nothing against the Truth practised in the Church The Bishop goes on and endeavours to shew that St. Augustin speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture because immediately before he sayes There was a question moved to St. Cyprian whether Baptisme was tyed to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no question was moved that question that was made was answered And again That St. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking But all this proves nothing against us but for us because St. Cyprian might answer the question that was made by that which was granted by all and questioned by none although the thing granted and not questioned were the Doctrine of the Church For this Doctrine of the Church or Foundation as the Bishop calls it might be given in answer to confirm a Stone that was shaking that is some particular matter in question Although whatsoever is taught by the Church may be granted without contradicting Catholique Principles to be some way or other infolded or contained in Scripture Wherefore all the Definitions of the Church may be said to be Foundations of Doctrine in Scripture although many times they be so involved there that without the Definition of the Church we could not be bound expresly to believe them nay without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture it self as St. Augustin tells us in the words formerly cited Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas So that it cannot be doubted but that St. Augustins judgement was that all our Faith depended upon the Authority of the Church and therefore that he who opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work and Foundation of all Divine and Supernatural Faith Now whether the Bishop or Mr. Fisher hath wronged the Text of St. Augustin we shall presently see For first the Bishop sayes that St. Augustin speaks of a doctrine founded in Scripture not a Church-Definition How untrue this is viz. that St. Augustin speaks not of the Churches Definition let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited where speaking of Christs profiting of Children Baptized he useth these words Hoc habet Authoritas Matris Ecclesiae Hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon contra hoc robur contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur This saith he hath the Authority of our Mother the Church this hath the well founded Canon or Rule of Truth against this invincible Rampart whoever runneth himself is sure to be broken in pieces And again speaking of St. Cyprian he tells us that he will shew quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptisme of Infants or rather what he demonstrated the Church had alwayes taught concerning it and many such like places are in this very Sermon It is therefore manifest that St. Augustin here speaks of the Churches Definition nay and that so fully that he acknowledges in another place that the Baptisme of Infants was not to be believed but because it is an Apostolical Tradition His words are these Tom. 3. De Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 13. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaquam spernenda est neque ullo modo 〈◊〉 deputanda NEC O M NINO CREDENDA nisi Apostolica esset Traditio The custom of our Mother the Church to Baptize Infants is by no means to be despised or counted in any sort superfluous nor yet at all to be believed if it were not a Tradition of the Apostles Though therefore St. Cyprian in those few lines which St. Augustin referres to doth not expresly mention the Definition of the Church as the Bishop objects yet a man would think St. Augustins Authority should be sufficient to assure us that in those very words St. Cyprian shews what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church in the same manner as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 't is true to say he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture though himself doth not expresly say at the propounding of it it is in Scripture Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point which he sayes was not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition which is in effect to say that it cannot be proved by sole Scripture how can he be understood to say that Scripture is the Foundation of the Church But that he may one way or other draw St. Augustin to speak in appearance for him he gives a most false Translation of his words For he translates these words of St. Augustin ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur thus He shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded all in a different letter Whereas in the Latin Text of St. Augustin there is nothing that answers to any of those words which the Bishop thrusts into his English upon which or whole Church or is grounded so that all this latter part is meerly an Addition of his own and no part of St. Augustins sentence But such fraudulent dealing was necessary to give a gloss to his interpretation For he would make St. Augustin speak of a foundation different from the Churches Authority no wit the Scriptures whereupon sayes he the Authority of the Church is grounded which is farre from St. Augustins meaning For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea the very foundation of the Church he means nothing else but the Church it self or her Authority which is the foundation of Christianity as when St. Paul sayes superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum c. being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets he means nothing else but that we are built upon the Apostles and Prophets as upon a foundation or as if one should say of a destroyer of the Fundamental Laws of a Nation Fundamentum ipsum begum quatere molitur he endeavours to shake the very foundation of our Laws or of one that rejected the Authority of Scripture fundamentum ipsum Scripturarum quatere molitur he labours to shake the very Foundation of holy Scripture no man would understand him to mean any other Foundation then what the Laws and the Scriptures themselves are Now that nothing but this can be the meaning of St. Augustin is evident For in this very sentence he allows of Disputes held in such things as are not yet establish't by the full Authority of the Church nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis Wherefore all consequence and coherence of discourse requires that when he disallows of those disputes which go so far as to shake the foundation of the Church he must mean those
but in them who answer it ill And truly the question hath done this good that it hath made the weakness of their cause appear who have deserted the Catholique Church Wherefore we will give our Adversary leave to say that we draw him to it rather then omit so necessary a Disputation The Bishop therefore proposeth diverse wayes of proving Scripture to be the word of God and in the first place falls to attaque our way who prove it by the Tradition and Authority of the Church For he urgeth that it may be further asked why he should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered that we believe it because the Church is Infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost he proceeds and demands how that may appear where he thinks we are brought to those straits that we must either say we believe it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit we object to others or else must attempt to prove it by Scripture which were a vicious Circle and yet he affirms we all do so But with his Lordships favour he conceives amiss and I desire his Followers to give us leave hereafter to answer for our selves and that they would not do it for us 1. Wherefore to this last demand in which onely there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost we answer that we prove it first in general not by the Scripture but by the Motives of credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner as the Infallibility of Moyses and other Prophets of Christ and his Apostles was proved which was by the Miracles they wrought and by other Signes of an Infallible Spirit Direction and Guidance from God which appeared in them Whence it is clear that we incurre no Circle 'T is true after we have prov'd the Churches Infallibility by these Signs and Motives namely by Sanctity of Life Miracles Efficacy Purity and Excellency of Doctrine Fulfilling of Prophesies Succession of lawfully-sent Pastours Unity Antiquity and the very Name of Catholique c. I say after we have prov'd in geneneral her Infallibility by these and the like Motives then having received the Scripture by this Infallible Authority proved as we see another way and independently of Scripture we may and Authours commonly do without any shadow of a vicious circle confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture-proofs are onely secondary and ex suppositione not Prime and absolute and most usually contain a proof ad hominem or ex principles concessis against Sectaries who denying the Infallibility of the Church and questioning many times or cavilling about our Motives of Credibility yet admitting the Divine Authority of Scripture are more easily convinced by clear Texts of Scripture then by the other proofs And in this we do no otherwise then St. Augustin hath done before us writing against Heretiques 2. But because we have often promised to prove the Infallibility of the Church it will be necessary to insist some what longer upon this point and declare the matter at large We say then that the Church is proved in general to be Infallible the same way that Moyses with other Prophets Christ and his Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible For the Israelites seeing Moyses to be a person very Devout Milde Charitable Chaste and endowed with the gift of working Miracles were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet and to believe him Infallible by acknowledging as true and certain whatever he proposed to them from God They believed our Lord and Moyses saith the Scripture Moreover for the Testimony of Moyses the Israelites believed the Scripture and other things more clearly and in particular concerning Moyses himself that in the House of God he was most faithful and that God spake to him mouth to mouth and the like The same we may say of Christ our Saviour For there appear'd in him so great Sanctity of life such Grace of speech and Glory of Miracles that all to whom he preached were bound to acknowledge him for the great Prophet and Messias as St. Andrew with the rest of Christs Disciples did when they said we have found the Messias Thus they were bound at first to receive him as Infallible and afterwards to believe whatsoever he taught them as that he was true God and Man that he was to redeem the world with his blood upon the Cross c. Neither can any man justly here reply that the Disciples and first Christians were obliged thus to receive our Blessed Saviour for the Scripture which gives Testimony of him Thus I say no man can justly reply For the Gentiles receiv'd not that Scripture and yet they were bound to acknowledge Christ and believe him Infallible And though some learned Jews might perhaps gather this out of Scripture yet even without the Scripture the works of Christ were of themselves abundantly sufficient to prove who he was both to the learned and unlearned Wherefore our Saviour alwayes referred them to his works as giving abundant Testimony of him I have said he greater Testimony then John for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect them the very works which I do give Testimony of me that the Father sent me The like we finde him saying elsewhere The works that I do in the Name of my Father give Testimony of me And if you will not believe me believe my works By these places it appears that the works of Christ without Scripture proved him to be the true Messias and Infallible This Doctrine is also verified in the Apostles who receiv'd Commission from Christ to preach every where and TO CONFIRME THEIR WORDS with Signs that followed by which signs all their Hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them and to acknowledge their words for Infallible Oracles of Truth as the Apostles themselves testified Acts 5. 28. Where we finde that a Controversie arising in those Primitive times among the Christians the Apostles and Ancients assembled together and having first concluded by themselves what was to be held for Truth in the matters controverted imposed their Decree as Infallible Doctrine upon all others in these words It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and Us c. As therefore Moyses our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles were prov'd Infallible by their works signs and miracles without Scripture so is the Church without help of the same sufficiently prov'd to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which being the effects and properties of the Church do Declare 〈◊〉 and Demonstrate her immediately and the Scriptures onely as they are found in her and acknowledged by her Wherefore though Heretiques have the Scripture yet being out of the true Church they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility of which see Bellarmin and other Catholique Authours discoursing more at large De notis Ecclesiae 'T is sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholiques
of the Church in Fundamentals is most unreasonable For if a man ask you why you believe all those points which you hold for Fundamental for example the Resurrection of the Dead and life everlasting your answer will be because they are agreeable to the Doctrine and Tradition of Christ. And if you be asked how you know them to be so you will no doubt produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental points But if he ask you a third time by what means you are assured that those Testimonies do make for you or are indeed the Words Sentences and Works of Christ you will not then have recourse to the Testimonies and Words themselves that is to the Bible but your final Answer will be you know them to be so and that they do make for you because the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much to you from Tradition and according to Tradition which is to prove Idem per Idem as much as we And if the said Separatist further enquiring about the precedent Authorities of Scriptures Councils Fathers Apostles and Christ himself while he lived on Earth shall ask why such Fundamentals are believed upon the sole Authority of the Present Church as the last Testimony Infallibly assuring that those Fundamental Points and all the precedent Confirmations of them are from God 't is evident the Bishops party has no other way to avoid a Circle but by answering they believe the Scriptures Councils c. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church as the Infallible Organ Ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us Which Infallibity must come from the Holy Ghost and be more then Humane or Moral and therefore must be truly 〈◊〉 and proceed from Gods most absolute and Divine Veracity in fulfilling his Promises as from its Radical Principle and from the Operation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate Cause preserving the Church from errour in all such points Thus we are easily got out of the Circle leaving the Bishop still tumbling himself in it For we do not finally rest on the Present Church as consisting of men subject to errour as his Lordship vainly suggests Nor do we rest upon the Motives of Credibility as the Formal Object of our Faith but as inducing us to rely on the said Church ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us and is consequently Infallible Whereas the Bishop does but dance in a Round while enquiring for some Infallible warrant of the Word of God he thus concludes pag. 66. 'T is agreed on by me it can be nothing but the Word of God which must needs end in an apparent Circle as proving Idem per Idem And whereas immediately after he runs on prolixly in Distinguishing between Gods written and unwritten Word as though he would make the latter serve for Infallible proof of the former he never reflects that the said latter viz. Gods unwritten Word does necessarily stand in as much need of proof as the former Now as concerning the Authority of the Church of which the Motives of Credibility do ascertain us 't is not necessary that it be esteem'd or stiled absolutely Divine as the Bishop would have it yet as to this purpose and so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self I mean in respect of the precise Infallibility and absolute veracity of whatsoever it Declares and Testifies to be matter of Divine Faith though in many other respects we do not deny but the Authority of the Church is much inferiour to that of Scripture For first the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth because there not onely every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believ'd by all that know it to be a part of Scripture but in the Definitions of the Church neither the Arguments Reasons nor Words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but onely the Thing Declared to be such Besides the Church has certain limits and can Define nothing but what was either Reveal'd before or hath such connexion with it as it may be Rationally and Logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before Revealed Moreover the Church hath the Receiving and Interpreting of Scripture for its End and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it Hence it is that Holy Scripture is per Excellentiam called the Word of God and Divine whereas the Testimony of the Church is onely said by Catholique Divines and in particular by A. C. IN SOME SORT or IN A MANNER Divine By which manner of speaking their intention is not to deny it to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility but onely to shew the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church Adde that although we hold it necessary and therein agree with our Adversary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God upon DIVINE Authority yet standnig precisely in what was propounded by Mr. Fisher pag. 59. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture there will be no necessity of Defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine For if it be but Infallible by the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost it must give such Assurance that whatever is Defined by it to be Scripture is most certainly Scripture that no Christian can doubt of it without Mortal Sin and shaking the Foundation of Christian Faith as hath been often Declared And the immediate reason why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely Infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church has Defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be Reveal'd or taught by Divine Authority this also must be so revealed and consequently no Authority less then Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith Now it is to be remembred and A. C. notes it pag. 49 50. that the Prime Authority for which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which moves us as the formal Object of our Faith to believe that Scripture is the Written Word of God and the Definition of the Present Church assuring us Infallibly that there is such a Tradition applies this Article of our Faith unto us as it does all the rest whether the Voice or Definition of the Present Church in it self be absolutely Divine or no. Neither can there be shew'n any more difficulty in believing this as an Apostolical Tradition upon the Infallible Declaration of the Church then in believing any other Apostolical Tradition whatsoever upon the like Declaration His
as a precious Jewel in a Cabinet about with them and name Cranmer onely in the Margent or should any other Author to discredit Protestants affirm that some of them turn'd Turks and were burnt for such and cite onely in the margent Bernardinus Ochinus would not this be esteem'd a Rhetoricall Hyperbole or rather a most unjust way of writing But what if this Singular-Plural sayes no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie would not this be a notable Turn Intelligitur so are Occhams words cited by the Bishop in his margent SOLUM de Ecclesiâ quae fuit tempore Apostolorum It viz. the sentence of St. Augustin I would not believe the Gospel c. is understood saith he ONELY of the Church which was in the Apostles time Now in that whole place which I have perused very diligently there are neither those cited words nor any thing like them What is there then marry the quite contrary For he sayes expresly that the Church whereof St. Augustin speaks in that Sentence contains not onely the Apostles and those of their times but also the Church successively from the times of the Apostles to that very time wherein St. Augustin wrote those words as Occham himself shews out of another Text of St. Augustin and affirms that he understood the Church in the very same sense in this sentence that he exprest in the other and so concludes that St. Augustins words there are not to be understood of the times of the Apostles onely quite contradictorily to what his Lordship makes him speak Is this fair dealing think you to juggle in this manner what is this but to go about to perswade us 't is not day though the Sun shines That St. Augustins meaning jumps right with Occhams interpretation 't is evident For he must speak here of the Church in his time and not of the Primitive or Apostolicall Church onely because he speaks of that Church which said to him Noli credere Manichaeo do not believe Manichaeus which if he had affirmed of the Primitive or Apostolicall Church had neither been true nor to the purpose the Primitive and Apostolicall Church having said no more against Manichaeus then the Scripture it self said Moreover he speaks of that Church wherein as he taught in the former Chapter the succession of Bishops from St. Peter to the present time had kept him c. but that must needs be the present Church succeeding the Primitive and not the Primitive onely Nay further he sayes that if any evident place could be alledged out of the Gospel in confirmation of Manichaeus his Doctrine he would neither believe the Church nor the Gospel because both of them should in that case have deceiv'd him which must necessarily be meant of the present Church because the Church in the Apostles time had not deceiv'd him in forbidding him to follow Manichaeus Now though it be a point of Faith that the Church is Infallible in delivering the Scripture unto us yet is it not a point of Faith that her Infallibility is prov'd out of the cited place of Saint Augustin 'T is sufficient that it be clear and manifest out of the Text it self His Lordships objection That the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive I distinguish If he means the one must be as truly and really Infallible quoad substantiam as the other I grant it but if he mean the one must be as highly and as perfectly Infallible as the other quoad modum I deny it For the voyce of the Church need not be suppos'd simply Divine to give an Infallible Testimony of this Tradition as we have shew'd because we need not assert it to be any more then an Authenticall Testimony preserv'd by the Holy Ghost from Errour Those two ends alone mentioned by the Relatour fall short of the end of Tradition which not onely induces Infidels and instructs Novices and weaklings but founds and establishes Believers even the greatest Doctors in the Church St. Augustin was neither Infidell Novice Weakling nor Doubter in the Faith but the very learnedst of Bishops and Doctors yet it serv'd him so much that he would not have believ'd no nor could believe Scripture without it as he himself testifies of himself in the place above cited contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. As concerning Jacobus Almaynus his opinion cited by the Relatour viz. that we are first and more bound to believe the Church then the Gospel it is not altogether true For though we are first bound to believe the Church non prioritate temporis sed naturae to use Philosophicall tearms because the Authority of the Church is the means by which we are infallibly assur'd that Scripture is the word of God yet the Authority of the Church being ordain'd to the Scripture as the end and more noble object it cannot be properly said that we are more bound to believe the Church then the Scripture Touching his and Gersons reading the fore-cited place of St. Augustin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas where for commoveret they read compelleret concerning this I say I had rather charitably think they had found it so in some copies then judge with his Lordship that they did most notoriously falsifie the Text. And I am perswaded he had the like charitable opinion for Mr. Perkins who puts credidissem for crederem and movisset for commoveret Neither is this Apology of mine for Almaynus and Gerson without ground For both Occham and Biel quoted by his Lordship serve themselves of the very same word compelleret so that it seems the School-men of those dayes cited St. Augustin in this manner And though for my part I preferre commoveret before compelleret yet in St. Augustins perswasion express'd in that place it signifies as much as compelleret For he confesses that the Authority of the Church not onely mov'd him to believe the Gospel but commanded him and so strongly that it necessitated him to acknowledge the Scriptures for the Divine word of God which is as much as compelleret To the Authors cited in his Margent I answer Canus libr. 2. de Locis cap. 8. treats as St. Augustin did how one comes to believe who hath no belief in the Scripture and resolves that this must be done by the Authority of the Church and that such as reject the Churches Authority can never believe the Scripture Hence he consequently asserts sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii c. that Infidels and Novices in the Faith are brought to the belief of Scripture by this means But here 's the Turn He cites sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii lamely without a Verb or any full sense thinking thereby to perswade his Reader that the Church induces onely such to read Scriptures by a fallible authority and that all their Infallible Faith of Scripture streams
from the pretended light that is in Scripture Whereas if he had cited the whole Sentence it would have appear'd most clearly that Canus makes Infidels and Novices in Faith so convinc'd to believe Scripture for the Infallible word of God by the authority of the Church that the said authority is not a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it For he asserts that an Infidel is victus convinc'd by that Authority that it is via certa a sure and certain way and that we take argumentum certum a certain and assured argument of this from the Churches Authority Again by this citing of Nominatives without Verbs he puts off by a nimble Turn the esteem that Infideles Novicii make of the Churches Authority in regard of Scripture sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii ad sacras literas ingrediantur the Churches Authority is a sure way and none but that Observe I pray you those words None but that whereby he excludes all others and consequenly this pretended Light of Scripture it self from being a sure and infallible way of entring into the Scriptures that is of beginning to believe them expresly to be the word of God This Verb therefore ingrediantur which was omitted would have given light to 〈◊〉 his full meaning For though the greatest Doctours of the Church believe Scriptures upon this sole Authority as a certain and infallible foundation yet onely Infideles Novicii Infidels and Novices in Faith enter into Scriptures that is make their first beginning to believe them by the same authority As for Stapleton he never so much as mentions in the cited place this Text of St. Augustin but onely averres that nothing can be prov'd from Scripture against such an one as is either ignorant of Scripture or denies it St. Augustin therefore in this place speaking according to those cited Authors of a sure way for believing Scripture to be the word of God cannot possibly favour the Bishops assertion who makes the Authority of the Church in this case to be but fallible and unsure Neither doth this great Doctour any where affirm that this way of Church authority is onely for Infidels as the Bishops explication of him seems to insinuate but both affirms and proves that neither Infidels nor Believers can be any other way convinc'd When therefore his Lordship cites St. Augustins Text Quibus ergo obtemper avi dicentibus CREDITE EVANGELIO c. Whom therefore I have obeyed saying BELIEVE THE GOSPEL c. and thence gathers that St. Augustin speaks of himself when he did not believe I see very little consequence in this his Illation unless he suppose that Saint Augustin never obeyed this command of Gods Church but onely at his first Conversion from Infidelity For certainly his meaning was that he had and did alwayes even till that instant from his first Conversion obey that command of the Church One thing I am sure may be far better inferr'd from those words against the Relatour then this was against us For St. Augustin sayes not Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus LEGITE EVANGELIUM vel INSPICITE EVANGELIUM c. whom I obeyed saying Read the Gospel or persue the Gospel but Credite Evangelio believe the Gospel The Church commanded St. Augustin to believe the Gospel Ergo The Church in St. Augustins time esteem'd her self most undoubtedly certain that the Gospel and by consequence all other Scriptures which she recommended to her children to believe were the Infallible word of God For otherwise to impose a command of so high a nature in that wherein she might be deceiv'd her self and deceive them had been to expose her Authority to the hazard of commanding Christians to do that which had been a grievous injury to God namely to believe that to be his Divine Word which was onely the word of man CHAP. 7. The prosecution of the former Question ARGUMENT 1. No means sufficient in the Bishops Principles to be assured what Tradition is Apostolical or what Scripture Divine 2. St. Augustins Text concerning Church-Authority examin'd 3. That the Bishop yields at last to the Private Spirit mask'd under the title of Grace 4. His way of Resolving Faith demonstrated to faile 5. That no man with him can be a true Christian unless he be a good Grammarian and Logician too 6. How the Scripture is said to be a Light 7. His falling again upon the Private Spirit 8. Bellarmine vindicated 9. Brierley defended Hooker shamefully mangled miscited and misconstrued by the Bishop 1. HItherto our Antagonist hath endeavour'd with all the engins of his wit to shake the Infallible Authority of the present Catholique Church but in vain Let 's now see whether he can build better then he destroyes The ground on which he builds our Faith is Primitive Apostolical Tradition I demand how comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible or why cannot we as well being induc'd and prepar'd by the voice of the Church if fallible believe with Divine Faith and rest upon Apostolical Tradition as a Formal Object for it self as believe the Scriptures for themselves If it be answer'd we have no other certainty that the Church now delivers that Primitive Tradition which the Apostles deliver'd but the voyce of the Church I reply We have also no other certainty that the Scripture we now have is the very same which was recommended by Apostolicall Tradition but the Voyce and perpetual Testimony of the Church Yes sayes our Adversary we have the more ancient Copies which confirm ours But the same Difficulty returns upon those ancienter Copies What infallible certainty have we of them beside Church-Tradition They may replyes his Lordship be examin'd and approv'd by the Authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles But first how many of those are now extant Secondly how few will be able to come to the sight of them Thirdly what certainty have we that they are the Authenticall Autographa's but by Tradition Fourthly may not every Universall Tradition be carried up as clearly at east to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authors who wrote in their respective succeeding ages If therefore when he sayes there 's a double Authority c. he mean onely that in the Apostles time Christians had a double Authority to believe Scripture viz. Tradition and Scripture it self he brings nothing to the present purpose for our dispute is not of that but of Our present time If he say we have now that double Authority he contradicts himself and puts a foundation of our Faith beside Scripture and so denies that Scripture alone is the foundation of our Faith Yet it seems by speaking in the present Tense Here 's a double Authority that confirms Scripture to be the word of God he means that we have now both Apostolicall Tradition and Scripture it self as two Authorities and each containing the Formal Object of Faith to believe Scripture to be
the word of God which is also sutable to his words § 16. num 22. We resolve saith he meaning Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scriptures it self and yet confesses we have no means to be infallibly certain that Scripture is the word of God but by the Testimony of church-Church-Tradition He would fain have the difference betwixt us to consist onely in this that we affirm Church-Traditions to be the Formal Object Prime Motive and last Resolution of Faith and that they deny it to be so But the difference as it appears in the Resolution we have already given is not in that For we are now both agreed that it is not necessary to say the Faith of Scripture is resolv'd into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formall Object or Prime Motive c. but the onely substantiall Difference is this We say the Tradition of the present Church is Infallible and that necessarily to the end it may infallibly apply the Formal Object to us you say 't is Fallible Grant us once that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible and the controversie in this is ended How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith as here he speaks into the Prime Apostostolical Tradition Infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church I see not unless he could tell how to be infallibly certain of that Tradition without it which he knows not well how to compass as appears in the next number So that now he abandons his Fort again by not shewing how we can know infallibly that Apostolicall Tradition is Divine otherwise then by the Tradition of the present Church For as to what he asserted num 21. that there 's a double Authority and both Divine viz. Apostolical Tradition and Scripture even in respect of us it doth not satisfie the difficulty as I have prov'd but serves onely to make one contrary Turn upon another in his Labyrinth so that you know not where to follow him For if church-Church-Tradition fail to ascertain us infallibly of that Divine Apostolicall Tradition we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture it self be the Infallible word of God or no. That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible may be thus sufficiently prov'd We cannot be infallibly certaine that Scripture is the word of God unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible For we acknowledge many Books for Canonicall Scripture which Protestants admit not and they now hold some for such which have not been alwayes approv'd for such And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have are said by Catholiques to be corrupted Others also cry up some Books for Canonicall Scripture which both Catholiques and Protestants disallow If therefore the Church can erre in this point with what shadow of truth can Protestants pretend to bring an Infallible ground that Scripture is the word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church serves to assure us infallibly that Scripture is the word of God and not onely as his Lordship would have it to work upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to read and consider the Scripture or among Novices Weaklings and Doubters of Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scriptures 2. Neither can the often cited place of St. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. be rationally understood of the foresaid Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith For it is clear that St. Austin by those words gives a reason why he then a Bishop would not follow the Doctrine of Manichaeus and why no Christian ought to follow it As if a man should say he that believes the Gospel believes it onely for the Authority of the Church which condemning Manichaeus it is impossible rationally proceeding to admit the Gospel and follow Manichaeus Neither is the contrary any wayes deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop § 16. num 21. If thou shouldst finde one who did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldst thou do to make him believe For the holy Doctor there speaks to Manichaeus and shewes how neither Infidels nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus Not Infidels because Manichaeus proves this onely out of Scriptures which they not admitting might rationally enough slight his proof Not Christians because they receiving the Scripture upon the sole Authority of the Church could no more approve of the Apostleship of Manicheus condemned by the Church then if they admitted not of Scripture at all Wherefore A. C. had no reason to pass by this place of St. Austin which his Lordship sayes pag. 82. he urged at the Conference unless it were because he did not then remember it As for the Catholique Authors cited by the Relatour certainly they all hold that the Authority of the present Church is an Infallible proof that Scripture is the word of God And though they teach that the fore-mentioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels Novices and those who deny or doubt of Scripture yet they averre not that it is of less force for all others But their meaning is that the Authority of the Church appears more clearly necessary against Infidels and those who doubt of the Faith For suppose a learned man be an Infidel or doubt of Scripture he will say if the Church may erre he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is Gods word If you tell him the Church though subject to errour is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture and read it diligently and that then he will finde such an inbred light in it as will assure him infallibly that 't is the word of God he will reply he hath done what you require and yet findes no more inbred light in those Books which Protestants receive for Canonical then he doth in others which Catholiques admit but Protestants reject as Apocryphall no no more then he doth in other counterfeit pieces disapprov'd both by Catholiques and Protestants 3. Who doth not here most clearly see that we cannot deal with such a man without the unerring or Infallible Authority of the Church unless we will have recourse to the Private Spirit from which though the Bishop would seem so free that he excludes it from the very state of the Question yet he falls into it and palliates it under the specious title of Grace and where others us'd to say they were infallibly resolv'd that Scripture was the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83 84. averres that he hath the same assurance by Grace so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular he onely changeth their words 4. The Relatour is very much out when he maintains on the one side that the Church is fallible in her Tradition of Scriptures and yet still supposes throughout his whole discourse that whoever comes to read Scriptures deliver'd by the Church findes
not dissenting from it Again as Christ and his Apostles shew'd they had Divine Authority to all who had the Grace to believe them and none to whom their preaching was sufficiently propounded could disbelieve them without damnable sin so also if the Scripture hath light enough after the recommendation of the Church to be seen by all that have Grace whoever dissents from that light commits a damnable sin in not believing it to be the word of God Now to affirm that all who dissent from that light commit damnable sin were to condemne not onely all the Luther an Protestants but many of the holy Ancient Fathers of damnable sin who read some of those Books which other Protestants account Scripture even upon the recommendation of the Church and yet dissented from their being the word of God at least accounted it not infallibly certain that they were 6. Thus we have seen quite contrary to the Bishops Doctrine that Scripture gives not so great and high Reasons of Credibility to it self that the Believer may rest his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority upon that Divine light which Scripture hath in self For there appears no such light to any but to the Bishop and those who pretend to the private Spirit 'T is true the Scripture is said by the Royal Prophet to be a Light because after we have once receiv'd it from the Infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe Therefore David saith not Verba scripta in Bibliis lumen pedibus meis but Verbum tuum THY WORD is a light to my feet so that he first believ'd the Scripture to be the word of God and then said it was a light c. But without this Authority 't is neither lumen manifestativum sui nec alterius neither a light that evidences it self nor any thing else because without this we may with just reason doubt as well of Scripture as of the true sense thereof Wherefore though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspir'd from God yet he doth never avow that this could be prov'd out of them unless they were receiv'd by the Infallible Authority of the Church And Henricus a Gandavo quoted by his Lordship for affirming that Christians in the Primitive Church did principally believe for the Authority of God and not of the Apostles means onely that Christians were not mov'd to believe for any humane Authority of the Apostles but for the Authority of God speaking by them So that this argument must be solv'd as well by the Bishop as by us for he has already granted that the Authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as we And Origen whom he cites in the Margent speaks to such as believ'd that Scriptures were the word of God whom by those proofs out of Scripture he endeavour'd to confirm and settle in their Faith by shewing how Scripture it self testified as much We may therefore assert that 't is not any humane or fallible Authority of the Church that moves us to embrace the Scripture as the Infallible word of God but the voyce of God speaking by the Church or the Authority of God declar'd to us infallibly by the present Church And this Infallible Authority is no less requisite to the knowledge of the first Apostolicall Tradition of the Scriptures then it is to know the Scripture it self But I finde another handsome Turn or two in this discourse of the Bishop He undertook to evince that the Scripture hath such light in it self that being introduc'd by the Tradition of the Church it can shew it self to be the most undoubted Divine word of God which to perform he assumes this medium The Scripture is a light Therefore it can manifest not onely other things but also it self by it self to be a light Ergo it can manifest it self to be the word of God This must be his consequence if he will conclude his intent But what windings are here The Scripture is a light I grant it Ergo 't is able to manifest it self to be a light I grant that too Ergo it can manifest it self to be an infallible light or the undoubted word of God That I deny and this which was the onely thing to be prov'd he never so much as goes about to prove For unless he could shew that there are no other lights save the word of God and such as are Infallible he can never make good his consequence In Seneca in Plutarch in Aristotle I read many lights and those lights manifest themselves to be lights Ergo they manifest themselves to be Infallible lights or the very Divine word of God what consequence is this The Scripture teacheth that there is one God this is a light and manifests it self to be a light Ergo it manifests it self to be the word of God how follows that May not the same light be found in hundreds of Books even in the Talmud of the Jews and Alcoran of the Turks as well as in Scripture The same may be said of a thousand Moral Instructions which either the very same or much like to them may be sound in other Moral Writers as well Christians as Jews and Heathens which all manifest themselves to be lights but follows it thence that they manifest themselves to be Divine lights or lights undoubtedly proceeding from the mouth of God The intricacy therefore of this Meander consists in making a sly Transition from the light to the person who is cause of this light I finde for example a candle lighted in a room it is a light and enlightens all the room and shews it self to be a light by its own light but it shews not by that light who lighted it I see some good sentence written on a wall it manifests it self by it self to be good but it manifests not whether it were written by Man Angel or God himself this must be evinc'd some other way Thus the words and sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves by themselves to be lights yet because the very same or such as are perfectly like and so the same in substance and sense may have been conceiv'd and express'd not onely by God but by good Men or Angels it follows not as he would have it they shew themselves to be lights by their own light Ergo they shew themselves to be Gods-lights or Infallible lights produc'd by none but God himself We have made I hope a pretty good progress through this Meander But no looner is one past over but we fall into another He was to prove that Scripture has light enough in it self to give Divine Infallible proof that 't is the word of God so as our Faith may rest upon that light as on its proper formall object and to evince this he cites here and there Authorities of the Fathers where they took some proofs out of Scripture to conclude Scripture to be the word of God
We grant they did so but what follows thence Ergo Scripture gives sufficient Divine proof to it self before it be believ'd infallibly to be Gods word This he was to inferre from it but how proves he this consequence which is the onely difficulty He doth it thus or no way at all The Fathers who precedently to the reading of Scripture believ'd infallibly that Scripture was the word of God prov'd by Scripture that it was such Ergo those who believe not infallibly that Scripture is Gods word may evince by Scripture that 't is the word of God Is not this a strong inference The difficulties occurring in this his Lordships Doctrine though slighted by him are as many as in that of the private Spirit the odium of which opinion he will never be able to avoid by desiring not to have it so much as nam'd in the state of the question For if the Church may erre yea and hath err'd according to Protestants in this point how can we have Infallible assurance either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition or of the Scripture it self We read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture yet see we not such convincing and infallible arguments as can give us assurance that those Books are infallibly the word of God which Protestants admit and no other Now when he sayes they resolve their Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolical and in the next number knows not how to be certain of that Tradition he dissolves what he resolv'd before and makes one part of his Resolution impossible Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolicall Tradition he would quite undoe what he said before that Scripture is the onely foundation of our Faith and not Tradition Thus he turns quite opposite wayes in his Labyrinth 7. Here therefore to averre without any further proof that there appears such light to Protestants and no others is in effect to challenge the Private Spirit to himself and his party which is something more then onely to allow it in general For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self why do not we see it as well as they seeing we read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as they do To say that all are blinde besides themselves or that all beside themselves have such perverse eyes such unsanctified understandings that they cannot see nor reach that light which Protestants most easily discern is very great presumption and the same may with as much reason be challeng'd by every Heretique for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them as shall occurre to his fancy Nor can he upon any just ground make the Scripture to be like those Principles which are known of themselves so soon as the Terms are understood For such Principles are either evidently or probably known of themselves Of the former sort are these and others of like nature The whole is greater then a part thereof The same thing cannot be and not be at the sametime Of the latter sort is this and such others Every mother loves her childe from which 't is probably concluded that Katharine for example loves her childe by this argument Every mother loves her childe But Katharine is a mother Therefore Katharine loves her childe Now if we speak of principles of the first kinde the Relatour grants that Scripture is no such principle and 't is manifest in it self that it is not otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God as all agree in those Metaphysicall Principles above-named Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort for of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God then some other Book which is not truly such And though it had some probability that it were such yet were it not sufficient for we must have certainty and infallible certainty too as his Lordship grants But how that can be had without the infallible Authority of the Church I am confident neither he nor any of his party will ever be able to shew But if we betake our selves to the infallible Authority of the Church we may be as certainly and infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God as those who heard the Apostles say that Scripture was Gods word For as the Signs and Motives which accompanied the Apostles prov'd them to be Infallible so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible insomuch that we can no more erre in taking the Scripture from the Church then the Christians of the Primitive Church could erre in taking it from the Apostles And yet as their Faith was of things not seen both in regard of the Object which is not seen and of the Subject that sees onely in aenigmate enigmatically and darkly so is ours Will the Bishop then account the greatest part or rather all the Fathers either blinde or sensual men who saw no such light for some hundreds of years after Christ as Protestants with his Lordship here pretend they see in some Books of Scripture Were all those of the Roman Church for so many ages before blinde when you of the new-found Church first began who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture as could evince it self to be the word of God to such as before believ'd it not to be so with Divine certainty Or will Protestants be content that we upon this their own principle account them all blinde and sensual men because they see not the light of many other Books which our Church recommends to them and us and which we believe to be Divine Scripture as a great part of the Ancient Fathers did before us What do any Sectaries in the world more then this either against us or them or one against another in asserting the Private Spirit For the Bishop and his party affirm themselves to be so enlightned that they can see and discover that in Scriptures which no other Christians beside themselves ever did or could even before they believe it infallibly to be Scripture 8. As for Bellarmin whom the Bishop will needs have to be 〈◊〉 and unable to stand upon his own ground for teaching lib. 3. De Ecclesia cap. 14. that 't is not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that which in it self hath no shadow of difficulty it being as Bellarmin asserts it a truth so evident that the Bishop himself could not have deny'd it And if his Lordship had not too hastily run over Bellarmin he would have found that he distinguishes times as well as Gandavo cited in the same page For he saith that to believe there are any Divine Scriptures 't is not absolutely necessary to salvation for his omnino signifies no more because many were saved who lived before Divine Scriptures were written and since
see the dextrous Windings the Bishop makes to turn Hookers words another way He first would inferre from these words of Hooker So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing that might assure c. that therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition supposing that Hooker spake of proving Scripture to be the word of God But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus Mr. Hookers adversaries the Puritans had affirmed that Scripture prov'd it self to be the word of God by its own light and authority Mr. Hooker asserts it impossible for Scripture to be its own proof After he had demonstrated this he tells his Adversaries that unless besides Scripture there be another proof c. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God Ergo sayes the Bishop he himself against himself holds Scripture to prove it self when every one that has his eyes open may see that Hookers meaning is there must be some other thing different from Scripture to prove the Scriptures to be Gods word and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture c. was occasioned by his adversaries opinion As if he had said unless beside Scripture which you Puritans have ungroundedly put for its own proof there be some other it can never be prov'd sufficiently to be Scripture because I have demonstrated that Scripture which you falsly suppose to be that proof is no such proof at all But let us hear Mr. Hooker make his Apology for himself in his own words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his word For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way So that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure us that we do well we could not think we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy Rule of doing well Hooker lib. 2. § 4. Is there any thing here which proves Scripture to be a ground to it self that 't is the word of God Nay is not the impossibility hereof clearly asserted Is not Hooker in search after an assuring ground upon which Scripture must stand But the Bishop will have this ground whether Mr. Hooker will or no onely concomitant with Scripture that is church-Church-Tradition onely to lead in and help in assurance which assurance we get by the sole light of Scripture whereas Mr. Hooker will have that assurance both that Scripture is a rule of living well and that we do well in holding it to be so and also that it is the word of God as his words now cited declare to be precedent to Scripture and no other then church-Church-Tradition If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to it self that it is the word of God in his own opinion he maintains the very same in effect that we say and the quite contrary to the Bishop viz. that supposing we are assured by a proof precedent to Scripture that Scripture is the word of God this I say presupposed Scripture as by a secondary proof can confirm its own Authority viz. either where it teacheth that we are to believe the Church which so assures us primarily or that it self is the word of God This Turn being ended he begins another and that a double one and endeavours to shew that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to shew that Scripture is the word of God is the Tradition of the Church For that Author sayes he states the question in these words The Scripture is the ground of our Belief the Authority of man that 's the name Hooker gives to Tradition is the key which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture Now see his Meanders Hooker sayes the Bishop affirms that Scripture is the ground of our Belief But are those all Hookers words in that Sentence No for I finde amongst them a therein which is neatly hidden in a dark corner Although sayes Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief This one concealed word relates to something which would have quite spoil'd the Bishops market had it been fairly express'd What means he by Therein The words immediately going before tell us Whatsoever sayes Hooker we believe concerning Salvation by Christ although the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief Whence it appears that Hooker rather excludes Scripture from being a ground of our Belief concerning that which the Bishop here pretends viz. that Scripture is the word of God For the word therein which Hooker useth is in this place clearly relative and restrictive and tyes his speech to the particular matter precedent viz. to all things concerning Salvation by Christ. As if Hooker should say Good assurance being presupposed by some antecedent proof that Scripture is the word of God Scripture it self may then be a ground of our Belief touching all other things which concern our Salvation by Christ. How does this place of Hooker now fully and faithfully cited favour his Lordship There is no man that has his brains about him to use his own words but sees how little it makes to his purpose But let us go on The Authority of man sayes Hooker cited by the Bishop is the Key which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter and shew what he means by opening the knowledge of Scripture He speaks thus The Scriptures do not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things Stay a while By this Key therefore which opens the entrance into the knowledge of Scriptures is not meant in this place that church-Church-Tradition fallibly assures us that Scripture is the word of God as the Bishop would fain interpret Hooker but that it teaches us the meaning of the words of Scripture and thereby opens to us the knowledge of Scripture By what hath been said 't is evident his Lordship had very little reason to fall so hotly upon Brierley as to tax him of falsification as he does num 25. For Hooker clearly teaching that besides Scripture we must have the Authority or Tradition of the Church to assure us that Scripture is Gods word and Brierley affirming no more of him then this I wonder that for speaking truth he should be thought to deserve so sharp a censure from his Lordship CHAP. 8. A further discovery of our Adversaries indirect proceedings in the Question ARGUMENT 1. The Question declined by the Bishop 2.
this Divine Authority to that company of men or to the Holy Scriptures A. C. there discoursing of one who considers church-Church-Tradition as 't is deliver'd from a company of men assisted by the Holy Ghost speaks thus He would finde no difficulty in that respect to account the Authority of Church-Tradition to be Infallible and consequently not onely able to be an Introduction but also an Infallible motive or reason or at least a condition EX PARTE OBJECTI to make both it self and the Books of Scripture appear infallibly though obscurely to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith These words in them are clearly referr'd to Books of Scripture not to any company of men and those words sufficient to breed in us divine Faith have relation to the Authority of the Books of Scripture and not to those men For though he put before two Antecedents it self that is Church Tradition and Books of Scripture to both which in them may seem to have relation yet it is one thing to affirm that church-Church-Tradition hath in it Divine and Infallible Authority and another to affirm that those men so assisted have in them Divine and Infallible Authority as he accuses A. C. to have said For seeing that in Church-Tradition is included Apostolical Tradition in A. C's principles and that even according to our Adversary Apostolical Tradition is of Divine Authority it will be true to assert that church-Church-Tradition hath in it Divine Authority even though those men delivering it had not in them any absolute Divine but onely Infallible Authority Our Apology for A. C. being ended let us see how his Lordship goes about to prove Scripture to be Gods Word For the better understanding whereof 't is necessary to know what he is to prove He tells us that this his Method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the Ancient Church ever held c. Now his Lordships Method and manner of proving this includes two particulars The first that church-Church-Tradition is onely a humane moral and fallible inducement able onely to found a moral perswasion that Scripture is the Word of God but insufficient to conveigh infallibly to us the Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures-being Gods word whence he concludes that before the reading of Scripture we cannot in vertue of that Apostolical Tradition thus conveighed to us believe with Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This is the first part of his Position The second is that Scripture by the internal light which is in it founds a Divine Faith that it is the Word of God when we frame a high Moral esteem of it and are induc'd to read it as a thing most likely to be Gods Word by the fallible Testimony of the Church While therefore he here undertakes to prove that his Method and Manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is according to the use of the ancient Church let us have an eye to these two points and see whether his Authorities prove them or no. First then his Authorities must prove that before we read Scripture it self we have not Divine Faith but onely a Moral perswasion by church-Church-Tradition that it is the Word of God He cites first Vincentius Lirinensis lib. 1. cap. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholique Church The Faith he here speaks of is not any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian and Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it Sound Faith and his Faith Fidem suam the Faith of a Christian nay he sayes the Tradition of the Catholique Church must needs as truly munire fidem confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture does it in a more high and noble manner as being the immediate prime Revelation of God This then proves not his intent but the quite contrary Secondly Henricus à Gandavo sayes expresly Credunt per istam famam they believe by this Relation of church-Church-Tradition and this is such a Belief that Christ is said to enter their hearts by means of the Church Christus intrat per mulierem id est Ecclesiam But Christ cannot enter into a Soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith onely A Gandavo goes on Plus verbis Christi in Scripturis credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti ergo credit Ecclesiae He believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith A little after à Gandavo sayes Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis secundam subistâ Definitionibus Consuetudinibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Here 's prima secunda fides But yet both of them are properly and truly Faith And to the end all may understand he means no other but Supernatural and Divine Faith as to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church he addes a third manner of giving credit to others Post istas studiosis viris non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae After these two viz. Scriptures and Church-Definitions he sayes we believe also learned men but in a far other degree of assent from that which was given to the Scriptures and to the Church non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae For the credit we give to them obliges not under pain of Infidelity or errour in Faith if we dissent from them but under pain of pertinacious pride in preferring our selves before them Seeing therfore he addes this limitation to the third kinde of belief onely he tacitely grants that if we contradict either Scripture or Church it is sub poenâ perfidiae under pain of Infidelity and not of Proterviousness onely Ergo he accounts the Definitions of the Church sufficient to assure us infallibly of Divine Truths otherwise it would not be Infidelity Errour in Faith or Heresie to contradict them Lastly à Gandavo is cited in these words Quod autem credimus posterioribus c. Here is credimus again and that with a Divine Faith in regard of the Church for he asserts presently that it is clear constat that the writings of the Scripture and other Articles of Faith preach'd by the former Pastours are not changed by their Successours and this does constare ex consensione concordi in 〈◊〉 omnium Succedentium 〈◊〉 ad tempor a nostra by the unanimous consent of all Succeeders even to our present times But sure a thing that is fallible uncertain and questionable cannot be said constare to be clear and unquestionable as he affirms the unanimous consent of succeeding ages to be Now the Bishop minces it in his Translation of the word constat turning it now it appears For a thing may be said to appear either clearly or obscurely He should therefore have rather translated it now it evidently appears had he not intended to make some pretty Turn by his Translation Hence is evinced that every
one of his Authorities brought to prove that church-Church-Tradition founds onely a probable humane perswasion that Scripture is Gods Word rather evince the quite contrary The second point to be concluded is that Scripture thus led in by the Church proves it self Infallibly and Divinely by its internall light to such as had no supernatural Faith precedently This he labours to evince from some expressions of the Fathers who use sometimes the like proofs to shew that Scripture is the Word of God But first do they alwayes bring these proofs to such as had no Divine Faith before of Scriptures-being Gods Word Do they not use them both for themselves and others who precedently had a Divine Faith of that point Secondly do the Fathers say that those proofs of theirs are the Primary Infallible and Divine proofs of Scriptures-being the word of God 〈◊〉 do they not rather use them as Secondary arguments perswasive onely to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word precedently to them Thirdly do they use onely such proofs as are wholly internal to Scripture it self All these conditions must be made good to make a full proof for his purpose out of them Now touching the two first conditions 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point not used they them as such And for the third condition viz. of the proofs being internal to Scripture they are not all such For first that of Miracles is externall The Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the word of God Secondly the Conversion of so many people and Nations by the doctrine contain'd in Scripture is also external to Scripture unless haply it came by reading the Scripture and not by the declaration and preaching of the Church which he proves not and the contrary is rather manifest Again many other Books beside Scripture contain the same doctrine yet are not thereby prov'd to be Gods Word Were not many thousands converted to that humble doctrine of Christ before divers of the Canonical Books were written Nay many whole Nations as St. Irenaeus already alledged witnesses some hundreds of years after the said Books were written who knew nothing at all of Scripture But suppose these four proofs mentioned by the Bishop viz. first Miracles secondly Doctrine nothing carnal thirdly performance of it Fourthly The Conversion almost of the whole world by this Doctrine had been all of them internal to Scripture yet how prove they Infallibly and Divinely that Scripture is the Word of God Perswade truly they may but convince they cannot Touching the first how will it appear that Miracles were ever wrought in immediate proof of the whole Bible as it is receiv'd in the Canon As for the second how many Books are there beside Scripture which have nothing of Carnal Doctrine at all in them Concerning the third and fourth how can it ever be prov'd that either the performance of this Doctrine or the Conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be deny'd but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applyable to the Church then to Scripture For first Miracles have most copiously and familiarly confirmed the Authority and lawful Mission of the Pastours Secondly the Doctrine of Gods true Church hath nothing of Carnal in it The Performance or verifying of this Doctrine is onely found in the Members of the Church Lastly it is the Church that hath preach'd this humble Doctrine of Christ and that hath converted and still doth convert Nations to the belief of it and submission to it Who sees not by this that while he disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it CHAP. 9. An End of the Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. St. Austins words explicated 2. The Bishop cannot avoid the Circle without mis-stating the Question 3. He waves the difficulty 4. St. Cyril and St. Austins words examined 5. The Bishops eight Points of Consideration weighed and found too light 6. According to his Principles no man can lawfully say his Creed till he have learnt the Articles thereof out of Scripture 7. His Synthetical way one of the darkest passages in his Labyrinth 8. Scripture when and by whom to be supposed for Gods Word 9. His Lordship argues a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 10. Brings non-cognita for praecognita and proves what he affirms ought not to be proved 11. The Jews Resolved their Faith into Tradition as the Church of Rome now doth 12. Moral Certainty not absolutely Infallible 1. 'T is now high time to put a Period to this Controversie touching the Churches Infallibility and Resolution of Faith which I should have done long since had not our Antagonist led us so long and so intricate a Dance through the redoubled Meanders of his Labyrinth St. Austins proving Scripture by an internal Argument lib. 13. cap. 5. contr Faust. makes little for the Bishops purpose unless St. Austin either affirm that Argument to be such as Faith may fully rest upon as its primary formal Motive and Object for proof of Scripture or that he himself prove it to be so For St. Austin often urges Arguments which are onely Secondary and probable yea sometimes purely conjectural in this kinde See an example of this in the margin What the Bishop quotes out of Thomas Waldensis Doct. Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Art 2. cap. 23. num 9. that if the Church should speak anything contrary to Scripture he would not believe her is most true but it is likewise as true what St. Austin said above contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. that if the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither The truth is both the one and the other that is both Waldensis and St. Austins expressions proceed ex suppositione impossibili and are wholly like that of St. Paul Gal. 1. If an Angel from heaven preach any thing otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed 2. But for all these Turns and Windings it will be hard to free the Bishop from a vicious Circle For if he allow not Scripture to be believ'd with Divine Faith by vertue of the Churches Testimony and Tradition what answer can be made to this Question Why believe you infallibly that Scripture is Gods Word If he say for the Tradition of the Church it will not serve seeing he is suppos'd to have no Divine Faith that
so resolv'd would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms resolving of Faith c. in the Ancient Fathers it being a School-term not used in their times It seems he would by his false citation of St. Austin in these words Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. contr Fund cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found nor any where else I am confident in all St. Austin For us it is sufficient that the Fathers frequently say We believe Scripture for Tradition we would not believe Scripture unless the Authority of the Church moved us that Traditions move to piety no less then Scripture c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms in the Fathers we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father who saith that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God infallibly for the Churches authority but must resolve it into the light of Scripture 5. I come now to his Considerations and begin with the first point touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology that must be pre-suppos'd without proof because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed I answer first he confounds Theology a Discursive Science with Faith which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will for Gods Authority revealing and not deduced by discursive Principles and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever in this particular Secondly I say I have already answered this matter to the full chap. 7. num 7. and chap. 6. num 5. in the Dialogue to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith which has further principles and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them He himself acknowledges that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition how was it then a Principle which cannot ought not to be proved but must be presupposed by all Christians Concerning his second point the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge For there the thing assented to remains obscure which in Sciences is made clear and all the difficulty is to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us and seeing he denies the Church to be it and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture we must have some further light clearer quoad nos then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition His third point contains no more in summe then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration I shall not therefore quarrel with it As to his fourth point we grant that the Incarnation of our Saviour the Resurrection of the dead and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church nor did we ever do it but into the Infallible Authority of God as we have often confessed In his fifth point recommended to Consideration there are also divers things which the Relatour himself should have better considered before they fell from his pen. For first he asserts on the one side that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence and that had it been clear in its own light to the Hearers of the Apostles that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge and not by Faith Yet on the other side almost with the same breath avoucheth that it appeared clear to the Prophets and Apostles that what ever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth and that they had clear Revelation What is this in effect supposing the Truth of his first Proposition but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful and make them in that respect like the Blessed in Heaven Comprehensores while they were yet in the way Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions that they walked by Faith not by Sight and that they saw onely per speculum in aenigmate Secondly in point of Miracles he avers that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing but what is actually converting which is a great mistake For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs since in themselves they deserve belief whether they actually convert or not and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said Had I not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned and again Woe be to thee Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida for had the Miracles done amongst you been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes Likewise The works which I do in my Fathers name bear witness of me and though you believe not me believe my works Thirdly the Bishops reasons brought in disparagement of Miracles seem as strange as his Doctrine First saith he the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested because forsooth there may be Counterfeit Miracles just as if a man should say Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not Secondly they are not convincing proofs because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Is not this a strange Paradox Do not all Divines even Protestants themselves confess that true Miracles are not feasable but by the special and extraordinary power of God That they are Divine Testimonies and that by them God sets as it were his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm that God bears witnesse to a Lye See the Margin It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other then false and feigned Miracles The sixth Point concerning the light of Scripture hath nothing but what is already answered chap. 7. num 5 6 and 7. Were Scripture by its own light capable of being the Prime Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge yet at least it must have something in it to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent Which in the Relatours Principles is not found The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows
not immediately from his Premises viz. that either there is no revelation or Scripture is it For if he would prove that Scripture must be it if there be any by the sole light of Scripture as he hath hitherto pretended I have evidenc'd it to be inconsequent Would he prove Scripture to be that Revelation supposing there be any by the intervention of church-Church-Tradition assuring us that it is such it is true but Diametrically opposite to his Principles Again he wheels a little about For no man ever deny'd that Scripture is Gods Revelation supposing he hath made Revelations so that in proving this he hurts not his Adversary but his Province was to prove that Scripture onely was Gods Revelation Why then omits he here the word onely which caused the whole Controversie His last Consideration is a dark Meander For the Motives of Credibility he there musters up preceding the light of Scripture are indeed of force to justifie ones Belief that Scripture is Gods Word when 't is receiv'd as the Ancients did receive it upon the Infallible Authority of church-Church-Tradition but never otherwayes And our present Question is not whether his Lordship does well in believing Scripture to be the Word of God as all those Motives of Credibility here mentioned by him perswade but whether he doth well in teaching that Scripture ought to be believ'd with Divine Faith for its onely inbred light as the formal Object And in this opinion I would gladly know how the recounted Motives can justifie his proceeding For though no man can doubt but most of those Motives may be applied to our Belief in the Articles of our Creed yet in his opinion they will not justifie the Believing those Articles with Divine Faith independently of Scripture which he makes the whole Foundation of believing them with Divine Faith 6. It s worth noting what we hear him now at last acknowledge for all the rest in this page is a meer repetition of what hath been already answered viz. that being arrived to the Light of the Text it self and meeting with the Spirit of God c. then and not before we are certain that Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and Infallible proof So that here he manifestly acknowledges that those who are not arrived to the light of Scripture in it self have no divine nor infallible proof of its being Gods Word and consequently have no Divine Faith of the mysteries of Christian Religion and so are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation which consequences how horridly they will sound in the ears of the unlearned I leave to the Reader And to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and prosess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet and consequently since it is unlawfull to lye and much more in matters of Religion then in others it will also follow that it is unlawfull for any one to teach unlearned persons their Creed and as unlawfull for them either to learn it or rehearse it before they have seen those Articles proved by Scripture For by this word Believe there must be meant as all agree a formal Christian and Divine Faith of those Articles 7. Finally we are told of his Lordships good intention in having proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the Benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all Christianly disposed But he had done much better had he proceeded in an Analytical way for in that was the difficulty namely to assign the first Principle on which our Faith is grounded in the Resolution of Faith which we are far from apprehending by this Synthetical way which confounds the Reader with Multiplicity of Arguments and weakens the Authority of the Church without which he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear Resolutionof Faith Well therefore might A. C. without note of Captiousness require the Analytical way yet give all all due respect to Scripture though the Relatour it seems would willingly insinuate the contrary For the Question being started whether the Scriptures onely or besides them unwritten Traditions were the Foundation of our Faith the Bishop maintain'd the first and A. C. the second Now A. C. could not more directly nor efficaciously overthrow his Lordships Tenet then by proving that the Assurance we have even of Scriptures themselves relyes upon Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which therefore must necessarily be the Foundation of our Faith His endeavour to bring A. C. and us into a Labyrinth like his own of a vicious Circle by retorting the Question which he calls captious it may be because himself was taken in it I have already prov'd ineffectual because both A. C. and our other Authours give the motives of Credibility as a preceding and uncircular ground for the Infallibility of Church-Tradition So that the Relator cannot retort the Question so easily as he imagines nor rid his hands so soon of the Jesuit by demanding How he knows the Testimony of the Church to be Divine and Infallible falsely supposing us to say that the Churches Infallibility is founded upon the Testimony of Scripture and the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church the contrary whereof I have sufficiently deliver'd and declared chap. 5. When therefore he demands how we know the Testimony of the Church to be infallible we answer that we prove it independently of Scripture by the Motives of Credibility immediately shewing it to be evidently credible in it self as the like motives made this point evidently credible to the Faithful heretofore that the Prophets and Apostles were Infallible And 't is evident to any judicious man that herein is not the least shadow of a Circle 8. The Relatour will not yet permit us to put a period to this Question but wrangles with A. C. for telling him what he thought his Lordship said But I had rather dispute what he doth or can say in this matter He expounds his own minde thus That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need no proof in regard of those men who are born in the Church and in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it that the Books commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God But here he ought to have reflected that to make good this supposition so far as to the breeding in us a Supernatural Act of Faith it must also of necessity be supposed at least tacitely that the Scriptures are delivered to us by the Infallible Authority of the Church Wherefore in this assertion that Scripture onely is the Foundation of Faith he contradicts what he ought to have presuppos'd viz.
that Scripture was held to be Gods Word for the Authority of the Church So that though it be against Art and Reason to question the Subject or put our Adversary to prove Scripture to be the Word of God when we dispute whether Transubstantiation Purgatory or the like Predicates be contain'd in Scripture yet against one that denies the necessity of Tradition we require a proof of Scripture it self as knowing he could not have any other good ground of supposing Scripture to be Gods Word besides the Tradition of the Church which he now denying doth either contradict himself or deprive the Scripture of all Authority Wherefore I make no difference at all in this point between a natural man and a man newly entring or doubting in Faith and those who pretend to be grown up in Faith and yet impugne the Tradition of the Church For all these are after one and the same Method to be dealt with that so they may be brought to admit the true grounds of proving Scripture to be the Word of God It was therefore no familiarity with impiety nor desire to catch advantage that mov'd Bellarmin and A. C. to demand how Scripture could be prov'd the Word of God for they were forced to it by their Adversaries denying the Necessity of Tradition And the advantage is to your selves that by this Medium which Protestants ever decline you may discern the weakness of your own Foundation In the very Porch of this Paragraph the Bishop as if he had untied the Gordian knot of Mr. Fishers Arguments brags he set him to his Book again But I am confident it was rather the not untying this knot that mov'd him to repeat what he had writ before For this repetition shew'd clearly the Bishop said no more then what Dr. White had said before him and consequently that Mr. Fishers words spoken to the Doctour were sufficient to solve all the Bishop had said Wherefore as the Bishop did actum agere do onely what was done by the Doctour before so he made Mr. Fisher dictum dicere to say again what was said before since there needs no new Solution where no new difficulty is propounded And when we hear him talking of Metaphysical Principles it seems they are too clear to be answered and therefore he waves them as too quaint niceties to be reflected upon by the Reader Neither does Bellarmin artificially cited in his Margin any way favour his Lordship For when he gives an Advertisement that all Hereticks suppose with Catholicks as a general Principle that the Word of God is a rule of Faith he speaks not of the sole written Word as the Bishop will needs misinterpret him but of the Word of God abstractively or as it embraces both the written and unwritten Word His omnibus Quaestionibus sayes he praemittenda est Controversia de VERBO DEI c. even as our Adversary cites him he sayes not de VERBO DEI SCRIPTO but de VERBO DEI. The Bishop and Hooker avoid not the difficulty by calling it a supposed Principle amongst Christians For if they suppose this with any ground they must suppose it founded upon Tradition And therefore A. C's Argument has still the same force even in this supposition of a Praecognitum as before For when a thing is admitted as a Principle by both parties in any particular Debate touching Religion 't is presupposed onely as a Praecognitum to that difficulty not as an absolute Prime Principle in Religion and is left in that Order of Priority or Posteriority of Principles which its proper nature requires Wherefore though both the Relatour and Mr. Fisher had supposed Scripture as a Principle agreed on by both parties in order to some further Question depending of Scripture which notwithstanding could not be done in this present Controversie where the Question was about the Priority of Tradition in order of Principles before Scripture yet Scripture is then to be presupposed onely as a Principle to that particular Dispute and cannot be thereby made a Prime Principle absolutely and universally in Faith Suppose for example the Dispute were whether Extream Unction were a Sacrament in this Dispute 't is to be supposed as a Principle granted by both parties that there are some Sacraments But hence follows not that it is supposed as an absolute prime Principle in Religion which neither can nor ought to be proved by other precedent Principles to wit Scripture or Tradition that there are some Sacraments His Lordship confesseth again that Tradition must lead the way like a preparing Morning-light to Sun-shine but then we settle not for our direction upon the first opening of the Morning-light but upon the Sun it self His meaning is that although Tradition must go before yet we ought not to rely upon it as the ground for which we admit Scripture but we are to fix our eyes onely upon the brightness of Scripture it self But I demand how knows the Relatour this Light is rather a Beam then a Dream by which he is deceiv'd by the watchful Enemy of Mankinde who transforms himself into an Angel of Light 'T is true the Scripture is called a Light but 't is like a Candle in a dark Lanthorn or the Sun under a Cloud in regard of all those who deny the Infallibility of the Church and appears in full light onely to them who acknowledge it After some flourishes the Bishop mindes us that there is less light in Principles of Faith then those of Knowledge But A. C. urgeth thus Though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknown in a Science must be primo cognitum needing not another thing pertaining to that Science prius cognitum known before it so if in Faith Scripture be the first and onely Foundation and consequently the first thing foreknown primum praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum needing not any other thing pertaining to Faith prius cognitum known before it This supposed church-Church-Tradition which is one thing pertaining to Faith could not as the Bishop saith it is and as indeed it is be known first and be an Introduction to the Knowledge of Scripture These are A. C's words pag. 51. not those set down by his Lordship and therefore he had no reason to say he is sorry to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes but had rather cause to employ his sorrow for himself since he could not otherwise avoid the difficulty then by corrupting his words whom he pretends to answer For by omitting the Parenthesis and changing the words he makes A. C. teach not his own but in part the Bishops Doctrine A. C. therefore mistook not at all but prest home his Argument in this manner which the Bishop solves not by saying he consesseth every where Tradition to be the Introducer to the knowledge of Scripture For the primum
if these lawfully assembled pray for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost they questionless shall obtain it seeing our Saviour cannot fail of his word Another Exception against that cited passage of A. C. is that he speaking of Points decreed by a General Council makes Firm and Infallible to be Synonyma's But here again the Bishop fails in his observation A. C. onely tells us that the Decree of such a General Council was Firm and Infallible that is not onely Firm but also Infallible Is this to make them signifie the same thing Neither doth he speak so much of what is Infallible in it self as what is Infallible in order to us So that this and the Premises considered there must needs be some other visible and Infallible Judge viz. a General Council beside Scripture for setling Controversies in the Church and making all points of Faith not onely Firm but Infallible 6. What the Relatour brings in his swelling Margent out of Optatus and St. Austin serves onely to amuse his Reader We grant that Christ did not dye Intestate but left behinde him a Will which was afterwards written So that in rigour of speech he left onely a Nuncupative Will which was after deliver'd to the Church partly by Writing partly by Tradition However we stand not upon the terms but the thing it self and have recourse with St. Austin and Optatus to the Written Word or Will in matters of Faith We urge and plead it in almost all matters controverted in Religion between us and them But we demand what was to be done by those first Christians who liv'd before this Will was written or at least before it was generally receiv'd or known for such Again what are we now to doe when either this written Word is call'd in question or the matter in Controversie not so clearly set down therein as to put a period to contention Do the forecited Authours deny that in such case we must have recourse to Tradition Nothing less Certainly St. Austin believ'd the necessity of Infant-Baptism the unlawfulness of rebaptizing the duly-Baptiz'd by Heretiques with many other points which no man can evidently prove out of the written Word alone nay the Scripture it self he believ'd for no other reason then the Authority of the Church and Tradition Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder at those words of his Lordship to A. C. in the Margent where by way of defiance he tells him he could shew no Father of the Church who taught that Christ ever lest behinde him a NUNCUPATIVE OBLIGATORY WILL. First what means he by that restrictive expression a Nuncupative Obligatory Will Could any Will left by our Saviour whether Nuncupative or by Writing not be Obligatory Secondly how was it possible the Bishop should challenge us to prove by the Fathers that our Saviour left behinde him a Nuncupative Will since 't is in it self most evident and undeniable Did he leave I pray any other then a Nuncupative Will Was any part of the Gospel written either by himself or by any other at his command in his life time Did he not make his whole Will by word of mouth to his Disciples But we shall not insist wholly upon the self-evidence of the thing Is it not to be shewn out of the Fathers that Christ left a Nuncupative Obligatory Will First touching the word Nuncupative Will we hope it will be held sufficient if we prove the thing viz. an unwritten yet Obligatory Declaration of Christs Doctrine which is equivalent to a Nuncupative Will. And as to this we say that Bellarmin and all Catholique Divines who write of the word of God written and unwritten do effectually prove it not onely by the Authority of St. Austin and the unanimous consent of the Fathers but even by the very Text of Scripture it self Does not Saint Paul command us 2 Thess. 2. 14. TO HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS we have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Doth not this in effect signifie a Nuncupative Will and Obligatory Does not Saint Irenaeus teach us the same Oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis c. We must saith he follow the order of Tradition which they have deliver'd to us to whom the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches Doth he not tell us in the same Chapter of whole Nations of Christians even in his time which was somewhat above two hundred years after Christ who most perfectly believ'd the Christian Faith though they had not any part of the Scripture to direct them Doth not Tertullian teach the same together with Saint Cyprian St. Basil Epiphanius St. Hierome and divers others But we have spoken too much in a matter so evident let us pass on to that which follows 7. His next Marginal Exception against A. C. is for requiring the Popes Confirmation to a General Council telling us 't is one of the Roman Novelties to account that necessary for the validity of a General Council But surely he is not a little mistaken For in the first 〈◊〉 Councils do we not finde the Confirmations of the several Popes who then sate clearly acknowledged See the Acts and Synodical Epistles of the six first Councils and Gelasius epist. 13. ad Episcop Dardan Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 Neither can it rationally be thought that the Decrees of a Council should be taken for the Decrees of the whole Church Representative if the consent of the acknowledged chief Pastour and Head of the Church were wanting And whereas the Relatour brings St. Austin's Authority to prove that the Sentence of a General Council is confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it we answer his Allegation might well have been spar'd for we say so too We acknowledge the Acceptation of the Universal Church to be an Acoessory and Secondary Confirmation of the Decrees of a General Council and as the whole Church Representative or a General Council cannot erre in defining so neither can the whole Church Diffusive and Formal erre in accepting and believing whatever is defined So that ordinarily speaking we acknowledge a Double Confirmation of the Decrees made by a General Council the one of the Pope as Head of the Church the other of the Church it self extended throughout the several Provinces of Christendom But the Popes Confirmation is Primary Essential and absolutely necessary because without it what the Council declares neither is nor can be esteem'd the Act or Judgement of the whole Church Representative the Pope being the chief Member both of Church and Council The Churches Acceptation is as I have said a Confirmation also but this is onely Accessory for the further satisfaction of particular persons that may haply doubt either of the Authority or Proceedings of this or that Council in particular And there is no other ordinary means to assure private persons throughout the Church that such or such a Council was lawfully assembled proceeded duly voted freely and was Authentically confirm'd by the chief Bishop
Nor doe wee make the infallibility of the Church to depend vpon the Pope alone as the Relatour perpetually insinuates but vpon the Pope and a Generall Councill together So that if this be granted by our Aduersaries wee shall acquiesce and require no more of them because this only is matter of Fayth 13. But neither the Pope by himselfe alone nor a Generall Councill with him doe euer take vpon them to make new articles of Fayth properly speaking but only expound and declare to vs what was before Yome way reueal'd eyther in Scripture or the vnwritten word Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority that wee are oblig'd vnder paine of eternall damnation neither to deny nor question any doctrine of Fayth by them propos'd to be bclceued by vs. This vnder Christ is the true Foundation of the Catholique Church and Religion Whosoeuer goes about to lay any other and to erect superstructures vpon it will finde in the end that he layd but a sandy Foundation and rais'd a tottering edisice which will one day fall vpon his own head and crush him to his vtter ruine Lett this therfore remaine as a settled conclusion that the Catholique Church is infallible in all her definitions of Fayth and that there is noe other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace which the Bishop will seeme so much to haue laboured for in his lifetime J beseech God to giue all men light to see this truth and grace to assent vnto it to the end that by liuing in the militant Church with vnity of Fayth wee may all come at last to meete in glory in the triumphant Church of Heauen which wee may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Sauiour Jesus-Christ to whome with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glorie world without end AMEN An Alphabetical Table of the most remarkable matters contained in this Book Apostles CHrists promises to his Apostles when extendible to their Successours and when not page 103 The Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible not by Scripture but by their Miracles page 56 57 As necessary for the Church in some cases that the Apostles Successors be guided and settled in all Truth as the Apostles themselves page 103 104 Appeals The Canons of the Council of Sardica expresly allow Appeals to Rome page 194 195 Appeals to Rome out of England anciently practised page 189 From all parts of Christendom in St. Gregories time page 〈◊〉 Councils that restrain them look onely at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing page 194 What the Council of Carthage desir'd of the Pope in the matter of Appeals Ibid. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden to Appeal to Rome page 188 Authority No Authority meerly Humane absolutely Infallible page 123 Nor able sufficiently to warrant the Scriptures Infallibility Ibid. Divine Authority necessary for the Belief of Scriptures Infallibility and what that is page 64 65 69 Authority of the Church sufficient to ground Infallible Assent page 75 78 108 The supream Authority of One over all as necessary now as ever page 207. And will be so to the end of the world Ibid. Authors Either misalledg'd or misinterpreted by our Adversary page 4 7 8 9 10 22 47 80 81 98 113 118 134 135 136 137 138 139 143 175 187 193 201 202 204 210 218 222 240 248 309 310 Baptism INfant-Baptism not evidently exprest in Scripture nor demonstratively prov'd from it page 51 52 53. Acknowledg'd for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin p. 26 53 67 That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Bishops Not meerly the Popes Vicars or Substitutes page 219 224 They govern in their own right and are jure divino Pastours of the Church no less then the Pope Ibid. Yet by the same law of God under the Pope Ibid. In what sense it may be said that all Bishops are equal or of the same merit and degree in the Ecclesiastical Priesthood page 222 The Bishop of Canterbury made Primate of England by the Pope p. 190 Universal Bishop The title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop anciently given to the Popes page 196 But never assum'd or us'd by them Ibid. Us'd by the Patriarchs of Constantinople but never lawfully given them page 196 What the more ancient Patriarchs of that Sea intended by their usurpt title Ibid. The Sea of Constantinople alwayes subiect to that of Rome page 196 197 198 In what manner Gregory the seventh gave the title of Universal Bishop to his Successors page 199 Likewise in what manner Phocas the Emperor might be said to give it Ibid. Catholick THe several Acceptions of the word Catholick page 130 Causally the particular Church of Rome is styl'd the Catholick and why Ibid. No such great Paradox that the Church in general should be styled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome Ibid. In what sense 't is both true and proper to say the Roman-Catholick Church page 132 Certainty No absolute Certainty of any thing reveal'd by God if the Churches Testimony be not Infallible page 29 30 Moral Certainty even at the highest not absolutely Infallible p. 123 Church The Church cannot erre and General Councils cannot erre Synonymous with Catholicks page 19 20 177 The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in it self but more certainly known to us page 21 24 How the Churches Definition may be said to be the Churches Foundation page 35 Nothing matter of Faith in the Churches Decrees but the naked Definitions page 64 What the ground of Church-Definitions in matter of Faith is and must of necessity ever be page 230 Roman Church The Principality of the Roman Church deriv'd from Christ. p. 183 The Roman Churches Tradition esteem'd of old the onely Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine page 202 No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church page 212 No Errours or Abuses in Religion at any time more imputable to the Roman then to the whole Catholick Church of Christ. page 142 The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman p. 190 191 The Roman Churches Defining of Superstructures or Non-Fundamental Points no cause of Schism page 332 The Roman Church rightly styl'd the Root and Matrix of the Catholique page 391 392 393 394 395 Church of Hierusalem Why with some others styled sometimes Mother-Church p. 389 390 and why Pamelius in his list of those Churches might reckon them before the Roman page 397 Contradictions Slipt from our Adversaries pen. page 51 54 70 83 90 99 112 124 146 150 223 249 308 310 Councils General and Oecumenical Councils of how great Authority page 32 The most proper remedy for errours and abuses that concern the whole Church page 165 National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith without consulting the Apostolick Sea page 164 166 167 168 To confirm General Councils no Novelty but the Popes ancient Right page 215 The Churches
defined by the Church were Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation that is whether all those Truths which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes The one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self that not onely the disbelief of it when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express Knowledge and Belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti in regard of the matter which they contain But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti onely conditionally that is by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formall object or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense is a thing so manifest that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability thought it his onely course to divert it according to his ordinary custome by turning the Difficulty which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality or necessity derived from the formall Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that point to the materiall Object that is to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the formall object whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation The Major is evident For to refuse to believe Gods revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition For though his Lordship say he grants it not yet for the present he sayes that though it were supposed he should grant that the Church or a lawful General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamental that is as we have proved necessary to Salvation Supposing therefore that the Church and a lawful General Council be taken in this occasion for the same thing as he affirms they are saying in the beginning of num 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general and a General Council which is her representative and admitting this he proceeds in his argument Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre I prove the Minor thus Whosoever refuses to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre refuses to believe that which is revealed from God But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre Ergo Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God The Major is evident ex terminis For if the Authority which testifies it is revealed from God cannot erre that which it testifies to be so revealed is so revealed The Minor is the Bishops supposition viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre as is proved Ergo c. And this I hope will satisfie any ingenuous Reader that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation as Mr. Fisher took it Yet to deal freely with the Bishop even taking Fundamental in a general way as he in this present Conference mistakes it for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion it is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal object or Infallible Authority propounding them though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain Whoever deliberately denies or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point delivered as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church For whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other Now I subsume But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church erres Fundamentally Ergo c. This Subsumptum is evident For if he believe none at all he neither believes God nor Christ nor Heaven nor Hell c. with an Infallible Divine Christian Faith and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine Infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous or fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority It is manifest that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point
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
is that they amend their lives and be Baptized and they shall receive the Holy Ghost it cannot appertain to their Children till they be capable of mending their lives which Infants as all know are not And therefore by a new Turn he tells us the means to receive the Holy Ghost was Baptisme as if nothing but Baptisme had been exacted by the Apostle in that place when he expresly requires amendment of life as well as Baptisme 11. Notwithstanding all this I would not have it thought I intend to weaken the Argument out of John 3. for proving the Baptisme of Infants for I have onely endeavoured to shew that it cannot be demonstratively proved out of that Text of Scripture alone against a perverse Heretique We must therefore embrace St. Augustins counsel cited by his Lordship who fayes The custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition In which words St. Augustin expresly asfirmeth that the point of Baptizing Infants were not at all to be believ'd but for Tradition Therefore it is not demonstrable out of Scripture alone for if it were we should be bound to believe it though we had it not from Tradition which is contrary to St. Augustins words 'T is true this Father having first learn't the abovesaid Doctrine from Tradition proves it or rather confirms it out of Scripture and so do other Catholique Authours But all these proofs would be far from Demonstrations were it not for Tradition Writing against Pelagius he applyes that saying of our Saviour Matth. 10. 14. Suffer little ones to come unto me to the Baptizing of Infants yet no man ever brought this place for a Demonstration or a Text evidently proving of it self without Tradition that Infants ought to be Baptized For those our Saviour spake of came not unto him to be Baptized but to receive his Benediction And 't is clear that he spake of the Children of the Jews who were either circumcized or otherwise justified and if we stick to the sole words they may be understood of such as were capable to understand what was commanded or forbidden them and consequently had some use of reason which the Text it self intimates nolite prohibere eos forbid them not For as I have said we grant that Tradition being supposed this point is proveable out of Scripture Wherefore 't is true that it hath a root and foundation in Scripture yet so obscurely that it could not be sufficiently discovered without Tradition because an Anabaptist might give a probable solution to all our Arguments had we onely Scripture and not Tradition for this point of Faith Wherefore though Scripture may in some general sense be said to contain in it all things necessary yet it cannot be said to contain expresly and evidently all things necessary in particular 12. I prove my Assertion that Infant-Baptisme must be believed by Divine Faith as 't is an Apostolical Tradition that is considered purely as delivered orally by the Apostles whether it can be prov'd by Scripture or no. My Argument is ad hominem against the Bishop thus He grants expresly pag. 66. and 67. that unwritten Apostolical Traditions if any such can be produced are as properly and formally the word of God and to be believed with Divine Faith as Scripture it self Ergo Baptisme of Infants considered onely as an unwritten Apostolical Tradition as he considers it precedently to its being drawn from Scripture is to be believed with Divine Faith being in that precise consideration the proper and formal object of Faith to wit the true word of God So that according to this his doctrine not onely such Traditions as are not at all written are Gods word but such as are both delivered by word of mouth and also by writing are the word of God as well by reason they were delivered by word of mouth as by writing because God hath equally revealed them by both these means When therefore he sayes pag. 52. that the Scriptures onely are the Foundation of Faith it must be acknowledg'd that he speaks contrary to what he sayes pag. 57. That Baptisme of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition which he there takes as contradistinguisht from Scripture and therefore to be believed For if it be therefore that is because it is an Apostolical Tradition even precedently to Scripture proofs to be believed not onely the Scriptures but Apostolical Tradition also as contradistinguisht from Scripture will be a foundation of Faith If he should reply that when he sayes therefore to be believed he means not as the formal object and foundation of Faith but as a disposition preparing us to found the belief of it in Scripture as he seems to insinuate though something obscurely pag. 57 he contradicts himself pag. 66 67. where he grants that assured unwritten Tradition is the true word of God and by consequence properly to be believed as having in it the formal object of Faith to wit Gods Revelation CHAP. 5. Of the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in their Resolution of Faith 2. The Church prov'd Infallible by the same way that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so 3. The Difference between Principles of Science and Faith 4. No Necessity that the Churches Definitions should be held the formal object of Faith but onely an Infallible Application of the Formal Object to us 5. His Lordships Argument disproved by Instances HAving ended our large discourse of Fundamentals drawn out to so great a length by necessity of following our Adversary through all his Doubles and ambiguous Windings wherein yet I hope we have given Satisfaction to the judicious Reader we are come at last to that main Question How Scriptures may be known to be the word of God and in particular Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. These are believ'd to be the word of God though not proved so out of any place of Scripture but onely by Gods unwritten word Tradition His Lordship thinks this too curious a question but it is not so much a question of curiosity as of necessity that so we may know how to resolve our Faith and give an account thereofto others But the plain truth is that though this question hath no difficulty at all in our principles who say we believe them to be the true and undoubted word of God because the Catholique Church delivers them as such to us yet was it so insuperably hard to be solved in Protestant principles that I fear the Relatour had rather have given it a put off by a Turn in his Labyrinth then engaged himself therein could the business have been conveniently avoided Now if some do prove Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture falling into that faulty kinde of Argumentation which the Schools call Circulus vitiosus the blame lyes not in him that asks the question
fall not into a Circle as his Lordship here pretends they do For they primarily and absolutely prove the Infallibility of the Church by the Motives of 〈◊〉 and not by Scripture though afterwards and as it were secondarily as we said before they prove it also especially to those who admit Scripture as Protestants do by the Scripture it self which we acknowledge with the Relatour to be a higher proof especially against them then the Churches Tradition Yet we deny that those other proofs from the Motives of Credibility can be in reason questionable as he sayes they are until we come to Scripture Neither do any Catholique Authours disagree in this because they unanimously teach that the Motives of Credibility make our Church EVIDENTLY CREDIBLE and by consequence she is sufficiently proved to be True by them alone Now as concerning that Assertion which the Bishop urges that the principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit then the Conclusion it self and his inference thereupon viz. that the Articles of Faith the Trinity the Resurrection and the rest being Conclusions and the Principles by which they are concluded being onely Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow that the Tradition is more Infallible then the Articles of Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Churches Testimony I answer the ground of all this Discourse is the Authority of Aristotle whose words the Bishop thus cites in the Margent 1. Poster c. 2. T. 16. Quocirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia PER ILLA scimus credimus etiam posteriora Wherefore saith he if we know and believe all other things for or by vertue of the First Principles we know and believe them to wit the First Principles themselves much more because by them we know and believe all other things In which words we confess the Philosopher doth very well declare the proceeding of the Understanding or Minde of Man when it works naturally and necessarily by and from the evidence or clearness of its Object but not when it works supernaturally and produceth supernatural and Free Acts 〈◊〉 or at least principally from the Impulse and Inclination of the will for in such cases the Maxime holds not viz. That the Principles of a Conclusion must be of more Credit then the Conclusion it self Now the Act of Believing is such an Act that is which the Understanding Elicites rather by a Voluntary and Free inclination and Consent of the will then from any Evident Certainty in the Object whereto it assents 3. That this may further appear I distinguish a double proceeding in Probations the one is per principia intrinseca by intrinsecal principles that is such as have a necessary natural connexion with the things proved and do manifest and lay open the objects themselves The other is per principia extrinseca by extrinsecal Principles that is such as have no natural or necessary connexion with nor do produce any such evident manifestation of the Thing proved but their efficacy viz. whereby they determine the Understanding to Assent doth wholly depend on the worth and vertue of that external Principle whereby such Probations are made And this kinde of proof is called Probatio ab Authoritate an Argument from Authority which Authority is nothing but the veracity knowledge and vertue of him to whom we give assent when we receive such or such an affirmation from him Now as I said above we our selves either hear immediately what he affirms and then we assent immediately and solely for his Authority or we hear it mediately from the report of others who if of unquestionable credit we assent that he did affirm it upon the Authority of the Reporters yet so as we should not give an undoubted assent to the thing it self but for the undenyable Authority of the First Deliverer To apply this doctrine when we believe any thing with Divine Faith it proceeds not from any probation per principia intrinseca from any thing that hath natural connexion dependence or inference of or with the thing believed but is purely propter principia extrinseca for and from extrinsecal principles to wit the Authority Veracity Goodness and Knowledge of God affirming it Now the Prophets and Apostles assented to what God spake immediately unto them And the like is Affirmable in some proportion of their immediate Hearers But succeeding Ages had it viz. Gods Revelation both from Christ and his Apostles onely mediately and immediately from their respective Pastours Now that we may be assured hereof Infallibly we must have some infallible Testimony to ascertain it unto us which can be no other then the Church 4. Neither will it be necessary precisely for this reason to affirm in the Resolution of our Faith That the Churches Declaration in matters of Faith is absolutely and simply Divine or that God speaks immediately by her Definitions or that our Faith is Resolved into the voice of the Church as into its formal object but it is enough to say our Faith is Resolved into Gods Revelations whether written or unwritten as its formal object and our Infallible Assurance that the Things we believe as Gods Revelations are revealed from him is Resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations Seeing therefore our Faith in this way of proceeding is not resolved into the Churches Authority as the formal Motive of our Assent but onely as an assured Testimony that such and such Articles as the Church defines to be matters of Faith are truly revealed from God as she assures us they are it is not necessary the Churches Testimony should be a new immediate Revelation from God but onely Supernaturally Infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost preserving her from all errour in defining any thing as a point of Christian Faith that is as a Truth revealed from God which is not truly and really so revealed If then it be demanded why we believe such Books as are contain'd in the Bible to be the word of God we answer because it is a Divine Unwritten Tradition that they are his word and this Divine Tradition is the formal object whereon our Faith relyes But if it be further demanded how we are certain that it is a Divine Tradition we answer the certainty we have thereof is from the Infallible Testimony of the Church teaching us it is such a Tradition Thus the Articles of our Faith are delivered from God but kept by the Church they spring from God as the Fountain but run down in a full Stream through the Channel and within the Banks of the Church they are sowed by the hand of God but grow up in the field of the Church They are spoken by the mouth of God but we hear them by the voice of the Church assuring us
that God spake them which we could never elevate our hearts to believe with Divine Faith but by the Testimony of Gods Church which gives us a full assurance of his Revelation Thus then the Church being supernaturally Infallible in all her Definitions of Faith will be a sufficient ground to ascertain us of those Holy writings which God by unwritten Tradition revealed to the Church in time of the Apostles to be his written word For if her Definition herein be absolutely infallible then what she defines as reveal'd from God to be his written word is undoubtedly such insomuch that Christians being irrefregably assured thereof by the Churches Infallible declaration believe this Article with Divine Faith because revealed from God who cannot deceive them that Revelation being the onely formal object into which they resolve their Faith and the Churches Assurance the ground to perswade them that it is infallibly a Divine Revelation or Tradition The Churches Definition therefore is like Approximation in the working of natural causes to wit a necessary condition prerequired to their working by their own natural force yet is it self no cause but an application onely of the efficient cause to the subject on which it works seeing nothing can work immediately on what is distant from it Thus Gods Revelations delivered to the Church without writing were and are the onely formal cause of our assent in Divine Faith but because they are as it were distant from us having been delivered that is revealed so many ages past they are approximated or immediately applyed to us by the Infallible Declaration of the present Church which still confirming by her doctrine and practice what was first revealed makes it as firmly believed by us as it was by the Primitive Christians to whom it was first revealed So a Common-wealth by still maintaining practising and approving the Laws enacted in its first Institution makes them as much observ'd and esteem'd by the people in all succeeding Ages for their Primitive Laws as they were by those who liv'd in the time of their first Institution Hence it appears our Faith rests onely upon Gods immediate Revelation as its formal object though the Churches voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that formal object without it By which Discourse the Bishops Argument is solv'd as also his Text out of Aristotle For seeing here is no Scientifical proof per principia intrinseca there can be no necessary and natural Connexion of Principles evidencing the Thing proved as is required in Demonstrative Knowledge the thing it self which is believed remaining still obscure and all the Assurance we have of it depending on the Authority of Him that testifies it unto us Lastly hence are solved the Authorities of Canus cited also by his Lordship who onely affirms what I have here confessed viz. That our Faith is not resolv'd into the Authority of the Church as the formal object of it and that of pag. 65. where he contends that the Church gives not the Truth and Authority to the Scriptures but onely teaches them with Infallible Certainty to be Canonical or the undoubted Word of God c. the very same thing with what I here maintain The Churches Authority then being more known unto us then the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their Prerogative above the Church For being Gods Immediate Revelation they require a greater respect and reverence then the meer Tradition of the Church Whence it is likewise that our Authours do here commonly distinguish Two Sorts of Certainty the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other ex parte subjecti The first proceeds from the Clearness of the Object the other from the Adhesion as Philosophers call it of the Will which makes the Understanding stick so close to the Object that it cannot be separated from it This latter kinde of Certainty hath chiefly place in Faith a thing unknown to Aristotle Whence it is that when we believe we do adhere more firmly to the Articles of Faith then to any Principle whatsoever though evident to natural reason which firme Adhesion of ours is grounded partly on the Greatness and Nobleness of the Object and partly on the importance of the matter which is such that our Salvation depends upon it For that Immediate Revelation namely the Scripture being in it self of so much greater Worth and Dignity then the Churches meer Tradition doth worthily more draw our affection then the other notwithstanding the other be more known to us and the Cause of our admitting his Thus we have shew'n that we hold not the Churches Definition for the formal object of Faith as the Relatour by disputing so much against it would seem to impose on us though our present Faith 't is true relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten word of God which is the Formal Object Wherefore when we say we believe the Catholique Church we profess to believe not onely the Things which she teacheth but the Church her self so teaching as an Infallible witness and the contrary we shall never believe till it be prov'd otherwise then by saying as the Bishop here does it were no hard thing to prove By what hath been said it appears that there is no Devise or Cunning at all as the Relatour would have it thought of us either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our Adversaries party But they must pardon us if we preferre the general Interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extoll it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living Infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other then the Present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applyed to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the Assistance and Direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. The Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church This being the Substance of our Doctrine concerning the Resolution of Faith as we have osten intimated 't is evident the cunning of the Device the Bishop speaks of is none of ours but his own while he falsly chargeth us that we finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman Church whereas in points of Faith we ever resolve them finally into Gods word or Divine Revelation though we must of necessity repair to the Catholick Church to have them Infallibly testified unto us But
Lordships Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points Wherefore he must needs agree with us in this that the perfection of Infallibility may be applied to the whole Church though not to every particular Member thereof Now further concerning the Churches Infallibility though she be so tyed to means as that she is bound to use them yet in her Definitions she receives not her Infallibility from the Means as the Bishop must also affirm of his Fundamentals but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Church which makes her Definitions truly Infallible though they be not New Revelations but onely Declarations of what was formerly Revealed For as the immediate Revelation it self is for no other reason Infallible but because it proceeds from God and in case it should happen to be not true and Certain the Errour would be ascribed to God So in the Definitions of the Church if she should fall into Errour it would likewise be ascrib'd to God himself Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is Gods immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false Gods Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averre that Gods promise would be infring'd as truly it would in that Supposition For did he not so preserve his Church in her Definitions of Faith by Assistance of the Holy Ghost as that she should never Define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not Revealed from God it would imply a destruction of Gods veracity and make him deny himself All which Doctrine is so well grounded on Christs Promise assuring us he will alwayes assist his Church that the Bishop has little reason to accuse us of rather maintaining a party then seeking Truth as though we set Doctrines on foot to foment Division and were rather lead by Animosity then Reason CHAP. 6. No unquestionable Assurance of Apostolicall Tradition but for the Infallible Authority of the Present Church ARGUMENT 1. Apostolical Traditions are the unwritten word of God and eight Instances concerning them witnessed by St. Augustin 2. Many things spoken by our Saviour not deliver'd by way of Tradition to the Church and many Church-Traditions not the word of God 3. Tradition not known by its own light any more then Scripture to be the word of God 4. The Private Spirit held by Calvin and Whitaker for the sole Motive of Believing Scripture to be the word of God 5. A Dialogue between the Bishop and a Heathen Philosopher 6. The case of a Christian dying without sight of Scripture 7. Occham Saint Augustin Canus Almain and Gerson either miscited or their sense perverted by the Bishop 1. THe Bishop having been hardly put to it in the precedent Chapter to finde some way whereby to prove Scripture to be the Word of God he continually treading on the brink of a Circle at length falls on the unwritten Word It seems he is afraid he shall be forc'd to come stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority But being loath to trust her he grows so wary that hee 'l admit no unwritten word but what is shew'n him deliver'd by the Prophets and Apostles Would he read it in their Books Now if you hearken to his Discourse he presently cryes out he cannot swallow into his belief that every thing which his Adversary sayes is the unwritten word of God is so indeed Nor is it our desire he should But we crave the indifferent Readers Patience to hear reason According to which it is apparent that there must be some Authority to assure us of this main Principle of Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This our Ensurancer is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition Declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God We do not pretend as the Bishop objects that every Doctrine which any particular Person as A. C. Bellarmin or other private Doctour may please to call Tradition is therefore to be receiv'd as Gods unwritten Word but such Doctrinal Traditions onely as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently Gods unwritten word Of which kinde are those which not I but St. Augustin judged to be such in his time and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first Apostolical Tradition named by Saint Augustin is that we now treat that Scripture is the Word of God He affirms he would not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto and sticks so close to her Authority that he sayes If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church Nay that he as much believed the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel it self because the same Authority of the Church assured him both of the one the other A second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other Person A third that the blessed Virgin Mary was and remained alwayes a Virgin both before in and after the Birth of Christ St. Augustin terming Helvidius his opinion who denied it a Blasphemy and for that reason inserting him in his Catalogue of Hereticks The fourth That those who are Baptized by Hereticks are not to be Rebaptized The fifth That Infants are to be baptized The Sixth that Children Baptized are to be numbred amongst the faithful The seventh that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting The eighth that Sunday the first Day of the Week is to be kept holy by Christians It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds that they cannot enter into a question without supposing a Falshood so his Lordship here feeds his humour and obtrudes many He makes Bellarmin and all Catholique Doctours maintain that whatever they please to call Tradition must presently be received by all as Gods unwritten Word After he keeps a fluttering between Tradition and the unwritten Word asking if they be Convertible Terms and then whether any Word of God be unwritten c. Which digressive Discourse is nothing but a new Turn in his Labyrinth to avoid the foil he foresaw himself in danger of in case he did here grapple with Bellarmin who clearly delivers his Doctrine in the place cited by the Bishop cap. 2. viz. That the word Tradition is general and signifies any Doctrine communicated from one to another whether it be written or unwritten By which 't is evident he makes not Tradition and the unwritten Word of God Convertible Afterwards he divides Traditions into Divine Apostolical and Ecclesiastical and again into Traditions belonging to Faith and Traditions belonging to Manners So that
according to Bellarmin 't is clear there are some Traditions which are not Gods unwritten word Nevertheless Bellarmin A. C. and all Catholiques agree against the Bishop that we believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is Gods Word and that there is no other Word of God to assure us of this point but the Tradition deliver'd to us by the Church and that such Tradition so delivered must be the unwritten Word of God I say such Tradition for that we admit in practise divers Ecclesiastical Traditions but neither in quality of Gods Word or Divine Traditions nor are any of them contrary to the Word of God whether written or unwritten 2. Now to return to his Lordship we grant there are many unwritten Words of God never deliver'd over to the Church for ought appears and that there are many Traditions of the Church which are not the unwritten word of God yet not contrary to it Wherefore his Lordship might herein have spared his labour since he proves but what we grant And if the Church hath received by Tradition some Words of Christ not written as well as written and hath delivered them by Tradition to her Children such written and unwritten Word of God cannot be contrary to one another For as the Church was Infallible in Defining what was written so is she also Infallible in Defining what was not written And so she can neither tradere non traditum as the Bishop urgeth that is make Tradition of that which was not deliver'd to her nor can she be unfaithful to God in not faithfully keeping the Depositum committed to her Trust. Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary as he insinuates they may but are bound to believe her Tradition because she being Infallible the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father Now whereas the Bishop so confidently averrs that whereever Christ held his peace and that his words are not registred no man may dare without rashness to say they were THESE or THESE his Lordship must give me leave to tell him I must binde up his whole Assertion with this Proviso But according as the Church shall declare for it is her Authority whereon we depend to know when and in what Christ held his peace or whether his words some or none were registred as much as we depend on her to know whether Scripture be the Word of God or not This our proceeding does unqestionably free us from all shadow of rashness Neither doth St. Augustin say any thing in contradiction hereof For he onely speaks against determining of a mans own head what was spoken by Christ without ground or warrant from the Church In like manner we grant there were many unwritten Words of God which were never deliver'd over to the Church and therefore never esteem'd Tradition As there are many Traditions according to Bellarmin which we cannot own for Gods unwritten Word yet all such as the Church receives are conformable at least not contrary to his Word written or unwritten Such are the Ceremonies used in Baptisme of which the Relatour here speaketh For the party to be baptiz'd is Anointed to signifie that like a Wrestler he is to enter the list So St. Chrysostom Inungitur baptizandus more Athletarum qui stadium jam ingressuri sunt Spittle is applied to their Ears and Nostrils as St. Ambrose saith in Imitation of that our Saviour did Mark 7. who spitting touched the tongue and put his Fingers into the ears of the deaf and dumb man before he cured him The like he did John 9. 3. to the blinde man Wherefore these Ceremonies are conformable to Scripture Three Dippings were used in Baptisme to signifie the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or our Saviours remaining for three dayes in the Sepulcher as St. Gregory teacheth But this Ceremony is not us'd at all times nor in all places as being not absolutely commanded by the Church Wherefore Bellarmin who proveth the Ceremonies us'd in Baptisme to be Apostolical Traditions sayes not that every Tradition is Gods unwritten Word but that we must necessarily believe Scripture to be the Word of God which seeing we cannot believe for any written Word of his we must either admit some Word of God not written to ground this our Belief on which can be no other then Apostolical Tradition applied to us by the voice of the Church or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of this point because all Divine Faith must relie upon some Word of God The Bishop therefore hath no reason to go on with his Enquiry but must either fix here or he will finde no firm ground whereon to rest his foot as will appear both by the other wayes of Resolving Faith by him confuted and by his own which is every whit as confutable 3. For the second way of proving Scripture to be the Word of God to wit that it should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony lumine proprio by the sole resplendency of the light it hath in it self and by the witness it can so give to it self this the Relatour himself sufficiently confutes and we agree with him in the confutation However though the Bishop knew full well that we deny this Doctrine of knowing Scripture for Gods Word by its own light as much as himself or any of his party can do yet as it were to justifie the more my late accusation of his obtruding Falshoods to asperse us he will needs suppose another here viz. that the said Doctrine may well agree with our grounds in regard we hold if you will believe him That Tradition may be known for Gods Word by its own Light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture Which Inference indeed would be true were it not drawn from a false supposition as most certainly it is For all Catholicks hold it ridiculous to believe that either Scripture or Tradition is discernable for Gods Word by its own Lustre Nor is A. C. justly accusable in this point as the Bishop would make him by misconstruing his words to signifie that Tradition is discernable by its own Light to be the Word of God For A. C's words even as they are lamely cited by the Bishop do sufficiently vindicate him from having any such meaning as his Lordship would impose on him The cited words are these Tradition of the Church is of a company which by its own light shews it self to be Infallibly assisted c. where any man may easily see that the word which must properly relate to the immediate preceding word company even to make sense and not to the more remote word Tradition 'T is therefore clear that A. C's Intention is onely to affirm that the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light As concerning the Question propounded by Mr. Fisher to be answered by Dr.
W. I finde not one word of Tradition being known by its own light in it If therefore this Proposition That a Tradition may be known to be such that is to be Gods unwritten Word by the light it hath in it self be a matter to be made sport with as the Bishop sayes it is we shall not grudge him the mirth he may have found in his own fiction But before I leave this point I desire the Reader to consider what the Relatour grants viz. that the Church now admits of St. James and St. Jude's Epistles and the Apocalypse which were not received for divers years after the rest of the New Testament Yet would he elsewhere conclude against the Church of Rome that it had 〈◊〉 in receiving more Books into the Canon then were received in Ruffinus his time But if according to him some Books are now to be admitted without errour for Canonical which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such certainly without errour also and upon the same Authority some Books may now be received into the Canon which were not so in Ruffinus his time But this onely by way of Digression As for the third way of proving Scripture to be Gods word to wit by the Private Spirit 't is true the Bishop professes to reject the Phrensie as he calls it of Private Revelation except in some extraordinary Circumstances both as a thing that would render a man obnoxious to all the whisperings of a seducing Private Spirit and from whence can be drawn no proof to others being as he sayes neither seen nor felt of any but him that hath it Yet concerning this point he delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse as signifies nothing in effect to what he would seem to drive at and so leaves the Reader wholly unsatisfied how to prove Scripture to be the Word of God Infallibly without recourse at last to the Private Spirit Nor was it possible for him to free himself from that Imputation of recurring to the Private Spirit against any that should press the business home notwithstanding his Brags to the contrary and his Thanks to A. C. whose imperfectly-cited words he would fain improve to a freeing himself from necessity of recurring to the Private Spirit which is opposite to A. C's meaning who thus urges against him by name of the Chaplain The Chaplain therefore who as it seems will not admit Tradition to be in any sort Divine and Infallible while it introduces the Belief of Scripture to be Divine Books cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be Infallible unless he admit an Infallible Impulsion of the Private Spirit EX PARTE SUBJECTI without any Infallible sufficiently applied Reason EX PARTE OBJECTI which he seemeth not nor hath reason to do c. Now I leave it to any Indifferent mans judgement whether the sense of those words be not this viz. That the Chaplain or Bishop seems indeed to reject the Private Spirit and hath reason so to do yet since he admits not Tradition to be in any sort Divine and Infallible he cannot sufficiently defend the Faith of Scriptures being the Word of God to be Infallible unless he admit an Infallible Impulsion of the Private Spirit But this part of A. C.'s Speech his Lordship very prudently supprest to make way for a perversion of the other part which taken both together signifie no less then what I have said That the Bishop professeth to reject the Doctrine of the Private Spirit yet neither did nor could prove Scripture to be the Word of God Infallibly without recourse to Private Revelation 4. However the Bishop was so far from avowedly countenancing this opinion that he chose rather to seem ignorant then freely confess that any Protestant did hold it For he grants no more then that either some do think there is no other sufficient Warrant for this then special Revelations or the Private Spirit or else that we impose it upon them and that if they do mean by Faith Objectum Fidei the object of Faith that is to be believed then they are out of the ordinary way Here you see how doubtfully the Bishop speaks either there are some such or you saith he to us would have them think so And if they do mean c. As if there could be any doubt in either of these two particulars Seeing Calvin that great Doctour of Protestancy is so positive therein and delivers that Doctrine so expresly in his Institutions lib. 1. cap. 7. § 4. Where he clearly resolves that to satisfie mens Consciences in this point viz. in the Belief that Scripture is the Word of God and to keep them from doubting we must recurre to the Secret or if you will the Private Testimony of the Spirit And § 5. where he professeth that Holy Scripture gains the credit or certainty which it hath with us from the Testimony of the Spirit But to come yet closer to the Bishop Dr. Whitaker a man that suckt the Church of Englands Milk as well as his Lordship writes expresly thus Esse enim dicimus c. For we affirm saith he there is a more certain and clear Testimony by which we are perswaded that these Books are sacred to wit the Internal Testimony of the Holy Ghost The like he hath cap. 3. ad 3 um in these words Qui enim Spiritum Sanctum habent c. For they who have the Holy Ghost and are taught of God are able to know the voice of God as one knows his Friend with whom he hath long and most familiarly conversed by his voice Whence it evidently appears that divers eminent Protestants do in this point to say nothing of the rest resolve their Faith into the Private Spirit notwithstanding the Bishops unwillingness to confess it To what else he inserts in treating this point I say nothing because it is not against Catholick Doctrine I wonder not much to see Natural Reason introduc'd by the Bishop tanquam Saulem inter Prophetas as a means sufficient to ground an Infallible Belief that Scripture is the Word of God because after a more narrow search I perceeive he was enforc'd to take this fourth way viz. Natural Reason which he elsewhere num 2. pag. 60. sayes must be admitted though it be but for Pagans and Infidels who either as he affirms consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be Converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. Now therefore let us see how his Lordship goes about either to Convert a Heathen or leave him without excuse in case he believe not Scripture as it is now in their Protestant English Canon by the light of Natural Reason And for greater clearness of proceeding let us imagine that some learned Heathen who had read the Bshops Book comes to his Lordship to be satisfied in point of Religion whose Discourse you have in this ensuing Dialogue 5. Heathen
My Lord having been sufficiently informed of your eminent Authority and great Learning I desire to receive some satisfaction from you in matter of Religion but being not verst in your Christian Principles I am uncapable of accepting of any save what can be evidenc'd to me by the light of Natural Reason Bishop I willingly condescend to your request and doubt not to render you fully satisfied by the means you require Heath I understand by your learned Relation of a Conference c. that the sole Foundation of your Faith is a Certain Book called by you the BIBLE which contains many different Tracts and Histories written in very distant times by several Authours and bound up together in one volume And this you say must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of your Religion as it ought to be believed Now I have employed sometime in perusing this your Bible and am no way inclined by the light of Reason to assent that it is Gods word in such manner as you believe it Bish. Surely you have not employed the Talent of Reason as reason required you should have done otherwise you would have discerned this Book to be the very Word of God For our Faith contains nothing against Reason neither is Grace placed but in a Reasonable Soul Heath But yet your Faith is above Reason and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature so that by Reasons light I can reach neither of them nor can my reason without Grace say you see my way to heaven nor believe this Book Bish. I confess it is so yet Natural Reason is cleared by Grace to see what by Nature alone it cannot Heath Tell not me of Grace I understand nothing of that and believe as little Unless therefore you satisfie me that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being Gods word by conviction of naturall Reason my search is at a stand Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the Question yet I must tell you you may not think that this Principle of Religion That Scriptures are the Word of God is so indifferent to a natural eye that it may as justly lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other for 't is strengthned abundantly with Probable Arguments even from the light of Nature it self Heath A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthned with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may be also said to be but probably false Wherefore I fear Naturall Reason goes not very far in the decision of this question Bish. Say not so For Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason then any thing in the world which any Infidell or meer Naturalist can adhere unto against it Heath This your assertive Answer is doubly defective as I conceive First because it is not enough for one to prove his Religion to stand upon surer grounds then another mans since 't is possible there may be a third Religion resting on surer grounds then either of the other two Secondly because in your own Principles you are not to prove your Bible by your Religion as you here seem to endeavour but your Religion by your Bible which must therefore be first proved and that by Naturall Reason too for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it Bish. This Canon of Scripture the Container of Christs Law is or hath been received and believed for infallible Verity in almost all Nations under Heaven which could never have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason Heath Did the Nations you speak of receive the Scriptures on the sole Account of Reason and thereupon by diligent reading and conferring of Texts became Christians or were they first made Christians and after upon the Churches Authority received them for Gods undoubted word The Authors by you cited in your Book averre not their reception of them for Gods word before they were made Christians What wonder then if I who am yet no Christian see not sufficient reason to receive them for such Truly to me by what has hitherto been said it seems impossible to prove by Reason that your Bible is Gods Infallible Truth Bish. Nay it is not impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth Infallible or make you deny some apparent Principle of your own Heath Evidence me that and your Lordship will accomplish a great work Bish. 'T is an apparent Principle with those of your perswasion that God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of possession since if he could he were neither Absolute nor God in your own Theology But your Gods have been forced out of possession viz. out of the Bodies they possessed by the name of the true God and Christ whom the Scriptures teach and we believe to be the onely true God Therefore Heath Therefore what By what kinde of Logick can you inferre even out of your own premises which yet I might well question that therefore the Scripture is Gods word Bish. Does it not follow that you must either deny your own Gods or your own Principle in Nature And if it be reasonable to deny him for God who is under command why is it not also reasonable to believe that the Scripture is Gods word since there you finde Christ doing that viz. dispossessing Bodies and giving power to do it after Heath My Lord I cannot a little wonder to see you swerve so grosly from the known Rules of Logick as to beg the Question which here you do most palpably while you rest on the sole Authority of Scripture for proving the same Scripture to be the word of God If this be not a meer petitio principii I know not what is Bish. I perceive you are willfull and self-conceited for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard However I shall adde this more that if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if even in the Mathematiques where are the exactest Demonstrations there be quaedam postulata some things to be first demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed who can justly deny that to Divinity a Science of the highest object which he easily 〈◊〉 to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach There must therefore in Reason some principle be supposed in Divinity viz. the Text of Scripture as a Rule which Novices and weaklings may be taught first to believe that so they may come to the knowledge of the Deducibles out of this rich Principle I see not how right Reason can deny this ground Heath I did not think to finde your Lordship so disingenuous as not onely to contradict your self by unsaying all
that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Naturall Reason but to put so gross a fallacy upon me That because Naturall Sciences admit some Principles without proof as being so clear in themselves that there needs no more then the bare apprehension of their tearms therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for Gods word and admitted without probation for an unquestionable Principle May not any Religion pretend the like The Turks for example may they not say their Alcoran is the Rule and Principle of their Religion and consequently unquestionable You know very well and confess it too elsewhere That the Principles of Naturall Knowledge appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding And you know as well that there is an infinite disparity in the case between such Principles and your Bible The later having exercis'd the wit and learning of a world of Expositors in regard of its obscurity and the former being uncapable of proof by reason of their evident clearness I may therefore rationally conclude that your Bible cannot justly challenge an infallible Belief of being Gods word by conviction of Natur all Reason This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordships discourse of whom I take my leave By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen wherein I have not wrong'd him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his Arguments a man may easily discern how irrationall it is to take the Bible for the sole Rule and Guide in matters of Faith A Doctrine which had it been held in the Primitive Church would have laid the World under an impossibility of ever being converted to Christianity But now 't is high time to return to our Church-Tradition which I press a little further in this manner 6. A Child is brought up and instructed in the Roman Church till he arrives to some ripeness of years Amongst other things he is commanded to believe the Bible is the True word of God that he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith receiv'd universally amongst Christians He gives therefore the same Infallible assent to the Scriptures being the word of God that he gives to the other Articles of Faith and so without once looking into the Scripture departs this life I demand had this Christian saving Faith or not if he had then upon the Churches Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God Ergo the Churches Authority was sufficient to ground an Infallible Faith in this point If he had not saving Faith in this Article he could not have it in any of the rest for he had them all from the very same Authority of the Church Therefore he had no saving Faith at all Ergo such a Christian could not be saved Would his Lordship have ventured to affirm this But let us suppose now that this young Christian yet lives and applies himself to study makes progress in learning becomes a profound Philosopher a learned Divine an expert Historian then betakes himself upon the Churches recommendation to the reading of Scriptures discovers a new light in them and by force of that light discerns also that the Faith he had before was onely a humane perswasion and that he had no divine Faith at all before he found by that light in Scripture that they were the undoubted word of God and sole foundation of Faith and consequently that not having that foundation he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian Belief and for want thereof was out of the state of Salvation What gripes and torture of spirit would spring out of such a Doctrine amongst Christians Moreover either the Church whereof he is suppos'd a member taught that he was to believe Scripture infallibly to be the word of God upon her sole Tradition as an infallible Testimony thereof as we before supposed or not If the first then he reflects that this Church has plainly deceiv'd him and if she have deceiv'd him in assuming that Infallibility to her self and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith when he had nothing but humane and uncertain perswasion she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself and consequently expos'd them all to the hazard of eternall damnation by following her Doctrine and therefore was no true Church but a seducer and deceiver Hence he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole letter of Scripture without any credible voyce of the Church and then must either gather the Divine Authority of Scripture from sole Scripture which the Bishop denies or there will he no means left him to believe even according to the Bishops principles infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God If the Church teach him onely that her testimony of Scripture is no more then Humane and Fallible but that the Belief it self that Scripture is Gods word rests upon sole Scripture as his Lordship speaks he begins presently to consider what then becomes of so many millions of Souls who both in former and present times either were uncapable to read and examine Scripture by reason of their want of learning or made little use of that means as assuring themselves to have infallible Faith without it Had such Christians a morall and fallible perswasion onely and no divine Faith then they were all uncapable of salvation This consequence seems very severe to our supposed Christian. Wherefore he begins to make a further reflection and discourses in this manner Is the Tradition and Definition of the Church touching the Divine Authority and Canon of Scripture onely Humane and Fallible how then can I rationally believe that my single perswasion of its being the word of God is Divine and Infallible The Bishops Pastours and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition and thereby discover'd its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly then I alone am able to do If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness their perswasion concerning Scriptures being Gods word was onely Humane and Fallible what reason have I to think I am Divinely and Infallibly certain by my reading of Scripture that it is Divine Truth He goes on If the light of Scripture on the other side be so weak and dim that it is not able to shew it self unless first introduc'd by the recommendation of the Church how came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Huss Wickless c. to be so sharp-sighted as to discover this light of Scripture seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world coexistent with them or existent immediately before them and consequently of the true Church Hence he proceeds to a higher enquiry Had not sayes he the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years
after Christ as much reason and ability to finde this light in Scripture as I can pretend to Yet many Books which seem to me to discover themselves to be the word of God by that divine light which shines in them sent no such light to their eyes but were under question amongst them whether they were the word of God or not till they were declar'd such by the Catholique Church And I wonder much how Protestants receive the Books of the Old Tement upon the Authority of St. Hierome and the Jewish Synagogue and press no other reason notwithstanding they hold the Church may deceive us in the whole Canon of Scripture Further sayes this discoursing Christian If one who hath not yet examin'd the light of Scripture it self but onely taken it upon the account of church-Church-Tradition should deny for example St. Matthew's Gospel to be the written word of God he could not in this opinion be counted an Heretique because it was not sufficiently propounded to him to be Gods word Nay hence it follows that even our Blessed Saviour who is Wisdom it self would have been esteemed by all the world not a wise Law-giver but a meer Ignoramus and Impostour For had he not framed think you a strange and chimericall Common-wealth were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power which all other well-ordered Republiques enjoy to give an Authentical and unquestionable Declaration which is the genuine and true Law Now he comes closer to the matter it self and examines how this pretended light should be Infallible and Divine supposing the Churches Testimony of the Scriptures being Gods word was Humane onely and Fallible When I came discourses he with himself first to settle my thoughts to a serious reading of Scripture I had no more then a fallible Authority recommending Scripture to me That fallible Authority could be no Foundation much less a Formall object for a Divine and Infallible assent to rest upon Therefore before I thus began to read Scripture I had no Infallible and Divine Faith that it was the written word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church to me was no more then a Tradition of wise prudent and honest men who had no such assistance from God as was sufficient to preserve them from Errour Suppose therefore that as the Church might so she had err'd in testifying some Books of Scripture to be Gods word which really are not such in this supposition I should have them all equally recommended to me as Gods word by the very same Authority of the Church Then I fall to reading seriously and peruse all those which are call'd Canonicall Books in the Bible shall I ever think by my diligence in reading to discover that the light of Gods word shines not in those Books wherein the Church err'd as it shines in the rest Shall I discern Canonicall Books wherein she err'd not from the not-Canonicall by the light I finde in them when the whole Church and so many thousand learned Bishops who had read them more studiously and knowingly then I can do never discern'd any such different light more in the one then in the other But put case I were able to discern this difference in Scripture by the sole light of Scripture what follows seeing the Church ha's as universally recommended also very many unwritten Traditions for Apostolicall and Divine whereof some at least as the not-rebaptizing of those who were Baptized by Heretiques c. are most certainly true and as properly the word of God in their first delivery from Christ and his Apostles which the Bishop confesses as Scripture it self why can I not by that light which shines in a true Apostolicall Tradition as well distinguish it from a false one as by the light that shines in a true Book of Canonicall Scripture distinguish that from a false one Since God speaks equally in both why should there not be an equal light shining in both Nay seeing the Church in the Definition of Superstructures wherein his Lordship makes her fallible very often defines aright why may not I finde by the light which shines in such a definition that it is a Divine Truth and distinguish it from that which is not the true voyce of God and so take no other guide or judge to my self in Divine matters then onely my own knowledge of God speaking to me After this he examines a while of what perswasion the Holy Fathers were in this matter and findes that St. Irenaeus and St. Augustin in many places held that the Tradition of the Church is sufficient to found Christian Faith even without Scripture and that for some hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was written At length he returns again to your hidden light in Scriptures and discourses thus If the Church be fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how can I ever be infallibly certain that she has not err'd de facto and defin'd some Book to be the word of God which really is not his word These you may imagine were the thoughts of our perplexed Christian who wearied out with speculations and reflections fell in the close upon this result That either the Church must be Infallible in the Tradition of Scripture or there is no possible means to be infallibly certain which is Scripture nay which is more whether there be any true Scripture at all Now we return to his Lordship Here his Dedalian windings are disintricated and his Reasons easily solv'd For first church-Church-Tradition appears far from being too weak by advancing the Proposition I did before viz. that to give an Infallible Testimony of the Scriptures being the true word of God it is not necessary that church-Church-Tradition should be absolutely Divine Secondly I agree with our Antagonist in the Authority of the Prime Christian Church that it was absolutely Divine and yet averre it is not necessary to the solving of his Arguments to assert the like Divine Authority in the present Church 7. When he sayes that some of our own will not endure that the often mentioned words of St. Augustin Ego vero Evangello non crederem c. should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and in proof of this cites Occham in the margent I ask the Relatour how can one single Author be aliqui some of our own in the plurall number Had he said onely some one of our own it might have pass'd but to say some of ours and then cite but one was to make an extreme narrow passage in his Labyrinth Should Julian the Apostata to lay an aspersion upon the whole Colledge of the Apostles have said that some of them betray'd their Master and then have nam'd Judas onely and that some others deny'd him and in proof thereof had cited onely St. Peter or should a Catholique to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury say that some of them carried a holy Sister of the Reformed Gospel lockt up in a chest
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and church-Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
they were written some may and 't is not unlikely have been saved without any knowledge of Divine Scripture Such they are as have alwayes lived among Barbarous Nations where they have never heard of Divine Scripture for having invincible ignorance of this and believing other necessary points sufficiently propounded to them if they offend not God mortally in other things they will undoubtedly be saved Had some ignorant Calvinist cavill'd against this it had been no great marvell but I wonder so great a Scholar and so wise a man as the Bishop is presum'd to be should pick so deep a quarrell with nothing And questionless had it been so necessary a point the Apostles would have inserted the Belief thereof into their Creed Nay St. Irenaeus and St. Austin whom Bellarmin cites would have been in as deep an errour as he Seeing therefore Bellarmin and all Catholiques with him hold that Christians may sufficiently arrive to a Divine Belief of all the Fundamental Mysteries of Faith without an explicite Belief of Scripture what errour could he commit in his Assertion But it was some secret Project or other which made the Bishop here inveigh and argue so hotly against Bellarmin and by conjecture most likely this Scripture in his principles is the Sole soundation of Faith Therefore none can be saved without express belief of Scripture I think I have hit the nail on the head Let them first convince Bellarmin of this and then I le confess he deliver'd a great errour What he addes asterwards that being granted which is among all Christians that there is a Scripture is a meer cavill the question being not understood onely of Christians For I urge is it also granted amongst all Heathens that there is a Scripture What if a Heathen should be brought to believe all that is contained in the Apostles Creed and being Baptized should dye before he hear there is any Scripture cannot he be saved Questionless he may Bellarmin therefore speaks onely in such rare cases as these When his Lordship subjoyns God would never have given a supernatural unnecessary thing who sayes he would May not many supernatural things be necessary for the whole Church or for many states therein which are not necessary to salvation for every particular person What thinks he of Holy Orders Vowes Virginity c Again are there not hundreds of Histories and thousands of Sentences in Scripture which for every one in the Church to believe expresly is not necessary to salvation Who denyes the Scripture to be very necessary in all ages The question is whether it be absolutely and simply necessary for every one to Salvation to believe expresly that there is Scripture The Bishop here imagines he has given a great defeat to Bellarmin and that as he sayes upon Roman grounds in this his Marginall Syllogisme That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omnino necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omnino necessary to Salvation The fallacy of this Argument lies in the words necessary to believe there being some Articles of Faith so absolutely necessary to be believ'd that a man cannot be sav'd without an express belief of them which therefore School-Divines call necessary necessitate medii whereas there are other Articles of Faith which in some cases 't is enough to believe implicitely though all men are bound to an explicite belief of them when they are sufficiently propounded to them by the Church and these Divines tearm necessary necessitate praecepti This distinction suppos'd I answer thus in form That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary necessitate medii is omnino necessary to salvation I grant the Major That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe necessitate praecepti onely is omnino or absolutely necessary to salvation I deny the Major To the Minor I apply the very same distinction and deny the consequence By which you may easily perceive that Bellarmin stands firm upon his feet and with a wet finger wipes off all that the Bishop here layes to his charge 9. In his number 25. there is much adoe about Hooker and Brierley the latter of which the Relatour is pleased to call the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and seem well read Truly persecution hath deprived them of that plenty of Books which Protestants have so that in this respect they have more need of a Store-house yet I believe Catholique Priests are as industrious and learned as Protestant Ministers for the most part and daily experience testifies as much Now concerning Mr. Hookers Authority which the Bishop affirms to be cited with want of fidelity and integrity by Brierley I answer it is not Brierley but his Lordship who wants both these in quoting Hookers words For first Brierley cites Mr. Hookers words most faithfully as they stand in the places mentioned by him Secondly what he affirms Hooker to acknowledge viz. that the motive which assures us that Scripture is the word of God is the Authority of Gods Church is likewise true For that Author first speaks thus Finally we all believe the Scriptures of God are sacred and that they proceeded from God our selves we assure that we do right well in so believing We have for this point a demonstration SOUND AND INFALLIBLE But it is not the word God c. as it follows in his words cited by Brierley Now seeing Hooker affirms that this sound and infallible Demonstration that Scripture proceeds from God is not the word of God or Scripture it self he must either settle no infallible ground at all even in his Lordships principles or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground For seeing he assigns no other save the Authority of man which as the Bishop here acknowledges is the name he gives to Tradition it must necessarily follow that either we have no infallible ground at all to believe Scripture to be the word of God or it is Tradition Now that it is Tradition onely which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the word of God Hooker delivers clearly enough in that place where he addes these words Yea that which is more utterly to infringe the force of MANS AUTHORITY that is Tradition were to shake the very Fortress of Gods Truth by which Fortress he means the Scriptures as the following words declare Now how can this Fortress be shaken by infringing Mans Authority were not that Authority esteem'd by him the ground of that Fortress And presently after he inferres Some way therefore notwithstanding mans infirmity his Authority may inforce assent If mans Authority may inforce assent it must necessarily be the ground of our assent to assure us as Hooker afterward affirms it doth that Scripture is the word of God But now let us
Scriptures morally speaking more obnoxious to alteration then Universall Tradition 3. He mistakes his Adversaries words contradicts his Brethren and himself falsifies A. C. and most unhandsomely traduces the whole Order of the Jesuits 4. Texts of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility maintained 5. Why each Apostle Infallible and not each Bishop 6. Christs promises to his Apostles when to be extended to their Successours 7. Not the Apostles onely but their Successours also settled in all Truths 8. The Scripture the Church and her Motives of Credibility not unfitly compar'd to a Kings Word his Embassadours and his Credentials 9. Vincentius Lirinensis and Henricus a Gandavo misconstrued and the Fathers misalledged 1. THe Bishop num 26. of this Paragraph to withdraw his Reader from the Thesis or main matter in question viz. the Church descends very dextrously indeed but yet without any necessity to the Hypothesis or Church of Rome For though A. C. believes that the Roman in a true sense is the Catholique Church yet here he abstracts from that question and means no more then he plainly asserts viz. that the Tradition of the Catholique Church is Infallible c. But whether theirs or ours or some other Congregation of Christians be the Catholique Church that 's another question of which A. C. affirms nothing in this place yet the Relatour as if he were somewhat nettled is pleas'd to say that after a long silence he thrusts himself in again and desires the Bishop to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit in which sense he might easily finde it to be Infallible Truly in my opinion A. C. deserv'd no rough language for his respects to the Bishop in being so long and silently attentive to his discourse though at length through zeale he became something earnest in the business out of a desire to bring his Adversary into the right way and to this end urged him to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is a Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit and not assisted by them in any common way but in such a manner as reacheth to Infallibility For such assistance is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof Such assistance the Relatour confesseth the Prophets to have had under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New The like we say the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of the 17. of Deuteronomy verse 8. c. where in doubts the people were bound not onely to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in points of Faith amongst all the different Sects of Christians that deny it Neither had he any reason to break forth into those exclamations Good God whither will these men go For they go no further then Christ himself leads them by promises made unto them in the places of holy Scripture which shall be set down 〈◊〉 And the Pastours of the Catholique Church may very well acknowledge this Infallibility yet make it no occasion to Lord it over others unless he will also accuse the Apostles upon the same account Neither do they equal the Tradition of the present Church as the Relatour urgeth to the written word of God and this hath been shew'd before Touching what he writes of Divine Infallibility we have already declar'd that 't is sufficient to our present purpose to assert Church-Tradition to be Infallible whether it be simply Divine or no is another question to be determin'd when time and place requires Whence it follows that there 's no necessity of equalizing Church-Tradition to the Word of God For we have already acknowledg'd that 't is not in all respects equal to Scripture Again he falls from the Thesis to the Hypothesis We have nothing now to do with this question whether the Roman Bishop and his Clergy be the Head of the Catholique Church or no but whether that which is the Catholique Church be able to breed in us Divine Faith or no whatsoever Congregation of Christians it be So that his impeaching the Roman Church of errours here whilst we are in dispute about another question is wholly out of season His answer to St. Basils Text Parem vim habent ad pietatem that unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word is very deficient First 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions yet of such as were come down from their times to St. Basils For otherwise how should they have had in his time any force at all to move to piety as he said they then had Parem vim habent ad pietatem Secondly his exception taken against that Work of St. Basil from Bishop Andrews and that borrowed from Erasmus and he collecting it onely from the stile which yet others far more ancient and better acquainted with St. Basils stile then Erasmus acknowledge to be his this exception I say we esteem of no great force Thirdly St. Basils making the unwritten Traditions whereof he speaks to be such as are not contrary to Scripture proves not Scripture it self so to be the Touch-stone of Apostolical Tradition as that Scripture must therefore needs be of greater force and superiour dignity then that of Tradition For the Bishop himself grants Prime Apostolical Tradition to be equally divine with Scripture and yet 't is true to say that those Prime Traditions are such as are not contrary to scripture But the sense of Stapletons words is quite perverted by the Bishop For he speaks as his words clearly intimate of later and fresher Traditions then are the Prime Apostolical viz. such as were begun by General Councils or perhaps in some particular Church His words are recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem c. which do not signifie such Traditions as we now treat of viz. Traditions primely Apostolical deliver'd from hand to hand in all succeeding ages by the universal and constant Tradition of the Church and conveighed as such unto us by the Tradition of the present Church 2. A. C. urging the present Copies of Scripture c. presses the Relatour very hard as I have already shew'd Now I adde what if the Ancienter Copies disagree How shall we know which is the true Word of God His saying that true Scripture may be more easily known then true Tradition because the one is written and not the other is not consequent
praecognitum we seek for is not such a one as the Relatour makes Tradition viz. an Introducer onely but such a one as we may rely upon for an Infallible Testimony in the Resolution of Faith Nay I adde Scripture is not a primum praecognitum even to this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation For if in this Proposition it be suppos'd that Scripture is the Word of God it must also at least implicitely be suppos'd as prov'd by Tradition and consequently both in this and all other Questions Tradition must be the praecognitum and primò cognitum 9. But put case the Bishop held the Scriptures-being the Word of God as a supposed Principle meerly in materiâ subjectâ yet should he not have said absolutely as he doth That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need not to be proved but should have said We are now to suppose Scripture to be the Word of God in order to this Question and are not to prove it But the truth is in this Question of Mr. Fisher viz. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture even as it related to the present Controversie betwixt them Scripture was not to be supposed as a Principle to be Gods Word For the Question then agitated was not Whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation there being no mention of that but onely whether the Creed contained all Fundamental Points And the immediate occasion of Mr. Fishers demanding this Question was this answer of the Bishop viz. That the Scriptures onely not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith Whereupon Mr. Fisher demanded how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are believed sayes Mr. Fisher to be Scripture yet not proved out of any place of Scripture Now 't is manifest that in this Debate Mr. Fisher had Logically right to demand this Question it being a direct Medium and Argument to infringe the Bishops Tenet For by this means his Doctrine was evinced to be false because if there be some point of Protestant Faith not founded in Scripture Scriptures onely are not the Foundation of their Faith Whence it follows that even though the Question had been whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation yet Scriptures in order to that were not to be suppos'd to be the Word of God since the very believing them to be so at least in his principles is a point necessary to salvation which gives right to his Antagonist to disprove his assertion by instancing that Scriptures-being the word of God is not contained in Scripture 10. His Lordship here undertakes a hard task and pretends to make it appear to A. C. how Scripture is a praecognitum even in the strictest sense But behold his reason Scripture is a praecognitum because 't is known in clear light by God and the Blessed in heaven Is not this an invincible argument I am sorry to see him so much mistake the Question For we are not in search after a praecognitum in order to God and the Saints in heaven but in relation to us upon earth to whom it is as much unknown whether God and the Saints see Scriptures to be his Divine Oracles as it is whether the same Scriptures be Gods word or not abstracting from Tradition Is not this in respect of us to bring non-cognita for praecognita Besides what avails it me for the Resolution of my Faith that the Revelation is clear to God and his Saints unless I know it be so who have no other light for its admittance then the Tradition of the Church Having labour'd to prove that Scriptures are the Oracles of God from the clear science God and the Saints have of them which clear Science of theirs is derived by Apostolical Tradition to the Church the Relatour drawes a conclusion quite contrary to his Premises namely that Scripture is to be supposed Gods word and needs no precedent proof If it needs no proof why does his Lordship endeavour to prove it by such a strange kinde of Argument Had he indeed said Scriptures being prov'd by another principle to be the word of God must be suppos'd to be so by all that admit that proof he had said a manifest truth But on the one side to hold it must be prov'd by a further principle and on the other to maintain that it needs not be prov'd at all cannot but seem a strange Vertigo to any Logical head As to his conclusion in these words And therefore now to be suppos'd at least by all Christians that the Scripture is the word of God I answer if he means by now to be suppos'd for Gods word as prov'd such by Apostolical Tradition 't is most true but if he mean 't is to be suppos'd the word of God without any precedent proof in order to us it s all out of joynt and his answer contrary to his own principles 11. Touching the Jewes they had the like proof for the Old Testaments-being the word of God that we have for the New For theirs was delivered by Moyses and the Prophets and ours by the Apostles who were Prophets too And as they that came after received the Old Testament from the Tradition of the Church so do we now And this is it that St. Chysostome affirms We know why By whose Testimony do we know By the Testimony of our Ancestors Which words being spoken without restriction and in answer to the question proposed must of necessity be understood as well of the immediate as prime Ancestors however the Bishop labours by his Gloss to exclude the immediate ones which is incompatible with Reason since the witness that is able to make me know any thing must attest it immediately to me that so I may hear his testimony my self Now the Jewes who liv'd many hundred years after Moyses and the Prophets did not could not hear them immediately therefore Moyses and the Prophets could not give them an immediate testimony And since they had none that witnessed this immediately to them but those of the present Jewish Church who with a most full consent deliver'd what they had receiv'd from those who flourished in the next age before them they could not know that their Ancestors taught it but by those of their present age and consequently it was not their prime Ancestors onely that made them know it as the Relatour would insinuate This is most clearly signified Psalm 77. ver 3. c. where the Children of Israel were to receive the Law and Works of God successively by Generations one immediately from another And the same is also commanded them Deut. 6. ver 6 7 20. viz. that fathers should instruct their children concerning the great Works and Mercies of God c. As to what the Bishop observes touching the word Knowledge which is attributed to the Jews by holy Scripture as also by
St. Chrysostome in the place above cited it imports not evident or Scientificall Knowledge properly so called but a firm and perfect assurance onely otherwise our Faith would neither be free nor meritorious His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one both because the Royall Prophet intimates that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors Psalm 77. 6. and because they that heard Moyses the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles speak knew as perfectly by that hearing as could be known in matters of Faith and likewise because St. Paul saith Rom. 10. 17. Fides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing and lastly because his Lordship himself asserts that Scripture is known in this sense to be the word of God by hearing from the mouthes of the Apostles Now to averre that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle then an ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition is a truth delivered by me all along this debate For I have always held the voice of the present Church to be onely an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures for which prime Tradition onely we believe Scripture to be the word of God as for the formal motive of our Belief To his Quere therefore touching the Jewes proceeding in the like controversie I answer when it shall be shewn that any of the Jewes held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith to the exclusion of Tradition I shall then be ready to shew what the Bishop here demands viz that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove that the Old Testament was Gods word But to return to their resolution of Faith certain it is they had alwayes at least very often Prophets amongst them insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth that God promised to provide there should never be wanting a Prophet in Israel Moreover besides these 't is well known there was in the Jewish Church a permanent infallible Authority consisting of the High Priest and his Clergy to which all were bound to have 〈◊〉 in doubts and difficulties of Religigion as is expressed in Holy Writ Wherefore we have not the least reason to doubt but the Jews would have proceeded the same way in all difficulties concerning Scripture and Tradition that we do though his Lordship would perswade us the contrary 12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in as he was once before for averring that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being Gods word but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point to which the Relatour replies that the Argument would have been stronger had he said to assure us of this point by Divine Faith But certainly Mr. Fisher meant such an assurance and no other as appears by the expression he uses viz. to assure us in this point What point That Scriptures are the Word of God which being a point of Faith he could not be thought in reason but to require an assurance proportionable to a point of Faith that is infallible assurance sufficient to breed in us Divine Faith though it be also true that no certain assurance at all touching this matter could be had without admitting the infallible Authority of the Church For as it hath been urged heretofore many Books of Holy Writ have been doubted of upon very good grounds and the rest questioned as corrupted So that without the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost it were impossible in this case to come to any certain determination at all much less could we arrive to an infallible certainty Sure I am the School doth not maintain with his Lordship here that Moral certainty is infallible Philosophers are so far from this as to admit that even Physical certainty falls short of infallibility as being lyable to deception As for example when I have my eyes open and look upon the wall I have Physical certainty that it is the wall which I see but I have no infallible certainty of it for by the power of God it may be otherwise Now the reason why a moral and humane authority so long as 't is fallible can never produce an infallible assurance is because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority can be no greater then the Authority that grounds it Since therefore according to the Relator all humane Authority is absolutely fallible 't is impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty This Doctrine is expresly delivered by the Bishop § 16. num 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THEN DIVINE then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are contained are not objects of Divine Belief which once granted will inforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance then humane and moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then SIMPLY DIVINE must make good the Scriptures infallibity at least in the last resolution of our Faith in that point This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone for the Church consists of men subject to errour Thus he No humane testimony therefore in the Bishops opinion can make good the Scriptures infallibility that is give us an infallible assurance of that or any other point of Faith But how this can stand with what he delivers § 19. num 1. when speaking of the very same question viz. of Scriptures-being Gods Word he positively affirms we may be even infallibly assured thereof by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof I see not let the Reader judge This is not the first contradiction we have observed in his Lordships discourses Nor will it serve his turn to say as he doth that by infallible assurance may be understood no more then that the thing believed is true and truth QUA TALIS cannot be false For however he playes with the word infallible yet that cannot touch assurance For the infallibity he there talks of is onely in the object and that in sensu composito too viz. onely so long as the object remains so But assurance relates to the subject or person believing and his act which is the thing we chiefly mean when we teach that Faith is of divine and infallible certainty For otherwise in the Bishops sense of infallibility there is no true proposition how contingent and uncertain soever in it self of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain So for example should I say meerly by guess The Pope is now at Rome or in the Conclave and it were so de facto I might be said to be infallibly certain of it which is extreamly absurd as confounding verity with infallibility which no true Philosophy will admit Wherefore it is ridiculous to distinguish as the Bishop does here one infallibility cui non subest falsum viz.
which is not de facto false yet may be false and another cui non potest subesse falsum which neither is false nor can be false since all Infallibility is such cui non potest subesse falsum To obtain therefore an infallible assurance of Scriptures-being the Word of God we must of necessity rely upon the never-erring Tradition of Gods Church all other grounds assignable are uncertain and consequently insufficient to breed in us supernatural and divine Faith But enough of this Yet before I go further I cannot omit to observe the Bishops earnest endeavour to possess the Reader that the Scriptures both the old and new are come down to us so unquestionably by meer humane Authority that a man may thereby be infallibly assured that they are the word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith when he could not be ignorant that there is hardly any Book of Scripture which hath not been rejected by some Sect or other of Christians and that several parts even of the new Testament which most concerns us were long doubted of by divers of the Fathers and ancient Orthodox Writers till the Church decided the Controversie Nay that their great reformer Luther himself admits not for Canonical Scripture the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Saint James the Epistle of Saint Jude nor any part of the Apocalypse or Revelation Call you this candid dealing is it not rather to say and unsay or indeed to say any thing in defence of a ruinous Cause After this the Relatour pretending to come close to the particular sayes The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ that you and wee were all of one belief I wonder whom he means by that WEE of his before the Rent seeing the said WEE began with and by that Rent not made by us but by those that went out from us and deserted the Catholique Church and Faith in which they were bred up and so became a WEE by themselves which before the Rent so made had no other then a meer Utopian or Chimerical Being Yet as it seems by his Lordships discourse they are pleas'd in fancying themselves Reformers of our Corruptions while they themselves are the Corrupters They think themselves safe in holding the Creed and other common Principles of Belief but so did many of the ancient Heretiques who yet were condemn'd for such by lawfull oecumenical Councills They glory in ascribing as he sayes more sufficiency to the Scripture then is done by us in that they affirm it to contain all things necessary to Salvation while by so doing in the sense they mean it they contradict the Scriptures themselves which often sends them to Traditions Call you this giving honour to the Scritures This indeed is not onely enough but more then enough as the Bishop expresses it himself He tells us that for begetting and settling a Belief of this Principle viz. that the Scripture is the Word of God they go the same way with us and a better too He means they go some part of the way with us and the rest by themselves But certainly he ought rather to have continued in our way to the end then for want of a good reason why he left it to pin this falshood upon us That we make the present Tradition alwayes an Infallible Word of God unwritten Apostolicall Traditions we hold for such indeed since to be written or not-written are conditions meerly accidental to Gods Word but the Tradition of the present Church by which we are infallibly ascertain'd of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves we oblige not any man to receive it for Gods unwritten Word as the Bishop would make you believe Their way sayes the Bishop is better then ours because they resolve their Faith touching this Principle into the written Word which is in plain English that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word into no Word of God at all since there is not any written Word of God to tell them that this or that Book or indeed any Book of their whole Bible is the Word of God They therefore ultimately resolve their Faith of this point into little more then their own fancies and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all which neverthelesse is by them laid for the Basis or ground-work of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion Behold the excellency of their better way then ours who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into Gods unwritten Word viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own dayes And of this Apostolical Testimony Tradition or unwritten Word of God all the succeeding Christians of Gods Church even to this day have been rendred certain by the Infallible I say not Divine Testimony or Tradition of the said Church of Christ. Lastly the Bishop to close this Dispute speaks again to that well known place of St. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas which he attempts to solve by telling us that the Verb commovere is not applyable to one Motive alone but must signifie to move together with other Motives To this I answer that he must be a mean Grammarian who knows not this to be a great mistake when no plurality of Motives is expressed Secondly that in case St. Austins word commoveret were to be taken in the sense the Bishop gives it viz. to move together with Scripture yet his Lordship would gain little by it since his Faith were consequently to be resolv'd into it as being a Partial Motive of his Faith Now it cannot be denyed in true Philosophy that if one partial Motive be fallible the Act produced by that Motive must of necessity have a mixture of Fallibility in it every effect participating the nature of its cause So even in Logick should a Syllogism have for one of its Premises a Sentence of Scripture and for the other but a probable Proposition the Conclusion could be no more then probable And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited when speaking of the Churches Authority he sayes Quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio oredere potero which being weakened or call'd in question I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel it self Thus by Gods favour we are come to the end of this grand Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith wherein I have not onely shewn the insufficiency of the several wayes and methods propounded by the Bishop but cleared and established our own Catholick way of Resolving Faith The Infallible Tradition of the present Church is the sole Clew that guides us through the dark and intricate Meanders of our Adversaries Labyrinth 'T is the onely expedient by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object Gods Revelation This thred is
fastened to the undeniable Motives of Credibility accompanying and pointing out the true Church which Motives are the ground or reason why we believe the Church to be Infallible independently of Scripture whereby we avoid even the shadow of a Circle Now our Adversary on the other side though he grants true Christian Faith to be essentially Divine and Infallible and that Divine Revelation or Gods Word is the ultimate Foundation or Formal Object of Faith as also that we cannot believe with true Divine Faith unless we have some infallible ground and Authority to assure us of the said Divine Revelation or Word of God yet does he not 't is therefore to be suppos'd he could not shew any such infallible Authority or ground for his believing Scripture or any other point of Faith to be Divine Revelation or the Word of God The private Spirit however mask'd under the title of Grace hath been found to come far short in that respect the inbred Light of Scripture it self has been evidenc'd to be too weak and dimme for that purpose Neither can these defective means viz. of private Spirit and inbred Light of Scripture be ever heightened or improved to that Prerogative to wit of giving Infallible assurance by the Tradition of the present Church unless that Tradition be granted to be Infallible which the Bishop absolutely refuses to admit and thereby leaves both himself and his own Party destitute of such an Infallible ground for beleeving Scripture to be Gods Word as himself confesses necessary for attaining Supernatural and Divine Faith The consequence I leave to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader I beseech God he may make benefit of it to his Eternal Felicity CHAP. X. Of the Universal Church ARGUMENT 1. The Ladies Question what it was and how diverted by the Bishop 2. In what sense the Romane Church is stiled THE Church 3. Every True Church a right or Orthodox Church and why 4. The Ladies Question and A. C's miscited 5. How THE Church and how Particular Churches are called Catholique 6. Why and in what sense 't is not onely true but proper to say the Romane-Catholique Church 7. The Bishops pretended Solutions of Bellarmins Authorities referr'd Chap. 1. to a fitter place here more particularly answered 1. THe Lady at length cuts off the the thred of his Lordships long Discourse and by a Quere gives a rise to a new one Her demand according to Mr. Fishers relation was Whether the Bishop would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church What was the Bishops answer to this He granted that it was But since it seems he repented himself for granting so much For afterwards in his Book he deny'd that either the Question was askt in this form or that the Answer was such Had we the Ladies Question in some Authenticall Autography of her own hand it would decide this verbal Controversie However 't is very likely the Lady asked not this Question out of curiosity since she desired onely to know that which might settle her in point of Religion being at that time so deeply perplexed as she was Now what satisfaction would it have given her to know that the Church of Rome was a particular and true Church in the precise Essence of a Church in which she might possibly be saved if it were neither THE true Church that is the Catholique Church out of which she could not be saved nor the right Church in which she might certainly be saved This onely was her doubt as appears by the whole Dispute this having been inculcated to her by those of the Romane Church and 't is likely she fram'd her question according to her doubt But whatever her words were she was to be understood to demand this alone viz. Whether the Romane were not the True Visible Infallible Church out of which none could be saved for herein she had from the beginning of the Conference desired satisfaction See Mr. Fishers Relation pag. 42. wherein it is said The Lady desired to have proof brought to shew which was that Continual Infallible Visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attain Salvation 2. To our present purpose 't is all one in which of these terms the Question was demanded For in the present subject the Romane Church could not be any Church at all unless it were THE Church and a right Church The reason is because St. Peters Successor being the Bishop of Rome and Head of the whole Church as I shall fully prove anon that must needs be THE Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be any Church at all In like manner if it were not a right Church it might be a Synagogue or Conventicle but not a True Church of Christ. For that implies a company of men agreeing in the profession of the same Christian Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments under the Government of lawfull Pastours and chiefly of one Vicar of Christ upon Earth 'T is evident this Church can be but One and therefore if it be a True Church it is a Right Church This notwithstanding hinders not the Universal Church from being divided into many Diocesses all which agreeing in the same Faith and Communion of the same Sacraments and in the acknowledgement of the same Vicar of Christ make up One and the same Universal Church But where there is difference in any of these the Congregation that departs from the abovesaid One Faith Communion and Obedience of necessity ceases to be a Church any longer Why so Because Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu 'T is true THE Church signifies most properly either the whole Catholique Church or if it be applied to a particular Church the Chief Church and by consequence the Church of Rome St. Peter having fixed his Chair to that place and by that means made his Successor Bishop of Rome But had St. Peter placed his Chair elsewhere that Church where ever it had been would have been called THE Church as the Roman Church now is The Roman Church therefore is stiled THE Church because 't is the Seat of the Vicar of Christ and chief Pastour of the Church Universal yet all other Churches are true right and Orthodox Churches of Christ otherwise they would be no Churches at all In a word I would fain see some grave Ancient Father who ever maintained a Congregation of Christians to be a true Church and yet held it not to be Orthodox 3. This being so all his Lordships subtleties fall to the ground which suppose that some Congregation of Christians may remain a True Church and yet teach false Doctrine in matters of Faith For how can you call that a True Church in which men are not taught the way to Heaven but to eternall perdition Such needs must be all false Doctrine in matters of Faith because it either teacheth something to be the Word of God which is not or denyes that to be his Word which is
General Church as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith which is contrary to divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith could be needful in the General Church but onely in particular Churches citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us how unwilling he is in this troublesome and quarrelling age to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral he addes though the Church of England professeth that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent It matters not what she sayes or sayes not in this but our question is what she must say if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise For this is certain that many of those particular points of Faith which are rejected as errours by the English Protestant Church were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christendom when this pretended Reformation began If therefore they be dangerous errours as the Bishop with his English Church professes they are by good consequence it must follow that the English Protestant Church holds that the whole Catholique Church hath erred dangerously But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general yet at last he meddles with it and that very freely too for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If saith the Bishop he means no more then this viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary but his 〈◊〉 fiction What is this but tacitely to grant that the whole Church of Christ may universally erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salvation Is not this great modesty towards the Church Nay a great satisfaction to all Christians who by this opinion must needs be left in a wood touching the knowledge of Points absolutely necessary to their salvation 3. But the Bishop suspects a dangerous consequence would be grounded upon this if it should be granted that the Church could not erre in any point of Divine Truth in general though by sundry consequences deduced from principles of Faith especially if she presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as he affirms Bellarmin to say she may I answer When God himself whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd and Verasity such that he cannot deceive speaks by his Organ the Holy Church that is by a General Council united with its Head the Vicar of Christ what danger is there of Errour As concerning Bellarmin who is falsly accus'd I wonder the Relatour should not observe a main difference between defining matters absolutely without Scripture and defining without express Scripture which is all that Bellarmin affirms For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures yet they may be there implicitly and rightly deduc'd from Scripture As for example no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity as 't is declar'd by the Council of Nice and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves expresly in Scripture it is not there said in express terms that he is of the same substance with the Father or that he is God of God Light of Light and True God of True God c. and yet who doubts but the sense of this Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture and consequently that the Defining of this and other points of like nature by the Church was not done absolutely speaking without Scripture Besides who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions Wherefore if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith be according to Tradition though it be not express'd in Scripture yet the Church does not define it without Scripture but according to Scripture following therein the Rule which is given her in Scripture But 't is further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church may be ignorant of some Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture or otherwise Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre and teach her errour yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not nay perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth He addes to this that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuit can produce for her not erring in any Thus the Bishop To which I answer The Argument were there any force in it would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles as of the present Catholique Church For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths though the promise intimated by the Bishop of being taught all truth John 16. 13. was immediately directed to them and yet 't is granted by Protestants that the Apostles could not teach that to be Divine Truth which was not much less could they teach that as matter of Divine Truth which was contrary to it Ignorance therefore of some Divine Truths and for some time onely when they are not necessary to be known doth not inferre errour or possibility of erring in those Truths when they are necessary to be known The Apostles Matth. 10. 19. were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand what they should answer to Kings and Presidents being brought before them because it should be given them in that hour what to speak In like manner with due proportion is it now given to their Successours what to answer that is what to define in matters of Faith when ever emergent occasions require it Secondly I say that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour but taught and informed by a master that is infallible he may become infallible So that his Lordships Argument from bare ignorance concluding errour or an absolute possibility of erring is it self as erroneous as this A young Scholar of himself alone is ignorant and apt to mistake the signification of words Ergo he can do no otherwise then mistake while his Master stands by him and teaches him 4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself and puts in a Proviso Provided alwayes saith he that this erring of the Church be not in any point simply Fundamentall for of such points even in his own judgement the whole Church cannot be ignorant nor erre in them To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other answer but this We desire to know what
but this viz. that its Decrees are universally receiv'd as obligatory by all particular Churches or the whole Church Diffusive Neither is this Confirmation so simply and absolutely necessary but that the Decrees of a General Council lawfully assembled and duly confirm'd by the Pope are obligatory without it and antecedently to it But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop cites him for viz. to prove that 't is the consent of the whole Church Diffusive that confirms the Decrees of General Councils and not the Popes Authority His words are these Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ quid in hâc re sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset visum est ei c. where 't is evident the Father speaking of St. Cyprians errour the whole drift of his speech is to tell us it was the more excusable in him because he defended it onely before the consent of the whole Church had by the sentence of a General Council established what was to be held in that point Is this to say that the Decrees of a General Council are to be confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it and not otherwise as the Bishop will needs perswade us Surely no. To conclude therefore we think the Bishop could not well have more effectually justifi'd our assertion concerning the Authority both of the Church and a General Council then by citing this Text of St. Austin Since it clearly signifies that the Church doth settle and determin matters of Controversie by the sentence of a General Council in which the whole Churches consent is both virtually included and effectually declared 8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his angry exceptions against him for interposing as he tells us new matter quite out of the Conference But how can it be called new matter as not pertinent to the question debated in the Conference if A. C. urg'd and prov'd by what reasons he could the necessity of the Popes Authority for ending Controversies in Faith that being the point his Adversary most especially deny'd A. C. desires to know what 's to be done for reuniting the Church in case of Heresies and Divisions when a general Council cannot be held by reason of manifold impediments or being call'd will not be of one minde Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this case provided no Rule no Judge Infallible to determine Controversies and procure unity and certainty of Belief Yes sayes the Bishop He hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture But this Answer A. C. foreseeing prevented by his following words had the Relatour pleas'd to set them down which shew the inconvenience of admitting that Rule as Protestants admit it since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain What sayes the Bishop to that First he cunningly dissembles the objection takes no notice of A. C. s discourse to that purpose and yet finding it necessary to apply some salve to the sore he addes in the second place as it were by way of Tacit prevention In necessaries to Salvation the Scripture by the manifest places of it which admit no dispute nor need any external Judge to interpret them is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief amongst Christians and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermin'd they be But surely here the Bishop went too farre and lost himself in his own Labyrinth For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands onely such as are of absolute necessity to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians necessitate medii as Divines speak though we should grant they were so clear in Scripture as not to fall under dispute among Christians yet to affirm as he does that there ought to be no contention to a separation about any other points is to condemn the perpetual practice of the Catholique Church which hath ever oblig'd her Children under pain of Anathema to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretiques as namely from the Montanists the Quarto-Decimani the Rebaptizers Monothelites Pelagians Semi-Pelagians Vigilantians Iconoclasts and the like who held all those foresaid necessary matters and err'd onely in such as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians whatsoever But if by necessaries to salvation he mean any of those which Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti he should have assign'd them in particular for till that be done such General Answers as the Bishop here gives signifie nothing either to the just satisfaction of us or security of their own proceedings since they cannot possibly know in what points they ought to hold contention to a separation and in what not Moreover we having already prov'd at large Chap. 2. and in other places that 't is necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church whether clearly contain'd in Scripture or not it follows there must be some other Infallible Rule beside Scripture whereon to ground our Faith of such Things as are not clearly deliver'd in Scripture The Holy Scripture alone is not qualifi'd for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is For though it may be granted to be certain and Infallible in it self yet is it not so in order to us nor so much as known to us for Gods Word without the Authority of the Church assuring us of that truth and he is very much mistaken when he supposes the Ancient Church had no other Additional Infallible Rule viz. Tradition by which to direct their Councels Nor is there any thing alledgeable out of Bellarmin contrary to this sense if his words be candidly interpreted Tertullian indeed calls Scripture the principal rule and we if we have not sufficiently acknowledg'd it already upon sundry occasions will now say so too it is the principal not the onely Rule He adores the fulness of Scripture so do we as to that particular point about which he then disputed We confess the Scriptures do most fully prove against Hermogenes the Heretique that the world or matter whereof this world consists was not eternal but created by God in time Again 't is no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fulness of Seripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition which in other parts of his works he maintains more expresly then many other of the Fathers What 's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus but to shew that Heretiques cannot be confuted by Scripture alone without Tradition Now we say both with him St. Hierome and St. Basil that to superinduce any thing contrary to what is written is a manifest errour in Faith and that it hath a woe annexed to it but to superinduce what is no way dissonant but rather consonant and agreeable to Scripture hath no such curse
POWER was given by our Lord Jesus Christ to FEED RULE and GOVERN the Universal Church as 't is likewise contain'd in the Acts of other Oecumenical Councils and in the Sacred Canons So that Occham or any other that seem to oppose this if they be Catholiques must be understood to speak onely de possibili of what Christ our Saviour might have done if he had pleas'd or to mean onely that the Pope doth not govern the Church in such an absolute Monarchical way as that he alone is the onely Governour jure Divino in it and that all other Bishops are but his Vicars and Substitutes CHAP. 19. Of the Council of Trent ARGUMENT 1. The Council of Trent as Legal as any other General Council whatsoever 2. The Popes Presiding therein necessary and of Ancient Right 3. The Place it self indifferent for all parties 4. No Oath taken by the Bishops but what the Ancient Canons prescrib'd and was wont to be taken a thousand years before 5. The Council Full especially in its latter Sessions towards the end when the Acts formerly passed were consented to de Novo by all the Prelates 6. No real Disparity as to Legalness between the Council of Nice and that of Trent 7. Neither the Number nor the Quality of Italian Bishops any prejudice to the Councils Liberty 8. Groundless Suspicions evince nothing either against the Pope or Council 9. Protestants no less Censured in effect by the Greek Church then by the Latin 1. THe Bishop pleading so much the necessity of General Councils as if he meant to submit to their Determinations occasion'd A. C. to tell him that a General Council viz. that of Trent had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This was indeed to lay the Axe to the root and bring the cause to a speedy issue but the Relatour will not be taken unprovided He answers therefore the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Why not Legal It had all the Conditions ever yet required by Catholiques to the Legality of a General Council and why not General seeing all Bishops were invited to come and that a greater number actually came and assisted at the end of the Assembly then were present at some other Councils confessedly General But let us hear the Bishops exceptions against this Council His first exception is that the Abettours of this Council maintain publickly that 't is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it DE FIDE and so in our judgement FUNDAMENTAL though it be not contain'd in Scripture nor so much as probably deduced thence and for this opinion Doctor Stapleton is cited in the Margent I answer No Catholique Authour ever taught that it is lawful for the Council to make what ever they please Matter of Faith as the Bishop would seem to insinuate but onely that which is exprest or involved in the word of God written or unwritten that is Tradition And this indeed is defin'd by the very Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not onely upon Scripture but also on Tradition Now that this doctrine is true hath been already prov'd and that it cannot make the Council illegal is manifest even from the Bishops own Principles For he confesseth that Apostolical Tradition when it can be certainly known for such is as truly the word of God as Scripture it self and 't is certainly known to be such by the Tradition or Definition of the Church as hath been likewise heretofore prov'd and by the Bishop himself granted in the question touching Scriptures-being the Word of God Nor did the Council herein proceed in a different manner from other lawful and Oecumenical Councils whiles she grounded her Definitions partly on Scripture partly on Tradition even in matters not deducible by any particular or Logical inference from Scripture 2. A second exception is that the Pope the person chiefly to be reform'd Presided in the Council of Trent and was chief Judge in his own cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humane But the Pope by his Legates presided also in the fourth General Council at Chalcedon as the Bishop himself acknowledges and yet 't is esteem'd by all parties a Lawful and Authentical Council Nor can it be prov'd that the Pope was more the person to be reform'd at Trent then at Chalcedon 'T is true the persons condemn'd by both these Councils pretended that excepting onely themselves the whole Church and chiefly the Pope err'd and by consequence were to be reform'd but as the former complain'd without ground in the opinion of all but themselves so did the latter and so do all their Adherents Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria was esteem'd a great Party and Delinquent by the Arrians for having acted so zealously in defence of the Catholique Faith against their Master Arius Yet he sate a chief Judge with the other Bishops and had both a Prime place and Vote in the first Council of Nice where their Heresie was condemn'd Saint Cyril presided in the Third General Council though by the Nestorian Heretiques there condemn'd he were counted a Party Adde to this that in the abovemention'd Council of Chalcedon the cause was very particular between Pope Leo and Dioscorus and yet not onely the Legats of the said Pope presided in the Council during the whole agitation of the business but the condemnation of Dioscorus was even fram'd by Pope Leo and approv'd by the whole Council So far was it from being thought a solid objection against him that he was a party in the cause or the person to be reform'd We deny not but the other Bishops being also Judges in the Council may proceed even against the Pope himself if the case do necessarily require it as should he for example manifestly appear to be an Heretique Protestants therefore have no just cause to quarrel the Popes presiding in Councils especially so long as he is not justly accusable of any crime but such as must involve not onely the Council but the whole Church as much as himself as 't is evident he was not when he presided in the Council of Trent 'T is not therefore contrary but conformable to all Law Divine Natural and Humane that the Head should preside over the Members and to give Novellists liberty to Decline the Popes judgement or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiours upon 〈◊〉 of their being parties or by them accus'd of errour who sees not that it is in effect absolutely to exempt such people from all legal censure nay even to grant there is no sufficient means left effectually to govern the Church or condemn Heresie Schisme and other offences against Religion But the Bishop in his large Margent denyes as well matter of Fact as matter of Right in this question of the Popes presiding in General Councils telling us that in the First Council of Nice Hosius was President and not the Bishop of Rome either
Communion that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques as then respectively call'd either for Reformation or such a Free Council as Protestants now do viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever profefsing the name of Christ. Again the Oath which the Bishops usually take does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but onely that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded But I answer first the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come making no exclusive mention of any Secondly the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme had excluded themselves and perhaps durst not venture to come as knowing that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission it being confess'd that no known Heretique or Schismatique hath right othertherwise then by special leave or permission to sit in Council Those Greeks whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope as the Relatour surmizes but expell'd and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope and had right of assisting in the Council as true Bishops of the Greek Church We are told again that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present and not above forty or fifty Bishops and for the west nearer home it reckon'd no more then one English viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph I answer many more were both call'd and expected who likewise came long before the end of the Council and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming which was sufficient Concerning those of our Countrey the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council as he might have been otherwise he would have found beside the Bishop of St. Asaph Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session and divers others As for his Authority or Right to sit there being not sent or deputed by the English Church we answer such Mission or Deputation is not of absolute necessity but onely of Canonical Provision when time and state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope Now 't is undeniable that for some years before the Council ended the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey we cannot give much credit to him in what he affirms either of France or Spain It sufficeth that in diverse Sessions of this Council many Bishops of both these Nations were present and might have been in all the rest had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them The impediment was not on the Councils part and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority Legality or Liberty of it and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats 't is manifest the Council was so full that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils which even our Adversaries themselves account General 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice But to this the Bishop will by no means yield telling us the case is not alike between the said Councils and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects First saith he the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed not to depart from Scripture but engaged to prove what they defin'd by many testimonies thereof whereas the Council of Trent as the Relatour affirms concluded many things simply EXTRA out of all bound of Scripture leaving both its Letter and sense I answer the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture they alledged Scripture for their Heresie they said in effect to the Father 's then what the Bishop and his party say to us now we are sure and we are able to prove that the Council of Nice had not Scripture for them There is therefore no such disparity between them as the Bishop pretends The truth is both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined but neither of them hold it for their onely rule or so made use of it as to reject Tradition for which the Scripture it self is admitted In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius but because Tradition was the principal thing that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side the Arians partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts which Catholiques brought against them and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion against the Catholique Doctrine As to what he addes in the Margent that the whole Church concluded that Scripture was against the Arians and agreeing with the Council of Nice but that the like consent is not that Scripture is for the Council of Trent and against Protestants We answer the like consent of the whole Church both is and was when Protestants first began that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition which is equivalent to it was for the Council of Trent and against Protestants Is it not evident to go no further back then the Year 1500. that
infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But he does not finde he sayes that any General Council since did ever take upon them to say punctually and in express terms of their Definitions VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS acknowledging even thereby a great deale of difference as hee conceiues in the Certainty of those things which After-generall Councils determined in the Church and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sate in Council I answer there 's no Essentiall difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a Generall Councill confirm'd by the Roman Bishop Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops in respect of Personall Prerogatiues and graces but none at all between the Certainty of what eyther the Apostles by themselues or succeeding bishops in a lawfull Generall Council assembled define for Truth seeing what is completely determin'd therin is no lesse determin'd by Apostolicall Authority then what was determin'd by the Apostles in that first Council at Hierusalem And if After-Councils vse not the same Expression punctually and in terms it is not materiall since they doe it in effect by vniversally enioyning the Beleefe of their Decisions vnder paine of Anathema And this the Holy fathers well vnderstood when they averr'd the Decrees of a Generall Council to bee a most Holy and Diuine Oracle a sentence inspir'd by the Holy Ghost not to bee 〈◊〉 not to bee question'd without errour that it is the last sentence that can bee expected in matters of fayth What the Relatour meanes by alledging Valentia I vnderstand not that Author cleerly speaking of Councils not yet ratify'd by the Pope The Bishop therfore hath sayd nothing in disproofe of what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirme viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proofe of the Jnfallibility of Generall Councils which considered Dr. Stapleton is so farre from beeing iustly Censurable for styling the Decrees of Generall Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost that his Lp. is rather blameable for pretending such words to bee little short of Blasphemie Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to giue them such like Attributes Does not St. Athanasius terme the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever Does not St. Cyrill aboue cited call it likewise a Diuine and most Holy Oracle Doth not Constantin the Emperour style the same Definition a Celestiall mandate Doth not St. Gregory with the applause of all true Christians professe to reuerence the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councils as hee reuerences the foure Ghospells Doth not St. Leo St. Gregory Naziazen Pope Nicolas the first with others speake to the same sense Bellarmins Argument deduc'd from this Apostolicall Council as 't was a President to all future Councils oecumenicall holds good for their Jnfallibility since otherwise they must haue been ineffectuall as to the principall purpose of calling them Viz. so to determin Controuersies of fayth as to put an end to all debates of that nature in the Church which can never bee effectually done where Infallibility is not acknowledg'd as hath been proued To what hee obiects that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils where no man Sate that was inspired as was in this of the Apostles where all that sate as iudges were inspired I answer 't is sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelats concurring with their Head in any other lawfull Generall Council were ioyntly infallible in any kinde of reall infallibility whether like to the former or not So in the Bishops own principles a Generall Council or at least the Catholique Church is infallible in fundamentalls or Things absolutely necessary to saluation though hee would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to haue that prerogatiue of infallibility As touching Ferus hee avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility though his Authority would bee of no greater force then if hee were none of ours His Comment vpon the Acts which the Bishop here cites beeing listed with most of his other works in the ROLL of Prohibited Books Thus haue I gone thorough all the forecited passages of scripture and in euery one of them solv'd the Bishops obiections for rendring them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of Generall Councils which yet I needed not haue done since what is cleerly prou'd by any one Text of scripture is as vndoubtedly true as what is prou'd by more But the Bishop tells us hee easily grants a Generall Council cannot erre in Things necessary to 〈◊〉 suffering it selfe to bee led by the spirit of Truth in scripture wherein hee seems but to trifle saying no more in effect then that a Generall Council cannot erre so long as it doth not erre This is a very small Prerogatiue and might bee affirm'd of any kinde of Council nay of any particular person of how meane capacity soever The question is whether a lawfull Generall Council can ever bee presumable to fall into the Bishops hinted disorder of leauing scripture or defining any thing contrary to its true sense But to speake truth there can bee no question of it as beeing inconsistent with the veracity of Diuine Promises to permitt the whole Church to erre in any Doctrinall point she finds necessary to define by a Generall Council for preuenting of schisms and settling of mens minds in the Truth To what hee adds as the Result of his discourse vpon these several Texts that supposing they promisd Assistance even to Infallibility yet they are to bee understood of the whole Church principally and of its Representatiue but by consequent nor any further then the sayd Representatiue consents and eleaues to that vpon which it is consequent viz. the Catholique Body of the Church This I say is but a weake cuasion For seeing the Catholique or Diffusiue Body of the Church is bound to beleeue and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representatiue if the Church Diffusiue haue an Infallible Assistance for her Beleeving the Council or Church Representatiue must also necessarily haue Infallible Assistance in Teaching To which of these this Assistance is promised principally is but a vayne speculation since they both haue it as beeing absolutely necessary for them both Here the Bishop falls againe to his Considerations and wil haue vs to obserue fourthly that there is not the like consent that Generall Councils cannot erre as there is thatthe Church in Generall cannot erre from the fayth necessary to Saluation since in this all agree but not in the former J answer all that haue not deserted nor adher'd to the Desertors of the Catholique Church doe vna nimously agree that a lawfully-call'd and confirm'd Generall Council can no more erre in point of fayth then the Church in general and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
Prouinces of Christendome so publiquely auouch it to haue been a Tradition of the Apostles to worship Images if it had not been a thing confessedly practis'd amonge Christians euer since the Apostles times and with their knowledge and allowance Is it credible that so many Catholique and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceiue the world with such a lowde vntruth if it had been otherwise As for Transubstantiation which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitiue Church did not beleeue wee haue already shew'n that what is signifyed by the word to witt a true and reall change of the substance of bread into Christs body was cleerly held and taught by diuerse ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church His bare saying 't is a scandall to both Iew and Gentile and the Church of God signifies but little Christ crucifyed was a scandall both to Iew and Gentile but yet a true obiect of our Fayth nor are they the Church or any part of the true Church that are scandaliz'd at it but Infidells and Heretiques who will be scandaliz'd at any thing that suites not with their own fancies As little can he inferre against vs from the difficulty which Catholique Diuines haue to explicate Transubstantiation Js not the Mystery of the B. Trinity in the Bishops own opinion as inexplicable and yet firmly to be beleeu'd why then must Transubstantiation be reiected or disbeleeu'd meerly vpon that ground or because 't is hard to be explicated Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely which bred that pretended scandall in Auerroes but the Reall Presence as his words shew cited by the Bishop Yet the Relatour himselfe and his master Caluin too sometimes make profession to beleeue the Reall Presence After so many vnaduised assertions our aduersarie falls at last to quibble vpon those words of A. C. Roman Catholiques cannot be prou'd to depart from the Foundation so farre as Protestants telling vs 't is a confession that Romanists may be prou'd to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so farre as Protestants doe A doughty inference I promise you But what gaines he by it Doth not the Bishop himselfe num 1. of this very Paragraph vse the like speech of vs when he sayth you of Rome haue gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Fayth then can euer be proued wee of the Church of England haue done If this must not be accounted a Confession that the Church of England hath departed from the Foundation why must that of A. C. be see interpreted as the Bishop will haue it what euer explication be giuen to the Bishops words will serue A. C. as well whose meaning only was that there cannot be brought any arguments to proue our Churches departing from the Foundation but more and better may be brought to proue that Protestants doe likewise depart from it in more and greater points It is not to grant that the arguments which Protestants bring to proue our departing from the Fonndation are solid and conuincing or doe really proue that for which they are brought This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himselfe and to insinuate which A. C. absolutely denyes And as the Bishop had noe reason to inferre any such Confession cut of A. 〈◊〉 words so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalfe of his Church of England Let A. C. instance if he can in any one point wherein she hath departed from the Foundation etc. For that was already done to his hand A. C. had already giuen him this very errour for instance viz. the Church of Englands denying infallible authority to lawfull Generall Councils this beeing in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church and by consequence to subuert the ground of all infallible beleefe in any articles or points of Fayth whatsoeuer Nor does it help him to say there 's a greate deale of difference betwixt a Generall Council and the whole body of the Catholique Church For what euer difference may be in other respects in this viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Fayth and infallible beleeuing what is so taught there is no difference betwixt the Catholique Church and a Generall Councill For if such a Council may erre the Church hath noe infallible meanes to rectifie that errour or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholique doctrine to be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a Generall or oecumenicall Council shewes nothing but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintaines That which was neuer styled or esteem'd by Catholique antiquity but Praedatoria Synodus and Latrocinium not Concilium Ephesinum a den of Robbers and Free-booters a Conuention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretiques that euer troubled or dishonoured the Church by their vnlawfull actings where nothing but secular violence rage and cruelty bore sway euen to bloud-shed and murther of the B. Prelate St. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople this his Lordship brings for an example of a Generall Councils erring Very worthily indeed lett his friends make their benefitt of it Jn the meane time they may know that as on the one side wee readily confess it very necessary the Church should haue remedy against such Councils as this so on the other side wee auerre that the infallibility of Generall Councils truly and rightly so called is such a Foundation of the Roman that is the Christian Catholique Fayth that without it wee know not what can be nor has the Bishop as yet shew'n how any thing can be certaine in the Fayth 6. A. C. after this endeauours by interrogatories to draw from his Aduersarie the confession of truth in answer whereto seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already consuted especially in the 7th and 8th Chapters of this treatise it will oblige vs to avoyd tediousness to be more briefe in our replie A. 〈◊〉 first Querie is how Protestants admitting noe insallible rule of Fayth but Scripture only can be infallibly sure that they beleeue the same entire Scripture Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitiue Church beleeu'd them The Relatour in answer to him tells vs that he beleeues Scripture 1. by Tradition 2. by other motiues of Credibilliy 3. by the Light of Scripture it selfe But first this is not to make a direct answer to the question which is not whether Scripture can be any way beleeu'd or no standing to the Bishops principles but whether and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does beleeue concerning it Secondly 't is vndenyable in the common principles of all Protestants and prou'd already that the two first of these viz. Tradition and the motiues of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Fayth or assurance concerning Scripture and for the third viz. Light of Scripture it selfe it is not only petitio principij a begging of the
question for none of vs euer yet granted him that there was such light but also contrary to experience there beeing noe man that meerly by reading such books as are called Canonicall and others that are accounted Apocryphall can come to know which are Canonicall which not as may appeare by the example not only of such as were neuer taught the maximes of Christian Religion but also of many Christians who though they be able to read yet beeing neuer taught which books were Apocryphall which not know them not by reading Whence it followes likewise that all the insuing discourse which the Bishop makes touching his infallible beleefe of Scripture falls to nothing seeing what he layes as its principall Foundation apparently sinks vnder the weight For a meerly-humane and infallible assurance will neuer support an infallible Fayth of Scripture as euen our Aduersary himselfe grants Nor can he in any better sort make good what he affirm's concerning the Creed and fowre first Generall Councils namely that he beleeues them infallibly in their true incorrupted sense and knowes that he beleeues them so in points necessary to Saluation For seeing he has no infallible certainty that the words or text of the Creed and the acts of the Councils or the books of the ancient Fathers haue not been corrupted how can he haue infallibility in the true sense of them and their conformity to Scripture He pretends indeed to be sure that he beleeues Scripture and the Creed in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitrue Church beleeu'd them because he crosseth not in his beleese any thing deleuered by the Primitiue Church and this againe he is sure of because he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express'd and deliuer'd by the Councils and ancient Fathers of those times But how true this is and how sincerely he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express't by Fathers and Councils may appeare to any that duly considers by the testimonies wee haue already alledg'd against him vpon seuerall occasions out of the Councils and Fathers particularly in this very Chapter and shall yet further alledge in those which follow A. C. asks againe what text of Scripture assures vs that Protestants now liuing doe beleeue all this to witt the Scriptures Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in their incorrupted sense or that all this viz. all that Protestants take to be the true sense of Scripture Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Acts of Councils or writings of the Primitiue Fathers which are now in the Protestants bands and at this his Lordship will needs seeme to wonder But lett them wonder that will The Querie will euer be found both rationall and pertinent notwithstanding such wondering For can any man deny but this is a good consequence Protestants admitt Scripture to be the only infallible rule of Fayth therfore they cannot beleeue infallibly all this aboue mentioned without some particular text or texts of Sripture to be shew'd for it And had not A. C. iust cause to aske whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are now in Protestants hands For seeing it is not in our Bible if it were not likewise in theirs it would be J hope sufficiently euidenc'd to a reasonable Aduersary that it can be found in none But sayth he it is not necessary that this should be shew'd by any particular text because t is made plaine before how wee beleeue Scripture to be Scripture and by diuine and infallible Fayth too and yet wee can shew no particular text for it But how wee pray was this made plaine He told vs indeed that he beleeu'd the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church then by other credible motiues lastly by the light of Scripture it felfe But the two first of these are by his own confession of no infallible authority and the third in effect no more then the Priuate spirit as wee haue often demonstrated to him But admitt the Bishop were sure that the Primitiue Church expounded Scripture in the same sense as Protestants beleeue it yet how will he be able to make good what he adds standing to his own principles this Rule meaning the Scripture as expounded by the Primitiue Church can neuer deceiue mee Did Christ promise infallibility to the Primitiue Church and not to the succeeding Church and if no such infallibility be promised or signifyed in Scripture how can he be certaine they could not erre or deceiue him in their expositions 7. The Bishop tells vs they haue the same Bible with vs but I see not how this can be affirm'd with any truth For Protestants both leaue out many books which wee esteeme part of our Bible and those which they haue with vs are corrupted both in Originalls and Translations Neither doe they admitt and receiue the Bible vpon the same motiue or reason that wee doe Wee admitt it for the infallible authority of the Church propounding it to vs as a diuine booke which infallible authority Protestants deny and by consequence seeing they assign noe other in lieu of it cannot in reason be so infallibly sure of their Bible as wee are of ours Much less could the Bishop iustly say that all is expressed in their Bibles that is in ours vpon this ground only because all Fundamentall points are as proueable without the Apocrypha as with it For who sees not that the same may be affirm'd with exclusion of diuerse other books admitted into the Protestants Canon noe less then ours for example the Epistle of St. Iude the two last Epistles of St. Iohn the Epistle to Philemon the books of Ester Ruth Paralipomena yea perhaps all or very many of the small Prophets it beeing scarce credible the Relatour or any other Protestant should maintaine there were any Fundamentall points of Fayth in their sense to be prou'd out of those books which cannot be prou'd out of any other books or parts of Scripture Soe that if this reason were good an Heretique that reiects vpon the matter one 〈◊〉 or one third part of the old and new Testament shall yet be allow'd to pretend that he has the same Bible with Catholiques and deliuer'd to him by the same hands and that all is expressed in his that is in the Catholique Bible Sure with very much truth and modestie Wee agree with Bellarmin that all matters of Fayth speaking properly are reueal'd only by the word of God Written or vnwritten but wee auerre that they are infallibly declar'd and testify'd to vs to be so reueai'd by the authority of the Church or Generall Councils Nor doth St. Austins text against Maximinus the Arian any way cross or preiudice our 〈◊〉 although it be manifest he speaks there 〈◊〉 by way of condescension and voluntary yeelding to his aduersary and not as forced there to by any necessity of reason St.
Austin knew that Maximinus refus'd though very vniustly the Council of Nice as much as himselfe did that of Arimini 〈◊〉 that he might dispute effectually with him he thought fitt for the present to waue the argument taken from the authority of Councils and to vrge him only with such common principles as were admitted by them both such as were chiefly the holy Scriptures but yet not them alone for 't is euident he vsed other reasons against him beside Scripture founded vpon and deduced from such maximes of Christian religion as were not disowned by his Aduersarie And might not I pray any Catholique disputant at this day argue with a Protestant in some particular question only out of Scripture and tell him in these or the like words I will not vrge you with the Councils of Lateran or Trent I will conuince you of errour by Scripture only yea by your own Bible etc. might not I say a Catholique in some case speake thus to a Protestant but he should be thought presently to rerect the authority of those Councils or to esteem them not infallible in their definitions of Fayth 8. The Index Expurgatorius J consess is through misunderstanding such a common stumbling-blocke with all sorts of Protestants that wee doe not much wonder the Bishop himselfe should trip at it as he doth here obliquely and by way of insinuation at least accusing vs of hauing expunged some things out of the true and authenticall writings of the Fathers A heauy charge doubtless but our comfort is no less iniuriously imputed then heauy For how does he proue it What authours or places of authours does he alledge thus expunged by vs why nam'd he not the Index in which such expunctions are registred why cited he not some of his purer and more authentique Copies different from ours and where those texts are restor'd or standing vpon record which our Indexes are pretended to haue expung'd How came 〈◊〉 to finde out the true genuine and authenticall thenticall writtings of the Fathers if they were not so extant and preseru'd amongst vs and by vs of any thing to this purpose which yet alone could be to purpose in the present case the Relatour brings not the least syllable of instance thinking it enough only to accuse For as to what he pretends to alledge out of Sixtus Senensis his Epistle to Pope Pius Quintus whoeuer obserues it well will finde it really to speake the cleane contrary to what the Bishop would seeme to proue by it and directly to accuse not vs but Protestants of corrupting the works of the Fathers The Reader may see the whole text here in the margent at large whereof the Bishop thought not good to giue vs so much as one word but only to make vse of the authors name and therby cleerly perceiue that it was not to purge the ancient texts of the Fathers writtings but only the false readings spurious notes commentaries and interpretations of Heretiques vpon their sayd writings and texts that the Index Expurgatorius was commanded to be made by the authority of Pius Quintus while he was yet Cardinall and President of the holy Inquisition not to speake of their alike false and corrupt translations of them which were also forbidden J say therfore lett all our Jndices expurgatorij pass the sorutiny euen of our most rigid aduersaries and lett them shew vs if they can wherein any authenticall writings of the ancient Fathers haue been eyther purg'd or clipt by vs or any thing of the text alter'd in point of reading but vpon iustifyable and auowed reason namely the authority of some more ancient and better copie and if they cannot lett them here after for shame at least be silent and obiect the Index expurgatorius no more A. C. asks further whether Protestants be infallibly sure that they rightly vnderstand the sense of all that is expressed in their books according to that which was vnderstood by the Primitiue Church and the Fathers that were present at the fowre first Generall Councils and for this the Bishop finds great fault with him as asking the same thing ouer and ouer againe Wee answer first his Lordship might see by this how earnest A. C. was for a direct and punctuall answer to his Querie Secondly the Relatour should haue reflected that as yet A. C. had receiu'd no satisfactory answer to the demand and till satisfaction be giuen in such cases 't is consonant enough to the rules of arguing to repeate and vrge the demand and to doe otherwise were but to run from one thing to an other without end and neuer sift out the certaine truth in any question whatsoeuer The truth is the Querie is such that it will be matter of eueriasting vexation to all that follow or goe about to defend the Bishops assertions it beeing euidently impossible to giue a satisfactory answer to it without hauing recourse to the infallible authority of the Church as wee Catholiques doe when the like demand is made to vs by our Aduersaries The Relatour indeed out of his wonted liberalitie in this kinde is pleas'd to call it a dry shift but the reason he giues is no better then a gross mistake For the Churches authority does not always beget an implicite Fayth as the Relatour thinks but very often an explicite one to witt when eyther the definition it selfe expounds to me the sense of Scripture or that church-Church-Tradition concerning it is soe cleere that it needs not the definition or declaration of a Council to make it certainly know'n Whersore seeing Generall Councils by reason of their already-prou'd infallibility are always to be presum'd to speake in that sense which is agreeable to the doctrine of Christ and that the vniuersall tradition of the present Church is also an infallible witness of that doctrine wee Catholiques doe euidently shew according to our grounds how wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand the texts of our Bibles conformably to the sense of those fowre first Generall Councils and of the Primitiue Church of their times For why the sense of the Primitiue Church is necessarily inuolued in that of the Councils and if there happens to be obscurity in the words of any Councils by beeing infallibly sure that that only can be their sense which is conformable to the present Church-Tradition and that the opposite sense cannot possibly be theirs howeuer the words themselues may perhaps be wrested to it by consequence wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand Scripture in the same sense now which the sayd Generall Councils and Primitiue Church anciently did to witt by the infallible authority and Tradition of the present Church I answer to A. Cs. fourth Jnterrogatorie which is whether Protestants can be infallibly sure that all and only those points which they count Fundamentall and necessary to be expressly know'n by all were so accounted in the Primitiue Church the Bishop would seeme at last to tell vs which points are Fundamentall and
he doth say and with truth can say noe more standing to his own principles 10. The implicite Fayth of Catholiques at which the Relatour againe glanceth in points they are oblig'd to know only implicitely giues them sufficient infallibility in their Fayth but hath noe place in this present debate For wee now treate only of such points as are Fundamentall quoad rem attestatam as wee haue formerly distinguish't them that is according to the importance of the matter they containe such as are the prime radicall Articles of our Fayth which euery one is oblig'd necessitate medij or praecepti to know expressly in so much that where ignorance of these points is culpable and through our owne default wee are soe farre from thinking that implicite Fayth can be sufficient for the attaining of Saluation that wee teach the cleane contrary asserting likewise that in those of the first kinde viz. which are necessary by necessity of meanes euen inuincible ignorance will not serue the turn So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells vs by way of Irony and scoff that a Roman-Catholique may vse implicite Fayth at pleasure As to his carping at the word know vsed by A. C. the Relatour should haue know'n that his aduersary takes it not in the most proper sense for demonstratiue or scientificall knowledge as some speake but only for certaine assurance and for infallible beleefe as it is frequently taken by others But as for Protestants standing to the Bishops grounds it is impossible they should haue infallible Fayth eyther explicite or implicite of any thing they bleeue because the authority of the Church beeing in his opinion fallible they can neuer by force thereof be infallibly certain that the books of Scripture which it commends are all or any of them the word of God or that the exposition of Scripture made eyther by the Church or any priuate man is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost Now so long as he is not infallibly certaine of this it may happen for ought he knowes to the contrary that some of them may proue not to be Gods word and seeing the Churches authority attests them all alike he may if he please conceiue a like feare of every one of them What he further adds in this page viz. 337. is only matter of references to what himselfe hath formerly deliuer'd so as I thinke it also sufficient to referre my reader to what I haue answer'd in those places viz. § 25. num 3. § 33. Consid. 3. num 1. § 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to heare him affirme here that he holds the authority of the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. does This surely must be accounted a Paradox or nothing can be iustly taken for such For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himselfe and A. C. toutching the extent of the Churches infallibility and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustaine and endeauour to proue that she is fallible both in the deliuery of Scriptures and in the defining of all points in his opinion Not-Fundamentall and also in her Traditions euen immemoriall and vniuersall And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him maintaine and assert the Churches infallibility in all these But J wonder yet more at the proofe he brings for this assertion to witt his referring vs to § 21. num 5. of his owne booke For there pag. 139. he expresly limits the Churches infallibility to absolute Fundamentall doctrines which A. C. neuer doth and in the progress of his discourse explicating the sayd infallibility euen in Fundamentalls too he falls so low and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church that he brings it down at last to this pittifull state and if she erre sayth he in some ONE or MORE Fundamentall points she may be a Church of Christ still but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. doth not to vrge here the dangerous consequence and also inuolued implicancy of the assertion it selfe which I haue already noted in my answer to that place The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating obiections which haue been more then once sufficiently answer'd viz. concerning Transubstantiation Communion vnder one kinde etc. wherein wee cannot thinke our felues oblig'd to follow our Aduersaries example but rather to remitt the Reader to the places where wee haue already giuen satisfaction touching those matters As little notice shall wee take of his obiecting againe to vs the doctrine of deposing and killing of kings This was added to inuenome the rest of his arguments which he knew otherwise would not be mortall to vs. Wee hope our demeanour in these late dismall distracted times of tryall hath sufficiently cleer'd vs from all such aspersions in the iudgement of indifferent persons nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemyes For who knowes not that vnder the late vsurping powers the greatest crime layd to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Souereign in so much as 't was held by all that partie a thing almost impossible for a man to be a profess't Catholique and not a Caualier too But to this obiection wee haue likewise already spoken what may suffice To summe vp all in briefe wee vtterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoeuer preiudiciall vnto or destructiue of that loyall obedience and Fidelity which is due to all Souereign Princes and Magistrates And if any thing of that nature hath perchance dropt srom the pen of any of ours wee owne it not but censure it deeply prohibite it strictly and in case it be obstinately maintained punish it seuerely and lastly command all books to be corrected that containe any such doctrine CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point touching the vnchangedness of the Roman Fayth with a defence of Purgatory ARGVMENT 1. A. C. Argument that the Roman Fayth is still the ONE SAVING CATHOLIQVE Fayth made good 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruauerit etc. vindicated from the Bishops Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeuing the Creed in its true sense and forcing a wrong sense vpon it vayn and impertinent 4. Protestants are chusers in point of beleefe noe less then all other Heretiques 5. They are not guided by the Church further then they please themselues 6. Church-infallibility to what it amounts according to the Bishops measure 7. In what sense Generall Councils may be sayd to be infallible euen a parte antè or at first sitting down 8. All the ancient Fathers generally speaking beleeu'd Purgatorie 9. Prayer for dead as vsed by the ancients necessarily inferres Purgatory 10. The Relatour labours in vayn to auoyd the Authorities of the Fathers in this point 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret euen by his owne confession cleere for Purgatory 12. St. Austin not wauering
how happen'd it that St. Austin and the Church of his time could not see both the one and the other J must not omitt the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Hierusalem and St. Iobn Chrysostome though the Bishop does in his answer the first of which giues testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory in these words Wee pray sayth he for those amongst vs who are departed this life beleeuing that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOVLES for whome the Oblation of his holy and dreadfull Sacrifice vpon the Altar is offered The second speaks thus Jt is not in vaine that wee make Oblations for the dead it is not in vaine that wee pray and giue Alms for them doubt not but there comes much good of it and more towards the end lett vs consider sayth he how great consolations wee may cause to the dead by these our teares and giuing of Alms for them and by our prayers Againe If thy dead Brother be departed with any sinne that is with sin not so fully repented for and not so fully expiated by works of Pennance as it ought and as wee haue often declar'd wee ought to the vtmost of our power to GIVE HIM SVCCOVR by our prayers supplications and teares and by procuring Oblations or Masses for him For it is not in vaine that in the diuine Mysteries wee remember the faythfull departed Wee doe it to the end they may receiue CONSOLATION and what wee doe in this kinde is not any superstitious inuention of man as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is but the Ordination of the Holy Ghost 13. What can be sayd more then this to the full assertion of our Catholique beleefe in this point Especially seeing out Aduersary himselfe grants concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time that they vndoubtedly held Purgatory so that for a thousand yeares and more he confesses Purgatory was the generall Fayth of Christians Jt would be considered by indifferent men whether it be not sarre more likely to haue been always the Fayth of Christians and that our fore-fathers were in truth frighted into the beleefe of it as the Bishop will needs speake by noe other meanes then they were frighted into the beleefe of Hell that is by the Tradition of the Catholique Church and the preaching of their lawfull Pastours conformably thereto I conclude therfore that Purgatory can be noe other then a doctrine of Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good lib. 4. de Baptism cap. 24. which teacheth that wee iustly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles if they be taught by the whole Church and wee finde noe beginning or first Institution of them in Councils Nationall Prouinciall or oecumenicall Now wee challenge our Aduersaries to shew when or in what age the doctrine of Purgatory first began to be taught or which is all one when the doctrine of Praying for the dead that their sins might be remitted to them that they might finde mercy and milder chastisement from God refreshment ease of their paines help and reast in our Lord etc. first began to be practis'd in the Catholique Church Neither doth Bellarmins prouing it from Scripture hinder the point from beeing a Tradition of the Apostles For does not St. Austin with Bellarmin and all diuines not excepting euen Protestants themselues acknowledge the Baptisme of infants and doctrine of Originall sinne and diuerse other points to proceed from Apostolicall Tradition and yet endeauour to proue them also from Scripture much less does the Cardinall contradict himselfe as our Aduersary likewise pretends he doth by endeaucuring on the one side to proue Purgatory by nineteene places of Scripture and yet auerring on the other that wee finde no beginning of this doctrine For first his assertion that wee finde noe beginning of this doctrine imports noe more then that noe first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie could be found since the Apostles that beeing fully sufficient to his purpose which was only to shew that the beleefe of Purgatory was an Apostolicall Tradition And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age eyther since the time of the Apostles or before yet should he not contradict himselfe by thinking or saying it might be prou'd by Scripture Who doubts but the doctrine of soules immortality is effectually prou'd out of the Gospell and the bodies resurrection out of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15 Yet will any man pretend that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospell or in St. Pauls Epistles was not the immortality of the soule and resurrection of the body beleeu'd by the faythfull before Christs Incarnation So that in truth the Relatour committs the grand absurdity himselfe in arguing as he doth that if Bellarmin did finde it in Scripture to witt the doctrine of Purgatory then he is false in saying wee finde noe beginning of it Certainly to finde a thing to be taught and to finde the first beginning of its beeing taught is not all one in any sober mans iudgement except it be the Relatours What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling vs the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all and that it is not beleeu'd by the Grecians to this very day is in part contrary to himselfe who hath already confess 't that from St. Gregories time all the Fathers taught and all Christians generally beleeu'd Purgatory and misunderstood in the whole For certainly 't is only of the name Purgatory and quality of the fire there that a Castro and some others speake when they affirme that few of the ancients beleeu'd Purgatory it beeing impossible to conceiue they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers and was vnanimously without the least difference or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins in the Councill of Florence touching the thing that is the penall state of some Faythfull soules departed after this life The Bishop might as well haue told vs that those Authours pronounce the same touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Sonne and of some other points namely that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers to witt express and in terminis but yet without doubt suppose those ancient and Orthodox Pastours of the Church did euer teach the sayd points as to the substance of doctrine and sense His Lordships assigning Origen to be the first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie is a manifest falsity already disprou'd by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian ancienter then he likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite contempory with the Apostles to whom wee may adde St. Clement an Authour of the same age cited by Bellarmin in both which such prayer for the dead as doth necessarily inferre Purgatory is auouch'd to be a Tradition receiu'd from the Apostles Tertullian
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
point of Christian Religion believ'd by Protestants with Divine Faith page 125 126 127 352 Their Protestation at Auspurgh 1529. directly against the Roman Church and her Doctrine page 146 147 To Protest against the Roman Church in the manner they then did was to Protest against all True visible Churches in the world page 147 Protestants are Chusers in point of Faith as much as any other Heretiques page 353 How far Protestants relie upon the Infallible Authority of the whole Church Ibid. Why unlawful for Catholicks in England to go to Protestant Churches page 401 Purgatory The Council of Florence unanimous in defining the point of Purgatory page 358 The Fathers as well within the first 300. years as after constantly teach Purgatory p. 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 No real difference betwixt praying for the Dead us'd by the Ancients and praying for the Dead us'd by the Roman Church at present p. 360 361 The Testimonies of the Fathers in proof of Purgatory made good page 358 c. ut supra Purgatory rightly esteem'd an Apostolical Tradition page 370 Reformation ALwayes and professedly intended by the Popes themselves in what was really needful p. 147. effected by the Council of Trent Ibid. The Church of Juda no pattern of the Protestants Reformation p. 160 The Parallel for them holds better in the revolted Tribes page 161 Sacriledge the natural fruit of Protestant Reformation page 170 Regicide No doctrine of Catholicks page 212 348 Resolution of Faith How Catholiques do necessarily resolve their Faith into the Churches Definition and how not page 58 60 63. How such and such Books contain'd in the Bible are known to be the word of God page 59 122 No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in the Resolution of their Faith page 55 62 117 126 In urging the Circle both parties must be suppos'd to believe Scripture with Divine and Infallible Faith page 111 The Bishop in his Resolution cannot avoid the Circle page 64 111 Revelation The Churches Testimony or Definition no New nor Immediate Revelation from God page 58 65 Divine Revelation the onely Formal Object or Motive of Infallible Faith page 59 Safe-Conduct GRanted two wayes jure communi and jure speciali and how they differ page 153 The Safe-Conducts granted to John Huss and Hierome of Prague were meerly jure communi and secur'd them onely against unjust violence Ibid. The Safe-Conduct granted to Protestants by the Council of Trent was jure speciali and as Full and Absolute as themselves could desire or the Council grant page 153 154 The 〈◊〉 of the Council of Constance touching Safe-Conducts granted by Temporal Princes what it intended page 154 156 It contain'd nothing against keeping Faith with Heretiques Ibid. Salvation Attainable in the Roman Faith and Church by our Adversaries own confession page 300 301 c. Catholique Doctors in possibility of Salvation by the Bishops own grounds page 323 324 The Roman Religion demonstrated to be a more safe way to Salvation then that of Protestants page 301 302 303 307 308 Saints Invocation of Saints no Errour in Faith page 290 291 The Fathers teach it ex instituto and Dogmatically Ibid. St. Austin expresly for it Ibid. The Saints Mediatours of Intercession not of Redemption pag. 292 The faithful under the old Testament desir'd to be heard for the merits of Saints no less then we Ibid. The Intercession of Saints departed not derogatory to the Merits or Intercession of Christ. page 293 Schisme Protestants not Catholiques made the present Schisme and how p. 144 145 146 212 Schismes at Rome not in the Roman Church properly speaking p. 144 The true and real causes of Protestants being-Excommunicated by the Roman Church page 145 158 In point of Departure as well as other Circumstances the Parallel betwixt them and the Arians holds good page 145 No just cause assignable for Schisme page 151 Scripture Not believ'd to be Divine but for the Churches Authority p. 17 66 67 Scripture alone can be no sufficient ground of Infallible Assent to Superstructures or non-Fundamental points contained in it page 19 No means of Infallibly-discerning true Scripture from false unless the Church be Infallible page 85 In what cases 't is both lawful and necessary for Christians to riquire a proof that Scripture is Gods word page 118 Scripture alone in the Bishops opinion the whole Foundation of Divine Faith page 116 In what sense Christians must suppose or take it for granted that it is Divine or Gods word page 121 What Light the Scripture must have to shew it self to be Gods Word page 87 The Belief of Scripture for its own pretended Light imprudent p. 88 89 90 91 116 125 The Fathers for some hundred years after Christ 〈◊〉 saw no such Light page 70 91 No reason can be given why Catholicks should not see that pretended Light if there were any such page 90 The Council of Nice made not Scripture their onely Rule of Faith in condemning the Arian Heresie page 125 The Scriptures prerogative above the Church page 60 64 Scripture in a proper sense no first principle p. 51 90 114 118 119 Succession St. James not Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church page 205 Our Saviours Prayer Luc. 22. 32. effectually extended both to St. Peter and his Successours page 208 Lawful Pastours visibly Succeeding each other and handing down the same unchanged Doctrine from Christ to this present time an infeparable mark of the true Church page 410 411 Sound Doctrine indivisible from the whole lawful Succession Ibid. The Popes Succession not interrupted by Contestations about the Papacy page 412 413 Sunday That Sunday be kept Holy instead of the Jewish Sabbath an Apostolical Tradition page 67 Synods The Pope no enemy or opposer of National Synods page 166 Sundry National Synods impertinently alled'gd by the Bishop in point of Reformation page 167 168 169 Tradition NOt known but for and by the Churches Authority page 17 Traditions unwritten page 26 67 What Traditions are to be accounted truly Apostolical and the unwritten word of God page 66 c. Universal Tradition morally speaking less subject to alteration or vitiating tiating then Scripture page 98 church-Church-Tradition a necessary condition of Infallible Belief page 59 How necessary it is that the Tradition of the present Church should be Infallible page 126 Transubstantiation No errour in Faith page 287 Not inconsistent with the grounds of Christian Religion Ibid. The Thing it self alwayes believ'd by Christians page 288 Evinc'd from the Text. page 288 289 Trent The Council of Trent a lawful and free General Council p. 165 229 Nothing to he objected against it more then against all General Councils Ibid. The Popes presiding therein contrary to no Law Divine Natural or Humane but his undoubted Right page 230 231 232 The Pope no more the person to be reform'd at the Council of Trent then at those of Nice and Chalcedon page 232 The place as indifferently chosen for
obserues againe Epist. pag. 19. that noe one thing hath made conscientious men of his party more wauering in their mindes and more apt to be draw'n beside from the Religion professed in the Church of England then want of of vniforme and decent order c. therevpon taking occasion to enlarge himselfe on the subiect of ceremonies shewing their vsefulness and necessity in the publique exercise of Religion wherin I haue noe reason to contradict him Only this I must note by the way that whereas out of indulgence to his ordinary humour he taxes the Roman Church with thrusting in many that are vnnecessary and superstitious he might haue know'n that the Councill of Trent it selfe not only inables but inioynes all particular Bishops in their respectiue Dioceses and all Archbishops and Metropolitans in their respectiue Prouinces to reforme what euer they may finde amiss in this kinde And this his crimination is no more then was obiected to himselfe by his owne people Wee shall in due place shew in what sense it is wee maintaine that out of Rome that is out of the communion of the Roman-Catholique Church there is no saluation At present it may suffize to say that wee doe not shut vp saluation in such a narrow conclaue as the Bishop would haue his Reader beleeue when he parallels vs with the Donatists Wee teach no other doctrine concerning the attainement of saluation then what hath been held in all ages in all times and in all places and is now visibly taught and professed throughout the Christian world viz. that out of the true Catholique Church saluation is not to be expected Nor doe wee shut Heauen-gates as the Relatour insinuates to any that are willing to enter prouided they be willing to enter and goe that way which Christ hath appointed But 't is the Bishop and his party that doe really shutt Heauen-gates to those who otherwise might enter euen whilest they pretend to open them For by teaching the way to Heauen to be wider then it is and that Saluation may be attained by such meanes and in such wayes as according to Gods ordinary Prouidence it cannot what doe they but putt men into a false way and in stead of leading them in that straite path to eternall happiness which the Gospell prescribes trace out that broad way to them which leads to death I shall close my Preface with an Aduertisement to such as are apt to quarrel at words beyond the meaning of those that vse them The infallible which in treating of the Church and Generall Councils I haue had frequent occasion to make vse of is cunningly raised by our Aduersaries to so high a pitch of signification as though it could import no less then the ascribing of an intrinsecall vnerring power in all things to those wee account infallible which is cleerly to peruert our meaning wee intending to signifie noe more when wee say the Church or Generall Councils are infallible then that by vertue of Christ's promise they haue neuer erred nor euer shall in definitions of Fayth In fine Good Reader that thou mayst see and embrace the truth is the hearty wish of him that bids thee noe less heartily Farewell Labyrinthus Cantuariensis OR Dr. LAWD'S LABYRINTH BEING An Answer to his Lordships Relation of a Conference between Himself and Mr. Fisher c. CHAP. I. Stating the Conference between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher for Satisfaction of a Person of Honour ARGUMENT 1. The Introduction 2. The Bishops Artifice in waving a direct Answer to the Question 3. His pretended Solutions to certain Authorities referr'd to a fitter place for Answer 4. His maintaining the Greeks not to have lost the Holy Ghost and that they are a true Church 5. The Modern Greeks in Errour not the Ancient 6. why FILIOQUE inserted into the Nicene Creed 1. THough Dedalus that ingenious Artificer might possibly shew no less skill in contriving his Cretan Labyrinth then did the principall Architect employ'd by Salomon in building that Magnisicent Temple at Jerusalem yet their Labours were of a different nature For whereas the latter exercis'd his Art in raising a noble elevated lightsome Structure the former Dedalus us'd all his Inventive industry in framing a Subterraneous darksome Prison with such redoubled Turnings perplexed Windings and tortuous Meanders that who ever entred into it might indeed wander up and down within its involved and recurring paths but never be able to get either back or thorow it Now alluding to these different Works we may not unfitly compare the learned Labours of the Fathers Doctors and worthy Divines of Gods Church to this stately Temple of Salomon being the rich and illustrious Monuments of their Piety Zeal and Erudition Whereas by the Cretan Labyrinth are fitly Symboliz'd the Artificiall but Pestiferous Works of all Hereticall Authors who forsaking the ever-visible and conspicuous Church of Christ and known Consent of Christendome induce themselves and Followers to believe the novel Fancies of their own Phanatick Brains These mens Labours are so farre from being lightsome Monuments that they are rather Labyrinths or intricate Dungeons for poor seduced Souls who being once ingag'd in the perplexities of their intangled flexures see not the radiant light of Gods Church some few onely excepted whom of his great mercy he is pleas'd to shew the way out and reduce into his Fold Now it hath already been shew'n by others that the Works of many late Protestant Writers of this Nation are of the aforesaid intangling Nature and I doubt not by Gods help but to evidence that this their Grand Authors Book I am now about to answer is very liable to the same Reproach For to describe it rightly it is a Labyrinth most artificially compos'd with as many abstruse Turnings ambiguous Windings and intricate Meanders as that of Dedalus and therefore equally inextricable But a more sure and stronger Clew then Ariadne's the Line of the Catholique Churches Authority and Tradition joyn'd with Holy Scripture hath not onely carried me through it but by Gods good assistance enabled me to render it pervious to all by the Discoveries and Directive Marks I have set on the Leaves that compose this present Volume Yet before I descend to particulars I must advertise the Reader that I designe not the Defence either of Mr. Fisher or any other Author further then they deliver the generally received Doctrine of the Catholique Church which is that I undertake to maintain The three leading pages of the Bishops Book contain the occasion of the Conference between himself and Mr. Fisher viz. for the satisfaction of an Honourable Lady who having heard it granted on the Protestant part in a former Conference that there must be a continuall visible Company ever since Christ teaching unchanged Doctrine in all points necessary to Salvation and finding it seems in her own Reason that such a Company or Church must not be fallible in its Teaching was in Quest of a Continuall Visible and Infallible Church as
there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
disputes which properly and directly question matters fully establish't by the Authority of the Church His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him recurrs to a second much weaker then the first For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spake he denyes it to follow thence that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith But against this I thus argue out of St. Augustin All those points the disbelief whereof shakes the Foundation are Fundamental in Faith But all the points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is defined by the Church are such as the disbelief of them shakes the foundation Ergo all points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is Defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith If he distinguish the Major that they shake some foundation of our Religion but not every foundation I disprove him thus Whoever shakes the foundation St. Augustin speaks of which is the Church shakes consequentially every foundation of our Religion This I have above proved because nothing can be infallibly believed when the Churches foundation is shaken But the denial of points defined by the Church shakes the Foundation St. Augustin speaks of that is the Church as the Bishop now supposes foundation to be taken Ergo the disbelief of points defined by the Church shakes every foundation of Religion His proving that some things are founded which are not Fundamental in Faith is very true for St. Pauls Steeple is well founded yet is no Fundamental point in Faith but as little to the present purpose as can be for who ever asfirmed that all things founded even upon the Authority of the Church are Fundamental in Faith and as little concludes that which follows about Church Authority For I have already proved that the Authority of the Catholique Church in defining matters of Faith whereof onely we now treat as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is either Divine in it felf to wit as informed with that Assistance or so necessary for the giving infallible assent to Divine Revelation that no man rejecting it can give an infallible assent to any point of Christian Faith For seeing upon that Authority only we are infallibly certified that the Articles of our Faith are revealed from God if in any thing we oppugne the firmness of that Authority we cannot believe infallibly that any one of them is revealed from God Though therefore it were granted that Church-Definitive Authority were not simply Divine yet is it so necessary to salvation that if it be rejected it destroyes salvation which is to be Fundamental in our present debate CHAP. 3. A Continuation of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. All Definitions of the Catholique Church concerning Doctrine Infallible and by many of the learned held Divine 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several wayes 3. NO MANS opinion confuted by his Lordship Bellarmin miscited 4. The Pope alwayes included in the Church and Councils 5. A. C's words cited by halves 6. How the Churches Definition is said to be her Foundation 7. A. C. corrupted the second time 8. Vincentius Lirinensis falsified thrice at least 9. Stapleton and Bellarmin good Friends notwithstanding the Bishops endeavour to make them jarre IN the first place we grant what is here set down viz. that Things may be founded upon humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith for we say nothing that hath any shadow of contradicting this But our Assertion is that those Things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church because this is according to St. Augustin to shake the Foundation Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority Definition Declaration or Determination use what tearm you please of the Church are Fundamental to wit in respect of the formal object of Gods revelation contained in them as we have often said 1. Now concerning what is added that full Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply Divine I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from Gods Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that This or That is revealed by God but onely the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith This Discourse may be granted I say and yet the Church be denyed to be of Divine Authority notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be tearms Convertible And Stapleton whom the Bishop cites in the Margin is farre from denying it as would have better appeared if his words had been fairly cited For I finde him thus to write Si quaeratur quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus quia DEUS PER ILLAM loquitur If it be asked why the Church is so certain a witness of Truth we answer because God speaks by her Thus he Now if God speaks by the Church certainly she is of Divine Authority The same doctrine we finde elsewhere taught by him Deum per Ecclesiam loqui non ex solo Ecclesiae testimonio sed ex ipsis maximè Scripturis Fidei Symbolo ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat That God speaks by the Church is most certain not onely by the Testimony of the Church but by the Scriptures themselves the Greed and the common perswasion of Christians The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church that no erring Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in general Councils layes yet he adds that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring disputant may not be allowed it Must have room that is must be allowed to shake the Foundation which the Church in General Councils layes For that is the necessary sense of his words An Assertion truly worthy of a Protestant Primate But I shall not here insist upon the manifold inconveniences of it I onely tell his Lordship at present that it begs the question and supposes what never was nor ever will be proved viz. that there can be plain Scripture in the true sense thereof or a full Demonstrative Argument brought against the Definition of a lawfull Generall Council We deny that any such case can happen or that the Definitions of a General Council in points of Faith can ever be so ill founded 2. Here therefore if we observe it the
Bishop frames a notable Turn in his Labyrinth winding in the words of St. Augustin quite contrary to St. Augustins meaning to make them speak for himself For having affirmed in his own Text as we heard but now that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling Disputant may not be allowed just over against these words in his own Margent at Litera F. he puts these Latin words of St. Augustin Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor In English thus Which truly if it be shewed so clear that there can be no doubt of it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholique Church Now by citing these words and no more but leaving out those immediately precedent he leaves it also doubtful to what the word quae which in St. Augustins Text is to be referred but yet by putting plain Scripture c. in his own Text right over against it he supposed doubtless his Reader would not judge that Quae could be referred to any thing else save Scripture and that which follows it in his Text and consequently would conclude that St. Augustin and he were of the same opinion viz. that plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument is to be preferred before all the Definitions of the Church Whereas St. Augustin in the place cited hath nothing at all either of plain Scripture or evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manichaeans he writes th us Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat VERITATIS POLLICITATIO and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit c. But with you saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretiques who have nothing at all of those Things which may invite and hold me onely a promise of Truth makes a noise WHICH Truth if it be Demonstrated to be so clear as it cannot be called in doubt is to be preserred c. where it is plain Quae which is relative onely to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else Nay it is Relative onely to that Truth in this place which the Manichees bragg'd of and promised which was so far from being plain Scripture c. that it was no other then what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus intituled Fundamentum which St. Augustin at that present confuted as appears by the following words Neither indeed could St. Augustin be understood to speak of plain Scripture in this place as though that were to be preferred before the Definition of the Catholique Church or a General Council and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholique Church or of General Councils to be contrary to plain Scripture understanding by plain Scripture Scripture truly sensed and interpreted for he Disputes ex professo against that supposition or perswasion and proves that no clear place of Scripture can be produc'd against the common received Doctrine of the Church from this grand inconvenience necessarily following upon it viz. That if such a Thing could happen that the Doctrine of the Catholique Church could be contrary to Scripture or the Gospel he should not be able to believe rationally and infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because he receives them onely upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the Plain Scripture which is supposed to be brought against her Though therefore St. Augustin had said in express terms as 't is manifest he doth not that clear Scripture is to be preferred before all things which he had named before yet he is so far from supposing as the Bishop here supposes that evident Scripture can be contrary to the Churches received Doctrines that he professedly teaches and proves the contrary and uses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. onely ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo c. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed Saint Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from Heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel yet so he speaks And the same may be said in answer to the evident Reason or full Demonstrative Argument which the Bishop talks of for neither can that truly and properly speaking be any more brought against the Churches Authority and Doctrine then plain Scripture The Relatours supposition then has no more ground in St. Augustin then if one should prove that an Angel from Heaven can preach against the doctrine of the Apostles because St. Paul sayes Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed Now if the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugne it so long at least as he is so farre from seeing his errour that he is fully perswaded he erres not and that the Church erres in Defining against him as those Heretiques were perswaded against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place His second winding is that he labours to prove from the fore-cited words of St. Augustin that plain Scripture is to be preferred before the Definitions of the Church and may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Now St. Augustin speaks as little of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain in this sentence as he doth of Scripture For by those words Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor there is not once named the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental or any comparison or contrariety mentioned betwixt them For the question was not whether St. Augustin might reject some of the Churches Definitions which by plain Scripture he found to be erroneous in matters of small moment and yet remain still a member of the Church submitting to her in all Fundamental points but the question was this whether St. Augustin were to forsake the Catholique Church and become a profest enemy of her as he once had been in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine if plain and undenyable Truth should be brought against the Church and for Manichaeus So that the Truth mentioned by him in this place was to have been so Fundamental that it had been able utterly to overthrow the Church and establish Manichaeisme if any such Truth could have been undoubtedly demonstrated If therefore this Text could prove any thing it must prove that the whole visible Church can erre Fundamentally and so become no Church which is clearly against his Lordship
object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firme and close joyn'd to a sure foundation but not Fundamental But here his Lordship misconceives or rather misalledges A. C's Argument For it is not as he frames it All points defined are made firme ergo all points defined are Fundamental but thus All points defined are made firme by the full Authority of the Church ergo all points defined are Fundamental And his reason is because when any thing is made firme by the full Authority of the Church it is so firme that it cannot be denyed without shaking the whole foundation of Religion and consequently is Fundamental 6. But the Bishop proceeds further and makes this Argument Whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in her absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid This Argument will lose all its force by putting the Reader in minde of the Distinction between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals which we admitted in the material object of Faith for if this be reflected on there will be a foundation for the Church without supposing her to be in perfect being before her foundation be laid We have often declared what we understood by Fundamental viz. That to which we cannot refuse our assent by denying or doubting of it when it is proposed to us by the Church as a matter of Faith without damnation and without destroying the formal object of Faith and without making our selves during that deliberate doubting or denying uncapable of believing any thing with Divine and Supernatural Faith For surely whatever is of this nature must needs be Fundamental in Religion So that we admit the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in respect of the material object of Faith but not in respect of the formal that is as we have often said some matters of Faith are more universally necessary to be expresly known and believed by all then others and yet the Authority revealing that is God and declaring them infallibly to be revealed that is the Church is truly Fundamental in both As in the Scripture it self this Text John 1. And God was the word according to the matter it contains viz. the Divinity of our Saviour is a Fundamental point universally to be known and believed expresly to Salvation and that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas according to the matter it contains is no Fundamental point nor of any necessity to Salvation to be universally known and believed expresly yet the formal object revealing both these truths being the Authority of the Holy Ghost is equally Fundamental in both and doubtless if any one to whom it is as clearly propounded to be affirmed in Scripture that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas as that it is affirmed in Scripture that the word was God should yet deny or doubt of the first he could neither be saved so long as he remained in that misbelief nor believe the second with divine infallible Faith as all Christians both Catholiques and Protestants must grant Had this been well considered by his Lordship we should not have been forced to so frequent repetitions of the same Doctrine The Bishop thinks he has got a great advantage by pressing A. C. to this That the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation But what absurdity is it to grant that the Definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the foundation of the Church diffusive who can doubt but the Pastours in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every winde of Doctrine Ephes. 4. are a foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not St. Paul expresly affirm it Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum c. Did not the Bishop just now pag. 34. except the Apostles as having in their Definitions more Authority then the Church had after their times yea even so much as was sufficient to make their Definitions Fundamental and the opposing of them destructive of the Foundation of Religion their Authority being truly Divine which he sayes that of the Church after them was not Now this doctrine of the Bishop supposed I urge his own Argument against himself thus Whatever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church in the time of the Apostles be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition in the Apostles time is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church in their time could lay her own foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation was laid Who sees not here how the Bishop fights against himself with his own weapons and destroyes his own Positions by his own Arguments And whatever may be answered for him will satisfie his Argument in defence of us Now the answer is plain to any one who hath his eyes open for the Prime foundation of the Church are the Doctrines delivered by our Saviour and inspired by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whereby it took the first being of a Church and the Prime foundation to the insuing Church after the Apostles is the most certain Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by our Saviour to his Church By these two Prime foundations the Church is in being and so continues the Definitions of the Church grounded in these are a secondary foundation whereby Ecclesia docens the Church teaching established upon that promised assistance of the Holy Ghost fundat Ecclesiam doctam founds and establishes in every age the Church taught in the true Faith 7. But what shall we say in defence of A. C whom we finde blamed for these words That not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or prime Articles of Faith but all that which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church The answer is these are not the precise words of A. C. and therefore no wonder if the Bishop easily confute him whom he either mistakes or makes to speak as himself pleases A. C's words are these By the word FUMDAMENTAL is understood not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or Prime Principles which do not depend upon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as the Bishop and Dr. White say they are FUNDAMENTAL points but
yet Faith which is the Foundation of all our Supernatural Building remain firme But if one part of the Foundation be shaken the whole ground-work will be but in a tottering condition and as A. C. sayes in a certain manner shaken By which kinde of speech I conceive he onely means that by questioning or denying one point of Faith though we do not eo ipso deny all others directly yet indirectly we do to wit by taking away or denying all Authority to Gods Revelation and for that reason rendring our selves at the same time uncapable of believing any thing else with Supernatural and Divine Faith 9. His Lordship must be pardoned if he dissent from A.C's. Assertion that all Determinations of the Church are made some to us by one and the same Divine Revelation which in the sense we have declared his Lordship doth not disprove but in the pursuance of his Discourse he brings in Doctor Stapleton as contradicting Bellarmin because Bellarmin sayes that nothing can be certain by the certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the word of God or deduced out of it by evident consequence whereas Stapleton is vouched to affirme that some Decisions of the Church are made without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Scripture I have sought this place in Stapleton and finde his words to be onely these We ought not to deny our Assent in matters of Faith though we have them onely by Tradition or the Decisions of the Church against Heretiques and not consirmed with evident or probable Testimony of Holy Scripture His meaning is we must submit to the Determinations of the Church and the Traditions she approves though they be not expresly contained in Scripture which questionless may very well stand with Bellarmins Doctrine that nothing can be believ'd with Divine Faith unless it be either contain'd in the word of God or drawn from thence by evident consequence For that Bellarmin by the word of God understands not onely Gods written but his not-written word also or Tradition is manifest because he makes all our Faith even of Scripture it self to be grounded upon it as is clear by his very words Itaque hoc Dogma 〈◊〉 necessarium quod scilicit sit aliqua Scriptura Divina non potest sufficientèr haberi ex Scripturâ proinde cum Fides nitatur verbo Dei nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum nulla nobis erit Fides Therefore this so necessary Maxime viz. that there is any Divine Scripture at all cannot sufficiently be had by Scripture alone Wherefore seeing Faith relyes upon the word of God unless we have a word of God not-written we shall have no Faith at all Many like instances he gives in the same Chapter of other matters pertaining to Christian Faith which can onely be believ'd for the word of God not-written Now in the place cited by the Bishop he teaches that we cannot be certain of our Salvation with certainty of Faith because this is not reveal'd by the word of God either written or unwritten nor is evidently deduc'd from either of these which is a good Argument but no way contradicted by Stapleton Besides a Proposition may be not so much as probably expressed in Scripture and yet be inferred by necessary consequence from something contained in Scripture I mean inferred at least from such general Principles and Rules as the Scriptures recommend to us and command us to follow But the reason the Bishop brings to prove that Bellarmin speaks onely of the written word is very strange For Bellarmin sayes he treats there of the knowledge a man can have of the certainty of his own Salvation and I hope that A. C. will not tell us that there is any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Thus he Now first we say not that Bellarmin speaks of the word unwritten and Stapleton of the word written but that Stapleton speaks of the unwritten word onely and Bellarmin of both the written and unwritten word which he calls the compleat word of God Secondly Bellarmin was not to affirme there was any unwritten Tradition by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations but the contrary That there was no such unwriten Tradition to be found For had he intended to prove any such unwritten Tradition he should have consequently proved the foresaid assurance to be Infallible and equal to the Certainty of Faith which he there professedly labours to prove fallible and not of the Certainty of Faith which had been a Turn like one of his Lordships the quite contrary way And for Stapleton he purposely proves that the Church hath not power to make new Articles of Faith but onely to declare and explain those already delivered His Lordship cannot believe that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church saith he though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the power it commits to General Councills lawfully called yet it is not alwayes of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and Integrity c. To this I answer that these Ornaments of Knowledge Sufficiency Conscience and Integrity are not the Causes of Infallibility either in the Church or Councils for that proceeds onely from the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost which is of the same power in weaker and stronger Instruments as it appear'd by the Apostles who being of themselves persons altogether ignorant of Divine matters yet by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost became not onely able to Teach them but also Infallible in their Teaching Neither doth the want of Conscience or Integrity in some particular persons deprive either the Church or a General Council of this promised Infallibility any more then the same want deprived the Scribes and Pharisees in old time of their Authority concerning whom notwithstanding their manifest and great defects in point of Conscience and Integrity c. our Saviour himself pronounceth Matth. 23. 2. Upon the Chaire of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees all things therefore they shall say to you observe you and do The Relatour again repeats that all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are not alike Fundamental in the Faith But this is answer'd by the Doctrine we have so often delivered to clear his often mistaking touching Fundamentals that some are in this sense Fundamental to wit of necessity to be believ'd by all and known expresly of all others not Fundamental that is not of necessity to be known and believed expresly by all In this sense I say we agree with his Lordship and his party touching the Distinction of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals Our onely controversie is whether there be in the Catholique Church any points of Faith not-Fundamental in this sense that is such as
being declared by the Church to us as points of Faith may lawfully that is without peril of sin and damnation be denyed or doubted of For in this they hold the Affirmative we the Negative The reason why we have no occasion in this Controversie to treat this distinction in any sense save this is because it relates onely to our Adversaries who maintain they are not obliged under pain of damnation to believe some Definitions of the Church made in lawful General Councils even whilest they expresly know them to be so defined because say they those Councils may erre in such Definitions by reason the matter they contain is not-Fundamental Wherefore we neither say nor intend to shew it Sub Anulo Piscator is which are his Lordships tearms that 't is as necessary to believe St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men as that Christ dyed and rose again the Third Day We hold the contrary the one being a Prime Article and Fundamental in the first explicated sense the other neither Prime nor Fundamental But we stand to this That whoever shall finde in Scripture That St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and yet question or deny the truth of it cannot for that time believe any thing with Divine Faith Therefore in the second sense it is Fundamental to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and though the contrary should be shewed under the Great Seal of England I would not believe it Now if the belief of every point of Faith decreed by the Church be as necessary to Salvation when sufficiently propounded to us for a point decreed by the Church as it is necessary to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made by our Saviour Fishers of men when it is sufficiently propounded to us as clearly delivered in Scripture then it will be as necessary to Salvation that is as much a Fundamental point by reason of the Authority which delivers it as the other CHAP. 4. The Conclusion of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. What points Fundamental what not a Necessary question 2. The Apostles Creed confessedly contains not all Fundamentals in particular 3. Albertus Magnus cited to small purpose 4. A. C's words wrested in defense of Mr. Rogers 5. Catharinus might erre but was no Heretique 6. How Protestants agree 7. A. C. mutilated the second time in favour of the English Canons 8. English Protestants excommunicate Catholiques as much as Catholiques them 9. Some Things contain'd in Scripture expresly not evidently Some Truths deduced from Scripture directly not demonstratively 10. Baptisme of Infants not demonstratively proved by the Bishop from Sole Scripture 11. What St. Augustin thought of that matter 12. The Bishop proved to contradict himself 1. 'T Was a very pertinent question which Mr. Fisher afterwards moved requiring to know what points the Bishop would account Fundamental For if he will have some Fundamental which we are bound to believe under pain of Damnation and others not Fundamental which we may without sin question or deny it behoves us much to know which they are I have ever desir'd a fatisfactory answer from Protestants to this question but could never yet have it in the sense demanded 2. What if the Council of Trent call the Creed the onely Foundation it containing the Prime points of our Faith which all are obliged to know and expresly believe yet I hope his Lordships followers will not grant that we may question or deny every thing that is not exprest in the Creed and yet this must be done if the Creed onely be held for Fundamental in the sense the question was propounded in If they should reply that not onely those points are Fundamental which are exprest in the Creed but those also which are there infolded by this means they may as the Bishop speaks lap up in the Creed all particular points of Faith whatever And truly seeing his Lordship goes so far as to include all the Scripture in the Creed there appears no great reason of Scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other points especially of that Tradition for which we admit Scripture it self For this would not make the fold much larger then it was before and if it did yet I see no hurt in it But let us briefly reflect how well the Bishops Answer satisfies the question propounded by Mr. Fisher. The matter proceeded thus The Jesuit had said that the Greek Church was not right because it held an errour concerning the Holy Ghost The Bishop confessed that what the Greeks held in that point was an errour and a grievous one in Divinity but not Fundamental and so hindered them not from being a True Church Whereupon that it might appear whether the errour of the Greek Church were Fundamental or not Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop what points he would account Fundamental To this question the Bishop after diverse artificial flourishes serving to little or no purpose but to draw the Readers attention from the Obligation he had to give a perfect list of his Fundamentals answered All points in the Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental but soon after affirms that he never either said or meant that they onely are Fundamental By which it evidently appears his Lordship neither gave nor meant to give a Categorical Answer to the question but did industriously decline it while granting there were other points Fundamental beside those contain'd in the Apostles Creed he would not assign them in particular Wherefore though the Greeks errour were not contrary to any point expressed in the Creed yet seeing it might be contrary to some other Fundamental point not contained therein Mr. Fisher must needs remain as unsatisfied as before whether the Greeks erred in a Fundamental point or not Is not this fine shuffling 3. Before I leave this § I shall note by the way that to prove this Proposition that the Belief of Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed he cites Albertus Magnus in these words Regula 〈◊〉 Concors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Articulis Fidei c. the Rule of Faith is the Concordant sense of Scripture with Articles of Faith Now first here 's nothing of believing the Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible for that 's presupposed but onely what sense the Scripture must have to be the Rule of Faith Secondly here 's no mention of the Creed but of Articles of Faith which Albertus held to be many more then those specified in the Creed Thirdly this sentence of Albertus makes the Scripture no further a Rule of Faith then as it accords with the Articles of Faith first delivered by Tradition 4. By what hath been said is confuted whatever the Bishop hath to pag. 44. where Mr. Rogers is brought in by Mr. Fisher as acknowledging that the
pleases then to any severity in the Church of Rome which is known to be a pious Mother and never proceeds to Excommunication but when obstinacy and perverseness enforce her As to what the Bishop objects that the Roman Church makes many points to be of necessary belief which had for many hundred of years passed onely for pious opinions if his Lordship had assigned any such points in particular they should have received an answer The Relatour dislikes Mr. Fisher for saying The Church of England in her Book of Canons Excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles viz the 39. Articles But although these were not the precise words of their Canon yet the Church of England excommunicating all such as affirme they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto them as 't is manifest she does by the very Canon which the Bishop cites she doth in effect excommunicate all that hold any thing contrary to the said Articles As for the pretended severity of the Roman Church we have answer'd it already and shew'd that the Freedom and Liberty granted by her enemies would afford no more prosperity to her then it hath done to them 'T is true the Church of Rome as his Lordship takes notice imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world under pain of Damnation but it is not in her power to do otherwise because Christ himself hath commanded her so to do in these words Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican 7. His exceptions here against A. C. are but as so many Meanders For first he sayes that the words objected by A. C. are not the words of the Canon I answer nor did A. C. affirm they were Secondly he addes and perhaps not the sense because privately holding within himself and boldly and publickly affirming are different things True But where doth A. C. mention those words privately holding within himself or where does the Canon say boldly and publickly affirming as the Bishop would impose on the Reader And as to the sense of the Article the Bishop himself durst not boldly and publickly affirme that A. C. missed it but sayes onely perhaps he did and then perhaps he did not But without all perhaps and peradventure he gave the genuine sense of the Canon seeing 'tis against all reason to imagine that a man should be held punishable with Excommunication for a meer internal Act. He must mean therefore by the word holding an external Act which cannot amount to less then Affirming 8. The question is not whether the English Congregation or the Roman Church be more Severe but whether the English Protestants Severity in Excommunicating those that affirme any part of the thirty nine Articles to be 〈◊〉 be not unreasonable supposing she be subject to errour in defining those Articles For what is it less then unreasonable Tyranny to cast men out of their Church which they esteem a True one deliver them up to Satan and lay Gods and their Churches curse upon them for affirming that to be erroneous which for ought they know may possibly be such indeed especially when the Impugner fully perswades himself that what he affirms to be erroneous in them is really so For Excommunication being the most grievous punishment the Church can inflict must require a Crime proportionable to it But can any man perswade himself that to oppose a Doctrine against which the opposer verily perswades himself he hath either an evidence from Scripture or a Demonstrative reason in which cases the Bishop grants that one may yea ought to oppugne the Churches errours can any man I say perswade himself that this is a Crime proportionable or a sufficient cause of Excommunication Every just Excommunication therefore inflicted for the opposing of Doctrine must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true and absolutely exempt from errour otherwise the sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust as wanting sufficient ground Whence likewise it follows that Protestants while they confess on the one side that all their thirty nine Articles are not Fundamental points of Faith and by consequence in their sense and according to their principles not infallibly true but subject to errour yet on the other side proceed to Excommunication against any that affirm them or any part of them to be superstitious or erroneous do themselves exercise a greater Tyranny and injustice towards their people then they can with any colour or pretence of reason charge upon the Roman Church which as they well know excommunicates no man but for denying such Doctrine as is both Infallibly true and also Fundamental at least according to the formal Object As little is it the question whether the Roman Churches Excommunications be of a much larger extent then those of the English Protestants for this argues no more then that one is the Universal Church the other not but the question is as hath been said whether Protestants Excommunications be not unreasonable nay most enormious as inflicted by those who acknowledge themselves fallible and subject to errour in that very point for which they Excommunicate Again as to the larger extent of our excommunications might not the same have been objected against the excommunications of the Apostles themselves by any particular Heretical Conventicles in those times to wit that their pretended Excommunications reached no further then the bounds of their own private Congregations whereas the Apostolical Excommunications extended to the utmost limits of the whole Christian World What follows ha's been often answered For we grant the Scripture is sufficient for some mens Salvation if we regard the material Object onely or the chief points of Faith because all the Prime Articles of our Faith are expressed in Scripture which Prime Articles are Fundamental onely in the first sense so often declared But hence it follows not that some things not exprest in Scripture are not Fundamental in the second sense formerly delivered Amongst these Tradition must be numbered for which we admit Scripture it self In this truly to use his Lordships Rhetorique the Fathers are plain the Schoolmen are not strangeis and Stapleton whom he stiles an angry opposite confesses as much Moreover where there is any difficulty about the sense of Scripture or the point to be believed we are not so to stand to Scripture as that we refuse to hear the Church appointed by Christ to interpret it and to declare what ought to be believed For otherwise there would be no end of Controversies every Heretique pretending Scripture and crying it up as much as the Bishop or any other of his party can do Nor can the Church obtrude any thing as Fundamental in the Faith which is not so in it self she being Infallible as shall hereafter be proved the Bishop here wrongfully supposing the contrary Mr. Fisher sayes 'T is true That the Church of England grounds her POSITIVE Articles
For Universal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems much more incident to have errours slip into writings of so great bulk as is the Bible which in their Editions pass onely through the hands of particular men then that there should be errours in publique Universal and Immemorial Traditions which are openly practis'd throughout all Christendome and taken notice of by every one in all ages To shew the difference therefore betwixt Scripture and Tradition not onely in their Originals but in their successive deliverers from hand to hand let us compare them together St. John for example writes one of his Epistles and St. Luke his Gospel to particular persons These upon the credit of the persons to whom they were written were deliver'd as Authentical Apostolical writings to other Christians and so by degrees came to be publickly deliver'd that is made known to the whole Primitive Church and received by it And thence in like manner the Church receiv'd and deliver'd them in succeeding ages On the other side the Apostles to descend to some particulars observ'd the first day of the week as sacred in place of the Sabbath Baptized Infants used Altars c. This in the very prime Institution and practice of it was not done privately onely by some one Apostle or in the presence of one single person onely but publiquely by all the Apostles and universally practis'd by all Christians It was therefore incomparably harder morally speaking to doubt in the beginning of these Traditions then whether Saint John's Epistle or St. Luke's Gospel were really theirs or no. Wherefore we see that many Books of the New Testament were doubted of for many years in some particular Churches whereas all in all places accounted these said Traditions and their like to be most undoubtedly Apostolical by the universal uncontradicted practice of them being deliver'd from age to age under this Notion as truly and really descending from the Apostles Here his Lordship supposes A. C's pen to be troubled and forsake him insinuating thereby to his Reader that this trouble proceeds out of some check of Conscience But under favour it is not so much A. C's pen as his own that is here troubled For he sets down in a different letter above eight lines as written by A. C. which notwithstanding were none of his This indeed hath something of a troubled pen and peradventure of a troubled conscience also unless we may rather take it for a piece of art to make A. C. seem to say that the Copies of Scripture may be considered as printed by men assisted with Gods Spirit whereas he onely sayes they may be considered as printed and by authority of men assisted by Gods Spirit approved to be true Copies Was not this a pretty sleight to blast the credit of his Adversary 3. Again is it not strange to see how he restrains the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost onely to the Apostles times How come Christians then to inferre from the places cited by A. C. that the Church shall never fall away and perish For if the assistance be not to preserve the succeeding Church at least from some kinde of errours infallibly it may notwithstanding all the assistance he allows it here fall into all kinde of errours one after another and so by degrees the whole Church might fall into a general Apostacy and thereby perish There must therefore be some kinde of Infallible Assistance in the Apostles Successours by vertue of these promises For otherwise how would this Doctrine of his agree with that of other Modern Protestant Authours who grant that our Saviour by those Texts promis'd an Infallible Assistance to his visible Church and her Pastours lawfully assembled in a General Council in all points belonging to the foundation of Religion Nay how comes he here to take away all Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost from the Apostles Successours and yet grant above that the present Church is Infallible in all Fundamentals Comes not this Infallibility from the Holy Ghost and proceeds it not from the said promise of our Saviour But what shall we say to an Adversary that forges what Chimerical Doctrine he pleases and then fights against it He would fain impose upon his Reader that A. C. in the words cited by him num 28. contends that not onely the Pastours met together in a full Representative of the Church but severally and apart are each of them Infallible which he inveighs against and presses so far that he would perswade the ignorant that the Jesuits also have a moneths minde to this Infallibility Whence draws he I pray this consequence Forsooth because A. C. averres that the Holy Ghost through Christs promise is to assist infallibly the Successours of the Apostles the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages But what if A. C's words cannot be understood of every Pastour or Doctour apart but rather of Pastours and Doctours lawfully assembled in an Oecumenical Council as indeed he doth which thus I shew Every Authour is to be understood to mean by his words what they will properly bear and is consonant with the meaning of his other words Now the whole dispute wherein the Bishop and A. C. were then engag'd was whether the whole Church might erre in her Tradition of Scripture So that it was necessary for him to apply the promises of our Saviour to the Pastours of the Church onely so far as those Pastours were the Representative Church and their Tradition the Churches-Tradition This A. C. signifies expresly by his words immediately before these here cited by his Lordship which the Relatour handsomely conceals to make his windings the less perceptible For A. C. speaks thus I see no reason why the like two-fold consideration of the Tradition of the present Church may not be admitted especially when as the promise of Christ and his holy Spirits continual presence is not onely to the Apostles but to their Successours also the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages Where it is evident he took those words as a Medium to prove the Infallibility of the Tradition of the present Church thereby tying those promises to the Pastours and Doctours of the Church as they may be said to be the Church not as they are separate and apart but as assembled in a full Representative of the Church that is a General Council All therefore that follows either of the Pope as a private Pastour or of the Jesuits c. is to no purpose as proceeding meerly from a misunderstanding or rather perverting of A. C's words Yet I cannot omit a consequence which the Bishop will needs extort from the Jesuits meaning as though he had been in his heart when he wrote those words And though A. C. out of his bounty sayes he is content to extend it to all the lawfully-sent Pastours of the Church where all is handsomely juggled into A. C's Text yet his own
Society questionless he means chiefly Is it not fine sport the Bishop here makes that A. C. by Pastours of the Church must chiefly mean and that without all question or dispute those of his own Society When 't is well known there are scarce two Pastours of the Church amongst all the Jesuits in Europe And then to mend the matter that he will have Mr. Fisher and A. C. to be those two Pastours when they neither were Pastours nor could be unless he will suppose likewise they would break their vow made to Almighty God for by Pastours the Apostles Successours are meant Bishops never to admit any such dignity without express command of the Pope But how proves the Bishop the Iesuits perswade themselves they are Infallible Rabbi Casaubon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help him out An Apologist sayes Casaubon averres 't is impossible for a Iesuit to erre Who is this Anonymus Apologist A Iesuit or a Minister For an Apologist and a Jesuit are no more convertible terms then a Iesuit and a Minister How shall we know then whether this nameless Apologist was a Iesuit or a Minister personating a Jesuit The Gospel will tell us Ex fructibus corum cognoscetis eos Is it possible his Lordship should think himself everable to move wise men with such non-proofs as these The Relatour having been so positive in denying the Infallibility of the Church 't is strange he should think it needless for A. C. to urge passages of Scripture in proof of it which though they be well known in this Controversie yet are they not therefore of lesse force The first is in St. Luke where Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me c. The second in St. Matthew where Christ tells us I am with you alwayes unto the end of the world The third is in St. John where 't is written The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever To the first of these passages viz Luke 10. 16. alledg'd by A. C. the Bishop answers that those who hear the Successours of the Apostles hear Christ viz. when they speak the words of Christ but not when they speak their own words But that this is rather to pervert our Saviours words then to interpret them is manifest For can the Bishop bring any ground from the Text that this restraint may not by some other Sectary who denies the Apostles Infallibility no less then the Churches be applied to the Apostles themselves as well as he now applies it to their Successors But his Lordship has haply ground for what he sayes if not here yet in St. Matthew chap. 28. ver 20. where they are commanded to teach all things which Christ commanded them Ergo say I and with more reason for the command was given expresly and immediately to the Apostles themselves the Apostles were neither to be heard when they preach'd other things then what Christ had commanded them and so both these Texts will either include an Infallibility in the Successors of the Apostles or exclude it from the Apostles themselves If he reply we our selves must acknowledge a difference in applying this Text to the Apostles and their Successours for it was true in every one of the Apostles apart but it is not so as we confess in every one of the succeeding Pastours I answer first the difference alledged by us is so clear and unquestionable that our very Adversaries agree with us in it Secondly 't is manifest by experience it self that many Pastours even of very eminent authority in the Church have not onely err'd but invented and maintain'd Heresies Thirdly we have the universal Tradition and consent in all ages that all Pastours apart are not Infallible Fourthly we have plain Scripture for it Acts 20. 30. where the Apostle sayes that even from amongst themselves that is from amongst the Pastours and Bishops of the Church to whom he there speaks ver 17 28. there should arise some in future ages that should speak perverse things Fifthly we so interpret the words for future ages that what is necessary for preserving the Church in the purity of Christs doctrine is still subsistent in all ages in the Infallibility of lawful General Councils whereby we make the words of Christ in both Texts absolutely true without all ifs and conditions which our Adversaries exposition does utterly frustrate in relation to the Church Sixthly we according to the most receiv'd perswasion amongst us preserve that Infallibility in one Supream Pastour of the Church the Bishop of Rome successively which they continue neither in one nor in all the Pastours of the Church assembled together Let those therefore of his Lordships party bring as strong reasons for the Bishops exposition of this Text of St. Luke 10. 16. as we do for ours and we shall not be unwilling to yield to it but we and they too know that to be impossible His answer to the second place Matth. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes even unto the end of the world runs in the same strain with his answer to the former Text and so requires not our further refutation We extend those words I am with you alwayes c. to the whole Church Representative not to every Pastour apart whereby St. Gregories Text is no wayes against us for he speaks of Preachers taken severally and apart We say also with Rhabanus Maurus that Christ in his holy Spirit is alwayes present with his Church diffusive in communicating his Graces unto it But that supposes at least denies not a conjunctive Infallibility of the Pastours as a necessary Foundation and support of the Church diffusive Whence it appears how vain the Bishops challenge is whereby he urges us to shew any one Father of the Church that extends the sense of this place of Scripture to Divine and Infallible Assistance granted thereby to all the Aposties Successours For as to Divine Assistance we have all along prov'd it not to be necessary but as to Infallible Assistance in regard of the whole Church 't is clear that the Fathers in effect do attribute such a Prerogative to the Church viz. that Christ doth assist and preserve her from errour in as much as they teach That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresie That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds That she can never fail That her Faith is invincible even to the very Powers of Hell That she is founded by Christ in the Truth for ever That all the Heretiques in the world cannot pervert the Tradition of her Doctrine and the like which seeing also they limit not to any determinate age or ages but extend indefinitely to all 't is likewise clear that in the judgement of the Fathers this Assistance was granted and intended by Christ to all the Apostles Successours in the sense above declared But whether the Fathers ground their Doctrine
polishes and perfects what was begun before He tells us next he will grant to A. C. that Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other provided that A. C. will grant his Lordship that they do it not equally This is kindely done But what if A. C. will not be so good natur'd as to grant so much What would the Relatour do in that case Call you this answering or rather making Meanders He 'l grant to A. C. what he cannot deny by reason of its evidence if in return thereof A. C. will acquiesce to that which is so apparently false that he had already refus'd to grant it and in the mean time his Lordship gives no absolute answer to the difficulty 8. To A. C's similitude of the Words and Letters Credential of an Embassador he sayes that the Kings Letters confirm the Embassadors Authority infallibly and the Embassadours word probably onely But to whom do those Letters confirm it infallibly To all that know the Seal and hand sayes the Bishop That 's pretty Suppose then he go to a Forreign King who neither knows Seal nor Hand how will those Letters confirm infallibly the Embassadours authority To this here 's not a word of answer yet this is the question For we now dispute how we come to know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word and this is neatly put off by a dexterous Turn 'T is true the Kings Letters may give some moral Testimony to purchase credit to the Embassadour supposing that he who gives himself out for an Embassadour do either by private Letters Informations or other Motives gain so much credit as to merit the repute of a person of worth and honour and therefore not likely to wrong his King and himself in a matter of so high concern Wherefore standing in this similitude the Kings Letters are Letters of Credence because they are written in the usual form of such Letters and deliver'd from the hand of such a person as for other reasons deserves the repute of an honest man so as according to the style of all Royal Courts he is not to be receiv'd as Embassadour without those Letters Where we see to fit this instance to our present purpose that the first Motive inducing the Forreign King to receive either the Person or the Letters are those reasons whereby the King is perswaded the Embassadour is a person of credit to which correspond our Motives of Credibility for receiving the Church as most deserving all credit with us who afterward affirming her self in her Prelates to be Christs Embassadour we receive her as such and give credit to what she sayes or does next she producing also Christs Letters of Credence the holy Scriptures which affirm that her Prelates are his Embassadours we are yet further confirm'd in the whole affair But in case we should so far give way to the Relatours answer in this particular as to yield that the Letters infallibly give credit to all that know the Seal and Hand sure he must say that if this make them infallibly certain they must also know infallibly that Seal and Hand for by knowing them onely probably they can never be infallibly certain of the Letters Now if they know that Seal and Hand infallibly they will also infallibly know that they are true Letters of Credence even independently of the Embassadours assertion Whence it follows that if we can be infallibly certain of any thing corresponding to the Seal and Hand of God in the Scriptures we likewise shall be infallibly certain that they are his Letters whether the Church as Gods Embassadour attest them or not So that this way reduces all to the sole light of Scripture which is against his Lordship and already rejected by him But after all how can one be infallibly certain of that Seal and Hand unless he be as certain of the Embassadours sincerity who brought them otherwise there can be no Infallibity of his Embassie How many wayes are there of counterfeiting both Seal and Hand Nay how many wayes of obtaining them surreptitiously May not the Embassadour himself or some other interessed person procure them by some artificial practice May they not combine with the Secretary of State to impose upon his Majesty by drawing him to sign one thing for another But enough of this it being a matter so obvious to the understanding Let us now follow the Bishop page by page who stomacks very much at this Assertion of A. C. That these Letters the Scriptures do warrant that the people may hear and give credit to those Legates of Christ as to Christ himself Soft sayes the Bishop this is too high a great deal no Legat was ever of so great credit as the King himself Durst I be so bold I might soft it to his Lordship too and tell him he sayes too much a great deal Where I beseech him doth A. C. say in the forecited words that a Legat is of as great credit as the King himself I 'm sure in his words there is no such sentence He averres indeed that we may give credit to those Legats as to Christ the King himself but he sayes not that we may give as much or as high credit to the one as to the other This was the Bishops Turn onely There is therefore a more eminent degree of credit to be given to a King then to his Legate and yet we give credit to the Legate as to the King himself that is we doubt no more of the one then of the other And I would gladly know if his Lordship had heard our Saviour speak in his life time and his Apostles preach after our Saviours death whether he would have doubted of the truth of the Apostles doctrine any more then of the doctrine of Christ himself whose Legates they were To give credit therefore to them as to Christ himself is as undoubtedly to believe them as Christ himself though with a higher degree of respect and regard to Christ then to them And our Saviour affirm'd as much when he said He that hears you hears me Luke 10. 16. Next he tells us that A. C. sayes that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition hath in them Divine and Infallible Authority and consequently are worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Has he not here plaid the Divine and Rhetorician both at once What means this Rhetorical repetition thrice together But the worst is A. C's words are misapply'd and miscited by an artificial Turn in the Labyrinth He accuses A. C. of attributing Divine Authority twice over and that absolutely without any restriction or modification to that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition and then sayes their Divine Authority and credit is so great that 't is sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Now Reader judge whether A. C. applies
Scripture is Gods Word from the sole Testimony of the Church Yet when both partles press this Circle against each other they alwayes suppose that Scripture is Infallibly and Divinely believ'd for Gods Word in some true sense by means of the Churches Testimony Otherwise it were as impertinent to press this Question to a Christian why believe you the Scripture to be the Word of God that has no further certainty of it then what is drawn from a probable and humane Testimony of the Church as if it were propounded to a Heathen who had onely heard Scripture recommended for Gods Word by persons very worthy of credit For both of these were equally to answer that they deny'd the supposition of an Infallible Belief since they did not believe as Christians take the word Belief that it is Gods Word And then no marvel if there be no Circle committed when there is no Christian Belief which both sides presuppose as a ground of this Circle where ever it is found When therefore the Relatour speaks of proving Scripture by the Church unless he mean proving it by a Medium sufficient to assure us infallibly that it is the Word of God which he constantly refuses to grant though he fall not into a Circle yet he falls into a Semi-Circle that is a Crooked Turn in his Labyrinth by mis-stating the question and bowing it another way then it ought to be and alwayes is propounded in this Controversie as I said above Wherefore if the Church give onely a humane Testimony to induce 〈◊〉 a fallible assent that Scripture is the Word of God and Scripture afterwards by its own light gives me an infallible Certainty that the Testimony of the Church was true there could never have been the least ground for wise and learned men to move this difficulty of a vicious Circle one against another no more then when I believe it probable that to morrow will be a fair day because Peter tells me so and after I know certainly that Peter told me true because I see the next day to be fair by its own light His Lordship therefore was either to suppose that those Beginners and Weaklings he speaks of have some degree of Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God by means of the Churches Tradition antecedently to the reading of Scripture or he commits the fallacy term'd ex falso supposito of making a false supposition and so by avoiding one errour falls into another For unless he believe infallibly that Scripture is Gods word upon the Testimony of the Church as a true Cause and Motive of his Infallible Belief he doth not answer the question seeing all that affirm they believe this for the Churches Testimony understand it so and if he do he forsakes his own principles falls to us and consequently into that pretended Circle he objects against us if his objections be of force His Lordships Resolution of Faith into Prime Apostolical Tradition we have above evinced to be impossible supposing the immediate or present Church-Tradition to be fallible but were it possible we have also evidenced that it destroys his own grounds viz. of sole Scriptures-being the Foundation of our belief When therefore he averres that we may resolve our Faith into Prime Tradition when it is known to be such if he means by known as he must such a knowledge as may suffice to make that Prime Tradition an object of Faith he wheels quite about to amuse his Reader and sayes in effect we may then resolve our Faith into Tradition when that comes to pass which himself holds impossible ever to happen For if Prime Tradition can be onely gather'd by the perpetual succeeding Tradition of the Church as 't is certain it can onely be and that Tradition be fallible as the Bishop perpetually contends how shall any Prime Tradition be known sufficiently to make it self an object of Faith since nothing can do that but an Authority Infallible 〈◊〉 us Infallibly certain of that Tradition Hence he runs two contrary wayes at once desirous on the one side to resolve Faith into Prime Tradition that he may not seem repugnant to the Ancient Fathers and yet on the other so willing to be repugnant to us that by his grounds he makes that Resolution wholly impossible and to blinde these contrarieties pretends that Church-Tradition being not simply Divine cannot be such as may suffice for a formal object of Faith whereinto it is to be resolv'd when yet he knew full well the difficulty lay not there and that his Adversaries never affirm'd it was simply Divine or the formal object of Faith but spake alwayes warily and reservedly abstracting from that question as not necessary for the solving of his arguments or defence of the Catholick Faith against him Let the Bishops Adherents but confess that the Testimony and Tradition of the Church is truly infallible and we for the present shall require no more of them For that Infallibility suppos'd we have made it manifest that Prime Tradition is sufficiently derived to us in quality of the formal object of our Faith whereon to rest which in his Lordships principles is impossible to be done 4. Concerning the Relators endeavor to reconcile the Fathers whom he conceives to speak sometimes contrary to one another touching Scripture and Tradition though he doth not much oblige us in the number of those he brings in favour of our assertion for he names onely two and one of them somewhat lamely cited with an c. yet surely we are to thank him for his fair and candid exposition of those he quotes against us For he professes that when ever the Fathers speak of relying upon Scripture onely they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition wherein doubtless his Lordship delivers a great truth and nothing contrary to us But as for his challenge which follows we cannot but say that 's loud indeed but the sound betrayes its emptiness He will oblige us to shew that the holy Fathers maintain that which we need not affirm to be held by them For we never yet said that our Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word is resolved into the Tradition of the present Church but into Prime Apostolical Tradition of which we are infallibly certified by the Tradition of the present Church it being a condition or application of Prime Tradition to us And by this manner of defending our Tenets we have both gone along with A. C. and those Divines who affirm the voice of the Church not to be so simply and absolutely Divine as is the holy Scripture and given a full solution to all the Relatours arguments the most of which suppose us upon a false ground necessitated to acknowledge the voice of the Church to be so absolutely and simply Divine that our Faith is to rest upon it as its ultimate Motive and formall Object which must be no lesse then absolute Divine Authority But supposing we held our Faith to be
those points are which he calls simply fundamental or simply necessary to all mens salvation Bellarmin from very good Authority tells us that some barbarous and ignorant people have been saved without believing Scripture at all and if trial were made I believe it would be found the more common opinion even amongst Protestants themselves that the Explicite Belief of the Trinity or Incarnation it self as the Catholique Faith and Oecumenical Councils declare it is not simply necessary to all mens salvation So that if the Church be exempt from errour onely in such points the promises of Christ will be brought to little more then nothing and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk into so narrow a compass that most of the Hereticks she ever yet condemned will be found to have been out of her reach and may require her if not to reverse yet at least to review her sentence against them since his Lordship will have it Fallible lest perhaps she might erre in pronouncing it Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing onely in general that the Church cannot erre in matters simply necessary to all mens Salvation if he be not withall determinately inform'd which are those points For so long as he knows not what is or is not so universally necessary how can he be assur'd whether the Church may not erre or hath not err'd in Defining such and such a particular matter Let it therefore be first established either by a determinate Catalogue of such simply necessary and Fundamental points or by some certain and determinate Rule whereby we may undoubtedly know them otherwise we speak at random 5. The strength of the places formerly alledg'd by A. C for the Churches Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate telling us first that they are known places and cited by A. C. three several times and to three several purposes What matters this They lose nothing of their force for being thrice cited by A. C. and more then thrice by Stapleton Bellarmin and other Champions of the Catholique Faith circumstances so requiring it And does it seem strange to his Lordship that A. C. should apply them to several purposes he should have remembred how often Scripture it is stiled by the Fathers gladius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a two-edged sword which surely cuts-several wayes Bellarmin Stapleton and A. C. following the receiv'd assertion of most Catholiques viz. that the Pope is Infallible even without a General Council when he defines any thing ex Cathedrâ and with intention to oblige the whole Church urge the places to that purpose as with very great probability they may yet because some Catholique Divines deny it the matter it self being not yet clearly De Fide I shall be content that the said places prove at least the Infallibility of the Church in general or of the Pope and a General Council which in this question are to be accounted all one For if the Pope and a General Council may erre the whole Church might erre as being oblig'd to follow the Doctrine and Definitions of such a Council and if the whole Church be fallible what infallible certainty can we have of any Tradition Wherefore seeing the Infallibility of the Church Councils and Tradition depend so necessarily upon each other whatever Authorities prove the Infallibility of any one do in effect and by good consequence prove the same of all the rest 6. But let us come to the places in particular The first assures us that Hell gates shall never prevail against the Church Here the Bishop speaks loud and sends us a challenge There is no one Father of the Church sayes he for twelve hundred years after Christ that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this place And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can St. Austin had he been more fully cited by the Bishop would alone have been able to answer this challenge Let us hear him speak Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta sayes he Ecclesia una Ecclesia vera Ecclesia Catholica contra omnes haereses pugnans Pugnare potest expugnari tamen non potest She is the Holy Church the onely Church the true Church the Gatholick Church WHICH FIGHTS AGAINST ALL HERESIES therefore yields to none complyes with none Fight she may but she cannot be overcome All Heresies depart from her as unprofitable branches cut off from the Vine But she remains still in her root in her Vine in her Charity the Gates of Hell shall not overcome her Thus Saint Austin Can any man doubt but this holy Doctour in the precedent words doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible when he sayes she perpetually fights against all Heresies or Errours in Faith and that she can never be over come by them Doth he not clearly prove this truth by the allegation of this Text in the close of them But I shall adde one or two Authorities more to this purpose First St. Cyrils Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri c. According to this promise saith he the Church Apostolique of St. Peter abides alwayes immaculate or free from all spots of Heretical Circumvention and Errour The Text hath been cited already You may observe the like sense in St. Epiphanius Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum PETRAM FIRMAM supra quam c. Our Lord saith he speaking of St. Peter ordained him chief of the Apostles A FIRM ROCK upon which the Church is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her which Gates of Hell are Heresies and Arch-heretiques 6. For the better understanding of which Texts 't is necessary to know that every errour contrary to Divine Faith is Heresie as St. Austin and all Divines generally teach Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has reveal'd she should teach Heresie and contradict these Fathers who all clear the Church from that aspersion by vertue of this promise of Christ Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and withall tacitly at least acknowledge that if she did teach Heresie at any time the Gates of Hell in that case would be found to have prevail'd against her Seeing therefore every errour in Faith or against Divine Revelation is Heresie and since the Church in the judgement of these Fathers grounded upon this promise cannot teach Heresie it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fathers she cannot erre in any point of Faith whatever by vertue of the same promise How the Infallibility of the Church is gather'd out of the second place hath been shew'd already and is here confirm'd even by his Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is that Christ in that place promis'd to be present with his Ministers in all those things which he committed
practise not onely of the Roman but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together even by the confession of Protestants Is this onely to reform themselves and not to condemn other Churches otherwise then by silence and example Do not all other Protestant Confessions of Faith speak the same language Do they not all take upon them with a more then censorious presumption to condemn the Doctrine and practise of the Roman Catholique that is of the whole true Church of Christ in the same and divers other contested points 2. A. C. therefore well mindes us that in all matters of difficulty belonging to Faith particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome as Irenaeus intimates which hath a more powerful Principality and to her Bishop who is chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour to whom Christ promis'd the Keyes Math. 16. for whom he pray'd that his Faith might not fail Luke 22. and whom he charg'd to Feed and Govern his Flock John 21. which saith A. C. he shall never refuse to do in such sort as that his neglect shall be a just cause for any particular man or Church under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Schisme or Separation from the whole General Church In answer to this the Bishop tells us the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality then any other particular Church but not from Christ which is contrary to St. Austin or rather to the whole Council of Milevis who in their Epistle to Innocent the first professe that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. Secondly he sayes the Patriarchs were all as even and equal for any Principality of Power as the Apostles were But this is first Equivocal the Apostles themselves were not in all respects equal or of even Authority They had a Superiour among them viz. Saint Peter 'T is true indeed except St. Peter they were are all equal among themselves every one of them had equal mission unto and Jurisdiction over the whole Church and none of them any Authority preceptive or coercive over another whereas St. Peter together with his Authority Apostolical over the whole Church which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles had also Jurisdiction and Authority over the Apostles themselves as being in the number of Christs sheep committed to his charge by our Saviour John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity Secondly 't is contrary to the Council of Nice In the third Canon whereof which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs the Authority or Principality if you will of the Bishop of Rome is made the patern or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which the Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops The words of the Canon are these Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub potestate ejus sunt sicut ille qui tenet Sedem Romae CAPUT ESTET PRINCEPS OMNIUM PATRIARCHARUM The Patriarch say they is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as He who holds the Sea of Rome is Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward stiled Petro similis Autoritate par resembling Saint Peter and his equal in Authority This also the practise of the Church shews which is alwayes the best Expositour and Assertour of the Canons For not onely the Popes Confirmation was required to all new-elected Patriarchs but it belong'd likewise to him to depose unworthy ones and restore the unjustly deposed by others We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie On the contrary Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas having been unjustly expell'd by Hereticks The same might be said of divers others over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority which he could never have done upon any other ground then that of divine Right and as being generally acknowledg'd St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church St. Austin therefore said well in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus in the Roman Church the Principality of the Apostolique Chair hath alwayes flourisht Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolique Chairs like this of Rome viz. equal to it in Authority But this he does partly to level the Dignity of the Roman Sea contrary to St. Austin and all Antiquity and partly to make way to some other pretty perversions of the same Father For we must know he is now entring upon that main question concerning the Donatists of Africk of whose proceedings the whole forecited Epistle of St. Austin treateth and therefore to make our answer to his objections more compendious and clear it will not be amiss in the first place to state that business by way of Narrative and matter of Fact onely which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin and Optatus Milevitanus Thus then it was 3. The Donatists of Africk finding themselves sharply oppos'd by Caecilianus Arch-bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa by way of revenge accuse him of having in time of Persecution deliver'd up the Holy Scriptures with other Sacred Utensils of the Church into the possession of the Heathens which was accounted a most capital crime amongst Christians They added to their accusation that he was made Bishop by one guilty of the same crime viz. by Felix Bishop of Aptung and they prosecuted the business so hotly that by a Synod of seventy African Bishops Caecilian was condemn'd and outed of his Bishoprick But he making no great reckoning of the sentence as being condemn'd absent and unheard and knowing himself to be in Communion with the Roman Church the Donatists are forced to prosecute their charge against him in other Churches beyond Sea But not daring to appear at Rome or at least knowing it would be to little purpose they address themselves to the Emperour Constantin and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gaules in France where the Emperour then resided But the Emperour was so far from favouring them that he shew'd a great dislike of their proceedings telling them exprefly that it belong'd not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops Nevertheless knowing very well the turbulent disposition of Schismatiques and perceiving they meant not to acquiesce in the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Tribunal to which they were immediately subject he thought good to take a middle way which was to send them to Rome there to be heard and judged by the Pope to whom the cause did most properly belong but yet
of Argument to disprove it but knowing it to be the sense of all Antiquity windes about and falls upon that odious question of Killing and deposing Kings wherein he presum'd it would be more easie for him to choak his adversary But it shall not serve his turn For we say first he commits a gross fallacy arguing à negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kinde of Logick For what is it else to inferre the Pope has no Universal Power or Supremacy at all over the whole Church because he hath not such or such a particular power over Christian Kings and Princes His Lordship should have remembred that we were yet upon the question An sit whether or no the Pope hath an universal Power and Authority over the whole Church which till it be fairly determin'd 't is but to make too much haste and pervert due order to fall upon the Question Quid sit and dispute wherein it consists and how far it extends Secondly we answer the point of killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation For what Pope ever kill'd or gave Command Warrant or Authority for the killing of any King or what Catholique Author ever taught that he had power from Christ so to do And as for deposing them I answer 't is no point of our Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore it is no part of my task to dispute it But what Protestants have both done and justifi'd in the worst of these kindes is but too fresh in memory 4. A. C. does not beg the question when he sayes The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock of Christ in such sort as no particular man or Church shall have just cause to make a separation from it seeing it is the clear inference of his precedent discourse it is rather a begging the question in his Lordship to tell us onely while he ought to prove it that Protestants have made no Separation from the General Church but onely from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now mis-call themselves THE WHOLE CATHOLIQUE CHURCH It is also in this case a begging the question to affirm the Roman-Catholique Church to be in errour since no man did ever grant his Lordship that she was so or hath he any where convinc'd her of errour He hath often said it and suppos'd it I know but where he hath prov'd it I know not 'T is therefore yet to be prov'd that the Roman-Catholique Church hath err'd in any Doctrine publiquely defined by her Again we deny there is any hazard in adhering to the Roman Church she being the unshaken Rock of Truth and solely able to shew a continual Succession of lawfully-Sent Pastors and Teachers from Christ to our present times who have hitherto taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly according to Christs promise continue so teaching it unto the worlds end From this onely Catholique Church Protestants have unhappily sever'd themselves as I have already prov'd and are through their own fault so absolutely depriv'd of all Communion with her that they can no more be esteem'd members of this Church in the condition they now stand then a wither'd branch can be accounted a part of the Tree from which it was broken In vain therefore doth the Relatour pretend that Protestants have not left the Church in her Essence but in her Errours The Essence of the Church consists in her Faith Sacraments Discipline In all these 't is too manifest to be deny'd Protestants have forsaken the Church yea and perpetually fight against her wherefore they have left her in things essential or pertaining to the life and being of the Church And yet they have the confidence to call these Essentials Errours which is a bold and erroneous presumption wherein they imitate no less the old Heretiques in the Primitive times of the Church viz. the Novatians Arians Nestorians c. then the Swarms of new Sectaries among themselves For which of all these did not or would not upon occasion plead they forsook not the Essence of the Church but her Errours they separated not from her Communion but Corruption 5. Well But after all disputes a man would imagine that our learned Antagonist would at length submit to a General Council For first he thus professes speaking to A. C. What greater or surer judgement you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted then a General Council I do not see And immediately after he cites a long Text of A. C's which speaks to this purpose That if all the Pastours of the Church be gather'd together in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Faith and hearing each Pastour declare what hath been the Ancient Tradition of this Church shall thereupon Decree some particular point or matter to be held for Divine Truth if the Pastours of the Church or General Council may erre in such a Decree what can be firm or certain upon Earth In answer to this he both professes that it seems fair and also freely grants that a General Council is the best Judge on Earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted This would make a man think the Bishop intended to conform himself to such a Decree But to the end all the world may see how unwillingly he yields to reason especially when it comes from an Adversary he presently again begins to quarrel with A. C. telling us there was never any such General Council call'd nor indeed possible to be call'd as A. C. speaks of viz. in which all Pastours were gather'd together As if A. C. were so simple as by all Pastours to understand Numerically and Individually ALL that is every one of them without exception and that a Council could not be thought sufficiently General nor an Obligatory Decree of Faith be made by it unless all the Pastours of the Church in this sense were gather'd together especially he having so clearly declar'd his meaning to the contrary in defending the Council of Trent to have been a true General Council where 't is manifest all Pastours whatsoever did not convene though there were as many as had met in some other General Councils esteem'd even by Protestants for such And strange it is to see how long the Relatour skirmishes with meer shadows and what inferences he makes meerly upon this most salsly-suppos'd and wholly-improbable sense of A. C's words All Pastours then in that Text of A. C. signifie no more then all that are requisite or so many of all as are in the judgement of Reason and Christian Prudence duly sufficient to constitute a True and Lawful General Council If so many lawfully call'd be gather'd together 't is the ALL that A. C. intends and
laid upon it For St Basil himself even as the Bishop quotes him professes to fight against Heresies by unwritten Doctrine or Tradition yet such as was not contrary but according to Scripture Lastly we say with Biel that Scripture is a Rule which applied by the Church and that is Biels express caution though it might not appear in English measures all things yea and contains all things necessary to salvation either mediately or immediately Wherefore to take notice by the way of the Bishops conceit upon Gedeon's Fleece we averre that Scripture hath not onely Dew upon it but water in it and that enough not onely for a Lamb to wade thorow but for an Elephant to swim but whosoever shall presume to wade or swim there without help of Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradition will surely perish by his presumption He asks what warrant we have to seek another Rule beside Scripture but considers not how groundless his own assertion is that God hath left us Scripture as the onely Infallible Rule which is contrary to the common belief of all true Christians contrary to express Scripture and the constant judgement and practise of the Church in all ages and according to the example of none but confess'd and condemn'd Heretiques 9. But the Bishop tells us that though the Pope should be granted a living Infallible Judge yet would it not suffice against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in Doctrine of Faith or to soder the rents which are made His reason is because oportet Haereses esse c. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith I answer the Church is at all times sufficiently and effectually secur'd from such Rents by the Authority of its chief Pastour where 't is duly acknowledg'd The malice of the Devil and impious men by inventing Heresies hurt not the Church but themselves and their Adherents who by their Heresie and Schism make a divorce from the Church that is either sever themselves or are justly cut off from her for their errours the Church to speak properly remaining still as pure and incorrupt as she was before Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents or Schismatical party which stand in need of Sodering are not found amongst the true Members of the Church who continue still united in Faith and due obedience with their Head and in all necessary Communion with one another but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adher'd to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations And herein truly if passion did not too much blinde us experience would tell us that had not the Pope receiv'd from God the power he challenges of Governing the Church as Supream Head thereof under Christ he could never have been able to preserve that Peace and Unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church there being upon other Accounts so many Feuds and Animosities among the Professours of that Religion or to have subsisted thus long had his pretension to it been grounded on meer Policy and Interest as Protestant Ministers continually suggest to their Disciples especially in these latter ages wherein the wit and malice of his enemies have been sharpened to the utmost and every thing objected even with notorious calumny that might possibly serve to render his Authority suspected and contemptible even with those who acknowledg'd it But leaving him to the execution of his Pastoral Charge let us see how matters go between the Bishop and his Adversary 10. A. C. tells us there is no earthly Kingdom that when matters cannot opportunely be compos'd by Parliament which upon all occasions and at all times cannot be summoned hath not beside the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Supream Magistrate and Judge to determin emergent Controversies and preserve peace in Temporal affairs and thence à paritate rationis or rather à fortiori inferrs that Christ the wisest of Kings hath in like manner provided in his Kingdom the Church beside the Law-Books of Holy Scripture some visible Magistrates and Judges and above all one chief Magistrate and Judge sufficiently impower'd and assisted by his Spirit as to put an end to all Controversies concerning Ecclesiastical affairs and preserve his Church in the Unity and Certainty of Faith To which the Relatour thinks it sufficient to say all this is but a Simile and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing The Similitude upon which A. C. grounds his discourse is that the whole Militant Church is a Kingdom which the Bishop denyes telling us they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or mixt Government But I answer though A. C. urges the Argument in the Similitude of a Kingdom onely yet is it of force in any other kinde of settled Government In a Common-wealth beside the Law-Books 't is requisite there be a living Judge or Judges invested with Supream Authority to determin all matters in difference amongst the people What the Relatour brings against the Monarchy of the Militant Church shews onely that it is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy participating somewhat both of Aristocracy and Democracy I call that a Pure Monarchy in which all the Sovereign Power is so in one alone as that no other person or persons in the Kingdom govern but in vertue of the Monarchs Authority and meerly as his Substitutes A mixt Monarchy is that in which one indeed is Supream and in some cases commands all yet so as others within the Monarchy are Princes and do govern both Towns and Provinces as their own and with rights of Sovereignty though not absolute but holding and depending on the Monarch in chief Now the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical Seeing the Pope as Vicar of Christ and St. Peters Successour hath a Supream Authority over the whole Church yet is not his Monarchy pure but mixt because Bishops within their respective Diocesses and Jurisdictions are Spiritual Princes also that is Chief Pastours and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right and not meerly his Vicars and Substitutes placeable and displaceable at his pleasure In this respect therefore the Government of the Church hath something of the Aristocratical in it And because any man if sufficiently qualified for it may be promoted to a Bishoprick it hath something also of Democratical 11. But since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect what wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern his Church by one Viceroy as the Bishop is pleas'd to tearm him then Aristocratically or by many as he would have it And as for the Literae Communicatoriae which himself alledges
all the visible Hierarchical Congregations of Christians in the World had Mass used Prayer for the Dead invoked the Saints reverenced Holy Images and Reliques believed Purgatory the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist and generally acknowledg'd all other Sacraments declar'd for such by the said Council As yet therefore there appears no Disparity between the Councils of Trent and Nice But he tells us the consent of the whole Church was that Scripture stood for the Council of Nice against the Arians which he denies it to have done for the Council of Trent To omit that the Bishop proves not his Assertion which therefore may as easily be deny'd as he affirms it if we extend nor the Church beyond its due limits can it be said the consent of the whole Church was that Scripture stood for the same Council in all that they defin'd to be Heretical Had they Scripture for the condemnation of the Quarto-decimani and Rebaptizers both which the said Council condemn'd together with the Arians If our Adversaries cannot shew us the particular Texts of Scripture by which the Council confuted these Heresies will it not be manifest they did it by sole Tradition 7. The Relatour having insinuated that the Pope made Bishops purposely for his side does here disclaim it upon this account that none can know the Popes intention but God who is the Surveyour of the heart Is not this to be religiously impertinent first to possess his Reader with a strong presumption of the Popes corrupt Designe and then to come no better off then by saying he could not see the secrets of his heart But he will have it that there were valuable Presumptions of making Bishops purposely to maintain his party I answer the Bishop should not have put us off with Ifs and And 's in that whereon he grounds an Accusation of so great importance but have sufficiently prov'd that there was de facto an extraordinary creation of Supernumerary and meerly Titular Bishops made about that time and sent to the Council to serve the Popes designs which we deny to have been done Secondly his pretence that the Council of Trent could be no competent judge in matters of Religion because the Pope had made himself a strong party in it is disprov'd by the very Argument he brings to assert it viz. the multitude of Italian Prelats For who knows not that the Italians are more divided in point of Interest and Dependence then any other Nation in Christendome by reason of the many Sovereign Principalities and States into which Italy is divided Though therefore we should surmize that the Italian Prelats in this Council were not guided by true principles of piety yet surely there is little reason to think they should combine with the Pope to serve his designs which in all probability would not suit so well with their own or Princes Interest on whom themselves and hope of advancement depended This Argument therefore hath so much in it of the Chimaera that certainly no solid judgement will esteeme it considerable To what the Relatour sayes touching the number of Bishops in the said Council that there were in it a hundred and four Italian Bishops more then of all the rest of Christendome I answer first that having viewed the Council of Trent with some diligence I cannot reconcile the numbers there set down with what is here avouched to be taken thence Secondly supposing his computation true what do's it prejudice our cause 'T is manifest the farre greater number of Italian Bishops were of the Domions of other Princes and had not the least shadow of any Temporal Dependance on the Pope and consequently no stricter tye upon them to serve his Interests then all the rest of the Bishops in that Council The reason why there might be more Bishops of Italy then other places is evident in regard that Countrey was in a far more quiet condition then either Germany or France which at that time were both infected with Heresie and imbroiled in Civil Wars so that the chief Pastours of those Provinces could not so well be spared from their Charge as these of Italy and for other Countries no wonder if they were thinner as being more remote To which I might adde that there are more Bishopricks in Italy then in any Nation of Christendome of no greater extent Now these concurring reasons might well increase the number of Italian Bishops without any such Design as Protestants and the Relatour here rashly surmizes Again what private Interest had the Pope to look to at the Council of Trent which was not common to him with all the Bishops in that Council nay indeed with all the Catholique Bishops of Christendom Was it not the Interest of all the Bishops in Christendome except those of the new stamp to keep Heresie out of their respective Diocesses and Provinces Was it not their Interest to preserve the Authority of the Canons and the free Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction What other Interest but this and the like had the Pope to prosecute in the Council But the Relatour urges this Disparity between the Councils of Trent and Nice viz. that at the same time the Council sate at Nice Pope Sylvester held a Council at Rome in which he with two hundred seventy five Bishops of the West confirm'd the Nicen Creed and Anathematiz'd all those who should dare to dissolve the Definition of that Holy and Great Council whereas no such thing was done by the Greek Church to confirm the Council of Trent This we confess is some Disparity but very little to the purpose for though it happen'd that this was done de facto in confirmation of the Nicen Definitions yet had they not been of less Authority without such an Accessory Assembly provided the Pope had ratify'd them in such manner as he did the Decisions of the Council of Trent Did ever any of the Ancients attribute the Authority of the Nicene Council to the approbation given it by these Western Bishops surely no. Neither was this Roman Synod held at the same time with the Concil of Nice as the Relatour to amuze his Reader pretends but after it as the Acts themselves testifie Nor was the like done in other General Councils admitted by Protestants who cannot therefore in reason make this objection against the Council of Trent Lastly the Doctrine of Faith declared by the Council of Trent was universally receiv'd by the whole Catholique Church which was a confirmation incomparably greater then that of two hundred seventy five Bishops and the same Faith hath been far more constantly held ever since none of the Catholique Provinces of Christendom represented in that Council ever deserting the Faith there declar'd whereas many Provinces either in whole or part deserted the Faith defin'd at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie 8. Here for want of solid reasons the Bishop falls again to his surmizes by which he would fain insinuate to his
credulous Reader that the Fathers in the Council of Trent were so aw'd by the Popes Authority or sway'd by his Interest that either they durst not or would not open themselves so farre as to speak freely what they thought What is this but an empty and injurious suspicion or rather an unworthy accusation of so many grave Prelats assembled in Council A little more of Christian charity might have taught his Lordship to frame a far different judgement and believe that so many worthy Prelats would not be neglectful of their charge to the betraying of their conscience especially seeing the Pope had fully declared his desire that the matters in Controversie might receive a free and fair Dispute in the Council in order to a Settlement of the Truth To put a period therefore to this long and groundless Dream of the Popes strong party and the Bishops-being over-aw'd in the Council of Trent I conclude that seeing none of the Fathers there assembled no not any of those who liv'd either under the wing of Protestant Princes or where Liberty of Conscience was allowed ever sided with Protestants but constantly and zealously persever'd even till death in the Faith and Doctrine they had subscribed in that Council and shew'd themselves solicitous that all its Definitions should be Universally held by their people no Evidence can possibly be given of any Free Consent or Vote in Council if this may be call'd in question 9. Touching HIEREMIAS Patriarch of Constantinople you must know that some Eminent Protestants of the Lutheran Party about the end of the last Century endeavour'd to feel the Pulse of the Greek Church to see if they could there finde any Symptoms of their own Disease The design was to close with the Greeks for the better making out of the pretended perpetual Succession of their Church which Project they so hotly pursu'd though formerly in vain attempted that they would not desist till the Patriarch being settled in his Throne they had sent to him the summe of their Reformed Belief drawn up according to the Augustan Confession which had been compos'd by Melancthon and approv'd by their Patriarch Luther After a long intercourse of Letters Answers and Replyes mutually continued for some years and all arguments us'd that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his Communion he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their doctrine but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman-Catholique Church which those Lutherans endeavour'd to overthrow Insomuch that at last the Patriarch tyred with their importunity gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholique Church and desir'd them not to trouble him any more with their writings All this is more largely related by Spondanus out of the writings of those very Protestants that treated with the Patriarch in the business Neither can the Censure passed by this Patriarch upon the Lutheran errours be accounted rash or precipitate seeing they had a full Hearing by him they had made their address to who was not onely the chief Patriarch of the Greeks but a person of that eminent Esteem among them that his Censure must in reason be taken to declare the sense of the Greek Church Nor matters it that Catholiques account him a Shismatique this cannot prejudice his Censure in reference to Protestants He was such a Schismatique as they would gladly have made Patron of their Religion The Bishop therefore by giving no other Answer to this Patriarchs-proceeding against Protestants but that he findes not this Censure of Hieremias warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church shews he had very little to say in opposition to it Was not this Hieremias chief Patriarch of the Greek Church Doth not he write in a style Definitive and peremptory touching the matters debated between him and Protestants Does he not upon all occasions testifie the Doctrine he declares to be the Doctrine of the Catholique Church of the Holy Fathers and of the Sacred Councils Did any of the Greek Bishops ever disclaim the said Doctrine either in whole or part as they disclaim'd the Doctrine of one of his successours whom they depos'd and ejected as an Heretique because his Tenets savour'd of the Protestant Leaven who then can doubt but what he delivers is the common Belief of the whole Greek Church as is likewise in effect acknowledg'd by the Interessed Lutherans themselves in their Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium c. publisht after the Treaty ended and more expresly by some English Writers Well therefore might A. C. affirm without making himself a Prophet that if ever such a Free Council as the Relatour seem'd to wish were gather'd out of the East and West Provinces of Christendom Protestants would doubtless be condemn'd for Heretiques For this is not to Prophesie but to discourse and draw a Certain Conclusion out of Principles morally Evident that is to say if the French Spanish and Schismatical Greeks also in their respective Churches do teach and profess as matter of Catholique Faith Doctrine Diametrally opposite to that of Protestants no man can doubt but had or were they met in a General Council to declare their said Belief they would infallibly condemn Protestantisme no less then did this Patriarch Hieremias CHAP. 20. Of the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils ARGUMENT 1. The Bishops pretended Forwardness for a General Council meerly Delusive 2. His Erring General Council qualifi'd at most but to unite in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration 3. The Bishops Remedy against his Council intolerably Erring instrumental to all Disunion 4. The Authority of Oecumenical Councils whence derived 5. Their Infallibility evidenc'd from the same Texts of Scripture that prov'd the Church Infallible 6. The Text Mat. 18. 20. Where Two or Three are gathered together in my Name c. Vindicated in proof of the Infallibility of lawful General Councils 7. The Decrees of Legally-Confirm'd General Councils in points of Faith truly styled the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 8. The whole Church lyable to Errour if a General Council may Erre in points of Faith 9. St. Austins Text lib. 2. De Baptism cap. 3. That General Councils may be amended the former by the latter c. explicated at large 1. THe Bishop having cast as much dirt as he was able upon the Council of Trent wishes in fine that a lawful General Council were called to end Controversies A pure one you may be sure if according to his wish who bearing himself very confident upon the impossibility of assembling such a Council as he would call General sayes as it were to insinuate an unwillingness on our part to have Controversies ended in so fair a way as by a General Council If you have a most gracious King inclined unto it how can you acquit your selves if you do not consent As though forsooth there were no more requir'd to the assembling of a General Council then
the Kings inclination and the English Catholiques consent Is not this a gross delusion He tells us for a wonder That A. C. marvels what kinde of General Council he would have and what Rules observed in it that were Morally like to make an End of Controversies better then our Catholique General Councils Was this to express any backwardness to a lawfull General Council or could any thing be more reasonably demanded of him Could the Relatour expect an End of Contention between us by means of a General Council unless the Conditions and Rules by which the said Council should proceed were first known and consented to by both parties Are not Protestants themselves a sufficient proof of the Negative in their Cavillings against the Authority and Proceedings in the Council of Trent But what particular Conditions or Rules for the legitimating of a future General Council could he assign which had not been competently observ'd in former General Councils nay even in that of Trent whose Authority and Decrees nevertheless the Bishop with the whole party utterly rejects As to his profession that any General Council shall satisfie him that is called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observ'd in the Primitive Church it is too general to be ingenuous or give real satisfaction to the demand signifying nothing at all in relation to a finall End of our Controversies seeing Catholiques hold those general conditions as much as the Bishop or any of their opposers and yet our Differences are still the same as to particulars To as little purpose save onely to deceive the Reader cites he the Latin Text of Bellarmin in his Margent as though he concurr'd with him in the requisite conditions of a General Council whereas by those conditions are clearly excluded all Excommunicated Bishops Heretiques and Schismatiques from being any necessary part of a General Council But to come yet closer to the point who should call this his wished General Council If we follow the example of those most Ancient Councils which himself acknowledges for General and lawfully called then the Pope must be the Summoner of it or at least the Emperour with the Popes consent in both which cases we are not to divine with what contempt the Protestant party would look upon such a Council especially if it insisted in the steps of those Primitive Councils in which the Pope as we have shewn presided To call therefore for a General Council in the Protestants sense is a meer nothing an empty name to amuse silly people with since morally speaking 't is impossible there should ever be such a General Council as they fancy to themselves viz. an Oecumenical Council that should consist as well of Schismatiques Heretiques and Desertors of the Catholique Church as of true Catholique Bishops But if it were never thought reasonable in a Civil Commonwealth which yet the Bishop makes the pattern of his Spiritual one in point of Authority that Out-Laws and condemned persons should be admitted to sit with their Lawful Judges to determine whether they were Delinquents or not how instantly soever they might demand it how can it be thought to stand with any colour of Reason that Spiritual Out-Laws and Desertors of the Catholique Church that maintain many anciently condemned Heresies should be admitted to Sit and Vote in Council among their Lawful Judges whether they were guilty or not What Rebel would ever be found Criminial if he might be allow'd to be his own Judge 2. Here Mr. Fisher to shew the Bishop to how little purpose he called for a General Council asked him Whether he thought a General Council might erre viz. in its Decisions and Determinations of Faith To which the Relatour having answer'd in the Affirmative that it might erre Mr. Fisher thus further Queried If a General Council may erre what nearer are we to Unity after a General Council hath determined What the Bishop reply'd to this I shall not deliver out of the mouth of either Mr. Fisher or A. C. because he quarrels with them though to little purpose touching the precise words he used in the Conference wherein his memory might as well fail him as the other You shall have them from his own pen upon more mature deliberation But first hear how he disputes pro and con touching Mr. Fishers first Querie Whether sayes he a General Council may erre or not is a question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church without remedy against an errour once determined To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely disrespect former Councils of the Church but to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine To each member of this discourse I answer thus in order To say and but meerly to say it without good proof that a General Council cannot erre may leave the Church indeed without remedy against an errour But to say it cannot erre and prove it too both from Reason Authority and Gods Word as Catholiques do is so far from leaving the Church without remedy against an errour that it secures all the adhering members thereof from erring in any matter of Faith Now for the latter branch or member To say it can erre does not onely seem to expose as the Bishop hath it but does actually expose and abandon all the Adherents of that opinion to an inevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith and makes them utterly contemn all former and future Councils when ever they determine any thing contrary to these mens fancies Now to Mr. Fishers second Querie wherein are we nearer to Unity if a General Council may erre the Bishop thus positively answers The Determination of a General Council erring is to stand in force and to have external obedience at least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary make the errour appear and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority do reverse it Is not this a strange not to say an impious doctrine to be advanc'd without Authority either of Gods Word or of Antiquity nay contrary to all solid Reason that men should be tyed up by an Erring Conciliary Decision in points of Divine Truth against Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration of the Errour For till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it the errour is still to be submitted to by all men even when they know it This indeed is a rare effect of a General Council to oblige all the members of the Church to Unity in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had as I have already shewn And to mend the matter that is to make us still at a greater loss this
Council till her forbearance therein may be interpreted a Neglect or Refusal to do it Fifthly he scores us out no way how we should go to work to obtain the necessary Concurrence of all Christian Princes to the actual Assembling of this new model'd Council It would be too long to point out all the inextricable Difficulties that attend this uncanonical way of proceeding in Religion recommended by the Bishop A Doctrine so far from being a Remedy against the pretended intolerable failings of a former General Council upon supposition of the whole Churches neglect or refusal to call a Council and examin them that it is highly instrumental to Division both in Church and State giving as good title if not better to any new Body of Sectaries to reform Protestantism when they get power into their hands as it did to Protestants to reform for themselves against the whole Church 4. However the Bishop still goes on harping upon the same string and in lieu of giving us solid Arguments to evince the Truth of what he would perswade viz. that his opinion touching a General Councils possibility of erring in points of Faith is most preservative of peace established or ablest to reduce perfect Unity into the Church he falls into a tedious discourse which he sayes he will adventure into the world but onely in the nature of a Consideration which yet he divides into many entring upon the First with Two very erroneous Suppositions which he layes for the foundation of a tottering Superstructure The one that the Government of the Church is no further Monarchical then as Christ is the Head The other that all the Power an Oecumenical Council hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in its Determination it hath it all from the Universal Body of the Church because the Representative of a Commonwealth hath no more power then what it receives from the Body it represents The first of these viz. that the Church is not governed by one in chief under Christ is a supposition more then once confuted To the second which we have already impugned above we further answer that the Power and Assistance which General Councils have to determine Controversies of Faith so as not to erre in the Determination cannot possibly be communicated to them by the Church but must chiefly proceed from the same Fountain now it did in the Apostles time viz. from the Direction of the Holy Ghost This Spiritual power for the government of the Church being not of Humane but Divine Institution nor proceeding so much from the Natural Wisdome Knowledge Vertue and Abilities of the Ecclesiastical Governours assembled in Council as from the cooperation of the Holy Spirit with them Whereas in a Civil Commonwealth which is of Humane Institution its representative cannot pretend to any other Power then what is derived from the said Commonwealth Secondly the Bishop considers that though the Act that is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the childe of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special Assistance of the Holy Ghost This we no way contradict but adde that this special Assistance of the holy Ghost is so far ever afforded to a Lawful General Council as to render all it s compleated Definitions of Faith Infallible 5. Thirdly he considers that the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour that sayes he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all Assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such an high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Council in matters Fundamental in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike Infallible By this expression alike Infallible the Bishop seems to grant that all the Definitions of a General Council even in Deductions as well as Fundamentals are Infallible and onely to doubt whether they be alike Infallible I see no necessity of graduating Infallibility in the present question since any real Infallibility is as much as Catholique Authors assert in all Decisions of Faith be they Fundamental or remote Deductions in the Bishops sense seeing that as to our obligation of believing them they are alike Fundamental as we have prov'd in the second Chapter Here the Bishop intends to examine the Texts which he sayes Stapleton rests upon for proof of Infallible Assistance afforded to General Councils viz. John 16. 13. I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And John 14. 16. This Spirit shall abide with you for ever And Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you to the end of the world Likewise these which he sayes are added by others viz. The Founding the Church upon the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. and Luke 22. 32. Christs Prayer for St. Peter that his Faith fail not and Christs promise Mat. 18 20. That where two or three are gathered together in his Name he will be in the midst of them And that in the Acts chap. 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us A man would imagine these Texts sufficiently clear in themselves to evince the Truth of the Catholick Assertion touching General Councils but the Bishop is partly of another minde affirming that no one of them does infer much less inforce Infallibility He was loath to say all of them together did not But let us hear how he quarrels them in particular To the first which speaks of leading into all Truth and that for ever he answers ALL is not alwayes universally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth but for ALL TRUTH absolutely necessary to Salvation I reply neither do we averre that it is here universally taken or doth signifie simply all Truth for then it would comprehend all natural Truth and matter of Fact which we deny no less then the Bishop but that it signifies all Truth necessary for the Apostles and their Successors to know for the Instruction and Government of the Church whether expressed or but infolded in Scripture or Tradition As to his limiting the words to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation we say this is but gratis dictum and a meer groundless restriction depending wholly on the Bishops voluntary assertion as we have already shewn It is also clearly refuted by the Context vers 12. where our Saviour having told his Disciples he had many things to say to them which they could not then bear addes immediately as it were by way of Supplement to their present weakness the forecited words that when the Spirit of Truth should come he would guide them into all Truth that is into all those Truths which Christ had to say to them and which they were not as yet in a capacity to bear But can any man imagine Christ had not already
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
if our aduersaries like not his answer wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church Moreouer wee auerre that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned A. C. inference is rightly gathered namely that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle then solid when to make good his denyall of it he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point granting the first of these viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points to follow out of Doctor Whites concession but not the second viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall But with what ground or consonancy to himselfe and truth lett the Reader iudge His precense is that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression as he calls it or bare letter of the Article but hath err'd in the exposition or sense of it J answer if she hath err'd in the exposition and sense of an Article how can she be truly sayd to haue held it Can any man with truth say that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity or the Antitrinitarians the doctrine of three diuine Persons because they allow and hold Scriptures in which these Mysteries are contain'd who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold in a question of Fayth to signifie no more then profession or keeping of the bare letter of the Article and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense Is it not all one to say Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say they beleeue the sayd doctrines Jf then it be true that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points 't is likewise true that she hath euer beleeu'd them and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any there beeing noe other way properly and truly speaking wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth but only by disbeleeuing it If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points it is by necessary consequence likewise granted that she neuer erred in any such points how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so He tells vs indeed but his accusation has noe proofe that our Church hath erred grossly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them lastly that her beauty in this respect is but meere painting as preseruing only the outside and bare letter of Christs doctrine but in regard of inward sense and beleefe beeing neither beautifull nor sound Thus he But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd Let our aduersaries shew in what one Article of all the three Creeds the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense or err'd in her exposition of it Beside they must likewise shew how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe and not in the bare letter how can those which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion beleeuing all things as she teacheth and noe otherwise attain Saluation 3. The Lady here asks a second question whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats vpon my soule sayes the Bishop you may vpon my soule sayes Mr. Fisher there is but one sauing Fayth and that 's the Roman You see their mutuall confidence but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes and condition also of Saluation viz. Catholique Fayth which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed saues none witness St. Athanasius in his Creed admitted by Protestants The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils so much magnifyed by Antiquity to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation This in fine is the ground of the Bishops confidence But I answer his Lordship failes in two things The first that he doth not shew that such a Fayth as he here mentions is sufficient to Saluation notwithstanding whateuer errour or opinion may be ioyned with it The second that he doth not shew that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth that is in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 For as to the first of the pariculars did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme that St. Cyprians followers were lost without repentance because they opposed the authority of the Church which in and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous Put case then that in after-times the whole Church or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice should declare some other opinion to be erroneous which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so eyther by Scripture Creeds or those Fowre first Generall Councils were not he that should hold it after such definitiue declaration of the Church or Council in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils If not lett our aduersaries shew why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church or the Councils definition and other people who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority should not Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne to oppose the definition of a Generall Council when he auerrs that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience and submission till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times and inconsistent with the Churches peace How can this possibly be made good if to beleeue Scripture and the
Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church with all Fundamentall points generally held for such and to receiue the fowre first Generall Councils only and noe more be a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation Did our Sauiour meane the Primitiue Church only or only the fowre first Generall Councils and noe others when he sayd Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not heare the Church lett him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And if it be to be vnderstood as without doubt it is of the Church and Generall Councils in all ages how could the Bishop how can Protestants thinke themselues secure only by beleeuing the fowre first Councils and the Church of Primitiue times if they oppose and contradict others or contemne the authority of the true Catholique Church of Christ that now is And for the second viz. that the English-Protestant Fayth is not really and indeed such a Fayth as the Bishop here professeth will appeare vpon examination thus You beleeue say you Protestants the Scripture and the Creeds and you beleeue them in the sense of the Primitiue Church J aske first doe you meane all Scripture or only a part of it if part of it only how can your Fayth be thought such as cannot but giue Saluation seeing for ought you know there may be damnable errour and sinne in reiecting the other part If you meane all Scripture you profess more then you are able to make good seeing you refuse many books of Scripture that were held Canonicall by very many in the Primitiue Church and admitt for Canonicall diuerse others that were for some time doubted of and not reckoned for any part of the Canon by many ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church more then those were which for that reason chiefly you account Apocrypha 4. You pretend to beleeue both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church But when will this be prou'd wee bring diuerse testimonies from the Fathers and Doctours of those ancient times vnderstanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholy agreeable to vs and contrary to your doctrine Must all our allegations be esteem'd apocryphall and counterfeite or mis-vnderstood because they impugne your reformed beleefe must nothing be thought rightly alledged but what suites with your opinions you pretend conformity with the fowre first Generall Councils too but the proceedings of those Councils cleerly shew the quite contrary The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Syluester to confirm their decrees Doe Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope The great St. Athanasius with the Bishops of Egypt assembled in the Council at Alexandria profess that in the Council of Nice it was with one accord determined that without consent of the Bishop of Rome neither Councils should be held nor Bishops condemned Doe not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon by one common voyce profess that St. Peter spake by the mouth of Leo that the sayd Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter deposed Dioscorus Doe they not call him the vniuersall Bishop the vniuersall Patriarch the Bishop of the vniuersall Church Doe they not terme him the Interpreter of St. Peters voyce to all the world Doe they not acknowledge him their Head and themselues his members and consets that the custody or keeping of Christs vineyard which is the whole Church was by our Sauiour committed to him Js this the dialect or beleefe of English Protestants Did not likewise the whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first Bishop of Rome to confirme what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresie with the authority of the Sea Apostolique pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the sauing of many and for correcting the peruerse wickedness of some and did they not with all reuerence and submission receiue the Popes answer sent to them in these words In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you haue made it appeare sayth he not only by vsing all diligence as is required of a true and Catholique Council in examining matters of that concernment but also in referring your debates to our iudgement and approbation how sound your Fayth is and that you are mindefull to obserue in all things the examples of ancient tradition and the discipline of the Church knowing that this is a duty which you owe to the Apostolique Sea wherein wee all desire to follow the Apostle from whome both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is deriued and following him wee cannot be ignorant both how to condemne what is ill and also to approue that which is praise-worthy oYou doe well therfore and as it becometh Priests to obserue the customes of the ancient Fathers which they grounded not vpon humane but diuine authority that nothing should be finally determined in remote Prouinces without the knowledge of this Sea by whose full authority the sentence giuen if it were found to be iust might be confirm'd this Sea beeing the proper Fountaine from which the pure and vncorrupted waters of truth were to streame to all the rest of the Churches Will English Protestants consent to this Doe not the Prelats in the Council of Ephesus heare with like attention and approbation Philip the Priest one of the Popes Legats to that Council auouching publiquely in full Council the authority of St. Peters Successour in these words noe body doubts sayth he nay it is a thing manifest and acknowledged in all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter PRINCE AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES AND FOVNDATION OF THE CHVRCH receiued from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and that to this day he still liues in his Successours and determines causes of Fayth and shall euer continue so to doe With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend that Protestants conform themselues to the doctrine of the fowre first Generall Councils Those Councils submitt their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome Protestants disclayme from him as from an enemy of Christs Gospell Those Councils acknowledge him vniuersall Pastour and Head of the Church Protestants cry out against him as an Vsurper and Tyrant ouer the Church Those Councils confess him St. Peters Successour who was Prince and Chiefe of the Apostles Protestants call him and esteem him Antichrist The Councils own his authority ouer the whole Church as proceeding from Christ Protestants allow him noe more power by diuine right then they allow to euery ordinary Bishop Lastly these Councils with all submission profess that the Pope was their Head and themselues his members Protestants giue vs in contempt and derision the nickname of Papists for doing the same that is for owning subiection to the Pope and Sea of Rome I might instance in many other points wherein Protestants disagree from the fowre first Generall Councils but I pass them ouer to take notice of what followes There is sayth the Bishop but one sauing Fayth But then euery thing which you call
were esteem'd such in the Primitiue Church A question hitherto often askt in vaine and which himselfe once plainly declin'd the answering * as beeing no worke for his pen. But let vs heare what he says vpon second thoughts Fundamentalls sayth he so accounted by the Primitiue Church are but the Creed and some sew and those immediate deductions from it But this leaues vs 〈◊〉 in the darke Who shall resolue which those sew and immediate deductions are And what does he meane by immediate deductions only such as 〈◊〉 in themselues euident and necessary If so it were in effect to deny both the Diuinity and Incarnation of Christ to be Fundamentall points Jf in euident and only probable who shall infallibly assure vs that the deduction is true and certaine what shall wee thinke of Scripture Is not that a Fundamentall point in the Relatours beleefe can any man be sau'd that reiects Scripture prouided he admitts the Creed and some few immediate deductions from it Nay wee are told that euen the immediate deductions themselues are not formally Fundamentall for all men but only for such as are able to make and vnderstand them and that for others 't is enough if they doe not obstinately and Schismatically refuse them after they are once reuealed But had not preiudice troubled his eye-sight our Aduersarie might easily haue seen as much reason to say 'T is Fundamentall in the Fayth not to question or deny Schismatically and obstinately any thing at all that is sufficiently propos'd to vs as reuealed by God Let him cite what he can out of the Fathers he shall neuer proue that a man cannot fall from the true fayth by an act of disbeleefe so long as he beleeues the Articles of the Creed seeing the Apostle teaches that some fall from the Fayth by forbiding Marriage and certaine meates as absolutely vnlawfull and many haue been condemned for Heretiques in those ancient times who neuer oppos'd the Creed Now if a man may beleeue the Creed and yet be damned for Heresie and mis-belcefe in other matters how can Protestants assure themselues of Saluation or be accounted Orthodox Christians meerly by this pretended conformity with the Primitiue Church in the beleefe of the Creed vnless it could be prou'd withall that they held no other vnlawfull doctrine But certaine it is that to deny Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and diuerse other points as Protestants doe is most vnlawfull and was so held by the Primitiue Church 9. As for Tertullian Ruffinus St. Irenaeus and St. Basil here alledged by the Bishop they neither seuerally nor all together make an infallible authority to assure Protestants that all and only those points which they account Fundamentall were soe esteem'd by the Primitiue Church which yet was the only thing that A. C. in his Interrogatorie requir'd him to shew The doctrine by vs deliuer'd stands very well with the resolution of Occham here cited that it is not in the power of the Church or Council to make new Articles of Fayth For the Church neuer tooke vpon her to doe this but only to declare infallibly what was expressed or inuolued eyther in Scripture or the word of God not-written viz. Tradition And 't is a meere vntruth to affirme that Catholiques agree not in this that all points determined by the Church are Fundamentall in the sense declared For neither Sixtus Senensis nor any other Catholique did euer doubt or make scruple of those books of holy Scripture which they acknowledg'd to haue been defin'd by the Church for Canonicall they only question some other books concerning which wee haue not had as yet the resolution of any Generall Council such as are the third and fourth of Machabees the third and fourth of Esdras the prayer of Manasses etc. 'T is true Sixtus Senensis hath something about those chapters of the booke of Ester which Protestants count ` Apocryphall wherby he may be thought not to hold them for Canonicall Scripture euen after the decree of the Council of Trent But the reason was because he iudged that the decree of the Council touching Canonicall Scriptures did not comprehend those loose vncertaine peices as he calls them Beside his opinion therein was both singular and disallowed as may appeare euen by the booke it selfe where ouer against the place whence the Bishop takes his obiection there stands printed in the margent this note or censure Non est haec Sententia Sixti probanda cum repugnet sess 4. Concilij Tridentini quam ipse detorquet ne videatur ei repugnare This opinon of Sixtus sayes the note is not to be allowed seeing it is contrary to the fourth session of the Council of Trent which Sixtus wresteth that he may not seeme to be contrary to it The edition of Sixtus Senensis his booke where this Censure is found is that of Paris 1610. in folio which 't is hardly credible that the Bishop himselfe should not haue seen and if he had seen and did know it with what conscience or ingenuity towards his Reader could he make the obiection To what he sayth touching Pope Leo the tenths defining in the last Council of Lateran that the Pope is aboue a Generall Council I answer our Aduersaries know that those Catholique Authours that hold the negatiue doe likewise deny that the point was there defined as a matter of Fayth but only that by way of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall Constitution it was declar'd that the right of calling translating from one place to another and likewise dissoluing of Generall Councils did entirely and solely belong to the Bishop of Rome Successour to St. Peter those beeing the things which had been formerly contested by the Councils of Constance and Basil against the Pope likewise the sayd Authours deny that the last Council of Lateran was a full Generall Council After so many questions none of which as yet haue been sufficiently answer'd A. C. inferrs that his Aduersary had need seeke out some other infallible rule or meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or else that he hath noe reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule vpon it that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth What sayes the Relatour to this His answer is that if he cannot be confident for his soul vpon Scripture and the Primitiue Church expounding and declaring it he will be confident vpon no other But this is still to begg the question For the difficulty is how he comes infallibly to know Scripture and the exposition of the Primitiue Church or that the Primitiue Church did not erre in her exposition without certaine knowledge of which his confidence in this case cannot be well grounded He might more truly and ingenuously haue answer'd if I cannot be confdent for my soule vpon the Scripture and exposition of the Primitiue Church receiu'd and interpreted according to my own priuate sense and iudgement J will be confident vpon noe other For this in effect
aboute it as the Bishop pretends 13. Purgatory an Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good 14. In what manner of necessary beleefe 1. BVt lett vs return to A. C. who very charitably and no less truly mindes the Bishop that there is but one sauing Fayth that by his own confession it was once the Roman and by iust consequence is so still because 't is granted that men may be saued in it wishing his Lordship therfore well to consider how wee can hope to haue our soules saued without wee hold entirely this Fayth it beeing the Catholique Fayth which as St Athanasius in his Creed professeth VNLESS A MAN HOLD'S ENTIRELY HE CANNOT BE SAVED To all which the Relatour tells vs he hath aboundantly answered before referring vs to § 35. num 1. and § 38. num 10. of his Relation The question is not how aboundantly but how sufficiently his Lordship answereth and for that wee also referre our selues to the Readers judgement vpon our replie there made What he adds here that A. Cs. conclusion hath more in it then is in the premisses is manifestly vntrue to any that obserues the force of the argument which stands thus There is but ONE Sauing Fayth the Roman was once this sauing Fayth and by the Bishops confession is still a sauing Fayth ergo it is still that one sauing Fayth and by consequence is still the Catholique Fayth This inference J say is euident and vndenyable vnless wee suppose eyther more sauing Fayths then one or that the one sauing Fayth is not the Catholique both which are euidently false and contrary to our aduersaries own confessions His discourse about Additions pretended to be made by the Council of Trent vnto the Catholique Fayth imports not much For eyther the sayd Additions are such as by reason of them the present Roman Fayth ceases to be a sauing Fayth or they are not Jf the first he contradicts himselfe hauing already granted that Saluation may be had in the Roman Fayth if the second it necessarily followes that eyther the Roman Fayth is now the one sauing Fayth or that there are more sauing Fayths then one which the Bishop denyes What he also affirms of the sayd Council of Trent viz. that it hath added a new Creed to the old and extraneous things without the Foundation etc. is noe more then what the old Heretiques might as truly and no doubt did as freely obiect to those ancient Primitiue Councills and if it be iust and sufficient in defense of them to assert that the Additions they made were only perfectiue that is further and more cleere explications of the Fayth formerly beleeu'd and not corruptiue of the ancient Primitiue truth wee thinke it sufficient to make the same answer in behalfe of the present Roman Church and Council of Trent 2. Nor doe those words of St. Athanasius sett down in the begining and end of his Creed This is the Catholique Fayth signify any such thing as the Bishop pretends viz. that this and no other doctrine is Catholique Fayth this and no more then is here deliuer'd is to be beleeu'd etc. I say St. Athanasius his words admite not of this Gloss. For so wee might without any breach of the Foundation reiect in a manner the whole Scripture with a good part of the Apostles Creed and all other points of Christian doctrine beside The Relatour himselfe could not be ignorant that the non-rebaptising of Heretiques was a point of Catholique Fayth already in St. Athanasius his time defind by the Councill of Nice yet sure he finds noe mention of it in the Athanasian Creed noe more then he doth that our Sauiour was conceiued by the Holy Ghost or born of a Virgin not to speake of Remission of sinnes Baptisme Eucharist or any other Sacraments etc. none of all which beeing expressed in that Creed will Protestants thinke they may be denyed without breach of the Catholique Fayth mean't by St. Athanasius To salue the matter in some sort the Relatour here casts in a Parenthesis in these words always presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did meaning that the Apostles Creed presupposed rhon and not otherwise this of St. Athanasius is so sufficient that there needs no other nor that any thing else should be added to it But this helps him not at all For first 't is manifest enough St. Athanasius supposed many other things at the composing of his Creed beside the Creed of the Apostles viz. the whole Canon of Scripture the decrees of the Nicen Councill the vniuersall Traditions of the Church as matters appertaining to Christian Fayth all which are not only supernumerary but inconsistent with the Bishops assertion This and noe other is Catholique Fayth So that in reason it cannot possibly be thought this Father mean't to signifie that his Creed contain'd all necessary points whatsoeuer pertaining to Christian beleefe but only to express what was to be hel'd by Christians in those maine and principall articles touching the B. Trinity our Sauiours incarnation etc. which were at that time so much controuerted and withall to giue vs a certaine Rule or Forme of Catholique confession touching those points Whence also 't is euidently deduced that as 't was necessary to Saluation for Christians to beleeuo and confess according to the Catholique Fayth in the points there specifyed so a paritate rationis it is likewise necessary they should doe in all other points and doctrines whatsoeuer For doubtless if the Catholique Fayth may be contradicted in any one point without perill to a mans Saluation it may be also in an other and an other yea in all the rest A. C. goes on and endeauours a little further to vnfold the meaning of this great father of the Church obseruing that in his Creed he says without doubt euery man shall perish that holds not the Catholique Fayth ENTIRE that is in euery point of it and INVIOLATE that is in the right seuse and for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the infallible authority of the Catholique Church proposing to vs by her Pastours this Reuelation To which discourse of A.G. the Bishop so farre agrees as to acknowledge that he who hopes for Saluation must beleeue the Catholique Fayth whole and entire in euery point which I note only by the way as a matter worthy to be seriously reflected vpon by all his followers But then he obiects the word Jnuiolate is not in the Creed and falls a taxing the latin Translatour with errour for so rendring St. Athanasius's word which sayth he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ought to be rendred vndefiled But I feare the Bishop will here also be found in a mistake rather then A. C. For first Baronius shewes in the yeare of our Lord 340. that St. Athanasius did himselfe compose and publish this Creed first of all in the latin tongue namely when he presented it as the confession of his
Fayth to the Pope and a Councill of Bishops held at Rome whither he had been called vpon occasion of some things layd to his charge by Heretiques and with the acts of the sayd Councill was it registred and preseru'd till in tract of time it came to be publiquely and generally vsed in the Church Now the latin copie reads 〈◊〉 and anciently euer did so lett our Aduersaries shew any thing to the contrary and 't is euident by the Creed it selfe that it was not this Fathers intention to exhorte to good life or to teach how necessary good works were to Iustification or Saluation but only to make a plaine and full Confession of the Catholique Fayth concerning those two chiefe and grand Mysteries of Christian Religion viz. of the B. Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God 3. What the Relatour's reachis is in affirming that 't is one thing not to beleeue the Articles of Fayth in the true sense and an other to force a wrong sense vpon them intimating that this only is to violate the Creed and not the other I must confess I doe not well vnderstand For supposing I beleeue that is giue my assent to the Creed sure I must beleeue or giue my assent to it in some determinate sense or other Jf therfore I beleeue it not in the true sense I must necessarily beleeue it in a false and what is that but to offer violence or put a foreed sense vpon the Creed vnless perhaps he would haue vs thinke the Creed were so composed as to be equally or as fairly capable of a false sense as a true But this is not the first time our Aduersaries acuteness hath carryed him to inconueniences It is therfore a naturall and well-grounden inference and noe straine of A. C. to assume that Protestants haue not Catholique Fayth because they keep it not entire and inuiolate as they ought to doe and as this Father St. Athanasius teaches 'tis necessary to Saluation for all men to keep it which is also further manifest For if they did beleeue any one Article with true diuine Fayth they finding the same formall reason in all viz. diuine Reuelation sufficiently attested and applied by the same meanes to all by the infallible Authority of the Church they would as easily beleeue all as they doe that one or those few Articles which they imagine themselues to beleeue And this our Antagonist will not seeme much to gain say roundly telling A. C. that himselfe and Protestants doe not beleeue any one Article only but all the Articles of the Christian Fayth for the same formall reason in all namely because they are reuealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word and by his Churches ministration But this is only to hide a false meaning vnder false words Wee question not what Protestants may pretend to doe especially concerning those few points which they are pleas'd to account Articles of Christian Fayth to witt Fundamentalls only but what they really doe Now that really they doe not beleeue eyther all the Articles of Christian Fayth or euen those Fundamentall points in any sincere sense for Gods Reuelation as sufficiently applied by the ministration of the Church is manifest from their professing that the Church is fallible and subiect to errour in all points not-Fundamentall and euen in the deliuery of Scripture from whence they pretend to deduce theyr sayd Fundamentalls consequently they can in no true sense beleeue any thing as Catholiques doe for the same formall reason sufficiently applyed To beleeue all in this sort as A. C. requires and as all Catholiques doe were in effect to renounce their Heresie and to admitt as matter of Christian Fayth whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in the name and by the Authority of Christ doth testifie to be such and require them to receiue and beleeue for such which the world sees how vnwilling they are to doe 4. The like arte he vseth in his answer to A. Cs. obiection pag. 70. viz. that Protestants as all Heretiques doe MAKE CHOICE of what they will and what they will not beleeue without relying vpon the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church He answers first that Protestants make no choice because they beleeue all viz. all Articles of Christian Fayth But this is both false and equiuocall False because as was iust now shew'd they beleeue none with true Christian Fayth as Catholiques ought or for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation rightly applied but only for and by their owne election Equiuocall because 't is certaine he meanes by Articles of Fayth only Fundamentall points in Protestant sense whereas 't is the duty of Catholiques and the thing by which they are most properly distinguish't from Heretiques to beleeue all Articles or points of Christian doctrine whatsoeuer deliuer'd to them by the Authority of the Church in the quality of such truths as she deliuers them Secondly he sayes Protestants with himselfe doe rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and the Whole Catholique Church True soe farre as they please they doe but not so farre as they ought not entirely as A. C. requires And what is this but to make choice as all Heretiques doe Againe why speakes he not plainly If the Bishop mean't really and effectually to cleere himselfe of A. Cs. charge of doing in this case as all other Heretiques doe why does he not say as euery Catholique must and would haue done wee rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and of the Catholique Church therby acknowledging the Authority of the Catholique Church to be an infallible meanes of applyinge Gods word or diuine Reuelation to vs. Whereas to ascribe infallibility only to the word of God and not to the Catholique Church what is it in effect but to doe as all Heretiques doe and tacitly to acknowledge that really and in truth he cannot cleere himselfe of the imputation Lett our aduersaries know it is not the bare relying vpon the whole Catholique Church which may be done in some sort though she be beleeu'd to haue noe more then a meere humane morall and fallible Authority in proposing matters of Fayth but it is the relying vpon the Churches infallible Authority or vpon the Church as an infallible meanes of applying diuine Reuelation which can only make them infallibly sure both of Scripture and its true sense A C. therefore had noe reason to be satisfyed with the Bishops answer but had iust cause to tell him that though Protestants in some things beleeue the same verities which Catholiques doe yet they cannot be sayd to haue the same infallible Fayth which Catholiques haue But the Bishop here takes hold of some words of A. C. which he pretends to be a confession that Protestants are good Catholiques bidding vs marke A.Cs. phrase which was that Protestants in some Articles beleeue the same truth which other good Catholiques doe The Relatour's reason is because the word other cannot be
also does the same with St. Chrysostome yea once againe wee challenge our Aduersaries to nominate if they can any one ancient Father or Christian writer that euer noted this an errour or priuate doctrine in Origen that he taught Purgatory or that in any sort intimates him to haue been the Authour or inuentour of it and yet the world knowes Origens errours and priuate opinions were diligently noted by Antiquity But this 't is sure enough our Aduersaries can neuer doe and therfore lett noe man thinke it vnreasonable in vs that wee still confidently presume and assert that this doctrine hath no beginning assignable and consequently according to St. Austins rule aboue mention'd is to be thought an Apostolicall Tradition 14. Jt is therfore firmly to be beleeu'd by all Catholiques that there is a Purgatory yea wee are as much bound to beleeue it as wee are bound to beleeue for instance the Trinity of Incarnation it selfe if by this manner of speaking be mean't only that wee can noe more lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine beeing once know'n by the Churches definition to be reueald by God and pertaining to the Catholique Fayth then wee may deny or question the sayd Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation though wee confess there is not the same necessity or obligation for all men to know the one as the other or to haue explicite beleefe of one as of the other Nor can J doubt but the Bishop himselfe would haue confess'd in the sense aboue mentioned that wee are as much bound not to disbeleeue any thing euen of least moment contain'd in Scripture when wee know it to be there contained as to beleeue the sayd Articles and as this is farre from beeing esteem'd blasphemy by any good Christians so is the other if rightly vnderstood CHAP. 26. The infallible certainty of Christian Fayth confessed yet subuerted by the Bishop ARGVMENT 1. Why noe matter of doctrine defind by Generall Councils may be deliberately deny'd or doubted of 2. A. C. doth not teach that euery Catholique Priest in the Roman Church able to preach is infallible 3. Jnfallibility in teaching how rightly inferr'd by him from the Holy Ghosts Assistance 4. To what intent our Janiour left the Prerogatiue of infallibility in his Church 5. No certain meanes in our Aduersaries principles to be assur'd that a Generall Councill erring in one point does not erre in all 6. The Relatour by allowing priuate persons to examin the definitions of Generall Councils allowes them in effect to iudge and censure them 7. Posteriour Councils no less necessary for the infallible determination of controuerted points of Fayth then the fowre first 8. Infallible assurance requisite in superstructures as well as points Fundamentall 9. The insufficiency of the Relatours reason to the contrary 10. No help for him from St. Thomas and our Authours touching the extent of necessary points 11. His nugatory descanting vpon words 1. THus much for Purgatorie 'T is time now that wee return againe to A. C. who giues his Aduersarie a why no man may deliberately doubt of much less deny any thing defin'd by a Generall Councill viz. because euery such doubt is a breach from the one sauing Fayth in that it takes away infallible creditt from the Church so as the diuine reuelation beeing not sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence breed infallible Fayth in vs. Jn answer whereto the Bishop insists wholy vpon principles already confuted viz. that deliberately to doubt and deny what is defined by Generall Councils doth not take away infallible creditt from the whole Church the contrary whereof wee haue often shew'n in this Treatise Likewise he tells vs the creditt of the Catholique Church is safe so long as she is held infallible in things absolutely necessary to Saluation which absolutely necessary things neither himselfe nor any body else could euer yet resolue vs what they are or how to know them And beside seeing he teaches that all points absolutely necessary to Saluation are plainly sett down in the Creed and Scripture how is it possible wee should haue need of the infallible Authority of the Church now or hereafter to beleeue any such points of Fayth Againe if the whole Church may erre in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation noe reason can be giuen but it may also erre in deliuering and interpreting any particular texts of Scripture which containe matter or doctrine not absolutely necessary which supposed it necessarily followes that wee cannot beleeue with certaine infallible and diuine Fayth any thing deuer'd in Scripture it selfe saue only a very few points to witt the chiefe and Fundamentall Mysteries of our beleefe Lastly seeing the whole Church consists of all particular members which can neuer be found out and consulted with by any person and that consequently there can be no sufficient assurance had of what they all hold as absolutely necessary to Saluation how is it possible wee should be mou'd by their Authority as the Bishop here supposeth to beleeue all or any points of Fayth absolutely necessary to Saluation 2. The Relatours next worke is to carp at the gloss which A. C. giues to those words of St. Paul Rom. 10. 15. how shall they preach etc. that is sayth A. C. how shall they preach infallibly By which manner of speaking yet he does not meane whateuer the Bishop imputes to him to make euery Priest in the Church of Rome that hath learning enough to preach an infallible Preacher He was not ignorant that the natiue and immediate sense of those words compar'd and ioyn'd with the fore-going how shall men beleeue vnless they heare etc. is only to signifie that for the Propagation of the Gospell 't is necessary there should be Preachers and that noe man ought to take that office vpon him vnless he be sent that is ordain'd and called by Allmighty God He was not so simple as to thinke euery priuate Preacher infallible You will say then why does he comment vpon the words how shall they preach etc thus how shall they preach INFALLIBLY vnless they be sent from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit J answer the reason hereof was because the word preach which the Apostle vseth doth not signifie sermons only but absolutely the announcing or publication of diuine doctrine by all such as are lawfully appointed to publish it and in what manner soeuer it is necessary for beleeuers that it be publish't and announced to them Now there beeing confessedly a twofold annunciation or manner of publishing diuine doctrine to Christians the one priuate and meerly ministeriall which is perform'd by priuate and particular Pastours to their particular and respectiue flocks the other publique and authoritatiue viz. of the Pastours of the whole Church assembled together in Generall Councils and this latter in regard of the publique and vniuersall benefitt which comes by it the more important of the
if neither Generall Councils nor any man in the world be of infallible creditt who sees it not to follow there can be noe infallible creditt amonge men noe not in the whole Church euen in points Fundamentall For seeing noe testimony can be of infallible creditt except it be know'n and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know eyther who those are that make vp the whole Church in the Bishops sense or that they doe all of them beleeue and testifie such a point of doctrine to be Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to saluation how is it possible for the whole Church in that sense to be of infallible creditt or to giue infallible certainty to any points whatsoeuer whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation To his Aduersaries demand why a Generall Councill if it may erre in defining one diuine truth may not erre in defining an other and so in all the Relatour answers by way of Confession that it may erre euen in all to witt of like nature vsing this limited manner of speech in all of like nature on purpose to auoyd inconueniencies and that he might vpon occasion take the aduantage of his wonted distinction between Fundamentall points For so presently as it were by way of anticipation he tells the Reader that of things not absolutely necessary to Sabuation or not-Fundamentall there can be noe necessity of infallible certaintie in the whole Church much less in a Generall Councill and consequently quently 't is noe matter with him though a Generall Councill be suppos'd lyable to errour in all such points as well as in any one But it sufficeth that wee haue already shew'n the contrary both for Church and Councill namely that in many cases it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to haue infallible certaintle of points in their owne nature not absolutely necessary to saluation or which is all one to haue such points when brought into controuersie amongst Christians infallibly defined by a Generall Councill so as wee need not trouble the Reader here with repetitions Nor could it serue his turn or iustify his assertion from beeing in the highest degree iniurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of Generall Councills though it were otherwise that is though wee had not already prou'd a necessity of infalliblydefining by Generall Councills all controuerted points of Religion whatsoeuer whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation For 't is certaine enough the Relatour holds that Generall Councills may possibly erre euen in points that are absolutely necessary to Saluation or Fundamentall as wee haue heretofore obseru'd though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine But this suppos'd lett his adherents tell vs what does his maxime if in one possibly in all proclaime but that a Generall Councill may not only fall into errour in defining some one or other point of Christian Fayth but euen totally Apostatize and define against Christianity it selfe A proposition sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety and which may iustly serue for a second instance of our Aduersaries sincerity when they profess fo much esteem and reuerence towards Generall Councills 4. Wee doe not say that Christ our Sauiour left infallibility in his Church to satisfie eyther contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits as the Bishop would seeme to impose vpon vs for 't is euident enough by the experience the world hath of the seuerall sects and Heresies of Protestants that such kinde of people will be satisfy'd with nothing but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous phansies Nor will wee Catholiques euer desert the confession and defence of it because such people will not be satisfy'd But wee tell them Christ left that legacy to his Church for these ends viz. to guide the humble and sober-minded securely and certainly in the right way of Saluation he left it also to curbe the contentious to restraine the curious and to giue sufficient checke to such presumptuous spirits as should dare in matters of such high and difficult nature as the truths and Mysteries of Religion are to be wise in their own eyes and to preferre their priuate phansies before the publique and generall iudgement of the Church and their own lawfull Ecclesiasticall superious none of all which ends could be effectually attain'd or duly prouided for without the sayd infallibility which therfore for the Relatour or any other out of priuate opinion to goe aboute to take away from the Church is without doubt both intolerable presumption and errour especially doing it vpon no better grounds and pretense of reason then he layes down here viz. because the Foundation that is in his sense all Fundamentall and absolutely-necessary doctrine is so strongly and plainly layd down in Scripture and the Creed Stongly and plainly layd down does he say Surely the Bishop when he wrote this thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretiques who deny such points of Fayth as he himselfe grants to be Fundamentall To say those points are so strongly or plainly deliuer'd in Scripture c. as not to require some other infallible authority beside Scripture to support and make good our beleefe of them must needs argue a very strong preiudice to any man that duly considers how those controuersies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them and how equally those Heretiques bandy texts with their Aduersaries both wayes that is to say as well vpon the offensiue as defensiue part as well by opposing the truth with the pretense and allegation of many Scripture-texts as by answering and euading what euer is by their Aduersaries argued out of Scripture for it or against them So as indeed a modest man to borrow a little of his Lordships own style may iustly wonder whither the Bishop would haue vs to runne for infallible certainty in those points if not to Generall Councill which yet he will by noe meanes allow vs to doe 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop hath more questions to aske His next is how wee can according to ordinary course be infallibly assur'd that a Council erres in one and not in an other point when she equally defines both by one and the same authority to be diuine truths This may be thought a shrewd question too and the Relatour does a little discouer himselfe nettled by it in telling vs that A. C. turns Questionist here to disturb the business viz. which his Lordship had with Mr. Fisher and indeed the Church as much as he can Howeuer he answers the question by distinction thus If a Generall Councill erres sayes he eyther it erres in things absolutely necessary to Saluation or in things not necessary If in the first sort wee may be infallibly assur'd by the Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generalls Councills and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in an other point Jf in the latter sort 't is not
of Christ of Scripture and the whole Church in the falsely-defined Article that there is in the true and that the Scripture doth not equally giue eyther ground or power to define truth and errour what is it but to trifle tediously For wee neither say nor suppose any such thing So as the Bishop by his discourse here meerly labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius it beeing a thing wholy vnknow'n to vs yea impossible for vs to know infallibly and certainly when the Councill defines matters equally by and according to the Authorities of Scripture or the whole Church but by the Councils own Acte that is by her definition so express't and fram'd as there can be noe iust cause to doubt but that she defin'd or presum d herselfe to define both the one and the other point conformably to Scripture and the sense of the whole Church See now what great reason the Relatour had to obiect cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business Our Aduersarie here againe runnes from the marke A. C. in giuing the reason of his former demand speaks of examining only and not of iudging as his words shew If wee leaue this sayth he meaning the erring and not-erring of a Generall Councill in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly to be EXAMINE'D by euery priuate man the examination not beeing infallible will need to be examined by an other and that by an other Without end or euer coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers that he hath 〈◊〉 vs the way how an erring Councill may be rectifyed and the peace of the Church eyther preseru'd or restor'd etc. viz. § 32. num 5. § 33. consid 7. num 4. of his Relation and wee haue likewise shew'n all his pretended wayes to be deuicus and not to lead to the end he aymes at But does he there or any where else shew how wee may be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one point does not also erre in the other in the case aboue mention'd which is the only thing his Aduersary here vrges him withall does he shew that A. Cs. obiected process in infinitum can be auoyded by any priuate and fallible examination of the Councils decrees or does he prescribe any other meanes of examining them but what is in his own opinion fallible at least though perhaps not priuate First he assignes Scripture for a way to examin a Councils definition but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture beares that sense in which he vnderstands it and not that in which the Councill vnderstands it Secondly he assignes the fowre first Generall Councils but how can he be sure that their Authority in defining is such as euery one ought to obey and not that of after-Councils Thirdly he assignes the Creeds as containing all things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth but does he meane all of them all the three Apostolicall Nicen Athanasian By his words it seemes he doth for he makes noe difference betwixt them and in reason 't is necessary he should seeing 't is euident the Apostles Creed alone will not ferue the turn it making no express mention of the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost nor of the Mystery of the Trinity Jncarnation etc. which yet wee confidently presume are all of them Fundamentall points in the Bishops Creed But then wee aske how come these latter Creeds the Nicen and Athanasian to be infallible seeing their Authours in the composing of them were fallible and subiect to errour in the Relatours opinion How can they be a ground of infallible certaintie to me if possibly in themselues they man be false which though it cannot be sayd or suspected of the Apostles nor by consequence of their Creed as it was compos'd and publish't by them yet wee make a Querie what infallible Authority assur'd the Bishop or assur's vs now that the Creed which wee haue at present and commonly call the Apostles Creed is really the same which the Apostles first composed or that wee haue it entire and vnchanged Tradition or the Church by the Relatours grounds must not be pretended here seeing they are both of them fallible with him and may deceiue vs. It followes then euen from his own principles that he neither hath nor can haue infallible certainty for his beleeuing the Creeds and as for the fowre first Generall Councils the Relatour must needs haue less pretense of reason to alledge them for a ground of infallible certainty in beleeuing seeing in all his booke he neuer acknowledges nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge Councills to be infallible euen in Fundamentalls Where is then his infallible certaintie for that one Fayth necessary to Saluation 6. How farre the Relatour speakes truth when he sayes be giues noe way to any priuate man to be iudge of a Generall Councill lett any man iudge that considers his doctrine Liberty to examine euen the definitions of Generall Councils if they see iust cause he does expressly grant to priuate persons yea and some kinde of iudgement too he allowes them viz. that of discretion though not the other of power as he distinguishes But is there not a inake lurking in the grass here may wee not feare fome poyson vnder the gilded pill of his Lordships distinction This iudgement of discretion as he calls it especially if common experience and practice may expound it what does it signifie less then a power assum'd by euery priuate person not only to examin the validity of such reasons and grounds as confirme the defined article but constantly to deny both it and them if his priuate spirit or discretion tells him that he hath better reasons for the contrary or that the Councils definition is an errour Has not this always been the way and methode of Heretiques To what end doe they at any time put themselues vpon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of Generall Councills was it euer for any other reason but to see whether they could finde a flaw in them which when they persuaded themselues to haue once spy'd did they not presently in their own vayne hearts fall to despise the Councill which they suppos'd to erre as ignorant and ouerseen in their proper business did they not vsually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience in lieu of necessary obedience and submission Did they not forthwith imagin themselues inlightened persons and soone after that oblig'd in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people and vnder a pretense of informing weaker brethren draw them to the like discret examining of the Churches defin'd and generally receiu'd doctrine with themselues Js not this the know'n course of the humour Is not this Satans methode by degrees to vsher in publique and generall defections from the Authority both of Generall Councills and all the Lawfull Pastours and Gouernours of the Church See in effect the whole benefitt of the Bishops goodly deuise
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
and contrary opinions in Religion that I see nothing in the world more likely to animate and encourage them still to persist in their obstinate refractariness and to cast off euen all sense of due obedience and reuerence of the Churches authority 7. But the Bishop beeing so well content as he tells vs with men's opinion of his weakeness it will be no hard worke for his friends to excuse his ouer-confidence in this particular when they please vpon that ground only of pride he is not willing to be taxed For which reason A. C. hauing told him as most iustly he might that he could not proue any errour or superstition to be in the Roman Religion but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himselfe or some of his fellowes to be iudge of controuersies and taking authority to censure all for superstition and errour that suites not with their fancies he complaines as beeing in this deeply censur'd by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appeare I answer his own confession sufficiently shewes that in the very next lines where he sayes indeed if I tooke this vpon mee J were guilty of great pride This that is to make himselfe or some of 〈◊〉 fellowes iudge of controuersies or to endeauour to proue errour and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority vpon him he confesses were great pride Well But how does he cleere himselfe of the charge How does he conuince the Roman Church of errour and superstition otherwise then by taking this authority him and making himselfe or some of his fellows Iudge of Controuersies To say only as he does I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councill iudge of conerouersies by and according to Scripture will not serue his turn by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the generall practice of Protestants hitherto none but himselfe and some of his fellowes shall be iudge whether the Councill be lawfull and free or not For if eyther it consists of such as fauour not their opinions or will not obserue such conditions as he and his fellows thinke good to prescribe though neuer so contrary to the Canons and legall proceedings of former Councils wee are sure enough it will neuer be acknowledg'd for free or lawfull by our Aduersaries Againe standing to the Bishops principles and the common practice of his partie expounding them who but himselfe and his fellowes shall be iudge whether a lawfull and free Generall Councill hath defined or doth define by and according to Scripture Doth not the Relatour himselfe expressly teach § 38. num 15. that if a Generall Councill shall forget it selfe and take vpon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and actually beleeu'd by all neither it nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians euery priuate Christian he sayes num 23. may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils Likewise doth he not tell vs Ibidem num 24. that it is no pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours defin'd by Councils instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran Constance and Trent as hauing made erroneous definitions in matter of Fayth what is this in effect but to teach that noe man is bound to admitt the doctrine defined by Generall Councills meerly for the Authority of the sayd Councills and if not who sees it not manifestly to fallow that cuery priuate Christian that is in other terms himselfe or some of his followes is by our Aduersarie made iudge of Controuersies and allowed to take the Authority vpon them of censuring all for superstition and errour that suites not with their priuate iudgement which is the thing his Lordship but euen now confessed to be great pride But the Relatour will proue from the testimony of A C. himselfe that he is not guilty of pride in this particular viz. of making himselfe Judge of Controuersies etc. For why A C. taxes him for giuing too much power to Generall Councils and binding men to a strict Obedience to them euen in case of errour Therfore sure sayth he most innocent I am of the intolerable pride which he is pleas'd to charge vpon mee J aske is this testimony of A C. true or not If it be not true how can he from a false testimony inferre his own innocency If it be true viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine doth really binde men to a strict obedience to the definitions of Generall Councills euen in case of errour how grossly doth he contradict himselfe when he sayes ' tir noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours euen of Generall Councills and teaches that a priuate man vpon iust grounds may both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils This surely is in effect to deny both internall and externall obedience too to Generall Councils For if wee may deliberately doubt where is internall obedience If wee may constantly denie where is the externall Doth he not also teach Ibidem num 23. that a priuate Christian may not only consider and examin the definitions of Generall Councils both for his own and the Churches satisfaction but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine in such manner as the whole Church shall be oblig'd to call an other Generall Councill to consider of the matter etc How can this be done without expressing dislike or shewing some externall disobedience to the precedent Councill lett our Aduersarie if they please shew how But wee haue already chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subiect To as little purpose is it for him to plead that be submitts his iudgement in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church But that this is a false pretense wee haue all along in this treatise demonstrated but more particularly chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds saying that he submitts vpon new and necessary doubts to the iudgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councill Fairly spoken Vpon new and necessary doubts he will submitt not otherwise But wee must know in the Bishops sense and according to the principles already aduanc'd and resolutely insisted vpon by him noe doubts are necessary but such as concern matters Fundamentall in Fayth that is as he perpetually explaines himselfe absolutely necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all Christians for Saluation So that in all other points of doctrine eyther determin'd and defin'd already or hereafter to be determin'd and defin'd by the Church he does vpon the matter openly profess that he will not submitt to the iudgement of a Generall Councill but follow his own priuate opinion though contrary to it Now what is this but to take vpon him to be iudge of controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills and to censure for superstition and errour what suites not with his priuate fancie 8. But our Aduersarie would haue A.C. consider how iustly all
this may be turned vpon himselfe viz. that be hath nothing to pretend THERE ARE NOT GROSS ERROVRS AND SVPERSTITIONS in the Roman persuasion as he calls it vnless by intolerable pride he make himselfe and his partie iudge of Controuersies But who sees not this is a most palpable vntruth All the world knows that A. C. and all his party submitt with most absolute humility of judgement to the desinitions of Generall Councills and so haue euer done A. C. makes not himselfe iudge of controuersies betwixt him and his Aduersaries but a lawfull Generall Councill yea all the lawfull Generall Councills that euer the Church had or esteem'd such To them he appeales to them he stands lett Protestants doe as much and the controuersies would not be hard to be ended So vtterly false it is what the Bishop affirms here that We will he iudg'd by none but the ` Pope and a Councill of his ordering Doe the Relatours Adherents thinke there was euer a Generall Councill in the Church well ordered lett them name it wee stand to its sentence Neither doe wee require that any Councill should be of the Popes ordering further then the Canons of the Church doe allow him and his Predecessours haue in effect done in all Generall Councills euen the fowre first True it is A. C. and all Catholiques with him acknowledge noe Councill to be a lawfull ludge of controuersies vnless it be approu'd and confirm'd by the Pope but in this there is noe pride For the right of confirming the decrees of Generall Councills wherein controuersies of Fayth are judged hath euer belong'd to St. Peters Successor as wee haue already shew'n and St. Austin Epist 62 with the whole Councill of Mileuis professes it to be grounded on Scripture yea the Canons of the vniuersall Church doe expressly allow it him witness euen Socrates himselfe noe very great friend of the Roman Church Sozomen with others and in the Generall Councill of Chalcedon Action 1. Dioscorus no meaner person then the Patriarch of Alexandria is for this very reason deny'd the priuiledge of sitting in Councill because he had presum'd to hold a Generall Councill to witt the predatory or pretended second Councill of Ephesus without the Popes Authority a thing which as the Fathers there acknowledge was neuer lawfull to doe nor euer done before NVNQVAM LICVIT NEC VNQVAM FACTVM EST. Why therfore shall A. C. be tax'd of pride if he beleeues the doctrine of the Roman Church to be true vpon the Authority of Generall Councills confirm'd by the Pope who sees not a great deale of difference betwixt him and his Aduersary in this regard A. C. in his vnderstanding of Scripture followes the exposition of Generall Councills the Bishop relyes vpon no interpretation but this own teaching that Generall Councills may erre in their exposition of Scripture euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation A. C. acknowledges he can be infallibly certaine of nothing in matter of Fayth by the bare letter of Scripture and the light of his own vnderstanding only the Bishop is confident that by the letter of Scripture only and his owne iudgement he can be infallibly assur'd of all necessary points of Fayth A. C. is ready to submitt his iudgement to a Generall Councill in any point of doctrine whatsoeuer seeming reasons or grounds he may priuately haue to the contrary the Bishop allowes a man vpon probable grounds to doubt and vpon cleerer grounds to deny and oppose the definitions of such a Councill A.C. thinks it an vngodly presumption to taxe Generall Councills of errour and superstition the Bishop makes noc scruple to censure diuerse of them for damnable errours A. C. holds it altogether vnlawfull for any Christian to dissent from the Catholique Church in any point of defined doctrine whatsoeuer great or small the Bishop maintaines that the whole Catholique Church may erre both grossly and dangerously in all points not Fundamentall and that all priuate Christians who vnderstand or perceiue such errours to be in the Church may dissent yea if need be that is if the Church will not reforme the sayd errours vpon their admonition separate from her as Luther and his followers did when they first began their reformation Lett any indifferent person then be iudge whether that which A.C. charges vpon the Bishop concerning pride and taking vpon him to be iudge of Controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills may be as iustly turned vpon himselfe as the Relatour here pretends His next Paragraph only tells vs what was the conclusion of his first-publish't Relation of the conference with Mr. Fisher wherein he falls againe to his wonted custome of charging his Aduersary indirectly at least with what he does not own A. C. doth not maintaine the Pope to be infallible in all controuersies of Fayth otherwise then in and with a Generall Councill witness his own words in the end of his answer I wish sayth he the Chaplain and his lord and euery other man carefully to consider whether it be not more Christian etc. to thinke that the Pope beeing St. Peters Successour WITH A GENERALL COVNCILL should be iudge of Controuersies and his Pastorall iudgement viz. in and with such a Councill be accounted infallible then to make euery man that can read Scripture an interpreter of Scriptures and decider of Controuersies euen to the controuling of Generall Councills or to haue noe iudge in controuersies of Fayth at all This is the summe of all that A. C. teaches touching the Popes infallibility and if the Bishop could really thinke this to be such a brayne-sicke deuice as he talks of I doubt it will be thought by some that his own head was not alwayes in good temper 9. A. C. to shew that in matters of Fayth wee ought to submitt our iudgements to such doctours and Pastours as by a continuall visible succession haue without interruption or change brought the Fayth down from Christ and his Apostles to these our dayes and shall by vertue of Christs promise in the like continued succession so carry it downe to all future generations till the end of the world makes vse of that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. etc. where 't is sayd that Christ ascending gaue some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastours and teachers for the perfecting of the Saynts for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till wee all come in the vnity of the Fayth and of the knowledge of the sonne of God vnto a perfect man etc. 'T is true some from this place gather the Popes infallibility too as well as the necessary succession of lawfull Pastours because it is intimated there shall be noe more wanting in the sacred Hierarchy of the Church the office of of an Apostle then the office of a Pastour or teacher till the end of the world Now to the office of an Apostle two things are necessary viz.
as for that expression of Scotus Declaravit the Church hath declared c. out of which the Bishop would infer that Scotus makes for his party Because every thing which belongs to the exposition or Declaration of another INTUS EST is not another contrary thing but is contained within the Bewels or Nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erroneous because in stead of Dealaring it it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Council either that which she declares was INTV'S or EXTRA viz. In the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were EXTRA without the nature of the Thing Declared then the Declaration of the Thing is false and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith If it were INTVS within the compass and nature of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is Declared For that which is INTVS cannot be larger and deeper then that in which it is If it were it could not be INTVS Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church Declares Thus far his Lordship I answer therefore to this Argument That his expression is learnedly solid and good and that the Declaration of the Church gives not the thing Declared this extrà viz. that is altered from intùs or its internal being which it had before it was declared Wherefore in this sense Those which were not intùs of themselves prime Articles of our Faith before the Declaration change not their nature nor do they become prime Articles by their Declaration and in this manner even afterwards they have no extraneous mutation to become Fundamental But this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute that is such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration as not being so clearly proposed to us as that we were bound to believe them Neither does this take away any thing from their intùs or that being which they had of themselves but onely gives a certainty of their being so and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos as well as quoad se and internally And it is no evasion but a solid distinction That the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self but quoad nos in its respect to us For though he sayes true in this sense that no respect to us can vary the Foundation quoad rem attestatam that is make those to be prime Articles which are not such in themselves yet it can binde us not onely to peace and external obedience as he would have it but also oblige us not so much as internally to doubt or deny any Articles after they are declared by the Church to be of Faith which is to be Fundamental in the sense we now Dispute that is necessary to Salvation to be believed Neither can the Bishop inferre that if the Church can make any thing to be in this sense Fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take away something from the Foundation and make it to be declared not to be Fundamental This I say he cannot inferre because to do this were to define a Thing not to be of Faith which was before defined to be of Faith which were to make the Church subject to errour For as the Church cannot Define any thing to be of Faith which she had Defined before not to be of Faith so can she not Define any thing not to be of Faith which she had defined before to be of Faith But yet she can define something to be of Faith which she had not Defined before to be so because she never before had defined any thing about it For in this Third case which is ours there is no contradicting of her self as in the Two former Wherefore Vincentius Lirinensis sayes very well as the Relator cites him pag. 32. The power of adding any thing contrary or detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden Now to all this discourse A. C. said nothing because perchance it was not in that Disputation urged against him But I having found it in his Lordships Book have said something and that which I hope will abundantly satisfie any judicious Reader It remains now that we return to Mr. Fisher who as his Lordship sayes endeavoured to prove the Doctrine we have delivered out of St. Augustin who speaks thus Fundata res est In aliis questionibus non diligentèr digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis ferendus est Disputator errans ibi ferendus error non tamen progredi debet ut etiam Fundamentum ipsum Eclesiae quatere moliatur In english thus This is a thing founded An erring Disputant is to be born with in other questions not diligently digested nor yet made firm by full Authority of the Church There errour is to be born with But it ought not to proceed so far that it should labour to shake the very Foundation of the Church By these words of St. Augustin it appears that though a man may be admitted to dispute freely in other things yet he is not to be born with when he goes so far as to question Doctrine digested and confirmed by the full Authority of the Church for this is to shake the foundation Now all things that are defined by the Church are both digested and confirmed by the Churches full Authority Therefore to dispute against such points is to shake the very foundation of the Church and by consequence all such things are Fundamental according to St. Augustin Let us now consider what his Lordship brings to weaken this Argument First he sayes this Doctor St. Augustine speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not of a Definition of the Church But here the Relatour commits the same offence against St. Augustin for which he blamed Mr. Fisher that is he wrongs both the Saint and the Place For I appeal to any indifferent judge whether St. Augustin speaks any thing here of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture and not rather against those who impugne the Doctrine of the Church whether it be expresly in Scripture or not His words are these in the same Sermon Detrahunt nobis ferimus Canoni Detrahunt veritati non detrahant Ecclesiae Sanctae pro remissione peccati originalis parvulorum quotidiè labor anti non contradicant They detract from us sayes he we suffer it They detract from the Canon too let them not detract from the Truth Let them not contradict Holy Church daily labouring for the remission of the original sinne of little Children Where you see that he will endure any thing spoken against his Person or Authority but