Prime and Fundamental Points But in what Author learn't he that Dogma fignifies only Maximes were it in the plural number Dogma according to our common English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received opinion whether in prime or less principal matters But as the Grammatical so the Ecclesiastical signification of this word extends it self to all things establisht in the Church as matters of Faith whether in Fundamentals or Superstructures Thus Scotus calls Transubstantiation Dogma Fidei and I would gladly know one Authour who ever took the word Dogma for onely Fundamental points And as for Vincentius Lirinensis first he declares in other places that he means by it such Things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction cap. 23. Vocum inquit id est DOGMATUM rerum sententiarum novitates And cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet DOGMATE eodem sensu eademque sententia The like he hath cap. 24. where he affirms that the Pelagians erred in dogmate Fidei who notwithstanding erred not in a Prime Maxime but in a Superstructure And for this place cited by the Bishop 't is evident that by Catholicum dogma he must understand the whole Complex of all the points of Catholique Faith whether Fundamental in their matter or not whereof if an Heretick deny any one part whatsoever sayes this Authour he may by the same rule deny all the rest Nay 't is evident that Lirinensis could not understand onely such points as are Fundamental in respect of their matter For seeing this Catholicum dogma contains the whole Systeme of the Catholique Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures even according to Protestants it must necessarily contain both and Vincentius makes it clear in the instances he gives that he also understood points not Fundamental in the Protestant sense For in the Systeme of Catholique points which he there enumerates is contain'd the observation of Easter decreed by Pope Victor and afterwards defined in the Council of Nice and the not-Rebaptizing of those who had been Baptiz'd by Heretiques maintained by Pope Stephen against St. Cyprian and Firmilian and likewise afterwards confirmed in the same Council Now what I say of Catholicum Dogma in the first sentence cited out of Lirinensis I say the same of Depositorum Dogmatum custos in the second For what rational man can imagine that no other Christian verities or revealed Doctrines were deposited by our Saviour and the Holy Ghost with the Apostles and by them with the Church save onely the Articles of the Creed wherein are expresly contained all points of Faith that are Fundamental in respect of their matter as the Bishop presently affirms was not the whole Canon of Holy Scripture with every chapter verse and sentence contained in it the matter and form of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church the Baptisme of Infants the not-Rebaptizing of Heretiques the perpetual Virginity of the ever Blessed Mother of God and many other such like points Deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles whereof no one is expresly contain'd in the Creed nor esteemed Fundamental by Protestants Did not think you the Church perform the Office of a faithful Keeper of all these as well as of the Articles of our Creed and were not those who pertinaciously erred in these particulars esteemed throughout all Christendome as Heretiques above 1200. years ago Here then in his wresting and winding Catholico Dogmate he gives us no less then a Turn and half in his Canterburian Labyrinth The Church then ever did and ever will so keep those sacred Depositums be they or be they not Prime and Fundamental in their matter as that hoc idem quod antea what she receives she delivers to all succeeding ages the very same in Substance it ever was only unfolding what was before wrapp'd up when any thing comes to be call'd in question by Novellists whom she judges to impugne either directly or indirectly and covertly the Faith that Catholicum Dogma which she hath received Upon which occasions she sometimes declares certain Truths as necessary to be expresly believ'd by all to whom that Declaration is sufficiently propounded and commands certain errours to be expresly rejected both which were before believ'd or rejected onely implicitely to wit by the Belief of those Known and Receiv'd Divine Truths in which these other were contain'd tanquam in radice or in semine as Vincentius speaks For the Church is so tenderly careful of every Iota and Tittle of these Sacred Doctrines in whatever matter they consist great or small which were delivered to her by the Divine Authority of Christ and his Apostles that she uses all possible industries not onely to keep unblemished what was clearly and plainly expressed in the Doctrine delivered to her but whatever else she findes necessary for conserving them in their Primitive integrity and purity Thus hath she us'd all possible diligence to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire not onely in the prime Articles of Faith but in every the least truth delivered in them Thus from what she had received concerning Christs being both God and Man yet but one Christ she declared against Nestorius that he had but one person against Eutyches that he consisted of two distinct Natures the Divine and the Humane and against the Monothelites that he had Two Wills all which particulars though they were not so fully express'd and reflected on before those Heresies arose yet were they virtually and implicitely included in the Doctrine first received and afterwards became necessary to be expresly believed by the Declaration of General Councils I take no notice of the Relatours Translating Disputator errans 〈◊〉 Disputer and Dogmata Deposita the principles of Faith Such errata as these as they may seem perhaps too minute so are they too frequent to be reflected on But when he would have either the Church her self or some appointed by her to examine her Decrees to wit in matters of Faith for of those onely is the controversie lest for want of it she be chang'd in Lupanar errorum a thing so foul he dares not English it though I wonder not much that 't is said by him yet can I not but wonder that he ventures to father it on Lirinensis citing a lame sentence of his in the Margin for proof of it whereas this Authour in that very place is so far from entertaining the least thought or letting fall the least word importing that the Church should adde Novitia veteribus Novelties to Ancient truths and consequently alter and corrupt her own Doctrine that as if he had foreseen such a perversion of his meaning at the end of the chapter cited he seems purposely to explicate his own meaning and to point out the persons guilty of such practices in these words Sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus Divina pietas sisque hoc potius
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
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
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
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
Scriptures morally speaking more obnoxious to alteration then Universall Tradition 3. He mistakes his Adversaries words contradicts his Brethren and himself falsifies A. C. and most unhandsomely traduces the whole Order of the Jesuits 4. Texts of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility maintained 5. Why each Apostle Infallible and not each Bishop 6. Christs promises to his Apostles when to be extended to their Successours 7. Not the Apostles onely but their Successours also settled in all Truths 8. The Scripture the Church and her Motives of Credibility not unfitly compar'd to a Kings Word his Embassadours and his Credentials 9. Vincentius Lirinensis and Henricus a Gandavo misconstrued and the Fathers misalledged 1. THe Bishop num 26. of this Paragraph to withdraw his Reader from the Thesis or main matter in question viz. the Church descends very dextrously indeed but yet without any necessity to the Hypothesis or Church of Rome For though A. C. believes that the Roman in a true sense is the Catholique Church yet here he abstracts from that question and means no more then he plainly asserts viz. that the Tradition of the Catholique Church is Infallible c. But whether theirs or ours or some other Congregation of Christians be the Catholique Church that 's another question of which A. C. affirms nothing in this place yet the Relatour as if he were somewhat nettled is pleas'd to say that after a long silence he thrusts himself in again and desires the Bishop to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit in which sense he might easily finde it to be Infallible Truly in my opinion A. C. deserv'd no rough language for his respects to the Bishop in being so long and silently attentive to his discourse though at length through zeale he became something earnest in the business out of a desire to bring his Adversary into the right way and to this end urged him to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is a Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit and not assisted by them in any common way but in such a manner as reacheth to Infallibility For such assistance is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof Such assistance the Relatour confesseth the Prophets to have had under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New The like we say the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of the 17. of Deuteronomy verse 8. c. where in doubts the people were bound not onely to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in points of Faith amongst all the different Sects of Christians that deny it Neither had he any reason to break forth into those exclamations Good God whither will these men go For they go no further then Christ himself leads them by promises made unto them in the places of holy Scripture which shall be set down 〈◊〉 And the Pastours of the Catholique Church may very well acknowledge this Infallibility yet make it no occasion to Lord it over others unless he will also accuse the Apostles upon the same account Neither do they equal the Tradition of the present Church as the Relatour urgeth to the written word of God and this hath been shew'd before Touching what he writes of Divine Infallibility we have already declar'd that 't is sufficient to our present purpose to assert Church-Tradition to be Infallible whether it be simply Divine or no is another question to be determin'd when time and place requires Whence it follows that there 's no necessity of equalizing Church-Tradition to the Word of God For we have already acknowledg'd that 't is not in all respects equal to Scripture Again he falls from the Thesis to the Hypothesis We have nothing now to do with this question whether the Roman Bishop and his Clergy be the Head of the Catholique Church or no but whether that which is the Catholique Church be able to breed in us Divine Faith or no whatsoever Congregation of Christians it be So that his impeaching the Roman Church of errours here whilst we are in dispute about another question is wholly out of season His answer to St. Basils Text Parem vim habent ad pietatem that unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word is very deficient First 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions yet of such as were come down from their times to St. Basils For otherwise how should they have had in his time any force at all to move to piety as he said they then had Parem vim habent ad pietatem Secondly his exception taken against that Work of St. Basil from Bishop Andrews and that borrowed from Erasmus and he collecting it onely from the stile which yet others far more ancient and better acquainted with St. Basils stile then Erasmus acknowledge to be his this exception I say we esteem of no great force Thirdly St. Basils making the unwritten Traditions whereof he speaks to be such as are not contrary to Scripture proves not Scripture it self so to be the Touch-stone of Apostolical Tradition as that Scripture must therefore needs be of greater force and superiour dignity then that of Tradition For the Bishop himself grants Prime Apostolical Tradition to be equally divine with Scripture and yet 't is true to say that those Prime Traditions are such as are not contrary to scripture But the sense of Stapletons words is quite perverted by the Bishop For he speaks as his words clearly intimate of later and fresher Traditions then are the Prime Apostolical viz. such as were begun by General Councils or perhaps in some particular Church His words are recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem c. which do not signifie such Traditions as we now treat of viz. Traditions primely Apostolical deliver'd from hand to hand in all succeeding ages by the universal and constant Tradition of the Church and conveighed as such unto us by the Tradition of the present Church 2. A. C. urging the present Copies of Scripture c. presses the Relatour very hard as I have already shew'd Now I adde what if the Ancienter Copies disagree How shall we know which is the true Word of God His saying that true Scripture may be more easily known then true Tradition because the one is written and not the other is not consequent
one of his Authorities brought to prove that 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
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.
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
builds the Catholique Church upon the Faith onely and not upon the Person of St. Peter professing that Faith But first this assertion of the Bishop is refuted by the words of St. Cyril himself who calls the Faith upon which he sayes the Church is founded c inconcussam firmissimam Discipuli Fidem the invincible and most firm Faith of Christs Disciple which words clearly include St. Peters Person with his Faith For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm but onely in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it We our selves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peters Shoulders but upon his Faith viz. as 't is constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person and the person of his Successors as occasion requires Secondly 't is no less contrary to the words of Holy Scripture Matth. 16. 18. I say unto thee Peter Thou art A ROCK and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church c. where 't is plain that by these words This Rock Christ meant no other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the preceding words Thou art a Rock For our Saviour spake in the Hebrew or Syriack Language Thou art CEPHAS which signifies a Rock and upon this CEPHAS that is upon this Rock will I build my Church The same is in the Greek Translation For even there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisies a Rock as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the Catholique Translators of the New Testament who follow the vulgar Latine Translation render it thus Thou art PETER and upon THIS ROCK will I build my Church yet have they noted that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our Blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word to wit Cephas which signifies a Rock when he made that promise to Saint Peter To make this plain by an instance drawn from our own affaires Suppose Matthew Parker presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied with John Scory Miles Coverdale William Barlow Jobn Hodgskins c. his Associates and Consecrators as Mr. Mason will have have it should have addressed themselves to the Queens Presence-Chamber to kiss her hand and the Queen should have asked them Quid dicitis vos de Filiâ Henrici octavi what say you of the Daughter of Henry the Eighth and Matthew Parker as chief among them answering according to the then-newly-enacted Belief Tu es Elizabetha Supremum Caput Ecclesiae c. Thou art Elizabeth Supream Head of the Church of England if the Queen thereupon should have return'd him this gracious Answer Et ego dico tibi TU ES PRIMAS super HUNC PRIMATEM aedificabo Ecclesiam meam And I say to thee Thou art Primate and upon this Primate I will build my English Church had this I say happened would any one have been so simple as to doubt whether by hunc Primatem this Primate she meant any other then Matthew Parker to whom onely she then spake Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referr'd to the Confession of St. Peter For that being a remote Antecedent mention'd onely in the verse before and Peter or Rock the immediate mention'd in one and the same verse with hanc Petram the words in question had our Saviour understood by hanc Petram This Rock not St. Peter himself but the Confession he made of Christs Divinity he should not have said super HANC Petram but super ILLAM Petram not upon THIS Rock will I build my Church but upon THAT Rock viz thy Confession because I say that was the remote Antecedent mention'd in the former verse and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour Super hanc Petram c. Seeing therefore our Saviour sayes not That but This Rock he must be understood according to strict rules of Grammar by the Demonstrative hanc or This to mean the immediate or next Antecedent viz. St. Peter himself not that which was further off viz. his Confession of Christs Divinity I adde that if our Saviour had meant St. Peters Confession onely without his Person he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And saying Thou art Peter AND upon this Rock c. but he should have us'd the Conjunction Discretive or Exceptive But saying Thou art Peter that is a Rock in name BUT upon that Rock of thy Confession will I build my Church Wherefore seeing our Saviour doth not so speak but uses the Conjunction Copulative And he plainly tyes his speech to the Person of St. Peter to whom onely he spake in the words immediately precedent and this as necessarily as the subsequent And in the next following sentence AND to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. doth shew the said words or sentence to belong to St. Peter onely Beside what coherence do you think our Saviours discourse will have if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peters person onely and the middle of a quite different thing Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion that he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different maner from that which the Church of Rome doth now adayes And therefore sayes he either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome Infallible or else the Church of Rome this day reckons up more Books in the Canon then heretofore she did If she do so then she is changed in a main point of Faith viz. the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible But this Argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing For though it should be granted that the Catholick Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon then she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could prove no errour in her unless it could be likewise shew'd which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those Books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine and Canonical For as now she defines some Truths which in former times were left under dispute without the least shadow of errour so without errour may she now admit some Books for Canonical and Divine Scripture which before she left under dispute that is so undeclared by her for Canonical that Christians were not obliged to receive them for such Books which now after her Declaration they are obliged to do What he says here of the Church of Rome will not I conceive be found very pressing viz. that she is driven to a hard strait for using the Authority of her Adversary meaning Ruffinus to prove her Infallibility For though it should be granted that Ruffinus was an Adversary of the Romane Church yea a condemned Adversary rejected and branded by her as the Bishop speaks yet certainly this is so far from
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
instructed his Apostles touching all points absolutely necessary to Salvation especially considering what himself professeth in his Prayer for them to the Father John 17. 8 14. I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me and they have received them c Can those words in any Protestants opinion signifie less then all points absolutely necessary to Salvation His Lordship here stumbles in the plain way endeavouring to impose this absurd Disjunctive upon his Reader viz. that all Truth must either signifie simply All whatsoever matter of Fact as well as Faith or be restrained to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation that is without which no man can in any circumstance be saved the apparent falsity whereof a man half blinde may perceive it being in effect to say that either All men are wise and learned or none but Socrates and Plato To as little purpose is his other limitation viz. that a Councill is then onely Infallible when it suffers it self to be led by the Blessed Spirit by the word of God By this again it seems that in things absolutely necessary to Salvation a General Council is not absolutely Infallible but may possibly refuse to be led by the Spirit and Word of God and consequently fall into Fundamental Errour in which the Bishop is not constant to himself professing the contrary when it makes for his turn But if it may so erre what a sad condition might the whole Church be in since what a General Council teaches is as obligatory to the whole Church as what the Parliament enacts is obligatory to the whole Kingdom His last shift to evade the force of those words leading into All Truth is that the promise of Assistance was neither so absolute nor in such manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles nor directly to a Council at all Who contends it was who makes it a question whether the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost were not more absolutely and directly intended to the Apostles then to the Church or not more absolutely and directly to the Chureh then to General Councils It sufficeth us if it were in any sort truly and really intended to them all and that so it was the very nature of the promise evinceth since otherwise neither the said succeeding Pastours northe Church of their times could infallibly decide any arising Controversies touching the sense of Scriptural Texts which are not onely ambiguous but lyable to damnable Interpretations as the Scripture it self averrs 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expresly deliver'd in Scripture as many are not But note that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever the Bishop sayes not any thing The truth is their clearness is not easily eluded To the second proof which is from Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you 〈◊〉 unto the end of the world the Bishop answers the Fathers are various in their Exposition and Application of this Text. We grant they are various in words but agreeing in sense and that the same in effect we here plead for The Fathers by the Bishops own Confession understood a presence of Aid and Assistance to support the weakness of the Apostles and their Successours against the Difficulties they should finde for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them no part of the Difficulties Christs Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel Sure they are And if this be the Native sense of the words as 't is in the Relatours opinion it follows necessarily that the said Ministers or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promis'd them in this place as effectually inables them to withstand and overcome those Difficulties which in reason cannot be more conveniently effected then by a General Council so assisted Declaring against them But sayes our Adversary few of the Fathers mention Christs presence in Teaching by the Holy Ghost What matters that The reason is because this is but one Special kinde of presence and the Fathers usually in their expositions of Scripture unless some particular occasion carries them to the contrary content themselves to express the general importance of the Sacred Text without descending to particulars And yet some of them as even the Bishop himself observes do expresly interpret this place of Christs presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost But they do not extend it saith he to Infallible Assistance further then the Succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit No more do we We confess the Succeeding Church could not be Infallible should it depart from or teach contrary to the word of the Apostles no more then the Apostles themselves could have been Infallible had they departed from the guidance of the Spirit But as the Infallibility of the Apostles consisted in their constant adhering to and following the guidance of that Holy Spirit in all matters concerning Faith and Religion so is there and the Fathers teach such a presence of Christ with the Succeeding Church as causeth her in all Definitions of Faith constantly to adhere to the word of the Apostles and as need requires infallibly to expound it all which we have sufficiently prov'd and could it otherwise happen Christ would not be alwayes found so present with his Church as to keep her from incurring ruine by erroneous Doctrines which this his promise must at least imply Lastly whereas Maldonat proves that this kinde of presence by Infallible Teaching is rightly gathered from this Text though not expresly signified by it the Bishop by his mis-translation makes him deny it to be the intention of Christ which learned Authour does not onely assert the Truth of this Exposition but brings in proof of it the testimonies of St. Cyril St. Leo and Salvianus To the Third Matth. 16. 18. touching the Rock on which the Church is founded the Bishop sayes first he dares not lay any other Foundation then Christ. We answer all the Apostles are styl'd Foundations of the Church witness St. Paul who was one of them Eph. 2. 20. Christ indeed was and is the Principal Foundation the Chief corner stone in the Churches building as the Apostle there speaks yet Ministerially and by Authority Derived from Christ not onely the Apostles but the Successours of the chief of them St. Peter may be and are in a true sense Foundations of the Church Secondly the Bishop sayes and he does but say it that St. Peter was onely the first in order whereas the Fathers teach and we have sufficiently prov'd that he was not onely the first in order but in Authority Thirdly he tells us that by the Rock is not meant St. Peters person onely but the Faith which he professed and for this saith he the Fathers come in with a very full consent I answer we pretend not to understand by the Rock
communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament how is it possible that a man should be moued to this beleefe by the common consent of Catholiques Lutherans and English Protestants seeing only these last agree in this point That which the Relatour adds to this is no less absurd He cites 〈◊〉 a Catholique diuine as teaching that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques as if he had ouercome them with their own arms asking A. C. what he can say to this and seems to admire the force of truth which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie But J answer what matter is it though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation were that sufficient ground to say that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour or noc point of Catholique Fayth because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation very true it is all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church is an article of Fayth which may neither be doubted of nor disputed yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined by an express act A Protestant versed in scripture would thinke it a sinne if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent yet J conceiue he will hardly say that it is Simply necessary to Saluation or that he is bound absolutely Speaking to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation But the truth is Suarez speaks to no such purpose as the Bishop alledges him He confesses indeed that the manner of explicating the change or conuersion that is made in the B. Sacrament which Schoole-men vse is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles but as for the conuersion it selfe or Transubstantiation it is most euident that he holds it for a point of Fayth which to deny were Heresie His words are these in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes Secundò infero etc. Secondly Sayth he J inferre that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as also the absense of bread yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body he falls into Heresie because the Catholique Church hath defined and doth teach not only the two first but also this last what say you to this Protestants you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church was it truth and honestie thinke you that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour They that please to consult the Author himselfe in the place alledged will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it but a farre different thing as wee haue sayd aboue His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent whome he censures forsooth of tediousness and for making as he conceiues an intricate and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion a thing which in the Relatours opinion neither Diuinity nor Philosophy euer heard of till then But let the indifferent reader be Judge Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition and becomes a liuing and animate part of man not because the soule which informs it is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd but because the same soule which was in the body before begins now to be in the new matter so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion the bread is turned into the Body of Christ not as if Christs Body were properly speaking produced vnder the elements for it was preexistent before and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense be sayd to be produced but because it was not there before and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms by vertue of Consecration Lett any man iudge whether this explication be not farre more intelligible then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence First of all he affirms with Bishop Ridley and other Protestants cited by him that the true reall naturall and Substantiall Body of Christ that very Body which was born of the Virgin which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead is truly really and Substantially in the B. Sacrament and yet for all this denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation that is in effect he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament yet neither with the Substance of bread nor without it He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time and yet stiffly denies with all Caluinists that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once Is not this to say in effect that Christs Body really is only in Heauen and no where else and yet to acknowledge that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth But who is able to vnderstand and reconcile these speeches His saying that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth by Grace and the like is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence which in no true sense can be called reall In my opinion Zuinglius Peter Martyr and those of the Sacramentary party deale faric more candidly in this point who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence both name and thing then the Bishop and some other Protestants alledged by him who confess the name but deny the thing 6. The Catholique Authors which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter are grossly eyther misunderstood or misexpounded by him For 't is euident when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane for the most part that which is by desire and deuotion only when for want of opportunity or some 〈◊〉 reason wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament but yet doe vse most of those affections and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God and our B. Sauiour which wee are wont to practise when wee doe really communicate Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament where he is present not like a bodily substance but rather like a spirit that is whole in the whole consecrated host and whole in euery part of it But sure
DE FIDE of Fayth because some Council or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Fayth as that he which expressly beleeues it not nay as that he which beleeues the contrary is excluded from Saluation so his disobedience therenhile offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor the charity that ought to be amongst Christians Wee doe not say that euery thing is de Fide that some Council or other indefinitely speaking be it generall or particular hash defined but that euery thing is de fide which is defined by a Lawfull Generall Council And for this how contemptuously soeuer he is pleas'd to speake of it because some Council or other hath defined it wee challenge all his adherents to shew what one Generall Council acknowledg'd for such eyther by themselues or vs did euer define any point of doctrine which they did not require all Christians to hold and beleeue as matter of Fayth after it was so defined as likewise to shew how 't is possible for Christians to disbeleeue what such a Generall Council hath defined without making themselues guilty of that sentence of our Sauiour Matth. 18. 17. He that will not heare the Church lett him be as an Heathen or Publican yea of that other Luc. 10. 16. He that despiseth you despiseth me Why shall not such a man be excluded from Saluation seeing that by the Bishops own doctrine the decrees of all Generall Councils are binding till they be reuers'd by an other Council of like authority why did he account it damnable sin to adhere to the condemned errour of St. Cyprian after it was condem'd by a Generall Councill seeing 't is manifest disobedience in that particular did of it selfe neither offer more violence to the peace of the Church nor to the charity that ought to be amongst Christians then disobedience in points determined by other Generall Councils is apt to doe and hath euer done as experience witnesseth So that in truth to suppose a disobedience to Generall Councils in point of defined doctrine which shall offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor to charity that ought to be amongst Christians is to suppose an impossibility and in effect to thinke that rebellion may consist with the peace of the state and that to cast of obedience to superiours is not to contemn their authority Wee doe not deny but there is a Latitude in the Fayth as the Bishop speakes that is all things pertaining to the doctrine of Fayth are not necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all persons in order to Saluation and this Bellarmin's authority cited by the Bishop rightly proues But it follows not from hence that any man may deny or doubt of any point whatsoeuer that he knows is defin'd and propos'd by the Church to be beleeued as the Bishop and all Protestants doe It is not in it selfe absolutely necessary to Saluation to know or expressly beleeue many things reported in Scripture as for Example that Iudas hang'd himselfe that St. Paul was thrice beaten with rods that he left his cloake at Troas etc. but yet for any man to deny or doubt of these knowing them to be testifyed in Scripture I doe not doubt but euen Protestants themselues will acknowledge to be a great sin and without repentance inconsistent with Saluation In like manner though it be not absolutely necessary to know or beleeue expressly all verities defined by the Church as Bellarmin truly teaches yet it may be and is absolutely necessary not to disbeleeue or doubt of any one point that is know'n to be so defined As for our aduersaries beeing sure that our peremptory establishing so many things that are remote deductions from the Foundation to be beleeu'd as matters of Fayth hath with other errours lost the peace and vnity of the Church 't is but a partiall and groundless faney which all Heretiques and Schismatiques will plead as well as himselfe when they are put to it and may with as much right Was there not more disturbance and tumults in the Church during those Primitiue ages by reason of Arianisme Pelagianisme Manicheisme and other Heresies that then raged then there was for many hundred of years together before Luther began in which time neuertheless eyther all or most of the points now contested by Protestants were as fully defined by the Church and as generally beleeu'd by Christians as now they are With what truth or conscience then can it be sayd that the defining or establishing such points haue lost the peace of the Church True it is the Greekish Church hath opposed the Roman for a long time but what does that help Protestants seeing the world know's it is not for such points as Protestants doe now condemne in the Roman Church but for such errours as they themselues for the most part doe as much condemne in the Greeks as the Roman Church doth 'T is euident the Greeke Church consents with the Roman in all the chiefe points of controuersie betwixt the Roman Church and Protestants and this generall peace of the Church might still haue continued had not the pride arrogancy and temerity of Protestant Predicants first opened the gap to dissention by reuiuing and setting on foote condemned Heresies and by cooperating to so many other wicked Schismaticall and vnchristian disorders under pretense of reformation and obedience to the Gospell A C. tells his aduersarie it is not sufficient to beget a confidence in this case to say wee beleeue the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeued them What says the Bishop to this He confesses 't is most true to witt that which A. C. told him if he ' did only SAY so and did not beleeue as he sayd But sayth he if wee doe say it you are bound in charity to beleeue vs vnless you can proue the contrary For I know no other proofe to men of any point of Fayth but confession of it and subscription to it J reply the Bishops answer falls short of A. Cs. demand For who can doubt but A. C. when he told the Bishop it was not sufficient in this case to say wee beleeue Scripture etc. mean't that beside verball profession and giuing it vnder his hand that he doth beleeue so and so he should proue it by solid and conuincing arguments that the sense in which he beleeues the Scripture and the Creeds is the same with that in which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeu'd them for otherwise he can neither be sufficiently assured himselfe nor can he giue sufficient assurance there of to others Just reason I fay had A. C. to demand this of the Bishop namely that he should proue his Fayth to be agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church obsignatis tabulis as they say that is by speciall vndenyable euidence and not thinke it sufficient only to profess and affirm it to be so But
of sardica Ephesus Chalcedon with the Emperour Valentinian himselfe in his Epistle to Theodosius 〈◊〉 amonge the preambulatory Epistles of the Council of 〈◊〉 Here you see a Generall consent of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church for belocning the so much contested Power and Principality of St. Peter and his Successours ouer the whole Church Doe the Bishop and his English Protestant Church beleeue this Doe they interpret Scripture and the Creeds in this sense Againe Protestants deny that there is a Purgatory or that the soules of the faythfull departed doe eyther need or can receiue any kinde of help or benefitt any kinde of releefe case of paine or other consolation from the faythfull liuing Yet it was the generall beleefe of the ancient Primitiue Church that they could and did many of them receiue help and benefitt after their departure from the faythfull Liuing namely by the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist by the prayers alms-deeds and other offices of Christian pietie that were done for them grounding this their beleefe both vpon Tradition and seuerall texts of Scripture as wee shall make further to appeare in the following chapter where this point is particularly to be treated How therfore could the Bishop or how can Protestants pretend that their Fayth is agreeable to the Primitiue Church and that they interpret Scripture in the sense of that Church 5. But the Relatour if he cannot make good his own cause at least he endeauours to shew that wee Romanists doe not beleeue Scripture and the Creeds in all points according to that sense in which the Primitiue Church vnderstood them The Primitiue Church sayth he neuer interpreted the descent of Christ into Hell to be no lower then LIMBVS PATRVM But how will it be made to appeare that the Primitiue Church interpreted Christs descent to be as low as the place where the reprobate are tormented Because it is sayd in the Creeds that Christ descended into Hell must wee needs vnderstand that he descended euen to the place of reprobate and damned soules Did Iacob meane that place of punishment when expressing his griefe for the supposed death of his sonne Ioseph Genes 37. 35. he sayd I will goe down to my sonne mourning into Hell Doth not Caluin himselfe grant in effect what our Church vnderstands by Limbus Patrum when he sayth Let no body wonder that the holy Fathers who expected Christs redemption were shut vp in prison Doth not St. Irenaeus that ancient father affirme that in those three dayes and nights in which Christ was dead he remayned with the Patriarchs who could not be held to be amonge the damned Doth he not likewise teach that our Sauiour desoended to them that are vnder the earth that he might make know'n his coming and acquaint them with the remission of sinnes giuen to all those that beleeue in him Doth not Origen plainly auouch that Christ deliuered from the place into which he descended our first Father Adam whome none will auerre to haue been amonge the damned and doth he not vnderstand those words of Christ to the good theefe Luc. 23. hodie mecum eris in Paradiso this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise to haue been verifyed also of all those to whome Christ descended Doth not Eusebius 〈◊〉 say that the soule of Christ hauing recommended it selfe to the Eternall Father left the body and descending into Hell deliuer'd from thence the Fathers In a word doth not St. Hierome by Hell vnderstand Limbus-Patrum when he sayth that before Christ Abraham was apud Inferos in Hell but after Christ euen the thiefe is in Paradise Why therfore should the Bishop so peremptorily deny that by Hell into which Christ descended none of the ancient fathers did vnderstand Limbus Patrum But he proceeds The Primitiue Church sayth he did not acknowledge a Purgatory in a side part of Hell But it did acknowledge a Purgatory which the Bishop denies Let Protestants but grant there is a Purgatory and the Church of Rome will not binde them to place it in a side part of Hell this beeing noe article of our beleefe The Primitiue Church says the Bishop did not interpret away halfe the Sacrament from Christs institution neither did it euer interpret Christs institution to be such as did oblige all Christians vnder paine of sin to receiue it in both kindes as wee haue already prou'd The Primitiue Church did not make the Priests intention to be of the essence of the Sacrament etc. very true neither doth our Church make it to be so but it was Christ himselfe that soe ordain'd it as wee haue also shew'n The Primitiue Church beleeu'd no worship to be due to Jmages But how will it be prou'd they beleeu'd it to be sinne and vnlawfull to worship them for their Prototypes sake Doth not Lactantius in the Primitiue Church write thus in his Poem de Passione addressing his speech to a Christian as then entring into the Church Flecte genu lignumque Crucis VENERABILEADORA Doth not St. Basil. Epi st 53. in Iulian. reported in the second Council of Nice Action 2. profess that he publiquely adored Jmages and that the honour done to them redounds to the persons whome they represent Doth not St. Ambrose praise the Empress St. Helena for setting the Cross vpon the head or crown of Kings that it might be adored in them and doth not St. Hierome report of her that hauing at Hierusalem happily found the Cross vpon which our Sauiour suffered she adored it as if she had euen then seen our Lord hanging vpon it Doth not St. Chrysostome likewise exhort Christians to come with feare and deuotion to worship the Cross vpon the aniuersary or yearly holy * day on which they were then wont solemnly to performe that duty as Roman Catholique generally now doe vpon Goodfryday Doth not Paulinus Bishop of Nola mention the like custome in Jtaly and Iustinian the Emperour style the Cross in that very regard adorandam verè honorandam Crucem To conclude omitting diuerse other pregnant instances of the perpetuall vse and veneration also of sacred Images amonge Christians related by Eusebius Historia Tripartita Nicephorus and others if the Primitiue Church acknowledged no worship to be due to Images how could the Generall Council according to the latin translation of it style them venerabiles and profess to giue adoration to them MENTE SERMONE SENSV both in minde body and words Yea how could St. Gregory say non quasi ante Diuinitatem ante illas prosternimur confessing prosternimur that Christians did vse to bow or prostrate their bodies before them but not as vnto the Deity it selfe or as attributing Diuinity to them But aboue all how could the second Council of Nice an assembly of Bishops for number exceeding the first it selfe so much celebrated by Christians and conuen'd from all parts and
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.
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
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.
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
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
Masters veracity and authority but yet it gives assurance to me that his Master said so neither believe I that the thing spoken is morally true because the Servant tells me his Master said so but because his Master said it whom I know to be a man of that credit that he would not say a thing that were not true though I am not certain that his Master said it save onely because the servant tells me so whom I know also to be an honest man 9. But the Bishops difficulty about points Fundamental when he sayes that the Churches Definition cannot make Superstructures to become Principles or Foundations is easily solved according to my former distinction The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure to become a Foundation quoad materiam or rem attestatam according to the Thing or matter attested I grant it for in this sense neither the Church nor the Aposties no nor Christs Definition can make a Superstructure a Foundation for what they are in themselves they must alwayes be The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure a Foundation quoad formam or Authoritatem attestantis according to the form or Authority of the persons attesting or witnessing that it is a Divine Revelation I deny it For such a Testimony or Authentical Declaration makes it both necessary to Salvation in which sense onely Fundamental is to be taken in this present Dispute as I have proved and also reductively or consequently belonging to the Foundation of Religion according to the Authority of Christ testified to reveal it which will be dissolved by the disbelief of it as is already shewed When he sayes that every Fundamental point must be known to all I distinguish in the same manner Every Fundamental point according to the material object must be known to all I grant it every Fundamental point that is every point necessary to Salvation to be believed when it is sufficiently propounded according to the attestation made by the Church of it must be known to all I deny it and this distinction solves all his other difficulties propounded in this page 10. Scotus cited by his Lordship Num. 6. pag. 30. delivers nothing in behalf of his party but affirms the same thing which we have already asserted namely that St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and other learned Greeks differed not from the Latins viz. St. Hierome Augustin St. Ambrose c. but onely in manner of speech because otherwise either the Greeks or the Latins had been Heretiques Yet hence it follows not that Scotus thought they could be Heretiques unless they denied or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God But it onely followes that if they knew this as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it they might well be esteemed Heretiques before any special Declaration of the Church although it be more clear that he is an Heretique who denies to believe that Doctrine after he confesses that it is defined by the Church Wherefore Scotus doth well adde that however it was before yet ex quo c. from the time that the Catholique Church declared it it is to be held of Faith Wherefore we deny not but that a learned man who oppugnes the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church may be accounted an Heretique before he be AS SUCH condemned by a General Council But we say that there are many things which in themsolves are matters of Faith yet so obscure in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons that before the Decree of the Church we are not Heretiques though we should either doubt of them or deny them because as yet there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other Whence it appears likewise that Scotus is much wronged by his Lordship For first he would perswade his Reader that this Authour supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost whereas Scotus because neither the one nor the other of them can be esteemed Heretiques declares that there was no real difference in this point between them which the Bishop very handsomely leaves out Verisimile igitur est sayes Scotus quod non subest dictis verbis contrariis contrariorum Sanctorum Sententia Discors It is therefore likely that there is no disagreeing opinion contained in the contrary words of those contrary Saints and then proves by a very probable Argument that it is so Secondly as he left out the said words in the midst of the sentence so to induce his Reader to think that Scotus as he would have him understood in the matter of belief should say that what was not of the substance of Faith before was made to be of the substance of the Faith by the Churches Definition and thereby inferres a contradiction in this Authours assertions he adds words and fathers them upon Scotus in another part of the sentence saying first that Scotus sayes howsoever it was before referring his words to the thing controverted that is to say in his position whether the point in question were of the substance of Faith or Fundamental before the Churches Definition or no whereas Scotus speaks not of the Thing but of the Persons viz. the Greek and Latin Fathers as appears by his words quicquid sit de eis whatsoever may be said of them Now I think he will have much ado to finde any Dictionary or Grammer wherien eis signifies it This done he makes Scotus say by adding to his Text thus yet ex quo from the time that the Catholique Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith Now Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes onely thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quòd Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Thus he windes his Authours through as many Meanders as he finds subservient to his own turn Now to clear the difficulty the former distinction is here also to be used that That which was not Fundamental in it self before becomes not Fundamental in the matter or thing attested but onely by reason of the attestation of the Church obliging to the acceptation of it and to be embraced as Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as a Divine Truth and therefore Scotus doth not say that ex quo after it was declared by the Church it becomes to be of the substance of Faith which it was not before but that it is necessarily to be held or believed which necessity was not before By this Doctrine 't is manifest that there is no contradiction in Scotus his Discourse which his Lordship endeavours to put upon him Now
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
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
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
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
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
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-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-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-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
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-Tradition He would fain have the difference betwixt us to consist onely in this that we affirm Church-Traditions to be the Formal Object Prime Motive and last Resolution of Faith and that they deny it to be so But the difference as it appears in the Resolution we have already given is not in that For we are now both agreed that it is not necessary to say the Faith of Scripture is resolv'd into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formall Object or Prime Motive c. but the onely substantiall Difference is this We say the Tradition of the present Church is Infallible and that necessarily to the end it may infallibly apply the Formal Object to us you say 't is Fallible Grant us once that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible and the controversie in this is ended How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith as here he speaks into the Prime Apostostolical Tradition Infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church I see not unless he could tell how to be infallibly certain of that Tradition without it which he knows not well how to compass as appears in the next number So that now he abandons his Fort again by not shewing how we can know infallibly that Apostolicall Tradition is Divine otherwise then by the Tradition of the present Church For as to what he asserted num 21. that there 's a double Authority and both Divine viz. Apostolical Tradition and Scripture even in respect of us it doth not satisfie the difficulty as I have prov'd but serves onely to make one contrary Turn upon another in his Labyrinth so that you know not where to follow him For if Church-Tradition fail to ascertain us infallibly of that Divine Apostolicall Tradition we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture it self be the Infallible word of God or no. That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible may be thus sufficiently prov'd We cannot be infallibly certaine that Scripture is the word of God unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible For we acknowledge many Books for Canonicall Scripture which Protestants admit not and they now hold some for such which have not been alwayes approv'd for such And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have are said by Catholiques to be corrupted Others also cry up some Books for Canonicall Scripture which both Catholiques and Protestants disallow If therefore the Church can erre in this point with what shadow of truth can Protestants pretend to bring an Infallible ground that Scripture is the word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church serves to assure us infallibly that Scripture is the word of God and not onely as his Lordship would have it to work upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to read and consider the Scripture or among Novices Weaklings and Doubters of Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scriptures 2. Neither can the often cited place of St. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. be rationally understood of the foresaid Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith For it is clear that St. Austin by those words gives a reason why he then a Bishop would not follow the Doctrine of Manichaeus and why no Christian ought to follow it As if a man should say he that believes the Gospel believes it onely for the Authority of the Church which condemning Manichaeus it is impossible rationally proceeding to admit the Gospel and follow Manichaeus Neither is the contrary any wayes deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop § 16. num 21. If thou shouldst finde one who did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldst thou do to make him believe For the holy Doctor there speaks to Manichaeus and shewes how neither Infidels nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus Not Infidels because Manichaeus proves this onely out of Scriptures which they not admitting might rationally enough slight his proof Not Christians because they receiving the Scripture upon the sole Authority of the Church could no more approve of the Apostleship of Manicheus condemned by the Church then if they admitted not of Scripture at all Wherefore A. C. had no reason to pass by this place of St. Austin which his Lordship sayes pag. 82. he urged at the Conference unless it were because he did not then remember it As for the Catholique Authors cited by the Relatour certainly they all hold that the Authority of the present Church is an Infallible proof that Scripture is the word of God And though they teach that the fore-mentioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels Novices and those who deny or doubt of Scripture yet they averre not that it is of less force for all others But their meaning is that the Authority of the Church appears more clearly necessary against Infidels and those who doubt of the Faith For suppose a learned man be an Infidel or doubt of Scripture he will say if the Church may erre he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is Gods word If you tell him the Church though subject to errour is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture and read it diligently and that then he will finde such an inbred light in it as will assure him infallibly that 't is the word of God he will reply he hath done what you require and yet findes no more inbred light in those Books which Protestants receive for Canonical then he doth in others which Catholiques admit but Protestants reject as Apocryphall no no more then he doth in other counterfeit pieces disapprov'd both by Catholiques and Protestants 3. Who doth not here most clearly see that we cannot deal with such a man without the unerring or Infallible Authority of the Church unless we will have recourse to the Private Spirit from which though the Bishop would seem so free that he excludes it from the very state of the Question yet he falls into it and palliates it under the specious title of Grace and where others us'd to say they were infallibly resolv'd that Scripture was the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83 84. averres that he hath the same assurance by Grace so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular he onely changeth their words 4. The Relatour is very much out when he maintains on the one side that the Church is fallible in her Tradition of Scriptures and yet still supposes throughout his whole discourse that whoever comes to read Scriptures deliver'd by the Church findes
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
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
this Divine Authority to that company of men or to the Holy Scriptures A. C. there discoursing of one who considers 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-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-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-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-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-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
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
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-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-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-Tradition which is one thing pertaining to Faith could not as the Bishop saith it is and as indeed it is be known first and be an Introduction to the Knowledge of Scripture These are A. C's words pag. 51. not those set down by his Lordship and therefore he had no reason to say he is sorry to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes but had rather cause to employ his sorrow for himself since he could not otherwise avoid the difficulty then by corrupting his words whom he pretends to answer For by omitting the Parenthesis and changing the words he makes A. C. teach not his own but in part the Bishops Doctrine A. C. therefore mistook not at all but prest home his Argument in this manner which the Bishop solves not by saying he consesseth every where Tradition to be the Introducer to the knowledge of Scripture For the primum
which is not de facto false yet may be false and another cui non potest subesse falsum which neither is false nor can be false since all Infallibility is such cui non potest subesse falsum To obtain therefore an infallible assurance of Scriptures-being the Word of God we must of necessity rely upon the never-erring Tradition of Gods Church all other grounds assignable are uncertain and consequently insufficient to breed in us supernatural and divine Faith But enough of this Yet before I go further I cannot omit to observe the Bishops earnest endeavour to possess the Reader that the Scriptures both the old and new are come down to us so unquestionably by meer humane Authority that a man may thereby be infallibly assured that they are the word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith when he could not be ignorant that there is hardly any Book of Scripture which hath not been rejected by some Sect or other of Christians and that several parts even of the new Testament which most concerns us were long doubted of by divers of the Fathers and ancient Orthodox Writers till the Church decided the Controversie Nay that their great reformer Luther himself admits not for Canonical Scripture the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Saint James the Epistle of Saint Jude nor any part of the Apocalypse or Revelation Call you this candid dealing is it not rather to say and unsay or indeed to say any thing in defence of a ruinous Cause After this the Relatour pretending to come close to the particular sayes The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ that you and wee were all of one belief I wonder whom he means by that WEE of his before the Rent seeing the said WEE began with and by that Rent not made by us but by those that went out from us and deserted the Catholique Church and Faith in which they were bred up and so became a WEE by themselves which before the Rent so made had no other then a meer Utopian or Chimerical Being Yet as it seems by his Lordships discourse they are pleas'd in fancying themselves Reformers of our Corruptions while they themselves are the Corrupters They think themselves safe in holding the Creed and other common Principles of Belief but so did many of the ancient Heretiques who yet were condemn'd for such by lawfull oecumenical Councills They glory in ascribing as he sayes more sufficiency to the Scripture then is done by us in that they affirm it to contain all things necessary to Salvation while by so doing in the sense they mean it they contradict the Scriptures themselves which often sends them to Traditions Call you this giving honour to the Scritures This indeed is not onely enough but more then enough as the Bishop expresses it himself He tells us that for begetting and settling a Belief of this Principle viz. that the Scripture is the Word of God they go the same way with us and a better too He means they go some part of the way with us and the rest by themselves But certainly he ought rather to have continued in our way to the end then for want of a good reason why he left it to pin this falshood upon us That we make the present Tradition alwayes an Infallible Word of God unwritten Apostolicall Traditions we hold for such indeed since to be written or not-written are conditions meerly accidental to Gods Word but the Tradition of the present Church by which we are infallibly ascertain'd of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves we oblige not any man to receive it for Gods unwritten Word as the Bishop would make you believe Their way sayes the Bishop is better then ours because they resolve their Faith touching this Principle into the written Word which is in plain English that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word into no Word of God at all since there is not any written Word of God to tell them that this or that Book or indeed any Book of their whole Bible is the Word of God They therefore ultimately resolve their Faith of this point into little more then their own fancies and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all which neverthelesse is by them laid for the Basis or ground-work of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion Behold the excellency of their better way then ours who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into Gods unwritten Word viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own dayes And of this Apostolical Testimony Tradition or unwritten Word of God all the succeeding Christians of Gods Church even to this day have been rendred certain by the Infallible I say not Divine Testimony or Tradition of the said Church of Christ. Lastly the Bishop to close this Dispute speaks again to that well known place of St. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas which he attempts to solve by telling us that the Verb commovere is not applyable to one Motive alone but must signifie to move together with other Motives To this I answer that he must be a mean Grammarian who knows not this to be a great mistake when no plurality of Motives is expressed Secondly that in case St. Austins word commoveret were to be taken in the sense the Bishop gives it viz. to move together with Scripture yet his Lordship would gain little by it since his Faith were consequently to be resolv'd into it as being a Partial Motive of his Faith Now it cannot be denyed in true Philosophy that if one partial Motive be fallible the Act produced by that Motive must of necessity have a mixture of Fallibility in it every effect participating the nature of its cause So even in Logick should a Syllogism have for one of its Premises a Sentence of Scripture and for the other but a probable Proposition the Conclusion could be no more then probable And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited when speaking of the Churches Authority he sayes Quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio oredere potero which being weakened or call'd in question I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel it self Thus by Gods favour we are come to the end of this grand Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith wherein I have not onely shewn the insufficiency of the several wayes and methods propounded by the Bishop but cleared and established our own Catholick way of Resolving Faith The Infallible Tradition of the present Church is the sole Clew that guides us through the dark and intricate Meanders of our Adversaries Labyrinth 'T is the onely expedient by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object Gods Revelation This thred is
to erre in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition yea whatever Congregation of Christians teaches in this manner if it be done through malice they are Seducers if through ignorance they are seduced and blinde Guides and so lead the blinde into the same destruction with themselves to neither of which inconveniences can the whole Church be lyable if there be Truth in the Promises of Christ. The example then of a man who may be tearm'd a man though he be not honest comes not home to our case Had the Bishop in lieu of the word Man put Saint which essentially includes both Man and Holiness the Parallel would have held better For the word Church in our present debate implies not a simple or uncompounded term as that of man but is a compound of Substance and Accidents together which Accidents signifie Perfection and Integrity of Condition and exclude the contrary Defects viz. Heresie Schisme and Errour in Faith Wherefore if the Church of Rome be as the Relatour feigns it so corrupt as to misuse the Sacraments of Christ and to make Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith when Christ had made it a perfect one it would be unchurched This a man may learn even out of the Apostles Creed by which he professes to believe the Holy Catholique Church Moreover St. Athanasius in his Creed teaches that unless a man keep the whole Catholique Faith entire and inviolate he shall without all doubt perish It s undeniable then no Salvation is to be had where such false doctrine is taught and by consequence no true Church Again the Church is the Spouse of Christ and a pure Virgin who loses her Honour by prostituting her self to errour much more by forcing all under pain of damnation to believe those very errours for Gods word To say then that a Congregation so grosly erroneous and seducing is a true Church is in effect to say that Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse 4. There is yet much skirmishing about the form of words in which the Lady asked the question A. C. averres he is certain that she desired to know of the Bishop whether he would grant the Romane Church to be a right Church because he had particularly spoken with her before and wisht her to insist upon that point whereupon his Lordship makes a special reflection with what cunning Adversaries the Clergy of England hath to deal who prepare their Disciples and instruct them before hand upon what points to insist But this was no cunning but necessary Prudence and Charity to wish the Lady to require satisfaction in those points wherein she had the greatest difficulty and which it most imported her to understand Certainly had any of the Roman Church addressed themselves to the Bishop for satisfaction in matters of Religion he would never for fear of being accounted a cunning Disputant have scrupl'd to instruct them to make the strongest objections he could against the Roman Tenets But the Bishop goes on and acquaints the Reader with a perfect Jesuitisme if you believe him viz. which measures the Catholique Church by that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome and not Rome by the Catholique as it was in the Primitive times But this is no Jesuitisme but rather a Soloecisme against Truth and a falsifying of the Text. For I finde not those words in A. C. which are cited viz. The Lady would know not whether that were the Catholique Church to which Rome agreed but whether that were not the Holy Catholique Church which agreed with Rome No such Quere as this was propounded by the Lady as appears in the former words of A. C. It was all one to her whether Rome must alwayes agree with the Catholick Church or the Catholick Church alwayes agree with Rome Such Punctilio's as these the Lady never dreamt of nor were they so much as hinted at by A. C. It was enough for the Ladies satisfaction to know whether Rome and all particular Churches agreeing with her in Doctrine and Communion or Constantinople if you please and those which communicate with her or the English-Protestant Church and they who consent with it be the Catholique Church Thus that the Jesuits may be thought to have singularities and novelties in their doctrine finding none of their own he has endeavour'd to coin one for them which he esteems a strange Paradox though indeed it be none For put case A. C. had affirm'd that the Church is styled Catholick by agreeing with Rome yet had it been no Jesuitism but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church 5. For the better understanding of this we are to note the word Catholick may be used in three different acceptions viz. either formally causally or by way of participation Formally the Universal Church that is the Society of all true particular Churches united together in one Body in one Communion and under one Head is called Catholick Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick because it hath an influence and force to cause Universality in the whole Body of the Catholique Church to which Universality two things are necessary One is Multitude which serves as an Analogical Matter whereof it consists for where there is no Multitude there can be no Universality The other is in place of Form viz. Unity For Multitude without Unity will never make Universality Take away sayes St. Austin Unity from Multitude and it is TURBA a Rout but joyn to it Unity an it becomes POPULUS a Community The Roman Church therefore which as a Centre of Ecclesiastical Communion infuses this Unity which is the Form of Universality into the Catholick Church and thereby causes in her Universality may be called Catholick causally though she be but a particular Church So he that commands in chief over an whole Army and makes an unity in that Military Body is stiled General though he be but a particular person Thirdly every particular Orthodox Church is termed Catholick participativè by way of participation because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholique Church In this sense the Church of Smyrna addresses her Epistle thus To the Catholick Church of Philomilion and to all the Catholique Churches which are spread through the whole world Thus we see both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Universal or Catholick from the Romane considered as the chief particular Church infusing Unity to all the rest as having dependance of her and relation to her Nay it was an ordinary practice in Primitive times to account those Catholicks who agreed with the Sea Apostolick and this is manifest by many examples St. 〈◊〉 relates that his brother Satyrus going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia where he desired to be baptized demanded of the Bishop of
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
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
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
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
often declar'd because he teaches 't is to be govern'd by Bishops since in the place alledg'd he declares the Government of the Church onely as 't is contradistinct from the government of Temporal Princes not as inferiour Bishops are distinguisht from the Supream or Chief Bishop that 's another question and treated by him in another place it being sufficient to his purpose there to shew that the Church was to be govern'd by Ecclesiastical not Temporal Princes without disputing whether the said Ecclesiastical Governours were Subordinate or not one to another But the Bishop proceeds in his objections and tells us the Church Militant remaining spread in many earthly Kingdoms cannot so well be order'd by one Monarch as a particular Kingdom may by one King For how saith he will this one Supream execute his Office if the Kings of those several Kingdoms will not give leave I answer first this Difficulty makes as much against the Aristocratical form of Church-Government as the Monarchical For how will a General Council to use his own term enter to execute their Office when the necessities of the Church require such a Convention if the Kings of those several Kingdoms from whence the Prelates are to come will not give leave Nay how can the Bishops of any one Christian Kingdom meet in Synods if their respective Sovereigns to whom the Relatour will have them subject even in Spirituals will not give leave 5. As to his Surmize that we would have one Emperour over all Kings as well as one Pope over all Bishops I answer it was a Chimaera of his own Brain and as impossible for him to know as for any of his party to deny with Truth that we pray for Peace and Unity amongst all Christian Princes wishing nothing more then that every one of them may enjoy and rest satisfied with his own right But here the Bishop takes occasion to fall foul upon Innocent the Third because forsooth comparing the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power to the Two great Lights the Sun and the Moon he made the Sun a Symbole of the Ecclesiastical and the Moon of the Civil Power which the Relatour interprets for us to signifie the Pope and the Emperour I answer First did not men love contention there would be no quarrelling about such Conceipts as these which are never taken for Argumentative but meerly Allusive Applications of the Sacred Text touching these Two Powers which diversely considered give ground to different Allegories In times of persecution both the Church and Pope may not unfitly be compar'd to the Moon by reason of their declining condition but in time of prosperity if we consider the same Church in relation to the extent and greatness of her Power beyond the Imperial it reaching to all places and persons in the world professing Christian Faith as also in respect of the Dignity of its Object viz. Things Caelestial whereas the Object of the Imperial Power are onely the Things of this world there 's little question but the Ecclesiastical Power excells the Imperial no less then the Soul does the Body or Eternity the Things of this life In this regard therefore it could be no just matter of offence for the Pope to be understood by the Sun and the Emperour by the Moon But the Pope forsooth makes too much odds between his own power and the Emperours abasing that of the Emperour so far as to make it forty seaven times less then that of the Pope which the Bishop proves from the Gloss upon this Decretal We answer the Allegory led the Glosser to it and that being rather a flourish of wit and pious conceipt then matter of solid Argument it was but lost time for our Adversary to make inferences from it and would be the like in us to answer them The matter we stand upon is that the Pope is Supream Pastour of the whole Church Let our Adversaries disprove this and not trifle about Allegories We confess also that the Emperour is Supream over his Subjects in all Civil affairs in fuch sort as neither of these Powers can of right hinder the other in the due execution of their charge They are both of them absolute and Independent Powers though each in their proper orbe the one in Spirituals the other in Temporals By which it appears we are far from depressing the Imperial power lower then God hath made it as the Relatour most injuriously chargeth us No we honour and very willingly acknowledge the Emperour in Tertullians style Hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem viz. in the administration of all Civil affairs in which doubtless all persons within his Dominion ought to be subject to him Yet does it not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church resolve Controversies of Faith or interpret Scripture in any sense contrary to the judgement and doctrine of the lawful Pastours of the Church he hath no power to do any thing of this nature neither shall we ever read that any of them took upon them to be Supream Governours of the Church or reform Religion on their own account without or contrary to the said Pastours 6. A Book of the Law 't is true was anciently by Gods special command to be given to the King Deut. 17. 18. But to what intent was it given To govern the Church by reading it or expound the sense of the Law when it happen'd to come in Controversie Surely no It was given him to govern himself and Kingdom by it that by reading it he might learn to fear God and keep his words and statutes commanded in it as the Text it self declares Neither is it to be doubted but in case of Notorious and Gross Abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastours of the Church Christian Princes may both lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastours as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove alledged by the Bishop But they prove not that Princes may themselves take upon them the Priests Office either in whole or part they prove not that they may reform Religion in the Substance of it or enact any thing pertaining thereto by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent They prove not that Princes may determine the Controversies of the Law God having expresly reserv'd them to the Priests judgement and commanded all to submit to it under pain of death Nay point blank to the contrary we read 2. Paralip 26. 20. that Osias though a King was stricken by God with a sudden Leprosie for but attempting to usurp the Priests Office which if it were so unlawful then must needs now be yet more by how much the Functions of the Evangelical Priesthood are more Sacred Spiritual and participatively Divine then those of the Mosaical Law 7. Nor did the Popes ever attempt or so much as pretend to bring the Emperours under them in
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
pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority who shall determine or how shall men satisfie themselves whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent The Bishop gives us no light in this particular but leaves us to grope in the dark But let us indulge so much to our Adversary as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have General and of Equal Authority yet Maldonats Argument which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one evinces clearly that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word there would need another Council and then another to try that and so in infinitum The result of which would be that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self To this the Bishop answers that no General Council lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM which is either as ambiguous as the rest or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity But this is neither to exclude possibility nor fear of erring c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 Here the Bishop sayes I might have returned upon you again If a General Council not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Council He tells us we may say yes because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer But let this piece of Disingenuity pass and let us examine how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader while he insinuates to him that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope alone as Head of the Church is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions which is but an opinion of particular Doctours and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer as the Bishop does for us viz. That a General Council is necessary because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre but rather the contrary That a General Council is needfull because it is not De fide or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council as all Catholiques unanimously believe he ever does when he defines with it What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us 3. But the Bishop foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity and unless it the Council erre manifestly and intolerably In which cases you may see the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity to fall into another as great viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity nor what manifestly intolerable but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy to exclaim as warranted by the Bishop against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity or manifestly intolerable in both which cases they may with the Relatours license spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom or Commonwealth The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching Declaring and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable and changing according to Circumstances of Time Person Place c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good and necessary to be repealed which can never happen in Decisions of Faith The truth of this is evident even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment Corporal or Pecuniary whereas the Spiritual viz. a General Council layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions Witness the first Four General acknowledg'd for such by Protestants which were they fallible as the Bishop contends they are would be the greatest tyranny not to say Impiety imaginable Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts against Catholique Doctrine 'T is true some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him not for him But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd which is that National or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour if the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council and examine it Sure the Bishop had very ill luck or a bad cause to maintain otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities in so little a Compass as he does For first he leaves us to divine what those Errours are which we must esteem intolerable Secondly he forgets to tell us whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church or its Representative while as is supposed there 's no General Council yet in being Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a
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
contrary hee beeing so great a Champion of the Bishop of Rome's Authority as to assert his Infallibility in defining ex Cathedra euen without a Council and Chap. 48. ibidem teaches that the particular Roman Church as consisting only of the Pope and his Clergie cannot erre by reason of that priviledge obtain'd by our Sauiours prayer Luke 22. 32. for St. Peter and his successors What therefore the Bishop cites out of him for his purpose is nothing to the purpose Waldensis meaning only vnlawfull Councils as appeares by his instancing in no other then the Council of Arimini assembled by an Arian Prefect vnder an Arian Emperour and that of Constantinople vnder Justinianus Minor which Pope Sergius expressly condemned Whereas the Bishop sayes it Seems strange to him this Proposition euen in terms A GENERALL COVNCIL CANNOT ERRE should not bee found in any one of the Fathers J answer 't is sufficient the full sense of that Proposition is found in them as wee haue shew'n in theyr Texts aboue-alledged and it might seeme as strange to mee that this Proposition if it were true viz. Generall Councils can erre in definitions of fayth is not to bee found in any one of the Fathers Jn the next place hee vrges that St Austin makes it the Prerogatiue of scripture alone that whatsoeuer is found written therein may neither bee doubted nor disputed whether it bee true or right But the letters of Bishops may not only bee disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more wise and learned then they or by Nationall Councills and Nationall Councils by Plenary or Generall and euen Plenary Councils themselues may bee amended the former by the latter Vpon which words of St. Austin the Bishop seems to triumph telling vs t' was no news with St. Austin that a Generall Councill might erre and therfore inferiour to scripture which may neither bee doubted nor disputed where it affirms And if it bee so sayth hee with the definition of a Council too viz. that it may neyther bee doubted nor disputed where is then the scriptures Prerogatiue J answer the Relatour does here canere triumphum ante victoriam for though t is true that the scriptures haue no small Prerogatiue aboue Councils wherein nothing is of necessity to bee beleev'd as matter of fayth but the naked Definition it selfe whereas in scripture euery thing euen the least sentence is to be beleev'd with Diuine fayth yet it is cleere that it cannot bee S. Austins meaning that Generall Councils may erre in their Definitions of fayth by what hee frequently deliuers else where namely Tom. 7. 〈◊〉 Baptis contr Donatist where hee expressly teacheth that no doubt ought to bee made of what is by full Decree establisht in a Generall Councill and lib. 7. cap. 5. where hee makes the Definition of a Generall Council and the consent of the whole Church to bee all one against which latter hee tells vs also Epist. 118. ad Januar. t is not only errour but insolent madness for any one to dispute Wherfore wee must eyther make St. Austin contradict himselfe or disapproue of our Aduersaries Exposition of this Text. But what is his meaning then you 'll say in what cases may Generall Councils bee sayd to bee amended the former by the latter as this Doctor speaks Truly in no other then these viz. in Matter of fact in Precepts pertaining to Manners and discipline or by way of more full and cleere Explication of what had been deliuered by former Councils which as they are the comon Expositions giuen by Catholique Diuines of this Text of St. Austin so are they indeed most agreable to it and such as without force the very words of the Text taken intirely will beare no other for when doth this Mending happen in St. Austins opinion Cum aliquo rerum Experimento aperitur quod clausum est et 〈◊〉 quod latebat then sayth hee when by SOME EXPERIMENT of Things that comes to bee opened which was shut vp and that know'n which did lye hid Now who is so ignorant as not to know that Experiment hath not place in matter of vniversall Beleefe but belongs properly to Matters of fact and Things intrinsecally vested with the Circumstances of Time place Person c. from which such points of sayth and Generall Doctrines doc abstract and are wholly independent of them St. Austin therfore cannot in reason bee suppos'd to meane that Generall Councils may bee amended the former by the latter in any thing more then in matters of fact precepts of Manners and discipline or in the manner of Explication when by reason of emergent Schismes and 〈◊〉 t' is Experimentally found necessary for the peace of the Church that a fuller and more perfect Declaration bee made of some thing already defined by a former Council as it happened in the Addition of the word filioque to the Creed of the Council of Nice and in diverse other cases But wee must heare the Bishops exceptions against Bellarmin and Stapleton for expounding S. Augustin in the sense wee haue here deliuer'd Hee sayes first They are both out and Bellarmin in a Contradiction for applying the Amendment S. Austin speaks of to Rules of Maners and discipline I answer the Cardinal is in no Contradiction though elsewhere hee averrs that Generall Councils cannot erre in Precepts of Manners for this is no good consequence Generall Coūcils may amend one another in Precepts of māners and discipline ergo they may erre in such matters The reason is because Precepts of Manners and Discipline depend much vpon Circumstances of Time place person c. which varying it often so falls out that what at first was prudently iudg'd fit to bee done becomes afterward vnfitting and when this happens t is out of question one Generall Council may bee amended by another yet neither of them bee iustly tax'd with Errour they both commanding aright according to different Circumstances To what hee obiects against this exposition that St. Austins whole dispute in this place is against the errour of St. Cyprian followed by the Donatists which was sayth hee an Errour in fayth namely that true Baptisme could not bee giuen by Heretiques and such as were out of the Church I answer this euinces nothing against vs. For though this father takes the occasion of his speech from that errour of St. Cyprian and makes a Gradation in the writings of Bishops Prouinciall Nationall and Generall Councils yet t is manifest hee speaks in a different stile in the last place where hee touches on Plenary Councils cleerly pronuncing that the writings or private Bishops may bee reprehended si quid in eis fortè a veritate deuiatum est so hee affirms that Prouinciall and Nationall Councils must yeeld to Generall ones but of these hee only sayes they may bee mended by others when by some experiment of things that is opened which was shut vp and that know'n which lay hid which
that they are with all submission to bee obserued by euery Christian where scripture or euident demonstration comes not against them But whoe sees not that this Remedy is as bad as the Disease A Generall Council is an awfull Representation if it bee lawfully called and ordered and proceeds lawfully but hee set's not down the Marks wherby wee may know whether it bee lawfuIly called ordered and proceeds lawfully or not Neither does hee tell us whoe shall bee Iudge of those Marks A Generall Council says hee cannot erre in matters of fayth keeping themselues to Gods Rule But this is both ambig uous and vnsatisfactory For if hee meane that a Councill cannot erre so long as it teaches nothing contrary to the word of God what greater Prerogatlue does hee giue to the Representatiue of Gods Church then belongs to any priuate Doctour who cannot erre so long as hee follows and cleaues to this vnerrable Rule If his meaning bee that a Generall Council cannot erre if it considers the testimonies of holy writt and define any thing according to the sense in which they vnderstand those testimonies how can they bee tax't of errour seeing it cannot bee deny'd but Generall Councils in defining many points contrary to Protestant Doctrine did conformetheir definitions to the sense in which vpon serious examination they vnderstood the most pertinent places of holyscripture But Councils must not attempt to make a New Rule of their own True But what the Bishop thinks New is in the iudgement of those graue Prelats as Ancient as the word of God To whom then ought wee to submit To him that is a priu ate Doctor and averrs it to bee New or to that lawfull Assemblie which asserts it to bee Ancient Hee tells us next that Generall Councils are to bee obserued by cuery Christian with all submission where scripture and euident demonstration come not against them But who shall iudge I pray whether scripture or Demonstration make 〈◊〉 against them or not Does not every Heretique that spurns against the Church pretend that the scripture hee vrges is euident and his Reason a demonstration you will reply that the Bishop does not meane by a demonstratiue argument such an one as appeares so only to a private spirit but such as beeing proposed to any man and vnderstood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent vnto it If this bee so how can Protestants bee excused who deny many points defined by Generall Councils Many learned and vnderstanding men of our religion haue read the places of Scripture alledg'd by Protestants against vs and haue diligently ponder'd all the Reasons and pretended euidences their aduersaries bring and yet they are so farre from beeing convinc'd in iudgement that they evidently oppose the beleefe of those points Defined that they are persuaded of the contrary wherfore their arguments are not euident in themselues but only seeme so to their private Spirits and therfore all Christians according to the Bishops rule ought to submit to those Councils in the beleefe of the sayd points Nor wil it serue the turn to say that there was neverany Generall Council besides the foure first wherein nothing was defined contrary to Truth For hence will follow that a Council cannot bee know'n to bee Generall but by the Truth of their Doctrine nor their doctrine to bee true but by the testimony of scripture whence will bee deduc'd that wee ought to beleeue nothing for the Authority of a Council but that wee our selues are the sole Iudges whether the Definitions of Councils bee agreable to Gods word or not If you allow other Councils to haue been also Generall and yet to haue falsely taught any of those points which Catholiques now hold contrary to Protestants you must eyther grant that scripture or demonstration comes not evidently against them or auerre that all learned and vnderstanding Catholiques that haue perus'd their obiections are conuine'd in judgement that what themselues hold is eyther quite opposite to the word of God or contrary to common sense and the light of reason both which are manifestly absurd As for the Remedy hee applies to the second 〈◊〉 it is as ineffectuall as the first The reason hee brings why the supposition of fallibility in Generall Councils does not make way for the whirlewinde of the Priuate spirit is because Priuate spirits are too giddy to rest vpon scripture and too heady and shallow to bee acquainted with Demonstratiue Arguments But this is contrary to experience For which of all those that are taxt to giue way to the private spirit refuse to rest vpon the word of God Doe the Presbyterians in England decline Testimonies of scripture when they Dispute with the Prelatists against Episcopacy and other points Doe the Caluinists flie from scripture when they contend with the Lutherans in Germany against Consubstantiation and vbiquity or with the Arminians in Holland aboute Predestination vniversall Grace free will perseuerance c would the Bishop make us beleeue that all maintainers of the Priuate spirit are so voyd of vnderstanding as not to bee capable of a demonstratiue Argument must they needs bee depriu'd of the light of reason because they thinke fit to follow the Dictamen of their owne reason in what they beleeue or that they cannot comprehend any demonstration in Euclide because they giue way to their private spirit in the vnderstanding of scripture The Bishop esteemes them giddy Shallow insufficient and vncapable of a demonstratiue Argument or of a right vnderstanding of the word of God yet they and their followers are of a different persuasion They take them selues to bee and are reputed by many others to bee persons of strong reason sharp iudgement deep insight in what belongs to scripture and vpon this presumption they will take vpon them to call in question whateuer suites not with their priuate fancie Now to thinke that their priuate spirit is sufficiently oppos'd by saying they are all fooles and vncapable of reason is in my opinion to bee voyd of iudgement and to deserue the like Censure But what shall wee say to the Authority of S. Austin who would haue true demonstrations every where to take place and professes that a Truth so cleerly demonstrated that it cannot bee questioned is to bee preferr'd before all those motiues by which a man is held in the Catholique Church I answer his words are only conditionall and signifie that in case any true and cuident demonstrations could bee brought against the motiues that kept him in the Church they must take place in our vnderstanding in regard the assent which ariseth from those motiues is voluntary and free where as that which would arise from such Demonstratiue Arguments would bee so cleere and necessary that wee could no more preuent it then our assent to this Principle The whole is greater then the part But hence it followes no more that the Church can define what is cuidently contradicted cyther by scripture or demonstration
then that an Angel may feele tast heare because this Proposition is true An Angel would seele tast or heare if hee had a body a tongue or corporall eares But to what purpose does the Bishop goe about to shew that Councils are not to bee our Iudges in points that are cleerly taught by reason or scripture wee shall neuer haue recourse to Councils to know whether the whole bee greater then the part nor whether Jsaac had two sons Iacob and Esau. Neither ever will there arise any case in which all wise persons of the Roman Church will outwardly profess the Doctrine defined by Councils and inwardly aslent that it is contrary to the word of God and to euident demonstration The Controuersie which the Bishop should haue resolu'd is this whether in case one partie pretend and verily beleeue they haue cleere scripture and demonstration for what they say and the other consisting of men at least equall if not superiour to them in point of learning vnderstanding Morall Honestie Prudence and all other helps conducing to right iudgement shall affirme the contrary whether in this case there bee not an absolute necessity of a liuing and infallible iudge to end the Controuersie and whether all Christians ought not to submitt to that iudge notwithstanding any reasons or seeming euidences to the contrary T is strange the Bishop should thinke Bellarmin to grant that a priuate man may lawfully dissent from a Generall Council by reason of some manifest and intolerable errour The Cardinall asserts indeed that inferiours may not iudge superiours whether they proceed lawfully or not vnless it manifestly appeare that an intolerable errour is committed by them But there hee speaks of the Council of the Iews which condemned our sauiour and in condemning him committed an intolerable errour And in that very place hee teaches that the Council of the Jewes wherein the High Preist presided could not erre in matters of fayth before the coming of the Messias but that after his birth they might according to diverse Prophesyes hee there alledges adding that at the very time when the Council was lyable to errour subiects were to submitt to their superiours viz. the people to their Council vnless it manifestly appear'd that an intolerable errour had been committed by them But how can the Relatour inferre from thence that such an errour may bee committed by our Generall Councils since the Cardinal expressly teaches in that very booke that our Generall Councils cannot possibly erre in their definitions of fayth The Bishops next quarrel is with Doctor Stapleton for teaching that the voyce of the Church in determining Controuersies of fayth in Generall Councils is Diuine telling vs that the Proposition stick 's in his throate as if the Doctor had felt some checke in the vttering of it Why because forsooth by way of explicating himselfe Stapleton adds that it is not simply but in a manner diuine Is this to retract in any sort what hee had sayd who sees not rather that 't is only to speake with that necessary caution which the cause requires and which the cauilling disposition of Heretiques doth particularly oblige vs to This Proposition The voyce of the Church determining in Generall Councils is in a manner diuine is doubtless not only most true in it self but also most consonant to Catholicke grounds to witt as expressing that it is not Gods immediate reuelation but only an infallible meanes of applying immediate reuelation to us His next obiection against the sayd Doctor is Blasphemy viz. for aucrring that the Church is the foundation of fayth in a higher kinde then scripture I answer that I haue diligently sought for the words alledged in Stapletons works and cannot finde them The Bishop quotes Relect. Contr. 4. quest 4. art 3. but that question hath no article at all in it 'T is true in the fifth question hee teaches that the Church is more know'n to us then scripture and that it is the meanes of applying to us both scripture and all things else that wee beleeue But this is neither Blasphemy nor Contradiction to his own grounds However should any such proposition bee found in Stapleton J am not bound to maintaine it seeing J haue only engag'd to defend the receiu'd Doctrine of the Catholique Church which no ways depends vpon any such assertion as is here layd to Stapletons charge 2. In the sixth Consideration the Relatour argues to this purpose if a Generall Council bee infallible the infallibility of it is eyther in the Conclusion alone or in the Meanes that proue it alone that is to say in the Premisses or in both together But the Council sayth hee is neither infallible in the Conclusion alone nor in the Meanes or premisses alone nor yet in both together ergo 't is not infallible at all Wee desire to bee breife and therfore not standing to consider the reasons why hee thinks 't is not infallible in the Meanes wee answer 't is infallible in the Conclusion that is in the Doctrine defined though it bee not infallible in the meanes or arguments vpon which it proceeded to the definition The reason is because the one viz. that the Conclusion or defined Doctrine of a Generall Council should bee infallibly true is necessary for the due gouernment of the Church But the other viz. that there should bee infallibility also in the Meanes or in the disquisition aboute the matter before it comes to bee defined is not necessary and it is a know'n maxime Deus non deficit in necessarijs nec abundat in superfluis which holds good in Theologie as well as in Nature God is not wanting in the supply of necessaries noris hee profuse in affording things superfluous To this our Aduersarie replies that 't is a thing altogether vnknow'n in nature and art too that fallible Principles can eyther as father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion But this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the childe of those principles as the fruite of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an infallible Conclusion what ever the premisses may bee This is necessary for the peace and vnity of the Church and therfore not to bee deny'd vnless an impossibility can bee shew'd therein But I hope no man will attacque Gods Omnipotency and depriue him of the power of doing this Hence it appeares how vainly the Relatour fancies to himselfe that Stapleton and all Catholiques are miserably hamper'd in this Argument whereas they all easily answer it as wee haue done What hee sayes next is a meere peruersion of Stapletons meaning whoe neuer teaches that the Church is Simply Propheticall eyther in the Premisses or Conclusion but rather the quite contrary as the Relator might haue seen if hee had pleas'd in the place hee cites T is true hee vses the word Propheticall sometimes speaking of the Conclusion or Definition of a General Council but
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
Pope Alexander How sharp-sighted therfore our aduersarie is in his obseruations against vs appeares by this But seeing these forked syllogismes so Dilommas are sometimes called by Logicians are such Currant Coine with his Lordship it will not I hope be thought vnreasonable if wee pay him one for many Thus then I argue Either the Bishop knew his Relation touching Peter Lombard to be false or he know it not If he knew it not his ignorance in a point wherein he would seeme knowing is hardly excusable and his temerity in affirming without sure ground such a thing as this to the scandall of the 〈◊〉 Pastour of the Church and of a synod of three hundred Bishops and Archbishops by his own confession altogether blameable If he knew it to be false and yet would affirme what he did where is his honestie The like is to be sayd of his 〈◊〉 touching Pope 〈◊〉 and the eight Generall Council defining against Honorius there 's a mistake in it For neither did Pope Honorius really maintaine the Monothelites Heresie nor doe wee maintaine but in a question of Fact as this was viz. whether the sayd Pope had really asserted that Heresie both the Pope and a Generall Council through Misinformation or other Jucidents may iudge amiss The Bishop proceeds asking vs in the next paragraph to this effect that since the doctrine of the Popes infallibility had been so easie a way eyther to preuent all diuisions about the Fayth or to end all controuersies of that nature whensoeuer they should arise why this briefe but most necessary Proposition THE BISHOP OF ROME CANNOT ERRE IN HIS JUDICJALL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FAYTH is not to be found in letter or sense in any stripture Council or Father of the Church I answer first that in the sense wherein Catholiques maintaine the Popes infallibility to be matter of necessary beleese to all Christians it is found for sense both in scripture Councils and Fathers as wee haue already sufficiently proued in prouing the infallibility of Generall Councils of which he is the most principall and most necessary member Secondly euen in the sense wherein the Bishop with perpetuall impertinency 〈◊〉 it viz. as it signifies his personall infallibity without a Generall Council who knowes not that the maintainers of that opinion alledge both scriptures Fathers and Councils for it probably at least as may be seen in their 〈◊〉 disputations vpon that subiect To omitt scripture wherein wee confess there is no express mention of the Pope but only of S. Peter in whose Right the Pope succeeds what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doth not that Council seem to say in effect that the Pope is infallible when vpon reading of his 〈◊〉 to them in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Heresie the 〈◊〉 Assembly of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out with acclamation and profess that St. Peter who was infallible spake by the mought of Leo and that the Pope was Interpreter of the Apostles voice what thinke you of the Council of 〈◊〉 doe not the Fathers in that Council seeme to attribute infallibility to the Pope when they acknowledge that St. Peter was Head and Foundation of the Church and that he STILLL 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 causes of Fayth in and by his successours the Bishops of 〈◊〉 Doth not St. Hierome seeme to make Pope Damasus infallible when speaking of him and his particular Sea he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. vpon this Rocke J know the Church which can 〈◊〉 faile or fall away from the 〈◊〉 Fayth is built Did not St. Austin doe the same with the whole Council of 〈◊〉 when beside their own suffrage which was but of a particular Prouinciall Council they requir'd nothing but the 〈◊〉 sentence only to the full and effectuall condemning of the Pelagian Heresie doth he not speake also to the same effect When he 〈◊〉 that the succession of the Roman Bishops is that very Rock of the Church against which the proude Gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile I might adde St. Cyprian formerly alledged as also St. Leo Pope Innocent the first Pope Gelasius St. Gregory with others but I feare it would be answered that they were Popes and spake partially in their owne cause Beside hauing hitherto wholy declined the defence of that assertion and professed that it would be sufficient for Protestants to acknowledge the Pope infallible in and with Generall Councils only I haue no obligation to engage further in that business nor can I thinke it any way expedient to make the entrance into Catholique Communion seeme narrower to our aduersaries then in truth it is and of necessity must be maintayn'd to be CHAP. 22. The Bishops vaine endeauour to finde out Errours in Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope ARGVMENT 1. The Councils of Florence and Trent err'd not in defining the Priests intention to be necessary to the validity of Sacraments 2. Why the Popes Confirmation is necessary to the definitions of Generall Councils 3. Transubstantiation no errour nor any such late or new doctrin as the Relatour pretends without shew of proofe 4. Communion under one kinde no errour but the allowed practice of the Church in Primitiue times 5. Inuocation of Saynts no errour but the doctrine and practice of the Fathers 6. Not derogatory eyther to the Merits or Mediation of Christ our Sauiour 7. Adoration or worshiping of Images as allowed by the doctrine of the Church neither Idolatrie nor Errour 8. Optatus both partially and impertinently alledg'd by the Bishop 9. Priuate abuses in this or any other matter not iustly imputable to the Church 10. Cassander qualis vir 11. Llamas misunderstood by the Relatour 1. THe Bishop here and in the Following paragraphs brings in a fresh charge of errours in matter of Fayth committed by such Generall Councils as the Pope confirmed The first in the endictement is that of the Priests Jntention which the Councils of Florence and Trent both of them confirm'd by the Pope defin'd to be essentially necessary to the validity of a Sacrament which the Bishop thinks is an errour But before he goes about to proue it to be such he forgets not to tell vs that the Popes infallibility of which wee talke so much is a vayne and vseless thing Why I pray His reason is for that before the Church or any particular man can make vse of it that is be settled and confirm'd in the truth by meanes thereof he must eyther know or vpon sure ground beleeue that he is infallible But sayes the Bishop this can only be beleeu'd of him as he is St. Peter's Successour and Bishop of Rome of which it is impossible in the Relatours opinion for the Church or any particular man to haue such certaintie as is sufficient to ground an infallible beleefe Why because the knowledge and beleefe of this depends vpon his beeing truly in Orders truly a Bishop truly a Priest truly baptised none of all which according to our principles can
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
the force of A. Cs. maxime viz. that 't is safest in order to Saluation to take that way which both parties agree in which imports not any agreement whatsoeuer indefinitely speaking but determinately and specially such an agreement or an agreement so farre betwixt aduerse parties concerning such a point or thing as to acknowledge the beleefe or doing of it doth not destroy Saluation or doth not hinder the parties beeing sau'd that does it Had due notice been taken of this it would haue sau'd him the trouble of bringing this and so many other instances to noe purpose of which more in due place Jn the meane time wee conceiue the disparity betwixt the case and argument of Petilian and A. C. so manifest that it needs no further illustration 10. But here the Relatour growes into choler taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉 vntruth and such as an ingenuous man would not haue spoken for no other reason but for saying there is confessedly noe perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church J answer whateuer the Bishop granted or granted not in express terms to A. C. touching this matter 't is certaine that from what he doth confess it really and necessarily followes that there is no perill of damnation per se loquendo or precisely by liuing and dying in the Roman Church For first as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errours of our Church but cannot discern them those he professedly exempts from perill of damnation if they conforme themselues to a religious life Secondly he grants that such others of the Roman Church as doe euen 〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and liue accordingly are not to be deny'd Saluation Whence I argue If according to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary nor inuoluntary superstition excludes a Papist from possibility of beeing sau'd it is no lowd vntruth nor indeed so much as a mistake to say that in the Roman Church there is confessedly noe perill of damnation in the sense abouesayd that is meerly by liuing and dying in that Communion What he adds after this of some amonge vs who wish the superstitions abolished which they know and pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not and would haue all things amended that are amiss were it in their power if he meanes that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion or that they would haue any thing amended in the Churches publique Authoriz'd doctrine he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion it beeing contrary to Catholique Fayth to beleeue that any such errours or uperstitions can be taught by the Church and he might as well suppose if he had pleas'd that those are Protestants who goe to Church and ioyne with Protestants in exteriour seruice only to saue their estates or for some other temporall ends though they hold the Protestant Tenets contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church for no better then Heresies and would if it were in their power much more willingly heare Mass then common prayer when they goe to Church Neither can he be a Catholique who prayes to God to forgiue his errours in any matter or point defined by the Church for that implies a beleefe or doubt that the Church may haue erred in defining some doctrine of Fayth which according to vs is absolutely inconsistent whith true Fayth no more then wee presume he could haue been thought a Christian or Protestant in the Bishops opinion who should aske God forgiueness for beleeuing some thing deliuered in Canonicall scripture Jn answer to A. Cs. Assertion wherby he preferrs both for number and worth those who deny there is any perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church before those who affirm there is the Bishop that he might more easily confute the passage first of all cunningly diuides it and endeauours to shew that number alone is no sufficient ground of truth Who sayes it is Not A. C. J am sure who as cleerly as he could ioyn'd both together worth to number as a necessary supplement and concluds what he intends ioyntly from them both Now this term worth comprehending not only eminency of power and authority but also of vertue learning zeale prudence sanctity etc. can any man doubt but those who haue the greater number and worth on their side are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth then those who haue incomparably less or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them His long marginall allegations therfore which mention number only serue to no purpose but to amuse And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of vs say that our Fayth rests vpon the number or worth of men as the Bishop will needs insinuate but vpon Gods infallible veracity and authority number and worth of men beeing only motiues of credibility to induce and direct vs prudently to determin to which of the two parties wee are to giue credit when they teach vs contrary doctrines A. C. thought it so euident a thing that those of the Catholique beleefe in the points controuerted betwixt vs and Protestants doe incomparably exceed those of the contrary partie as the Bishop would neuer haue call'd for a proofe of it as indeed it needs none For if wee compare those spread ouer the whole face of Christendome for the last thousand yeares a space of time commonly granted vs by our aduersaries who beleeu'd as wee beleeue and neuer dream't of any perill eyther of schisme Heresie or sinne by liuing and dying in the Roman Church with those few that since yesterday as it were began to dissent from vs and pretend there was perill of schisme c. by liuing and dying in the sayd Church wee shall finde these in worth and number iust nothing in regard of the other So that in truth the Relatour himselfe had he well consider'd it should haue blusht at his own extrauagant obiection you haue not yet prou'd your partie more worthy for life or learning then the Protestants and not bid his aduersary blush for speaking the truth For in this case who sees not that all true Christians who for a thousand yeares together liu'd in the world were and are of our party II. But let vs consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. Cs. maxime that 't is safest to follow that way in Religion in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Saluation His first is taken from the article of our Sauiours descent into hell The Church of Rome sayth he and the Church of England dissenting parties doe agree that our Sauiour descended into hell and that hell is the place of the damned Therfore according to A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue that our Sauiour descended into the place of the damned But this
Rome or after He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church before he settled his seate at Rome and the Brittish Christians if any such were before that time might very well at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary be instructed by their preachers to beleeue and acknowledge him for such CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques and the Roman Fayth prou'd to be the same now that it euer was ARGVMENT 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation and all Protestant teachers excluded by the Bishops own grounds 2. No Church different in doctrine from the Roman can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation vpon the account of his Fayth rather presumptuous then well grounded 4. His pretending to beleeue as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd disprou'd by instance 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM the doctrine and worshiping of Images the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church 6. A. C ' Interrogatories defended 7. Protestants haue not the same Bible with Catholiques in any true sense 8. The index expurgatorius not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques in points defined by the Church 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely or implicitely but Protestants none at all that is infallible 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth nettled a little as it seems by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that returns smartly vpon him in these words she may be better saued in it then you and bids him marke that too Well wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant touching the Ladies Saluation but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe for that in the Bishops opinion his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation But what is his reason because for sooth any man that know's so much of the truth as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling doe and yet opposes it must needs be in greater danger So that it seems learning and sufficiency according to the Bishop haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one and not to see the truth of the other But how false this surmize is appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants that the more learned they are and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine Againe what likelyhood is there that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's seeing it is euident that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing that belongs to Diuine Fayth For teaching as they doe that all particular men all Generall Councils and the whole Church of God may erre what assurance can they giue me that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true or that the sense of the words of Scripture by which they proue their doctrine is such as they vnderstand or that their Church which they grant to be fallible doth not erre in those points wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques viz. because they are within the Church and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation is a Paradox and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds For seeing he hath often deliuer'd that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points as are Prime Radicall and Fundamentall in the Fayth necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians in order to Saluation and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized and hold the Foundation in this sense what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body most of the Heretiques that euer were and that euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it Nor is he content with one absurdity vnless he adioyne a second There is no question sayth he but many viz. ignorant Catholiques were saued in the corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented before their death as 't is morally certain none of them did were lost See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall But what were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours which as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together How could that be were they not all euen by the Bishops own principles members of the true visible Church of Christ notwithstanding those errours by reason of their beeing Baptized and holding the Foundation If they neither lost that Fayth by which they were members of the true Church nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace with what truth or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them He adds that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction or to vse all the meanes they can to come to the knowledge of truth But J demand if no Misleaders but such doe perish with what countenance conscience J might say could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours in the manner he doth that they were lost Can it with any colour of equity or truth be charg'd vpon them that they refus'd the Churches instruction what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together by which had they been neuer so willing they could be instructed to teach otherwise then themselues taught in their respectiue ages and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did to come to the knowledge of truth Why should not our aduersarie in reason haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion from Heresie and all other damnable errour then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers seeing 't is manifest these last oppos'd and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side in the points now controuerted and for which Protestants condemne them of errour The truth is the Bishop is a little intangled here Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques to keep his own people in awe and to fright them from becoming Catholiques but positiuely and determinately what
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
Protestants to note it only in a word by the way haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church not that wee are vnable or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth Religion Church and all things pertaining thereto by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession iustly prescribe against our aduersaries and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they who are our aggressours in this case doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew that our possession is not bonafidei but gain'd by force or fraude or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes A Gentleman that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours is not to be outed of it because an other say's and perhaps beleeues he has a better title to it neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence but the other is bound to euict him and demonstrate that his possession is not good and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe that his own clayme is better otherwise in stead of gaining an estate he will get nothing but a checke In like manner the Lady beeing in possession of a Fayth which for many ages together had been professed by her ancestours and generally by the whole Christian Church 't is not the Bishops telling her that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome or iustly moue her to beleeue that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church but he must make it appeare to be so by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter is to be accounted folly and his confidence rashness I adde how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church English Protestants for example beleeue the Popes power iure diuino is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Bishops witness Tertullian and this long before the Canons of the Church or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority The Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians was not from men but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of St. Clement St. Anaclet St. Sixtus the first St. Pius the first St. Anicet St. Victor with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer So as euen the Centurists themselues and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity are forc'd to confess it They pretend indeed that these Epistles are counterfeite and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes A weake plea for beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them 't is certain that Isidorus Hispalensis who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time and professes that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops to make his collection out of them as well as out of other Epistles and writings which Protestants doe not question Not to vrge that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them and Rufinus himselfe others who was contemporary with St. Hierome nor yet the absolute conformity in point of doctrine and style that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church viz. Iulius the first Pope Damasus Syricius Innocentius Leo and others which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe nor can pretend to be forged but only say that the Popes of those times were arrogant men and began to take too much vpon them The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not according to Gods commandement acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing Vicar of Christ in the Church The Primitiue Church professed that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull to witt in matter of Religion and Fayth the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their Epistle to Pope Marcus that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things witness St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church Witness optatus Mileuitanus that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed to which all must repaire for the waters of life that she is the Rock vpon which the Church is built that to be out of her Communion was to be an Alien from the houshold of God to be out of the Church to be as a profane or vncleane person who might not come into the Campe or Congregation of Israel in briefe it was to belong not to Christ but to Antichrist witness St. Hierome The Bishops of the Primitiue Church beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome as to their proper and lawfull Judge for iustice and reliefe and were likewise by him righted and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe Witness the examples already alledged of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians also of St. Chrysostome The odoret and diuerse others Lastly not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise the Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer Witness St. Austin the Councils
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
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-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
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
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
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
haue pretended to be Pope neither hinder nor make voyde the legitimate and necessary succession of the Roman Church as Doctor Stapleton maintaines it For first euen when differences did happen there was for the most part a lawfull Pope presently chosen vpon the vacancy so that the succession of the Roman Bishops was not at all broken off or interrupted in this case And for the guilt of Schisme if any were it lay only on their part who willfully opposed the lawfull Pope after he was sufficiently declar'd Secondly when it so happened that eyther a lawfull Pope was not presently chosen or that it was not certainly know'n which of the pretending parties was the lawfull Pope yet neither in this case was the succession itselfe euacuated as any man in reason may see but only suspended for a while or the euidence thereof as to the person succeeding pro tempore obstructed For eyther by death or by cession and resignation of the pretendants themselues or by depriuation of those whose elections were notoriously illegitimate or by some other lawfull and Canonicall meanes first or last the right of election to the Apostolique dignity was always cleer'd of doubt and legally settled vpon one person whome therevpon the whole Church presently acknowledg'd for true Pope And as for the Interregnum as wee may call it or the time that such Contestations about the Popedome lasted though it were an vnhappy state of the Church to be so diuided within it selfe yet for the most part there was noe formall Schisme on eyther part For neither did the Anti-popes themselues properly speaking separate from the Catholique or Roman Church so as to deny its Authority but only contested for a time with the person of that was lawfull Pope and vpon a presumption at least pretended that themselues were Pope and not he And though there had been formall Schisme on their part yet seeing there was none on his part that was true Pope what man can be soe vnreasonable as to thinke that the fault of pretenders could preiudice the lawfull succession of him that was rightly chosen Now our Aduersaries wee hope know that the line of succession is continued not by the Anti-popes but by the true Popes To which wee may adde that in all such cases viz. of contestations about election to the Papacy when the matter was really dubious as it was not of any absolute necessity for the Church or the seuerall prouinces of Christendome to acknowledge eyther the one or the other pretendant for true Pope so it was lawfull for them to acknowledge him for such whome they did bonâ fide and prudently iudge to haue been lawfully chosen The superstitions he talks of in the end of this Paragraph are 〈◊〉 layd to our charge and though they were euen iustly charged vpon vs yet seeing by his own principles and profession they are not inconsistent with true Fayth necessary to saluation 't is euident they cannot be vrged by him as an Argument to intringe and nullify the perpetuall succession of Pastours in the Roman Church 12. To A. C. friendly and serious aduice that his Lordship would consider carefully whether it be not more Christian and less brain-sicke to thinke that St. Peters successour together with a Generall Councill should be an infallible iudge of controuersies in matters of Fayth then to make euery man that can but read Scripture an interpreter of it and a decider of Controuersies or to haue noe iudge at all in such matters the Bishop answers that he hath consider'd all this carefully and findes himselfe no way chargeable with the inconveniencies which A. C. specifies of making euery priuate man iudge of Controuersies and a Controuler of Generall Councils or else of admitting noe iudge at all to determin such Controuersies His reason is because he admitts Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church and a lawfull and free Generall Councill determining according to them to iudge of Controuersies and holds that noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these But here the Bishop himselfe is in the briers For tell mee I pray how does this doctrine noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these consist with what he professedly auowes * elsewhere as wee haue often seen that priuate Christians may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions euen of Generall Councils and that if they erre grossly and dangerously as in his opinion they may and haue done 't is noe pride to refuse submission to them Is not this to make priuate men iudges of these things that is to say whether or noe Generall Councils doe determine according to Scripture and the Primitiue Church A thing which the world sees all Protestants doe take vpon them to iudge and the Bishop himselfe as freely as any notwithstanding his great but feigned profession here to the contrary and vtter disclayming from that desiunctiue imputation of eyther a priuate iudge or noe iudge Jn the very next line he openly professes he cannot swallow this proposition that the Pope with a Generall Councill should be iudge Yet the Primitiue Church did not only swallow this proposition but also very well relish it witness its willing and absolute submission to the sowre first Generall Councils consirm'd by the Pope as iudges of those grand and Fundamentall Controuersies that were then agitated and allowing noe priuate man to examin and consider their definitions whether they were consonant vnto Scripture or not He should haue done well to haue told vs what other iudge but this the Pope with a Generall Councill in Controuersies of Fayth the Church hath had what other iudge but this euer was or indeed can be acknowledg'd for such matters And thersore if this iudge be not admitted and that absolutely by vs 't is certain eyther no iudge at all will be found to end these Controuersies or in the finall deuolution of the business euery priuate man will be made iudge The Relatour had he pleas'd might haue found a sufficient answer in Bellarmin to the matter he brings out of AEneas Syluius otherwise called Pope Pius the second namely that he retracted in his maturer age and vpon better consideration what he had formerly as it were in his youth out of heate of contention and vpon presumption of Scholasticall learning written vpon the subiect of the Popes Authority in reference to Generall Councils Neither can the meere want of learning which the Bishop here obiects to some Popes be any sufficient preiudice against their authority nor hinder the operation and assistance of the holy Ghost from concurring with them and working by them in all cases necessary The Apostles themselue and many worthy Bishops in the Primitiue Church were persons of noe great learning and 't is the counsell and wisedome of God for the most part to chuse the weake things of this world to confound the strong and the foolish things of this world to confound the wise
Damned page 336 Heresies Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense by St. Austin and the Churches account page 17 Pelagian Heresie not condemned in the Council of Ephesus page 33 Nor in any other General Council acknowledg'd by Protestants Ibid. Heresie what it is page 178 Properly speaking not within but without the Church page 218 Hereticks Those of former times as great Pretenders to Scripture as Protestants page 50 Faith necessary to be kept with Hereticks the constant Tenet of all Catholicks page 152 Jews THe Jews prov'd the Old Testament to be Gods Word the same way that we Catholicks do the New page 121 They held not the Old Testament for their sole Rule of Faith page 122 Images No real difference betwixt the Ancient and the Modern Church of Rome in point of Images page 294 The Second Council of Nice expresly forbad the Worship of Images with Latria or Divine Worship Ibid. c. The Definition of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images Ibid. The Church hath done what in her lyeth to prevent abuses in Image-Worship Ibid. Images in common use and veneration amongst Christians in Primitive Times page 295 296 Index The Index Expurgatorius justified against the Bishops Calumnies page 342 Infallible The Catholick Church prov'd to be Infallible by the same Means that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were prov'd such page 55 56 62 In what sense Catholicks maintain that the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive and Apostolical p. 80 No Means to be Infallibly sure of Prime Apostolical Tradition if the present Church be Fallible page 83 Necessary for the Church to have power to determine Infallibly as well Not-Fundamental as Fundamental points page 385 Infallibility Whence the Infallibility both of the Catholick Church and General Councils proceeds page 43 The Infallibility of the present Church prov'd from Scripture page 101 102 c. page 177 178 179 In what manner the Churches Infallibility in Teaching is rightly infer'd from the Holy Ghosts Assistance page 375 376 Intention What kinde of Intention in the Priest is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments page 281 282 283 No real Inconveniencies following the Catholique Doctrine touching the Priests Intention page 284 285 Judge Our Adversaries demand of a Third person to be Judge and Umpire betwixt the Roman Church and Them nugatory and frivolous pag. 157 171 172 173 The notorious partiality of English Protestant Prelats in this case p. 174 General Councils by the Bishops own confession the best Judge on earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted page 213 A visible supreme living Judge to determine Controversies as necessary in the Church as State page 219 Legats NEither Hosius nor any other person presided at the Council of Nice but onely in quality of the Popes Legats page 231 Why the Pope sent no Legats to the second Council at Constantinople page 232 At the Council of Ephesus St. Cyril presided as Legat to Pope Celestin. Ibid. The like was at Chalcedon and other General Councils Ibid. Limbus Patrum The Fathers generally teach Limbus Patrum page 336 Literae Communicatoriae The Literae Communicatoriae by whom first ordain'd and to what end page 220 They evidently prove the Popes Authority Ibid. The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope and Those granted by other Catholique Bishops Ibid. Lyturgie The English Lyturgie why unlawful to be us'd by Catholiques page 319 Manichees GReat Braggers and pretenders to Truth when they most oppos'd it page 30 Miracles None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures either Protestant or Catholique page 109 Miracles rather confirm the Churches Infallibility then the Scripture's page 110 They are always sufficiently convincing though they do not actually convert page 115 Monarchy That of the Church not a pure but mixt Monarchy page 219 224 Monarchy acknowledg'd by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government page 220 The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church to what it tends page 224 Multitude Catholiques make not Multitude alone any Infallible Mark of the True Church page 162 Necessary POints said to be Necessary to Salvation in a double sense p. 15 92 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation to believe Scripture p. 91 92 Nice No Synod held at Rome in the time of the Nicen Council page 237 The Council of Nice of absolute Authority without the concurrence of any other Council Ibid. The Council of Sardica esteem'd anciently but an Appendix of the Council of Nice and the reasons why page 194 195 The probable occasion of Pope Zosimus his citing the Council of Nice for that of Sardica Ibid. Obedience NO External Obedience to be given to the Definitions of General Councils should they manifestly erre against Scripture and Demonstration page 241 242 Object of Faith Material and Formal a necessary Distinction page 15 18 What it imports Ibid. Patriarchs IN point of Authority not Equal to the Bishop of Rome p. 183 184 The Bishop of Rome Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs by the very Canon of the Council of Nice Ibid. The Popes Confirmation requir'd to all new-elected Patriarchs Ibid. Eight several Patriarchs depos'd by the Bishop of Rome Ibid. Other Patriarchs restor'd to their Seas by the Popes Authority Ibid. St. Peter In what manner St. Peter represented or bare the person of the whole Church when he receiv'd the Keyes Matth. 16. 19. page 266 267 Christs whole flock more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter then to the other Apostles page 211 Pope The Popes Authority alwayes included and suppos'd in that of the Church pag. 33 The Infallibility of the Pope not necessarily tyed to the particular Church or city of Rome page 132 Catholiques not oblig'd to maintain the Pope Infallible save onely with a General Council page 133 143 In what manner the Popes trewhile indur'd the Emperours censures page 192 The Popes Authority duly acknowledg'd would effectually prevent Heresies and preserve Unity in the Church page 218 The Popes Greatness no effect of Humane Policy page 13 Nor of his Residence in the Imperial-City page 192 The Definition of the Council of Florence touching the Popes Authority page 228 229 The Popes Authority not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes p. 223 Pope Alexander the Third and Pope Innocent the Third not contrary to one another in the cause of Peter Lombard page 279 Pope Honorius not really guilty of the Monothelites Heresie p. 279 280 Priest The judgement of the High Priest and his Sanhedrim in Controversies concerning the Law Infallible under the Old Testament p. 97 123 Prescription Justly pleaded by Catholiques for their Religion not so by Protestants page 333 334 Primacy PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what they signifie especially in Ecclesiastical sense page 200 Primacy inferrs Supremacy and belongs to St. Peters Successors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself Ibid. Protestants Neither Scripture nor any other
point of Christian Religion believ'd by Protestants with Divine Faith page 125 126 127 352 Their Protestation at Auspurgh 1529. directly against the Roman Church and her Doctrine page 146 147 To Protest against the Roman Church in the manner they then did was to Protest against all True visible Churches in the world page 147 Protestants are Chusers in point of Faith as much as any other Heretiques page 353 How far Protestants relie upon the Infallible Authority of the whole Church Ibid. Why unlawful for Catholicks in England to go to Protestant Churches page 401 Purgatory The Council of Florence unanimous in defining the point of Purgatory page 358 The Fathers as well within the first 300. years as after constantly teach Purgatory p. 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 No real difference betwixt praying for the Dead us'd by the Ancients and praying for the Dead us'd by the Roman Church at present p. 360 361 The Testimonies of the Fathers in proof of Purgatory made good page 358 c. ut supra Purgatory rightly esteem'd an Apostolical Tradition page 370 Reformation ALwayes and professedly intended by the Popes themselves in what was really needful p. 147. effected by the Council of Trent Ibid. The Church of Juda no pattern of the Protestants Reformation p. 160 The Parallel for them holds better in the revolted Tribes page 161 Sacriledge the natural fruit of Protestant Reformation page 170 Regicide No doctrine of Catholicks page 212 348 Resolution of Faith How Catholiques do necessarily resolve their Faith into the Churches Definition and how not page 58 60 63. How such and such Books contain'd in the Bible are known to be the word of God page 59 122 No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in the Resolution of their Faith page 55 62 117 126 In urging the Circle both parties must be suppos'd to believe Scripture with Divine and Infallible Faith page 111 The Bishop in his Resolution cannot avoid the Circle page 64 111 Revelation The Churches Testimony or Definition no New nor Immediate Revelation from God page 58 65 Divine Revelation the onely Formal Object or Motive of Infallible Faith page 59 Safe-Conduct GRanted two wayes jure communi and jure speciali and how they differ page 153 The Safe-Conducts granted to John Huss and Hierome of Prague were meerly jure communi and secur'd them onely against unjust violence Ibid. The Safe-Conduct granted to Protestants by the Council of Trent was jure speciali and as Full and Absolute as themselves could desire or the Council grant page 153 154 The 〈◊〉 of the Council of Constance touching Safe-Conducts granted by Temporal Princes what it intended page 154 156 It contain'd nothing against keeping Faith with Heretiques Ibid. Salvation Attainable in the Roman Faith and Church by our Adversaries own confession page 300 301 c. Catholique Doctors in possibility of Salvation by the Bishops own grounds page 323 324 The Roman Religion demonstrated to be a more safe way to Salvation then that of Protestants page 301 302 303 307 308 Saints Invocation of Saints no Errour in Faith page 290 291 The Fathers teach it ex instituto and Dogmatically Ibid. St. Austin expresly for it Ibid. The Saints Mediatours of Intercession not of Redemption pag. 292 The faithful under the old Testament desir'd to be heard for the merits of Saints no less then we Ibid. The Intercession of Saints departed not derogatory to the Merits or Intercession of Christ. page 293 Schisme Protestants not Catholiques made the present Schisme and how p. 144 145 146 212 Schismes at Rome not in the Roman Church properly speaking p. 144 The true and real causes of Protestants being-Excommunicated by the Roman Church page 145 158 In point of Departure as well as other Circumstances the Parallel betwixt them and the Arians holds good page 145 No just cause assignable for Schisme page 151 Scripture Not believ'd to be Divine but for the Churches Authority p. 17 66 67 Scripture alone can be no sufficient ground of Infallible Assent to Superstructures or non-Fundamental points contained in it page 19 No means of Infallibly-discerning true Scripture from false unless the Church be Infallible page 85 In what cases 't is both lawful and necessary for Christians to riquire a proof that Scripture is Gods word page 118 Scripture alone in the Bishops opinion the whole Foundation of Divine Faith page 116 In what sense Christians must suppose or take it for granted that it is Divine or Gods word page 121 What Light the Scripture must have to shew it self to be Gods Word page 87 The Belief of Scripture for its own pretended Light imprudent p. 88 89 90 91 116 125 The Fathers for some hundred years after Christ 〈◊〉 saw no such Light page 70 91 No reason can be given why Catholicks should not see that pretended Light if there were any such page 90 The Council of Nice made not Scripture their onely Rule of Faith in condemning the Arian Heresie page 125 The Scriptures prerogative above the Church page 60 64 Scripture in a proper sense no first principle p. 51 90 114 118 119 Succession St. James not Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church page 205 Our Saviours Prayer Luc. 22. 32. effectually extended both to St. Peter and his Successours page 208 Lawful Pastours visibly Succeeding each other and handing down the same unchanged Doctrine from Christ to this present time an infeparable mark of the true Church page 410 411 Sound Doctrine indivisible from the whole lawful Succession Ibid. The Popes Succession not interrupted by Contestations about the Papacy page 412 413 Sunday That Sunday be kept Holy instead of the Jewish Sabbath an Apostolical Tradition page 67 Synods The Pope no enemy or opposer of National Synods page 166 Sundry National Synods impertinently alled'gd by the Bishop in point of Reformation page 167 168 169 Tradition NOt known but for and by the Churches Authority page 17 Traditions unwritten page 26 67 What Traditions are to be accounted truly Apostolical and the unwritten word of God page 66 c. Universal Tradition morally speaking less subject to alteration or vitiating tiating then Scripture page 98 Church-Tradition a necessary condition of Infallible Belief page 59 How necessary it is that the Tradition of the present Church should be Infallible page 126 Transubstantiation No errour in Faith page 287 Not inconsistent with the grounds of Christian Religion Ibid. The Thing it self alwayes believ'd by Christians page 288 Evinc'd from the Text. page 288 289 Trent The Council of Trent a lawful and free General Council p. 165 229 Nothing to he objected against it more then against all General Councils Ibid. The Popes presiding therein contrary to no Law Divine Natural or Humane but his undoubted Right page 230 231 232 The Pope no more the person to be reform'd at the Council of Trent then at those of Nice and Chalcedon page 232 The place as indifferently chosen for
upon Scripture that is 't is true if themselves may be competent judges in their own cause But his Lordship not liking that Qualification of his speech professeth for himself and his party that they are willing to be judged by the joynt consent and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first Four or Five hundred years after Christ when the Church was as he sayes at the best and by the Councils held within those times and that they will submit to them in all those points of Doctrine This offer is very fair and we do for our selves as Solemnly promise the same and will make it good upon all occasions 9. But to shew the Bishop cannot perform what he hath undertaken Mr. Fisher endeavours to confute him in the point of Infant-Baptisme which saith he is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it words not vainly and cunningly as the Relatour pretends but soberly and discreetly spoken For a point may be exprest and yet not evidently exprest Otherwise there could never be any doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now the Baptisme of Infants must not onely be exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently that is undenyably by Scripture alone For if it be there exprest onely probably it may be probably denyed to be expressed and so Disputations can never have an end out of the Scriptures expression alone For the same reason he addes that Infant-Baptisme is not at least demonstratively concluded out of Scripture because if it be prov'd directly yet onely probably as was said it may probably be denyed and so we shall finde no more end here then in the former Dispute Wherefore our Adversaries cannot in reason mislike this addition of evidently exprest and demonstratively concluded because without this we shall never have an end of Disputations This was it made Mr. Fisher adde those words though the Bishop knew full well that there are many things in good Logick concluded directly which are not concluded Demonstratively as he well shewes But he is much out nay contradicts himself in what he urges That whatsoever is by direct consequence proved out of Scripture is Demonstratively and Scientifically proved For first he supposes Scripture to be a prime principle in Christian Religion that is such a principles as has no dependance on any other to declare it such infallibly to Christian people which he knowes all Catholiques deny Secondly though I should grant Scripture and every Text of it to be a principle amongst all Christians whereof no man should desire any further proof yet unless both Propositions the Major and Minor were evidently in Scripture the Conclusion might directly be inferred but not evidently out of Scripture For in case one Proposition onely be evidently express'd and the other inevidently or but probably the Conclusion indeed will follow directly but not demonstratively This is much more clear if but one Proposition be evidently express'd in Scripture and the other neither in Scripture nor evident to natural reason but onely probable For as Logicians speaks Conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem The Conclusion alwayes follows the nature of the weaker Proposition This will appear to be so in Infant-Baptisme For though no man ought to deny but that many things are Demonstrable in Divinity yet all are not For in this respect as Canus here cited affirms Divinity is like other Sciences which prove not all things Demonstratively but many things onely Topically or probably To illustrate this doctrine a little further by instances First that a Thing may be expresly in Scripture and yet not evidently exprest even according to some Protestants Our Saviour sayes Mat. 26. c. This is my Body where he affirms expresly that what he had then in his hands was his Body and yet according to the Zuinglians this is no evident expression to signifie his reall Body for if that were evidently exprest by these words no man that believes Scripture could deny it as those Heretiques do For 't is impossible to deny an evidence Thus again Mark 16. 16. it is exprest Qui crediderit Baptizatus fuerit Salvus erit yet is it not evidently exprest that every one who believes and is Baptized shall be saved because many are Baptized and Believe who are afterward damned Secondly that a thing may be directly deduced from Scripture and yet 〈◊〉 demonstratively I give these instances All Scripture Divinely inspired c. is profitable c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. But St. James his Epistle is Scripture Divinely inspired Ergo it is profitable c. This consequence is directly deduced in perfect forme from Scripture yet is it not evidently deduced from it for if it were the Lutherans could not deny the consequence as they do because the Minor is not evident in Scripture Or thus Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. But children unbaptized are not born again of water and the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This is directly deduced from Scripture yet all Calvinists must say it is not evidently deduced Or lastly thus That which our Saviour Consecrated in his last Supper was the usual Bread of that place and time but no Bread save what was made of Wheat was the usual Bread of that place and time Ergo that which our Saviour Consecrated was no other save that which was made of Wheat The Major is clear in Scripture but the Minor is onely historically certain so that the consequence is deduced directly but not Demonstratively 10. His Lordships first Demonstration therefore of the necessity of Baptisme to the salvation of Infants is much defective if we stick to sole Scripture as now he is to do For a Pelagian Anabaptist will most easily answer that the Text of John 3. Except a man be born again by water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God speaks onely of such as can be born again Now none can be born again save those who were dead in sinne wherefore Infants having no sin at all as Pelagians hold cannot be born again and consequently must not be Baptized insomuch that this Text is so far from proving against such Anabaptists that Infants must be Baptized that it rather proves the contrary His second That Infants ought to be baptized which he sayes is very near an expression in Scripture it self hath nothing in it at all either of an expression or demonstration For to omit that the word children signifies not Infants but filios or liberos children grown up to years and that by promise is not meant the particular promise there mentioned but the promise of the new Law in Christ the very Text it self confutes him For if the promise be made to their Children which
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
experiment as wee haue sayd is only found in matters of fact precepts of Manners and discipline which depend on Circumstances and are therfore in their own nature changeable or lastly when experience shews that some new arising errours call for a further explanation of some Doctrinall point already defin'd Nor matters it that there was no experiment of fact in St. Cyprians case seeing St. Austin does not consine his discourse to St Cyprians case only but by occasion of his and his Councils errour lays down generall Doctrine touching the different Authority of the writings of particular Bishops prouinciall Nationall and Generall Councils And as for Doctor Stapletons reading Conclusum for Clausum it imports little to the present purpose hee else where reading it Clausum est The Bishops exposition therfore of St. Austins word experiment to bee a further proofe of the question is groundleess and contrary to the know'n notion of the word Nor does it help him that St. Austin in the following chapter where hee speaks of Rebaptization sayes it was a question tenebris inuoluta since hee speaks of it as it stood in St. Cyprians time vndefin'd by a Generall Councill Adde hereunto that St. Austin expressly teacheth in the same chapter that St. Cyprian would certainly haue corrected his opinion had the point in his time been defin'd by a Generall Council which is another manifest proofe that neither St. Cyprian nor St Austin were of the Bishops minde in this particular touching Generall Councils Hence also is iustified what Stapleton averrs as the Bishop reports him viz. That if St. Austin speakes of a Cause of fayth his meaning is that latter Generall Councills doe mend the former when they explicate more perfectly that fayth which lay hid in the Seed of Ancient Doctrine as for example when the Council of Ephesus explicated that of Nice concerning the Diuinity of Christ the Councill of Chalcedon that of Ephesus and the Counil of Constance all the Three This Stapleton speakes by way of Solution to the Argument brought by Protestants from this Text of S. Austin against the infallibility of Generall Councills and the Relatour disingenuous as to make his Reader beleeue that the sayd Stapleton brings it for a proofe while hee ridiculously asks whether it bee not an excellent Conclusion These Councils taught no Errour and were only explained Therfore no Council can erre in matter of fayth 'T is I confess no Excellent conclusion nor ever intended for such by Stapleton But 't is so excellent a solution to the Bishops Argument that it made him giue an Additionall Turn to the rest of his Labyrinth That St. Austin meant plainly that euen Plenary Councils might erre in matter of fayth and ought to bee amended in a latter Council the Bishop does well to say I thinke will thus appeare For in truth hee does but thinke it as will soone bee manifest His maine reason why hee thinks so is taken from St. Austins word emendari which the Relatour tells us properly supposes for errour and faultiness J answer the word emendari is very properly applyable to the taking away of any defect it beeing deriued from Menda which as Scaliger himselfe in his Notes vpon Varro obserues comes from the latin Adverb Minus and properly signifies any defect whatsoeuer and therfore not solely applyable to errour in fayth but to such defects as I haue mentioned aboue Stapleton therfore giues not a forced but the true and proper signification of St. Austins word emendari And this may serue for a sufficient solution to the rest of his discourse the word emendari bearing our sense as properly as reprehendi and ce dere insisted on by the Bishop To what hee adds that St. Austin must bee vnderstood to speake of Amendment of errour because hee teaches it must bee done without Sacrilegious pride without swelling Arrogancie and without Contention of Envy in holy Humility in Catholique peace in Christian Charity which Cautions the Bishop supposes necessarily import some Errour or fault committed by the former Council in mending whereof the following Council might without such Caueats bee apt to insult over the former and the former or their Adherents to envy and contest the Proceedings of the latter I answer St. Austins admonitions in this kinde relate not in particular to Generall Councils but to the other seuerall subiects of his whole discourse viz. Priuate Bishops Prouinciall and Nationall Councils by whome as errour may bee committed so 't is evident Pride Arrogancy Contention may happen in its emendation if not religiously avoyded by the am enders The Bishop proceeds against Bellarmin telling vs this shift of his is the poorest of all viz. That St. Austin speaks of vnlawfull Councils But surely 't is no shift at all in the Cardinal seeing hee gives that Exposition only ex superabundanti and with a peradventure as the Relatour himselfe obserues To what hee brings at last that it is a meere tricke which the Ancient Church knew not and as hee thinks not beleeu'd at this day by the wise and learned of our own side to require the Popes Instruction Approbation and Confirmation etc. J answer wise and learned men will rather thinke 't is a meere Resuerie in the Relatour thus to contradict the perpetuall know'n practise both of Councils themselues which always requir'd the Popes Cofirmation and of the Church which never accounted them Compleate lawfull Generall Councils without it and of Reason it selfe as I haue already Shew'n CHAP. 21. In vvhat manner Generall Councils are Infallible ARGVMENT 1. The Bishop falls into vnavoydable Inconueniences by maintaining that Generall Councills are fallible 2. They are Infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine defined though not always so in the Premisses and the Reason why 3. What Difference there is between the present Church and that of the Apostles 4. An Explanation of St. Austins Text. Lib. de Agon Christian. cap. 30. PETRVS PERSONAM ECCLESIAE SVSTINET c 5. The Council of Constance in point of Receiuing vnder one kinde only not contrary to Christs Institution 6. No vnreasonableness in the Catholique Doctrine touching Infallibility 7. The Bishops various and gross Mistakes about the Popes Infallibility both in reference to Councils and otherwise 8. His Misunderstanding of St. Ambrose 1. THe Bishop labours in his fifth Consideration to avoyd Two Jnconueniences which must needs follow by supposing errour to bee incident to a Generall Council The first is that this supposition layes all open to vncertainties The second that it maks way for a whirle winde of the Priuate spirit to come in and ruffle the Church Hee thinks hee hath found out a Remedy for this twisted Disease To the first Inconuenience hee sayes that Generall Councills as lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and a 〈◊〉 Representation and cannot erre in matters of fayth keeping themselues to Gods Rule and not attempting to make a New of their own and