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
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
laid upon it For St Basil himself even as the Bishop quotes him professes to fight against Heresies by unwritten Doctrine or Tradition yet such as was not contrary but according to Scripture Lastly we say with Biel that Scripture is a Rule which applied by the Church and that is Biels express caution though it might not appear in English measures all things yea and contains all things necessary to salvation either mediately or immediately Wherefore to take notice by the way of the Bishops conceit upon Gedeon's Fleece we averre that Scripture hath not onely Dew upon it but water in it and that enough not onely for a Lamb to wade thorow but for an Elephant to swim but whosoever shall presume to wade or swim there without help of Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradition will surely perish by his presumption He asks what warrant we have to seek another Rule beside Scripture but considers not how groundless his own assertion is that God hath left us Scripture as the onely Infallible Rule which is contrary to the common belief of all true Christians contrary to express Scripture and the constant judgement and practise of the Church in all ages and according to the example of none but confess'd and condemn'd Heretiques 9. But the Bishop tells us that though the Pope should be granted a living Infallible Judge yet would it not suffice against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in Doctrine of Faith or to soder the rents which are made His reason is because oportet Haereses esse c. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith I answer the Church is at all times sufficiently and effectually secur'd from such Rents by the Authority of its chief Pastour where 't is duly acknowledg'd The malice of the Devil and impious men by inventing Heresies hurt not the Church but themselves and their Adherents who by their Heresie and Schism make a divorce from the Church that is either sever themselves or are justly cut off from her for their errours the Church to speak properly remaining still as pure and incorrupt as she was before Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents or Schismatical party which stand in need of Sodering are not found amongst the true Members of the Church who continue still united in Faith and due obedience with their Head and in all necessary Communion with one another but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adher'd to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations And herein truly if passion did not too much blinde us experience would tell us that had not the Pope receiv'd from God the power he challenges of Governing the Church as Supream Head thereof under Christ he could never have been able to preserve that Peace and Unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church there being upon other Accounts so many Feuds and Animosities among the Professours of that Religion or to have subsisted thus long had his pretension to it been grounded on meer Policy and Interest as Protestant Ministers continually suggest to their Disciples especially in these latter ages wherein the wit and malice of his enemies have been sharpened to the utmost and every thing objected even with notorious calumny that might possibly serve to render his Authority suspected and contemptible even with those who acknowledg'd it But leaving him to the execution of his Pastoral Charge let us see how matters go between the Bishop and his Adversary 10. A. C. tells us there is no earthly Kingdom that when matters cannot opportunely be compos'd by Parliament which upon all occasions and at all times cannot be summoned hath not beside the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Supream Magistrate and Judge to determin emergent Controversies and preserve peace in Temporal affairs and thence à paritate rationis or rather à fortiori inferrs that Christ the wisest of Kings hath in like manner provided in his Kingdom the Church beside the Law-Books of Holy Scripture some visible Magistrates and Judges and above all one chief Magistrate and Judge sufficiently impower'd and assisted by his Spirit as to put an end to all Controversies concerning Ecclesiastical affairs and preserve his Church in the Unity and Certainty of Faith To which the Relatour thinks it sufficient to say all this is but a Simile and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing The Similitude upon which A. C. grounds his discourse is that the whole Militant Church is a Kingdom which the Bishop denyes telling us they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or mixt Government But I answer though A. C. urges the Argument in the Similitude of a Kingdom onely yet is it of force in any other kinde of settled Government In a Common-wealth beside the Law-Books 't is requisite there be a living Judge or Judges invested with Supream Authority to determin all matters in difference amongst the people What the Relatour brings against the Monarchy of the Militant Church shews onely that it is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy participating somewhat both of Aristocracy and Democracy I call that a Pure Monarchy in which all the Sovereign Power is so in one alone as that no other person or persons in the Kingdom govern but in vertue of the Monarchs Authority and meerly as his Substitutes A mixt Monarchy is that in which one indeed is Supream and in some cases commands all yet so as others within the Monarchy are Princes and do govern both Towns and Provinces as their own and with rights of Sovereignty though not absolute but holding and depending on the Monarch in chief Now the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical Seeing the Pope as Vicar of Christ and St. Peters Successour hath a Supream Authority over the whole Church yet is not his Monarchy pure but mixt because Bishops within their respective Diocesses and Jurisdictions are Spiritual Princes also that is Chief Pastours and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right and not meerly his Vicars and Substitutes placeable and displaceable at his pleasure In this respect therefore the Government of the Church hath something of the Aristocratical in it And because any man if sufficiently qualified for it may be promoted to a Bishoprick it hath something also of Democratical 11. But since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect what wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern his Church by one Viceroy as the Bishop is pleas'd to tearm him then Aristocratically or by many as he would have it And as for the Literae Communicatoriae which himself alledges
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Communion that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques as then respectively call'd either for Reformation or such a Free Council as Protestants now do viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever profefsing the name of Christ. Again the Oath which the Bishops usually take does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but onely that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded But I answer first the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come making no exclusive mention of any Secondly the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme had excluded themselves and perhaps durst not venture to come as knowing that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission it being confess'd that no known Heretique or Schismatique hath right othertherwise then by special leave or permission to sit in Council Those Greeks whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope as the Relatour surmizes but expell'd and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope and had right of assisting in the Council as true Bishops of the Greek Church We are told again that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present and not above forty or fifty Bishops and for the west nearer home it reckon'd no more then one English viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph I answer many more were both call'd and expected who likewise came long before the end of the Council and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming which was sufficient Concerning those of our Countrey the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council as he might have been otherwise he would have found beside the Bishop of St. Asaph Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session and divers others As for his Authority or Right to sit there being not sent or deputed by the English Church we answer such Mission or Deputation is not of absolute necessity but onely of Canonical Provision when time and state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope Now 't is undeniable that for some years before the Council ended the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey we cannot give much credit to him in what he affirms either of France or Spain It sufficeth that in diverse Sessions of this Council many Bishops of both these Nations were present and might have been in all the rest had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them The impediment was not on the Councils part and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority Legality or Liberty of it and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats 't is manifest the Council was so full that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils which even our Adversaries themselves account General 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice But to this the Bishop will by no means yield telling us the case is not alike between the said Councils and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects First saith he the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed not to depart from Scripture but engaged to prove what they defin'd by many testimonies thereof whereas the Council of Trent as the Relatour affirms concluded many things simply EXTRA out of all bound of Scripture leaving both its Letter and sense I answer the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture they alledged Scripture for their Heresie they said in effect to the Father 's then what the Bishop and his party say to us now we are sure and we are able to prove that the Council of Nice had not Scripture for them There is therefore no such disparity between them as the Bishop pretends The truth is both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined but neither of them hold it for their onely rule or so made use of it as to reject Tradition for which the Scripture it self is admitted In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius but because Tradition was the principal thing that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side the Arians partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts which Catholiques brought against them and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion against the Catholique Doctrine As to what he addes in the Margent that the whole Church concluded that Scripture was against the Arians and agreeing with the Council of Nice but that the like consent is not that Scripture is for the Council of Trent and against Protestants We answer the like consent of the whole Church both is and was when Protestants first began that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition which is equivalent to it was for the Council of Trent and against Protestants Is it not evident to go no further back then the Year 1500. that
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
My Lord having been sufficiently informed of your eminent Authority and great Learning I desire to receive some satisfaction from you in matter of Religion but being not verst in your Christian Principles I am uncapable of accepting of any save what can be evidenc'd to me by the light of Natural Reason Bishop I willingly condescend to your request and doubt not to render you fully satisfied by the means you require Heath I understand by your learned Relation of a Conference c. that the sole Foundation of your Faith is a Certain Book called by you the BIBLE which contains many different Tracts and Histories written in very distant times by several Authours and bound up together in one volume And this you say must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of your Religion as it ought to be believed Now I have employed sometime in perusing this your Bible and am no way inclined by the light of Reason to assent that it is Gods word in such manner as you believe it Bish. Surely you have not employed the Talent of Reason as reason required you should have done otherwise you would have discerned this Book to be the very Word of God For our Faith contains nothing against Reason neither is Grace placed but in a Reasonable Soul Heath But yet your Faith is above Reason and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature so that by Reasons light I can reach neither of them nor can my reason without Grace say you see my way to heaven nor believe this Book Bish. I confess it is so yet Natural Reason is cleared by Grace to see what by Nature alone it cannot Heath Tell not me of Grace I understand nothing of that and believe as little Unless therefore you satisfie me that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being Gods word by conviction of naturall Reason my search is at a stand Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the Question yet I must tell you you may not think that this Principle of Religion That Scriptures are the Word of God is so indifferent to a natural eye that it may as justly lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other for 't is strengthned abundantly with Probable Arguments even from the light of Nature it self Heath A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthned with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may be also said to be but probably false Wherefore I fear Naturall Reason goes not very far in the decision of this question Bish. Say not so For Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason then any thing in the world which any Infidell or meer Naturalist can adhere unto against it Heath This your assertive Answer is doubly defective as I conceive First because it is not enough for one to prove his Religion to stand upon surer grounds then another mans since 't is possible there may be a third Religion resting on surer grounds then either of the other two Secondly because in your own Principles you are not to prove your Bible by your Religion as you here seem to endeavour but your Religion by your Bible which must therefore be first proved and that by Naturall Reason too for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it Bish. This Canon of Scripture the Container of Christs Law is or hath been received and believed for infallible Verity in almost all Nations under Heaven which could never have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason Heath Did the Nations you speak of receive the Scriptures on the sole Account of Reason and thereupon by diligent reading and conferring of Texts became Christians or were they first made Christians and after upon the Churches Authority received them for Gods undoubted word The Authors by you cited in your Book averre not their reception of them for Gods word before they were made Christians What wonder then if I who am yet no Christian see not sufficient reason to receive them for such Truly to me by what has hitherto been said it seems impossible to prove by Reason that your Bible is Gods Infallible Truth Bish. Nay it is not impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth Infallible or make you deny some apparent Principle of your own Heath Evidence me that and your Lordship will accomplish a great work Bish. 'T is an apparent Principle with those of your perswasion that God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of possession since if he could he were neither Absolute nor God in your own Theology But your Gods have been forced out of possession viz. out of the Bodies they possessed by the name of the true God and Christ whom the Scriptures teach and we believe to be the onely true God Therefore Heath Therefore what By what kinde of Logick can you inferre even out of your own premises which yet I might well question that therefore the Scripture is Gods word Bish. Does it not follow that you must either deny your own Gods or your own Principle in Nature And if it be reasonable to deny him for God who is under command why is it not also reasonable to believe that the Scripture is Gods word since there you finde Christ doing that viz. dispossessing Bodies and giving power to do it after Heath My Lord I cannot a little wonder to see you swerve so grosly from the known Rules of Logick as to beg the Question which here you do most palpably while you rest on the sole Authority of Scripture for proving the same Scripture to be the word of God If this be not a meer petitio principii I know not what is Bish. I perceive you are willfull and self-conceited for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard However I shall adde this more that if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if even in the Mathematiques where are the exactest Demonstrations there be quaedam postulata some things to be first demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed who can justly deny that to Divinity a Science of the highest object which he easily 〈◊〉 to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach There must therefore in Reason some principle be supposed in Divinity viz. the Text of Scripture as a Rule which Novices and weaklings may be taught first to believe that so they may come to the knowledge of the Deducibles out of this rich Principle I see not how right Reason can deny this ground Heath I did not think to finde your Lordship so disingenuous as not onely to contradict your self by unsaying all
see the dextrous Windings the Bishop makes to turn Hookers words another way He first would inferre from these words of Hooker So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing that might assure c. that therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition supposing that Hooker spake of proving Scripture to be the word of God But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus Mr. Hookers adversaries the Puritans had affirmed that Scripture prov'd it self to be the word of God by its own light and authority Mr. Hooker asserts it impossible for Scripture to be its own proof After he had demonstrated this he tells his Adversaries that unless besides Scripture there be another proof c. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God Ergo sayes the Bishop he himself against himself holds Scripture to prove it self when every one that has his eyes open may see that Hookers meaning is there must be some other thing different from Scripture to prove the Scriptures to be Gods word and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture c. was occasioned by his adversaries opinion As if he had said unless beside Scripture which you Puritans have ungroundedly put for its own proof there be some other it can never be prov'd sufficiently to be Scripture because I have demonstrated that Scripture which you falsly suppose to be that proof is no such proof at all But let us hear Mr. Hooker make his Apology for himself in his own words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his word For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way So that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure us that we do well we could not think we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy Rule of doing well Hooker lib. 2. § 4. Is there any thing here which proves Scripture to be a ground to it self that 't is the word of God Nay is not the impossibility hereof clearly asserted Is not Hooker in search after an assuring ground upon which Scripture must stand But the Bishop will have this ground whether Mr. Hooker will or no onely concomitant with Scripture that is Church-Tradition onely to lead in and help in assurance which assurance we get by the sole light of Scripture whereas Mr. Hooker will have that assurance both that Scripture is a rule of living well and that we do well in holding it to be so and also that it is the word of God as his words now cited declare to be precedent to Scripture and no other then Church-Tradition If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to it self that it is the word of God in his own opinion he maintains the very same in effect that we say and the quite contrary to the Bishop viz. that supposing we are assured by a proof precedent to Scripture that Scripture is the word of God this I say presupposed Scripture as by a secondary proof can confirm its own Authority viz. either where it teacheth that we are to believe the Church which so assures us primarily or that it self is the word of God This Turn being ended he begins another and that a double one and endeavours to shew that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to shew that Scripture is the word of God is the Tradition of the Church For that Author sayes he states the question in these words The Scripture is the ground of our Belief the Authority of man that 's the name Hooker gives to Tradition is the key which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture Now see his Meanders Hooker sayes the Bishop affirms that Scripture is the ground of our Belief But are those all Hookers words in that Sentence No for I finde amongst them a therein which is neatly hidden in a dark corner Although sayes Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief This one concealed word relates to something which would have quite spoil'd the Bishops market had it been fairly express'd What means he by Therein The words immediately going before tell us Whatsoever sayes Hooker we believe concerning Salvation by Christ although the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief Whence it appears that Hooker rather excludes Scripture from being a ground of our Belief concerning that which the Bishop here pretends viz. that Scripture is the word of God For the word therein which Hooker useth is in this place clearly relative and restrictive and tyes his speech to the particular matter precedent viz. to all things concerning Salvation by Christ. As if Hooker should say Good assurance being presupposed by some antecedent proof that Scripture is the word of God Scripture it self may then be a ground of our Belief touching all other things which concern our Salvation by Christ. How does this place of Hooker now fully and faithfully cited favour his Lordship There is no man that has his brains about him to use his own words but sees how little it makes to his purpose But let us go on The Authority of man sayes Hooker cited by the Bishop is the Key which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter and shew what he means by opening the knowledge of Scripture He speaks thus The Scriptures do not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things Stay a while By this Key therefore which opens the entrance into the knowledge of Scriptures is not meant in this place that Church-Tradition fallibly assures us that Scripture is the word of God as the Bishop would fain interpret Hooker but that it teaches us the meaning of the words of Scripture and thereby opens to us the knowledge of Scripture By what hath been said 't is evident his Lordship had very little reason to fall so hotly upon Brierley as to tax him of falsification as he does num 25. For Hooker clearly teaching that besides Scripture we must have the Authority or Tradition of the Church to assure us that Scripture is Gods word and Brierley affirming no more of him then this I wonder that for speaking truth he should be thought to deserve so sharp a censure from his Lordship CHAP. 8. A further discovery of our Adversaries indirect proceedings in the Question ARGUMENT 1. The Question declined by the Bishop 2.
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
any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may accuse witness judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children To this the Bishop replies that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument but addes withall that no moderate Prince ever thought it just or took upon him to be Accuser Witness and Judge in any case of moment against his Subjects I answer that a Prince being liable many wayes to errours and mistakes in judgement ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge in all matters of personal and private interest between him and his Subjects though in matters of publick concern as of Treason or the like where the business is evident and admits not the delayes of legal Formality I think it would not be accounted unjust for the Prince to be Accuser Witness and Judge too againct a Traiterous Subject However the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith and hath full Authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature As for Parents the Bishop grants that while Children are young they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then themselves and the Children are not withstanding such correction to give them reverence But saith he when Childen are grown up and come to some full use of reason there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother if she forget all good nature and turn stepdame unto them which I willingly grant and leave such injur'd Children for remedy to the Magistrate and the Law to both which the Children may lawfully appeal and the Mother ought to submit as to her Superiours But the Catholique Church duly and compleatly represented in a General Council hath no superiour on earth neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians upon any pretence to appeal from her to any Third Person in causes of Faith the case therefore is not alike Secondly I deny the Bishops supposition viz. that the Roman Church taken in the sense we take it is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children or so far forget her duty both to God and them as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants her undutiful and rebellious sons bring against her and therefore towards them as well as towards the rest of her children she still retains the rights of a Mother and they must not take it ill if as occasion serves she exercise towards them some part of her Motherly Authority but rather bethink themselves of returning to their Due Obedience and conforming themselves to that holy Exhortation of St. Peter which for their better content I shall give them out of their own Bible viz. that laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and evil speakings as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word that is the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine that they may grow thereby to salvation 2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith her proceedings towards Protestants will be found upon due examination most just For though a Prince or Parents may not in all cases be Accusers witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children because it may possibly be evident that they tyrannize over them or treat them injuriously yet when matter of fact is so evident that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children or Subjects when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evidently declare the things criminal for which they are punish'd what need is there absolutely speaking of any further Witness or Judge to punish them Now this is our case The things for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants are clearly matter of Fact viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught actual disobedience to her Canons separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion c. all which are criminal actions and clearly punishable not onely by the Canons of the Church but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholique Countrey No need surely of Accusers and Witnesses where the Offence is notorious Well therefore might the Pastours of the Church who were their proper Judges proceed to Canonical Sentence against them seeing as I said it was notoriously evident and by themselves not deny'd that they oppos'd and contradicted not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world but also the Laws both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Statutes Decrees Customs and Practises universally in force in all Nations where they began their pretended Reformations When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible nor to act by any Infallible Rule for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State and their Rule not the Scripture which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves but either the Book of Common Prayer or the thirty nine Articles or the Queens Injunctions and Book of Canons Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles Did they not for this reason ordinarily summon Anabaptists Brownists Familists and other Separatists to appear at their Spiritual Courts as they call them did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication and other Censutes as the case requit'd and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do Nay did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches did they not bring us into Sequestrations Imprisonments and a thousand other troubles Would they hear us when we appeal'd either to Scripture Fathers Church Councils or any other third person to be Judge between them and us Behold a very just proceeding When they fall foul either upon us or their own Separatists they are content to be Accusers Witnesses and Judges but when they are call'd to justifie their actings against the Roman Church then forsooth 't is an unjust and unreasonable thing then they call for a Third Person to judge not because they are indeed willing to be judged or regulated by any authority under heaven except themselves but because they know that a competent Judge between the Roman Church and them distinct from the Roman Church is impossible to be found A. C. therefore had reason to tell the Bishop that never any competent judge had so censured the Church as he had done and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self could so far prevail against the
thing contrary to Faith tanquam Pontifex as the Cardinals words are that is in vertue of that Authority which they were to have in the Church as his Successors His Lordship quarrels this Priviledge and sayes 't is not out of all doubt though Bellarmin affirms it is And why so Because many learned men have affirm'd the contrary and challeng'd many Popes for teaching Heresie I ask what learned men does he mean his own or ours If his own 't is no marvel they challenge those of teaching Heresie from whose subjection they have revolted and whose persons to justifie their unjust revolt they daily load with bitter invectives and opprobrious appellations If ours What Teaching do's he mean Is it teaching onely in quality of a private Doctour This is not the question here this belongs to the first Priviledge Bellarmin sayes our Saviour obtain'd for St. Peter by his prayer viz. of not personally erring against Faith If he mean Publique Teaching as Doctour and Pastour of the whole Church what Catholique Divines ever taught that the Pope can in this quality teach Heresie Some haply will reply Many Catholique Divines hold that the Pope without a General Council may erre though he teach ex Cathedrâ or as Doctour of the Universal Church Let them name those Authors and let their words be exactly cited which will soon undeceive them seeing they that hold the Pope may erre when he defines without a General Conncil do consequently to their principles deny that without a General Council he either doth or can define any matter as Doctour of the whole Church constantly averring that he never acts in that quality but when he presides in a General Council If our Adversaries please to yield so farre to the Popes Infallibility as to grant him exempt from erring in matters of Faith when ever he defines with a General Council I shall not desire to have further Controversie with them touching that point But by the By I cannot dissemble a slye Turn the Relatour here makes to disguise Bellarmins words Bellarmin speaking of the second Priviledge obtain'd by this Prayer of Christ for St. Peter and his Successours expresly sayes it was ut ipse TANQUAM PONTIFEX non posset c. that he should never as Supreme Bishop or Pastor teach any thing contrary to the Faith But the Bishop leaves out the principal words tanquam Pontifex which should give light to those that follow citing in his English Text onely the latter part of the words thus That neither St. Peter himself nor any other that should sit in his Seat should ever teach any thing contrary to true Faith whereby he makes the Cardinal speak absolutely of all manner of Teaching when he clearly limits his words to teaching onely as Pastour or Doctour of the whole Church which was much to his Lordships advantage indeed but little to his credit Neither is it any absurdity much less a contradiction in Bellarmin to affirm in one place that the Gift not the whole Gift that 's an addition of the Bishops pure liberality obtain'd by this prayer for St. Peter did belong to his Successours and afterwards say perhaps some part of it did not belong to them For what do's this signifie more then that the one was not so absolutely certain as the other though he really believ'd that both parts of the Gift did belong to them and strongly disputes for that his opinion May not a learned Authour positively affirm a thing to be true though it be not infallibly certain If he cannot who can affirm any thing but what is either Demonstratively certain in Science or Infallibly certain in Faith So rigorous a restraint as this would surely cause a deep silence in the Schools of Oxford and Cambridge Nor is the Relators reason of greater force viz. that either both or neither part of the Priviledge must belong to St. Peters Successours because they both stand upon the same foot the validity of our Saviours prayer For I answer the validity of our Saviours prayer depends on his intention What therefore can be certainly prov'd to have been intended by our Saviour to St. Peters Successours we may be certain shall be extended to them but what can be shewn onely probably intended to them we can be onely probably perswaded do's belong to them and may therefore as Bellarmin doth say perhaps it do's not belong to them What absurdity is there in this 3. The Text Pasce Oves Agnos John 21. 15 16 17. comes next to be examin'd wherein our Daedalus windes to and fro to finde a plausible evasion but all will not do Feed my Sheep and my Lambs that is sayes A. C. Christs whole Flock But at this the Bishop bids soft and fair It is onely his Sheep and his Lambs As if Sheep and Lambs were not Christs whole Fock What means this nice distinction between Sheep and Lambs and the whole Flock the Bishop tells us because forsooth every Apostle and every Apostles Successor hath charge to feed both Sheep and Lambs no less then St. Peter I ask where The Bishop replies in Matth. 28. 29. he would say haply 19. for there is no 29 th verse in all this Chapter and Matth. 10. 17. Nay soft there say I. I finde no mention Matth. 28. or Matth. 10. either of Sheep or Lambs Those mention'd Matth. 28. Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti were not yet brought to Christs fold they were as yet unbaptized and uninstructed in the Faith and therefore not pertaining to this Text of St. John nor to the present question For as the Text speaks onely of such as were actually Christs Sheep or Lambs that is actually his Flock so the question is onely whether all such were nor by our Saviour in this Text committed to St. Peters charge and government and collectively speaking to him onely We say the words themselves being so absolutely and indefinitely pronounced without restriction or limitation to any part of Christs Sheep must according to the rules of right Interpretation be understood generally and indefinitely of all that were Christs Sheep and Lambs that is of all Christians whatsoever Till therefore it be evidenc'd from some other place of Scripture as clear as this of St. John that the other Apostles had the feeding of all Christs Sheep as universally and unlimitedly committed to them as here they were to St. Peter or that they themselves who are as properly comprehended under the notion of Christs sheep as any others were excepted out of St. Peters charge it must of necessity be granted both that all Christs Sheep even the Apostles themselves were in some sort to be fed that is govern'd as Christs Sheep ought to be by St. Peter and also that A. C's Gloss expounding Sheep and Lambs to be Christs whole Flock stands unshaken by any thing the Bishop replies Nay he replies nothing at all by way
Prouinces of Christendome so publiquely auouch it to haue been a Tradition of the Apostles to worship Images if it had not been a thing confessedly practis'd amonge Christians euer since the Apostles times and with their knowledge and allowance Is it credible that so many Catholique and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceiue the world with such a lowde vntruth if it had been otherwise As for Transubstantiation which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitiue Church did not beleeue wee haue already shew'n that what is signifyed by the word to witt a true and reall change of the substance of bread into Christs body was cleerly held and taught by diuerse ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church His bare saying 't is a scandall to both Iew and Gentile and the Church of God signifies but little Christ crucifyed was a scandall both to Iew and Gentile but yet a true obiect of our Fayth nor are they the Church or any part of the true Church that are scandaliz'd at it but Infidells and Heretiques who will be scandaliz'd at any thing that suites not with their own fancies As little can he inferre against vs from the difficulty which Catholique Diuines haue to explicate Transubstantiation Js not the Mystery of the B. Trinity in the Bishops own opinion as inexplicable and yet firmly to be beleeu'd why then must Transubstantiation be reiected or disbeleeu'd meerly vpon that ground or because 't is hard to be explicated Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely which bred that pretended scandall in Auerroes but the Reall Presence as his words shew cited by the Bishop Yet the Relatour himselfe and his master Caluin too sometimes make profession to beleeue the Reall Presence After so many vnaduised assertions our aduersarie falls at last to quibble vpon those words of A. C. Roman Catholiques cannot be prou'd to depart from the Foundation so farre as Protestants telling vs 't is a confession that Romanists may be prou'd to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so farre as Protestants doe A doughty inference I promise you But what gaines he by it Doth not the Bishop himselfe num 1. of this very Paragraph vse the like speech of vs when he sayth you of Rome haue gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Fayth then can euer be proued wee of the Church of England haue done If this must not be accounted a Confession that the Church of England hath departed from the Foundation why must that of A. C. be see interpreted as the Bishop will haue it what euer explication be giuen to the Bishops words will serue A. C. as well whose meaning only was that there cannot be brought any arguments to proue our Churches departing from the Foundation but more and better may be brought to proue that Protestants doe likewise depart from it in more and greater points It is not to grant that the arguments which Protestants bring to proue our departing from the Fonndation are solid and conuincing or doe really proue that for which they are brought This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himselfe and to insinuate which A. C. absolutely denyes And as the Bishop had noe reason to inferre any such Confession cut of A. 〈◊〉 words so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalfe of his Church of England Let A. C. instance if he can in any one point wherein she hath departed from the Foundation etc. For that was already done to his hand A. C. had already giuen him this very errour for instance viz. the Church of Englands denying infallible authority to lawfull Generall Councils this beeing in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church and by consequence to subuert the ground of all infallible beleefe in any articles or points of Fayth whatsoeuer Nor does it help him to say there 's a greate deale of difference betwixt a Generall Council and the whole body of the Catholique Church For what euer difference may be in other respects in this viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Fayth and infallible beleeuing what is so taught there is no difference betwixt the Catholique Church and a Generall Councill For if such a Council may erre the Church hath noe infallible meanes to rectifie that errour or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholique doctrine to be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a Generall or oecumenicall Council shewes nothing but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintaines That which was neuer styled or esteem'd by Catholique antiquity but Praedatoria Synodus and Latrocinium not Concilium Ephesinum a den of Robbers and Free-booters a Conuention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretiques that euer troubled or dishonoured the Church by their vnlawfull actings where nothing but secular violence rage and cruelty bore sway euen to bloud-shed and murther of the B. Prelate St. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople this his Lordship brings for an example of a Generall Councils erring Very worthily indeed lett his friends make their benefitt of it Jn the meane time they may know that as on the one side wee readily confess it very necessary the Church should haue remedy against such Councils as this so on the other side wee auerre that the infallibility of Generall Councils truly and rightly so called is such a Foundation of the Roman that is the Christian Catholique Fayth that without it wee know not what can be nor has the Bishop as yet shew'n how any thing can be certaine in the Fayth 6. A. C. after this endeauours by interrogatories to draw from his Aduersarie the confession of truth in answer whereto seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already consuted especially in the 7th and 8th Chapters of this treatise it will oblige vs to avoyd tediousness to be more briefe in our replie A. 〈◊〉 first Querie is how Protestants admitting noe insallible rule of Fayth but Scripture only can be infallibly sure that they beleeue the same entire Scripture Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitiue Church beleeu'd them The Relatour in answer to him tells vs that he beleeues Scripture 1. by Tradition 2. by other motiues of Credibilliy 3. by the Light of Scripture it selfe But first this is not to make a direct answer to the question which is not whether Scripture can be any way beleeu'd or no standing to the Bishops principles but whether and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does beleeue concerning it Secondly 't is vndenyable in the common principles of all Protestants and prou'd already that the two first of these viz. Tradition and the motiues of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Fayth or assurance concerning Scripture and for the third viz. Light of Scripture it selfe it is not only petitio principij a begging of the
question for none of vs euer yet granted him that there was such light but also contrary to experience there beeing noe man that meerly by reading such books as are called Canonicall and others that are accounted Apocryphall can come to know which are Canonicall which not as may appeare by the example not only of such as were neuer taught the maximes of Christian Religion but also of many Christians who though they be able to read yet beeing neuer taught which books were Apocryphall which not know them not by reading Whence it followes likewise that all the insuing discourse which the Bishop makes touching his infallible beleefe of Scripture falls to nothing seeing what he layes as its principall Foundation apparently sinks vnder the weight For a meerly-humane and infallible assurance will neuer support an infallible Fayth of Scripture as euen our Aduersary himselfe grants Nor can he in any better sort make good what he affirm's concerning the Creed and fowre first Generall Councils namely that he beleeues them infallibly in their true incorrupted sense and knowes that he beleeues them so in points necessary to Saluation For seeing he has no infallible certainty that the words or text of the Creed and the acts of the Councils or the books of the ancient Fathers haue not been corrupted how can he haue infallibility in the true sense of them and their conformity to Scripture He pretends indeed to be sure that he beleeues Scripture and the Creed in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitrue Church beleeu'd them because he crosseth not in his beleese any thing deleuered by the Primitiue Church and this againe he is sure of because he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express'd and deliuer'd by the Councils and ancient Fathers of those times But how true this is and how sincerely he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express't by Fathers and Councils may appeare to any that duly considers by the testimonies wee haue already alledg'd against him vpon seuerall occasions out of the Councils and Fathers particularly in this very Chapter and shall yet further alledge in those which follow A. C. asks againe what text of Scripture assures vs that Protestants now liuing doe beleeue all this to witt the Scriptures Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in their incorrupted sense or that all this viz. all that Protestants take to be the true sense of Scripture Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Acts of Councils or writings of the Primitiue Fathers which are now in the Protestants bands and at this his Lordship will needs seeme to wonder But lett them wonder that will The Querie will euer be found both rationall and pertinent notwithstanding such wondering For can any man deny but this is a good consequence Protestants admitt Scripture to be the only infallible rule of Fayth therfore they cannot beleeue infallibly all this aboue mentioned without some particular text or texts of Sripture to be shew'd for it And had not A. C. iust cause to aske whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are now in Protestants hands For seeing it is not in our Bible if it were not likewise in theirs it would be J hope sufficiently euidenc'd to a reasonable Aduersary that it can be found in none But sayth he it is not necessary that this should be shew'd by any particular text because t is made plaine before how wee beleeue Scripture to be Scripture and by diuine and infallible Fayth too and yet wee can shew no particular text for it But how wee pray was this made plaine He told vs indeed that he beleeu'd the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church then by other credible motiues lastly by the light of Scripture it felfe But the two first of these are by his own confession of no infallible authority and the third in effect no more then the Priuate spirit as wee haue often demonstrated to him But admitt the Bishop were sure that the Primitiue Church expounded Scripture in the same sense as Protestants beleeue it yet how will he be able to make good what he adds standing to his own principles this Rule meaning the Scripture as expounded by the Primitiue Church can neuer deceiue mee Did Christ promise infallibility to the Primitiue Church and not to the succeeding Church and if no such infallibility be promised or signifyed in Scripture how can he be certaine they could not erre or deceiue him in their expositions 7. The Bishop tells vs they haue the same Bible with vs but I see not how this can be affirm'd with any truth For Protestants both leaue out many books which wee esteeme part of our Bible and those which they haue with vs are corrupted both in Originalls and Translations Neither doe they admitt and receiue the Bible vpon the same motiue or reason that wee doe Wee admitt it for the infallible authority of the Church propounding it to vs as a diuine booke which infallible authority Protestants deny and by consequence seeing they assign noe other in lieu of it cannot in reason be so infallibly sure of their Bible as wee are of ours Much less could the Bishop iustly say that all is expressed in their Bibles that is in ours vpon this ground only because all Fundamentall points are as proueable without the Apocrypha as with it For who sees not that the same may be affirm'd with exclusion of diuerse other books admitted into the Protestants Canon noe less then ours for example the Epistle of St. Iude the two last Epistles of St. Iohn the Epistle to Philemon the books of Ester Ruth Paralipomena yea perhaps all or very many of the small Prophets it beeing scarce credible the Relatour or any other Protestant should maintaine there were any Fundamentall points of Fayth in their sense to be prou'd out of those books which cannot be prou'd out of any other books or parts of Scripture Soe that if this reason were good an Heretique that reiects vpon the matter one 〈◊〉 or one third part of the old and new Testament shall yet be allow'd to pretend that he has the same Bible with Catholiques and deliuer'd to him by the same hands and that all is expressed in his that is in the Catholique Bible Sure with very much truth and modestie Wee agree with Bellarmin that all matters of Fayth speaking properly are reueal'd only by the word of God Written or vnwritten but wee auerre that they are infallibly declar'd and testify'd to vs to be so reueai'd by the authority of the Church or Generall Councils Nor doth St. Austins text against Maximinus the Arian any way cross or preiudice our 〈◊〉 although it be manifest he speaks there 〈◊〉 by way of condescension and voluntary yeelding to his aduersary and not as forced there to by any necessity of reason St.
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
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
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
eos qui 〈◊〉 perversa 〈◊〉 sentiuns esse cessuros D. Aug. epist. 92. Edit Binii Arabic a Nicol. Pap. cpist ad Michael Imperat b Zozomen lib. 3. cap. 7. c Aug. epist. 162. Ibid. n. 10. d D. Aug. epist. 162. e Optat. Milev lib 1. cont Parmen f D. Aug. cont lit Petil. lib. 2. cap 92. g Aug. epist. 166. h Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 5. i D. Aug. epist. 166. Optat. Milev lib. 1. contr Parmen k D. Aug. de unic Baptism contr Petil. cap. 16. D. Aug. in Brevic. collat Carth. part 3. m Optat. Milevit lib. 1. n D. Aug. epist. 162. o Epist. Constantin ad Episc Cathol in fine Gestor in purgat Caecil Felicis p D. Aug. epist. 60 162. lib. de unic Baptism cap. 16. q Epist. Concil Arelatens 1. r D. Aug. epist. 162. s D. Aug. in Brevic. Collat. Carthag parte 3. col 589 590 591. § 25. n. 10. t Si aliqui in vobis sunt qui certa ipsorum crimina ita noverint ut ea facile valeant convincere talibus communicare formidant PERGANT ad fratres nostros Transmarinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopos ibi prius de ipsorum factis contumaciâ conquerantur quod ad judicium 〈◊〉 Africanorum malè sibi conscii venire noluerunt ut ibi illis denuncietur ut veniant ibique objectis respondeant D. Aug. epist. 162. u An fortè non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melciades Episcopus cum Collegis Transmarinis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris Scptuaginta ubi primas Tigisitanus praesedit fuerit terminatum Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos quicum eo sederent de 〈◊〉 illâ causâ quod justum videretur statuerent D. Aug. ibidem x V. Aug. epist. 162. 166. ubi supra y Ad cujus curam de quā rationem 〈◊〉 redditurus est res illa maximè 〈◊〉 D. Aug. epist. 162. z Concil African Can. 101. a Vt Roman liceat Epscopis provocare ut Clericorum causae apud suarum Provinciarum Episcopos finiantur jam priore anno etiam literis uostris ad eundem venerabilis memoriae Zozymum Episcopum datis infinuari curavimus c. Concil African epist. ad Bonifac. Pap. to which St. Austin subscribed b Si dictum fuerit quod nec Metropolitanum nec Patriarcham habeat dicendum est quod à Sede Apostolocâ quae omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est causa audienda est D. Greg. lib. 11. Indict 6. epist. 54. a Bed lib 5. Eccles. Hist. cap. 20. b Bed lib. 〈◊〉 Eecl Hist. cap. 19. §. 25. n. 11. Baron ad Ann. 419. n. 92 93. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pout cap. 25. in fin Baron ubi suprà a Celestin. Epist. ad Epise Gal. b 〈◊〉 Epist. 87. ad Episcop Mauritan c Victor Vticens lib. 2. de persecut Vandal d Binius Tom. 3. Conc. Edit Colon. e D. Greg. lib. 1. epist. 72 75. lib. 7. epist. 32. c. f Paul Diac lib. 17. de Gest. Roman Ibid. n. 12. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 11. § 25. n. 12. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Concil Chalced. Act. 3. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Concil Constantinop sub Mena Act. 5. c ap Baron Tom 8. ad ann 595. pag. 90. edit Rom. d Baron ad Ann. Cbristi 681. pag. 558. edit Rom. * Binius Tom. 5. in Conc. 6. Act. 18. edit 1636. e Glaber Rodolph Hist. lib. 4. cap. 1. f Theod. Balsam lib. 7. g See Jus Canonicum Oriental lib. 3 h Cod. Justinian Impress Paris Antverp c. Tit. 1. l. 7. i Conc. Constantinop sub Mena. Act. 4. k Conc. Constantinop ubi suprà l D. Greg. lib. 5. epist 24. lib. 4. epist. 39. m D. Greg. lib. 7. epist. 63. n Amular de Divin Offic. lib. 4. cap. 26. D. Greg. lib 4. 〈◊〉 36. lib 7. epist. 69. D. Greg. lib. 4. epist. 76. Ibid. n. 12. Ibidem §. 25. n. 13. a Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam id cst eos qui sunt undique fideles in quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. 25. n. 14. a Ipse autem Dominus constituit cum Primum Apostolorum Petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei aedificata 〈◊〉 Portae Inferorum non praevalebunt adversus illam Quarum Portarum nomine c. D. Epiphan in Anchorat Tom. 2. Edit Petav. pag. 14. 1622. Ibidem b Euseb. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 22. c D. Hieron-De Script Eccl. in Jacobo Ibid. n. 15. §. Respondco Pontificatum d Nullus enim Episcopus praeter 〈◊〉 Sollicitudinem 〈◊〉 unquam omnium Ecclesiarum Et solus ipse vocatus est 〈◊〉 Pontifex Sedes 〈◊〉 Apostolica simpliciter per 〈◊〉 munus ejus 〈◊〉 Bellarm. ubi 〈◊〉 a D. Hieron lib. 10. cont Jovinian §. 25. n. 16. a Bellarm. lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. cap. 3. a Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pout cap. 3. 〈◊〉 ubi suprà Ibid. n. 17. Ibid. n. 18. a Chap. 13 14. § 26. num 1. Iren. lib. 3. adver Haeres cap. 4. a Multae Gentes Barbarorum in Christum credunt sine Chartâ Atramento Scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus salutem veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes And a little after Hanc Fidem qui sine literis c. Iren. ubi supra b Tertullian de Coron Milit. cap. 3. 4. c D. Cyprian Epist. 63. d D. Basil. lib. 3. de Spirit Sanct. cap. 27. 29. e D. Epiphan Haeres 61. 75. Item in Anchorat f D. Hieron Dial. contr Lucif a D. Aug. lib. 1. De Baptism cap. 18. Ibid. n. 2. a Indeed the Protestants admit no infallible Means Rule or Judge but onely Scripture which every man may interpret as he pleases and so all shall be uncertain A. C. pag. 60 Ibidem n. 3. Ibidem n. 4. b Tertull. lib. De 〈◊〉 Milit. lib. 1. cont Marcion lib. 2. ad uxor lib. 〈◊〉 Veland Virgin c Contra insurgentes Haereses saepe pugnavi Agraphis verum non alienis à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiâ D. Basil. Serm. De Fide Tom. 2. pag. 153. Ibidem n. 5. Ibidem n. 6. 1 Cor. 11. 19. Ibid. n. 8. §. 26. n. 8. Gerson Tract De Auferibilitat Papae Consid. 8. Item Consid 20. Auferibilis non est usque ad consummationem saeculi VICARIUS SPON SUS Ecclesiae quin aliquis Certus Unicus 〈◊〉 c. Hier. Epist. ad Evagrium a D. Hieronym in cap 16. Matth. Epist. 54. ad Marcel lib. 1. Dial cont Lucif Ibidem n. 9. Ibidem Bellarm. lib. 1. De Rom. Pont. cap. 7. Ibid. n. 10. Ibid. n. 11. Ibidem Tertul. adv Scapulam Ibidem Ibid. n. 12. Ibid. n. 13.
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
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