St. Hierome and Optatus expounded 3. The Popes Spiritual Sovereignty not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes 4. Bishops of Divine Institution yet Subordinate to the Pope by the Law of Christ. 5. Pope Innocents Simile of the Sun and Moon in relation to the Spiritual and Civil Government an usual Allegory 6. Why the Book of the Law was anciently deliver'd to the Prince 7. The Pope never pretended to Subject the Emperour to himself in Temporals 8. The Jesuites unjustly charged by the Bishop 9. Occham no competent Judge in the question of the Popes Authority 10. The Definition of the Council of Florence touching that matter 1. BUt before we pass any further it will not be amiss to look back and examine more narrowly the Bishops Marginal Allegations Gerson that famous Chancellour of Paris and undoubted Catholique writ a Book in troublesome times intituled De auferibilitate Papae whence the Relatour concludes that the Authour was of opinion the Church might continue in very good being without a Monarchical Head A strange Illation and contrary to what Gerson expresly teaches in the very treatise the Bishop cites The drift of Gerson's discourse is to shew how many several wayes the Pope may be taken away that is depriv'd of his Office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But he no where teaches that the Government of the Church settled in a Monarchical way or rul'd by a Pope lawfully chosen can be absolutely abolisht by any power on earth but his judgement is clear even beyond all dispute for the contrary Hear Gersons own words and you will see to what great purpose and with what Fidelity our Adversary sometimes alledges Authours Auferibilis est saith he aut mutabilis LEGE STANTE quaelibet Politia Civilis Monarchica seu Regalis ut fiat Aristocratica at non sic de Ecclesiâ quae in UNO MONARCHA SUPREMO per universum fundata est à Christo quia nullam aliam Politiam instituit Christus IMMUTABILITER MONARCHIC AM quodammodò Regalem nisi Ecclesiam In English thus Any Civil Monarchy or Regal Government may be taken away or changed into an Aristocracy the Law still continuing in force But it is not so in the Church which was founded by Christ in one Supream Monarch throughout the world Because Christ instituted no other Government unchangeably Monarchical and as it were Regal besides the Church Can any words be more express in proof of the Authority of one over the whole Church And yet forsooth from the bare title of the Book the Relatour will inferre that in Gerson's judgement the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ Monarchical 2. Neither hath the Bishop much better success in his Allegation of St. Hierome who in his Epistle to Evagrius enveighing as his manner is somewhat vehemently against one that seem'd to preferre Deacons before Priests proceeds so far in vindication of the dignity and honour of Priesthood that he almost equalizes it with the office of Bishops plainly asserting that Diocesan Bishops have no more belonging to them jure Divino or by the Institution of Christ then Priests save onely the Power of Ordination that the riches wealth and amplitude of their respective Diocesses make not one Bishop greater then another but that all Bishops where ever they be plac'd are of one and the same merit and degree in regard of Ecclesiastical Priesthood which speaking precisely of the Office and Power Episcopal in it self is very true for a larger or lesser Diocess makes not one man more or less a Bishop then another St. Austin was as much a Bishop at little Hippo as Aurelius was at great Carthage But this is no impediment to the additional or accessory collation whether by divine or humane Institution of some special and more eminent Power and Authority upon the Bishop of one Diocess then of another as we say there is conferr'd jure Divino upon the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and jure Ecclesiastico upon many other Bishops viz. Archbishops Metropolitans Primates c. who by the Canons of the Church exercise authority over many Bishops who in regard of the power meerly Episcopal are equal to them St. Hierome therefore when he sayes ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii speaks not of the
Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
all which do so pertain to Supernatural Divine Infallible Christian Faith by which Faith Christ the onely PRIME FOUNDATION of the Church doth dwell in our hearts and which Faith is so to the Church the Substance Basis and Foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for as that being thus confirmed or made firm by the Authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especicially obstinately denyed or questioned all the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all Supernatural Divine Christian Faith is shaken Thus he But who sees not that there is a main difference betwixt these words of A. C. and those which he is made to speak by the Bishop for he joyns the words as that to these thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts whereas in A. C's discourse they are joyned to these if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately questioned c. that of Faith whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts c. being onely a Parenthesis added for greater explication and not belonging to the substance of his discourse as the Relatour no less corruptly then cunningly makes it belong which is an other Dedalian Turn in this his Labyrinth Now let us hear the Accusation First sayes the Bishop A C. is mistaken because all that pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by Fundamental in the Faith to all men But A. C. does not say it is he speaks onely of those to whom such points are propos'd and who deny or question them when so propos'd Although in some sense they may be said Fundamental to all because all are to believe them implicitely and explicitely all such as have sufficient reason to know they are declared by the Church Secondly A. C. is accus'd for confounding the Object with the Act of Faith But if his words be rightly penetrated there will appear no confusion For A. C. having first named Prime Principles and then going on with others which pertained to Supernatural Infallible Divine Christian Faith it is apparent he understood by those points which so appertain not the Act of Faith it self but the Object Wherefore A. C. doth here no more but explicate the nature of the Object by the Act and that onely upon the By and in a Parenthesis as appears by his words in which there is no Confusion but Clarity for as the Act of Faith is the Foundation of Hope Charity and all other Supernatural Acts so is the Object on which Faith is grounded the Foundation of Faith and in such a manner as whoever denyes or questions one point of Faith doth in effect question all Now I wonder the Bishop should urge as an Argument the Definition of the Council of Trent That Orders Collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent of the people or any secular power and yet saith we can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition to be Fundamental in the Faith I wonder I say he should urge this when all Catholique Authors who maintain that whatsoever is defined by the Church is Fundamental do in effect hold that this Decree is Fundamental For they all affirm that this is a lawful General Council confirmed by the Pope and therefore of the same Authority to command our Belief that any other ever was Wherefore this Argument of the Bishop is not Argumentum ad hominem as he pretends but petitio principii Now if he mean that this Decree of the Council is no Fundamental point of Faith according to the precise material Object it is true but nothing against us who have often granted it the question being onely about Fundamental points in the formal Object of Faith as we perpetually inculeate A. C. further urgeth That if any one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may do it against another and another and so against all since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakened in one cannot be firme in any other Thus far A. C. And here the Bishop will needs have A. C. to have horrowed this doctrine out of Vincentius Lirinensis and that he might have acknowledged it I hope it is no errour against Faith if he did borrow it and not acknowledge it although two wits may sometimes hit on the same thing or at least come near it which is all he here allows to A. C. without taking it one from another However the Doctrine both of A. C. and Vincentius Lirinensis is true For the same reason that permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maximes of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because as I said it is not the greatness or smallness of the matter that moves us to give firme Assent in points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church Wherefore all points of Faith whatsoever may be said to be deposited with the Church For all that the Church doth even in things of least seeming concernment is but ut haec 〈◊〉 quae anteà that the same things may be believed which were before delivered but now with more light and clearness that is to say now explicitely before implicitely So that in either sense if we give way to every cavilling disputant to deny or quarrel them the whole foundation of Faith is shaken Moreover the Church being Infallible 't were meerly vain to examine her Decrees which the Relatour requires to be done to see if she have not added Novitia veteribus new Doctrines to the old For the Holy Ghost as hereafter shall be proved when we speak of this point having promised so to direct her as she cannot erre will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith which was not before either expressed or infolded and implyed in the word of God 8. But why does the Relator print Catholici dogmatis in great Letters in this sentence of Lirinensis is there any such great mystery in these words yes surely For sayes he Vincentius speaks there De Catholico Dogmate of Catholique Maximes Well But though Dogma signified a Maxime yet surely it cannot signifie Maximes unless he will here have the singular number signifie the plural as before he made the plural signifie the singular eis it But it was for his Lordships purpose to translate it in the plural number and that was sufficient for had he put it in the singular thus the Catholique Maxime that is as he expounds it the properly Fundamental and prime Truth deposited in the Church there would have seem'd to be but one Fundamental point which would have marr'd his whole designe Now because he holds there are many Fundamental points of Faith Catholicum Dogma in his Grammar could signifie nothing less then Catholique Maximes that is properly
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
that in Recognition thereof it decreed that all Constitutions of Councils and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vigour But what sayes his Reserve his Master-Allegation the Fourth Council of Toledo just as much as the rest It added sayes the Bishop some things to the Creed which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds So they might well do for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before and in opposition to Heresies already condemn'd by the whole Church Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church or of the Sea Apostolique which is the question in hand and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church provided it were done with due Subordination to the Sea Apostolique For that thus a National Synod may proceed the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth sufficiently declare which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church Thus does he prove that Provincial and Particular Councils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Doctrine without yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you when in all the instances he brings there is not the least glance or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority but express mention of it and of due regard towards it He urges again that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter or peradventure he perswaded himself the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them 9. Yet after so many lost proofs with a confidence as great as if they had been all Demonstrations he asks us the question And if this was practis'd so often and in so many places why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like Truly I know no reason why it may not provided it be a True National Council and a True Church of England as those recited were true Churches and Councils and provided also that it do no more But seeing as his following words declare by the Church of England he menas the present Protestant Church there and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition and tell him the Church of England in that sense signifies no true Church neither is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod duly representative of the true English Church For is it not notorious that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers Is it not manifest that they all by force intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England or lawfully to represent the English Church who never had any lawful that is Canonical and Just Vocation Mission or Jurisdiction given them to and over the English Nation But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church and their Assembly a lawful National Council yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did that they acted directly contrary to them Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them as this Synod of London did Not one of them contradicted the doctrine of the Roman Church as this did None of them convened against the express will of the Bishop of Rome as this Conventicle did None of them deny'd the Popes Authority or attempted to deprive him of it as these did so far as 't was in their power What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid National Synods or Councils of Rome Gangres Carthage Aquileia c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562. What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did is known and confess'd not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign who was the learnedst Prelat then in England but even by Protestant Authors to have been extorted from them rather by threats force then otherwise and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops as we may call them for distinction seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England I mean that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons Prescription and other title of humane Right and gave it to the King yet they never renounc'd or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at was to get the Power into his hands and to have those Authorities Prerogatives Immunities annexed to his Crown which the Pope enjoyed and had exercised here in England time out minde in Ecclesiastical Causes that is in the Goverment and Discipline of the English Church and to this the Bishops yielded but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catholique Church for ought appears clearly to the contrary both the Bishops and the King too left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph onely I observe that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition which yet he is ready to excuse telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation But we ask What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformation Was it for any thing else that they sack't and demolisht so many Monasteries and Religious Houses alienating their Lands and Revenues but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person or to live a Monastical life Was it for
any thing else that they pluckt down Altars burnt Images defac'd the Monuments of the Dead brake the Church-windows threw down Crosses tore the Holy Vestments in pieces c. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship as they tearm it was it for any thing else that they possest themselves of Ecclesiastical Benefices took upon them Spiritual Jurisdictions and Pastoral Charges by force of Secular Power and Authority from those that were in lawful and quiet possession of them according to the Canons of the Church but because according to the Maximes of their new Belief they held the old Pastours of the Church to be False Teachers and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians 'T is clear then that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation differ onely as the Tree and its Fruit they are not altogether the same but yet the one springs connaturally from the other the one begets and bears the other as naturally as a corrupt Tree bears bad fruit Nor can his Lordship so easily wash his hands of the guilt as he seems willing to do by saying they are long since gone to God to answer it as if none could be involv'd in this crime but onely the first Actors Are the Successors then Free No such matter Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entail'd upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings since they have no better ground nor title to enjoy them then those who first acted But I shall not prosecute this Theam any further Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Paragraph where he pretends to minde us of the General Church forced for the most part under the Government of the Roman Sea By what force I pray Is it possible or can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man in good earnest to believe that a single Bishop of no very large Diocess if it reacht no further then most Protestants will have it should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes power when the pretended Reformation began Force implies resistance of the contrary part and something done against the will and good liking of the party forced But can his Lordship shew any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claim'd and exercis'd confessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom when the Reformers first began their resistances Does any Classick Author of present or precedent times mention or complain of any such force 〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us that whensoever any Novellist started up and preacht any thing contrary to the Popes Authority the Bishops of other Provinces were as ready to censure and forbid him as the Pope himself Are not all Eeclesiastical Monuments full of examples in this kinde This therefore is as false a calumny as any and serves onely to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉 but false Pasquils CHAP. 14. Protestants further convinc'd of Schisme ARGUMENT 1. A. C's Parallel defended 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justifie the Churches proceeding against them 3. No danger in acknowledging the Church Infallible 4. Points Fundamental necessary to be determinately known and why 5. The four places of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility weigh'd the second time and maintain'd 6. Why the Church cannot teach errour in matter of Faith 7. How she becomes Infallible by vertue of Christs prayer for St. Peter Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trippings and Windings observ'd MR. Fisher askt his Lordship QUO JUDICE doth it appear that the Church of Rome hath err'd in matters of Faith as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Roman Church The Relatour in answer to this confesseth that no man in common equity ought to be suffer'd to be Accuser Witness and Judge in his own cause But yet addes there is as little reason or equity that any man who is to be accused should be the accused and yet Witness and Judge in his own cause If the first may hold saith he no man shall be innocent and if the last 〈◊〉 will be nocent To this I answer We have already prov'd the 〈◊〉 Church in the sense we understand Roman Infallible and therefore she ought not to be accus'd for teaching errours Neither can she submit her self to any Third to be judg'd in this point both because there is no such competent Third to be found as also because it were in effect to give away her own right yea indeed to destroy her self by suffering her Authority to be question'd in that whereon all Certainty of Faith depends for such is the Catholique Churches Infallibility 1. Again I make this demand Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon or some other Heretique of the Apostles times separating themselves from the Apostles and Christians that adhered to them should have accus'd them of false doctrine and being for such presumption excommunicated by the Apostles would it have been a just plea think you for the said condemned Heretiques to have pretended that the Apostles were the party accused and that they could not be Witnesses and Judges too in their own cause but that the trial of their doctrine ought to be resert'd to a Third person I suppose no man will be so absurd I say then Whatever shall be answer'd in defence of the Apostles proceeding will be found both proper and sufficient to defend the Church against her Adversaries For if the Apostles might judge those Heretiques in the Controversies abovesaid then the persons accused may sometimes and in some causes be Judges of those that accuse them and if the Infallibility of the Apostles judgement together with the Fullness of their Authority were a sufficient ground and reason for them to exercise the part and office of Judges in their own cause seeing both these do still remain in the Church viz. Infallibility of Judgement and Fullness of Authority doubtless the lawful Pastours thereof duly assembled and united with their Head may lawfully nay of duty ought to judge the Accusers of their doctrine whoever they be according to that acknowledged Prophesie concerning Christs Church Isa. 54. 17. after our Adversaries own Translation Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement or that accuses thee of errour thou shalt condemn Protestants indeed having neither competent Authority nor so much as pretending to Infallibility in their doctrine cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church much less Judges in their own cause Wherefore A.C. addes that the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church and that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in
any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may accuse witness judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children To this the Bishop replies that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument but addes withall that no moderate Prince ever thought it just or took upon him to be Accuser Witness and Judge in any case of moment against his Subjects I answer that a Prince being liable many wayes to errours and mistakes in judgement ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge in all matters of personal and private interest between him and his Subjects though in matters of publick concern as of Treason or the like where the business is evident and admits not the delayes of legal Formality I think it would not be accounted unjust for the Prince to be Accuser Witness and Judge too againct a Traiterous Subject However the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith and hath full Authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature As for Parents the Bishop grants that while Children are young they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then themselves and the Children are not withstanding such correction to give them reverence But saith he when Childen are grown up and come to some full use of reason there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother if she forget all good nature and turn stepdame unto them which I willingly grant and leave such injur'd Children for remedy to the Magistrate and the Law to both which the Children may lawfully appeal and the Mother ought to submit as to her Superiours But the Catholique Church duly and compleatly represented in a General Council hath no superiour on earth neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians upon any pretence to appeal from her to any Third Person in causes of Faith the case therefore is not alike Secondly I deny the Bishops supposition viz. that the Roman Church taken in the sense we take it is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children or so far forget her duty both to God and them as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants her undutiful and rebellious sons bring against her and therefore towards them as well as towards the rest of her children she still retains the rights of a Mother and they must not take it ill if as occasion serves she exercise towards them some part of her Motherly Authority but rather bethink themselves of returning to their Due Obedience and conforming themselves to that holy Exhortation of St. Peter which for their better content I shall give them out of their own Bible viz. that laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and evil speakings as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word that is the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine that they may grow thereby to salvation 2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith her proceedings towards Protestants will be found upon due examination most just For though a Prince or Parents may not in all cases be Accusers witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children because it may possibly be evident that they tyrannize over them or treat them injuriously yet when matter of fact is so evident that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children or Subjects when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evidently declare the things criminal for which they are punish'd what need is there absolutely speaking of any further Witness or Judge to punish them Now this is our case The things for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants are clearly matter of Fact viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught actual disobedience to her Canons separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion c. all which are criminal actions and clearly punishable not onely by the Canons of the Church but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholique Countrey No need surely of Accusers and Witnesses where the Offence is notorious Well therefore might the Pastours of the Church who were their proper Judges proceed to Canonical Sentence against them seeing as I said it was notoriously evident and by themselves not deny'd that they oppos'd and contradicted not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world but also the Laws both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Statutes Decrees Customs and Practises universally in force in all Nations where they began their pretended Reformations When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible nor to act by any Infallible Rule for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State and their Rule not the Scripture which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves but either the Book of Common Prayer or the thirty nine Articles or the Queens Injunctions and Book of Canons Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles Did they not for this reason ordinarily summon Anabaptists Brownists Familists and other Separatists to appear at their Spiritual Courts as they call them did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication and other Censutes as the case requit'd and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do Nay did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches did they not bring us into Sequestrations Imprisonments and a thousand other troubles Would they hear us when we appeal'd either to Scripture Fathers Church Councils or any other third person to be Judge between them and us Behold a very just proceeding When they fall foul either upon us or their own Separatists they are content to be Accusers Witnesses and Judges but when they are call'd to justifie their actings against the Roman Church then forsooth 't is an unjust and unreasonable thing then they call for a Third Person to judge not because they are indeed willing to be judged or regulated by any authority under heaven except themselves but because they know that a competent Judge between the Roman Church and them distinct from the Roman Church is impossible to be found A. C. therefore had reason to tell the Bishop that never any competent judge had so censured the Church as he had done and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self could so far prevail against the
to comply a little with the Donatists he sent along with them some Bishops of the Gaules in whom they more confided and whom they had already demanded to be their Judges intending that these French Bishops should hear the Donatists cause together with the Pope and determine therein what they should finde to be right Neither did Melchiades the Pope refuse them but for the greater solemnity of the judgement and satisfaction of the parties adjoyned to them fifteen other Italian Bishops and so proceeded to the hearing of the Cause But behold the issue After a full hearing of all parties the Donatists were condemn'd Caecilianus Felix and some other African Bishops of their party were justifi'd and acquitted The Schismatiques being thus condemn'd at Rome and even by those Bishops of the Gaules whom they had chosen for Judges by way of Appeal address themselves again to the Emperour which the pious Prince took so hainously that as Optatus Milevitanus reports he cry'd out against them to this purpose O the audacious folly and madness of these men See They have here exhibited an Appeal being themselves Bishops and in a cause of Bishops just as Infidels use to do in their own causes Nevertheless being at length as it were forced by their obstinate importunity he condescends they should be heard once again not as admitting their appeal or deporting himself in the business as their competent Judge but chiefly for their further conviction and to inform himself of the cause of Felix Bishop of Aptung which the Donatists pretended had not been duly heard at Rome Whereupon a Council of two hundred Bishops was assembled at Arles where the Popes Legates were present as also the three Bishops of the Gaules and some of the Italian Bishops who had already pronounced sentence in the cause at Rome To be short the Donatists are in this Council likewise condemn'd but not quieted for with an impudence proper to such people and to be parallel'd onely with their fellow Schismatiques they run the third time to the Emperour and will not be satisfied unless he condescend to hear them in person What should the Emperour do He had already protested against this as of it self unlawful but there was no remedy the Schismatiques will not let him rest until he hear them Wherefore having first promised to ask the Bishops pardon he consents to this also hears them and condemns them with his own mouth This is the true and real story of the Donatists proceedings from whence his Lordship brings several objections against the Popes Supremacy which we are now to examine First he would have us observe that the Roman Prelate came not in till the Donatists had leave given them by the African Prelates to be heard by forreign Bishops But this proves rather the justice and moderation of the Roman Prelate that he came not in before it was due time and the matter orderly brought before him For though the cause did most properly belong to the Popes Cognizance yet was it first to be heard and decided by the Bishops of the Province where the cause first sprang up The Pope was not to meddle with it otherwise then by way of regular Appeal unless perchance he had seen the Provincial Bishops to have neglected it or been unable effectually to determine it Secondly he abuses St. Austin in making him say that the African Bishops gave the Donatists leave to be heard by forreign Bishops Whereas there is no such leave mention'd or insinuated by St. Austin in all that Epistle What he sayes is onely his own private advise viz. that if any of them had convincing proofs of ought that was criminal in the Catholique Bishops of Africa for which they fear'd to communicate with them they should apply themselves to the Transmarine Bishops and especially to the Bishop of Rome and there make their complaints which is not a dispensing with them to do something which otherwise they might not do as the Bishop would have it thought much less is it a license or dispensation given them by the African Bishops sitting in Council but onely a private exhortation and counsel of St. Austin himself requiring them to do what according to the Canons was to be done in such a case His second objection is that if the Pope had come in without this leave to judge the Donatists cause it had been an usurpation in him But this is grounded partly upon his own false supposition that such leave was given and partly upon an affected mistake or mis-translation of the words usurpare and usurpavit For 't is evident in the first part of the sentence St. Austin speaks not in his own person but in the person of the Donatists as making an objection to himself in their behalf An fortè non debuit c. the words you have in the margin at large Ought not perchance Melchiades Bishop of the Roman Church with his Colleagues the Transmarine Bishops to challenge to himself that judgement c. Whereas the Bishop by his englishing the words makes St. Austin positively say peradventure Melchiades ought not of right to have challenged or usurp'd to himself that judgement which surely was a notorious winding in his Labyrinth For it makes that to be a Negative in St. Austins sense which doubtless in his true meaning was an Affirmative and by asking will you Donatists say he ought not to do this he by consequence and in effect said that he ought to do it For the second part of the Speech where St. Austin answers the objection 't is no less clear that he speaks per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of condescendence to his Adversaries manner of speaking the better to mollifie them which is oftentimes practis'd in Rhetorick and not as acknowledging that it could be any real usurpation in the Pope to take cognizance of such a cause without leave given And if our Adversaries think not this true let them tell us who but our Saviour Christ and the Canons of the Universal Church gave the Pope leave to hear and judge the causes of St. Athanasius and those many other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church which most certainly he did both hear and judge effectually no man no not the persons themselves who were interessed and suffer'd by his judgement complaining or accusing him of usurpation Thirdly he alledges that other Bishops were made Judges with the Pope and that by the Emperours power which the Pope will now least of all endure I answer first the Bishops sent by the Emperour were onely three an inconsiderable number to sway the sentence and the Pope to shew his Authority that he was not to be prescrib'd by any in this cause added to these three fifteen other Bishops of Italy to be his Colleagues and Assistants in the business Secondly I answer the Emperour in sending those Bishops together with the Donatists to Rome did nothing by
way of Authority or Command but of Mediation as using his Interest with the Pope which he might do without breach of the Canons What he did afterward he openly protested to be in it self unlawful and not belonging to him he did it therefore onely in condescendence to the Donatists importunity and would have askt the Bishops pardon for it as S. Austin witnesses whose sentence here lamely cited by the Bishop is far from proving his intent viz. that the judgement of this cause was a thing properly belonging to the Emperours Authority Nor doth it concern us at all that the Emperour gave sentence in the business since being wrought to it by the importunity of the Donatists he was bound in conscience to act the part of a just Judge and pronounce a right sentence which as he finally did in condemning these Schismaticks as we said above so no doubt it is all St. Austin means by the words alledged 4. His Deductions from the Civil Law are no better For first suppose that an inferiour Prelate could not appeal from the sentence of his Patriarch yet when the Patriarchs themselves have differences one with another must there not according to the rules of good Government be some higher ordinary Tribunal where such causes may be heard and determined I say Ordinary For it would be a manifest defect if that which is the extraordinary High Court of Ecclesiastical Justice viz. a General Council should be of necessity assembled for every particular difference between Patriarchs Secondly what the Law sayes is rightly understood and must be explicated of Inferiour Clerks onely who were not of ordinary course to appeal further then the Patriarch or the Primate of their Province for so the Council of Africk determines But 't is even there acknowledg'd that Bishops had power in their own causes to appeal to Rome The same explication is to be given to the Text of St. Gregory viz. that he speaks of Inferiour Clerks since Bishops were ever accustomed to appeal to the Pope But I wonder his Lordship would expose to view the following words of St. Gregory Where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch even Inferiour Clerks when they appeal must have their recourse to the Sea Apostolique Then surely it follows the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction is not onely over the Western or Southern Provinces as the Relatour limits it pag. 168. but over the whole Church whither the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and Patriarchs never extended Neither could such Appeals be just if the Bishop of Rome were not the Lawful Superiour and Judge of all the Bishops of Christendome it being confest that no Juridical Appeal can be made but from an inferiour to a superiour Judge To those words of St. Gregory quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est wherein he intimates the reason why Appeals should be brought from all parts of Christendome to the Sea Apostolique his Lordship thinks it best to use this evasion I have said enough to that saith he in divers parts of this discourse But in what parts hitherto I cannot finde though I have us'd some diligence in the search I could therefore wish he had spoken something to it here where he had so fair an occasion I onely say this If the Roman Sea be the Head of all Churches as St. Gregory sayes it is surely it hath Authority over all Churches His Lordship as long as he stands upon the Roman ground stands upon thorns and therefore makes a step or rather a leap from the Church of Rome to the Church of England with whose Encomiums given heretofore by Antiquity he is much pleas'd But what those Antient times of Church Government were wherein Brittain was never subject to the Sea of Rome we desire should be prov'd and not meerly said I should not have envy'd his Lordships happiness much less the honour of his Sea had he and all his worthy Predecessours as he calls them since St. Austin been enobled with the Eminence of Patriarks yet I see no reason why a velut Patriarcha pronounc'd by the Pope by way of Encomium onely upon a particular occasion should be of force to make Canterbury a Patriarchal Sea Similies fall alwayes short of the thing it self Again it imports little that there was a Primate in Brittain for that onely proves that inferiour Clerks might not ordinarily appeal from him to Rome but that Brittain was not subject to the Roman Sea or that the Brittish Bishops did not as ocsion requir'd freely and continually appeal to Rome it doth not prove yea the contrary is manifest by all the monuments of the Brittish Church What ever is meant by the words in Barbarico cited by his Lordship out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae certain it is that whoever were under the government of the Patriarch of Constantinople were not exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of Rome neither ought the Relatour to suppose it unless he had first prov'd that the said Patriarch had been himself legally exempt or not subject to the Pope which he neither offers to do nor can it be done nay the contrary is evident 5. To me truly it seems very strange his Lordship should be so little acquainted with the Ecclesiastical History of England as to affirm so confidently that in ancient times Brittain was never subject to Rome meaning in Ecclesiastical matters For to instance in the very business of Appeals doth not Venerable Bede tell us that in King Egfrids time which was about the Year of our Lord 673. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York being unjustly depriv'd of his Bishoprick appeal'd to the Sea Apostolique was heard by Pope Agatho in the presence of many other Bishops and by their unanimous Sentence was pronounced innocent Was he not restor'd again to his Bishoprick by vertue of that sentence Doth not the same Authour affirm that being the second time expell'd his Sea he did the second time also appeal to Rome and was likewise acquitted upon a full hearing of his cause in the presence of his adversaries Was there not upon his second return into England a Synod of Bishops call'd in obedience to the Popes order in which by the general vote of all the good Bishop was again restor'd Is this no Evidence of Romes Authority over England in ancient times 'T is now almost a thousand yeares since Bede wrote and doubtless his History is one of the most Authentick we have he being a most holy and learned man Again is it not manifest out of him that even the Primitive Original Institution of our English Bishopricks was from Rome See the Letter of Pope Gregory the first to St. Austin our English Apostle which Bede reports in these words Quia nova Anglorum Ecclesia ad omnipotentis Dei gratiam codem Domino largiente et Te labor ante perducta est c. Seeing by the goodness of God saith he and your industry the new English Church is brought
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
Pope as he is Pope or in respect of that Supereminent Authority which belongs to him as Saint Peters Successour but onely compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer Character or power of a Bishop as Bishop onely And as he doth not de facto speak of the Pope as Successour of St. Peter so is it certain that de jure he could not speak any thing to the prejudice of that part of the Bishop of Rome's Authority without contradicting and condemning himself not onely in his Epistle to Pope Damasus already cited where he professeth that to be out of the Popes Communion is to be an Alien from the Church of Christ but also in his Commentaries on the 13. Psalm where he calls St. Peter Head of the Church and Epist. ad Demetriad Virg. where he stiles the Pope Successour of the Apostolick Chair and speaks to the same purpose in divers other places of his works But now the Bishop to give a home-blow as he imagin'd to the Popes Authority over the whole Church pretends to bring a great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus who tells us the Church is in the Commonwealth not the Commonwealth in the Church whence he positively concludes it impossible that the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For saith he no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominions to be greater then himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch But the force of this Argument will presently vanish if we but consider that these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one Spiritual the other Temporal the one exercis'd onely in such things as concern the Worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of Souls the other in affairs that concern this world alone and consequently do not of their own nature hinder but help one another where they are rightly administred Neither must it come under debate whether the administration of the spiritual Monarchy ought to be endur'd or not seeing Christ hath so ordain'd it nor would the Relatour I suppose have urg'd this argument had he well reflected on the person of our Saviour who as the Bishop himself would not deny was whilst he lived on earth most truly and properly the visible Monarch of the whole Church his Kingdom whether the Kings of the earth would endure it or not Again is it not in a manner the same thing in regard of Temporal Kings to have had the Apostles Universal Governours over all Christians as if some one had been a Monarch or chief amongst them and yet the Bishop cannot in his own principles deny but Temporal Kings were bound to endure this and did actually endure it without unkinging themselves thereby Nay is it not as prejudicial to their Temporal Crowns Titles and Prerogatives to have all their people together with themselves subject to the decrees of a lawful General Council which the Bishop denyes not as to be subject to the Decrees of some one chief Bishop 3. Lastly who sees not that the force of this Argument is utterly broken by the daily experience we have of the contrary to what our Adversary pretends For instance do not the Two great Christian Kings of France and Spain endure it Nay do's not all the world see that they do not onely endure it but maintain the Authority and Government of such a Spiritual Monarch as we speak of in the very midst of their Dominions and is it not evident they prosper so well under it that it would be no less then Dotage to contend that the enduring it is a Diminution of their Majesty Our Adversaries reflection upon this particular by way of Answer is not onely injurious to those Two great Monarchs but destructive of his own Argument For he tells us the Popes power is of little esteem in the Kingdoms of these Two Catholique Princes further then to serve their own turns of him which they do saith he to their great advantage Thus what the two great Catholique Princes of Christendom profess to do upon the Account of Faith and Conscience the Relatour hath the confidence to tell us they do it meerly on the score of policy and for temporal ends though he plainly contradicts himself in this assertion since he told us but just now the enduring such a Monarchy made him that endur'd it no Monarch You see at once both his Civility towards Christian Princes and his Constancy to himself Moreover I wonder the Relatour could not see that this Argument The Church is within the Commonwealth ergo Subordinate unto it had it any force would conclude as much against the Aristocratical Government of the Church for which he so much pleads as the Monarchical For how I pray could the Bishops of so many different Kingdoms and States when the good of the Church did necessarily require it Convene in a General Councel or authoritatively Declare what ought to be believ'd when matters of Faith were question'd or how should they otherwise then precariously cause their Decisions to be receiv'd through the whole Church if either there were no Supream Spiritual Governour at all or he bound as it were to ask Princes leave to do what belongs to his Office Is not a General Council as much within the Commonwealth as the Pope If therefore the Pope in the administration of his Office be any way subject de jure to the Authority of Temporal Princes how can a General Council be absolute and independent of the same Authority in the execution of theirs Thus you see how by impugning the Monarchical Government of Christs Church he in effect overthrows all Church-Government whatsoever even that which himself would seem to approve It remains therefore fully prov'd that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical not purely and absolutely but mixed as hath been already declar'd Neither do we stile the Pope Monarch of the Church but the Deputy or Vicar General of Christ that is his Chief Bishop by whom he governs his Church in chief He is neither King nor Lord of the Church but the Chief-Servant of it a Steward of Christs Family yea a Fellow-Servant with other Bishops to one and the same Master Yet the Care of the whole Family is committed to him and but part of it to other Bishops who govern by Commission from Christ with him but under him 4. This duly consider'd what the Relatour objects out of the Council of Antioch St. Cyprian and Bellarmin for the power of Bishops comes just to nothing For we acknowledge Bishops to have a portion jure Divino in the Government of Christs Flock They are no less Chief Officers of Christ then the Pope though not in all respects equal to him or so absolute as to govern without dependance on him And it seems strange the Bishop should attempt to prove out of Bellarmin that the Government of the Church Militant is not Monarchical in the sense
often declar'd because he teaches 't is to be govern'd by Bishops since in the place alledg'd he declares the Government of the Church onely as 't is contradistinct from the government of Temporal Princes not as inferiour Bishops are distinguisht from the Supream or Chief Bishop that 's another question and treated by him in another place it being sufficient to his purpose there to shew that the Church was to be govern'd by Ecclesiastical not Temporal Princes without disputing whether the said Ecclesiastical Governours were Subordinate or not one to another But the Bishop proceeds in his objections and tells us the Church Militant remaining spread in many earthly Kingdoms cannot so well be order'd by one Monarch as a particular Kingdom may by one King For how saith he will this one Supream execute his Office if the Kings of those several Kingdoms will not give leave I answer first this Difficulty makes as much against the Aristocratical form of Church-Government as the Monarchical For how will a General Council to use his own term enter to execute their Office when the necessities of the Church require such a Convention if the Kings of those several Kingdoms from whence the Prelates are to come will not give leave Nay how can the Bishops of any one Christian Kingdom meet in Synods if their respective Sovereigns to whom the Relatour will have them subject even in Spirituals will not give leave 5. As to his Surmize that we would have one Emperour over all Kings as well as one Pope over all Bishops I answer it was a Chimaera of his own Brain and as impossible for him to know as for any of his party to deny with Truth that we pray for Peace and Unity amongst all Christian Princes wishing nothing more then that every one of them may enjoy and rest satisfied with his own right But here the Bishop takes occasion to fall foul upon Innocent the Third because forsooth comparing the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power to the Two great Lights the Sun and the Moon he made the Sun a Symbole of the Ecclesiastical and the Moon of the Civil Power which the Relatour interprets for us to signifie the Pope and the Emperour I answer First did not men love contention there would be no quarrelling about such Conceipts as these which are never taken for Argumentative but meerly Allusive Applications of the Sacred Text touching these Two Powers which diversely considered give ground to different Allegories In times of persecution both the Church and Pope may not unfitly be compar'd to the Moon by reason of their declining condition but in time of prosperity if we consider the same Church in relation to the extent and greatness of her Power beyond the Imperial it reaching to all places and persons in the world professing Christian Faith as also in respect of the Dignity of its Object viz. Things Caelestial whereas the Object of the Imperial Power are onely the Things of this world there 's little question but the Ecclesiastical Power excells the Imperial no less then the Soul does the Body or Eternity the Things of this life In this regard therefore it could be no just matter of offence for the Pope to be understood by the Sun and the Emperour by the Moon But the Pope forsooth makes too much odds between his own power and the Emperours abasing that of the Emperour so far as to make it forty seaven times less then that of the Pope which the Bishop proves from the Gloss upon this Decretal We answer the Allegory led the Glosser to it and that being rather a flourish of wit and pious conceipt then matter of solid Argument it was but lost time for our Adversary to make inferences from it and would be the like in us to answer them The matter we stand upon is that the Pope is Supream Pastour of the whole Church Let our Adversaries disprove this and not trifle about Allegories We confess also that the Emperour is Supream over his Subjects in all Civil affairs in fuch sort as neither of these Powers can of right hinder the other in the due execution of their charge They are both of them absolute and Independent Powers though each in their proper orbe the one in Spirituals the other in Temporals By which it appears we are far from depressing the Imperial power lower then God hath made it as the Relatour most injuriously chargeth us No we honour and very willingly acknowledge the Emperour in Tertullians style Hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem viz. in the administration of all Civil affairs in which doubtless all persons within his Dominion ought to be subject to him Yet does it not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church resolve Controversies of Faith or interpret Scripture in any sense contrary to the judgement and doctrine of the lawful Pastours of the Church he hath no power to do any thing of this nature neither shall we ever read that any of them took upon them to be Supream Governours of the Church or reform Religion on their own account without or contrary to the said Pastours 6. A Book of the Law 't is true was anciently by Gods special command to be given to the King Deut. 17. 18. But to what intent was it given To govern the Church by reading it or expound the sense of the Law when it happen'd to come in Controversie Surely no It was given him to govern himself and Kingdom by it that by reading it he might learn to fear God and keep his words and statutes commanded in it as the Text it self declares Neither is it to be doubted but in case of Notorious and Gross Abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastours of the Church Christian Princes may both lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastours as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove alledged by the Bishop But they prove not that Princes may themselves take upon them the Priests Office either in whole or part they prove not that they may reform Religion in the Substance of it or enact any thing pertaining thereto by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent They prove not that Princes may determine the Controversies of the Law God having expresly reserv'd them to the Priests judgement and commanded all to submit to it under pain of death Nay point blank to the contrary we read 2. Paralip 26. 20. that Osias though a King was stricken by God with a sudden Leprosie for but attempting to usurp the Priests Office which if it were so unlawful then must needs now be yet more by how much the Functions of the Evangelical Priesthood are more Sacred Spiritual and participatively Divine then those of the Mosaical Law 7. Nor did the Popes ever attempt or so much as pretend to bring the Emperours under them in
of the sayd Infallibility shee may euer bee aseuredly preseru'd in the Beleefe and Profession of the true Fayth But the principall thing the Bishop would haue vs consider here is that Jnfallibility resides according to power and Right of Authority in the whole Church and in a Generall Council only by power deputed To which purpose hec cites St. Austin Petrus personam Ecclesiae Sustinet et huic datae sunt claues quum Petro datae Peter sayes hee beares the person of the Catholique Church and to her were the Keyes giuen when they were giuen to Peter I answer there is a twofold representing or bearning the person of an other to bee obseru'd The one Parabolicall or by way of meere Figure and supposition only Thus Agar Abrahams bondwoman Galat. 4. 25. 26. represents the nation or people of the Iewes yet liuing vnder the bondage of the Mosaicall law and Mount-Sion or Hierusalem the Churh of God The other Historicall and Reall viz. when the person representing has right or relation aparterei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it doth in the rust and and necessary interpretation of Reason beare the person or stand for the thing represented Now St. Peter Sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense I meane Historicè non Parabolicè really and in verity of fact not in Figure or Parabolicall supposition only hee beeing such a principall and cheife member of the Church as did ratione officij virtually and truly containe in himselfe the fullness of Ecclesiasticall Power in the same manner as a King receiues the keyes of a town whereof hee takes possession for himselfe though he representeth the whole kingdome and receiues the keyes for the good thereof Thus Isay St. Peter receiu'd the keyes for himselfe as hee was Head of the Church though that Reception were indeed ordain'd for the good of the whole Church To receiue a thing in this manner is not to receiue it in the others right but in his own not withstanding it bee finally meant for the good of the other This is so cleere euen to common sense that wee haue no need of turning ouer many Classique Authours to proue it wherfore the example of an Attorney taking possession of land for a Purchaser and of one who hauing a Proxy receiues a woman with the Ceremonies of Marriage in the name of an other are not to the purpose because in such cases the person of an other is Sustain'd only Parabolicè or by way of voluntary supposition pro tempore as when a Legate receiues the keyes of a town meerly as substitute for and in the name of his King But in our case the keyes were receiued Historicè and in way of reall propriety as by the King himselfe Head of the Common-wealth so by St. Peter Head of the Church This Answer is grounded in St. Austin himselfe who teaches St. Peters receiuing the souereign Authority of the gouerning the whole Church signified hero by the keyes as hee was a Figure of the Church and represented the person of the Church to haue been propter Primatum c. by reason of the PRIMACY which hee had amongst the Apostles The like hee hath in other places So cleerly does hee explicate his own meaning and confirm the answer wee haue giuen to the text the Bishop brings Why therfore doth the Relatour labour in vayne to wrest the Keyes out of St. Peters hands and to bestow them hee knows not where They must remaine where Christ has left them St Peter and his successours know best how to vse them and how to turn them in their proper wards as the Bishop speaks In his Third Consideration hee supposes that though a Generall Council bee granted lyable to errour yet so long as the whole Catholique Church Diffusiue bee exempt from it in the Prime Foundations of Fayth absolutely necessary to saluation there is still a sufficient Meanes to preserue and reduce vnity and to preuent all inconueniences that vsually trouble the Church One of the greatest inconueniences that can possibly fall vpon the Church is errour in fayth which vpon supposition that a Generall Council may erre in such matters does vnauoydably befall the whole Church as wee haue already shew'n and that without any hopes of euer beeing certainly cleer'd of it For as one Generall Council fell into Errour so may an other and a third and a fourth etc. Vnless therfore Generall Councils bee granted infallible in matters of Fayth where is the Bishops remedy against Jnconueniences How shall the Church bee freed from Perplexity How shall vnity bee preseru'd or reducd Hee tells vs the Church vpon discouery of the errour of a former Council may represent herselfe in an other body or Council and take order for what was concluded amiss But who shall warrant that the remedy shall not proue as bad as the disease or perhaps worse who shall secure vs that the second Council shall rightly condemne the supposed errour of the first or if it happen so shall not broach two other for that one and thereby bee an occasion of fresh Jnconueniences Perplexities Contentions in and to the Church Againe how shall the whole Church vpon euidence found of the miscarriage of a Generall Council represent her selfe in an other body must euery particular member of the Church first except against the sayd errours and concurre to the election and holding of an other Council That will neuer happen For in such a multitude very many will bee of the same minde with the precedent representatiue of the Church If not all but some part only of the Churches members bee conuinced of the pretended errour and would call an other Council to 〈◊〉 it then not the whole Church in Generall but only a part of it should take vpon them to remedy the abuses of a Generall Council which is absurd Moreouer if the power of calling Generall Councils reside only in the whole Church Diffusiuely taken as the Bishop here supposeth what likelyhood is there that there should euer bee such a Council called it beeing not to bee done but by the generall consent of all Christians whose interests are so diuided and for the most part so repugnant to each other that it cannot bee doubted but when one Nation or Countrie is willing to haue a Generall Council called some other will bee found as vnwilling When will all Christians thinke you agree that both Protestants Catholiques Grecians Lutherans and all other Sectaries should meete in Councill and haue equall power and libertie to vote there which if they haue not who can expect that the excluded party will hold it a Generall Council and thinke themselues bound to submitt to it The Bishop tells vs that the Church heeretofore vsed to reforme the errours of former Councils by calling and representing her selfe in a new Councill and that this is euident in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus and in
was their consent asked whether a Council should bee conuened or not but the Apostles concluded this amongst themselues as beeing a particular and speciall branch of that Power they had receiued from Christ for the Gouernment of the Church Neither at this day is their consent or concurrence any more required de iure to the conuening of such assemblies then it was in the Apostles time but the Pastours of the Church doe act and determin all things pertaining to this affayre solely amongst themselues without requiring the Peoples consent Generall Councils then are a principall and necessary part of that Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which Christ instituted for the Gouernment of his Church and not an humaine Expedient only brought in or taken up by the Church her selfe meerly upon prudentiall considerations as the Bishop will needs conceiue and their Power beeing wholy from aboue as the Church Diffusiue properly speaking giues it not so neither can shee take it away or annull any thing in point of doctrine which the Pastours in such Councils assembled shall by full authority decree I sayd in point of doctrine because that is ex natura rei unchangeable The Gospell of Christ and true Christian Fayth which Generall Councils are by Christs Institution appointed to teach admitts not of yea and nay now the Affirmatiue then the Negatiue as the Bishop by his correcting and abrogating Power left to After-Councils would haue vs belccue but only yea It is alwayes the same if once declared and settled by those who haue the authority and assistance from God that is requisite thereto as Councils haue euen by the Relatours own confession here It must stand and bee professed without alteration or abrogation for euer His pretense therfore of the Churches representing her selfe againe and by a new Council taking order for what was decreed amiss signifies nothing in this case saue only that our aduersarie holds still to his first and false supposition that Generall Councils may erre which was neuer yet granted him nor can wee grant it without offering violence to the nature and propertie of true Christian Fayth which is to bee invariable and to admitt no change not without derogating both from the institution and honour of Christ. For a Generall Council beeing of diuine institution and euen in the Bishops own style and profession the Supreme Externall Liuing Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies in Fayth if any errour contrary to true Fayth could bee incident to the definition of such a Council what Certainty or Vnchangeableness could there bee in the Fayth it sefle or how can it bee thought not to reflect vpon Christs honour to haue instituted in his Church no other Power to correct and repeale the errours of such a Council but what is lyable to the same or the like errour 〈◊〉 The Bishop himselfe in this Paragraph attributes such power authority and high prerogatiues to Generall Councils that I see not how they can stand with the possibility of errour 〈◊〉 calling in question any point of doctrine defined by them First he tells vs a Council hath power to order settle and define differences arisen concerning Fayth Then that a Council lawfully called and proceeding orderly and concluding according to the Rule the 〈◊〉 the whole Church cannot but approue the Council That the decrees of it shall binde all particulars and it selfe Lastly that because the whole Church can meete no other way the Council shall remaine the Supreme Externall Liuing Temporary Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Does hee not now plainly destroy these prerogatiues and contradict himselfe when speaking of such a Council hee sayth presently after only the whole Church and shee alone hath power when scripture or demonstration is found and peaceably tender'd to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Council and in it to order what was amiss A while since hee granted that the definitions of a Generall Council were to bee held and obserued till such euident scripture and demonstration were brought against them as beeing propos'd and vnderstood the minde of man cannot chuse but assent to it But here hee supposeth the whole Church is made acquainted with euident scripture and demonstration against the definitions of a former Council and yet by his own doctrine but a few lines aboue all particulars are bound to stand to those definitions till such time as an other Council of equall authority called by the whole Church hath ordered and amended what was decreed amiss in the former Againe how can the whole Church when scripture and demonstration is found contrary to a former Council represent her selfe in a new one to order by it what was formerly defind amiss but shee must cleerly vnderstand that what was determined by the former Council was false and erroneous vpon this supposition 〈◊〉 Eyther the sayd former Councils false and erroneous definitions are still binding or they are not if they are binding it would bee sinne to beleeue the contrary or at least outwardly to oppose the sayd definitions Now let any body 〈◊〉 how its possible for the whole Church to call an other Council to reforme those errours of the first but it must outwardly shew some dislike of them and therby declare in effect the doctrine of the precedent Council to bee false and consequently oppose its decrees euen while they are supposed to binde If you answer they are binding to particulars not to the whole Church I reply it is impossible the whole Church should euer 〈◊〉 agree to represent her selfe in an other Council to reforme the 〈◊〉 of the precedent but that very many nay almost all particulars must 〈◊〉 and also 〈◊〉 those errours before the whole Church 〈◊〉 and declare them If therfore the definitions of the precedent Council though 〈◊〉 binde all particulars till an 〈◊〉 Council lawfully called reuerse them and define the control truth as the Bishop confesseth how can the 〈◊〉 Church which consists of particulars and acts nothing but by 〈◊〉 call in question the doctrine of any precedent Council but very many if not all particulars must committ sinne by some kinde of 〈◊〉 opposition or not conforming themselues where they were as yet bound to yeeld obedience And how I 〈◊〉 had the former Council power to settle and define differences of sayth and to binde all particulars if 〈◊〉 and euery particular person as the case now supposeth may lawfully thinke and profess that for ought kee knows both scripture and demonstration may bee brought against it and that in case they bee the errours of the precedent Council ought to bee reform by calling an other Againe I aske to what purpose should there bee an other Council called to reforme the errours of a former For eyther the whole Church hath euident scripture or demonstrations against the definitions of the former Council or it hath not If it hath not the Church her selfe committs sinne in the Bishops owne principles by imputing errour to the precedent Councill
whose definitions according to him must stand in force and bee obeyed by all particulars and consequently by the whole Church till euident scripture or demonstration bee brought against them If it hath then the whole Church cannot but cleerly perceiue the sayd errours of the former Council and know them to bee such and then what need of an After-Council what good can it doe shall it bee called to declare that which euery man sees already or to define that about which there is no controuersie nor can bee any so long as men continue in their right mindes and doe but consider what they say or thinke You will say a Council ought to bee called in this case to abrogate the law or definition of the precedent Council which erred I answer that supposes the definition of the sayd precedent Councill to bee still in force which is false first because it is vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue anything as matter of Fayth solely upon the authority of a Council that is lyable to errour both against scripture and demonstration Secondly because 't is more vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue what wee cleerly see to bee errour and contrary both to scripture and demonstration and yet in no other case but this euen by the Bishops leaue can the whole Church call an other Council to reuerse the decrees of the former Thirdly because as it did not binde the whole Church from prosessing her dislike of the errours defin'd and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to prosess outwardly a disbeleefe or doubt thereof Wherfore it is euident that his Lordship vpon this subiect says and vnsays the same and what hee seemes to attribute to Generall Councils in one proposition hee takes away in an other The Bishop pretends the Catholique opinion touching infallibility to bee yet more vnreasonable because wee make not only the definitions of a Generall Council but the sentence of the Pope also infallible For a Generall Councill sayth he may erre with vs if the Pope confirm it not So vpon the matter the infallibility wee contend for rests not in the representatiue Body the Council nor in the whole Body the Church but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome and if this bee so to what end sayth he so much trouble for a Generall Council and wherein are wee neerer to vnity if the Pope confirm it not wee answer first the Bishop stumbles at the thresholde a Generall Council is not held by vs to bee infallible at all vnless it inuolue the Pope or his confirmation and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our aduersary to compare together viz. of the Council and the Pope but One infallibility only to witt of the Pope presiding in and confirming the votes of a Generall Council or if you will a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope Secondly wee confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Popes infallibility The first and the more con men is that the Pope euen without a Generall Council is infallible in his definitions of Fayth when he teaches the whole Church The second is that he is not infallible in his definitions faue only when he defines in and with a Generall Council Now had the Bishop as he 〈◊〉 to haue done taken due notice of this second opinion and proceeded in the point accordingly these Doctours would quickly haue satissy'd his obiection and told him that as the Ccuncil is not infallible without the Pope so neither is the Pope infallible without the Ccuncil and that infallibility proceeds ioyntly 〈◊〉 both and is the prerogatiue of both not separately consider'd but as vnited and making vp the compleate representatiue of the Church But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence framing his argument wholy against the other as if it were the opinion of all Catholique Doctours But of this wee haue sayd enough hauing prosesled at the begining that wee intended not to meddle much with any matters of priuate dispute or opinion Wherfore I shall briefly pass cuer what his Lordship hath further touching this matter and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his 7. His first is that if the Pope bee infallible then the Council is called but only in 〈◊〉 to heare the Pope giue his sentence in more state I answer 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time viz. that 't was con only to heare St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state in regard it will not bee deny'd but St. Peters definition alone had been as infallible and as much binding as that of the whole Council Secondly I answer more directly this followes not with any the least shadow of consequence in their opinion who hold the Pope to bee fallible out of a Generall Council as is manifest and in the other opinion 't is easily answer'd For seeing the Pope when euer he defines matters of Fayth ought to proceed maturely and vse all meanes morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth and seeing that the deliberations and notes of a Generall Council are the most proper and efficacious in that kinde it followes euidently enough to all vnpreiudic'd and impartiall iudgements that the Council is called really to help and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affaire and which equally concerns the whole Church also that the aduice of the Councill in such cases is not only a profitable and fitt but speaking in a morall sense a Necessary medium to this Holyness wherby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton here alledged by the Bishop affirms according to his own principles viz. that the Pope acquires no new power or authority or certainty of iudgement by beeing ioyned to the Council For though he acquires no new power authority or certainty of iudgement which in this Doctours opinion he hath whether he be with or without a Councill yet he may acquire some thing which doth connaturally worke and conduce to the due exercise of that power authority and certainty of iudgement to witt counsell aduice and conuenient information touching the matters in Controuersie The like is to be sayd to that of Cardinal Bellarmin when he asserts that the firmeness of a Council to which the Relatour adds of his own Infallibity comes from the Pope only For he intends to shew how the matter passes in regard of vs who are assured no other way of the firmeness of the Councils definition then by the Popes confirmation alone You will obiect that if the Pope be infallible without the Council and the Council subiect to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the infallibility of Generall Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council I answer the Assertours of that opinion
saluation he would be pleas'd to grant our requests Wee beleeue and confess that Christ alone is our Redeemer and that he and none but he by the iust price of his most precious Bloud hath paid our ransome and fully satisfy'd the iustice of God for out sins all that wee desire of the Saynts eyther when wee mention their merits to God or simply beg their Intercession with God for vs is only that they would ioyne with vs in prayer to God and that God would be pleased for their sakes whose works were soe gratefull to him to bestow on vs the fauours wee aske but wee still acknowledge that what wee aske is principally to be granted vs for the merits of Christ according to the Council of Trent Sess. 25. which defines that all onr praiers and requests made to the Saynts are to be made for and through his merits for which reason also wee vsually conclude all our prayers with mention of our Sauiour in these or the like words PER CHRISTVM DOMINVM NOSTRVM Mow if the Saynts merits or good works and their receiuing an Eternall reward for them in Heauen be not iniurious to the fullness of Christs merits why should eyther their beeing heard by reason of their sayd works when they pray to God for vs through Christ or our desire that they may be heard for them be thought iniurious to Christs merits And if it be no iniury to the force and vertue of Christs Intercession that the Saynts doe pray and interceede for vs through Christs merits why should it be accounted an iniury to his Passion that the Saynts merits or Good works be held to haue force to procure good things from God both for themselues and vs yet not otherwise then through the merits of Christ and for his sake Jn vaine therfore doth the Relatour goe about to peruert the sense of the prayers of the Church in the Missal which with all the Sophistrie he can vse he shall neuer be able to shew but to be most consonant to Christian doctrine and pietie And where as Bellarmin is tax'd for calling the Saynts our Redeemers it is no fault in the Cardinal but a rashness in the Bishop For both Bellarmin himselfe professeth they can only be so called in a large sense and improper manner of speaking and confirms his assertion by a like passage of St. Paul who sayes of himselfe 1. Cor. 9 23. that to all men he became all things that he might SAVE some The Apostle if he had pleas'd might as well haue sayd that he might haue REDEEMD some for that had been no less agreeable to his meaning and yet who can deny but it is euery way as proper to Christ to be a Sauiour as to be a Redeemer He taxes the Cardinall likewise for styling the Saynts Numina which word he will haue always to signifie eyther God himselfe or at least the Power of God or an Oracle of God Be it so But in the first place Ifeare the Relatours information deceiu'd him for in the place he cites there is not the least shadow or intimation of any such matter his whole discourse there beeing of images and not of the Saynts Secondly what matter were it if the Cardinal had so called them Doth not the Bishop himselfe acknowledge one signification of the word Numina to be the Power of God and can it be thought so impious and vnlawfull to style the Saynts Powers of God seeing it is vndenyable that God vseth them as the instruments of his Power and by them worketh many powerfull and strange effects Are not the Angels for this very reason called Powers of God and the Gospell it selfe the Power of God to Saluation But this is the Bishops custome now and then to haue a fling at Bellarmin whether he hit or miss 7. Against the Adoration of Images the Bishop is very bitter so as to tell vs the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganisme in the practice of it and driuen to scarce intellible subtleties in her servants writings that defend it The Modern Church of Rome is thus and thus to blame sayth the Bishop But J pray tell vs wherein doe the Modern and Ancient Church of Rome differ touching this point What does the Council of Trent teach concerning the worship of Jmages more then the second Council of Nice did which was celebrated little less then nine hundred yeares agoe and therfore surely not to be accounted Modern The Council of Nice though it decreed that the Jmages of Christ and his Saynts should be had in veneration and due reuerence outwardly giuen to them yet it expresly forbad they should be worshiped with Diuine worship or such as was proper and due to God alone Doth the Council of Trent or Roman Church now teach otherwise heare if you please the Prelats themselues speake in that Council The Holy Council say they commands all Bishops and all others who haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faythfull people teaching them that the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saynts are to be bad and retained especially in Churches and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them not that one should beleeue any Diuinity to be in them or Power for which they are to be worshiped or that one should aske any thing of them or put confidence in them as anciently the Gentiles did who placed their hope in Idolls but because the honour that is done to them redounds to those whome they represent So that by the Images wee kiss and before which wee vncouer our heads and prostrate our selues wee worship Christ and his Saynts whose similitudes they are which doctrine say the Fathers abouesayd is established by the Decrees of Councils especially of the second of Nice And a little after they adde If it happen at any time that the histories or passages of holy Scripture be express'd or figur'd out in pictures whensoeuer it may be thought expedient for the vnlearned lett them be taught that the Diuinity or God himselfe is not painted therby nor can be seen with bodily eyes nor represented by any colours or figures J thought it not amiss to sett down the words of this Council at large as beeing sufficient if duly considered to stop our aduersaries mouthes and silence their calumnies against vs for euer in this particular without any recourse to subtleties and nice distinctions as the Relatour pretends wee are forc'd to doe For what is here but plaine and easie Behold in the first place express caution and prohibition that wee attribute noe kinde of Diuinity to Images but only worship them with such honour and veneration as is due to them Behold in the second place all Bishops with others that haue the cure of soules vnder them strictly requir'd to teach the faythfull no more then this plaine and secure doctrine and that they take care to preuent as
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
Protestants to note it only in a word by the way haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church not that wee are vnable or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth Religion Church and all things pertaining thereto by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession iustly prescribe against our aduersaries and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they who are our aggressours in this case doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew that our possession is not bonafidei but gain'd by force or fraude or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes A Gentleman that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours is not to be outed of it because an other say's and perhaps beleeues he has a better title to it neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence but the other is bound to euict him and demonstrate that his possession is not good and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe that his own clayme is better otherwise in stead of gaining an estate he will get nothing but a checke In like manner the Lady beeing in possession of a Fayth which for many ages together had been professed by her ancestours and generally by the whole Christian Church 't is not the Bishops telling her that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome or iustly moue her to beleeue that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church but he must make it appeare to be so by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter is to be accounted folly and his confidence rashness I adde how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church English Protestants for example beleeue the Popes power iure diuino is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Bishops witness Tertullian and this long before the Canons of the Church or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority The Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians was not from men but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of St. Clement St. Anaclet St. Sixtus the first St. Pius the first St. Anicet St. Victor with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer So as euen the Centurists themselues and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity are forc'd to confess it They pretend indeed that these Epistles are counterfeite and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes A weake plea for beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them 't is certain that Isidorus Hispalensis who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time and professes that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops to make his collection out of them as well as out of other Epistles and writings which Protestants doe not question Not to vrge that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them and Rufinus himselfe others who was contemporary with St. Hierome nor yet the absolute conformity in point of doctrine and style that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church viz. Iulius the first Pope Damasus Syricius Innocentius Leo and others which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe nor can pretend to be forged but only say that the Popes of those times were arrogant men and began to take too much vpon them The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not according to Gods commandement acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing Vicar of Christ in the Church The Primitiue Church professed that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull to witt in matter of Religion and Fayth the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their Epistle to Pope Marcus that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things witness St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church Witness optatus Mileuitanus that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed to which all must repaire for the waters of life that she is the Rock vpon which the Church is built that to be out of her Communion was to be an Alien from the houshold of God to be out of the Church to be as a profane or vncleane person who might not come into the Campe or Congregation of Israel in briefe it was to belong not to Christ but to Antichrist witness St. Hierome The Bishops of the Primitiue Church beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome as to their proper and lawfull Judge for iustice and reliefe and were likewise by him righted and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe Witness the examples already alledged of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians also of St. Chrysostome The odoret and diuerse others Lastly not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise the Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer Witness St. Austin the Councils
fire for purging of soules after this life which can be no other then the fire of Purgatory which wee assert in which the effects of mortall sinne and also veniall sinnes are purged Neither is it against vs that this purging fire is sayd by St. Gregory to be a fire that sleeps not seeing his meaning is that it goes not out nor ceaseth to burn till the soule be perfectly refined by it Wee confess also that St. Gregory proues the Resurrection of the bodie by this argument because 't is fitting the body which hath been partaker in sinne should likewise be partaker in punishment But how does this disproue Purgatorie Yes sayes the Bishop for this Father teacheth withall that the soule cannot suffer by fire but in the body Jf he meanes naturally and by materiall fire Weo grant it too but supernaturally and by diuine power so ordaining it wee auerre that both Deuills and damned foules doe now suffer by fire in Hell though it be not matter of necessary Fayth to beleeue that soules in Purgatorie are now purg'd by materiall fire It sufficeth that they suffer reall paines reall affliction and dolours whatsoeuer those be and by what meanes soeuer applyed and that by suffering them they are purged from their sinnes What the Relatour adds here concerning diuerse of the ancients especially of the Greeks viz. that they were a little too much acquainted with Plato's schoole if his meaning be that they were thereby led into errour or that they corrupted the Christian doctrine with the opinions of Plato or any other Paganish Philosophers 't is a groundless calumny and extremely iniurious to those worthies But our Aduersarie seemes not much to care what he imputes to the fathers soe he may impose vpon his Reader and make him beleeue those primitiue and zealous Assertours of Christian verity against both Philosophers Heretiques and all enemies whateuer held against vs in this point or taught not Purgatorie as a part of Catholique doctrine 12. But St. Austin has the ill hap to be vs'd worst of all The Bishop makes him say and vnsay and wauer in his doctrine touching this matter as if he had been rather a nouice in the Fayth then a father of the Church thence concluding that the doctrine of Purgatorie was noe matter of Fayth in St. Austins time for if it had been such St. Austin would neuer haue spoken so doubtfully of it Excellenty concluded But I answer the argument proceeds only vpon a willing mistake of our Aduersarie and an affected ignorance of St. Austins meaning in the places alledged That he could not possibly be thought to deny or doubt of Purgatory quoad rem that is as it signifies a pen all state of faythfull soules departed from which they are in time deliuered is so euident that wee referre it to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader after he hath seriously weighed these places not to repeate here those other which Bellarmin cites out of him Constat animas purgari post hancvitam c. this the Bishop himselfe also cites 't is certaine sayth he that some soules are purged after this life If St. Austin held it certaine how could he be thought to doubt of it neque negandum est etc. Jt is not a thing to be denyed sayth he againe but the soules of the dead are holpen by the piety of their liuing friends when the sacrifice of Christs Body is offered for them or Alms giuen on their behalfe To the same purpose he writes also lib. 21. de Ciuit. Det. pag. 13. lib. 2. de Genes contr Manich. cap. 20. Epist. 64. ad Aurel. Episc. Item in psalm 37. Lastly what he sayth Serm. 32. de verb. Apost Orationibus Sanctae Ecclesiae et Sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adiuuari etc. wee may not at all doubt sayth he but the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Holy Church with Alms distributed for their soules doe help the dead so as to procure that our Lord deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes haue deserued this beeing a thing which the vniuersall Church obserues by Tradition from the Fathers Compare this good Reader with that know'n maxime and resolution of St. Austin in his Epistle to Januarius that 't is noe better then insolent madness to question or dispute that which the vniuersall Church holds and tell mee if thou can'st possibly thinke that St. Austin doubted of Purgatorie The thing he doubted of was not whether there were such a state of soules after this life as wee now style Purgatory but only what was the most proper and genuine sense of that place of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. 13. etc. siquis superaedificauerit etc. and more particularly whether the Apostle mean't the afflictions of this life or those after this life by this fire he speaks of He doubted also and offer'd it to consideration whether soules departed might not be thought to be in part tormented euen after death with the sense of such griefe as they suffer'd in this life when they were depriu'd of things which were most deare to them Of these wee confess St. Austin seems in some sort to doubt but yet so little that 't is euident he always allowes it for a good and sound exposition of text abouesayd 1. Cor. 3 12. etc. to vnderstand it literally of the paines of the next life and very frequently so vnderstands it himselfe without making any difficulty or question about it and without mentioning any other sense All which presupposed and well reflected on it could haue been no hard matter sure for the Bishop to haue reconciled all that St. Austin deliuers vpon this subiect without making him seeme to doubt of that which he teacheth datâ occasione no less constantly then he doth the doctrine of Heauen and Hell or else to speake contrary to himselfe which is neither beseeming nor soe easily to be imputed to such a person as this Father was know'n and confessed to be in the Church of God Nor can I but wonder seeing the Bishop grants that St. Austin sometimes asserted Purgatorie though at other times he left it doubtfull why the Bishop and his party should make it such a necessary point of their doctrine to deny it whereas St. Austin neuer deny'd Purgatory Whence is deriued to Protestants that light which St. Austin and the whole Church of his time could not see They had the word of God then as well as Protestants can pretend to haue it now and were much neerer to the Primitiue and Apostolicall times in which euen by our Aduersaries acknowledgement there was not that dross of superstition which they complaine of in latter times If it were a truth so important to Saluation and so cleere in Scripture as Protestants now make it or the beleese of Purgatory an errour so derogatory to the merits and satisfaction of Christ as they say it is
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
Civil affairs which is another aspersion the Bishop layes upon them Gregory the Seventh and Innocent the Third were indeed very prudent men and worthy Champions of the Church to assert her just liberties but they never endeavour'd to subject the Emperour to themselves in Temporal matters and it had been more for our Adversaries credit instead of falsly pretending it to be plain in History that they did so to have given us at least some one good proof of it Can any such thing be solidly concluded from the Allegory of the Sun and Moon upon which the Relatour so long insists and makes so many unsignificant reflections that they would better become a person the Moon had particularly wrought upon then a Primate of England 8. The Relatour could not leave his digressive Discourse without giving a lash to the Jesuites by willing them to leave their practising to advance the greatness of the Pope and Emperour But I wonder he could so easily believe that men of understanding as he sticks not to acknowledge Jesuites to be should by Vow deprive themselves of the riches and pleasures of this world with design to make the Pope and Emperour great especially seeing that without breach of an Oath peculiar to their Order they can neither seek nor so much as accept of any Ecclesiastical preferment as other Church-men and Religious may unless by way of Obedience when expresly thereto commanded by the Pope under pain of Sin He skips from the Jesuites to the Friers A certain Frier at Madrid John De Puente by name in the Year 1612. printed a Book in the Frontispiece whereof he painted the Sun and the Moon so as they clearly signified the Pope and the King of Spain Here the Scene changes 't was just now the Pope and the Emperour There were also divers other Emblematical Phansies added by which was intimated that his Catholique Majesty should be content to be under the Pope so he might rule all the world beside Lastly for fear the Scutcheons and Devises should not sufficiently discover the Design the Title of the Book layes all open 'T is called LA CONVENIENTIA DE LAS DOS MONAR QUIAS CATOLICAS in English The Agreement of the Two Catholique Monarchies viz. of the Pope and of Spain To all which the Bishop addes his own particular reflection that the Book had all manner of License that a Book could have For answer to it we deny not but such a Book was both licensed and printed but doubtless who ever peruses the contents of it impartially will judge it was both licensed and printed rather for its witty conceit and divertisement for the King and his Courtiers then for a solid Foundation whereon to build any serious and Dogmatical Assertion And as this Spanish Frier stood for his own King so Campanella another Frier is objected to have stood as much for the late Dolphin now King of France publishing about the time of his Birth a certain Eclogue concerning him wherein the said Dolphin was promis'd the Universal Monarchy of the world and all other Princes represented as now more afraid of France then ever before What such men speak partly out of Flattery to Princes an Epidemical infirmity incident to men of all conditions and partly as delighted with their own Conceipts makes nothing at all to the cause of Religion nor can we be thought responsible for any such personal Actions or Assertions of private men 'T is sufficient for us to have prov'd that the Pope is Universal Pastour of the Church what the Kings of Spain or France are or would be in reference to other Christian Kings and Princes concerns not us either to know or examine 9. But leaving these Digressions the Relatour does here acknowledge it high time to return to his Adversary and think of Answering A. C. s Argument which proves that in the Church beside the Law Book of the Bible there must be a living Magistrate and Judge so assisted by the Holy Ghost as he may be able rightly to determine all Controversies of Religion and preserve Unity and Certainty of Faith in the Church To this he answers in brief that for determining Controversies in Religion and preserving Unity and Certainty of Faith it is not necessary to have one Bishop over the whole Christian Church more then 't is necessary for determining Civil Differences and preserving Civil peace and unity among Christians to have one Emperour over the whole world To confirm this the Authority of Occham is cited saying that it is not necessary there should be one Governour of the whole Church under Christ but 't is sufficient there be many Bishops governing divers Provinces as there are many Kings governing divers Kingdoms I answer first that besides that these Dialogues which the Bishop here alledges are in the Index of forbidden Books Occham himself is no such unquestionable Authour among Catholiques that we should think our selves oblig'd to defend what ever he sayes especially in a question that concerns the Popes Authority it being too well known how factiously he sided with an Enemy of the Church Secondly had Christ instituted such a Government of his Church as Occham fancies viz. a Government consisting of many not Subordinate to any One as Head and Supream over them it would have been requisite that all those Independent and Coordinate Governours in the Church should have been Infallible otherwise the Government of the Church would have been little less then a meer Anarchy without Unity or Certainty in any thing which must have destroy'd the very end of Government and expos'd the whole Body of the Catholique Church which yet is and must be One by the Institution of Christ to as many Schisms and varieties of Faith as there are several Provinces in 〈◊〉 Experience shews us this Truth in all Countries where no Infallibility is acknowledg'd Again Occham speaking onely de possibili of what our Saviour might have done had he pleas'd his doctrine cannot evince any thing in disproof of what we maintain to have been de facto established in Gods Church that is one Universal Pastour appointed by Christ over the whole Flock 10. Remain it therefore a settled Catholique principle that the Pope hath power over the whole Church of God according to the Declaration of the Occumenical Council of Florence in which both the Greek and Latin Church concurred and that to teach the contrary is undoubted Heresie The words of the Council are these Definimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in Universum orbem tenere Primatum c. We define saith the Council that the Holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome have Primacy over the whole world and that the said Bishop of Rome is Successour of the Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles that he is also the True Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that to him in the person of Blessed Peter FULL
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
must necessarily for ought hee can see bee referred to both clauses in the words following because both clauses went before it and hath as much force against receiuing vnder both kindes as against receiuing after supper yet I see no reason but hee might haue taken it for a full satisfaction For to mee it seemes cleere let the Bishop fancy what hee pleases that the non obstante can haue no reference but to the time of receiuing after supper For the words that follow a non obstante in any sentence haue neuer reference to any thing but what hath some opposition with it Now to consecrate and receiue fasting which the Council opposeth to what was done by Christ hath no opposition at all with the Apostles receiuing vnder two kindes For it were an absur'd and senseless proposition to say though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples vnder both kindes yet it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting wherfore the Consecrating and receiuing fasting which is only opposed by the Non obstante to what was done by Christ hath not reference to the receiuing vnder both kindes but only to the receiuing after supper But the Relatour adds that the after-words Et similiter and likewise couple both together in this reference as if the Council by saying AND LIKEWISE though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiued by Laymen only vnder the kinde of Bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused should signifie that Laymen ought to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kinde not only though it bee contrary to Christs institution but also to the practise of the Primitiue Church But how will he proue that this is the signification of the words And likewise may not a man say properly though the Iewes might haue plurality of wiues yet the Christians may not and likewise though the Iewes were allowed to desire eye for eye tooth for tooth c. yet notwithstanding the Christians are not Here the words And likewise couple both sentences together and yet the Notwithstanding of the latter sentence hath no reference to the words of the first part since it were ridiculous to fay Though the Iewes might haue plurality of wiues yet Christians are not allowed to require eye for eye and tooth for tooth As the Decrees of the aforesayd Council are not contrary to the institution and ordination of Christ so neither is the practise of the Church in receiuing vnder one kinde contrary thereto To shew that the practise of the Church were contrary to Christs institution the Bishop should haue made it appeare that Christ did so institute this Sacrament of his last supper that hee would not haue one part to bee Sacrament without the other or that hee would not haue one part bee taken without the other Now neither of these two can bee proued Not that one kinde alone is not sufficient to the Sacrament for if nothing bee requisite to the essence of a Sacrament but Matter forme and a diuine promise of Grace to those that shall receiue it the words of Consecration Hoc est corpus meum is a true forme the element of bread alone is a true matter vsed by our Sauiour Hee hath also promised Grace to those that shall receiue his Body vnder the forme of bread as appeares by these words Joan. 6. Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in 〈◊〉 with what reason therefore can any one deny that the Body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is a true Sacrament Neither can it bee prou'd that Christ commanded Laymen to receiue vnder both kindes Not by these words Drinke yee all of this For if this were a command and not a Counsell as when hee sayd if J your Lord haue washed your feete you also ought to wash one an others feete it was giuen to the Apostles who all drunke of the Chalice Now as it doth not follow that Laymen are bound to baptize and preach to all nations because the Apostles were commanded to doe so so neither doth it follow that Laymen are bound to drinke of the Chalice because the Apostles were Nor can this obligation viz. that Laimen should receiue vnder both kindes bee inferred out of those other words of our Sauiour except you 〈◊〉 my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall haue no life in you Joan. 6. for if this were a precept of receiuing vnder both kindes and did generally binde all persons without restriction it would follow that all children especially such as haue the vse of reason are bound to receiue this Sacrament as well as men and women and that all such children as dyed without hauing receiu'd it would bee lyable to eternall damnation If Protestants themselus therfore doe not extend this command to persons of all ages notwithstanding that the words haue no restriction more to one age then to an other how will they proue from thence that all Laymen are bound to receiue vnder both kindes Beside wee will shew hereafter that euen in the Primitiue Church when the custome was to receiue vnder both kindes the Sacrament was many times administred vnder one kinde only 6. But the Relatour pretends wee are vnreasonable in holding Generall Councils infallible because sayth hee no Body collectiue whensoeuer it assembled it selfe did euer giue more power to the representing Body of it then a binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe nor euer did it giue this power otherwise then with this reseruation in nature that it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance vpon iust cause made euident that the Representing Body had failed in trust or truth But this is only to suppose and take for granted what hee neuer yet proued viz. that a Generall Council hath no authority but what is meerly delegate from the Church vniuersall which it represents whereas wee maintaine its authority to bee of diuine institution and when lawfully assembled to act by diuine right and not meerly by deputation and consent of the Church as wee haue also prou'd in the precedent chapter True it is the calling of such assemblies was taken vp and hath for its pattern the example of the Apostles Acts. 15. yet surely there 's as little doubt to bee made but the Apostles had both direction and precept too for doing it so often as iust occasion requr'd from Christ himselfe Though therfore a Generall Council bee the Church representatiue and doe not meete or assemble together hic et nunc but by order and deputation from Man yet it followes no but the power and authority by which they act when they are 〈◊〉 bee from God as doubtless it is Jn the first Council of the Apostles the Body Collectiue as the Bishop calls it that is the People that beleeu'd did neither send nor chuse the persons to sit in it neither