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
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
the Bishop translates him and doth not expresly say Semper retinebit it ever holds and not it shall ever hold the true Faith speaking of the Roman Church yet certainly in this place the word retinet coming after these other ab antiquis temporibus habet and having Semper annexed to it must in all reason be understood to relate to the severall Differences of Time past present and to come Sixthly that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alledging of St. Cyril and Ruffinus as holding his opinion about the particular Church of Rome whereas Bellarmin hath not so much as St. Cyrils name in that whole Chapter nor Ruffinus's but onely when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him and when he alledges those two Authors in his third Chapter he expresses both the places and their words but it is to prove another Proposition and that of St. Cyril is a quite different Text from what the Relatour thrusts into his Margent Thus eagerly fights he by Moon-light with his own shadows Seventhly that his Lordship confounds two Questions that are distinct and distinctly treated by Bellarmin viz. Whether the Pope when he teaches the whole Church can erre in matters of Faith which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastour of the Church with this whether the particular Roman Church that is the Roman Clergy and People cannot erre in Faith which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th Chapter Lastly that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus c. Thou art Peter c. cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter as abstracted from his Person but onely to his Person as made in that occasion for and in vertue of that Confession perpetually to endure in him and his Successours THE ROCK of Christs Church But of these hereafter The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question concerning Infallibility whether to be admitted in any Church or not at length in the 20 th page removing St. Peters Chair out of his way and from the City of Rome and disporting himself a while in that particular City or Diocess in a kinde of Raillery upon its Infallibility his Lordship comes to the Greek Church on occasion of some words spoken by a friend of the Ladies in defence of that Church I believe that Friend did a friendly office to the Bishop in giving him a rise for a new Dispute and diverting the Lady from pressing him further for a satisfactory answer to her Querie 4. The question started by this friend was as I have already hinted about the Faith of the Greek Church which Mr. Fisher told him had plainly made a change and taught false Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that he had heard his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost This latter part of Mr. Fishers assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King whereas in truth he highly honour'd his Majesty and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judgement in that point touching the Holy Ghost But the Bishop with all his respect and present flattery is resolved to contradict his Majesty yet that he might seem to do it but in part he introduces this distinction viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two wayes 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errours and sins and the punishment that is due unto them 2. The other is when it loses not onely this Assistance but all Assistance to remain any longer a true Church Now the Bishop denyes the Greek Church to have lost the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in this latter Acception viz. totally which would render it no true Church but grants it to have lost that special Assistance specified in the first branch of the distinction But this he sayes is rather to be called an errour CIRCA SPIRITVM SANCTVM about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an errour CONTRA SPIRITVM SANCTVM against the Holy Ghost Thus he minces what he had said before That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost and that they erred against him But let us see what Arguments his Lordship brings in proof of his Assertion that the Greek Church continues a true Church and that their errour is not properly against the Holy Ghost Here the Bishop makes no great haste but breathing himself a while does very prudently prepare his Reader to expect no great matter from him in this kinde For dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds There is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man or that the personal defects of any man should press any more then himself Also that he entred not upon this service but by command of Supreme Authority there being as he sayes an hundred abler then himself to maintain the Protestant Cause This his acknowledgement as I have no reason to blame him for it so I cannot see what just cause his Lordship had to censure Mr. Fisher for thinking so humbly of himself as to confess there were a thousand better Scholars then he to maintain the Catholick Cause Before we come to the Bishops proofs I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words which are these I was not so peremptory viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamental Divers learned men and some of your own were of opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a question not simply Fundamentall I know and acknowledge that errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity After this he adds as a Theological proof of his own Since their form of speech is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father BY THE SON and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a TRVE CHVRCH though I confess them AN ERRONEOVS Church in this particular Are not these very specious expressions I was not so peremptory Divers learned men were of opinion I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grievous errour in Divinity I dare not deny them to be a true Church They seem to agree with us They think a diverse thing from us But I pass by his trifling and make way for truth It is to be considered that now for many hundred years the whole Latin Church hath decreed and believed it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of
there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
Prime and Fundamental Points But in what Author learn't he that Dogma fignifies only Maximes were it in the plural number Dogma according to our common English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received opinion whether in prime or less principal matters But as the Grammatical so the Ecclesiastical signification of this word extends it self to all things establisht in the Church as matters of Faith whether in Fundamentals or Superstructures Thus Scotus calls Transubstantiation Dogma Fidei and I would gladly know one Authour who ever took the word Dogma for onely Fundamental points And as for Vincentius Lirinensis first he declares in other places that he means by it such Things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction cap. 23. Vocum inquit id est DOGMATUM rerum sententiarum novitates And cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet DOGMATE eodem sensu eademque sententia The like he hath cap. 24. where he affirms that the Pelagians erred in dogmate Fidei who notwithstanding erred not in a Prime Maxime but in a Superstructure And for this place cited by the Bishop 't is evident that by Catholicum dogma he must understand the whole Complex of all the points of Catholique Faith whether Fundamental in their matter or not whereof if an Heretick deny any one part whatsoever sayes this Authour he may by the same rule deny all the rest Nay 't is evident that Lirinensis could not understand onely such points as are Fundamental in respect of their matter For seeing this Catholicum dogma contains the whole Systeme of the Catholique Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures even according to Protestants it must necessarily contain both and Vincentius makes it clear in the instances he gives that he also understood points not Fundamental in the Protestant sense For in the Systeme of Catholique points which he there enumerates is contain'd the observation of Easter decreed by Pope Victor and afterwards defined in the Council of Nice and the not-Rebaptizing of those who had been Baptiz'd by Heretiques maintained by Pope Stephen against St. Cyprian and Firmilian and likewise afterwards confirmed in the same Council Now what I say of Catholicum Dogma in the first sentence cited out of Lirinensis I say the same of Depositorum Dogmatum custos in the second For what rational man can imagine that no other Christian verities or revealed Doctrines were deposited by our Saviour and the Holy Ghost with the Apostles and by them with the Church save onely the Articles of the Creed wherein are expresly contained all points of Faith that are Fundamental in respect of their matter as the Bishop presently affirms was not the whole Canon of Holy Scripture with every chapter verse and sentence contained in it the matter and form of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church the Baptisme of Infants the not-Rebaptizing of Heretiques the perpetual Virginity of the ever Blessed Mother of God and many other such like points Deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles whereof no one is expresly contain'd in the Creed nor esteemed Fundamental by Protestants Did not think you the Church perform the Office of a faithful Keeper of all these as well as of the Articles of our Creed and were not those who pertinaciously erred in these particulars esteemed throughout all Christendome as Heretiques above 1200. years ago Here then in his wresting and winding Catholico Dogmate he gives us no less then a Turn and half in his Canterburian Labyrinth The Church then ever did and ever will so keep those sacred Depositums be they or be they not Prime and Fundamental in their matter as that hoc idem quod antea what she receives she delivers to all succeeding ages the very same in Substance it ever was only unfolding what was before wrapp'd up when any thing comes to be call'd in question by Novellists whom she judges to impugne either directly or indirectly and covertly the Faith that Catholicum Dogma which she hath received Upon which occasions she sometimes declares certain Truths as necessary to be expresly believ'd by all to whom that Declaration is sufficiently propounded and commands certain errours to be expresly rejected both which were before believ'd or rejected onely implicitely to wit by the Belief of those Known and Receiv'd Divine Truths in which these other were contain'd tanquam in radice or in semine as Vincentius speaks For the Church is so tenderly careful of every Iota and Tittle of these Sacred Doctrines in whatever matter they consist great or small which were delivered to her by the Divine Authority of Christ and his Apostles that she uses all possible industries not onely to keep unblemished what was clearly and plainly expressed in the Doctrine delivered to her but whatever else she findes necessary for conserving them in their Primitive integrity and purity Thus hath she us'd all possible diligence to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire not onely in the prime Articles of Faith but in every the least truth delivered in them Thus from what she had received concerning Christs being both God and Man yet but one Christ she declared against Nestorius that he had but one person against Eutyches that he consisted of two distinct Natures the Divine and the Humane and against the Monothelites that he had Two Wills all which particulars though they were not so fully express'd and reflected on before those Heresies arose yet were they virtually and implicitely included in the Doctrine first received and afterwards became necessary to be expresly believed by the Declaration of General Councils I take no notice of the Relatours Translating Disputator errans 〈◊〉 Disputer and Dogmata Deposita the principles of Faith Such errata as these as they may seem perhaps too minute so are they too frequent to be reflected on But when he would have either the Church her self or some appointed by her to examine her Decrees to wit in matters of Faith for of those onely is the controversie lest for want of it she be chang'd in Lupanar errorum a thing so foul he dares not English it though I wonder not much that 't is said by him yet can I not but wonder that he ventures to father it on Lirinensis citing a lame sentence of his in the Margin for proof of it whereas this Authour in that very place is so far from entertaining the least thought or letting fall the least word importing that the Church should adde Novitia veteribus Novelties to Ancient truths and consequently alter and corrupt her own Doctrine that as if he had foreseen such a perversion of his meaning at the end of the chapter cited he seems purposely to explicate his own meaning and to point out the persons guilty of such practices in these words Sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus Divina pietas sisque hoc potius
being declared by the Church to us as points of Faith may lawfully that is without peril of sin and damnation be denyed or doubted of For in this they hold the Affirmative we the Negative The reason why we have no occasion in this Controversie to treat this distinction in any sense save this is because it relates onely to our Adversaries who maintain they are not obliged under pain of damnation to believe some Definitions of the Church made in lawful General Councils even whilest they expresly know them to be so defined because say they those Councils may erre in such Definitions by reason the matter they contain is not-Fundamental Wherefore we neither say nor intend to shew it Sub Anulo Piscator is which are his Lordships tearms that 't is as necessary to believe St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men as that Christ dyed and rose again the Third Day We hold the contrary the one being a Prime Article and Fundamental in the first explicated sense the other neither Prime nor Fundamental But we stand to this That whoever shall finde in Scripture That St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and yet question or deny the truth of it cannot for that time believe any thing with Divine Faith Therefore in the second sense it is Fundamental to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and though the contrary should be shewed under the Great Seal of England I would not believe it Now if the belief of every point of Faith decreed by the Church be as necessary to Salvation when sufficiently propounded to us for a point decreed by the Church as it is necessary to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made by our Saviour Fishers of men when it is sufficiently propounded to us as clearly delivered in Scripture then it will be as necessary to Salvation that is as much a Fundamental point by reason of the Authority which delivers it as the other CHAP. 4. The Conclusion of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. What points Fundamental what not a Necessary question 2. The Apostles Creed confessedly contains not all Fundamentals in particular 3. Albertus Magnus cited to small purpose 4. A. C's words wrested in defense of Mr. Rogers 5. Catharinus might erre but was no Heretique 6. How Protestants agree 7. A. C. mutilated the second time in favour of the English Canons 8. English Protestants excommunicate Catholiques as much as Catholiques them 9. Some Things contain'd in Scripture expresly not evidently Some Truths deduced from Scripture directly not demonstratively 10. Baptisme of Infants not demonstratively proved by the Bishop from Sole Scripture 11. What St. Augustin thought of that matter 12. The Bishop proved to contradict himself 1. 'T Was a very pertinent question which Mr. Fisher afterwards moved requiring to know what points the Bishop would account Fundamental For if he will have some Fundamental which we are bound to believe under pain of Damnation and others not Fundamental which we may without sin question or deny it behoves us much to know which they are I have ever desir'd a fatisfactory answer from Protestants to this question but could never yet have it in the sense demanded 2. What if the Council of Trent call the Creed the onely Foundation it containing the Prime points of our Faith which all are obliged to know and expresly believe yet I hope his Lordships followers will not grant that we may question or deny every thing that is not exprest in the Creed and yet this must be done if the Creed onely be held for Fundamental in the sense the question was propounded in If they should reply that not onely those points are Fundamental which are exprest in the Creed but those also which are there infolded by this means they may as the Bishop speaks lap up in the Creed all particular points of Faith whatever And truly seeing his Lordship goes so far as to include all the Scripture in the Creed there appears no great reason of Scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other points especially of that Tradition for which we admit Scripture it self For this would not make the fold much larger then it was before and if it did yet I see no hurt in it But let us briefly reflect how well the Bishops Answer satisfies the question propounded by Mr. Fisher. The matter proceeded thus The Jesuit had said that the Greek Church was not right because it held an errour concerning the Holy Ghost The Bishop confessed that what the Greeks held in that point was an errour and a grievous one in Divinity but not Fundamental and so hindered them not from being a True Church Whereupon that it might appear whether the errour of the Greek Church were Fundamental or not Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop what points he would account Fundamental To this question the Bishop after diverse artificial flourishes serving to little or no purpose but to draw the Readers attention from the Obligation he had to give a perfect list of his Fundamentals answered All points in the Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental but soon after affirms that he never either said or meant that they onely are Fundamental By which it evidently appears his Lordship neither gave nor meant to give a Categorical Answer to the question but did industriously decline it while granting there were other points Fundamental beside those contain'd in the Apostles Creed he would not assign them in particular Wherefore though the Greeks errour were not contrary to any point expressed in the Creed yet seeing it might be contrary to some other Fundamental point not contained therein Mr. Fisher must needs remain as unsatisfied as before whether the Greeks erred in a Fundamental point or not Is not this fine shuffling 3. Before I leave this § I shall note by the way that to prove this Proposition that the Belief of Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed he cites Albertus Magnus in these words Regula 〈◊〉 Concors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Articulis Fidei c. the Rule of Faith is the Concordant sense of Scripture with Articles of Faith Now first here 's nothing of believing the Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible for that 's presupposed but onely what sense the Scripture must have to be the Rule of Faith Secondly here 's no mention of the Creed but of Articles of Faith which Albertus held to be many more then those specified in the Creed Thirdly this sentence of Albertus makes the Scripture no further a Rule of Faith then as it accords with the Articles of Faith first delivered by Tradition 4. By what hath been said is confuted whatever the Bishop hath to pag. 44. where Mr. Rogers is brought in by Mr. Fisher as acknowledging that the
in this point upon this particular Text or no is little material 'T is sufficient they acknowledge the thing we contend for viz. the Prerogative of Infallibility and Immunity from errour in the Church and that they generally derive it from our Saviours special Promises unto the Church and his Presence with it which Presence and Promises this Text with others of like nature do clearly contain as the Bishop himself acknowledges Wherefore with far greater reason we return the challenge upon himself and press the Relatours party to produce any one Father that ever deny'd the sense of this place to reach to infallible assistance granted thereby to all the Apostles Successours in such manner as we maintain it The like answer of our satisfies his exposition of the third place John 14. 16. For what was promis'd there for ever must in some absolute sense so far as is necessary to the preservation of the Church from errour be verified in future ages He frames also an answer to a fourth place viz. John 16. 13. which speaks of leading the Apostles into all truth This he restrains to the persons of the Apostles onely And he needs not tells us so often of simply all For surely none is so simple as not to know that without his telling it But we contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart 't is also to be understood in relation to their Successours assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church 5. Now one main reason of this difference between the Apostles and succeeding Pastours of the Church I take to be this that every Apostle apart had receiv'd an immediate Power from our Saviour over the whole Church so that whatever any one of them taught as Christian Faith all the Church was oblig'd to believe and consequently had he err'd in any thing the whole Church would have been oblig'd to follow and believe that errour Whereas on the other side the succeeding Bishops generally speaking were not to be Pastours of the whole Church but each of his own respective Diocess so that if particular Pastours preach'd any errour in Faith the whole Church was unconcern'd in it having no obligation to believe them But in regard those respective Pastours when they are assembled in a lawful Representative or General Council are in quality of the Pastours of the whole Church if they should erre in such a body the whole Church would be oblig'd to erre with them which is against the promises of our Saviour Hence also it follows in proportion that the Bishop of Rome being Pastour of the whole Church when he teacheth any thing in that quality viz. as Pastour of the whole Church and intending to oblige the whole Church by his Definition cannot in the common opinion erre for the same reason 6. To give also the Fundamentall Reason for this Exposition one and that a certain way to know when our Saviours words spoken immediately to the Apostles are to be extended to their Successours in all ages is this that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words in future ages no less then it requir'd it in the Apostles times then we are to understand that his words extend themselves to those ages unless there be some express limitation added to his words tying them to the Apostles onely Thus when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to Preach Baptize Remit sins Feed their Flocks c. Seeing these actions are as necessary for all future ages as they were in the Apostles time 't is manifest they were to reach to all succeedinga ges Again in regard he also promised John 16. 13. to lead the Apostles by his Holy Spirit into all truth and seeing 't is as necessary now for those who act as Pastours of the whole Church as all succeeding Bishops do when they meet in a lawful Oecumenicall Council to be led into all those truths into which he promis'd to lead the Apostles for the reason but now alledged it evidently follows by vertue of our Saviours promise that they are alwayes and effectually so led And though it would be boldness as the Relatour terms it to enlarge that promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles so far as to give to every single succeeding Bishop as Infallible a leading into all truth as each of the Apostles had yet may it without any boldness at all be affirmed that the succeeding Bishops assembled as abovesaid have an infallible leading into all truth as being then Representative Pastours of the whole Church to teach and instruct her what she is to believe St. Austins words therefore which the Bishop cites calling them in a manner Prophetical are not with the least shadow of reason applyable to us but to a world of Phanaticks sprung from the stock of Protestancy and who still pass under the general notion of Protestants And this I may boldly assert in regard 't is clear that the said great Saint and Doctor held the self-same Doctrine we here maintain while for instance he accounts our obligation to communicate Fasting to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost of which Will of the Holy Ghost we are not ascertain'd by any Text of Scripture but by the Church alone 'T is manifest sayes he that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of our Lord they did not receive Fasting Must we therefore calumniate the Universall Church for alwayes receiving Fasting Since the Holy Ghost was pleased herewith that in honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of our Lord should enter into a Christians mouth before any other meat For this cause this Custom is observ'd throughout the world I might easily produce several other instances to the same effect if this one were not sufficient as I presume it is 7. Neither hath the Bishop any ground to averre that this promise of settling the Apostles in all truth was for the persons of the Apostles onely because the Truths in which the Apostles were settled were to continue inviolably in the Church What wise man would go about to raise a stately Building to continue for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable Building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continuall Assistance also to the succeeding Pastours of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those Truths wherein he first settled the Apostles as Vincentius Lirinensis above attests The Church never changes nor diminishes nor addes any thing at all nihil unquam no she changes nothing She neither cuts off any thing necessary nor adjoyns any thing superfluous she loses not what is her own she usurps not what belongs to another c. but onely
to their execution But surely one and a chief one of those ALL was to teach Infallibly the whole doctrine of Christs Gospel Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers inabling them to perform this so important a work when 't is necessary to be executed that is when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversie among Christians to be determined Nor will that conclusion hence follow which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastour of the Church would be Infallible for 't is no wayes necessary that every particular Pastour should be Infallible but 't is absolutely necessary that the Church in general or a General Council should be Infallible because otherwise there would no means be left in the Church sufficient to determine Controversies of Faith or prevent the spreading of Schismes and Heresies To the end my Reader may the better conceive this he is to understand there are divers degrees of Christs presence and assistance in reference to the Ministers of his Church All of them cannot challenge all priviledges but must be content with those that properly belong to their respective state and condition in the sacred Hierarchy And yet as all the said degrees are grounded upon this and the like promises of our Saviour so 't is necessary they be all verify'd according to the respective necessities of the Church The Supream Degree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance and therefore assign it onely to those who have Supream Authority in the Church and in cases onely of most urgent necessity for preventing of Heresies and Schismes In all other cases and in reference to all other Ministers of the Church we profess that so long as the Teaching and Governing part of them is continually so assisted by Christ that it generally leads not his Flock into errour in Faith nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded the promise is sufficiently perform'd on Christs part and St. Leo's words In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda rightly enough explicated though every private Pastour become not a Prophet and every Pulpit an Oracle as the Relatour vainly surmizes The third place urged by A. C. is out of St. Luke 22. 32. where Christs prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church against all errours in Faith whatsoever The words are these Simon Simon Behold Satan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have prayed for Thee that thy Faith fail not and thou once converted confirm thy Brethren 'T is clear that Christ here prayed that Faith in the Church might not fail either by praying for St. Peter as he was a Figure of the whole Church which is the exposition of the Parisians or by praying immediately for St. Peters person and mediately for the whole Church which he represented Aud thus at least that our Saviour in that Taxt prayed for the whole Church Bellarmin expresly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the Bishop It seems strange therefore that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviours praying here for the Church The prayer then of Christ extended it self to St. Peter and his Successors and by them to the whole Church according to those words of St. Bernard Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est aliquando Ego rogavi pro Te ut non deficiat fides tua c. I think it fitting saith he that the damages in Faith should be there chiefly repaired where Faith can suffer no defect For to what other Chair was it ever said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Take therefore which of these Expositions you please if an Infallible Assistance of Christ be once granted whereby his Church is sufficiently preserv'd from all errour in Faith whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors as Supream Teachers of the Church or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter yet still the Church will be Infallible by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour 8. The fourth place named by A. C. is that of St. John chap. 14. 16. to which he addes a consequent place John 16. 13. both of them containing another promise of Christ to his Apostles and in them to his Church viz. that the Comforter the Holy Ghost shall come and abide with them for ever teaching them all things c. and guiding them into all Truth We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Churches Infallibility So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishops various Trippings and Windings in his review of them First he sayes these promises if you apply them to the Church consisting of all Believers and including the Apostles are absolute and without any restriction which certainly is but a loose assertion taking it in the Bishops sense which is that the Apostles were free not onely from all errour but from all ignorance in Divine Things for so his Authour a Dr. Field speaks whom he cites in the Margin Were the Apostles not ignorant of any Divine matters why then doth St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 13. 9. We know in part Did the Apostles understand the whole counsel of God concerning mankinde why then doth the same Apostle cry out Rom. 11. 33 35. O the depth of the Wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements c. and who hath known the minde of our Lord Secondly if these promises of Christ be so absolute and without any restriction in regard of the Apostles to what purpose is that Text of Theodoret cited in his Margin which sayes expresly they ought to be limited in regard of them and that they did not signifie the Apostles should be led simply into all Truth but into all Truth necessary or expedient to Salvation Thirdly the Bishop having limited the promises of being taught and led into all Truth as they relate to the present Church onely to Truths necessary to Salvation he is not yet satisfied but addes another limitation to that viz. Direction of Scripture Against this Truth saith he meaning Truth necessary to Salvation the whole Catholique Church cannot erre keeping her self to the Direction of Scripture as Christ hath appointed her But I ask what Priviledge then has the Catholique Church in these promises of Christ more then every private Christian Surely with this condition of following the direction of Scripture there is none of the faithful but may pretend to be as Infallible as the Church Fourthly they must be limited sayes he to all such Truths as our Saviour had told them But the Apostles were taught divers things of principal concernment in order to Salvation by the Holy Ghost
't is apparent hee does it only in a lesse proper or Analogicall sense to signifie that by vertue of diuine Assistance and direction such a Conclusion or Definition in regard of precise verity is as infallibly true and certaine as if it were a Prophecy Neither is there any Contrariety in this betweeen Stapleton and Bellarmin for both agree that neither Church nor Council doe publish Jmmediate Reuelations nor create any New Articles of Fayth but only declare and vnfold by their definitions that doctrine which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered Both of them likewise confesse that whether the Principles from which the Church or General Councils deduce their definition haue intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine defined or noe yet the Conclusion or definition it selfe is of infallible verity the holy Ghost so directing the Council that it neuer defines any conclusion to bee of fayth but what is de facto matter reueasd by God eyther in those Principles from which the Council deduces it or at least in some other The Relatours whole Discourse therefore vpon this subiect of Prophecy falls of it selfe to the ground as beeing built vpon a pure I had almost sayd a willfull mistake viz that Stapleton maintaines the Decrees of a Generall Councill to bee Propheticall in a proper sense which hee does not and consequently that it was wholly needless for our aduersary to talke so much of Enthusiasms and tell vs so punctually what Prophecy is what vision and that neither of both are to bee gotten with study and Industry For wee know all this and therfore wee doe not style the definitions of Councils Reuelations or Prophesies or visions or the like but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study and industrie only wee aerre the study and industrie which the Prelats in Generall Councils doe vse for the finding out of Truth is always crowned by God with such success as infallibly preserues them from errour Stapleton goes on and giues vs the reason why a Generall Councill must necessarily bee infallible in the Conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Fayth not of Knowledge and that therfore the Church proposing it to bee 〈◊〉 though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art Meanes or Argument but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost else when wee embrace the Conclusion proposed it would not bee an Assent of Fayth but an Habit of Knowledge To this the Bishop replying seemes to broach a New Doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an Habit of Knowledge To this the replying Bishop seemes to broach a new doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an habit of Knowledg But surely Diuine Fayth is according to the Apostle Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which doe not appeare to wit by the same meanes by which wee giue this assent of Fayth otherwise our Faith would not bee free and meritorious T is true the same conclusion may bee Fayth to one and Knowledge to another according to St. Austin and St. Thomas cited by the Bishop but this must bee vpon different motiues and therfore Fayth as Fayth can neuer bee knowledge which is all that Stapleton vrges The motiues of Credibility then which wee haue for our Fayth doe not by euident demonstration shew the truth thereof though they make it euidently credible in so much as hee would bee imprudent who should refuse to giue his assent So though the Bishop doe truly assert that the Church in all ages hath been able to stop the mouthes of philosophers and other great men of reason when it is at the highest yet this is also true that our sauiour did neuer intend to sett vp a schoole of Knowledge but of Fayth and that Councils in their definitions relie not on any demonstratiue reasons but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost promised to them In like manner the Faythfull ground not themselues on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church but on Gods Reuelation obscurely but certainly and infallibly applyed to them by the Church In the seauenth Consideration the Relatour takes notice againe of a Querie that A. C. made to him viz. if a Generall Council may erre wherein are wee neerer to vnity by such a Council But in stead of giuing a punctuall and direct answer as hee should haue done hee falls a fresh vpon certaine new considerations which hee aduances vpon this subiect whether the Protestant opinion that Generall Councils may erre in defining matters of Fayth or the Catholique opinion that they cannot bee more agreeable to the Church and more able to preserue and reduce Christian peace which in effect is little else but to answer one Querie by many and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth by a gentle turn to lead him back againe through all the Meanders thereof howeuer wee must obserue his Motions 3. His First Querie or Consideration is whether an absolute infallibility bee promised to the present Church or whether such an infallibility will not serue the turn as Stapleton acknowledges I answer no doubt but it will Lett Protestants acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church as that worthy Doctour maintaines and wee shall bee agreed for that matter But the Truth is our Aduersarie does here only confound his reader and wrong the Author hee alledges by not declaring sufficiently in what sense hee speakes For Stapleton in the place cited expressly teaches that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree or Conclusion but also in the Meanes or Arguments and this he calls absolute or exact Infallibility whereas the present Church is only infallible in the Decree or Conclusion and this also it hath by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost yet not by a new Immediate Reuelation Whence it appeares that this Authour is cleere for the Churches Infallibility though hee doe not in all respects equall it to that of the Apostles and consequently that it is not hee but the Bishop himselfe that wriggles in the bussiness vnworthily endeauouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him Bellarmin is vsed no better whose doctrine is cleere that in the Decree or Conclusion a Generall Council is as certaine as the scripture because both are infallible and nothing can bee more certain then what is infallible though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtiues aboue Generall Councils as that it is Gods immediate Reuelation that there not only the Conclusion but Euery thing is matter of Fayth c. which agree not to a Generall Council 4. Howeuer to pass to this second Consideration or Querie wee shall not much quarrel his term of Congruous Infallibility but rest contented if Protestants will acknowledge such an Infallibility in the present Church as is congruous and agreeable to the promises of our sauiour and to the necessities of the Church so as by vertue
the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS
greatest and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage and eating certaine meats was a doctrine of 〈◊〉 and that those who held it should sall from the 〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church as well as the Donatists and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions which in the Bishops iudgement doe Shake but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines what shall hinder but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ may notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉 bound to heare and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here good Reader what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow vnder paine of beeing in as bad or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition then an Heathen and Publican 4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation because both parties viz. Catholiques and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it but doe not both of them agree that it may be had in the Protestant Church and Religion The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to shew that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to thinke that ours is the safer way His first instance is this The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes and the Orthodox also but that of the Orthodox was held true and valid only by the Orthodox and not by the Donatists yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two How then does it follow that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion as the safer way to heauen because both parties agree that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants This is the Summe and 〈◊〉 of his first instance To which J answer that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists as the safer way but he must committ two sins the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques in diuine Rites such as the administration of Sacraments is the other against Fayth which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity when the greatest and most considerable 〈◊〉 to witt that of the Orthodox hold it cannot be done except in case of necessity without damnable 〈◊〉 which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite different from this For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉 his Saluation whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉 But no 〈◊〉 did euer grant that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉 reasons and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary or that a man who had so embrac't the Baptisme of Donatists might liue and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault and repented of his 〈◊〉 You will say perhaps that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme thought valid in the iudgement of both parties because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉 and forbad it vnder paire of sinne so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant who is taught by scripture or otherwise and is fully persuaded that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours contrary to Gods words embrace the Roman Church and Religion though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church and Religion J. answer and acknowledge that as a few 〈◊〉 or Arian is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉 beleefe so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion so long as his conscience tells him that it 〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word But J say withall that as a few Mahumetan and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth if sufficient motiues were propounded to him and that according to the principles of both parties the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours were offer'd to him and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants and Catholiques that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation Now that by the ioynt principles or doctrine both of Catholiques and Protestants our Religion or Fayth is the safer way wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours whensoeuer they will attend to them is sufficiently euidenced from hence seeing an infinite multitude of persons who haue as good naturall witts as themselues as tender consciences as themselues haue read and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as themselues vnderstand all contrary reasons and obiections as well as themselues yet belecue with absolute certainty as diuine Truths those very points which Protestants conceiue to be errours 5. Tho other instances which he brings seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement then in the Argument he impugns In the point of the Eucharist sayth he all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England then with the Roman and Lutheran because all agree in this truth not in any other opinion Here are many words spent to small purpose For first can a man be sayd in any true sense to communicate rather with the Church of England then with the Roman or Lutheran only by beleeuing that where in they all agree and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this But put case by
say's the Bishop the Romanists will not endure because St. Thomas and the schoole generally agree in it that he went really no further then LIMBVS PATRVM I answer by denying his proposition There is no such agreement of parties as the Bishop pretends though the Church of Rome and the Church of England doe both agree that our Sauiour descended into hell yet they doe not both agree that by hell eyther in the Creed or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned is vnderstood the place of the damned Here therfore our aduersarie cleerly disputes ex falso supposito and the argument in truth may be much better retorted vpon himselfe thus Both parties agree that Christ descended into hell but both parties doe not agree that by hell is vnderstood here the place of the damned for the greater and better part of Diuines hold the contrary ergo 't is safer not to beleeue that he descended into the place of the damned then positiuely to assert it as some English Protestants doe His next instance is about the Sacraments beeing receiu'd in both kindes and as little to the purpose as the former For though wee agree that our Sauiour instituted the Sacrament that is made it himselfe and ordain'd it to be made by his Ministers in both kindes yet wee neither agree that he instituted with intention or gaue any command that it should be always receiu'd in both kindes by all the Faythfull nor doe wee grant possibility of Saluation to any that out of priuate Hereticall persuasion holds it ought to be receiu'd by all or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary doe receiue it in both kindes Our Sauiour gaue it in one kinde only to the two Disciples at Emmaus Lucae 24. as both St. Austin St. Chrysostome St. Hierome Theophylact and others of the Ancients witness whose example the Church following alwayes allowed the vse and manner of receiuing this Sacrament free as to the Faythfull viz. eyther to receiue it in both kindes if their deuotion inclin'd them thereto or only in one in case they desired no more till of later times the custome of receiuing it in forme of bread only growing more generall and inconueniences of receiuing it in both kindes multiplying the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiuing it in forme of wine and inioyn'd what is now in vse Whence likewise it appeares 't was not iniuriously as the Bishop pretends but iustly requir'd of the Bohemians not to condemne the practice of the Church for receiuing in one kinde when she dispensed with them to receiue in both To what he obiects against the doctrine of concomitancy inuented as he sayes by St. Thomas of Aquin and contrary to truth for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Bloud shed and powred forth and not of Bloud contained in the Body I answer that howeuer the term it selfe might perhaps be first vsed by the Angelicall Doctour yet the thing thereby signify'd was always the constant doctrine of the Catholique Church which euer taught that by Consecration vnder each species the entire Sacrament or whole Christ was putt and therfore vnder each of them as well the Body as the Bloud and as well the Bloud as the Body was contain'd notwithstanding it be certaine that the precise words in the Consecration of bread express noe more then Christs Body nor those vsed in the Consecration of the chalice any more then Christs Bloud Wherfore to shew what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration and what by vertue of naturall connexion or vnion Diuines commonly make vse of this distinction ex vi verborum and per Concomitantiam Ex vi verborum or by vertue of the precise words of Consecration Christs Body only is vnder the forme of bread and his Bloud only vnder the forme of wine but per Concomitantiam by reason of naturall connexion or vnion wherby the parts of Christs Humanity are neuer to be diuided one from an other the Bloud is vnder the forme of bread also and his Body vnder the forme of wine and his foule and diuinity or Godhead vnder both And this the Bishop must grant if he hold the reall presence except he would haue vs thinke that Christ is dead in the Sacrament contrary to St. Paul who plainly tolls vs Rom. 6. 9. He dyes no more As for the Priest that consecrates there is a double necessity for him to receiue vnder both kindes The first is gathered from Christs words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament and interpreted to vs by the vniuersall doctrine and practice of the Church The second grounded vpon the nature of the thing which is not only a Sacrament to be distributed amonge the Faythfull but a true proper and perfect Sacrifice representing that vpon the Cross where not only Christs Body was Crucifyed but also his Bloud was shed for vs. And therfore the Priest who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar must not only consecrate in both kindes but receiue in both kindes to compleate the sacrifice His third instance is about the Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist wherein he pretends that they and wee agree But this is false speaking in the Protestants sense or of such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice as excludes that which is reall and proper Where did Catholiques euer agree with Protestants that it was not 〈◊〉 sin in them to deny the true reall and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist or that they might be saued acknowledging only such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist as they doe Lett one only Author of the Roman Church be named who teaches this or that bread broken and wine powred out vnderstanding naturall and substantiall bread and wine as the Bishop must doe according to Protestant principles were in true and proper sense a Commemoratiue Sacrifice amongst Christians For this were to say in effect that Christians vnder the Gospell did really Sacrifice to God naturall bread and wine and therby adde another Sacrifice to that of Christs Body which were a very gross errour In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptisme he lapses againe For what wee agree with Protestants in wee stand to as most safe to be done in order to Saluation Now this is only in the present case that due matter and forme must necessarily be vsed for the validity of Baptisme Doe any of vs or can any man deny but it is safer in order to Saluation to vse due matter and forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme then not to vse them The Bishop indeed would gather from hence that wee must also account due matter and forme sufficient without intention But this is more then the rule obliges vs to doe The rule certainly bindes A. C. to no more then to acknowledge the thing wherein differing parties agree to be saser then the contrary or negatiue of it which wee doe
Rome or after He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church before he settled his seate at Rome and the Brittish Christians if any such were before that time might very well at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary be instructed by their preachers to beleeue and acknowledge him for such CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques and the Roman Fayth prou'd to be the same now that it euer was ARGVMENT 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation and all Protestant teachers excluded by the Bishops own grounds 2. No Church different in doctrine from the Roman can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation vpon the account of his Fayth rather presumptuous then well grounded 4. His pretending to beleeue as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd disprou'd by instance 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM the doctrine and worshiping of Images the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church 6. A. C ' Interrogatories defended 7. Protestants haue not the same Bible with Catholiques in any true sense 8. The index expurgatorius not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques in points defined by the Church 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely or implicitely but Protestants none at all that is infallible 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth nettled a little as it seems by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that returns smartly vpon him in these words she may be better saued in it then you and bids him marke that too Well wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant touching the Ladies Saluation but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe for that in the Bishops opinion his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation But what is his reason because for sooth any man that know's so much of the truth as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling doe and yet opposes it must needs be in greater danger So that it seems learning and sufficiency according to the Bishop haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one and not to see the truth of the other But how false this surmize is appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants that the more learned they are and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine Againe what likelyhood is there that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's seeing it is euident that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing that belongs to Diuine Fayth For teaching as they doe that all particular men all Generall Councils and the whole Church of God may erre what assurance can they giue me that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true or that the sense of the words of Scripture by which they proue their doctrine is such as they vnderstand or that their Church which they grant to be fallible doth not erre in those points wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques viz. because they are within the Church and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation is a Paradox and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds For seeing he hath often deliuer'd that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points as are Prime Radicall and Fundamentall in the Fayth necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians in order to Saluation and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized and hold the Foundation in this sense what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body most of the Heretiques that euer were and that euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it Nor is he content with one absurdity vnless he adioyne a second There is no question sayth he but many viz. ignorant Catholiques were saued in the corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented before their death as 't is morally certain none of them did were lost See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall But what were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours which as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together How could that be were they not all euen by the Bishops own principles members of the true visible Church of Christ notwithstanding those errours by reason of their beeing Baptized and holding the Foundation If they neither lost that Fayth by which they were members of the true Church nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace with what truth or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them He adds that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction or to vse all the meanes they can to come to the knowledge of truth But J demand if no Misleaders but such doe perish with what countenance conscience J might say could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours in the manner he doth that they were lost Can it with any colour of equity or truth be charg'd vpon them that they refus'd the Churches instruction what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together by which had they been neuer so willing they could be instructed to teach otherwise then themselues taught in their respectiue ages and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did to come to the knowledge of truth Why should not our aduersarie in reason haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion from Heresie and all other damnable errour then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers seeing 't is manifest these last oppos'd and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side in the points now controuerted and for which Protestants condemne them of errour The truth is the Bishop is a little intangled here Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques to keep his own people in awe and to fright them from becoming Catholiques but positiuely and determinately what
well to the verity of doctrine Who teaches otherwise who sayes 't is tyed to place and persons only who denyes but succession of the same and by consequence of true doctrine is requir'd together with succession of persons This Memorandum therfore serues vs only for an occasion to acknowledge with Tertullian that besides the order of Bishops which is personall succession there is requir'd consanguinitas doctrinae conformity of doctrine in those persons to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles 't is requir'd I say that the doctrine which succeeding Pastours teach be allyed in bloud and of Kin to that which Christ and his Apostles taught as the Relatour also vrges in so much as if the doctrine which succeeding Pastours teach be strange that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the succession it selfe will be iudged Alien and strange too what neereness soeuer of persons is pretended All this wee willingly confess with Tertullian in the places cited by the Bishop Irenaeus likewise teacheth that wee are to obey those Presbyters or Bishops who together with the succession of their Bishopriques haue receiued the grace or guift of truth to which wee subscribe and for this reason maintaine that the Greeke Church would want one necessary marke of the true Church though she could shew a continuall visible succession of persons in her Hierarchy because they haue long since erred and doe still continue in errour against the true Fayth by denying the procession of the holy Ghost to be from the Father and the Sonne as it hath been defin'd in Generall Councills As for Protestants 'tis manifest that vpon this account they are excluded from beeing part of the true Church seeing 't is confess 't by Protestants that for neere a thousand yeares before Luther there was noe visible Church that denyed those points of doctrine which Protestants now deny and account damnable errours and superstitions in our Church And J wonder how any rationall man can imagin that in so long a tract of time wherein the pretended errours are sayd to be introduc'd all those Watchmen appointed by God to be vigilant ouer the Church and not to hold their peace should be soe dead a-sleepe as not to take the least notice of them for such and Protestants alone after a a thousand yeares so much awake as not only to obserue them but to breake Communion vpon account thereof 10 Well But wee must now help Doctor Stapleton out of the brieres vpon which sayes the Bishop he hath torn his credit The Relatour himselfe acknowledges this Authour for a great Clarke but will haue 〈◊〉 beleeue that to make good the succession to the Roman Church he is forced to contradict himselfe Why because he first affirms that sound doctrine is iudiuisible or inseparable from true and 〈◊〉 succession and presently after tells vs that a lawfull Pastour may become a Wolfe to witt by teaching Heresie and false doctrine which if it may happen the Bishop concludes sound doctrine and lawfull succession are separated which is contrary to what Stapleton sayd before But our Doctour needs no such help as the Bishop imagins it is but fairly and rightly vnderstanding him and the business is done Doctor Stapleton when he teaches that sound doctrine is inseparable from true and lawfull succession takes succession collectiuely or for the whole succession of lawfull Pastours in any particular age of the Church meaning therby that it can neuer happen that all the lawfull Pastours of the Church in any age should desert sound doctrine or teach Heresie he takes it not distributiuely for any particular Pastour or Pastours of the Church all which generally speaking he knowes very well may erre in their own persons and desert sound doctrine Like as when the Bishop himselfe teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall he meanes only that the whole Church cannot so erre but any particular person or member of the Church may Now what contradiction is there betwixt these two propositions the whole succession of lawfull Pastours cannot be separated from sound doctrine and some particular Pastours that is part of the whole may and become of Pastours wolues truly iust as much as there is betwixt these the whole Church of Christ cannot fall away from the truth but euery particular member of the Church may This worthy Doctour therfore will neuer be forc't as the Relatour thinks and would faine haue it to quit the great note of Church-succession that he may agree with the Fathers but he will inuincibly and vnanswerably maintaine that which both the Fathers and himselfe meane by this great note to witt a legitimate succession a succession of Pastours which hold entire both the vnity and Fayth of the Church this beeing the summe and vpshot of all his doctrine touching this point namely that the true Catholique Church is know'n by this that there is in her a perpetuall succession of lawfully-sent Pastours deliuering and receiuing the doctrine of Christ one from an other continually or in all ages which likewise they are always to be suppos'd to haue done and to doe so long as the Church in no succeeding determinate age notes any change of doctrine or publique introduction of nouelty to hane been made by any of them nor that any such change is found recorded by any of those approued Authours who liued in the respectiue ages of the Church and in their writings left report to posterity of all such publique occurences both concerning Religion and the Church as happened in and about their times Wherfore to accuse the Church of Rome of change in doctrine as the Bishop here and all Protestants doe without alleadging such Authentique proofe what is it but out their own arbitrary presumption and malice to pass an vncharitable and rash censure vpon their mother contrary to all rules of equity truth iustice and Christian pietie Till therfore such proofe of change be alledged from sufficient and creditable Records all prudent and impartiall men will iudge the accusation signifies not much saue only that the Church is vnworthily and shamefully wronged by her Aduersaries which is no new thing This then is the haire if wee may so speake in which the strength of that our English Sampson Doctor Stapleton lyes which none of the Philisthims of Gath or Ekron eyther Prelaticall or Presbyterian Aduersaries whateuer they may talke shall be able to cutt off The promise and power of Christ so defends it that no Aduersarie powers shall euer preuaile against it Matth. 16. 18. J meane the continuall vninterrupted succession of lawfull Pastours teaching the same doctrine of Christ in all ages of the Church without any assignable beginning since the time of the Apostles 11. Those pretended Schim's which the Bishop obiects out of Onuphrius that is to say the contestations which haue sometimes been touching elections to the Papall dignity wherby seuerall persons at the same time