object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firme and close joyn'd to a sure foundation but not Fundamental But here his Lordship misconceives or rather misalledges A. C's Argument For it is not as he frames it All points defined are made firme ergo all points defined are Fundamental but thus All points defined are made firme by the full Authority of the Church ergo all points defined are Fundamental And his reason is because when any thing is made firme by the full Authority of the Church it is so firme that it cannot be denyed without shaking the whole foundation of Religion and consequently is Fundamental 6. But the Bishop proceeds further and makes this Argument Whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in her absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid This Argument will lose all its force by putting the Reader in minde of the Distinction between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals which we admitted in the material object of Faith for if this be reflected on there will be a foundation for the Church without supposing her to be in perfect being before her foundation be laid We have often declared what we understood by Fundamental viz. That to which we cannot refuse our assent by denying or doubting of it when it is proposed to us by the Church as a matter of Faith without damnation and without destroying the formal object of Faith and without making our selves during that deliberate doubting or denying uncapable of believing any thing with Divine and Supernatural Faith For surely whatever is of this nature must needs be Fundamental in Religion So that we admit the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in respect of the material object of Faith but not in respect of the formal that is as we have often said some matters of Faith are more universally necessary to be expresly known and believed by all then others and yet the Authority revealing that is God and declaring them infallibly to be revealed that is the Church is truly Fundamental in both As in the Scripture it self this Text John 1. And God was the word according to the matter it contains viz. the Divinity of our Saviour is a Fundamental point universally to be known and believed expresly to Salvation and that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas according to the matter it contains is no Fundamental point nor of any necessity to Salvation to be universally known and believed expresly yet the formal object revealing both these truths being the Authority of the Holy Ghost is equally Fundamental in both and doubtless if any one to whom it is as clearly propounded to be affirmed in Scripture that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas as that it is affirmed in Scripture that the word was God should yet deny or doubt of the first he could neither be saved so long as he remained in that misbelief nor believe the second with divine infallible Faith as all Christians both Catholiques and Protestants must grant Had this been well considered by his Lordship we should not have been forced to so frequent repetitions of the same Doctrine The Bishop thinks he has got a great advantage by pressing A. C. to this That the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation But what absurdity is it to grant that the Definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the foundation of the Church diffusive who can doubt but the Pastours in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every winde of Doctrine Ephes. 4. are a foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not St. Paul expresly affirm it Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum c. Did not the Bishop just now pag. 34. except the Apostles as having in their Definitions more Authority then the Church had after their times yea even so much as was sufficient to make their Definitions Fundamental and the opposing of them destructive of the Foundation of Religion their Authority being truly Divine which he sayes that of the Church after them was not Now this doctrine of the Bishop supposed I urge his own Argument against himself thus Whatever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church in the time of the Apostles be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition in the Apostles time is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church in their time could lay her own foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation was laid Who sees not here how the Bishop fights against himself with his own weapons and destroyes his own Positions by his own Arguments And whatever may be answered for him will satisfie his Argument in defence of us Now the answer is plain to any one who hath his eyes open for the Prime foundation of the Church are the Doctrines delivered by our Saviour and inspired by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whereby it took the first being of a Church and the Prime foundation to the insuing Church after the Apostles is the most certain Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by our Saviour to his Church By these two Prime foundations the Church is in being and so continues the Definitions of the Church grounded in these are a secondary foundation whereby Ecclesia docens the Church teaching established upon that promised assistance of the Holy Ghost fundat Ecclesiam doctam founds and establishes in every age the Church taught in the true Faith 7. But what shall we say in defence of A. C whom we finde blamed for these words That not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or prime Articles of Faith but all that which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church The answer is these are not the precise words of A. C. and therefore no wonder if the Bishop easily confute him whom he either mistakes or makes to speak as himself pleases A. C's words are these By the word FUMDAMENTAL is understood not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or Prime Principles which do not depend upon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as the Bishop and Dr. White say they are FUNDAMENTAL points but
that they are with all submission to bee obserued by euery Christian where scripture or euident demonstration comes not against them But whoe sees not that this Remedy is as bad as the Disease A Generall Council is an awfull Representation if it bee lawfully called and ordered and proceeds lawfully but hee set's not down the Marks wherby wee may know whether it bee lawfuIly called ordered and proceeds lawfully or not Neither does hee tell us whoe shall bee Iudge of those Marks A Generall Council says hee cannot erre in matters of fayth keeping themselues to Gods Rule But this is both ambig uous and vnsatisfactory For if hee meane that a Councill cannot erre so long as it teaches nothing contrary to the word of God what greater Prerogatlue does hee giue to the Representatiue of Gods Church then belongs to any priuate Doctour who cannot erre so long as hee follows and cleaues to this vnerrable Rule If his meaning bee that a Generall Council cannot erre if it considers the testimonies of holy writt and define any thing according to the sense in which they vnderstand those testimonies how can they bee tax't of errour seeing it cannot bee deny'd but Generall Councils in defining many points contrary to Protestant Doctrine did conformetheir definitions to the sense in which vpon serious examination they vnderstood the most pertinent places of holyscripture But Councils must not attempt to make a New Rule of their own True But what the Bishop thinks New is in the iudgement of those graue Prelats as Ancient as the word of God To whom then ought wee to submit To him that is a priu ate Doctor and averrs it to bee New or to that lawfull Assemblie which asserts it to bee Ancient Hee tells us next that Generall Councils are to bee obserued by cuery Christian with all submission where scripture and euident demonstration come not against them But who shall iudge I pray whether scripture or Demonstration make 〈◊〉 against them or not Does not every Heretique that spurns against the Church pretend that the scripture hee vrges is euident and his Reason a demonstration you will reply that the Bishop does not meane by a demonstratiue argument such an one as appeares so only to a private spirit but such as beeing proposed to any man and vnderstood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent vnto it If this bee so how can Protestants bee excused who deny many points defined by Generall Councils Many learned and vnderstanding men of our religion haue read the places of Scripture alledg'd by Protestants against vs and haue diligently ponder'd all the Reasons and pretended euidences their aduersaries bring and yet they are so farre from beeing convinc'd in iudgement that they evidently oppose the beleefe of those points Defined that they are persuaded of the contrary wherfore their arguments are not euident in themselues but only seeme so to their private Spirits and therfore all Christians according to the Bishops rule ought to submit to those Councils in the beleefe of the sayd points Nor wil it serue the turn to say that there was neverany Generall Council besides the foure first wherein nothing was defined contrary to Truth For hence will follow that a Council cannot bee know'n to bee Generall but by the Truth of their Doctrine nor their doctrine to bee true but by the testimony of scripture whence will bee deduc'd that wee ought to beleeue nothing for the Authority of a Council but that wee our selues are the sole Iudges whether the Definitions of Councils bee agreable to Gods word or not If you allow other Councils to haue been also Generall and yet to haue falsely taught any of those points which Catholiques now hold contrary to Protestants you must eyther grant that scripture or demonstration comes not evidently against them or auerre that all learned and vnderstanding Catholiques that haue perus'd their obiections are conuine'd in judgement that what themselues hold is eyther quite opposite to the word of God or contrary to common sense and the light of reason both which are manifestly absurd As for the Remedy hee applies to the second 〈◊〉 it is as ineffectuall as the first The reason hee brings why the supposition of fallibility in Generall Councils does not make way for the whirlewinde of the Priuate spirit is because Priuate spirits are too giddy to rest vpon scripture and too heady and shallow to bee acquainted with Demonstratiue Arguments But this is contrary to experience For which of all those that are taxt to giue way to the private spirit refuse to rest vpon the word of God Doe the Presbyterians in England decline Testimonies of scripture when they Dispute with the Prelatists against Episcopacy and other points Doe the Caluinists flie from scripture when they contend with the Lutherans in Germany against Consubstantiation and vbiquity or with the Arminians in Holland aboute Predestination vniversall Grace free will perseuerance c would the Bishop make us beleeue that all maintainers of the Priuate spirit are so voyd of vnderstanding as not to bee capable of a demonstratiue Argument must they needs bee depriu'd of the light of reason because they thinke fit to follow the Dictamen of their owne reason in what they beleeue or that they cannot comprehend any demonstration in Euclide because they giue way to their private spirit in the vnderstanding of scripture The Bishop esteemes them giddy Shallow insufficient and vncapable of a demonstratiue Argument or of a right vnderstanding of the word of God yet they and their followers are of a different persuasion They take them selues to bee and are reputed by many others to bee persons of strong reason sharp iudgement deep insight in what belongs to scripture and vpon this presumption they will take vpon them to call in question whateuer suites not with their priuate fancie Now to thinke that their priuate spirit is sufficiently oppos'd by saying they are all fooles and vncapable of reason is in my opinion to bee voyd of iudgement and to deserue the like Censure But what shall wee say to the Authority of S. Austin who would haue true demonstrations every where to take place and professes that a Truth so cleerly demonstrated that it cannot bee questioned is to bee preferr'd before all those motiues by which a man is held in the Catholique Church I answer his words are only conditionall and signifie that in case any true and cuident demonstrations could bee brought against the motiues that kept him in the Church they must take place in our vnderstanding in regard the assent which ariseth from those motiues is voluntary and free where as that which would arise from such Demonstratiue Arguments would bee so cleere and necessary that wee could no more preuent it then our assent to this Principle The whole is greater then the part But hence it followes no more that the Church can define what is cuidently contradicted cyther by scripture or demonstration
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
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
We grant they did so but what follows thence Ergo Scripture gives sufficient Divine proof to it self before it be believ'd infallibly to be Gods word This he was to inferre from it but how proves he this consequence which is the onely difficulty He doth it thus or no way at all The Fathers who precedently to the reading of Scripture believ'd infallibly that Scripture was the word of God prov'd by Scripture that it was such Ergo those who believe not infallibly that Scripture is Gods word may evince by Scripture that 't is the word of God Is not this a strong inference The difficulties occurring in this his Lordships Doctrine though slighted by him are as many as in that of the private Spirit the odium of which opinion he will never be able to avoid by desiring not to have it so much as nam'd in the state of the question For if the Church may erre yea and hath err'd according to Protestants in this point how can we have Infallible assurance either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition or of the Scripture it self We read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture yet see we not such convincing and infallible arguments as can give us assurance that those Books are infallibly the word of God which Protestants admit and no other Now when he sayes they resolve their Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolical and in the next number knows not how to be certain of that Tradition he dissolves what he resolv'd before and makes one part of his Resolution impossible Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolicall Tradition he would quite undoe what he said before that Scripture is the onely foundation of our Faith and not Tradition Thus he turns quite opposite wayes in his Labyrinth 7. Here therefore to averre without any further proof that there appears such light to Protestants and no others is in effect to challenge the Private Spirit to himself and his party which is something more then onely to allow it in general For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self why do not we see it as well as they seeing we read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as they do To say that all are blinde besides themselves or that all beside themselves have such perverse eyes such unsanctified understandings that they cannot see nor reach that light which Protestants most easily discern is very great presumption and the same may with as much reason be challeng'd by every Heretique for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them as shall occurre to his fancy Nor can he upon any just ground make the Scripture to be like those Principles which are known of themselves so soon as the Terms are understood For such Principles are either evidently or probably known of themselves Of the former sort are these and others of like nature The whole is greater then a part thereof The same thing cannot be and not be at the sametime Of the latter sort is this and such others Every mother loves her childe from which 't is probably concluded that Katharine for example loves her childe by this argument Every mother loves her childe But Katharine is a mother Therefore Katharine loves her childe Now if we speak of principles of the first kinde the Relatour grants that Scripture is no such principle and 't is manifest in it self that it is not otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God as all agree in those Metaphysicall Principles above-named Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort for of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God then some other Book which is not truly such And though it had some probability that it were such yet were it not sufficient for we must have certainty and infallible certainty too as his Lordship grants But how that can be had without the infallible Authority of the Church I am confident neither he nor any of his party will ever be able to shew But if we betake our selves to the infallible Authority of the Church we may be as certainly and infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God as those who heard the Apostles say that Scripture was Gods word For as the Signs and Motives which accompanied the Apostles prov'd them to be Infallible so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible insomuch that we can no more erre in taking the Scripture from the Church then the Christians of the Primitive Church could erre in taking it from the Apostles And yet as their Faith was of things not seen both in regard of the Object which is not seen and of the Subject that sees onely in aenigmate enigmatically and darkly so is ours Will the Bishop then account the greatest part or rather all the Fathers either blinde or sensual men who saw no such light for some hundreds of years after Christ as Protestants with his Lordship here pretend they see in some Books of Scripture Were all those of the Roman Church for so many ages before blinde when you of the new-found Church first began who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture as could evince it self to be the word of God to such as before believ'd it not to be so with Divine certainty Or will Protestants be content that we upon this their own principle account them all blinde and sensual men because they see not the light of many other Books which our Church recommends to them and us and which we believe to be Divine Scripture as a great part of the Ancient Fathers did before us What do any Sectaries in the world more then this either against us or them or one against another in asserting the Private Spirit For the Bishop and his party affirm themselves to be so enlightned that they can see and discover that in Scriptures which no other Christians beside themselves ever did or could even before they believe it infallibly to be Scripture 8. As for Bellarmin whom the Bishop will needs have to be 〈◊〉 and unable to stand upon his own ground for teaching lib. 3. De Ecclesia cap. 14. that 't is not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that which in it self hath no shadow of difficulty it being as Bellarmin asserts it a truth so evident that the Bishop himself could not have deny'd it And if his Lordship had not too hastily run over Bellarmin he would have found that he distinguishes times as well as Gandavo cited in the same page For he saith that to believe there are any Divine Scriptures 't is not absolutely necessary to salvation for his omnino signifies no more because many were saved who lived before Divine Scriptures were written and since
St. Chrysostome in the place above cited it imports not evident or Scientificall Knowledge properly so called but a firm and perfect assurance onely otherwise our Faith would neither be free nor meritorious His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one both because the Royall Prophet intimates that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors Psalm 77. 6. and because they that heard Moyses the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles speak knew as perfectly by that hearing as could be known in matters of Faith and likewise because St. Paul saith Rom. 10. 17. Fides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing and lastly because his Lordship himself asserts that Scripture is known in this sense to be the word of God by hearing from the mouthes of the Apostles Now to averre that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle then an ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition is a truth delivered by me all along this debate For I have always held the voice of the present Church to be onely an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures for which prime Tradition onely we believe Scripture to be the word of God as for the formal motive of our Belief To his Quere therefore touching the Jewes proceeding in the like controversie I answer when it shall be shewn that any of the Jewes held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith to the exclusion of Tradition I shall then be ready to shew what the Bishop here demands viz that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove that the Old Testament was Gods word But to return to their resolution of Faith certain it is they had alwayes at least very often Prophets amongst them insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth that God promised to provide there should never be wanting a Prophet in Israel Moreover besides these 't is well known there was in the Jewish Church a permanent infallible Authority consisting of the High Priest and his Clergy to which all were bound to have 〈◊〉 in doubts and difficulties of Religigion as is expressed in Holy Writ Wherefore we have not the least reason to doubt but the Jews would have proceeded the same way in all difficulties concerning Scripture and Tradition that we do though his Lordship would perswade us the contrary 12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in as he was once before for averring that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being Gods word but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point to which the Relatour replies that the Argument would have been stronger had he said to assure us of this point by Divine Faith But certainly Mr. Fisher meant such an assurance and no other as appears by the expression he uses viz. to assure us in this point What point That Scriptures are the Word of God which being a point of Faith he could not be thought in reason but to require an assurance proportionable to a point of Faith that is infallible assurance sufficient to breed in us Divine Faith though it be also true that no certain assurance at all touching this matter could be had without admitting the infallible Authority of the Church For as it hath been urged heretofore many Books of Holy Writ have been doubted of upon very good grounds and the rest questioned as corrupted So that without the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost it were impossible in this case to come to any certain determination at all much less could we arrive to an infallible certainty Sure I am the School doth not maintain with his Lordship here that Moral certainty is infallible Philosophers are so far from this as to admit that even Physical certainty falls short of infallibility as being lyable to deception As for example when I have my eyes open and look upon the wall I have Physical certainty that it is the wall which I see but I have no infallible certainty of it for by the power of God it may be otherwise Now the reason why a moral and humane authority so long as 't is fallible can never produce an infallible assurance is because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority can be no greater then the Authority that grounds it Since therefore according to the Relator all humane Authority is absolutely fallible 't is impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty This Doctrine is expresly delivered by the Bishop § 16. num 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THEN DIVINE then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are contained are not objects of Divine Belief which once granted will inforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance then humane and moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then SIMPLY DIVINE must make good the Scriptures infallibity at least in the last resolution of our Faith in that point This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone for the Church consists of men subject to errour Thus he No humane testimony therefore in the Bishops opinion can make good the Scriptures infallibility that is give us an infallible assurance of that or any other point of Faith But how this can stand with what he delivers § 19. num 1. when speaking of the very same question viz. of Scriptures-being Gods Word he positively affirms we may be even infallibly assured thereof by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof I see not let the Reader judge This is not the first contradiction we have observed in his Lordships discourses Nor will it serve his turn to say as he doth that by infallible assurance may be understood no more then that the thing believed is true and truth QUA TALIS cannot be false For however he playes with the word infallible yet that cannot touch assurance For the infallibity he there talks of is onely in the object and that in sensu composito too viz. onely so long as the object remains so But assurance relates to the subject or person believing and his act which is the thing we chiefly mean when we teach that Faith is of divine and infallible certainty For otherwise in the Bishops sense of infallibility there is no true proposition how contingent and uncertain soever in it self of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain So for example should I say meerly by guess The Pope is now at Rome or in the Conclave and it were so de facto I might be said to be infallibly certain of it which is extreamly absurd as confounding verity with infallibility which no true Philosophy will admit Wherefore it is ridiculous to distinguish as the Bishop does here one infallibility cui non subest falsum viz.
which is not de facto false yet may be false and another cui non potest subesse falsum which neither is false nor can be false since all Infallibility is such cui non potest subesse falsum To obtain therefore an infallible assurance of Scriptures-being the Word of God we must of necessity rely upon the never-erring Tradition of Gods Church all other grounds assignable are uncertain and consequently insufficient to breed in us supernatural and divine Faith But enough of this Yet before I go further I cannot omit to observe the Bishops earnest endeavour to possess the Reader that the Scriptures both the old and new are come down to us so unquestionably by meer humane Authority that a man may thereby be infallibly assured that they are the word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith when he could not be ignorant that there is hardly any Book of Scripture which hath not been rejected by some Sect or other of Christians and that several parts even of the new Testament which most concerns us were long doubted of by divers of the Fathers and ancient Orthodox Writers till the Church decided the Controversie Nay that their great reformer Luther himself admits not for Canonical Scripture the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Saint James the Epistle of Saint Jude nor any part of the Apocalypse or Revelation Call you this candid dealing is it not rather to say and unsay or indeed to say any thing in defence of a ruinous Cause After this the Relatour pretending to come close to the particular sayes The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ that you and wee were all of one belief I wonder whom he means by that WEE of his before the Rent seeing the said WEE began with and by that Rent not made by us but by those that went out from us and deserted the Catholique Church and Faith in which they were bred up and so became a WEE by themselves which before the Rent so made had no other then a meer Utopian or Chimerical Being Yet as it seems by his Lordships discourse they are pleas'd in fancying themselves Reformers of our Corruptions while they themselves are the Corrupters They think themselves safe in holding the Creed and other common Principles of Belief but so did many of the ancient Heretiques who yet were condemn'd for such by lawfull oecumenical Councills They glory in ascribing as he sayes more sufficiency to the Scripture then is done by us in that they affirm it to contain all things necessary to Salvation while by so doing in the sense they mean it they contradict the Scriptures themselves which often sends them to Traditions Call you this giving honour to the Scritures This indeed is not onely enough but more then enough as the Bishop expresses it himself He tells us that for begetting and settling a Belief of this Principle viz. that the Scripture is the Word of God they go the same way with us and a better too He means they go some part of the way with us and the rest by themselves But certainly he ought rather to have continued in our way to the end then for want of a good reason why he left it to pin this falshood upon us That we make the present Tradition alwayes an Infallible Word of God unwritten Apostolicall Traditions we hold for such indeed since to be written or not-written are conditions meerly accidental to Gods Word but the Tradition of the present Church by which we are infallibly ascertain'd of the truth of those Apostolical Traditions as much as of the Scriptures themselves we oblige not any man to receive it for Gods unwritten Word as the Bishop would make you believe Their way sayes the Bishop is better then ours because they resolve their Faith touching this Principle into the written Word which is in plain English that they resolve their Faith of the Scriptures-being Gods Word into no Word of God at all since there is not any written Word of God to tell them that this or that Book or indeed any Book of their whole Bible is the Word of God They therefore ultimately resolve their Faith of this point into little more then their own fancies and consequently have no Divine or Supernatural Faith of this Article at all which neverthelesse is by them laid for the Basis or ground-work of their Belief of all other points of Christian Religion Behold the excellency of their better way then ours who ultimately resolve our Faith hereof into Gods unwritten Word viz. the Testimony of the Apostles orally teaching it to the Christians of their own dayes And of this Apostolical Testimony Tradition or unwritten Word of God all the succeeding Christians of Gods Church even to this day have been rendred certain by the Infallible I say not Divine Testimony or Tradition of the said Church of Christ. Lastly the Bishop to close this Dispute speaks again to that well known place of St. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas which he attempts to solve by telling us that the Verb commovere is not applyable to one Motive alone but must signifie to move together with other Motives To this I answer that he must be a mean Grammarian who knows not this to be a great mistake when no plurality of Motives is expressed Secondly that in case St. Austins word commoveret were to be taken in the sense the Bishop gives it viz. to move together with Scripture yet his Lordship would gain little by it since his Faith were consequently to be resolv'd into it as being a Partial Motive of his Faith Now it cannot be denyed in true Philosophy that if one partial Motive be fallible the Act produced by that Motive must of necessity have a mixture of Fallibility in it every effect participating the nature of its cause So even in Logick should a Syllogism have for one of its Premises a Sentence of Scripture and for the other but a probable Proposition the Conclusion could be no more then probable And this Doctrine is according to what St. Austin delivers in the place above cited when speaking of the Churches Authority he sayes Quâ infirmatâ jam nec Evangelio oredere potero which being weakened or call'd in question I shall no longer be able to believe the Gospel it self Thus by Gods favour we are come to the end of this grand Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith wherein I have not onely shewn the insufficiency of the several wayes and methods propounded by the Bishop but cleared and established our own Catholick way of Resolving Faith The Infallible Tradition of the present Church is the sole Clew that guides us through the dark and intricate Meanders of our Adversaries Labyrinth 'T is the onely expedient by which we can Infallibly resolve our Faith into its Prime and Formal Object Gods Revelation This thred is
General Church as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith which is contrary to divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith could be needful in the General Church but onely in particular Churches citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us how unwilling he is in this troublesome and quarrelling age to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral he addes though the Church of England professeth that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent It matters not what she sayes or sayes not in this but our question is what she must say if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise For this is certain that many of those particular points of Faith which are rejected as errours by the English Protestant Church were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christendom when this pretended Reformation began If therefore they be dangerous errours as the Bishop with his English Church professes they are by good consequence it must follow that the English Protestant Church holds that the whole Catholique Church hath erred dangerously But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general yet at last he meddles with it and that very freely too for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If saith the Bishop he means no more then this viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary but his 〈◊〉 fiction What is this but tacitely to grant that the whole Church of Christ may universally erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salvation Is not this great modesty towards the Church Nay a great satisfaction to all Christians who by this opinion must needs be left in a wood touching the knowledge of Points absolutely necessary to their salvation 3. But the Bishop suspects a dangerous consequence would be grounded upon this if it should be granted that the Church could not erre in any point of Divine Truth in general though by sundry consequences deduced from principles of Faith especially if she presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as he affirms Bellarmin to say she may I answer When God himself whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd and Verasity such that he cannot deceive speaks by his Organ the Holy Church that is by a General Council united with its Head the Vicar of Christ what danger is there of Errour As concerning Bellarmin who is falsly accus'd I wonder the Relatour should not observe a main difference between defining matters absolutely without Scripture and defining without express Scripture which is all that Bellarmin affirms For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures yet they may be there implicitly and rightly deduc'd from Scripture As for example no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity as 't is declar'd by the Council of Nice and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves expresly in Scripture it is not there said in express terms that he is of the same substance with the Father or that he is God of God Light of Light and True God of True God c. and yet who doubts but the sense of this Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture and consequently that the Defining of this and other points of like nature by the Church was not done absolutely speaking without Scripture Besides who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions Wherefore if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith be according to Tradition though it be not express'd in Scripture yet the Church does not define it without Scripture but according to Scripture following therein the Rule which is given her in Scripture But 't is further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church may be ignorant of some Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture or otherwise Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre and teach her errour yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not nay perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth He addes to this that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuit can produce for her not erring in any Thus the Bishop To which I answer The Argument were there any force in it would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles as of the present Catholique Church For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths though the promise intimated by the Bishop of being taught all truth John 16. 13. was immediately directed to them and yet 't is granted by Protestants that the Apostles could not teach that to be Divine Truth which was not much less could they teach that as matter of Divine Truth which was contrary to it Ignorance therefore of some Divine Truths and for some time onely when they are not necessary to be known doth not inferre errour or possibility of erring in those Truths when they are necessary to be known The Apostles Matth. 10. 19. were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand what they should answer to Kings and Presidents being brought before them because it should be given them in that hour what to speak In like manner with due proportion is it now given to their Successours what to answer that is what to define in matters of Faith when ever emergent occasions require it Secondly I say that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour but taught and informed by a master that is infallible he may become infallible So that his Lordships Argument from bare ignorance concluding errour or an absolute possibility of erring is it self as erroneous as this A young Scholar of himself alone is ignorant and apt to mistake the signification of words Ergo he can do no otherwise then mistake while his Master stands by him and teaches him 4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself and puts in a Proviso Provided alwayes saith he that this erring of the Church be not in any point simply Fundamentall for of such points even in his own judgement the whole Church cannot be ignorant nor erre in them To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other answer but this We desire to know what
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
Rome or after He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church before he settled his seate at Rome and the Brittish Christians if any such were before that time might very well at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary be instructed by their preachers to beleeue and acknowledge him for such CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques and the Roman Fayth prou'd to be the same now that it euer was ARGVMENT 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation and all Protestant teachers excluded by the Bishops own grounds 2. No Church different in doctrine from the Roman can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation vpon the account of his Fayth rather presumptuous then well grounded 4. His pretending to beleeue as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd disprou'd by instance 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM the doctrine and worshiping of Images the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church 6. A. C ' Interrogatories defended 7. Protestants haue not the same Bible with Catholiques in any true sense 8. The index expurgatorius not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques in points defined by the Church 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely or implicitely but Protestants none at all that is infallible 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth nettled a little as it seems by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that returns smartly vpon him in these words she may be better saued in it then you and bids him marke that too Well wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant touching the Ladies Saluation but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe for that in the Bishops opinion his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation But what is his reason because for sooth any man that know's so much of the truth as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling doe and yet opposes it must needs be in greater danger So that it seems learning and sufficiency according to the Bishop haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one and not to see the truth of the other But how false this surmize is appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants that the more learned they are and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine Againe what likelyhood is there that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's seeing it is euident that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing that belongs to Diuine Fayth For teaching as they doe that all particular men all Generall Councils and the whole Church of God may erre what assurance can they giue me that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true or that the sense of the words of Scripture by which they proue their doctrine is such as they vnderstand or that their Church which they grant to be fallible doth not erre in those points wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques viz. because they are within the Church and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation is a Paradox and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds For seeing he hath often deliuer'd that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points as are Prime Radicall and Fundamentall in the Fayth necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians in order to Saluation and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized and hold the Foundation in this sense what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body most of the Heretiques that euer were and that euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it Nor is he content with one absurdity vnless he adioyne a second There is no question sayth he but many viz. ignorant Catholiques were saued in the corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented before their death as 't is morally certain none of them did were lost See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall But what were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours which as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together How could that be were they not all euen by the Bishops own principles members of the true visible Church of Christ notwithstanding those errours by reason of their beeing Baptized and holding the Foundation If they neither lost that Fayth by which they were members of the true Church nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace with what truth or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them He adds that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction or to vse all the meanes they can to come to the knowledge of truth But J demand if no Misleaders but such doe perish with what countenance conscience J might say could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours in the manner he doth that they were lost Can it with any colour of equity or truth be charg'd vpon them that they refus'd the Churches instruction what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together by which had they been neuer so willing they could be instructed to teach otherwise then themselues taught in their respectiue ages and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did to come to the knowledge of truth Why should not our aduersarie in reason haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion from Heresie and all other damnable errour then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers seeing 't is manifest these last oppos'd and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side in the points now controuerted and for which Protestants condemne them of errour The truth is the Bishop is a little intangled here Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques to keep his own people in awe and to fright them from becoming Catholiques but positiuely and determinately what
if neither Generall Councils nor any man in the world be of infallible creditt who sees it not to follow there can be noe infallible creditt amonge men noe not in the whole Church euen in points Fundamentall For seeing noe testimony can be of infallible creditt except it be know'n and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know eyther who those are that make vp the whole Church in the Bishops sense or that they doe all of them beleeue and testifie such a point of doctrine to be Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to saluation how is it possible for the whole Church in that sense to be of infallible creditt or to giue infallible certainty to any points whatsoeuer whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation To his Aduersaries demand why a Generall Councill if it may erre in defining one diuine truth may not erre in defining an other and so in all the Relatour answers by way of Confession that it may erre euen in all to witt of like nature vsing this limited manner of speech in all of like nature on purpose to auoyd inconueniencies and that he might vpon occasion take the aduantage of his wonted distinction between Fundamentall points For so presently as it were by way of anticipation he tells the Reader that of things not absolutely necessary to Sabuation or not-Fundamentall there can be noe necessity of infallible certaintie in the whole Church much less in a Generall Councill and consequently quently 't is noe matter with him though a Generall Councill be suppos'd lyable to errour in all such points as well as in any one But it sufficeth that wee haue already shew'n the contrary both for Church and Councill namely that in many cases it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to haue infallible certaintle of points in their owne nature not absolutely necessary to saluation or which is all one to haue such points when brought into controuersie amongst Christians infallibly defined by a Generall Councill so as wee need not trouble the Reader here with repetitions Nor could it serue his turn or iustify his assertion from beeing in the highest degree iniurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of Generall Councills though it were otherwise that is though wee had not already prou'd a necessity of infalliblydefining by Generall Councills all controuerted points of Religion whatsoeuer whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation For 't is certaine enough the Relatour holds that Generall Councills may possibly erre euen in points that are absolutely necessary to Saluation or Fundamentall as wee haue heretofore obseru'd though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine But this suppos'd lett his adherents tell vs what does his maxime if in one possibly in all proclaime but that a Generall Councill may not only fall into errour in defining some one or other point of Christian Fayth but euen totally Apostatize and define against Christianity it selfe A proposition sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety and which may iustly serue for a second instance of our Aduersaries sincerity when they profess fo much esteem and reuerence towards Generall Councills 4. Wee doe not say that Christ our Sauiour left infallibility in his Church to satisfie eyther contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits as the Bishop would seeme to impose vpon vs for 't is euident enough by the experience the world hath of the seuerall sects and Heresies of Protestants that such kinde of people will be satisfy'd with nothing but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous phansies Nor will wee Catholiques euer desert the confession and defence of it because such people will not be satisfy'd But wee tell them Christ left that legacy to his Church for these ends viz. to guide the humble and sober-minded securely and certainly in the right way of Saluation he left it also to curbe the contentious to restraine the curious and to giue sufficient checke to such presumptuous spirits as should dare in matters of such high and difficult nature as the truths and Mysteries of Religion are to be wise in their own eyes and to preferre their priuate phansies before the publique and generall iudgement of the Church and their own lawfull Ecclesiasticall superious none of all which ends could be effectually attain'd or duly prouided for without the sayd infallibility which therfore for the Relatour or any other out of priuate opinion to goe aboute to take away from the Church is without doubt both intolerable presumption and errour especially doing it vpon no better grounds and pretense of reason then he layes down here viz. because the Foundation that is in his sense all Fundamentall and absolutely-necessary doctrine is so strongly and plainly layd down in Scripture and the Creed Stongly and plainly layd down does he say Surely the Bishop when he wrote this thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretiques who deny such points of Fayth as he himselfe grants to be Fundamentall To say those points are so strongly or plainly deliuer'd in Scripture c. as not to require some other infallible authority beside Scripture to support and make good our beleefe of them must needs argue a very strong preiudice to any man that duly considers how those controuersies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them and how equally those Heretiques bandy texts with their Aduersaries both wayes that is to say as well vpon the offensiue as defensiue part as well by opposing the truth with the pretense and allegation of many Scripture-texts as by answering and euading what euer is by their Aduersaries argued out of Scripture for it or against them So as indeed a modest man to borrow a little of his Lordships own style may iustly wonder whither the Bishop would haue vs to runne for infallible certainty in those points if not to Generall Councill which yet he will by noe meanes allow vs to doe 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop hath more questions to aske His next is how wee can according to ordinary course be infallibly assur'd that a Council erres in one and not in an other point when she equally defines both by one and the same authority to be diuine truths This may be thought a shrewd question too and the Relatour does a little discouer himselfe nettled by it in telling vs that A. C. turns Questionist here to disturb the business viz. which his Lordship had with Mr. Fisher and indeed the Church as much as he can Howeuer he answers the question by distinction thus If a Generall Councill erres sayes he eyther it erres in things absolutely necessary to Saluation or in things not necessary If in the first sort wee may be infallibly assur'd by the Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generalls Councills and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in an other point Jf in the latter sort 't is not
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
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
nothing against the Truth practised in the Church The Bishop goes on and endeavours to shew that St. Augustin speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture because immediately before he sayes There was a question moved to St. Cyprian whether Baptisme was tyed to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no question was moved that question that was made was answered And again That St. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking But all this proves nothing against us but for us because St. Cyprian might answer the question that was made by that which was granted by all and questioned by none although the thing granted and not questioned were the Doctrine of the Church For this Doctrine of the Church or Foundation as the Bishop calls it might be given in answer to confirm a Stone that was shaking that is some particular matter in question Although whatsoever is taught by the Church may be granted without contradicting Catholique Principles to be some way or other infolded or contained in Scripture Wherefore all the Definitions of the Church may be said to be Foundations of Doctrine in Scripture although many times they be so involved there that without the Definition of the Church we could not be bound expresly to believe them nay without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture it self as St. Augustin tells us in the words formerly cited Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas So that it cannot be doubted but that St. Augustins judgement was that all our Faith depended upon the Authority of the Church and therefore that he who opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work and Foundation of all Divine and Supernatural Faith Now whether the Bishop or Mr. Fisher hath wronged the Text of St. Augustin we shall presently see For first the Bishop sayes that St. Augustin speaks of a doctrine founded in Scripture not a Church-Definition How untrue this is viz. that St. Augustin speaks not of the Churches Definition let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited where speaking of Christs profiting of Children Baptized he useth these words Hoc habet Authoritas Matris Ecclesiae Hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon contra hoc robur contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur This saith he hath the Authority of our Mother the Church this hath the well founded Canon or Rule of Truth against this invincible Rampart whoever runneth himself is sure to be broken in pieces And again speaking of St. Cyprian he tells us that he will shew quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptisme of Infants or rather what he demonstrated the Church had alwayes taught concerning it and many such like places are in this very Sermon It is therefore manifest that St. Augustin here speaks of the Churches Definition nay and that so fully that he acknowledges in another place that the Baptisme of Infants was not to be believed but because it is an Apostolical Tradition His words are these Tom. 3. De Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 13. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaquam spernenda est neque ullo modo 〈◊〉 deputanda NEC O M NINO CREDENDA nisi Apostolica esset Traditio The custom of our Mother the Church to Baptize Infants is by no means to be despised or counted in any sort superfluous nor yet at all to be believed if it were not a Tradition of the Apostles Though therefore St. Cyprian in those few lines which St. Augustin referres to doth not expresly mention the Definition of the Church as the Bishop objects yet a man would think St. Augustins Authority should be sufficient to assure us that in those very words St. Cyprian shews what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church in the same manner as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 't is true to say he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture though himself doth not expresly say at the propounding of it it is in Scripture Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point which he sayes was not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition which is in effect to say that it cannot be proved by sole Scripture how can he be understood to say that Scripture is the Foundation of the Church But that he may one way or other draw St. Augustin to speak in appearance for him he gives a most false Translation of his words For he translates these words of St. Augustin ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur thus He shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded all in a different letter Whereas in the Latin Text of St. Augustin there is nothing that answers to any of those words which the Bishop thrusts into his English upon which or whole Church or is grounded so that all this latter part is meerly an Addition of his own and no part of St. Augustins sentence But such fraudulent dealing was necessary to give a gloss to his interpretation For he would make St. Augustin speak of a foundation different from the Churches Authority no wit the Scriptures whereupon sayes he the Authority of the Church is grounded which is farre from St. Augustins meaning For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea the very foundation of the Church he means nothing else but the Church it self or her Authority which is the foundation of Christianity as when St. Paul sayes superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum c. being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets he means nothing else but that we are built upon the Apostles and Prophets as upon a foundation or as if one should say of a destroyer of the Fundamental Laws of a Nation Fundamentum ipsum begum quatere molitur he endeavours to shake the very foundation of our Laws or of one that rejected the Authority of Scripture fundamentum ipsum Scripturarum quatere molitur he labours to shake the very Foundation of holy Scripture no man would understand him to mean any other Foundation then what the Laws and the Scriptures themselves are Now that nothing but this can be the meaning of St. Augustin is evident For in this very sentence he allows of Disputes held in such things as are not yet establish't by the full Authority of the Church nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis Wherefore all consequence and coherence of discourse requires that when he disallows of those disputes which go so far as to shake the foundation of the Church he must mean those
Bishop frames a notable Turn in his Labyrinth winding in the words of St. Augustin quite contrary to St. Augustins meaning to make them speak for himself For having affirmed in his own Text as we heard but now that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling Disputant may not be allowed just over against these words in his own Margent at Litera F. he puts these Latin words of St. Augustin Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor In English thus Which truly if it be shewed so clear that there can be no doubt of it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholique Church Now by citing these words and no more but leaving out those immediately precedent he leaves it also doubtful to what the word quae which in St. Augustins Text is to be referred but yet by putting plain Scripture c. in his own Text right over against it he supposed doubtless his Reader would not judge that Quae could be referred to any thing else save Scripture and that which follows it in his Text and consequently would conclude that St. Augustin and he were of the same opinion viz. that plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument is to be preferred before all the Definitions of the Church Whereas St. Augustin in the place cited hath nothing at all either of plain Scripture or evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manichaeans he writes th us Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat VERITATIS POLLICITATIO and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit c. But with you saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretiques who have nothing at all of those Things which may invite and hold me onely a promise of Truth makes a noise WHICH Truth if it be Demonstrated to be so clear as it cannot be called in doubt is to be preserred c. where it is plain Quae which is relative onely to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else Nay it is Relative onely to that Truth in this place which the Manichees bragg'd of and promised which was so far from being plain Scripture c. that it was no other then what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus intituled Fundamentum which St. Augustin at that present confuted as appears by the following words Neither indeed could St. Augustin be understood to speak of plain Scripture in this place as though that were to be preferred before the Definition of the Catholique Church or a General Council and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholique Church or of General Councils to be contrary to plain Scripture understanding by plain Scripture Scripture truly sensed and interpreted for he Disputes ex professo against that supposition or perswasion and proves that no clear place of Scripture can be produc'd against the common received Doctrine of the Church from this grand inconvenience necessarily following upon it viz. That if such a Thing could happen that the Doctrine of the Catholique Church could be contrary to Scripture or the Gospel he should not be able to believe rationally and infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because he receives them onely upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the Plain Scripture which is supposed to be brought against her Though therefore St. Augustin had said in express terms as 't is manifest he doth not that clear Scripture is to be preferred before all things which he had named before yet he is so far from supposing as the Bishop here supposes that evident Scripture can be contrary to the Churches received Doctrines that he professedly teaches and proves the contrary and uses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. onely ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo c. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed Saint Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from Heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel yet so he speaks And the same may be said in answer to the evident Reason or full Demonstrative Argument which the Bishop talks of for neither can that truly and properly speaking be any more brought against the Churches Authority and Doctrine then plain Scripture The Relatours supposition then has no more ground in St. Augustin then if one should prove that an Angel from Heaven can preach against the doctrine of the Apostles because St. Paul sayes Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed Now if the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugne it so long at least as he is so farre from seeing his errour that he is fully perswaded he erres not and that the Church erres in Defining against him as those Heretiques were perswaded against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place His second winding is that he labours to prove from the fore-cited words of St. Augustin that plain Scripture is to be preferred before the Definitions of the Church and may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Now St. Augustin speaks as little of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain in this sentence as he doth of Scripture For by those words Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor there is not once named the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental or any comparison or contrariety mentioned betwixt them For the question was not whether St. Augustin might reject some of the Churches Definitions which by plain Scripture he found to be erroneous in matters of small moment and yet remain still a member of the Church submitting to her in all Fundamental points but the question was this whether St. Augustin were to forsake the Catholique Church and become a profest enemy of her as he once had been in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine if plain and undenyable Truth should be brought against the Church and for Manichaeus So that the Truth mentioned by him in this place was to have been so Fundamental that it had been able utterly to overthrow the Church and establish Manichaeisme if any such Truth could have been undoubtedly demonstrated If therefore this Text could prove any thing it must prove that the whole visible Church can erre Fundamentally and so become no Church which is clearly against his Lordship
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
but in them who answer it ill And truly the question hath done this good that it hath made the weakness of their cause appear who have deserted the Catholique Church Wherefore we will give our Adversary leave to say that we draw him to it rather then omit so necessary a Disputation The Bishop therefore proposeth diverse wayes of proving Scripture to be the word of God and in the first place falls to attaque our way who prove it by the Tradition and Authority of the Church For he urgeth that it may be further asked why he should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered that we believe it because the Church is Infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost he proceeds and demands how that may appear where he thinks we are brought to those straits that we must either say we believe it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit we object to others or else must attempt to prove it by Scripture which were a vicious Circle and yet he affirms we all do so But with his Lordships favour he conceives amiss and I desire his Followers to give us leave hereafter to answer for our selves and that they would not do it for us 1. Wherefore to this last demand in which onely there is difficulty viz. How we know the Church to be infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost we answer that we prove it first in general not by the Scripture but by the Motives of credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner as the Infallibility of Moyses and other Prophets of Christ and his Apostles was proved which was by the Miracles they wrought and by other Signes of an Infallible Spirit Direction and Guidance from God which appeared in them Whence it is clear that we incurre no Circle 'T is true after we have prov'd the Churches Infallibility by these Signs and Motives namely by Sanctity of Life Miracles Efficacy Purity and Excellency of Doctrine Fulfilling of Prophesies Succession of lawfully-sent Pastours Unity Antiquity and the very Name of Catholique c. I say after we have prov'd in geneneral her Infallibility by these and the like Motives then having received the Scripture by this Infallible Authority proved as we see another way and independently of Scripture we may and Authours commonly do without any shadow of a vicious circle confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture-proofs are onely secondary and ex suppositione not Prime and absolute and most usually contain a proof ad hominem or ex principles concessis against Sectaries who denying the Infallibility of the Church and questioning many times or cavilling about our Motives of Credibility yet admitting the Divine Authority of Scripture are more easily convinced by clear Texts of Scripture then by the other proofs And in this we do no otherwise then St. Augustin hath done before us writing against Heretiques 2. But because we have often promised to prove the Infallibility of the Church it will be necessary to insist some what longer upon this point and declare the matter at large We say then that the Church is proved in general to be Infallible the same way that Moyses with other Prophets Christ and his Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible For the Israelites seeing Moyses to be a person very Devout Milde Charitable Chaste and endowed with the gift of working Miracles were upon that ground obliged to receive him for a true Prophet and to believe him Infallible by acknowledging as true and certain whatever he proposed to them from God They believed our Lord and Moyses saith the Scripture Moreover for the Testimony of Moyses the Israelites believed the Scripture and other things more clearly and in particular concerning Moyses himself that in the House of God he was most faithful and that God spake to him mouth to mouth and the like The same we may say of Christ our Saviour For there appear'd in him so great Sanctity of life such Grace of speech and Glory of Miracles that all to whom he preached were bound to acknowledge him for the great Prophet and Messias as St. Andrew with the rest of Christs Disciples did when they said we have found the Messias Thus they were bound at first to receive him as Infallible and afterwards to believe whatsoever he taught them as that he was true God and Man that he was to redeem the world with his blood upon the Cross c. Neither can any man justly here reply that the Disciples and first Christians were obliged thus to receive our Blessed Saviour for the Scripture which gives Testimony of him Thus I say no man can justly reply For the Gentiles receiv'd not that Scripture and yet they were bound to acknowledge Christ and believe him Infallible And though some learned Jews might perhaps gather this out of Scripture yet even without the Scripture the works of Christ were of themselves abundantly sufficient to prove who he was both to the learned and unlearned Wherefore our Saviour alwayes referred them to his works as giving abundant Testimony of him I have said he greater Testimony then John for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect them the very works which I do give Testimony of me that the Father sent me The like we finde him saying elsewhere The works that I do in the Name of my Father give Testimony of me And if you will not believe me believe my works By these places it appears that the works of Christ without Scripture proved him to be the true Messias and Infallible This Doctrine is also verified in the Apostles who receiv'd Commission from Christ to preach every where and TO CONFIRME THEIR WORDS with Signs that followed by which signs all their Hearers were bound to submit themselves unto them and to acknowledge their words for Infallible Oracles of Truth as the Apostles themselves testified Acts 5. 28. Where we finde that a Controversie arising in those Primitive times among the Christians the Apostles and Ancients assembled together and having first concluded by themselves what was to be held for Truth in the matters controverted imposed their Decree as Infallible Doctrine upon all others in these words It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and Us c. As therefore Moyses our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles were prov'd Infallible by their works signs and miracles without Scripture so is the Church without help of the same sufficiently prov'd to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which being the effects and properties of the Church do Declare 〈◊〉 and Demonstrate her immediately and the Scriptures onely as they are found in her and acknowledged by her Wherefore though Heretiques have the Scripture yet being out of the true Church they do wholly want these signs of Infallibility of which see Bellarmin and other Catholique Authours discoursing more at large De notis Ecclesiae 'T is sufficient for the present to have declared how Catholiques
that God spake them which we could never elevate our hearts to believe with Divine Faith but by the Testimony of Gods Church which gives us a full assurance of his Revelation Thus then the Church being supernaturally Infallible in all her Definitions of Faith will be a sufficient ground to ascertain us of those Holy writings which God by unwritten Tradition revealed to the Church in time of the Apostles to be his written word For if her Definition herein be absolutely infallible then what she defines as reveal'd from God to be his written word is undoubtedly such insomuch that Christians being irrefregably assured thereof by the Churches Infallible declaration believe this Article with Divine Faith because revealed from God who cannot deceive them that Revelation being the onely formal object into which they resolve their Faith and the Churches Assurance the ground to perswade them that it is infallibly a Divine Revelation or Tradition The Churches Definition therefore is like Approximation in the working of natural causes to wit a necessary condition prerequired to their working by their own natural force yet is it self no cause but an application onely of the efficient cause to the subject on which it works seeing nothing can work immediately on what is distant from it Thus Gods Revelations delivered to the Church without writing were and are the onely formal cause of our assent in Divine Faith but because they are as it were distant from us having been delivered that is revealed so many ages past they are approximated or immediately applyed to us by the Infallible Declaration of the present Church which still confirming by her doctrine and practice what was first revealed makes it as firmly believed by us as it was by the Primitive Christians to whom it was first revealed So a Common-wealth by still maintaining practising and approving the Laws enacted in its first Institution makes them as much observ'd and esteem'd by the people in all succeeding Ages for their Primitive Laws as they were by those who liv'd in the time of their first Institution Hence it appears our Faith rests onely upon Gods immediate Revelation as its formal object though the Churches voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that formal object without it By which Discourse the Bishops Argument is solv'd as also his Text out of Aristotle For seeing here is no Scientifical proof per principia intrinseca there can be no necessary and natural Connexion of Principles evidencing the Thing proved as is required in Demonstrative Knowledge the thing it self which is believed remaining still obscure and all the Assurance we have of it depending on the Authority of Him that testifies it unto us Lastly hence are solved the Authorities of Canus cited also by his Lordship who onely affirms what I have here confessed viz. That our Faith is not resolv'd into the Authority of the Church as the formal object of it and that of pag. 65. where he contends that the Church gives not the Truth and Authority to the Scriptures but onely teaches them with Infallible Certainty to be Canonical or the undoubted Word of God c. the very same thing with what I here maintain The Churches Authority then being more known unto us then the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their Prerogative above the Church For being Gods Immediate Revelation they require a greater respect and reverence then the meer Tradition of the Church Whence it is likewise that our Authours do here commonly distinguish Two Sorts of Certainty the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other ex parte subjecti The first proceeds from the Clearness of the Object the other from the Adhesion as Philosophers call it of the Will which makes the Understanding stick so close to the Object that it cannot be separated from it This latter kinde of Certainty hath chiefly place in Faith a thing unknown to Aristotle Whence it is that when we believe we do adhere more firmly to the Articles of Faith then to any Principle whatsoever though evident to natural reason which firme Adhesion of ours is grounded partly on the Greatness and Nobleness of the Object and partly on the importance of the matter which is such that our Salvation depends upon it For that Immediate Revelation namely the Scripture being in it self of so much greater Worth and Dignity then the Churches meer Tradition doth worthily more draw our affection then the other notwithstanding the other be more known to us and the Cause of our admitting his Thus we have shew'n that we hold not the Churches Definition for the formal object of Faith as the Relatour by disputing so much against it would seem to impose on us though our present Faith 't is true relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten word of God which is the Formal Object Wherefore when we say we believe the Catholique Church we profess to believe not onely the Things which she teacheth but the Church her self so teaching as an Infallible witness and the contrary we shall never believe till it be prov'd otherwise then by saying as the Bishop here does it were no hard thing to prove By what hath been said it appears that there is no Devise or Cunning at all as the Relatour would have it thought of us either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our Adversaries party But they must pardon us if we preferre the general Interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extoll it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living Infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other then the Present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applyed to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the Assistance and Direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. The Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church This being the Substance of our Doctrine concerning the Resolution of Faith as we have osten intimated 't is evident the cunning of the Device the Bishop speaks of is none of ours but his own while he falsly chargeth us that we finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman Church whereas in points of Faith we ever resolve them finally into Gods word or Divine Revelation though we must of necessity repair to the Catholick Church to have them Infallibly testified unto us But
that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Naturall Reason but to put so gross a fallacy upon me That because Naturall Sciences admit some Principles without proof as being so clear in themselves that there needs no more then the bare apprehension of their tearms therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for Gods word and admitted without probation for an unquestionable Principle May not any Religion pretend the like The Turks for example may they not say their Alcoran is the Rule and Principle of their Religion and consequently unquestionable You know very well and confess it too elsewhere That the Principles of Naturall Knowledge appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding And you know as well that there is an infinite disparity in the case between such Principles and your Bible The later having exercis'd the wit and learning of a world of Expositors in regard of its obscurity and the former being uncapable of proof by reason of their evident clearness I may therefore rationally conclude that your Bible cannot justly challenge an infallible Belief of being Gods word by conviction of Natur all Reason This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordships discourse of whom I take my leave By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen wherein I have not wrong'd him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his Arguments a man may easily discern how irrationall it is to take the Bible for the sole Rule and Guide in matters of Faith A Doctrine which had it been held in the Primitive Church would have laid the World under an impossibility of ever being converted to Christianity But now 't is high time to return to our Church-Tradition which I press a little further in this manner 6. A Child is brought up and instructed in the Roman Church till he arrives to some ripeness of years Amongst other things he is commanded to believe the Bible is the True word of God that he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith receiv'd universally amongst Christians He gives therefore the same Infallible assent to the Scriptures being the word of God that he gives to the other Articles of Faith and so without once looking into the Scripture departs this life I demand had this Christian saving Faith or not if he had then upon the Churches Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God Ergo the Churches Authority was sufficient to ground an Infallible Faith in this point If he had not saving Faith in this Article he could not have it in any of the rest for he had them all from the very same Authority of the Church Therefore he had no saving Faith at all Ergo such a Christian could not be saved Would his Lordship have ventured to affirm this But let us suppose now that this young Christian yet lives and applies himself to study makes progress in learning becomes a profound Philosopher a learned Divine an expert Historian then betakes himself upon the Churches recommendation to the reading of Scriptures discovers a new light in them and by force of that light discerns also that the Faith he had before was onely a humane perswasion and that he had no divine Faith at all before he found by that light in Scripture that they were the undoubted word of God and sole foundation of Faith and consequently that not having that foundation he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian Belief and for want thereof was out of the state of Salvation What gripes and torture of spirit would spring out of such a Doctrine amongst Christians Moreover either the Church whereof he is suppos'd a member taught that he was to believe Scripture infallibly to be the word of God upon her sole Tradition as an infallible Testimony thereof as we before supposed or not If the first then he reflects that this Church has plainly deceiv'd him and if she have deceiv'd him in assuming that Infallibility to her self and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith when he had nothing but humane and uncertain perswasion she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself and consequently expos'd them all to the hazard of eternall damnation by following her Doctrine and therefore was no true Church but a seducer and deceiver Hence he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole letter of Scripture without any credible voyce of the Church and then must either gather the Divine Authority of Scripture from sole Scripture which the Bishop denies or there will he no means left him to believe even according to the Bishops principles infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God If the Church teach him onely that her testimony of Scripture is no more then Humane and Fallible but that the Belief it self that Scripture is Gods word rests upon sole Scripture as his Lordship speaks he begins presently to consider what then becomes of so many millions of Souls who both in former and present times either were uncapable to read and examine Scripture by reason of their want of learning or made little use of that means as assuring themselves to have infallible Faith without it Had such Christians a morall and fallible perswasion onely and no divine Faith then they were all uncapable of salvation This consequence seems very severe to our supposed Christian. Wherefore he begins to make a further reflection and discourses in this manner Is the Tradition and Definition of the Church touching the Divine Authority and Canon of Scripture onely Humane and Fallible how then can I rationally believe that my single perswasion of its being the word of God is Divine and Infallible The Bishops Pastours and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition and thereby discover'd its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly then I alone am able to do If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness their perswasion concerning Scriptures being Gods word was onely Humane and Fallible what reason have I to think I am Divinely and Infallibly certain by my reading of Scripture that it is Divine Truth He goes on If the light of Scripture on the other side be so weak and dim that it is not able to shew it self unless first introduc'd by the recommendation of the Church how came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Huss Wickless c. to be so sharp-sighted as to discover this light of Scripture seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world coexistent with them or existent immediately before them and consequently of the true Church Hence he proceeds to a higher enquiry Had not sayes he the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years
the word of God which is also sutable to his words § 16. num 22. We resolve saith he meaning Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scriptures it self and yet confesses we have no means to be infallibly certain that Scripture is the word of God but by the Testimony of Church-Tradition He would fain have the difference betwixt us to consist onely in this that we affirm Church-Traditions to be the Formal Object Prime Motive and last Resolution of Faith and that they deny it to be so But the difference as it appears in the Resolution we have already given is not in that For we are now both agreed that it is not necessary to say the Faith of Scripture is resolv'd into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formall Object or Prime Motive c. but the onely substantiall Difference is this We say the Tradition of the present Church is Infallible and that necessarily to the end it may infallibly apply the Formal Object to us you say 't is Fallible Grant us once that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible and the controversie in this is ended How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith as here he speaks into the Prime Apostostolical Tradition Infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church I see not unless he could tell how to be infallibly certain of that Tradition without it which he knows not well how to compass as appears in the next number So that now he abandons his Fort again by not shewing how we can know infallibly that Apostolicall Tradition is Divine otherwise then by the Tradition of the present Church For as to what he asserted num 21. that there 's a double Authority and both Divine viz. Apostolical Tradition and Scripture even in respect of us it doth not satisfie the difficulty as I have prov'd but serves onely to make one contrary Turn upon another in his Labyrinth so that you know not where to follow him For if Church-Tradition fail to ascertain us infallibly of that Divine Apostolicall Tradition we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture it self be the Infallible word of God or no. That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible may be thus sufficiently prov'd We cannot be infallibly certaine that Scripture is the word of God unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible For we acknowledge many Books for Canonicall Scripture which Protestants admit not and they now hold some for such which have not been alwayes approv'd for such And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have are said by Catholiques to be corrupted Others also cry up some Books for Canonicall Scripture which both Catholiques and Protestants disallow If therefore the Church can erre in this point with what shadow of truth can Protestants pretend to bring an Infallible ground that Scripture is the word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church serves to assure us infallibly that Scripture is the word of God and not onely as his Lordship would have it to work upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to read and consider the Scripture or among Novices Weaklings and Doubters of Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scriptures 2. Neither can the often cited place of St. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. be rationally understood of the foresaid Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith For it is clear that St. Austin by those words gives a reason why he then a Bishop would not follow the Doctrine of Manichaeus and why no Christian ought to follow it As if a man should say he that believes the Gospel believes it onely for the Authority of the Church which condemning Manichaeus it is impossible rationally proceeding to admit the Gospel and follow Manichaeus Neither is the contrary any wayes deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop § 16. num 21. If thou shouldst finde one who did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldst thou do to make him believe For the holy Doctor there speaks to Manichaeus and shewes how neither Infidels nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus Not Infidels because Manichaeus proves this onely out of Scriptures which they not admitting might rationally enough slight his proof Not Christians because they receiving the Scripture upon the sole Authority of the Church could no more approve of the Apostleship of Manicheus condemned by the Church then if they admitted not of Scripture at all Wherefore A. C. had no reason to pass by this place of St. Austin which his Lordship sayes pag. 82. he urged at the Conference unless it were because he did not then remember it As for the Catholique Authors cited by the Relatour certainly they all hold that the Authority of the present Church is an Infallible proof that Scripture is the word of God And though they teach that the fore-mentioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels Novices and those who deny or doubt of Scripture yet they averre not that it is of less force for all others But their meaning is that the Authority of the Church appears more clearly necessary against Infidels and those who doubt of the Faith For suppose a learned man be an Infidel or doubt of Scripture he will say if the Church may erre he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is Gods word If you tell him the Church though subject to errour is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture and read it diligently and that then he will finde such an inbred light in it as will assure him infallibly that 't is the word of God he will reply he hath done what you require and yet findes no more inbred light in those Books which Protestants receive for Canonical then he doth in others which Catholiques admit but Protestants reject as Apocryphall no no more then he doth in other counterfeit pieces disapprov'd both by Catholiques and Protestants 3. Who doth not here most clearly see that we cannot deal with such a man without the unerring or Infallible Authority of the Church unless we will have recourse to the Private Spirit from which though the Bishop would seem so free that he excludes it from the very state of the Question yet he falls into it and palliates it under the specious title of Grace and where others us'd to say they were infallibly resolv'd that Scripture was the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83 84. averres that he hath the same assurance by Grace so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular he onely changeth their words 4. The Relatour is very much out when he maintains on the one side that the Church is fallible in her Tradition of Scriptures and yet still supposes throughout his whole discourse that whoever comes to read Scriptures deliver'd by the Church findes
they were written some may and 't is not unlikely have been saved without any knowledge of Divine Scripture Such they are as have alwayes lived among Barbarous Nations where they have never heard of Divine Scripture for having invincible ignorance of this and believing other necessary points sufficiently propounded to them if they offend not God mortally in other things they will undoubtedly be saved Had some ignorant Calvinist cavill'd against this it had been no great marvell but I wonder so great a Scholar and so wise a man as the Bishop is presum'd to be should pick so deep a quarrell with nothing And questionless had it been so necessary a point the Apostles would have inserted the Belief thereof into their Creed Nay St. Irenaeus and St. Austin whom Bellarmin cites would have been in as deep an errour as he Seeing therefore Bellarmin and all Catholiques with him hold that Christians may sufficiently arrive to a Divine Belief of all the Fundamental Mysteries of Faith without an explicite Belief of Scripture what errour could he commit in his Assertion But it was some secret Project or other which made the Bishop here inveigh and argue so hotly against Bellarmin and by conjecture most likely this Scripture in his principles is the Sole soundation of Faith Therefore none can be saved without express belief of Scripture I think I have hit the nail on the head Let them first convince Bellarmin of this and then I le confess he deliver'd a great errour What he addes asterwards that being granted which is among all Christians that there is a Scripture is a meer cavill the question being not understood onely of Christians For I urge is it also granted amongst all Heathens that there is a Scripture What if a Heathen should be brought to believe all that is contained in the Apostles Creed and being Baptized should dye before he hear there is any Scripture cannot he be saved Questionless he may Bellarmin therefore speaks onely in such rare cases as these When his Lordship subjoyns God would never have given a supernatural unnecessary thing who sayes he would May not many supernatural things be necessary for the whole Church or for many states therein which are not necessary to salvation for every particular person What thinks he of Holy Orders Vowes Virginity c Again are there not hundreds of Histories and thousands of Sentences in Scripture which for every one in the Church to believe expresly is not necessary to salvation Who denyes the Scripture to be very necessary in all ages The question is whether it be absolutely and simply necessary for every one to Salvation to believe expresly that there is Scripture The Bishop here imagines he has given a great defeat to Bellarmin and that as he sayes upon Roman grounds in this his Marginall Syllogisme That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omnino necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omnino necessary to Salvation The fallacy of this Argument lies in the words necessary to believe there being some Articles of Faith so absolutely necessary to be believ'd that a man cannot be sav'd without an express belief of them which therefore School-Divines call necessary necessitate medii whereas there are other Articles of Faith which in some cases 't is enough to believe implicitely though all men are bound to an explicite belief of them when they are sufficiently propounded to them by the Church and these Divines tearm necessary necessitate praecepti This distinction suppos'd I answer thus in form That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary necessitate medii is omnino necessary to salvation I grant the Major That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe necessitate praecepti onely is omnino or absolutely necessary to salvation I deny the Major To the Minor I apply the very same distinction and deny the consequence By which you may easily perceive that Bellarmin stands firm upon his feet and with a wet finger wipes off all that the Bishop here layes to his charge 9. In his number 25. there is much adoe about Hooker and Brierley the latter of which the Relatour is pleased to call the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and seem well read Truly persecution hath deprived them of that plenty of Books which Protestants have so that in this respect they have more need of a Store-house yet I believe Catholique Priests are as industrious and learned as Protestant Ministers for the most part and daily experience testifies as much Now concerning Mr. Hookers Authority which the Bishop affirms to be cited with want of fidelity and integrity by Brierley I answer it is not Brierley but his Lordship who wants both these in quoting Hookers words For first Brierley cites Mr. Hookers words most faithfully as they stand in the places mentioned by him Secondly what he affirms Hooker to acknowledge viz. that the motive which assures us that Scripture is the word of God is the Authority of Gods Church is likewise true For that Author first speaks thus Finally we all believe the Scriptures of God are sacred and that they proceeded from God our selves we assure that we do right well in so believing We have for this point a demonstration SOUND AND INFALLIBLE But it is not the word God c. as it follows in his words cited by Brierley Now seeing Hooker affirms that this sound and infallible Demonstration that Scripture proceeds from God is not the word of God or Scripture it self he must either settle no infallible ground at all even in his Lordships principles or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground For seeing he assigns no other save the Authority of man which as the Bishop here acknowledges is the name he gives to Tradition it must necessarily follow that either we have no infallible ground at all to believe Scripture to be the word of God or it is Tradition Now that it is Tradition onely which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the word of God Hooker delivers clearly enough in that place where he addes these words Yea that which is more utterly to infringe the force of MANS AUTHORITY that is Tradition were to shake the very Fortress of Gods Truth by which Fortress he means the Scriptures as the following words declare Now how can this Fortress be shaken by infringing Mans Authority were not that Authority esteem'd by him the ground of that Fortress And presently after he inferres Some way therefore notwithstanding mans infirmity his Authority may inforce assent If mans Authority may inforce assent it must necessarily be the ground of our assent to assure us as Hooker afterward affirms it doth that Scripture is the word of God But now let us
Scriptures morally speaking more obnoxious to alteration then Universall Tradition 3. He mistakes his Adversaries words contradicts his Brethren and himself falsifies A. C. and most unhandsomely traduces the whole Order of the Jesuits 4. Texts of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility maintained 5. Why each Apostle Infallible and not each Bishop 6. Christs promises to his Apostles when to be extended to their Successours 7. Not the Apostles onely but their Successours also settled in all Truths 8. The Scripture the Church and her Motives of Credibility not unfitly compar'd to a Kings Word his Embassadours and his Credentials 9. Vincentius Lirinensis and Henricus a Gandavo misconstrued and the Fathers misalledged 1. THe Bishop num 26. of this Paragraph to withdraw his Reader from the Thesis or main matter in question viz. the Church descends very dextrously indeed but yet without any necessity to the Hypothesis or Church of Rome For though A. C. believes that the Roman in a true sense is the Catholique Church yet here he abstracts from that question and means no more then he plainly asserts viz. that the Tradition of the Catholique Church is Infallible c. But whether theirs or ours or some other Congregation of Christians be the Catholique Church that 's another question of which A. C. affirms nothing in this place yet the Relatour as if he were somewhat nettled is pleas'd to say that after a long silence he thrusts himself in again and desires the Bishop to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit in which sense he might easily finde it to be Infallible Truly in my opinion A. C. deserv'd no rough language for his respects to the Bishop in being so long and silently attentive to his discourse though at length through zeale he became something earnest in the business out of a desire to bring his Adversary into the right way and to this end urged him to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is a Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit and not assisted by them in any common way but in such a manner as reacheth to Infallibility For such assistance is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof Such assistance the Relatour confesseth the Prophets to have had under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New The like we say the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of the 17. of Deuteronomy verse 8. c. where in doubts the people were bound not onely to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in points of Faith amongst all the different Sects of Christians that deny it Neither had he any reason to break forth into those exclamations Good God whither will these men go For they go no further then Christ himself leads them by promises made unto them in the places of holy Scripture which shall be set down 〈◊〉 And the Pastours of the Catholique Church may very well acknowledge this Infallibility yet make it no occasion to Lord it over others unless he will also accuse the Apostles upon the same account Neither do they equal the Tradition of the present Church as the Relatour urgeth to the written word of God and this hath been shew'd before Touching what he writes of Divine Infallibility we have already declar'd that 't is sufficient to our present purpose to assert Church-Tradition to be Infallible whether it be simply Divine or no is another question to be determin'd when time and place requires Whence it follows that there 's no necessity of equalizing Church-Tradition to the Word of God For we have already acknowledg'd that 't is not in all respects equal to Scripture Again he falls from the Thesis to the Hypothesis We have nothing now to do with this question whether the Roman Bishop and his Clergy be the Head of the Catholique Church or no but whether that which is the Catholique Church be able to breed in us Divine Faith or no whatsoever Congregation of Christians it be So that his impeaching the Roman Church of errours here whilst we are in dispute about another question is wholly out of season His answer to St. Basils Text Parem vim habent ad pietatem that unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word is very deficient First 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions yet of such as were come down from their times to St. Basils For otherwise how should they have had in his time any force at all to move to piety as he said they then had Parem vim habent ad pietatem Secondly his exception taken against that Work of St. Basil from Bishop Andrews and that borrowed from Erasmus and he collecting it onely from the stile which yet others far more ancient and better acquainted with St. Basils stile then Erasmus acknowledge to be his this exception I say we esteem of no great force Thirdly St. Basils making the unwritten Traditions whereof he speaks to be such as are not contrary to Scripture proves not Scripture it self so to be the Touch-stone of Apostolical Tradition as that Scripture must therefore needs be of greater force and superiour dignity then that of Tradition For the Bishop himself grants Prime Apostolical Tradition to be equally divine with Scripture and yet 't is true to say that those Prime Traditions are such as are not contrary to scripture But the sense of Stapletons words is quite perverted by the Bishop For he speaks as his words clearly intimate of later and fresher Traditions then are the Prime Apostolical viz. such as were begun by General Councils or perhaps in some particular Church His words are recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem c. which do not signifie such Traditions as we now treat of viz. Traditions primely Apostolical deliver'd from hand to hand in all succeeding ages by the universal and constant Tradition of the Church and conveighed as such unto us by the Tradition of the present Church 2. A. C. urging the present Copies of Scripture c. presses the Relatour very hard as I have already shew'd Now I adde what if the Ancienter Copies disagree How shall we know which is the true Word of God His saying that true Scripture may be more easily known then true Tradition because the one is written and not the other is not consequent
praecognitum we seek for is not such a one as the Relatour makes Tradition viz. an Introducer onely but such a one as we may rely upon for an Infallible Testimony in the Resolution of Faith Nay I adde Scripture is not a primum praecognitum even to this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation For if in this Proposition it be suppos'd that Scripture is the Word of God it must also at least implicitely be suppos'd as prov'd by Tradition and consequently both in this and all other Questions Tradition must be the praecognitum and primò cognitum 9. But put case the Bishop held the Scriptures-being the Word of God as a supposed Principle meerly in materiâ subjectâ yet should he not have said absolutely as he doth That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need not to be proved but should have said We are now to suppose Scripture to be the Word of God in order to this Question and are not to prove it But the truth is in this Question of Mr. Fisher viz. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture even as it related to the present Controversie betwixt them Scripture was not to be supposed as a Principle to be Gods Word For the Question then agitated was not Whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation there being no mention of that but onely whether the Creed contained all Fundamental Points And the immediate occasion of Mr. Fishers demanding this Question was this answer of the Bishop viz. That the Scriptures onely not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith Whereupon Mr. Fisher demanded how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are believed sayes Mr. Fisher to be Scripture yet not proved out of any place of Scripture Now 't is manifest that in this Debate Mr. Fisher had Logically right to demand this Question it being a direct Medium and Argument to infringe the Bishops Tenet For by this means his Doctrine was evinced to be false because if there be some point of Protestant Faith not founded in Scripture Scriptures onely are not the Foundation of their Faith Whence it follows that even though the Question had been whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation yet Scriptures in order to that were not to be suppos'd to be the Word of God since the very believing them to be so at least in his principles is a point necessary to salvation which gives right to his Antagonist to disprove his assertion by instancing that Scriptures-being the word of God is not contained in Scripture 10. His Lordship here undertakes a hard task and pretends to make it appear to A. C. how Scripture is a praecognitum even in the strictest sense But behold his reason Scripture is a praecognitum because 't is known in clear light by God and the Blessed in heaven Is not this an invincible argument I am sorry to see him so much mistake the Question For we are not in search after a praecognitum in order to God and the Saints in heaven but in relation to us upon earth to whom it is as much unknown whether God and the Saints see Scriptures to be his Divine Oracles as it is whether the same Scriptures be Gods word or not abstracting from Tradition Is not this in respect of us to bring non-cognita for praecognita Besides what avails it me for the Resolution of my Faith that the Revelation is clear to God and his Saints unless I know it be so who have no other light for its admittance then the Tradition of the Church Having labour'd to prove that Scriptures are the Oracles of God from the clear science God and the Saints have of them which clear Science of theirs is derived by Apostolical Tradition to the Church the Relatour drawes a conclusion quite contrary to his Premises namely that Scripture is to be supposed Gods word and needs no precedent proof If it needs no proof why does his Lordship endeavour to prove it by such a strange kinde of Argument Had he indeed said Scriptures being prov'd by another principle to be the word of God must be suppos'd to be so by all that admit that proof he had said a manifest truth But on the one side to hold it must be prov'd by a further principle and on the other to maintain that it needs not be prov'd at all cannot but seem a strange Vertigo to any Logical head As to his conclusion in these words And therefore now to be suppos'd at least by all Christians that the Scripture is the word of God I answer if he means by now to be suppos'd for Gods word as prov'd such by Apostolical Tradition 't is most true but if he mean 't is to be suppos'd the word of God without any precedent proof in order to us it s all out of joynt and his answer contrary to his own principles 11. Touching the Jewes they had the like proof for the Old Testaments-being the word of God that we have for the New For theirs was delivered by Moyses and the Prophets and ours by the Apostles who were Prophets too And as they that came after received the Old Testament from the Tradition of the Church so do we now And this is it that St. Chysostome affirms We know why By whose Testimony do we know By the Testimony of our Ancestors Which words being spoken without restriction and in answer to the question proposed must of necessity be understood as well of the immediate as prime Ancestors however the Bishop labours by his Gloss to exclude the immediate ones which is incompatible with Reason since the witness that is able to make me know any thing must attest it immediately to me that so I may hear his testimony my self Now the Jewes who liv'd many hundred years after Moyses and the Prophets did not could not hear them immediately therefore Moyses and the Prophets could not give them an immediate testimony And since they had none that witnessed this immediately to them but those of the present Jewish Church who with a most full consent deliver'd what they had receiv'd from those who flourished in the next age before them they could not know that their Ancestors taught it but by those of their present age and consequently it was not their prime Ancestors onely that made them know it as the Relatour would insinuate This is most clearly signified Psalm 77. ver 3. c. where the Children of Israel were to receive the Law and Works of God successively by Generations one immediately from another And the same is also commanded them Deut. 6. ver 6 7 20. viz. that fathers should instruct their children concerning the great Works and Mercies of God c. As to what the Bishop observes touching the word Knowledge which is attributed to the Jews by holy Scripture as also by
builds the Catholique Church upon the Faith onely and not upon the Person of St. Peter professing that Faith But first this assertion of the Bishop is refuted by the words of St. Cyril himself who calls the Faith upon which he sayes the Church is founded c inconcussam firmissimam Discipuli Fidem the invincible and most firm Faith of Christs Disciple which words clearly include St. Peters Person with his Faith For in what sense can the Faith be said to be invincible and most sirm but onely in relation to the person invincibly and most firmly confessing it We our selves do not say the Church is built upon St. Peters Shoulders but upon his Faith viz. as 't is constantly and inviolably taught and confessed by his Person and the person of his Successors as occasion requires Secondly 't is no less contrary to the words of Holy Scripture Matth. 16. 18. I say unto thee Peter Thou art A ROCK and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church c. where 't is plain that by these words This Rock Christ meant no other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the preceding words Thou art a Rock For our Saviour spake in the Hebrew or Syriack Language Thou art CEPHAS which signifies a Rock and upon this CEPHAS that is upon this Rock will I build my Church The same is in the Greek Translation For even there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisies a Rock as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the Catholique Translators of the New Testament who follow the vulgar Latine Translation render it thus Thou art PETER and upon THIS ROCK will I build my Church yet have they noted that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our Blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word to wit Cephas which signifies a Rock when he made that promise to Saint Peter To make this plain by an instance drawn from our own affaires Suppose Matthew Parker presently after he was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied with John Scory Miles Coverdale William Barlow Jobn Hodgskins c. his Associates and Consecrators as Mr. Mason will have have it should have addressed themselves to the Queens Presence-Chamber to kiss her hand and the Queen should have asked them Quid dicitis vos de Filiâ Henrici octavi what say you of the Daughter of Henry the Eighth and Matthew Parker as chief among them answering according to the then-newly-enacted Belief Tu es Elizabetha Supremum Caput Ecclesiae c. Thou art Elizabeth Supream Head of the Church of England if the Queen thereupon should have return'd him this gracious Answer Et ego dico tibi TU ES PRIMAS super HUNC PRIMATEM aedificabo Ecclesiam meam And I say to thee Thou art Primate and upon this Primate I will build my English Church had this I say happened would any one have been so simple as to doubt whether by hunc Primatem this Primate she meant any other then Matthew Parker to whom onely she then spake Neither indeed can the words This Rock in Grammatical rigour be referr'd to the Confession of St. Peter For that being a remote Antecedent mention'd onely in the verse before and Peter or Rock the immediate mention'd in one and the same verse with hanc Petram the words in question had our Saviour understood by hanc Petram This Rock not St. Peter himself but the Confession he made of Christs Divinity he should not have said super HANC Petram but super ILLAM Petram not upon THIS Rock will I build my Church but upon THAT Rock viz thy Confession because I say that was the remote Antecedent mention'd in the former verse and was not immediately precedent to those words of our Saviour Super hanc Petram c. Seeing therefore our Saviour sayes not That but This Rock he must be understood according to strict rules of Grammar by the Demonstrative hanc or This to mean the immediate or next Antecedent viz. St. Peter himself not that which was further off viz. his Confession of Christs Divinity I adde that if our Saviour had meant St. Peters Confession onely without his Person he should have used not the Conjunction Copulative And saying Thou art Peter AND upon this Rock c. but he should have us'd the Conjunction Discretive or Exceptive But saying Thou art Peter that is a Rock in name BUT upon that Rock of thy Confession will I build my Church Wherefore seeing our Saviour doth not so speak but uses the Conjunction Copulative And he plainly tyes his speech to the Person of St. Peter to whom onely he spake in the words immediately precedent and this as necessarily as the subsequent And in the next following sentence AND to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. doth shew the said words or sentence to belong to St. Peter onely Beside what coherence do you think our Saviours discourse will have if the beginning and end of it shall be understood of St. Peters person onely and the middle of a quite different thing Touching Ruffinus his Lordship is of opinion that he neither did nor could account the Roman Church Infallible because he reckons up the Canonical Books of Scripture in a different maner from that which the Church of Rome doth now adayes And therefore sayes he either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome Infallible or else the Church of Rome this day reckons up more Books in the Canon then heretofore she did If she do so then she is changed in a main point of Faith viz. the Canon of Scripture and is absolutely convinced not to be Infallible But this Argument of the Bishop is far from being convincing For though it should be granted that the Catholick Church at present declares more Books to be contained in the Canon then she did in Ruffinus his time yet this could prove no errour in her unless it could be likewise shew'd which I am sure cannot be that she condemned those Books then as not Divine Scripture or not Canonical which now she declares to be Divine and Canonical For as now she defines some Truths which in former times were left under dispute without the least shadow of errour so without errour may she now admit some Books for Canonical and Divine Scripture which before she left under dispute that is so undeclared by her for Canonical that Christians were not obliged to receive them for such Books which now after her Declaration they are obliged to do What he says here of the Church of Rome will not I conceive be found very pressing viz. that she is driven to a hard strait for using the Authority of her Adversary meaning Ruffinus to prove her Infallibility For though it should be granted that Ruffinus was an Adversary of the Romane Church yea a condemned Adversary rejected and branded by her as the Bishop speaks yet certainly this is so far from
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
but this viz. that its Decrees are universally receiv'd as obligatory by all particular Churches or the whole Church Diffusive Neither is this Confirmation so simply and absolutely necessary but that the Decrees of a General Council lawfully assembled and duly confirm'd by the Pope are obligatory without it and antecedently to it But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop cites him for viz. to prove that 't is the consent of the whole Church Diffusive that confirms the Decrees of General Councils and not the Popes Authority His words are these Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ quid in hâc re sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset visum est ei c. where 't is evident the Father speaking of St. Cyprians errour the whole drift of his speech is to tell us it was the more excusable in him because he defended it onely before the consent of the whole Church had by the sentence of a General Council established what was to be held in that point Is this to say that the Decrees of a General Council are to be confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it and not otherwise as the Bishop will needs perswade us Surely no. To conclude therefore we think the Bishop could not well have more effectually justifi'd our assertion concerning the Authority both of the Church and a General Council then by citing this Text of St. Austin Since it clearly signifies that the Church doth settle and determin matters of Controversie by the sentence of a General Council in which the whole Churches consent is both virtually included and effectually declared 8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his angry exceptions against him for interposing as he tells us new matter quite out of the Conference But how can it be called new matter as not pertinent to the question debated in the Conference if A. C. urg'd and prov'd by what reasons he could the necessity of the Popes Authority for ending Controversies in Faith that being the point his Adversary most especially deny'd A. C. desires to know what 's to be done for reuniting the Church in case of Heresies and Divisions when a general Council cannot be held by reason of manifold impediments or being call'd will not be of one minde Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this case provided no Rule no Judge Infallible to determine Controversies and procure unity and certainty of Belief Yes sayes the Bishop He hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture But this Answer A. C. foreseeing prevented by his following words had the Relatour pleas'd to set them down which shew the inconvenience of admitting that Rule as Protestants admit it since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain What sayes the Bishop to that First he cunningly dissembles the objection takes no notice of A. C. s discourse to that purpose and yet finding it necessary to apply some salve to the sore he addes in the second place as it were by way of Tacit prevention In necessaries to Salvation the Scripture by the manifest places of it which admit no dispute nor need any external Judge to interpret them is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief amongst Christians and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermin'd they be But surely here the Bishop went too farre and lost himself in his own Labyrinth For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands onely such as are of absolute necessity to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians necessitate medii as Divines speak though we should grant they were so clear in Scripture as not to fall under dispute among Christians yet to affirm as he does that there ought to be no contention to a separation about any other points is to condemn the perpetual practice of the Catholique Church which hath ever oblig'd her Children under pain of Anathema to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretiques as namely from the Montanists the Quarto-Decimani the Rebaptizers Monothelites Pelagians Semi-Pelagians Vigilantians Iconoclasts and the like who held all those foresaid necessary matters and err'd onely in such as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians whatsoever But if by necessaries to salvation he mean any of those which Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti he should have assign'd them in particular for till that be done such General Answers as the Bishop here gives signifie nothing either to the just satisfaction of us or security of their own proceedings since they cannot possibly know in what points they ought to hold contention to a separation and in what not Moreover we having already prov'd at large Chap. 2. and in other places that 't is necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church whether clearly contain'd in Scripture or not it follows there must be some other Infallible Rule beside Scripture whereon to ground our Faith of such Things as are not clearly deliver'd in Scripture The Holy Scripture alone is not qualifi'd for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is For though it may be granted to be certain and Infallible in it self yet is it not so in order to us nor so much as known to us for Gods Word without the Authority of the Church assuring us of that truth and he is very much mistaken when he supposes the Ancient Church had no other Additional Infallible Rule viz. Tradition by which to direct their Councels Nor is there any thing alledgeable out of Bellarmin contrary to this sense if his words be candidly interpreted Tertullian indeed calls Scripture the principal rule and we if we have not sufficiently acknowledg'd it already upon sundry occasions will now say so too it is the principal not the onely Rule He adores the fulness of Scripture so do we as to that particular point about which he then disputed We confess the Scriptures do most fully prove against Hermogenes the Heretique that the world or matter whereof this world consists was not eternal but created by God in time Again 't is no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fulness of Seripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition which in other parts of his works he maintains more expresly then many other of the Fathers What 's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus but to shew that Heretiques cannot be confuted by Scripture alone without Tradition Now we say both with him St. Hierome and St. Basil that to superinduce any thing contrary to what is written is a manifest errour in Faith and that it hath a woe annexed to it but to superinduce what is no way dissonant but rather consonant and agreeable to Scripture hath no such curse
Communion that they were sworn Enemies of all such Heretiques as then respectively call'd either for Reformation or such a Free Council as Protestants now do viz. that should include all Schismatiques and Heretiques whatsoever profefsing the name of Christ. Again the Oath which the Bishops usually take does not at all deprive them of the liberty of their Suffrage nay it doth not so much as oblige them not to proceed and vote even against the Pope himself if they see just cause but onely that they will be obedient to him so long as he commands things suitable to the will of God and the Sacred Canons of the Church Neither were the Protestants otherwise pronounced Heretiques by the Pope then in pursuance of the Canons of the Church which required him so to do and of the Decrees of General Councils which had already condemnd their opinions for Heresie 5. His last exception is against the small number of Bishops present at the Tridentine Council and in the first place he mentions the Greeks whom he takes to have been unjustly excluded But I answer first the Pope by his Bull call'd all that had right to come making no exclusive mention of any Secondly the Greeks by reason of their notorious Schisme had excluded themselves and perhaps durst not venture to come as knowing that the Orthodox Bishops at Trent would have withstood their admission it being confess'd that no known Heretique or Schismatique hath right othertherwise then by special leave or permission to sit in Council Those Greeks whose names are found among the Subscribers of this Council were Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church not purposely made and sent thither by the Pope as the Relatour surmizes but expell'd and by force kept out of their Seas by those who had wrongfully usurp'd them and these assisted at the Council of Trent in their own right viz. as Catholique Bishops of the Greek Church Neither needed they any particular sending from the Greeks as the case then stood and still continues 't is sufficient they were call'd by the Pope and had right of assisting in the Council as true Bishops of the Greek Church We are told again that in many Sessions of this Council there were scarceten Archbishops present and not above forty or fifty Bishops and for the west nearer home it reckon'd no more then one English viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph I answer many more were both call'd and expected who likewise came long before the end of the Council and confirm'd by their Suffrage what had passed before their coming which was sufficient Concerning those of our Countrey the Relatour seems not to have been so well vers'd in the Acts of the Council as he might have been otherwise he would have found beside the Bishop of St. Asaph Richard Pate Bishop of Worcester present in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent He is also said to have been there at the very first opening of the Council and is mention'd both in the thirteenth Session and divers others As for his Authority or Right to sit there being not sent or deputed by the English Church we answer such Mission or Deputation is not of absolute necessity but onely of Canonical Provision when time and state of the Countries whence Bishops are sent will permit in other cases it sufficeth they be called by the Pope Now 't is undeniable that for some years before the Council ended the English Bishops that should have sent their Deputies to accompany these forementioned Bishops to the Council were restrain'd in prison by Queen Elizabeth The Bishop therefore being so apt to mistake in the Affairs of his own countrey we cannot give much credit to him in what he affirms either of France or Spain It sufficeth that in diverse Sessions of this Council many Bishops of both these Nations were present and might have been in all the rest had the particular affairs of their own Countries permitted them The impediment was not on the Councils part and consequently their absence could be no just prejudice to the Authority Legality or Liberty of it and in the latter Sessions wherein all that had been formerly Defin'd by the Council was de novo confirm'd and ratify'd by the unanimous consent of all the Prelats 't is manifest the Council was so full that in number of Bishops it clearly exceeded some of the first four Councils which even our Adversaries themselves account General 6. The whole matter therefore duly consider'd A. C. wanted not reason to tell the Bishop that nothing could be pretended by him against the Council of Trent which might not in effect have been as justly objected by the Arians against the Council of Nice But to this the Bishop will by no means yield telling us the case is not alike between the said Councils and endeavouring to shew the Disparity in diverse respects First saith he the Bishops of the Nicen Council professed not to depart from Scripture but engaged to prove what they defin'd by many testimonies thereof whereas the Council of Trent as the Relatour affirms concluded many things simply EXTRA out of all bound of Scripture leaving both its Letter and sense I answer the Arians objected the same to the Nicen Fathers namely that they concluded things both beside and contrary to Scripture they alledged Scripture for their Heresie they said in effect to the Father 's then what the Bishop and his party say to us now we are sure and we are able to prove that the Council of Nice had not Scripture for them There is therefore no such disparity between them as the Bishop pretends The truth is both these Councils had the Scripture for their rule and proved by it the Doctrine they Defined but neither of them hold it for their onely rule or so made use of it as to reject Tradition for which the Scripture it self is admitted In confirmation of which Theodoret expresly sayes that in condemning the Arian Heresie the Council of Nice grounded it self upon Tradition not but that many Testimonies of Scripture were rightly urg'd by the Bishops of that Council against Arius but because Tradition was the principal thing that was clear and unquestionable on the Councils side the Arians partly by their private and subtle Interpretations eluding the force of many Texts which Catholiques brought against them and partly alledging not a few Texts for their own opinion against the Catholique Doctrine As to what he addes in the Margent that the whole Church concluded that Scripture was against the Arians and agreeing with the Council of Nice but that the like consent is not that Scripture is for the Council of Trent and against Protestants We answer the like consent of the whole Church both is and was when Protestants first began that either Scripture or Apostolical Tradition which is equivalent to it was for the Council of Trent and against Protestants Is it not evident to go no further back then the Year 1500. that
the Kings inclination and the English Catholiques consent Is not this a gross delusion He tells us for a wonder That A. C. marvels what kinde of General Council he would have and what Rules observed in it that were Morally like to make an End of Controversies better then our Catholique General Councils Was this to express any backwardness to a lawfull General Council or could any thing be more reasonably demanded of him Could the Relatour expect an End of Contention between us by means of a General Council unless the Conditions and Rules by which the said Council should proceed were first known and consented to by both parties Are not Protestants themselves a sufficient proof of the Negative in their Cavillings against the Authority and Proceedings in the Council of Trent But what particular Conditions or Rules for the legitimating of a future General Council could he assign which had not been competently observ'd in former General Councils nay even in that of Trent whose Authority and Decrees nevertheless the Bishop with the whole party utterly rejects As to his profession that any General Council shall satisfie him that is called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observ'd in the Primitive Church it is too general to be ingenuous or give real satisfaction to the demand signifying nothing at all in relation to a finall End of our Controversies seeing Catholiques hold those general conditions as much as the Bishop or any of their opposers and yet our Differences are still the same as to particulars To as little purpose save onely to deceive the Reader cites he the Latin Text of Bellarmin in his Margent as though he concurr'd with him in the requisite conditions of a General Council whereas by those conditions are clearly excluded all Excommunicated Bishops Heretiques and Schismatiques from being any necessary part of a General Council But to come yet closer to the point who should call this his wished General Council If we follow the example of those most Ancient Councils which himself acknowledges for General and lawfully called then the Pope must be the Summoner of it or at least the Emperour with the Popes consent in both which cases we are not to divine with what contempt the Protestant party would look upon such a Council especially if it insisted in the steps of those Primitive Councils in which the Pope as we have shewn presided To call therefore for a General Council in the Protestants sense is a meer nothing an empty name to amuse silly people with since morally speaking 't is impossible there should ever be such a General Council as they fancy to themselves viz. an Oecumenical Council that should consist as well of Schismatiques Heretiques and Desertors of the Catholique Church as of true Catholique Bishops But if it were never thought reasonable in a Civil Commonwealth which yet the Bishop makes the pattern of his Spiritual one in point of Authority that Out-Laws and condemned persons should be admitted to sit with their Lawful Judges to determine whether they were Delinquents or not how instantly soever they might demand it how can it be thought to stand with any colour of Reason that Spiritual Out-Laws and Desertors of the Catholique Church that maintain many anciently condemned Heresies should be admitted to Sit and Vote in Council among their Lawful Judges whether they were guilty or not What Rebel would ever be found Criminial if he might be allow'd to be his own Judge 2. Here Mr. Fisher to shew the Bishop to how little purpose he called for a General Council asked him Whether he thought a General Council might erre viz. in its Decisions and Determinations of Faith To which the Relatour having answer'd in the Affirmative that it might erre Mr. Fisher thus further Queried If a General Council may erre what nearer are we to Unity after a General Council hath determined What the Bishop reply'd to this I shall not deliver out of the mouth of either Mr. Fisher or A. C. because he quarrels with them though to little purpose touching the precise words he used in the Conference wherein his memory might as well fail him as the other You shall have them from his own pen upon more mature deliberation But first hear how he disputes pro and con touching Mr. Fishers first Querie Whether sayes he a General Council may erre or not is a question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church without remedy against an errour once determined To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely disrespect former Councils of the Church but to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine To each member of this discourse I answer thus in order To say and but meerly to say it without good proof that a General Council cannot erre may leave the Church indeed without remedy against an errour But to say it cannot erre and prove it too both from Reason Authority and Gods Word as Catholiques do is so far from leaving the Church without remedy against an errour that it secures all the adhering members thereof from erring in any matter of Faith Now for the latter branch or member To say it can erre does not onely seem to expose as the Bishop hath it but does actually expose and abandon all the Adherents of that opinion to an inevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith and makes them utterly contemn all former and future Councils when ever they determine any thing contrary to these mens fancies Now to Mr. Fishers second Querie wherein are we nearer to Unity if a General Council may erre the Bishop thus positively answers The Determination of a General Council erring is to stand in force and to have external obedience at least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary make the errour appear and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority do reverse it Is not this a strange not to say an impious doctrine to be advanc'd without Authority either of Gods Word or of Antiquity nay contrary to all solid Reason that men should be tyed up by an Erring Conciliary Decision in points of Divine Truth against Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration of the Errour For till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it the errour is still to be submitted to by all men even when they know it This indeed is a rare effect of a General Council to oblige all the members of the Church to Unity in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had as I have already shewn And to mend the matter that is to make us still at a greater loss this
Council till her forbearance therein may be interpreted a Neglect or Refusal to do it Fifthly he scores us out no way how we should go to work to obtain the necessary Concurrence of all Christian Princes to the actual Assembling of this new model'd Council It would be too long to point out all the inextricable Difficulties that attend this uncanonical way of proceeding in Religion recommended by the Bishop A Doctrine so far from being a Remedy against the pretended intolerable failings of a former General Council upon supposition of the whole Churches neglect or refusal to call a Council and examin them that it is highly instrumental to Division both in Church and State giving as good title if not better to any new Body of Sectaries to reform Protestantism when they get power into their hands as it did to Protestants to reform for themselves against the whole Church 4. However the Bishop still goes on harping upon the same string and in lieu of giving us solid Arguments to evince the Truth of what he would perswade viz. that his opinion touching a General Councils possibility of erring in points of Faith is most preservative of peace established or ablest to reduce perfect Unity into the Church he falls into a tedious discourse which he sayes he will adventure into the world but onely in the nature of a Consideration which yet he divides into many entring upon the First with Two very erroneous Suppositions which he layes for the foundation of a tottering Superstructure The one that the Government of the Church is no further Monarchical then as Christ is the Head The other that all the Power an Oecumenical Council hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in its Determination it hath it all from the Universal Body of the Church because the Representative of a Commonwealth hath no more power then what it receives from the Body it represents The first of these viz. that the Church is not governed by one in chief under Christ is a supposition more then once confuted To the second which we have already impugned above we further answer that the Power and Assistance which General Councils have to determine Controversies of Faith so as not to erre in the Determination cannot possibly be communicated to them by the Church but must chiefly proceed from the same Fountain now it did in the Apostles time viz. from the Direction of the Holy Ghost This Spiritual power for the government of the Church being not of Humane but Divine Institution nor proceeding so much from the Natural Wisdome Knowledge Vertue and Abilities of the Ecclesiastical Governours assembled in Council as from the cooperation of the Holy Spirit with them Whereas in a Civil Commonwealth which is of Humane Institution its representative cannot pretend to any other Power then what is derived from the said Commonwealth Secondly the Bishop considers that though the Act that is hammered out by many together must needs be perfecter then that which is but the childe of one mans sufficiency yet this cannot be Infallible unless it be from some special Assistance of the Holy Ghost This we no way contradict but adde that this special Assistance of the holy Ghost is so far ever afforded to a Lawful General Council as to render all it s compleated Definitions of Faith Infallible 5. Thirdly he considers that the Assistance of the Holy Ghost is without errour that sayes he is no question and as little that a Council hath it But the doubt that troubles is whether all Assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such an high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Council in matters Fundamental in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike Infallible By this expression alike Infallible the Bishop seems to grant that all the Definitions of a General Council even in Deductions as well as Fundamentals are Infallible and onely to doubt whether they be alike Infallible I see no necessity of graduating Infallibility in the present question since any real Infallibility is as much as Catholique Authors assert in all Decisions of Faith be they Fundamental or remote Deductions in the Bishops sense seeing that as to our obligation of believing them they are alike Fundamental as we have prov'd in the second Chapter Here the Bishop intends to examine the Texts which he sayes Stapleton rests upon for proof of Infallible Assistance afforded to General Councils viz. John 16. 13. I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And John 14. 16. This Spirit shall abide with you for ever And Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you to the end of the world Likewise these which he sayes are added by others viz. The Founding the Church upon the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. and Luke 22. 32. Christs Prayer for St. Peter that his Faith fail not and Christs promise Mat. 18 20. That where two or three are gathered together in his Name he will be in the midst of them And that in the Acts chap. 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us A man would imagine these Texts sufficiently clear in themselves to evince the Truth of the Catholick Assertion touching General Councils but the Bishop is partly of another minde affirming that no one of them does infer much less inforce Infallibility He was loath to say all of them together did not But let us hear how he quarrels them in particular To the first which speaks of leading into all Truth and that for ever he answers ALL is not alwayes universally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth but for ALL TRUTH absolutely necessary to Salvation I reply neither do we averre that it is here universally taken or doth signifie simply all Truth for then it would comprehend all natural Truth and matter of Fact which we deny no less then the Bishop but that it signifies all Truth necessary for the Apostles and their Successors to know for the Instruction and Government of the Church whether expressed or but infolded in Scripture or Tradition As to his limiting the words to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation we say this is but gratis dictum and a meer groundless restriction depending wholly on the Bishops voluntary assertion as we have already shewn It is also clearly refuted by the Context vers 12. where our Saviour having told his Disciples he had many things to say to them which they could not then bear addes immediately as it were by way of Supplement to their present weakness the forecited words that when the Spirit of Truth should come he would guide them into all Truth that is into all those Truths which Christ had to say to them and which they were not as yet in a capacity to bear But can any man imagine Christ had not already
infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But he does not finde he sayes that any General Council since did ever take upon them to say punctually and in express terms of their Definitions VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS acknowledging even thereby a great deale of difference as hee conceiues in the Certainty of those things which After-generall Councils determined in the Church and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sate in Council I answer there 's no Essentiall difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a Generall Councill confirm'd by the Roman Bishop Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops in respect of Personall Prerogatiues and graces but none at all between the Certainty of what eyther the Apostles by themselues or succeeding bishops in a lawfull Generall Council assembled define for Truth seeing what is completely determin'd therin is no lesse determin'd by Apostolicall Authority then what was determin'd by the Apostles in that first Council at Hierusalem And if After-Councils vse not the same Expression punctually and in terms it is not materiall since they doe it in effect by vniversally enioyning the Beleefe of their Decisions vnder paine of Anathema And this the Holy fathers well vnderstood when they averr'd the Decrees of a Generall Council to bee a most Holy and Diuine Oracle a sentence inspir'd by the Holy Ghost not to bee 〈◊〉 not to bee question'd without errour that it is the last sentence that can bee expected in matters of fayth What the Relatour meanes by alledging Valentia I vnderstand not that Author cleerly speaking of Councils not yet ratify'd by the Pope The Bishop therfore hath sayd nothing in disproofe of what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirme viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proofe of the Jnfallibility of Generall Councils which considered Dr. Stapleton is so farre from beeing iustly Censurable for styling the Decrees of Generall Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost that his Lp. is rather blameable for pretending such words to bee little short of Blasphemie Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to giue them such like Attributes Does not St. Athanasius terme the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever Does not St. Cyrill aboue cited call it likewise a Diuine and most Holy Oracle Doth not Constantin the Emperour style the same Definition a Celestiall mandate Doth not St. Gregory with the applause of all true Christians professe to reuerence the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councils as hee reuerences the foure Ghospells Doth not St. Leo St. Gregory Naziazen Pope Nicolas the first with others speake to the same sense Bellarmins Argument deduc'd from this Apostolicall Council as 't was a President to all future Councils oecumenicall holds good for their Jnfallibility since otherwise they must haue been ineffectuall as to the principall purpose of calling them Viz. so to determin Controuersies of fayth as to put an end to all debates of that nature in the Church which can never bee effectually done where Infallibility is not acknowledg'd as hath been proued To what hee obiects that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils where no man Sate that was inspired as was in this of the Apostles where all that sate as iudges were inspired I answer 't is sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelats concurring with their Head in any other lawfull Generall Council were ioyntly infallible in any kinde of reall infallibility whether like to the former or not So in the Bishops own principles a Generall Council or at least the Catholique Church is infallible in fundamentalls or Things absolutely necessary to saluation though hee would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to haue that prerogatiue of infallibility As touching Ferus hee avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility though his Authority would bee of no greater force then if hee were none of ours His Comment vpon the Acts which the Bishop here cites beeing listed with most of his other works in the ROLL of Prohibited Books Thus haue I gone thorough all the forecited passages of scripture and in euery one of them solv'd the Bishops obiections for rendring them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of Generall Councils which yet I needed not haue done since what is cleerly prou'd by any one Text of scripture is as vndoubtedly true as what is prou'd by more But the Bishop tells us hee easily grants a Generall Council cannot erre in Things necessary to 〈◊〉 suffering it selfe to bee led by the spirit of Truth in scripture wherein hee seems but to trifle saying no more in effect then that a Generall Council cannot erre so long as it doth not erre This is a very small Prerogatiue and might bee affirm'd of any kinde of Council nay of any particular person of how meane capacity soever The question is whether a lawfull Generall Council can ever bee presumable to fall into the Bishops hinted disorder of leauing scripture or defining any thing contrary to its true sense But to speake truth there can bee no question of it as beeing inconsistent with the veracity of Diuine Promises to permitt the whole Church to erre in any Doctrinall point she finds necessary to define by a Generall Council for preuenting of schisms and settling of mens minds in the Truth To what hee adds as the Result of his discourse vpon these several Texts that supposing they promisd Assistance even to Infallibility yet they are to bee understood of the whole Church principally and of its Representatiue but by consequent nor any further then the sayd Representatiue consents and eleaues to that vpon which it is consequent viz. the Catholique Body of the Church This I say is but a weake cuasion For seeing the Catholique or Diffusiue Body of the Church is bound to beleeue and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representatiue if the Church Diffusiue haue an Infallible Assistance for her Beleeving the Council or Church Representatiue must also necessarily haue Infallible Assistance in Teaching To which of these this Assistance is promised principally is but a vayne speculation since they both haue it as beeing absolutely necessary for them both Here the Bishop falls againe to his Considerations and wil haue vs to obserue fourthly that there is not the like consent that Generall Councils cannot erre as there is thatthe Church in Generall cannot erre from the fayth necessary to Saluation since in this all agree but not in the former J answer all that haue not deserted nor adher'd to the Desertors of the Catholique Church doe vna nimously agree that a lawfully-call'd and confirm'd Generall Council can no more erre in point of fayth then the Church in general and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the
NO LONGER that which Nature fram'd viz. bread and wine but that which the Benediction of Consecration hath made it to be What 's that but the Body and Bloud of Christ adding further thus you will say perhaps I see an other thing Why do you tell me Jreceiue the Body of Iesus Christ How many Examples haue wee to proue that the force of Benediction is greater then that of Nature seeing that by Benediction euen nature it selfe is often changed Againe also This bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but when Consecration comes OF BREAD IT IS MADE THE FLESH OF CHRIST They that desire to see more testimonies to confirme this truth may finde them in Bellarmin libr. 3. de Eucharist cap 20. and in diuerse other Catholique Authours Euen the words of scripture it selfe taken in their proper and literall sense doe euidently shew that the only substance which is deliuer'd in this Sacrament is the Body of Christ and that the substance of bread is no more there For as he that pointing to an hogs-head of wine sayes this is wine and he that holding vp a purse-full of money says this is gold if he intends to speake truth must signify that the only liquour contain'd sub propria forma in the hogs-head is wine and all the money in the purse gold so our Sauiour Christ by saying this is my Body must giue vs to vnderstand that all the substance contained vnder the accidents he shew'd was his Body which could not be true vnless the substance of bread were changed into Christs Body or ceased to be in the Sacrament There 's a great deale of difference between these two propositions here is gold and this is gold He that holds a handfull of money of which halfe is gold and halfe syluer may truly say here is gold but he cannot truly say this is gold So is it in the B. Sacrament If there were both the substance of bread and of the Body of Christ in it wee might truly say shewing the Sacrament here is the Body of Christ or this is bread and the Body of Christ but not this is the Body of Christ. Seeing therfore our Sauiour at this last supper speaking of the Sacrament sayd this is my Body the meaning of his words must needs be that in what he then shewed there was no other substance but that of his Body whence it followes that there was a true conuersion of the substance of the bread which ceased to be any longer vnder the species of bread into the Body of Christ. 4. An other pretended errourof a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope is that of administring the B. Sacrament to the Layty vnder one kinde only of which wee hauc already spoken what may suffice in the precedent chapter Neuertheless to that little which the Relatour adds here wee answer briefly The authority of St. Thomas brought by the Bishop makes rather for vs then against vs. For he tells vs 't was a custome prouidently obserued in some Churches not to giue the Sacrament in forme of wine to the Laity His words are Prouidè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo Sanguis non detur This Prouision was made to auoyd the danger of spilling and other inconueniences which likewife mou'd the Council of Constance to make a Generall Decree to the same purpose although it be certain that not only in St. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it were both publiquely allowed and commonly by some practised euen in Churches to receiue vnder one kinde only For otherwise how is it possible that the Manichees who by the principles of their Heresie neuer dranke wine nor communicated vnder the Forme of wine should yet finde liberty and opportunity to Communicate amongst Catholiques in Catholique Churches without beeing perceiu'd as 't is certaine they frequently did in St. Leo's time and after Likewife t is euident that all Heremites in the wildernefs communicated often vnder one kinde only So did trauellers in their iourneyes Sicke persons in their beds and others at home in their howses Lastly Children in the Church and little infants at home in their cradles in forme of wine only Wee grant that in ancient times when the number of Christians was but small it was the ordinary custome for all that would the Laity as well as others to receiue the Eucharist in both kindes but wee auerre this custome proceeded meerly out of free denotion and not out of any beleefe that it was absolutely necessary so to doe by vertue of Christs precept or that it was contrary to the substance of Christs institution to doe otherwise This therfore euinces not that which the Bishop was obliged to proue namely that receiuing vnder one kinde only is an errour contrary to the institution and intention of Christ but rather the contrary to that is manifest from the practice of the Church which always euen in the first fiue or six hundred years allowed it publiquely to be taken vnder the forme of bread only and that as well in the Church as out of it as Bellarmin likewise more largely shews lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 24. Whose authorities the Bishop shoul haue taken notice of and not thought it sufficient only to say this and that is an errour and contrary to Christs institution without shew of proofe For wee tell him the vniuersall practice of the Church is a better interpreter of Christs institution then the Bishop or any priuate person whatsoeuer and so wee doubt not but all sober-minded Christians not too much peruerted with Hereticall preiudice will in time acknowledge Howeuer the Relatour by his silence as to this particular giues vs leaue to goe on and consider his fourth obiected errour viz. Inuocation of Saynts to which he adds a fift also Adoration or worship of Images both of them wee confess beeing points admitted and defin'd by the Council of Trent which the Pope confirm'd 5. Against the Jnuocation of Saynts he tells vs in the first place that what the Fathers haue in fauour of it is only Rhetoricall flourishes for the stirring vp of deuotion as they thought Very good When the Fathers deliuer Propositions soe cleerly for vs that it is not possible for our aduersaries to wrest them to any contrary sense then all 's but Rhetorique and Hyperbolicall straines of 〈◊〉 but when they speake any thing that beares some shew against vs then they are dogmaticall that 's positiue Diuinity and the reall sense of the Fathers Is not this faire dealing But in the meane time how can it seeme to any that duly considers it but most extreamely partiall and strange to terme so many exhortations so many plaine and positiue assertions so many instances examples histories reports and the like which the Fathers frequently vse and afford in this kinde and that vpon occasions wherein dogmaticall and plaine deliuery of Christian doctrine and truth is expected
to the doctrine of the other But in the Roman Church and Religion many are sau'd according to the principles which are granted on both sides viz. both by Catholiques and Protestants and in the Protestant Church many are saued only according to the principles and doctrine of Protestants but very few or none according to the doctrine of Catholiques Ergo the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to Saluation then the Church and religion of Protestants The Maior I'conceiue none will deny The Minor I proue thus In the Catholique Church 't is euident that many beeing to depart out of this life doe receiue the Sacrament of Pennance These according to the doctrine of the Roman Church are saued because by vertue of this Sacrament they receiue the grace of Iustification wherby of sinners they are made the sons of God and Heires of Eternall life nor can they be deny'd to be sau'd according to the doctrine of Protestants seeing they beleeue in Christ their Redeemer they confide in Gods Goodness and mercy for the pardon of their sins they truly repent of them and truly purpose for the future to amend their liues which is all that Protestant doctrine requires to make men partakers of Christs sanctifying Grace and is also necessarily requir'd by Catholiques to make them free subiects for the Sacrament of pennance Who can therfore doubt but that all such persons are saued both according to the doctrine of Catholiques and Protestants too J say who can rationally and with charity doubt but that Catholiques generally speaking beeing taught that Fayth Hope true repentance for sins past and a purpose of amendment are necessary to the due receiuing of the Sacrament of pennance doe not omitt to exercise those acts with all necessary diligence and sincerity especially when they are to prepare themselues against that dreadfull passage to Eternity That they may exercise such acts if they will by the help of Gods ordinary Grace and by exercising them be effectually sau'd the Bishop himselfe cannot deny seeing he grants so much to the Donatists themselues whom he confesses at least to haue been Schismatiques iustly condemn'd by the Orthodox Church and in some respects in greater danger of damnation then wee Romanists His words are these A plaine bonest Donatist hauing as is confessed true Baptisme and holding the Foundation as for ought I know the Donatists did and repenting of what euer was sinne in him and would haue repented of the Schisme had it been know'n to him might be saued Neither will J suppose any other Protestant deny vs the possibility of exercising such acts seeing they all grant that with involuntary errours true Fayth and repentanoe may stand and haue no sufficient reason to thinke that our errours at death are voluntary and willfull or that wee doe willfully omitt any thing that wee beleeue to be necessary for the attaining of Saluation But now according to the doctrine of Catholiques there are very few or none among Protestants that escape damnation or that are 〈◊〉 if they liue and dye out of the Communion of our Church Not that it is a point of our beleese that many Protestants shall be damn'd precisely vpon the account of beeing Heretiques because heresie is an obstinate and willfull errour against Fayth and wee cannot easily much less infallibly determin whose errours are willfull but because there are none or surely but very few amongst them but are guilty of mortall sinne against Gods Commandements and because the ordinary meanes they vse and prescribe is not according to our principles sufficient to expiate and blott out such sinne 'T is well know'n that though Protestants to obtaine Saluation beleeue in Christ trust in his merits and repent of their sins yet they doe it not purely out of a perfect loue of God so as to hate sin aboue all euills meerly as it is an offence against the Diuine Maiestie and to preferre God and his holy Commandements before our selues and all other creatures for this is a very hard and rare act euen amongst the best of Christians but at best vpon inferiour and lower motiues as the manner of most men is to doe viz. in consideration of the Beatitude of Heauen as it is their own particular good or for the auoyding of the paines of Hell as it is their particular and chiefest harme Now according to our doctrine such kinde of repentance as this is no sufficient remedy to blott out sinne vnless it be ioyn'd wich the Sacrament of pennance viz. Confession and Priestly Absolution c. which Protestants reiect J say without the Sacrament of pennance actually and duly recoin'd all Catholiques hold that neither Fayth nor Hope nor any repentance or sorrow for sinne can saue vs but that only which is ioyned with a perfect loue of God wherby wee are dispos'd to loose all and suffer all that can be imagin'd rather then to offend God yea though there were indeed neither Heauen to reward vs nor Hell to punish vs which beeing a thing so hard to be found especially 〈◊〉 such as beleeue a man is iustifyed by Fayth only it followes euidently that in our doctrine very few or no Protestants are saued The Conclusion therfore is vndenyable that our Church is a safer way to Salua ion then that of Protestants My second Argument is this That Church and Religion which affords all necessary meanes of Saluation is a safer way to Saluation then an other which does not But the Roman Church and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation and the Protestant doth not Ergo the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to Saluation then the Church and Religion of Protestants The Maior is euident The Minor consists of two parts which I shall proue in order The First which is that the Roman Church and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation appeares partly by the confession of Protestants themselues who acknowledge generally that in our Church and Religion are contained all Foundamentall points that is all things absolutely necessary to Saluation and partly because it cannot be proued that any thing is of absolute necessity in order to Saluation which is not found in our Churches Communion The second that Protestants standing to their owne principles neither haue nor can haue things necessary for Saluation J proue by this one Argument Jt is certaine that diuine Fayth necessary to Saluation according to these places of Holy Writt sine fide impossibile est placere Deo Hebr. 11. without Fayth it is impossible to please God Qui non crediderit condemnabitur Marc. 16. He that beleeueth not shall be damned 'T is likewise certaine that this diuine Fayth must be firme sure and without doubt or hesitation in so much that if an Angel from Heauen should preach the contrary to what wee beleeue it ought not to be altered according to that of the Apostle Galat. 1. 8. Now how is it possible that Protestants standing to their
if our aduersaries like not his answer wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church Moreouer wee auerre that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned A. C. inference is rightly gathered namely that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle then solid when to make good his denyall of it he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point granting the first of these viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points to follow out of Doctor Whites concession but not the second viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall But with what ground or consonancy to himselfe and truth lett the Reader iudge His precense is that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression as he calls it or bare letter of the Article but hath err'd in the exposition or sense of it J answer if she hath err'd in the exposition and sense of an Article how can she be truly sayd to haue held it Can any man with truth say that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity or the Antitrinitarians the doctrine of three diuine Persons because they allow and hold Scriptures in which these Mysteries are contain'd who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold in a question of Fayth to signifie no more then profession or keeping of the bare letter of the Article and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense Is it not all one to say Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say they beleeue the sayd doctrines Jf then it be true that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points 't is likewise true that she hath euer beleeu'd them and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any there beeing noe other way properly and truly speaking wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth but only by disbeleeuing it If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points it is by necessary consequence likewise granted that she neuer erred in any such points how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so He tells vs indeed but his accusation has noe proofe that our Church hath erred grossly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them lastly that her beauty in this respect is but meere painting as preseruing only the outside and bare letter of Christs doctrine but in regard of inward sense and beleefe beeing neither beautifull nor sound Thus he But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd Let our aduersaries shew in what one Article of all the three Creeds the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense or err'd in her exposition of it Beside they must likewise shew how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe and not in the bare letter how can those which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion beleeuing all things as she teacheth and noe otherwise attain Saluation 3. The Lady here asks a second question whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats vpon my soule sayes the Bishop you may vpon my soule sayes Mr. Fisher there is but one sauing Fayth and that 's the Roman You see their mutuall confidence but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes and condition also of Saluation viz. Catholique Fayth which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed saues none witness St. Athanasius in his Creed admitted by Protestants The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils so much magnifyed by Antiquity to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation This in fine is the ground of the Bishops confidence But I answer his Lordship failes in two things The first that he doth not shew that such a Fayth as he here mentions is sufficient to Saluation notwithstanding whateuer errour or opinion may be ioyned with it The second that he doth not shew that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth that is in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 For as to the first of the pariculars did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme that St. Cyprians followers were lost without repentance because they opposed the authority of the Church which in and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous Put case then that in after-times the whole Church or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice should declare some other opinion to be erroneous which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so eyther by Scripture Creeds or those Fowre first Generall Councils were not he that should hold it after such definitiue declaration of the Church or Council in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils If not lett our aduersaries shew why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church or the Councils definition and other people who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority should not Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne to oppose the definition of a Generall Council when he auerrs that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience and submission till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times and inconsistent with the Churches peace How can this possibly be made good if to beleeue Scripture and the
Prouinces of Christendome so publiquely auouch it to haue been a Tradition of the Apostles to worship Images if it had not been a thing confessedly practis'd amonge Christians euer since the Apostles times and with their knowledge and allowance Is it credible that so many Catholique and Orthodox Bishops should conspire to deceiue the world with such a lowde vntruth if it had been otherwise As for Transubstantiation which is an other point the Relatour pretends the Primitiue Church did not beleeue wee haue already shew'n that what is signifyed by the word to witt a true and reall change of the substance of bread into Christs body was cleerly held and taught by diuerse ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church His bare saying 't is a scandall to both Iew and Gentile and the Church of God signifies but little Christ crucifyed was a scandall both to Iew and Gentile but yet a true obiect of our Fayth nor are they the Church or any part of the true Church that are scandaliz'd at it but Infidells and Heretiques who will be scandaliz'd at any thing that suites not with their own fancies As little can he inferre against vs from the difficulty which Catholique Diuines haue to explicate Transubstantiation Js not the Mystery of the B. Trinity in the Bishops own opinion as inexplicable and yet firmly to be beleeu'd why then must Transubstantiation be reiected or disbeleeu'd meerly vpon that ground or because 't is hard to be explicated Neither was it Transubstantiation precisely which bred that pretended scandall in Auerroes but the Reall Presence as his words shew cited by the Bishop Yet the Relatour himselfe and his master Caluin too sometimes make profession to beleeue the Reall Presence After so many vnaduised assertions our aduersarie falls at last to quibble vpon those words of A. C. Roman Catholiques cannot be prou'd to depart from the Foundation so farre as Protestants telling vs 't is a confession that Romanists may be prou'd to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so farre as Protestants doe A doughty inference I promise you But what gaines he by it Doth not the Bishop himselfe num 1. of this very Paragraph vse the like speech of vs when he sayth you of Rome haue gone further from the Foundation of this one sauing Fayth then can euer be proued wee of the Church of England haue done If this must not be accounted a Confession that the Church of England hath departed from the Foundation why must that of A. C. be see interpreted as the Bishop will haue it what euer explication be giuen to the Bishops words will serue A. C. as well whose meaning only was that there cannot be brought any arguments to proue our Churches departing from the Foundation but more and better may be brought to proue that Protestants doe likewise depart from it in more and greater points It is not to grant that the arguments which Protestants bring to proue our departing from the Fonndation are solid and conuincing or doe really proue that for which they are brought This the Relatour is only willing to suppose for himselfe and to insinuate which A. C. absolutely denyes And as the Bishop had noe reason to inferre any such Confession cut of A. 〈◊〉 words so had he as little reason to make such a confident demand in behalfe of his Church of England Let A. C. instance if he can in any one point wherein she hath departed from the Foundation etc. For that was already done to his hand A. C. had already giuen him this very errour for instance viz. the Church of Englands denying infallible authority to lawfull Generall Councils this beeing in effect to deny infallibility to the whole Church and by consequence to subuert the ground of all infallible beleefe in any articles or points of Fayth whatsoeuer Nor does it help him to say there 's a greate deale of difference betwixt a Generall Council and the whole body of the Catholique Church For what euer difference may be in other respects in this viz. of infallible teaching what is true Christian Fayth and infallible beleeuing what is so taught there is no difference betwixt the Catholique Church and a Generall Councill For if such a Council may erre the Church hath noe infallible meanes to rectifie that errour or sufficiently to propose any other point of Catholique doctrine to be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians His allegation of the second Council of Ephesus for a Generall or oecumenicall Council shewes nothing but what a desperate cause the Bishop maintaines That which was neuer styled or esteem'd by Catholique antiquity but Praedatoria Synodus and Latrocinium not Concilium Ephesinum a den of Robbers and Free-booters a Conuention of the most turbulent and seditrous Heretiques that euer troubled or dishonoured the Church by their vnlawfull actings where nothing but secular violence rage and cruelty bore sway euen to bloud-shed and murther of the B. Prelate St. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople this his Lordship brings for an example of a Generall Councils erring Very worthily indeed lett his friends make their benefitt of it Jn the meane time they may know that as on the one side wee readily confess it very necessary the Church should haue remedy against such Councils as this so on the other side wee auerre that the infallibility of Generall Councils truly and rightly so called is such a Foundation of the Roman that is the Christian Catholique Fayth that without it wee know not what can be nor has the Bishop as yet shew'n how any thing can be certaine in the Fayth 6. A. C. after this endeauours by interrogatories to draw from his Aduersarie the confession of truth in answer whereto seeing the Bishop repeats much matter already consuted especially in the 7th and 8th Chapters of this treatise it will oblige vs to avoyd tediousness to be more briefe in our replie A. 〈◊〉 first Querie is how Protestants admitting noe insallible rule of Fayth but Scripture only can be infallibly sure that they beleeue the same entire Scripture Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitiue Church beleeu'd them The Relatour in answer to him tells vs that he beleeues Scripture 1. by Tradition 2. by other motiues of Credibilliy 3. by the Light of Scripture it selfe But first this is not to make a direct answer to the question which is not whether Scripture can be any way beleeu'd or no standing to the Bishops principles but whether and how he can be infallibly sure of what he does beleeue concerning it Secondly 't is vndenyable in the common principles of all Protestants and prou'd already that the two first of these viz. Tradition and the motiues of Credibility can be no ground to Protestants of infallible Fayth or assurance concerning Scripture and for the third viz. Light of Scripture it selfe it is not only petitio principij a begging of the
fire for purging of soules after this life which can be no other then the fire of Purgatory which wee assert in which the effects of mortall sinne and also veniall sinnes are purged Neither is it against vs that this purging fire is sayd by St. Gregory to be a fire that sleeps not seeing his meaning is that it goes not out nor ceaseth to burn till the soule be perfectly refined by it Wee confess also that St. Gregory proues the Resurrection of the bodie by this argument because 't is fitting the body which hath been partaker in sinne should likewise be partaker in punishment But how does this disproue Purgatorie Yes sayes the Bishop for this Father teacheth withall that the soule cannot suffer by fire but in the body Jf he meanes naturally and by materiall fire Weo grant it too but supernaturally and by diuine power so ordaining it wee auerre that both Deuills and damned foules doe now suffer by fire in Hell though it be not matter of necessary Fayth to beleeue that soules in Purgatorie are now purg'd by materiall fire It sufficeth that they suffer reall paines reall affliction and dolours whatsoeuer those be and by what meanes soeuer applyed and that by suffering them they are purged from their sinnes What the Relatour adds here concerning diuerse of the ancients especially of the Greeks viz. that they were a little too much acquainted with Plato's schoole if his meaning be that they were thereby led into errour or that they corrupted the Christian doctrine with the opinions of Plato or any other Paganish Philosophers 't is a groundless calumny and extremely iniurious to those worthies But our Aduersarie seemes not much to care what he imputes to the fathers soe he may impose vpon his Reader and make him beleeue those primitiue and zealous Assertours of Christian verity against both Philosophers Heretiques and all enemies whateuer held against vs in this point or taught not Purgatorie as a part of Catholique doctrine 12. But St. Austin has the ill hap to be vs'd worst of all The Bishop makes him say and vnsay and wauer in his doctrine touching this matter as if he had been rather a nouice in the Fayth then a father of the Church thence concluding that the doctrine of Purgatorie was noe matter of Fayth in St. Austins time for if it had been such St. Austin would neuer haue spoken so doubtfully of it Excellenty concluded But I answer the argument proceeds only vpon a willing mistake of our Aduersarie and an affected ignorance of St. Austins meaning in the places alledged That he could not possibly be thought to deny or doubt of Purgatory quoad rem that is as it signifies a pen all state of faythfull soules departed from which they are in time deliuered is so euident that wee referre it to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader after he hath seriously weighed these places not to repeate here those other which Bellarmin cites out of him Constat animas purgari post hancvitam c. this the Bishop himselfe also cites 't is certaine sayth he that some soules are purged after this life If St. Austin held it certaine how could he be thought to doubt of it neque negandum est etc. Jt is not a thing to be denyed sayth he againe but the soules of the dead are holpen by the piety of their liuing friends when the sacrifice of Christs Body is offered for them or Alms giuen on their behalfe To the same purpose he writes also lib. 21. de Ciuit. Det. pag. 13. lib. 2. de Genes contr Manich. cap. 20. Epist. 64. ad Aurel. Episc. Item in psalm 37. Lastly what he sayth Serm. 32. de verb. Apost Orationibus Sanctae Ecclesiae et Sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adiuuari etc. wee may not at all doubt sayth he but the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Holy Church with Alms distributed for their soules doe help the dead so as to procure that our Lord deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes haue deserued this beeing a thing which the vniuersall Church obserues by Tradition from the Fathers Compare this good Reader with that know'n maxime and resolution of St. Austin in his Epistle to Januarius that 't is noe better then insolent madness to question or dispute that which the vniuersall Church holds and tell mee if thou can'st possibly thinke that St. Austin doubted of Purgatorie The thing he doubted of was not whether there were such a state of soules after this life as wee now style Purgatory but only what was the most proper and genuine sense of that place of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. 13. etc. siquis superaedificauerit etc. and more particularly whether the Apostle mean't the afflictions of this life or those after this life by this fire he speaks of He doubted also and offer'd it to consideration whether soules departed might not be thought to be in part tormented euen after death with the sense of such griefe as they suffer'd in this life when they were depriu'd of things which were most deare to them Of these wee confess St. Austin seems in some sort to doubt but yet so little that 't is euident he always allowes it for a good and sound exposition of text abouesayd 1. Cor. 3 12. etc. to vnderstand it literally of the paines of the next life and very frequently so vnderstands it himselfe without making any difficulty or question about it and without mentioning any other sense All which presupposed and well reflected on it could haue been no hard matter sure for the Bishop to haue reconciled all that St. Austin deliuers vpon this subiect without making him seeme to doubt of that which he teacheth datâ occasione no less constantly then he doth the doctrine of Heauen and Hell or else to speake contrary to himselfe which is neither beseeming nor soe easily to be imputed to such a person as this Father was know'n and confessed to be in the Church of God Nor can I but wonder seeing the Bishop grants that St. Austin sometimes asserted Purgatorie though at other times he left it doubtfull why the Bishop and his party should make it such a necessary point of their doctrine to deny it whereas St. Austin neuer deny'd Purgatory Whence is deriued to Protestants that light which St. Austin and the whole Church of his time could not see They had the word of God then as well as Protestants can pretend to haue it now and were much neerer to the Primitiue and Apostolicall times in which euen by our Aduersaries acknowledgement there was not that dross of superstition which they complaine of in latter times If it were a truth so important to Saluation and so cleere in Scripture as Protestants now make it or the beleese of Purgatory an errour so derogatory to the merits and satisfaction of Christ as they say it is
how happen'd it that St. Austin and the Church of his time could not see both the one and the other J must not omitt the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Hierusalem and St. Iobn Chrysostome though the Bishop does in his answer the first of which giues testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory in these words Wee pray sayth he for those amongst vs who are departed this life beleeuing that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOVLES for whome the Oblation of his holy and dreadfull Sacrifice vpon the Altar is offered The second speaks thus Jt is not in vaine that wee make Oblations for the dead it is not in vaine that wee pray and giue Alms for them doubt not but there comes much good of it and more towards the end lett vs consider sayth he how great consolations wee may cause to the dead by these our teares and giuing of Alms for them and by our prayers Againe If thy dead Brother be departed with any sinne that is with sin not so fully repented for and not so fully expiated by works of Pennance as it ought and as wee haue often declar'd wee ought to the vtmost of our power to GIVE HIM SVCCOVR by our prayers supplications and teares and by procuring Oblations or Masses for him For it is not in vaine that in the diuine Mysteries wee remember the faythfull departed Wee doe it to the end they may receiue CONSOLATION and what wee doe in this kinde is not any superstitious inuention of man as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is but the Ordination of the Holy Ghost 13. What can be sayd more then this to the full assertion of our Catholique beleefe in this point Especially seeing out Aduersary himselfe grants concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time that they vndoubtedly held Purgatory so that for a thousand yeares and more he confesses Purgatory was the generall Fayth of Christians Jt would be considered by indifferent men whether it be not sarre more likely to haue been always the Fayth of Christians and that our fore-fathers were in truth frighted into the beleefe of it as the Bishop will needs speake by noe other meanes then they were frighted into the beleefe of Hell that is by the Tradition of the Catholique Church and the preaching of their lawfull Pastours conformably thereto I conclude therfore that Purgatory can be noe other then a doctrine of Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good lib. 4. de Baptism cap. 24. which teacheth that wee iustly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles if they be taught by the whole Church and wee finde noe beginning or first Institution of them in Councils Nationall Prouinciall or oecumenicall Now wee challenge our Aduersaries to shew when or in what age the doctrine of Purgatory first began to be taught or which is all one when the doctrine of Praying for the dead that their sins might be remitted to them that they might finde mercy and milder chastisement from God refreshment ease of their paines help and reast in our Lord etc. first began to be practis'd in the Catholique Church Neither doth Bellarmins prouing it from Scripture hinder the point from beeing a Tradition of the Apostles For does not St. Austin with Bellarmin and all diuines not excepting euen Protestants themselues acknowledge the Baptisme of infants and doctrine of Originall sinne and diuerse other points to proceed from Apostolicall Tradition and yet endeauour to proue them also from Scripture much less does the Cardinall contradict himselfe as our Aduersary likewise pretends he doth by endeaucuring on the one side to proue Purgatory by nineteene places of Scripture and yet auerring on the other that wee finde no beginning of this doctrine For first his assertion that wee finde noe beginning of this doctrine imports noe more then that noe first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie could be found since the Apostles that beeing fully sufficient to his purpose which was only to shew that the beleefe of Purgatory was an Apostolicall Tradition And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age eyther since the time of the Apostles or before yet should he not contradict himselfe by thinking or saying it might be prou'd by Scripture Who doubts but the doctrine of soules immortality is effectually prou'd out of the Gospell and the bodies resurrection out of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15 Yet will any man pretend that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospell or in St. Pauls Epistles was not the immortality of the soule and resurrection of the body beleeu'd by the faythfull before Christs Incarnation So that in truth the Relatour committs the grand absurdity himselfe in arguing as he doth that if Bellarmin did finde it in Scripture to witt the doctrine of Purgatory then he is false in saying wee finde noe beginning of it Certainly to finde a thing to be taught and to finde the first beginning of its beeing taught is not all one in any sober mans iudgement except it be the Relatours What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling vs the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all and that it is not beleeu'd by the Grecians to this very day is in part contrary to himselfe who hath already confess 't that from St. Gregories time all the Fathers taught and all Christians generally beleeu'd Purgatory and misunderstood in the whole For certainly 't is only of the name Purgatory and quality of the fire there that a Castro and some others speake when they affirme that few of the ancients beleeu'd Purgatory it beeing impossible to conceiue they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers and was vnanimously without the least difference or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins in the Councill of Florence touching the thing that is the penall state of some Faythfull soules departed after this life The Bishop might as well haue told vs that those Authours pronounce the same touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Sonne and of some other points namely that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers to witt express and in terminis but yet without doubt suppose those ancient and Orthodox Pastours of the Church did euer teach the sayd points as to the substance of doctrine and sense His Lordships assigning Origen to be the first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie is a manifest falsity already disprou'd by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian ancienter then he likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite contempory with the Apostles to whom wee may adde St. Clement an Authour of the same age cited by Bellarmin in both which such prayer for the dead as doth necessarily inferre Purgatory is auouch'd to be a Tradition receiu'd from the Apostles Tertullian
without defaulking of any part And did they not intend that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer And how can the Church performe this if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them How can she be accounted in those respects the Pillar and Foundation of truth as 't is certain euen by the exposition of Protestants St. Paul doth style her 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be J say how is it possible the Church should be accounted eyther a sure Foundation Faythfull Depositary Guardian or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion as she is by Scripture and all Antiquity generally if eyther through ignorance and ouersight she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often euen where Religion is pretended from men and their humours rather then from things and errours to be found in them J grant it to be very true in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture which is the practice of Protestants and all Heretiques before them and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise lett them fairly make it appeare that the disagreement which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents but meerly from the Sectaries who it cannot be deny'd alledge scripture abundantly and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition both in doctrine discipline and worship no less then they accuse vs of the same faults 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense although euen by his own supposition they be diuine truths and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules His reason is because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse c. there must be Heresies whence he concludes 't is out of doubt Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance as is able to preuent them or such a mastering power in his Church as is able to ouer-awe them But J answer what consequence is here There must be 〈◊〉 there will vnauoydably be Heresies crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them and to vindicate the contrary truth To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp amongst Christians therefore the Pastours of the Church haue and ought to haue all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose should eyther themselues happen to crre or to determine the truth withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty But as to the obiection it selfe the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies it is not mean't that they shall not be at all but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church Heresies may be but the Faythfull members of the Church hauing due care of themselues and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours shall be euer fully secured against their snares and none deceiued by them at least not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence suffer themselues to be misted by them Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes on her part when she certainly declares the truth and rightly determins the matter about which Christians began to contend and to be diuided in opinion one from another when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them This is preuention both necessary and also sufficient on the Churches part and this beeing done if the effect follow not it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church but only to the incorrigible pride obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children which nothing but the hand of God can ouerrule and master A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's prudently instituted wherein when seditions and rebellions happen to arise and they doe happen sometimes in the very best wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate or state to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature are incident to mens mindes and which can neither be foreseen nor quelled in an instant by any power on earth J adde that the Relatours obiection oportet Haereses esse c. has as much force to proue the Church not infallible euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church to preuent errours contrary to such points which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions For the words of St. Paul ther must be Heresies are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points as other and there will be Heresies more or less in all ages in matters absolutely necessary as well as in things not necessary Yea surely according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points in regard they say that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer So that if because Heresies must be or will be the Bishop will conclude there is neither infallible certaintie nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth in such points as are contested by Heretiques as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude by his allegation of this text he must in consequence also confess there is noe infailible
doth not with any presumption signify that a man is a Protestant which falls out otherwise in England For here it hath always been held a conformity to and with the Protestant Religion professed in England to goe to Church and therfore not allowed by any of our Diuines who neuer giue way to the profession of false doctrine Now who is more guilty of dissimulation in Religion which the Bishop charges vpon some of our partie then the Bishop himselfe Doth he not § 35. punct 5. professedly allow possibility of Saluation to such Catholiques as doe both wittingly and knowingly associate themselues euen to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church and such as come euen neere to Idolatrie only because they beleeue the Creed and hold the Foundation what is this but to teach it lawfull at least no sinne excluding Saluation to ioyne ones selfe outwardly to a superstitious Church in a superstitious false and euen Idolatrous way of worshipping God contrary to ones knowledge and constience only for some temporall and worldly respects and consequently that men are not alwayes bound to seeme and appeare as they are but sometimes at least may haue liberty to weare a masque But certainly that which followes is a most strange and inconsequent Paradox if euer any was Jf the Religion of Protestants sayes the Bishop be a know'n false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too For their Religion meaning Catholiques and Protestants is the same sayth he nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants sett vp a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion and the difference is in certaine gross corruptions to the very endangering of Saluation which each side sayes the other is guilty of What is this but to heape absurdities one vpon an other which of all these propositions is maintainable in any true and proper sense The Religion of Catholiques and Protestants is the same The church of Rome and the Churches of Protestants sett not vp different Religions Christian Religion is the same both to Catholiques and Protestants they are of the same Religion and yet differ in it First are wee of the same Religion because wee agree in some few generall points why might he not as well haue sayd that Arians and all other Heretiques are of the same Religion with vs. by reason of their agreement with vs in some points of Fayth Secondly is Christian Religion J meane in the necessary soundness and integrity of it common both to Catholiques and Protestants what Protestant will affirm that it is and if it be not why would the Relatour trifle and abuse his Reader with such vaine and pernicious amphibologie as he here vseth in a business of so great importance Thirdly if wee Catholiques be of the same Religion with Protestants how can wee be sayd to differ from them in the same Religion as the Relatour here expressly sayes wee 〈◊〉 can I be of the same 〈◊〉 with my neighbour and yet differ from him in the same thing surely if our Religion and that of Protestants be the same wee are not to be sayd to differ but to agree in it vnless our aduersary and his party thinke they may vary the common sense and notion of words at their sole pleasure Beside those points about which vnder the notion of corruptions and errours the Bishop himselfe acknowledges that wee doe differ eyther they are parts of Chrstian Religion or they are not So they be parts of Christian Religion seeing by his own confession wee differ in them from Protestants how is Christian Religion in gross sayd to be common to vs both how is it the same to Catholiques and Protestants If they be not parts of Christian Religion how can wee by reason of them be sayd to differ from Protestants in Religion or in the same Christian Religion But what sayes the Bishop cannot I proue any superstition or errour to be in the Roman Church none at all A.C. it seems had told him so now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome were so happy and the Catholique Church thereby 〈◊〉 with truth and peace For J am confident such truth would soone eyther command peace or confound peace breakers But is there 〈◊〉 superstition in adoration of Images None in Inuocation of Saynts None in adoration of the Sacrament Js there 〈◊〉 errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giuing it but in one kinde None about Purgatory and common prayer in an vnknowen tongue These and many more are in the Roman Religion and 't is noe hard worke to proue euery one of these to be errour or superstition or both Wee answer 't is a harder worke to proue them to be so then barely to affirme them to be so otherwise wee are confident his Lordship would haue been as liberall of his proofs in this kinde as he is of his 〈◊〉 for surely it more imported him to proue then to accuse But wee aske how will his friends and adherents after him proue them to be superstitions and errours By Scripture only who shall be iudge that the places alledged out of Scripture to that purpose beare the sense in which Protestants vnderstand rather then that in which Generall Councills vnderstood them when they defin'd the recited particulars as the present Roman Church beleeues and obserues them at this day when they haue done all they can the finall resolution of the business must according to Protestants be reduced to priuate iudgement which in such matters as these according to St. Austin is most insolent madness Nor doe J see vpon what ground the Relatour could be so confident that if the Roman Church were so happy as to teach nothing but truth to witt in Protestants sense that is to agree with Protestants in condemning the worship of Jmages Jnuocation of Saynts Adoration of the Sacrament Purgatory etc. it would so certainly eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers as he imagins What confusion I pray would it be for such people to disagree from a Church which proclaymes her owne erroneousness to all the world by beginning now to teach contrary not only to her selfe and her own former beleefe but contrary to the generall beleefe of all Christendome beside for many hundred of yeares would not the very alteration of doctrine which in this supposition the Roman Church must necessarily make render it euident to all men that both her selfe and the whole Church of Christ with her may erre and hath erred in points of greatest importance concerning the Fayth what peace-breakers would be confounded with the authority of a Church so apt to fall into errours and superstitions of such dangerous nature Truly for my part I am soe farre from thinking such an impossible case as the Bishop here putts would eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers that is the Authours or Abettours of priuate
Damned page 336 Heresies Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense by St. Austin and the Churches account page 17 Pelagian Heresie not condemned in the Council of Ephesus page 33 Nor in any other General Council acknowledg'd by Protestants Ibid. Heresie what it is page 178 Properly speaking not within but without the Church page 218 Hereticks Those of former times as great Pretenders to Scripture as Protestants page 50 Faith necessary to be kept with Hereticks the constant Tenet of all Catholicks page 152 Jews THe Jews prov'd the Old Testament to be Gods Word the same way that we Catholicks do the New page 121 They held not the Old Testament for their sole Rule of Faith page 122 Images No real difference betwixt the Ancient and the Modern Church of Rome in point of Images page 294 The Second Council of Nice expresly forbad the Worship of Images with Latria or Divine Worship Ibid. c. The Definition of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images Ibid. The Church hath done what in her lyeth to prevent abuses in Image-Worship Ibid. Images in common use and veneration amongst Christians in Primitive Times page 295 296 Index The Index Expurgatorius justified against the Bishops Calumnies page 342 Infallible The Catholick Church prov'd to be Infallible by the same Means that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were prov'd such page 55 56 62 In what sense Catholicks maintain that the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive and Apostolical p. 80 No Means to be Infallibly sure of Prime Apostolical Tradition if the present Church be Fallible page 83 Necessary for the Church to have power to determine Infallibly as well Not-Fundamental as Fundamental points page 385 Infallibility Whence the Infallibility both of the Catholick Church and General Councils proceeds page 43 The Infallibility of the present Church prov'd from Scripture page 101 102 c. page 177 178 179 In what manner the Churches Infallibility in Teaching is rightly infer'd from the Holy Ghosts Assistance page 375 376 Intention What kinde of Intention in the Priest is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments page 281 282 283 No real Inconveniencies following the Catholique Doctrine touching the Priests Intention page 284 285 Judge Our Adversaries demand of a Third person to be Judge and Umpire betwixt the Roman Church and Them nugatory and frivolous pag. 157 171 172 173 The notorious partiality of English Protestant Prelats in this case p. 174 General Councils by the Bishops own confession the best Judge on earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted page 213 A visible supreme living Judge to determine Controversies as necessary in the Church as State page 219 Legats NEither Hosius nor any other person presided at the Council of Nice but onely in quality of the Popes Legats page 231 Why the Pope sent no Legats to the second Council at Constantinople page 232 At the Council of Ephesus St. Cyril presided as Legat to Pope Celestin. Ibid. The like was at Chalcedon and other General Councils Ibid. Limbus Patrum The Fathers generally teach Limbus Patrum page 336 Literae Communicatoriae The Literae Communicatoriae by whom first ordain'd and to what end page 220 They evidently prove the Popes Authority Ibid. The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope and Those granted by other Catholique Bishops Ibid. Lyturgie The English Lyturgie why unlawful to be us'd by Catholiques page 319 Manichees GReat Braggers and pretenders to Truth when they most oppos'd it page 30 Miracles None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures either Protestant or Catholique page 109 Miracles rather confirm the Churches Infallibility then the Scripture's page 110 They are always sufficiently convincing though they do not actually convert page 115 Monarchy That of the Church not a pure but mixt Monarchy page 219 224 Monarchy acknowledg'd by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government page 220 The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church to what it tends page 224 Multitude Catholiques make not Multitude alone any Infallible Mark of the True Church page 162 Necessary POints said to be Necessary to Salvation in a double sense p. 15 92 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation to believe Scripture p. 91 92 Nice No Synod held at Rome in the time of the Nicen Council page 237 The Council of Nice of absolute Authority without the concurrence of any other Council Ibid. The Council of Sardica esteem'd anciently but an Appendix of the Council of Nice and the reasons why page 194 195 The probable occasion of Pope Zosimus his citing the Council of Nice for that of Sardica Ibid. Obedience NO External Obedience to be given to the Definitions of General Councils should they manifestly erre against Scripture and Demonstration page 241 242 Object of Faith Material and Formal a necessary Distinction page 15 18 What it imports Ibid. Patriarchs IN point of Authority not Equal to the Bishop of Rome p. 183 184 The Bishop of Rome Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs by the very Canon of the Council of Nice Ibid. The Popes Confirmation requir'd to all new-elected Patriarchs Ibid. Eight several Patriarchs depos'd by the Bishop of Rome Ibid. Other Patriarchs restor'd to their Seas by the Popes Authority Ibid. St. Peter In what manner St. Peter represented or bare the person of the whole Church when he receiv'd the Keyes Matth. 16. 19. page 266 267 Christs whole flock more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter then to the other Apostles page 211 Pope The Popes Authority alwayes included and suppos'd in that of the Church pag. 33 The Infallibility of the Pope not necessarily tyed to the particular Church or city of Rome page 132 Catholiques not oblig'd to maintain the Pope Infallible save onely with a General Council page 133 143 In what manner the Popes trewhile indur'd the Emperours censures page 192 The Popes Authority duly acknowledg'd would effectually prevent Heresies and preserve Unity in the Church page 218 The Popes Greatness no effect of Humane Policy page 13 Nor of his Residence in the Imperial-City page 192 The Definition of the Council of Florence touching the Popes Authority page 228 229 The Popes Authority not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes p. 223 Pope Alexander the Third and Pope Innocent the Third not contrary to one another in the cause of Peter Lombard page 279 Pope Honorius not really guilty of the Monothelites Heresie p. 279 280 Priest The judgement of the High Priest and his Sanhedrim in Controversies concerning the Law Infallible under the Old Testament p. 97 123 Prescription Justly pleaded by Catholiques for their Religion not so by Protestants page 333 334 Primacy PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what they signifie especially in Ecclesiastical sense page 200 Primacy inferrs Supremacy and belongs to St. Peters Successors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself Ibid. Protestants Neither Scripture nor any other
see the dextrous Windings the Bishop makes to turn Hookers words another way He first would inferre from these words of Hooker So that unless beside Scripture there were some thing that might assure c. that therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition supposing that Hooker spake of proving Scripture to be the word of God But I wonder by what Daedalian art his Lordship discourses thus Mr. Hookers adversaries the Puritans had affirmed that Scripture prov'd it self to be the word of God by its own light and authority Mr. Hooker asserts it impossible for Scripture to be its own proof After he had demonstrated this he tells his Adversaries that unless besides Scripture there be another proof c. Scripture can never be sufficiently evinced to be the word of God Ergo sayes the Bishop he himself against himself holds Scripture to prove it self when every one that has his eyes open may see that Hookers meaning is there must be some other thing different from Scripture to prove the Scriptures to be Gods word and that this manner of expressing himself unless beside Scripture c. was occasioned by his adversaries opinion As if he had said unless beside Scripture which you Puritans have ungroundedly put for its own proof there be some other it can never be prov'd sufficiently to be Scripture because I have demonstrated that Scripture which you falsly suppose to be that proof is no such proof at all But let us hear Mr. Hooker make his Apology for himself in his own words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his word For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way So that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure us that we do well we could not think we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy Rule of doing well Hooker lib. 2. § 4. Is there any thing here which proves Scripture to be a ground to it self that 't is the word of God Nay is not the impossibility hereof clearly asserted Is not Hooker in search after an assuring ground upon which Scripture must stand But the Bishop will have this ground whether Mr. Hooker will or no onely concomitant with Scripture that is Church-Tradition onely to lead in and help in assurance which assurance we get by the sole light of Scripture whereas Mr. Hooker will have that assurance both that Scripture is a rule of living well and that we do well in holding it to be so and also that it is the word of God as his words now cited declare to be precedent to Scripture and no other then Church-Tradition If therefore Mr. Hooker be understood to speak of the Scriptures-being proof to it self that it is the word of God in his own opinion he maintains the very same in effect that we say and the quite contrary to the Bishop viz. that supposing we are assured by a proof precedent to Scripture that Scripture is the word of God this I say presupposed Scripture as by a secondary proof can confirm its own Authority viz. either where it teacheth that we are to believe the Church which so assures us primarily or that it self is the word of God This Turn being ended he begins another and that a double one and endeavours to shew that Brierley has shamefully falsified Hooker in saying that the main proof which Hooker brings to shew that Scripture is the word of God is the Tradition of the Church For that Author sayes he states the question in these words The Scripture is the ground of our Belief the Authority of man that 's the name Hooker gives to Tradition is the key which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture Now see his Meanders Hooker sayes the Bishop affirms that Scripture is the ground of our Belief But are those all Hookers words in that Sentence No for I finde amongst them a therein which is neatly hidden in a dark corner Although sayes Hooker the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief This one concealed word relates to something which would have quite spoil'd the Bishops market had it been fairly express'd What means he by Therein The words immediately going before tell us Whatsoever sayes Hooker we believe concerning Salvation by Christ although the Scripture THEREIN be the ground of our Belief Whence it appears that Hooker rather excludes Scripture from being a ground of our Belief concerning that which the Bishop here pretends viz. that Scripture is the word of God For the word therein which Hooker useth is in this place clearly relative and restrictive and tyes his speech to the particular matter precedent viz. to all things concerning Salvation by Christ. As if Hooker should say Good assurance being presupposed by some antecedent proof that Scripture is the word of God Scripture it self may then be a ground of our Belief touching all other things which concern our Salvation by Christ. How does this place of Hooker now fully and faithfully cited favour his Lordship There is no man that has his brains about him to use his own words but sees how little it makes to his purpose But let us go on The Authority of man sayes Hooker cited by the Bishop is the Key which opens the Door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture What knowledge of Scripture speaks he of Let Mr. Hooker be his own Interpreter and shew what he means by opening the knowledge of Scripture He speaks thus The Scriptures do not teach us the things that are of God unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things Stay a while By this Key therefore which opens the entrance into the knowledge of Scriptures is not meant in this place that Church-Tradition fallibly assures us that Scripture is the word of God as the Bishop would fain interpret Hooker but that it teaches us the meaning of the words of Scripture and thereby opens to us the knowledge of Scripture By what hath been said 't is evident his Lordship had very little reason to fall so hotly upon Brierley as to tax him of falsification as he does num 25. For Hooker clearly teaching that besides Scripture we must have the Authority or Tradition of the Church to assure us that Scripture is Gods word and Brierley affirming no more of him then this I wonder that for speaking truth he should be thought to deserve so sharp a censure from his Lordship CHAP. 8. A further discovery of our Adversaries indirect proceedings in the Question ARGUMENT 1. The Question declined by the Bishop 2.
were esteem'd such in the Primitiue Church A question hitherto often askt in vaine and which himselfe once plainly declin'd the answering * as beeing no worke for his pen. But let vs heare what he says vpon second thoughts Fundamentalls sayth he so accounted by the Primitiue Church are but the Creed and some sew and those immediate deductions from it But this leaues vs 〈◊〉 in the darke Who shall resolue which those sew and immediate deductions are And what does he meane by immediate deductions only such as 〈◊〉 in themselues euident and necessary If so it were in effect to deny both the Diuinity and Incarnation of Christ to be Fundamentall points Jf in euident and only probable who shall infallibly assure vs that the deduction is true and certaine what shall wee thinke of Scripture Is not that a Fundamentall point in the Relatours beleefe can any man be sau'd that reiects Scripture prouided he admitts the Creed and some few immediate deductions from it Nay wee are told that euen the immediate deductions themselues are not formally Fundamentall for all men but only for such as are able to make and vnderstand them and that for others 't is enough if they doe not obstinately and Schismatically refuse them after they are once reuealed But had not preiudice troubled his eye-sight our Aduersarie might easily haue seen as much reason to say 'T is Fundamentall in the Fayth not to question or deny Schismatically and obstinately any thing at all that is sufficiently propos'd to vs as reuealed by God Let him cite what he can out of the Fathers he shall neuer proue that a man cannot fall from the true fayth by an act of disbeleefe so long as he beleeues the Articles of the Creed seeing the Apostle teaches that some fall from the Fayth by forbiding Marriage and certaine meates as absolutely vnlawfull and many haue been condemned for Heretiques in those ancient times who neuer oppos'd the Creed Now if a man may beleeue the Creed and yet be damned for Heresie and mis-belcefe in other matters how can Protestants assure themselues of Saluation or be accounted Orthodox Christians meerly by this pretended conformity with the Primitiue Church in the beleefe of the Creed vnless it could be prou'd withall that they held no other vnlawfull doctrine But certaine it is that to deny Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and diuerse other points as Protestants doe is most vnlawfull and was so held by the Primitiue Church 9. As for Tertullian Ruffinus St. Irenaeus and St. Basil here alledged by the Bishop they neither seuerally nor all together make an infallible authority to assure Protestants that all and only those points which they account Fundamentall were soe esteem'd by the Primitiue Church which yet was the only thing that A. C. in his Interrogatorie requir'd him to shew The doctrine by vs deliuer'd stands very well with the resolution of Occham here cited that it is not in the power of the Church or Council to make new Articles of Fayth For the Church neuer tooke vpon her to doe this but only to declare infallibly what was expressed or inuolued eyther in Scripture or the word of God not-written viz. Tradition And 't is a meere vntruth to affirme that Catholiques agree not in this that all points determined by the Church are Fundamentall in the sense declared For neither Sixtus Senensis nor any other Catholique did euer doubt or make scruple of those books of holy Scripture which they acknowledg'd to haue been defin'd by the Church for Canonicall they only question some other books concerning which wee haue not had as yet the resolution of any Generall Council such as are the third and fourth of Machabees the third and fourth of Esdras the prayer of Manasses etc. 'T is true Sixtus Senensis hath something about those chapters of the booke of Ester which Protestants count ` Apocryphall wherby he may be thought not to hold them for Canonicall Scripture euen after the decree of the Council of Trent But the reason was because he iudged that the decree of the Council touching Canonicall Scriptures did not comprehend those loose vncertaine peices as he calls them Beside his opinion therein was both singular and disallowed as may appeare euen by the booke it selfe where ouer against the place whence the Bishop takes his obiection there stands printed in the margent this note or censure Non est haec Sententia Sixti probanda cum repugnet sess 4. Concilij Tridentini quam ipse detorquet ne videatur ei repugnare This opinon of Sixtus sayes the note is not to be allowed seeing it is contrary to the fourth session of the Council of Trent which Sixtus wresteth that he may not seeme to be contrary to it The edition of Sixtus Senensis his booke where this Censure is found is that of Paris 1610. in folio which 't is hardly credible that the Bishop himselfe should not haue seen and if he had seen and did know it with what conscience or ingenuity towards his Reader could he make the obiection To what he sayth touching Pope Leo the tenths defining in the last Council of Lateran that the Pope is aboue a Generall Council I answer our Aduersaries know that those Catholique Authours that hold the negatiue doe likewise deny that the point was there defined as a matter of Fayth but only that by way of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall Constitution it was declar'd that the right of calling translating from one place to another and likewise dissoluing of Generall Councils did entirely and solely belong to the Bishop of Rome Successour to St. Peter those beeing the things which had been formerly contested by the Councils of Constance and Basil against the Pope likewise the sayd Authours deny that the last Council of Lateran was a full Generall Council After so many questions none of which as yet haue been sufficiently answer'd A. C. inferrs that his Aduersary had need seeke out some other infallible rule or meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or else that he hath noe reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule vpon it that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth What sayes the Relatour to this His answer is that if he cannot be confident for his soul vpon Scripture and the Primitiue Church expounding and declaring it he will be confident vpon no other But this is still to begg the question For the difficulty is how he comes infallibly to know Scripture and the exposition of the Primitiue Church or that the Primitiue Church did not erre in her exposition without certaine knowledge of which his confidence in this case cannot be well grounded He might more truly and ingenuously haue answer'd if I cannot be confdent for my soule vpon the Scripture and exposition of the Primitiue Church receiu'd and interpreted according to my own priuate sense and iudgement J will be confident vpon noe other For this in effect
he doth say and with truth can say noe more standing to his own principles 10. The implicite Fayth of Catholiques at which the Relatour againe glanceth in points they are oblig'd to know only implicitely giues them sufficient infallibility in their Fayth but hath noe place in this present debate For wee now treate only of such points as are Fundamentall quoad rem attestatam as wee haue formerly distinguish't them that is according to the importance of the matter they containe such as are the prime radicall Articles of our Fayth which euery one is oblig'd necessitate medij or praecepti to know expressly in so much that where ignorance of these points is culpable and through our owne default wee are soe farre from thinking that implicite Fayth can be sufficient for the attaining of Saluation that wee teach the cleane contrary asserting likewise that in those of the first kinde viz. which are necessary by necessity of meanes euen inuincible ignorance will not serue the turn So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells vs by way of Irony and scoff that a Roman-Catholique may vse implicite Fayth at pleasure As to his carping at the word know vsed by A. C. the Relatour should haue know'n that his aduersary takes it not in the most proper sense for demonstratiue or scientificall knowledge as some speake but only for certaine assurance and for infallible beleefe as it is frequently taken by others But as for Protestants standing to the Bishops grounds it is impossible they should haue infallible Fayth eyther explicite or implicite of any thing they bleeue because the authority of the Church beeing in his opinion fallible they can neuer by force thereof be infallibly certain that the books of Scripture which it commends are all or any of them the word of God or that the exposition of Scripture made eyther by the Church or any priuate man is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost Now so long as he is not infallibly certaine of this it may happen for ought he knowes to the contrary that some of them may proue not to be Gods word and seeing the Churches authority attests them all alike he may if he please conceiue a like feare of every one of them What he further adds in this page viz. 337. is only matter of references to what himselfe hath formerly deliuer'd so as I thinke it also sufficient to referre my reader to what I haue answer'd in those places viz. § 25. num 3. § 33. Consid. 3. num 1. § 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to heare him affirme here that he holds the authority of the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. does This surely must be accounted a Paradox or nothing can be iustly taken for such For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himselfe and A. C. toutching the extent of the Churches infallibility and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustaine and endeauour to proue that she is fallible both in the deliuery of Scriptures and in the defining of all points in his opinion Not-Fundamentall and also in her Traditions euen immemoriall and vniuersall And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him maintaine and assert the Churches infallibility in all these But J wonder yet more at the proofe he brings for this assertion to witt his referring vs to § 21. num 5. of his owne booke For there pag. 139. he expresly limits the Churches infallibility to absolute Fundamentall doctrines which A. C. neuer doth and in the progress of his discourse explicating the sayd infallibility euen in Fundamentalls too he falls so low and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church that he brings it down at last to this pittifull state and if she erre sayth he in some ONE or MORE Fundamentall points she may be a Church of Christ still but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. doth not to vrge here the dangerous consequence and also inuolued implicancy of the assertion it selfe which I haue already noted in my answer to that place The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating obiections which haue been more then once sufficiently answer'd viz. concerning Transubstantiation Communion vnder one kinde etc. wherein wee cannot thinke our felues oblig'd to follow our Aduersaries example but rather to remitt the Reader to the places where wee haue already giuen satisfaction touching those matters As little notice shall wee take of his obiecting againe to vs the doctrine of deposing and killing of kings This was added to inuenome the rest of his arguments which he knew otherwise would not be mortall to vs. Wee hope our demeanour in these late dismall distracted times of tryall hath sufficiently cleer'd vs from all such aspersions in the iudgement of indifferent persons nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemyes For who knowes not that vnder the late vsurping powers the greatest crime layd to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Souereign in so much as 't was held by all that partie a thing almost impossible for a man to be a profess't Catholique and not a Caualier too But to this obiection wee haue likewise already spoken what may suffice To summe vp all in briefe wee vtterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoeuer preiudiciall vnto or destructiue of that loyall obedience and Fidelity which is due to all Souereign Princes and Magistrates And if any thing of that nature hath perchance dropt srom the pen of any of ours wee owne it not but censure it deeply prohibite it strictly and in case it be obstinately maintained punish it seuerely and lastly command all books to be corrected that containe any such doctrine CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point touching the vnchangedness of the Roman Fayth with a defence of Purgatory ARGVMENT 1. A. C. Argument that the Roman Fayth is still the ONE SAVING CATHOLIQVE Fayth made good 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruauerit etc. vindicated from the Bishops Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeuing the Creed in its true sense and forcing a wrong sense vpon it vayn and impertinent 4. Protestants are chusers in point of beleefe noe less then all other Heretiques 5. They are not guided by the Church further then they please themselues 6. Church-infallibility to what it amounts according to the Bishops measure 7. In what sense Generall Councils may be sayd to be infallible euen a parte antè or at first sitting down 8. All the ancient Fathers generally speaking beleeu'd Purgatorie 9. Prayer for dead as vsed by the ancients necessarily inferres Purgatory 10. The Relatour labours in vayn to auoyd the Authorities of the Fathers in this point 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret euen by his owne confession cleere for Purgatory 12. St. Austin not wauering