of Argument to disprove it but knowing it to be the sense of all Antiquity windes about and falls upon that odious question of Killing and deposing Kings wherein he presum'd it would be more easie for him to choak his adversary But it shall not serve his turn For we say first he commits a gross fallacy arguing à negatione speciei ad negationem generis which is a new kinde of Logick For what is it else to inferre the Pope has no Universal Power or Supremacy at all over the whole Church because he hath not such or such a particular power over Christian Kings and Princes His Lordship should have remembred that we were yet upon the question An sit whether or no the Pope hath an universal Power and Authority over the whole Church which till it be fairly determin'd 't is but to make too much haste and pervert due order to fall upon the Question Quid sit and dispute wherein it consists and how far it extends Secondly we answer the point of killing Kings is a most false and scandalous Imputation For what Pope ever kill'd or gave Command Warrant or Authority for the killing of any King or what Catholique Author ever taught that he had power from Christ so to do And as for deposing them I answer 't is no point of our Faith that the Pope hath power to do it and therefore it is no part of my task to dispute it But what Protestants have both done and justifi'd in the worst of these kindes is but too fresh in memory 4. A. C. does not beg the question when he sayes The Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole Flock of Christ in such sort as no particular man or Church shall have just cause to make a separation from it seeing it is the clear inference of his precedent discourse it is rather a begging the question in his Lordship to tell us onely while he ought to prove it that Protestants have made no Separation from the General Church but onely from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now mis-call themselves THE WHOLE CATHOLIQUE CHURCH It is also in this case a begging the question to affirm the Roman-Catholique Church to be in errour since no man did ever grant his Lordship that she was so or hath he any where convinc'd her of errour He hath often said it and suppos'd it I know but where he hath prov'd it I know not 'T is therefore yet to be prov'd that the Roman-Catholique Church hath err'd in any Doctrine publiquely defined by her Again we deny there is any hazard in adhering to the Roman Church she being the unshaken Rock of Truth and solely able to shew a continual Succession of lawfully-Sent Pastors and Teachers from Christ to our present times who have hitherto taught the same unchanged Doctrine and shall infallibly according to Christs promise continue so teaching it unto the worlds end From this onely Catholique Church Protestants have unhappily sever'd themselves as I have already prov'd and are through their own fault so absolutely depriv'd of all Communion with her that they can no more be esteem'd members of this Church in the condition they now stand then a wither'd branch can be accounted a part of the Tree from which it was broken In vain therefore doth the Relatour pretend that Protestants have not left the Church in her Essence but in her Errours The Essence of the Church consists in her Faith Sacraments Discipline In all these 't is too manifest to be deny'd Protestants have forsaken the Church yea and perpetually fight against her wherefore they have left her in things essential or pertaining to the life and being of the Church And yet they have the confidence to call these Essentials Errours which is a bold and erroneous presumption wherein they imitate no less the old Heretiques in the Primitive times of the Church viz. the Novatians Arians Nestorians c. then the Swarms of new Sectaries among themselves For which of all these did not or would not upon occasion plead they forsook not the Essence of the Church but her Errours they separated not from her Communion but Corruption 5. Well But after all disputes a man would imagine that our learned Antagonist would at length submit to a General Council For first he thus professes speaking to A. C. What greater or surer judgement you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted then a General Council I do not see And immediately after he cites a long Text of A. C's which speaks to this purpose That if all the Pastours of the Church be gather'd together in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Faith and hearing each Pastour declare what hath been the Ancient Tradition of this Church shall thereupon Decree some particular point or matter to be held for Divine Truth if the Pastours of the Church or General Council may erre in such a Decree what can be firm or certain upon Earth In answer to this he both professes that it seems fair and also freely grants that a General Council is the best Judge on Earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted This would make a man think the Bishop intended to conform himself to such a Decree But to the end all the world may see how unwillingly he yields to reason especially when it comes from an Adversary he presently again begins to quarrel with A. C. telling us there was never any such General Council call'd nor indeed possible to be call'd as A. C. speaks of viz. in which all Pastours were gather'd together As if A. C. were so simple as by all Pastours to understand Numerically and Individually ALL that is every one of them without exception and that a Council could not be thought sufficiently General nor an Obligatory Decree of Faith be made by it unless all the Pastours of the Church in this sense were gather'd together especially he having so clearly declar'd his meaning to the contrary in defending the Council of Trent to have been a true General Council where 't is manifest all Pastours whatsoever did not convene though there were as many as had met in some other General Councils esteem'd even by Protestants for such And strange it is to see how long the Relatour skirmishes with meer shadows and what inferences he makes meerly upon this most salsly-suppos'd and wholly-improbable sense of A. C's words All Pastours then in that Text of A. C. signifie no more then all that are requisite or so many of all as are in the judgement of Reason and Christian Prudence duly sufficient to constitute a True and Lawful General Council If so many lawfully call'd be gather'd together 't is the ALL that A. C. intends and
aboute it as the Bishop pretends 13. Purgatory an Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good 14. In what manner of necessary beleefe 1. BVt lett vs return to A. C. who very charitably and no less truly mindes the Bishop that there is but one sauing Fayth that by his own confession it was once the Roman and by iust consequence is so still because 't is granted that men may be saued in it wishing his Lordship therfore well to consider how wee can hope to haue our soules saued without wee hold entirely this Fayth it beeing the Catholique Fayth which as St Athanasius in his Creed professeth VNLESS A MAN HOLD'S ENTIRELY HE CANNOT BE SAVED To all which the Relatour tells vs he hath aboundantly answered before referring vs to § 35. num 1. and § 38. num 10. of his Relation The question is not how aboundantly but how sufficiently his Lordship answereth and for that wee also referre our selues to the Readers judgement vpon our replie there made What he adds here that A. Cs. conclusion hath more in it then is in the premisses is manifestly vntrue to any that obserues the force of the argument which stands thus There is but ONE Sauing Fayth the Roman was once this sauing Fayth and by the Bishops confession is still a sauing Fayth ergo it is still that one sauing Fayth and by consequence is still the Catholique Fayth This inference J say is euident and vndenyable vnless wee suppose eyther more sauing Fayths then one or that the one sauing Fayth is not the Catholique both which are euidently false and contrary to our aduersaries own confessions His discourse about Additions pretended to be made by the Council of Trent vnto the Catholique Fayth imports not much For eyther the sayd Additions are such as by reason of them the present Roman Fayth ceases to be a sauing Fayth or they are not Jf the first he contradicts himselfe hauing already granted that Saluation may be had in the Roman Fayth if the second it necessarily followes that eyther the Roman Fayth is now the one sauing Fayth or that there are more sauing Fayths then one which the Bishop denyes What he also affirms of the sayd Council of Trent viz. that it hath added a new Creed to the old and extraneous things without the Foundation etc. is noe more then what the old Heretiques might as truly and no doubt did as freely obiect to those ancient Primitiue Councills and if it be iust and sufficient in defense of them to assert that the Additions they made were only perfectiue that is further and more cleere explications of the Fayth formerly beleeu'd and not corruptiue of the ancient Primitiue truth wee thinke it sufficient to make the same answer in behalfe of the present Roman Church and Council of Trent 2. Nor doe those words of St. Athanasius sett down in the begining and end of his Creed This is the Catholique Fayth signify any such thing as the Bishop pretends viz. that this and no other doctrine is Catholique Fayth this and no more then is here deliuer'd is to be beleeu'd etc. I say St. Athanasius his words admite not of this Gloss. For so wee might without any breach of the Foundation reiect in a manner the whole Scripture with a good part of the Apostles Creed and all other points of Christian doctrine beside The Relatour himselfe could not be ignorant that the non-rebaptising of Heretiques was a point of Catholique Fayth already in St. Athanasius his time defind by the Councill of Nice yet sure he finds noe mention of it in the Athanasian Creed noe more then he doth that our Sauiour was conceiued by the Holy Ghost or born of a Virgin not to speake of Remission of sinnes Baptisme Eucharist or any other Sacraments etc. none of all which beeing expressed in that Creed will Protestants thinke they may be denyed without breach of the Catholique Fayth mean't by St. Athanasius To salue the matter in some sort the Relatour here casts in a Parenthesis in these words always presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did meaning that the Apostles Creed presupposed rhon and not otherwise this of St. Athanasius is so sufficient that there needs no other nor that any thing else should be added to it But this helps him not at all For first 't is manifest enough St. Athanasius supposed many other things at the composing of his Creed beside the Creed of the Apostles viz. the whole Canon of Scripture the decrees of the Nicen Councill the vniuersall Traditions of the Church as matters appertaining to Christian Fayth all which are not only supernumerary but inconsistent with the Bishops assertion This and noe other is Catholique Fayth So that in reason it cannot possibly be thought this Father mean't to signifie that his Creed contain'd all necessary points whatsoeuer pertaining to Christian beleefe but only to express what was to be hel'd by Christians in those maine and principall articles touching the B. Trinity our Sauiours incarnation etc. which were at that time so much controuerted and withall to giue vs a certaine Rule or Forme of Catholique confession touching those points Whence also 't is euidently deduced that as 't was necessary to Saluation for Christians to beleeuo and confess according to the Catholique Fayth in the points there specifyed so a paritate rationis it is likewise necessary they should doe in all other points and doctrines whatsoeuer For doubtless if the Catholique Fayth may be contradicted in any one point without perill to a mans Saluation it may be also in an other and an other yea in all the rest A. C. goes on and endeauours a little further to vnfold the meaning of this great father of the Church obseruing that in his Creed he says without doubt euery man shall perish that holds not the Catholique Fayth ENTIRE that is in euery point of it and INVIOLATE that is in the right seuse and for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the infallible authority of the Catholique Church proposing to vs by her Pastours this Reuelation To which discourse of A.G. the Bishop so farre agrees as to acknowledge that he who hopes for Saluation must beleeue the Catholique Fayth whole and entire in euery point which I note only by the way as a matter worthy to be seriously reflected vpon by all his followers But then he obiects the word Jnuiolate is not in the Creed and falls a taxing the latin Translatour with errour for so rendring St. Athanasius's word which sayth he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ought to be rendred vndefiled But I feare the Bishop will here also be found in a mistake rather then A. C. For first Baronius shewes in the yeare of our Lord 340. that St. Athanasius did himselfe compose and publish this Creed first of all in the latin tongue namely when he presented it as the confession of his
This and very little else as the experience of all ages and times shew is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills Not to vrge that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is or may be For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other and may if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause as lawfully doubt and deny the desinitions of the one as the resolution of the other wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council then J doe to a priuate person Seeing 't is euident that neither the one nor the other haue further Authority with mee or command ouer my vnderstanding then their seuerall reasons in my own iudgement deserue and that if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill 7. His asserting so confidently that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills beside the fowre first seemes noe less strange and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils since the fowre first been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill or second of Constantinople was it not matter of Fayth and necessary to Saluation what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents what thinke they of the sixth against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ defin'd by this Councill in the Bishops opinion as Fundamentall in the Fayth as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures defin'd by that of Chalcedon Againe may not fresh errours arise may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters in Religion Jf they doe shall it not be necessary for the Church that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own very honest and learned men as he is pleas'd to qualifie them when it serues his turn are of the same opinion with him in this point citing in proofe hereof certayn words as he pretends of Petrus de Alliaco an ancient Schoole-Author otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis Vertsstmum esse c. 'T is most true all things pertaining to Religion are well order'd by the fathers if they were as well and diligently obserued But first here 's a great mistake The words which the Bishop cites are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae and presented to the Councill of Constance but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it with diuerse other small tractates of that nature in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke Secondly admitting they were or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect yet were it little to the Bishops purpose For the Authours meaning is that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques that if they were well obserued there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine But he does not deny but that vpon new emergent occasions other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church and of many Heresies springing vp the Authority of an other Generall Councill to witt of Constance was necessary as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth as to extirpate the Schisme and all other abuses and disorders in the Church With what truth then could the Bishop pretend that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer after the fowre first And as for Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition or vniuersall Tradition of the Church yet doubtless when it is know'n to be so and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop neither he nor any other Catholique Authour will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie to hold it St. Cyprian here likewise alledged speaks cleerly of such matters as were then vndefined and were not till a long while after defin'd by the Councill of Nice St. Thomas speaks only deminis et opinionibus as his words shew of small matters and priuate opinions which in no sort concern our present controuersie and wherein wee acknowledge with the Relatour Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth or Christian charity necessary to Saluation But for matters which the Church hath found necessary for preuention of Schismes preseruation of vnity and for vindicating or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour once to determine by Generall Councils how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name ancient or modern who taught that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined This the Relatour should haue shew'n had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader and not meerly to amuse him by filling his pages with Authorities cited to noe purpose 8. Had not the Apostles those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world Reuclation from God not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. as the Protestants translate it with command and obligation that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world entirely and
defined by the Church were Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation that is whether all those Truths which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes The one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self that not onely the disbelief of it when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express Knowledge and Belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti in regard of the matter which they contain But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti onely conditionally that is by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formall object or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense is a thing so manifest that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability thought it his onely course to divert it according to his ordinary custome by turning the Difficulty which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality or necessity derived from the formall Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that point to the materiall Object that is to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the formall object whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation The Major is evident For to refuse to believe Gods revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition For though his Lordship say he grants it not yet for the present he sayes that though it were supposed he should grant that the Church or a lawful General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamental that is as we have proved necessary to Salvation Supposing therefore that the Church and a lawful General Council be taken in this occasion for the same thing as he affirms they are saying in the beginning of num 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general and a General Council which is her representative and admitting this he proceeds in his argument Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre I prove the Minor thus Whosoever refuses to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre refuses to believe that which is revealed from God But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre Ergo Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God The Major is evident ex terminis For if the Authority which testifies it is revealed from God cannot erre that which it testifies to be so revealed is so revealed The Minor is the Bishops supposition viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre as is proved Ergo c. And this I hope will satisfie any ingenuous Reader that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation as Mr. Fisher took it Yet to deal freely with the Bishop even taking Fundamental in a general way as he in this present Conference mistakes it for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion it is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal object or Infallible Authority propounding them though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain Whoever deliberately denies or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point delivered as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church For whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other Now I subsume But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church erres Fundamentally Ergo c. This Subsumptum is evident For if he believe none at all he neither believes God nor Christ nor Heaven nor Hell c. with an Infallible Divine Christian Faith and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine Infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous or fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority It is manifest that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point
there can be no Infallible Faith of any thing Where I desire all men seriously to ponder that the reason which moveth a man to give Infallible credit to any point declared by the Authority of the Catholique Church is not the greatness or smallness of the matter nor the more or less evidence of the Truth but the promise of Christ which assures us that himself and his holy Spirit will alwayes be with the Church to teach it all Truth So that when the Church declares any thing as matter of Faith it is not she considered onely as a company of men subject to errours but God himself to whom we do and must give Infallible credit in all matters whatsoever great and little evident or most obscure For the Infallibility of the credit given to any one Article proposed as a Divine Truth by the Catholique Church doth wholly depend upon the Authority of God speaking in and by the Church Wherefore he that will deliberately deny or doubt of any one Article of Faith may as well do the same of all yea of the whole Canon of Scripture Because if you take away the Authority of the Church we should not admit of that according to the words of St. Augustin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas I would not saith he believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church mov'd me thereunto So that he who obstinately denies any one thing sufficiently declared to him by the Church can have no supernatural and infallible Faith at all but opinions of his own grounded upon some other reason different from the Divine revelation proposed and applied to him by the Church Wherefore St. Augustin in his Book De Haeresibus recounteth many Heresies some of which seem not to be about any matter of great moment yet he pronounceth that whosoever doth obstinately hold any one of these against the known Faith of the Church is no Catholique Christian Moreover St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that nihil periculosius his Haereticis esse potest c. There can be nothing more perillous then these Heretiques who with a drop of poison do infect our Lords sincere Faith Hence it is that Christ our Saviour saith Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican As if he should say let him not be accounted a Childe of the Church nor consequently of God Adde to this that to deny or doubt of any thing made known by the Church to be a Truth revealed by God is in effect to contradict God and the Church which Divines in other tearms say is to give God and the Church the lye and to oppose and preferre a private mans judgement and will before and against the judgement and will of God and his true Church which cannot stand with supernatural Faith in any point whatsoever Wherefore it is said in St. Athanasius his Creed which is approved in the nine and thirty Articles of the pretended English Church that whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholique Faith which unless every one hold WHOLE and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever Neither can the Bishop reply that all points expressed in St. Athanasius his Creed are Fundamental in his sense that is according to the importance of the matter they containe for to omit the Article of our Saviours descent into hell which can be no Fundamental Point in his acception for Christs Passion Resurrection Ascension c. may consist without it he mentions exprefly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which his Lordship ha's denyed to be a Fundamental Point as we saw in the former Chapter The foresaid distinction of material and formal object satisfies his Num. 8. pag. 31 32. For not so much as quoad nos does any point become Fundamental that is a prime principle in Faith according to the matter attested or the material object which before the definition was onely a Superstructure or secondary Article But all the change made by vertue of the Definition is in the Attestation it self which induces a new obligation of holding it to be a point of Faith and the refusing to hold it so both de stroyes Salvation and overthrows the whole Foundation of our Faith as is already declared Let therefore the Reader carry along with him this distinction of objectum materiale formale materia attestata Authoritas attestantis the Matter attested and the Authority attesting it and he will easily both discover the fallacies of his Lordships discourse in this main point of controversie and solve all his difficulties supported by them And that it may be more apparently perceived how inapposite his reply is in this whole controversie about Fundamentals we affirming that all things defined for Points of Faith by the Church are made Fundamental onely by reason of the Infallible Attestation of the Church and he instead of disproving this labouring onely to prove that such as were not Fundamental before the Definition become not Fundamental after in the matter attested which we hold as much as he can do replying I say in this manner he proceeds just as if A. C. should assert that a Crown an Angel and a Piece cut out of the same wedge are as fine and pure gold one as another and W. L. should reply and labour much to prove that the one is of more weight then the other which was not at all questioned or as if A. C. should demonstrate that a Thred a Gord and a Cable of twenty ells long a piece were all three of the same length and W. L. should reply and demonstrate that they were not all of the same thickness which no man ever affirmed them to be Some Modern Protestants object that the Infalliblity of the Church is limited to Fundamental points onely and not to Superstructures so that they may reply this Argument proceeds upon a false supposition by extending that Infallibity as well to Superstructures as to Fundamentals To this I answer that if by Fundamental Points be meant onely such Points as are the prime Articles of Faith and the first principles of Religion according to the precise matter contained in them from which all the rest are deduced and have necessary dependance upon them and by super structures onely such Points of Faith as are less principal and deducible from the other if I say onely this be understood by Fundamentals and Superstructures the distinction destroyes it self For on the one side it supposes that those Superstructures are Points of Faith as it were of secondary or less principal importance and yet supposes that the Church is not infallible in her Definitions concerning them and by that makes it impossible that they should be Points of Faith This I evidence by this Argument grounded in my former discourse Every Point of Faith must be believed by an
Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
Masters veracity and authority but yet it gives assurance to me that his Master said so neither believe I that the thing spoken is morally true because the Servant tells me his Master said so but because his Master said it whom I know to be a man of that credit that he would not say a thing that were not true though I am not certain that his Master said it save onely because the servant tells me so whom I know also to be an honest man 9. But the Bishops difficulty about points Fundamental when he sayes that the Churches Definition cannot make Superstructures to become Principles or Foundations is easily solved according to my former distinction The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure to become a Foundation quoad materiam or rem attestatam according to the Thing or matter attested I grant it for in this sense neither the Church nor the Aposties no nor Christs Definition can make a Superstructure a Foundation for what they are in themselves they must alwayes be The Churches Definition cannot make a Superstructure a Foundation quoad formam or Authoritatem attestantis according to the form or Authority of the persons attesting or witnessing that it is a Divine Revelation I deny it For such a Testimony or Authentical Declaration makes it both necessary to Salvation in which sense onely Fundamental is to be taken in this present Dispute as I have proved and also reductively or consequently belonging to the Foundation of Religion according to the Authority of Christ testified to reveal it which will be dissolved by the disbelief of it as is already shewed When he sayes that every Fundamental point must be known to all I distinguish in the same manner Every Fundamental point according to the material object must be known to all I grant it every Fundamental point that is every point necessary to Salvation to be believed when it is sufficiently propounded according to the attestation made by the Church of it must be known to all I deny it and this distinction solves all his other difficulties propounded in this page 10. Scotus cited by his Lordship Num. 6. pag. 30. delivers nothing in behalf of his party but affirms the same thing which we have already asserted namely that St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen and other learned Greeks differed not from the Latins viz. St. Hierome Augustin St. Ambrose c. but onely in manner of speech because otherwise either the Greeks or the Latins had been Heretiques Yet hence it follows not that Scotus thought they could be Heretiques unless they denied or doubted of that which they had reason to believe was revealed by God But it onely followes that if they knew this as those learned Greeks had sufficient reason to know it they might well be esteemed Heretiques before any special Declaration of the Church although it be more clear that he is an Heretique who denies to believe that Doctrine after he confesses that it is defined by the Church Wherefore Scotus doth well adde that however it was before yet ex quo c. from the time that the Catholique Church declared it it is to be held of Faith Wherefore we deny not but that a learned man who oppugnes the Doctrine clearly contained in Scripture or generally received by the Church may be accounted an Heretique before he be AS SUCH condemned by a General Council But we say that there are many things which in themsolves are matters of Faith yet so obscure in relation especially to unlearned and particular persons that before the Decree of the Church we are not Heretiques though we should either doubt of them or deny them because as yet there appears no sufficient reason that can oblige us to believe them although after the Definition of the Church we ought as well to believe them as any other Whence it appears likewise that Scotus is much wronged by his Lordship For first he would perswade his Reader that this Authour supposed a real difference between the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers about the Procession of the Holy Ghost whereas Scotus because neither the one nor the other of them can be esteemed Heretiques declares that there was no real difference in this point between them which the Bishop very handsomely leaves out Verisimile igitur est sayes Scotus quod non subest dictis verbis contrariis contrariorum Sanctorum Sententia Discors It is therefore likely that there is no disagreeing opinion contained in the contrary words of those contrary Saints and then proves by a very probable Argument that it is so Secondly as he left out the said words in the midst of the sentence so to induce his Reader to think that Scotus as he would have him understood in the matter of belief should say that what was not of the substance of Faith before was made to be of the substance of the Faith by the Churches Definition and thereby inferres a contradiction in this Authours assertions he adds words and fathers them upon Scotus in another part of the sentence saying first that Scotus sayes howsoever it was before referring his words to the thing controverted that is to say in his position whether the point in question were of the substance of Faith or Fundamental before the Churches Definition or no whereas Scotus speaks not of the Thing but of the Persons viz. the Greek and Latin Fathers as appears by his words quicquid sit de eis whatsoever may be said of them Now I think he will have much ado to finde any Dictionary or Grammer wherien eis signifies it This done he makes Scotus say by adding to his Text thus yet ex quo from the time that the Catholique Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith Now Scotus has not one word of the substance of Faith much less of Fundamental which he imposes presently upon him but sayes onely thus Ex quo Ecclesia declaravit hoc esse tenendum c. tenendum est quòd Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab utroque since the Church hath so declared so it must be held Thus he windes his Authours through as many Meanders as he finds subservient to his own turn Now to clear the difficulty the former distinction is here also to be used that That which was not Fundamental in it self before becomes not Fundamental in the matter or thing attested but onely by reason of the attestation of the Church obliging to the acceptation of it and to be embraced as Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as a Divine Truth and therefore Scotus doth not say that ex quo after it was declared by the Church it becomes to be of the substance of Faith which it was not before but that it is necessarily to be held or believed which necessity was not before By this Doctrine 't is manifest that there is no contradiction in Scotus his Discourse which his Lordship endeavours to put upon him Now
all which do so pertain to Supernatural Divine Infallible Christian Faith by which Faith Christ the onely PRIME FOUNDATION of the Church doth dwell in our hearts and which Faith is so to the Church the Substance Basis and Foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for as that being thus confirmed or made firm by the Authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especicially obstinately denyed or questioned all the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all Supernatural Divine Christian Faith is shaken Thus he But who sees not that there is a main difference betwixt these words of A. C. and those which he is made to speak by the Bishop for he joyns the words as that to these thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts whereas in A. C's discourse they are joyned to these if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately questioned c. that of Faith whereby Christ dwelleth in our hearts c. being onely a Parenthesis added for greater explication and not belonging to the substance of his discourse as the Relatour no less corruptly then cunningly makes it belong which is an other Dedalian Turn in this his Labyrinth Now let us hear the Accusation First sayes the Bishop A C. is mistaken because all that pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by Fundamental in the Faith to all men But A. C. does not say it is he speaks onely of those to whom such points are propos'd and who deny or question them when so propos'd Although in some sense they may be said Fundamental to all because all are to believe them implicitely and explicitely all such as have sufficient reason to know they are declared by the Church Secondly A. C. is accus'd for confounding the Object with the Act of Faith But if his words be rightly penetrated there will appear no confusion For A. C. having first named Prime Principles and then going on with others which pertained to Supernatural Infallible Divine Christian Faith it is apparent he understood by those points which so appertain not the Act of Faith it self but the Object Wherefore A. C. doth here no more but explicate the nature of the Object by the Act and that onely upon the By and in a Parenthesis as appears by his words in which there is no Confusion but Clarity for as the Act of Faith is the Foundation of Hope Charity and all other Supernatural Acts so is the Object on which Faith is grounded the Foundation of Faith and in such a manner as whoever denyes or questions one point of Faith doth in effect question all Now I wonder the Bishop should urge as an Argument the Definition of the Council of Trent That Orders Collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent of the people or any secular power and yet saith we can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition to be Fundamental in the Faith I wonder I say he should urge this when all Catholique Authors who maintain that whatsoever is defined by the Church is Fundamental do in effect hold that this Decree is Fundamental For they all affirm that this is a lawful General Council confirmed by the Pope and therefore of the same Authority to command our Belief that any other ever was Wherefore this Argument of the Bishop is not Argumentum ad hominem as he pretends but petitio principii Now if he mean that this Decree of the Council is no Fundamental point of Faith according to the precise material Object it is true but nothing against us who have often granted it the question being onely about Fundamental points in the formal Object of Faith as we perpetually inculeate A. C. further urgeth That if any one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may do it against another and another and so against all since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakened in one cannot be firme in any other Thus far A. C. And here the Bishop will needs have A. C. to have horrowed this doctrine out of Vincentius Lirinensis and that he might have acknowledged it I hope it is no errour against Faith if he did borrow it and not acknowledge it although two wits may sometimes hit on the same thing or at least come near it which is all he here allows to A. C. without taking it one from another However the Doctrine both of A. C. and Vincentius Lirinensis is true For the same reason that permits not our questioning or denying the prime Maximes of Faith permits not our questioning or denying any other Doctrine declared by the Church because as I said it is not the greatness or smallness of the matter that moves us to give firme Assent in points of Faith but the Authority of God speaking by the Church Wherefore all points of Faith whatsoever may be said to be deposited with the Church For all that the Church doth even in things of least seeming concernment is but ut haec 〈◊〉 quae anteà that the same things may be believed which were before delivered but now with more light and clearness that is to say now explicitely before implicitely So that in either sense if we give way to every cavilling disputant to deny or quarrel them the whole foundation of Faith is shaken Moreover the Church being Infallible 't were meerly vain to examine her Decrees which the Relatour requires to be done to see if she have not added Novitia veteribus new Doctrines to the old For the Holy Ghost as hereafter shall be proved when we speak of this point having promised so to direct her as she cannot erre will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith which was not before either expressed or infolded and implyed in the word of God 8. But why does the Relator print Catholici dogmatis in great Letters in this sentence of Lirinensis is there any such great mystery in these words yes surely For sayes he Vincentius speaks there De Catholico Dogmate of Catholique Maximes Well But though Dogma signified a Maxime yet surely it cannot signifie Maximes unless he will here have the singular number signifie the plural as before he made the plural signifie the singular eis it But it was for his Lordships purpose to translate it in the plural number and that was sufficient for had he put it in the singular thus the Catholique Maxime that is as he expounds it the properly Fundamental and prime Truth deposited in the Church there would have seem'd to be but one Fundamental point which would have marr'd his whole designe Now because he holds there are many Fundamental points of Faith Catholicum Dogma in his Grammar could signifie nothing less then Catholique Maximes that is properly
Prime and Fundamental Points But in what Author learn't he that Dogma fignifies only Maximes were it in the plural number Dogma according to our common English Lexicons Rider and others signifies a Decree or common received opinion whether in prime or less principal matters But as the Grammatical so the Ecclesiastical signification of this word extends it self to all things establisht in the Church as matters of Faith whether in Fundamentals or Superstructures Thus Scotus calls Transubstantiation Dogma Fidei and I would gladly know one Authour who ever took the word Dogma for onely Fundamental points And as for Vincentius Lirinensis first he declares in other places that he means by it such Things as in general belong to Christian Faith without distinction cap. 23. Vocum inquit id est DOGMATUM rerum sententiarum novitates And cap. 28. Crescat saith he speaking of the Church sed in suo duntaxat genere in eodem scilicet DOGMATE eodem sensu eademque sententia The like he hath cap. 24. where he affirms that the Pelagians erred in dogmate Fidei who notwithstanding erred not in a Prime Maxime but in a Superstructure And for this place cited by the Bishop 't is evident that by Catholicum dogma he must understand the whole Complex of all the points of Catholique Faith whether Fundamental in their matter or not whereof if an Heretick deny any one part whatsoever sayes this Authour he may by the same rule deny all the rest Nay 't is evident that Lirinensis could not understand onely such points as are Fundamental in respect of their matter For seeing this Catholicum dogma contains the whole Systeme of the Catholique Faith and in that Systeme some are Fundamentals some Superstructures even according to Protestants it must necessarily contain both and Vincentius makes it clear in the instances he gives that he also understood points not Fundamental in the Protestant sense For in the Systeme of Catholique points which he there enumerates is contain'd the observation of Easter decreed by Pope Victor and afterwards defined in the Council of Nice and the not-Rebaptizing of those who had been Baptiz'd by Heretiques maintained by Pope Stephen against St. Cyprian and Firmilian and likewise afterwards confirmed in the same Council Now what I say of Catholicum Dogma in the first sentence cited out of Lirinensis I say the same of Depositorum Dogmatum custos in the second For what rational man can imagine that no other Christian verities or revealed Doctrines were deposited by our Saviour and the Holy Ghost with the Apostles and by them with the Church save onely the Articles of the Creed wherein are expresly contained all points of Faith that are Fundamental in respect of their matter as the Bishop presently affirms was not the whole Canon of Holy Scripture with every chapter verse and sentence contained in it the matter and form of Sacraments the Hierarchy of the Church the Baptisme of Infants the not-Rebaptizing of Heretiques the perpetual Virginity of the ever Blessed Mother of God and many other such like points Deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles whereof no one is expresly contain'd in the Creed nor esteemed Fundamental by Protestants Did not think you the Church perform the Office of a faithful Keeper of all these as well as of the Articles of our Creed and were not those who pertinaciously erred in these particulars esteemed throughout all Christendome as Heretiques above 1200. years ago Here then in his wresting and winding Catholico Dogmate he gives us no less then a Turn and half in his Canterburian Labyrinth The Church then ever did and ever will so keep those sacred Depositums be they or be they not Prime and Fundamental in their matter as that hoc idem quod antea what she receives she delivers to all succeeding ages the very same in Substance it ever was only unfolding what was before wrapp'd up when any thing comes to be call'd in question by Novellists whom she judges to impugne either directly or indirectly and covertly the Faith that Catholicum Dogma which she hath received Upon which occasions she sometimes declares certain Truths as necessary to be expresly believ'd by all to whom that Declaration is sufficiently propounded and commands certain errours to be expresly rejected both which were before believ'd or rejected onely implicitely to wit by the Belief of those Known and Receiv'd Divine Truths in which these other were contain'd tanquam in radice or in semine as Vincentius speaks For the Church is so tenderly careful of every Iota and Tittle of these Sacred Doctrines in whatever matter they consist great or small which were delivered to her by the Divine Authority of Christ and his Apostles that she uses all possible industries not onely to keep unblemished what was clearly and plainly expressed in the Doctrine delivered to her but whatever else she findes necessary for conserving them in their Primitive integrity and purity Thus hath she us'd all possible diligence to preserve the Scriptures pure and entire not onely in the prime Articles of Faith but in every the least truth delivered in them Thus from what she had received concerning Christs being both God and Man yet but one Christ she declared against Nestorius that he had but one person against Eutyches that he consisted of two distinct Natures the Divine and the Humane and against the Monothelites that he had Two Wills all which particulars though they were not so fully express'd and reflected on before those Heresies arose yet were they virtually and implicitely included in the Doctrine first received and afterwards became necessary to be expresly believed by the Declaration of General Councils I take no notice of the Relatours Translating Disputator errans 〈◊〉 Disputer and Dogmata Deposita the principles of Faith Such errata as these as they may seem perhaps too minute so are they too frequent to be reflected on But when he would have either the Church her self or some appointed by her to examine her Decrees to wit in matters of Faith for of those onely is the controversie lest for want of it she be chang'd in Lupanar errorum a thing so foul he dares not English it though I wonder not much that 't is said by him yet can I not but wonder that he ventures to father it on Lirinensis citing a lame sentence of his in the Margin for proof of it whereas this Authour in that very place is so far from entertaining the least thought or letting fall the least word importing that the Church should adde Novitia veteribus Novelties to Ancient truths and consequently alter and corrupt her own Doctrine that as if he had foreseen such a perversion of his meaning at the end of the chapter cited he seems purposely to explicate his own meaning and to point out the persons guilty of such practices in these words Sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus Divina pietas sisque hoc potius
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
not immediately from his Premises viz. that either there is no revelation or Scripture is it For if he would prove that Scripture must be it if there be any by the sole light of Scripture as he hath hitherto pretended I have evidenc'd it to be inconsequent Would he prove Scripture to be that Revelation supposing there be any by the intervention of Church-Tradition assuring us that it is such it is true but Diametrically opposite to his Principles Again he wheels a little about For no man ever deny'd that Scripture is Gods Revelation supposing he hath made Revelations so that in proving this he hurts not his Adversary but his Province was to prove that Scripture onely was Gods Revelation Why then omits he here the word onely which caused the whole Controversie His last Consideration is a dark Meander For the Motives of Credibility he there musters up preceding the light of Scripture are indeed of force to justifie ones Belief that Scripture is Gods Word when 't is receiv'd as the Ancients did receive it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwayes And our present Question is not whether his Lordship does well in believing Scripture to be the Word of God as all those Motives of Credibility here mentioned by him perswade but whether he doth well in teaching that Scripture ought to be believ'd with Divine Faith for its onely inbred light as the formal Object And in this opinion I would gladly know how the recounted Motives can justifie his proceeding For though no man can doubt but most of those Motives may be applied to our Belief in the Articles of our Creed yet in his opinion they will not justifie the Believing those Articles with Divine Faith independently of Scripture which he makes the whole Foundation of believing them with Divine Faith 6. It s worth noting what we hear him now at last acknowledge for all the rest in this page is a meer repetition of what hath been already answered viz. that being arrived to the Light of the Text it self and meeting with the Spirit of God c. then and not before we are certain that Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and Infallible proof So that here he manifestly acknowledges that those who are not arrived to the light of Scripture in it self have no divine nor infallible proof of its being Gods Word and consequently have no Divine Faith of the mysteries of Christian Religion and so are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation which consequences how horridly they will sound in the ears of the unlearned I leave to the Reader And to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and prosess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet and consequently since it is unlawfull to lye and much more in matters of Religion then in others it will also follow that it is unlawfull for any one to teach unlearned persons their Creed and as unlawfull for them either to learn it or rehearse it before they have seen those Articles proved by Scripture For by this word Believe there must be meant as all agree a formal Christian and Divine Faith of those Articles 7. Finally we are told of his Lordships good intention in having proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the Benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all Christianly disposed But he had done much better had he proceeded in an Analytical way for in that was the difficulty namely to assign the first Principle on which our Faith is grounded in the Resolution of Faith which we are far from apprehending by this Synthetical way which confounds the Reader with Multiplicity of Arguments and weakens the Authority of the Church without which he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear Resolutionof Faith Well therefore might A. C. without note of Captiousness require the Analytical way yet give all all due respect to Scripture though the Relatour it seems would willingly insinuate the contrary For the Question being started whether the Scriptures onely or besides them unwritten Traditions were the Foundation of our Faith the Bishop maintain'd the first and A. C. the second Now A. C. could not more directly nor efficaciously overthrow his Lordships Tenet then by proving that the Assurance we have even of Scriptures themselves relyes upon Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which therefore must necessarily be the Foundation of our Faith His endeavour to bring A. C. and us into a Labyrinth like his own of a vicious Circle by retorting the Question which he calls captious it may be because himself was taken in it I have already prov'd ineffectual because both A. C. and our other Authours give the motives of Credibility as a preceding and uncircular ground for the Infallibility of Church-Tradition So that the Relator cannot retort the Question so easily as he imagines nor rid his hands so soon of the Jesuit by demanding How he knows the Testimony of the Church to be Divine and Infallible falsely supposing us to say that the Churches Infallibility is founded upon the Testimony of Scripture and the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church the contrary whereof I have sufficiently deliver'd and declared chap. 5. When therefore he demands how we know the Testimony of the Church to be infallible we answer that we prove it independently of Scripture by the Motives of Credibility immediately shewing it to be evidently credible in it self as the like motives made this point evidently credible to the Faithful heretofore that the Prophets and Apostles were Infallible And 't is evident to any judicious man that herein is not the least shadow of a Circle 8. The Relatour will not yet permit us to put a period to this Question but wrangles with A. C. for telling him what he thought his Lordship said But I had rather dispute what he doth or can say in this matter He expounds his own minde thus That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need no proof in regard of those men who are born in the Church and in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it that the Books commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God But here he ought to have reflected that to make good this supposition so far as to the breeding in us a Supernatural Act of Faith it must also of necessity be supposed at least tacitely that the Scriptures are delivered to us by the Infallible Authority of the Church Wherefore in this assertion that Scripture onely is the Foundation of Faith he contradicts what he ought to have presuppos'd viz.
driving the Church of Rome to a hard strait that it evidently argues the truth and uncorruptedness of that Church which is so clear that even her Adversaries cannot but confess it Neither did the Roman Church reject all that Ruffinus writ even in that Book wherein he exprest his Heresie but onely such parts of it as were dissonant to the received Doctrine of the Catholique Church And if one condemned of errour by another may not be cited in any thing wherein he favours the party that condemned him why does the Relatour so often cite our Authours whom he condemns of errours in Faith when they seem to favour him The Bishop having examin'd Bellarmins Authorities in the manner you see returns again to A.C. and the Jesuit telling us in very positive terms that no Jesuit nor any other is able to prove any particular Church Infallible But to this I have often answer'd that it was neither to the Ladies purpose nor ours to dispute concerning a particular Infallible Church it sufficeth that the Pope is infallible at least with a General Council which question as I have often observ'd the Relatour wisely declines and diverts another way namely to an unnecessary dispute with Bellarmin about the Infallibility of the particular Church or Diocess of Rome viz. whether the Roman Clergy can at any time forsake the Pope and his Doctrine or not or whether the Chair of St. Peter can be transferred to another place and the Roman Church upon that account be left subject to errour as being no longer the Sea Apostolique both which are matters of that nature that they do no way engage me to contend with his Lordship about them further then to tell him that they are nothing at all to his purpose nor to the satisfaction of the Lady and seem to have been thrust into his book onely to fill up some vacant pages and to avoid the question which he was obliged but not able directly to answer In the same page I observe the Bishop charges the Romane Church with erring in the Worship of Images in altering Christs Institution in the Blessed Sacrament by taking away the Cup from the people and divers other particulars but because he endeavours not in any sort to prove his charge I presume I may take liberty to answer in a more convenient place to wit where the Bishop disputes formally against them But his Lordship will not part without another fling at Bellarmin he thinks he hath spy'd a great inconsistency in some words of the Cardinal The matter thus Bellarmin lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. § 2. as the Bishop cites him of this Proposition The particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith so long as St. Peters Chair is at Rome sayes 't is A MOST TRUE Proposition but presenty after speaking of it sayes onely PERADVENTURE 'T IS AS TRUE AS THIS viz. the Pope when he teacheth the whole Church in matters of Faith cannot erre At this the Bishop exclaims as at a great absurdity of speech What sayes he A Proposition MOST TRUE and yet but PERADVENTURE as true as another That 's not possible with him But soft and fair What needs so much noise Let 's see what grounds the Relatour has for this Criticisme First he should have reflected that in such expressions as this there is alwayes a latitude of moral sense and meaning to be allow'd even by common right and custom of speaking When I say for example such a man is vir prudentissimus or vir optimus a most wise and most honest man I am not presently thought to prefer him in those respects before all the men in the world nor shall I be counted I hope a lyar though some other men be found as wise and honest as he Bellarmin therefore might have been excus'd with indifferent Judges for saying what he did upon no other ground but this But I shall not here use this plea let the word Verissima be taken in the strictest rigour of Scholastical sense that can be yet may not a Proposition be rightly said most true viz. in its proper Rank and order of such Propositions and yet be but peradventure as true as a Proposition of another and higher rank for certainty or infallibility of Truth 'T is manifest Bellarmin held his first Proposition touching the Popes Infallibility when he teaches the whole Church to be true Veritate fidei for he holds it to be a proposition of Faith but this other touching the Roman Clergies not erring or not departing from the Popes Doctrine so long as the Sea Apostolique continued there to be true onely Veritate Theologiae as other Theological Propositions are True which are not Divinely revealed but meerly by humane Discourse and way of Argument deduced from other Theological Propositions and Principles whose Truth consequently is never so absolutely infallible as that of matters of Faith but onely more or less certain according as the Principles or Propositions whence we deduce them are more or less Infallible and the Deduction of them from such Principles more or less evident and necessary What absurdity then was it for Bellarmin to say this Proposition viz. of the Roman Clergies never forsaking the Popes Doctrine c. is most true meaning in the quality of a Theological Conclusion and yet but peradventure as true as that other viz. of the Popes not erring when he teacheth the whole Church which latter Proposition Bellarmin undoubtedly held to be a Proposition of Divine Faith but did not hold the other to be such Truly just as much absurdity as 't is to say of a little man that in comparison of a Pygmie he is a tall Fellow but in comparison of some Yeoman of the Guard he is but a Dwarf Thus having acquitted my self of what I stood obliged by promise at the beginning of this Treatise I return again to the Bishop in pursuit of his present Discourse CHAP. II. Protestants Schismatiques ARGUMENT 1. No pure Church in the world since the Apostles time if the Roman Church corrupt 2. Petrus de Alliaco favours not the Bishop Card. Bellarmin most falsly quoted by him Almainus Cassander c. not for him 3. Schismes and Heresies in Rome but not in the Roman Church 4. who made the present Schisme Roman-Catholiques or Protestants 5. St. Bernards and St. Austins words rightly urged by A. C. and Bellarmins as wrongfully by the Bishop 6. Protestants though they will have the Church unerrable in Fundamentals onely yet can never be brought to give a list of them 7. Christs Church by inseparable property both Caththolique and Holy THe Relatour is still making personal reflexions upon A. C. Here he will have him troubled again about the form of the Ladies question but I see no reason he had to be troubled whether the Lady askt her question by Be or Was because if the Roman was the right Church it still is so seeing no change can be shew'n in her Doctrine
Priestly Function to have any commerce with Rome and a capital crime even to hear Mass or but harbour a Priest And what I pray is true piety in Gods sight if all these be capital offences But enough of this Parallel His Lordship even during the Schisme of Jeroboam will yet needs have Israel a True Church But I answer They were no true Church because they rejected the Authority of the High Priest refused to communicate in the Sacrifices and Worship of God at Jerusalem and adored the golden Calves of Jeroboam 'T is true there were many holy persons inhabitants of the same Countrey with the rest who kept themselves undefiled from those Idolatries and Divisions who though they were not perhaps suffered to go up to Jerusalem to worship yet never consented to go to Dan or Bethel These we acknowledge remained parts of the True Church notwithstanding the Schisme as many Catholiques do now continue true members of the Roman Church though living dispersedly in Heretical Countreys And the Prophets who were amongst them were also a part of the True Church at Jerusalem for which reason for the most part the Kings of Israel persecuted them as Catholiques also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen Mahumetan and Heretical Princes The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church then it would argue the Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church if some Roman Catholique should be found among them having the spirit of Prophesie But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture that the ten Tribes continued a Church notwithstanding their Schisme and Idolatry But to that of 〈◊〉 9. 17. I answer first this Prophet prophesied both against Juda and Israel and the word Israel being an Appellative common to all the seed of Jacob 't is not certain he alwayes means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes onely and not sometimes the Tribe of Juda also Secondly I say the Relatours Gloss addes to the Text. God doth not there threaten to cast Israel away in non Ecclesiam as the Bishop speaks that is to un-church them as if forsooth before that threatning they had been a true Church this is the Relatours own voluntary addition or fiction rather but he threatens simply to deprive them of his wonted protection to deliver them into their enemies hands and as the very next words shew to make them wanderers among the Nations that should take them captive To that of 4. Reg. 9. 6. where they are called the people of the Lord I answer in a general sense all Abrahams seed according to the flesh are styled the people of God by reason of that promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 18. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee but Abraham's seed only according to the spirit that is the faithful make the True Church To his last Argument which he advanceth as ad hominem that Multitude is a note of the Church I answer we do not contend that of Christians the greater multitude is an infallible mark of the true Church There was a time when the Arrians were reported to be more numerous then the Orthodox 3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father was a Truth alwayes acknowledg'd in the Church of God and receiv'd in General Councils long before the Controversie touching that point arose between the Latins and the Greeks Witness that Epistle of St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria which he wrote as Bellarmin tells us from the Council of Alexandria to that of Ephesus wherein are these words Spiritus appellatus est veritatis veritas Christus est unde ab isto similiter sicut ex Patre procedit The Holy Ghost saith he is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth whence follows that he proceeds as well from him as from the Father Thus he Now this Epistle of St. Cyril and the Council of Alexandria as Bellarmin likewise shews was receiv'd not only by the Council of Ephesus which was about the year of our Lord 434. but also by four other General Councils held in Greece it self and consequently the Doctrine of the Holy Ghosts Procession was a Truth so anciently known in the Church that it could not well seem a novelty to any when the express confession of it came to be more frequent and publick in the Latin Church It matters not much in what capacity it was promulgated by the Church of Rome whether as a particular Church as the Bishop contends or as Head of the Church Universal as we think For either way it could not but be very lawful for that Church to do it nor can it help his Lordships cause which way foever it was done For supppose a particular Church may in some case promulgate an Orthodox Truth not as yet Catholiquely receiv'd or defined by the whole Church doth it thence follow that a particular Church or Churches may repeal and reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and Definitively received Surely no. Yet this is his Lordships and the Protestants case 4. Hence the Relatours egregious Fallacy is manifest while from the adding of a Word onely by some particular Church for Explication of a known ancient and generally received Truth such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son he pretends to inferre both these Propositions viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholique where the whole Church is negligent or will not For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormious as the latter because it supposes not any actual errour contrary to Catholique Doctrine to be maintained by the whole Church but onely a Non declaration or at most some negligence to promulgate a Catholick Truth whereas the other supposes errour of something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church yet are they both utterly Paradoxical and False and no way to be inferr'd from the example or practise of the Roman Church in declaring the Holy Ghosts Proceeding from the Son for that was of a point anciently and generally received in the Church Much 〈◊〉 can it justifie the Protestants proceedings whose Declarations Promulgations Confessions or what ever you will call them made upon their several pretended reformations were onely of new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholique Truths For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the Real Presence of our Saviours Body and Blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the Real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believ'd Was not Veneration
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
even after our Saviours Ascension had they no promise of Divine Assistance in the delivery of those Truths Thus the promises of Christ come to nothing But if one should ask some of this Bishops Disciples how their Master proves that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truths necessary to Salvation they must answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipse dixit just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old when they were urg'd to give a Reason of their Masters Philosophy For where I pray hath Christ so limited his promises where do the Apostles teach us to understand them with such limitation Neither do we extend them to Truths wholly unnecessary or to curious Truths as the Bishop seems willing to insinuate No We tell him there is a medium a middle sort of Truths between those which are absolutely necessary for all mens Salvation and those which are simply unnecessary or curious We extend these promises to all Truths of this middle sort that is to all such Truths as the Church findes consonant to Catholique Faith and Piety and necessary to be defin'd for the preventing of Heresies Schismes and Dissentions among Christians But I pray observe our Adversaries unparallel'd Subtlety in the close of all Christ saith he hath promis'd that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth but he hath no where promis'd that the Church should follow her leader What a rare Acumen is here Then belike to lead and to follow are not Relatives in Protestant Logick But let them take heed 't is to be fear'd they will be found Relatives and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresie and other sins nothing will help but they must infallibly follow him And I wish that all his Lordships party would duly consider this as often as they interpret Scripture after this manner CHAP. 15. Of the Roman Churches Authority ARGUMENT 1. Whether Protestants beside reforming themselves did not condemn the Church of errour in Faith 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ then the rest of the Apostles 3. The History or matter of Fact touching the Donatists appealing to the Emperor related and how little it advantages the Bishop or his party 4. St. Gregories Authority concerning the question of Appeals and the Civil Law notably wrested by the Bishop 5. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York twice appealed to Rome and was twice restor'd to his Bishoprick by vertue of the Popes Authority 6. The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peters placing his Sea at Rome no ground of his Successors Supremacy 8. Why the Emperours for some time ratified the Popes Election 9. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome 10. The Pope never accus'd by the Ancients of falsifying the Canons and that he might justly cite the Canons of Sardica as Canons of the Council of Nice BY the precedent Discourse it appears that the Bishops main task for a long time hath been to prove that the General Church may erre and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith this being the thing which A. C. most constantly denyes But his Lordship finding the proof of this not so easie by little and little was fain to slide into another question concernig the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves thinking by this to Authorize the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage Rome Gangres Toledo c. § 24. num 5. which how they succeeded the Reader may easily have perceiv'd by our Answers in the precedent Chapter 1. He goes on with his wonted Art which is to alledge his Adversary with not overmuch sincerity A. C. treating the abovesaid question touching the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves and not denying but in some cases particular Churches may reform what is amiss even in matter of Faith for greater caution addes these express words pag. 58. WHEN THE NEED of Reformation IS ONELY QUESTIONABLE particular Pastours and Churches may not condemn others of Errour in Faith But these words when the need is onely questionable the Bishop thinks fit to leave out to what end but to have some colour to contradict his Adversary and abuse his Reader Let us now see whether his Lordships party be far from judging and condemning other Churches as he seems to make them by his simile A man that lives religiously sayes he doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers But yet while he is silent his very life condemns them First of all Who are these men that live so religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry Wives contrary to the Canons and bring forsooth Scripture for it Non est bonum esse hominem solum and again Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi Who are these men I say that live so religiously They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women They who cast Altars to the ground They who partly banish Priests partly put them to death They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even after they are dead These are the men who live so religiously But who are according to his Lordship prophane Livers They who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors They who for the Catholique Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations Imprisonments Banishments Death it self They in a word who suffer Persecution for Righteousness These in his Lordships opinion are Prophane Livers I return now to the Relatours men that live so religiously Do these men never condemn the Catholique Church but by their vertuous lives which you have seen Surely they condemn her not onely by quite dissonant lives but also by word of mouth by their pens nay by publick and solemn Censures Witness to go no further the Protestant Church of England Artic. 19. where she condemns of errour not onely the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria but even of Rome it self Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and Comment upon the said Article pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not onely shamefully err'd in matters of Faith but that the whole visible Church may likewise erre from time to time and hath err'd in doctrine as well as conversation Do they not say Artic. 21. that General Councils may erre and have err'd even in things pertaining to God Do they not pronounce of Purgatory Praying to Saints Worship of Images and Reliques c. Artic. 22. of Transubstantiation Artic. 28. and of the Sacrifice of the Mass Artic. 31. respectively that they are fond things vainly invented by men contrary to Gods Word Blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits Though it be as clear as the sun at noon-day that both these and many other points deny'd and rejected by Protestants were the doctrine and
have opened the Fathers meaning viz. that not onely the Church of Rome as 't is a particular Church kept intirely the Apostolical Tradition but that in it all the Faithful every where did keep the same Apostolical Tradition by being in unity and Communion with her Thus you may see to what shifts and upon what shelves even learned men are often driven by maintaining errour From the Premises I argue thus All the Faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem by reason of her more powerful Principality This is St. Irenaeus his Proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful Principality if her said power exended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful Principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the Faithful every where and not onely to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocess of Rome as the Bishop pleads 7. Little therefore is it to his advantage what he pretends to shew out of Ruffinus viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contain'd within the Islands and Precincts of Italy since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity and gives St. Irenaeus the lye Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less then any of the other Patriarchal Churches yea of much less extent then many Metropolitan Churches To which I add 't is contrary even to the common compute of Protestants themselves who often grant the Bishop of Rome to have been Patriarch of the West which undeniably contains many vaste Provinces and Nations beside Italy and the Islands about it Wherefore as the Bishop could not altogether deny but the word Suburbicary was unduly added by Ruffinus in the Translation of the Nicene Canon so I say 't is necessary to understand it unless we will contradict all the world not in the Bishops sense as signifying onely the Churches of Italy and the Islands thereto belonging but as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any way suburdinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known as also to this day by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Prefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded onely those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this Subject This exposition of Ruffinus his term Suburbicary wants not ground even in his own Text who makes as it were a contradistinction between Egypt and the Suburbicary Churches Now under Egypt he comprehends Lybia Pentapolis and Ethiopia which being without the Precincts of the Empire were committed to the power and care of the Patriarch of Alexandria but all Suburbicary Cities that is such as were under the City of Rome as it was Imperial were left under the Bishop of Rome and he by reason of his Seat at Rome was still to be their chief Prelat and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them then he had over those other Cities which were out of the Empire though as St. Peters Successour he had the universal care of the whole Church and that full Potentiorem Principalitatem which St. Irenaeus ascribes unto him 8. Touching Calvin's conjecture that recourse was therefore had to Rome because at that time the Roman Church was more constant to the Truth and less distracted with dangerous opinions it is wholly inept For 't is false that before St. Irenaeus's time Rome was more constant in the Faith then the other Churches of Greece and Africk had been seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresie as Rome 9. The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest from us a Text or two of Epiphanius touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successours wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wonted reservedness that St. Peters person is understood in that Text of the Gospel Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be perswaded to extend it any further then his person But we affirm 't is clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter is derived to his Successours For first after the words Et Portae inferorum c. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it this Father immediately addes Quarum Portarum nomine Hereses Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authours of Heresies are understood that is to say All Heresies and all Authours of Heresies whatever shall arise Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal True it is the Bishop omits these last words by his wonted Et caetera However since he acknowledges that by the Firm Rock whereon our Saviour according to Epiphanius promised to build his Church St. Peter is personally understood we shall easily make good our Argument from it and solve his objections For he must consequently acknowledge the Church so founded on St. Peter as by vertue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies and Inventors of Heresie that should at any time impugne the Churches Faith which could not possibly be verified in case Christs promise were to be limitted to St. Peters person alone For else why might not Heresies and Heretiques after St. Peters death prevail against the Church yea so far prevail as utterly to extinguish the true Faith Wherefore the Bishops long discourse by way of Gloss on this and some other Texts of the same Father concerns us not at all For it being once granted that St. Peter was personally to uphold the Church in the profession of the true Faith as its principal Foundation under Christ we have our desire Nevertheless we deny that he hath any ground to limit to St. Peter onely those Elogiums given him by St. Epiphanius and not allow them extendible to his Successours so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith Wherefore as St. Peters Authority is by the Bishops own confession rightly urg'd by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Hereticks that deny'd it so doubtless by vertue of the same promise and institution of Christ may and ought the Authority of his Successors be urg'd in time to come in proof of any other contested Article or point of Faith Though therefore we affirm not as the Relatour is frequently imposing upon us that St. Peter and his Successours are by vertue of this Text to governe the Church as Princes and Monarchs yet we say that by vertue
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
St. Peters person onely but his Faith conjoyned with his person or his person confessing and asserting the Faith and that the Fathers speak in this sense and no other when they say the Church is built upon St. Peters Faith Bellarmin proves by a whole Jury of the most Ancient among them and most of them the same the Bishop here pretends to bring for himself beside the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon consisting of above six hundred Catholique Bishops As to what he asserts that by Hell-gates-prevailing against the Church is not understood principally the Churches not Erring but her not falling away from the Foundation we have already fully prov'd the Contrary both by the Testimony of the Fathers and Solid Reason shewing that if any Errour in Faith could be admitted by the Catholique Church the Gates of Hell might in such case be absolutely said to have prevaild against her contrary to this promise of Christ. And how Bellarmin here cited by the Bishop is to be understood when he sayes there are many things DE FIDE which are not necessary to salvation is already shewn where we also prov'd that every errour in Faith contrary to what is propounded by the Church is Fundamentall But the Relatour as if his own word were a sufficient proof tells us finally that the promise of this stable Edification is made to the whole Church not to a Council Why not to both I pray to a General Council as well as to the Church The truth is it was made neither to Church nor Council directly and immediately but to St. Peter and his Successours as the Fathers above mentioned shew though for the good of the Church viz. her preservation from errour in Faith which morally could not be effected if a General Council lawfully called and confirm'd by St. Peters Successour be not Infallible or exempt from errour in its decisions of Faith To what the Bishop concludes with upon this Text that a Council hath no interest in this promised Edification further then it builds upon Christ that is upon the Doctrine Christ deliver'd the Rules he gave and the Promises he made to his Apostles and their Successours we agree with him but that a General Council confirmed by the Pope does ever reject or go contrary to these we absolutely deny To the fourth place viz. of Christs prayer for St. Peter that his faith should not fail Luke 22. 32. the Relatour will have the native sense of it to be that Christ prayed and obtained for St. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong Temptation which was to winnow him above the rest And you must take it if you please upon his bare word that by Faith is here meant Grace Had the Bishop weighed the pregnancy of Bellarmins Reasons in confutation of this Exposition he could not surely have been so positive in it It should be an unnecessary prolixity to insert them here where 't is sufficient to observe the contradiction involv'd in this pretended Native sense of Christs prayer Christ according to the Bishop obtain'd for St. Peter that he should persevere in Grace But St. Peter did not still persevere in Grace for he lost it when he committed that enormous sin of Denying his Master Therefore Christ obtain'd and did not obtain one and the same thing of his Eternal Father which is a formal contradiction Our Saviour therefore prayed according to his own expression in Scripture that St. Peter might not lose Faith by an Internal act of Disbelief though the Devil should so far prevail by his Temptations as to make him say contrary to his own knowledge I know not the man you have taken prisoner But the Bishop objects thus against this Text to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope or in his Chair or in the Roman Sea or in a General Council though the Pope be President I finde no Antient Father that dare adventure it I answer 't is no wonder that they do not sinde who are unwilling to see Bellarmin cites and that out of Authentique Records whatever the Bishop mutters against them as Counterfeit without the least proof Lucius Felix St. Leo and Petrus Chrysologus the last of which lived above twelve hundred years ago these I say Bellarmin affirms to have adventur'd to prove from this Text what the Bishop denies And though the three first of these were Bishops of Rome yet such was their Sanctity and Learning as might well vindicate them from the least jealousie of challenging either through ignorance or ambition more then of right belong'd to their office Nay the Church of Rome was so confessedly Orthodox in their dayes that even Dr. Heylin a man bitter against Catholiques thought it not fit in his Geography to term the Roman Bishops Popes till almost two hundred years after St. Leo the last of the three And as for Chrysologus his Contemporary and no Pope he adventur'd as it were to ground the Infallibility we plead for upon this Text when he said St. Peter as yet lives and presides in his Sea and affords the true Faith to those that seek it which speech the Bishop will have to be but a flash of Rhetorique an easie way of answering the most unanswerable Authorities Had Chrysologus written or addressed his words to the Pope there might have been some colour for the Evasion but speaking them to an Heretique whom he sought to reduce into the bosome of the Catholique Church who can imagine he intended to complement the Pope Nothing but a weak Cause could drive so learned a person as the Bishop to so poor a shift So the Testimonies of Theophylact and St. Bernard are slighted by him as men of yesterday though they lived the one above five hundred the other near six hundred years ago But whoever charges St. Bernard with corrupt Doctrine either in point of Faith or Manners might as justly charge St. Austin and the Fathers of his time in which time even by the acknowledgement of Calvin when he is sober the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles And for Theophylact he being a Greek Bishop and of the forwardest in siding against the Latin Church and in taxing her of Errour touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost it cannot be rationally imagin'd but what he speaks in favour of the Roman Church is extorted from him by the evidence of Truth and the known consent of all Catholique Christians in that particular As to the Gloss upon the Canon Law I answer it speaks onely of the Pope in his personal capacity as a private Doctour in which quality it is not deny'd but he may possibly erre even in Faith Hence may easily be perceiv'd how unsatisfactorily the Bishop endeavours to elude the force of this Text concerning Christs prayer for St. Peter which I have already prov'd to be extended to his Successours
't is apparent hee does it only in a lesse proper or Analogicall sense to signifie that by vertue of diuine Assistance and direction such a Conclusion or Definition in regard of precise verity is as infallibly true and certaine as if it were a Prophecy Neither is there any Contrariety in this betweeen Stapleton and Bellarmin for both agree that neither Church nor Council doe publish Jmmediate Reuelations nor create any New Articles of Fayth but only declare and vnfold by their definitions that doctrine which Christ and his Apostles in some manner first delivered Both of them likewise confesse that whether the Principles from which the Church or General Councils deduce their definition haue intrinsecall and necessary connexion with the doctrine defined or noe yet the Conclusion or definition it selfe is of infallible verity the holy Ghost so directing the Council that it neuer defines any conclusion to bee of fayth but what is de facto matter reueasd by God eyther in those Principles from which the Council deduces it or at least in some other The Relatours whole Discourse therefore vpon this subiect of Prophecy falls of it selfe to the ground as beeing built vpon a pure I had almost sayd a willfull mistake viz that Stapleton maintaines the Decrees of a Generall Councill to bee Propheticall in a proper sense which hee does not and consequently that it was wholly needless for our aduersary to talke so much of Enthusiasms and tell vs so punctually what Prophecy is what vision and that neither of both are to bee gotten with study and Industry For wee know all this and therfore wee doe not style the definitions of Councils Reuelations or Prophesies or visions or the like but willingly acknowledge they are the results of much study and industrie only wee aerre the study and industrie which the Prelats in Generall Councils doe vse for the finding out of Truth is always crowned by God with such success as infallibly preserues them from errour Stapleton goes on and giues vs the reason why a Generall Councill must necessarily bee infallible in the Conclusion because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Fayth not of Knowledge and that therfore the Church proposing it to bee 〈◊〉 though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art Meanes or Argument but the Assistance of the Holy Ghost else when wee embrace the Conclusion proposed it would not bee an Assent of Fayth but an Habit of Knowledge To this the Bishop replying seemes to broach a New Doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an Habit of Knowledge To this the replying Bishop seemes to broach a new doctrine namely that the Assent of Fayth may bee an habit of Knowledg But surely Diuine Fayth is according to the Apostle Hebr. 11. an Argument of things which doe not appeare to wit by the same meanes by which wee giue this assent of Fayth otherwise our Faith would not bee free and meritorious T is true the same conclusion may bee Fayth to one and Knowledge to another according to St. Austin and St. Thomas cited by the Bishop but this must bee vpon different motiues and therfore Fayth as Fayth can neuer bee knowledge which is all that Stapleton vrges The motiues of Credibility then which wee haue for our Fayth doe not by euident demonstration shew the truth thereof though they make it euidently credible in so much as hee would bee imprudent who should refuse to giue his assent So though the Bishop doe truly assert that the Church in all ages hath been able to stop the mouthes of philosophers and other great men of reason when it is at the highest yet this is also true that our sauiour did neuer intend to sett vp a schoole of Knowledge but of Fayth and that Councils in their definitions relie not on any demonstratiue reasons but on the infallible Assistance of the holy Ghost promised to them In like manner the Faythfull ground not themselues on any demonstration proposed to them by the Church but on Gods Reuelation obscurely but certainly and infallibly applyed to them by the Church In the seauenth Consideration the Relatour takes notice againe of a Querie that A. C. made to him viz. if a Generall Council may erre wherein are wee neerer to vnity by such a Council But in stead of giuing a punctuall and direct answer as hee should haue done hee falls a fresh vpon certaine new considerations which hee aduances vpon this subiect whether the Protestant opinion that Generall Councils may erre in defining matters of Fayth or the Catholique opinion that they cannot bee more agreeable to the Church and more able to preserue and reduce Christian peace which in effect is little else but to answer one Querie by many and having brought his reader almost to the port of his Labyrinth by a gentle turn to lead him back againe through all the Meanders thereof howeuer wee must obserue his Motions 3. His First Querie or Consideration is whether an absolute infallibility bee promised to the present Church or whether such an infallibility will not serue the turn as Stapleton acknowledges I answer no doubt but it will Lett Protestants acknowledge but such an Infallibility in the Church as that worthy Doctour maintaines and wee shall bee agreed for that matter But the Truth is our Aduersarie does here only confound his reader and wrong the Author hee alledges by not declaring sufficiently in what sense hee speakes For Stapleton in the place cited expressly teaches that the Apostles were infallible not only in their Decree or Conclusion but also in the Meanes or Arguments and this he calls absolute or exact Infallibility whereas the present Church is only infallible in the Decree or Conclusion and this also it hath by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost yet not by a new Immediate Reuelation Whence it appeares that this Authour is cleere for the Churches Infallibility though hee doe not in all respects equall it to that of the Apostles and consequently that it is not hee but the Bishop himselfe that wriggles in the bussiness vnworthily endeauouring to draw his Author to a sense no way intended by him Bellarmin is vsed no better whose doctrine is cleere that in the Decree or Conclusion a Generall Council is as certaine as the scripture because both are infallible and nothing can bee more certain then what is infallible though in other respects scripture has many Preroagtiues aboue Generall Councils as that it is Gods immediate Reuelation that there not only the Conclusion but Euery thing is matter of Fayth c. which agree not to a Generall Council 4. Howeuer to pass to this second Consideration or Querie wee shall not much quarrel his term of Congruous Infallibility but rest contented if Protestants will acknowledge such an Infallibility in the present Church as is congruous and agreeable to the promises of our sauiour and to the necessities of the Church so as by vertue
greatest and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage and eating certaine meats was a doctrine of 〈◊〉 and that those who held it should sall from the 〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church as well as the Donatists and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions which in the Bishops iudgement doe Shake but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines what shall hinder but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer if they 〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ may notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉 bound to heare and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉 see here good Reader what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow vnder paine of beeing in as bad or perhaps in 〈◊〉 worse condition then an Heathen and Publican 4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation because both parties viz. Catholiques and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it but doe not both of them agree that it may be had in the Protestant Church and Religion The Bishop brings 〈◊〉 instances to shew that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground to thinke that ours is the safer way His first instance is this The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true and valid both by 〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes and the Orthodox also but that of the Orthodox was held true and valid only by the Orthodox and not by the Donatists yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two How then does it follow that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion as the safer way to heauen because both parties agree that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants This is the Summe and 〈◊〉 of his first instance To which J answer that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉 of the Donatists as the safer way but he must committ two sins the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques in diuine Rites such as the administration of Sacraments is the other against Fayth which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity when the greatest and most considerable 〈◊〉 to witt that of the Orthodox hold it cannot be done except in case of necessity without damnable 〈◊〉 which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite different from this For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉 his Saluation whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉 But no 〈◊〉 did euer grant that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉 reasons and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary or that a man who had so embrac't the Baptisme of Donatists might liue and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault and repented of his 〈◊〉 You will say perhaps that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme thought valid in the iudgement of both parties because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉 and forbad it vnder paire of sinne so 〈◊〉 may a Protestant who is taught by scripture or otherwise and is fully persuaded that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours contrary to Gods words embrace the Roman Church and Religion though both 〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church and Religion J. answer and acknowledge that as a few 〈◊〉 or Arian is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉 beleefe so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉 Religion so long as his conscience tells him that it 〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word But J say withall that as a few Mahumetan and 〈◊〉 were bound to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth if sufficient motiues were propounded to him and that according to the principles of both parties the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours were offer'd to him and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants and Catholiques that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation Now that by the ioynt principles or doctrine both of Catholiques and Protestants our Religion or Fayth is the safer way wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours whensoeuer they will attend to them is sufficiently euidenced from hence seeing an infinite multitude of persons who haue as good naturall witts as themselues as tender consciences as themselues haue read and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as themselues vnderstand all contrary reasons and obiections as well as themselues yet belecue with absolute certainty as diuine Truths those very points which Protestants conceiue to be errours 5. Tho other instances which he brings seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement then in the Argument he impugns In the point of the Eucharist sayth he all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England then with the Roman and Lutheran because all agree in this truth not in any other opinion Here are many words spent to small purpose For first can a man be sayd in any true sense to communicate rather with the Church of England then with the Roman or Lutheran only by beleeuing that where in they all agree and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this But put case by
Forbearance of the Cup are improbable opinions and contrary to the express command of our sauiour 8. Againe what I pray does our aduersary meane by his Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel when he says the Church of Rome is worse and more cruell then she does he meane the true Church there that is the number of those Faythfull Israelites which as the scripture testifies of them neuer boued their knees to Baal Jf so his Lordship surely committs a huge Solecisme when pretending to aggrauate the crime of the Roman Church he sayes she was worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel as if that Church at that time had deseru'd the character of bad or cruell If he meanes the other part of the Israelites who were fallen from the true Religion and worshiped Ieroboams calues wee wonder vpon what ground he stiles them the Church of Jsrael seeing manifest Idolaters are no way to be accounted parts of the true Church But in what respect is the Church of Rome worse then that of Israel in the time of Iezabel because sayth he the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her errours and impos'd them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties viz. of Excommuncation etc. whereas the Church of Israel did neyther solemnly teach that men ought to Sacrifice in the high places nor punish men for going to Sacrifice at the one Altar in Hierusalem Admitt this were true though it be more then the Bishop can proue seeing Elias complaind in those times that Gods Altars were throw'n down and the Prophets persecuted and slaine with the sword which argues there was no such liberty as the Bishop pretends admitt I say it were true yet if there be any force in this argument it concludes more against himselfe then against the Roman Church The Bishop grants that a Generall Council lawfully called and orderly proceeding may define errours contrary to scripture and that in matters euen Fundamentall and of maine importance to Saluation yet he teaches withall that the decrees of such a Council must stand in force and binde all particular men at least to externall obedience till the whole Church by an other Generall Council reuerse the definitions of the former Is not this likewise to be worse then the Church of Jsrael Is not this to oblige people to make profession of false doctrine contrary to scripture and euident reason or demonstration yea is it not to be in this respect farre worse then the Church of Rome which requires indeed that all persons doe submitt to the decrees of Generall Councils but doth not require this as granting Councils to be fallible or subiect to define errour in stead of truth in matters of Fayth but as assuredly perswading her selfe that they are by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost infallible and cannot define any thing in such cases but what is truth Lastly if inference be to be made from the practice of the Jewish Church it will serue rather to iustisie then to condemne the proceedings of the Roman When power resided in the true Prophets of God and in his true and lawfull Priests Idolatrie and disobedience to the law of Moyses was seuerely punish'd but in corrupted times euery one had libertie to doe what ill he listed The Roman Church therefore is rather to be commended for her zeale and imitating the Synagogue in the times of its greatest 〈◊〉 to witt by exacting strict obedience to her doctrine lawfully declar'd and established by Generall Councils which she also beleeues and is as well assured to be according to diuine reuelation and not repugnant to Gods honour as the Synagogue was of their doctrine the Roman Church I say is rather to be commended for this euen from the example of the Iewish Church then to be tax'd with cruelty for not symbolizing with the corrupted and Apostatiz'd Synagogue in giuing promiscuous liberty to all to beleeue and practise what they list in point of Religion As for what he auouches concerning Transubstantiation Purgatorie and Forbearance of the Cup that they are improbable opinions and contrary to Gods word wee answer 't is according to his custome to speake without proose and therfore wee are not troubled at it 'T is that which euery Heretique may say if he please an Arian as well as an English Protestant the doctrine of the Roman Church is improbable is contrary to Gods word where it contradicts their particular Heresie Nay is it not a thing they might as iustly say of the English Church as of the Roman viz. that she is in this regard worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel that she hath Solemnly decreed improbable opinions to witt the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and to keep of disobedience how false soeuer her doctrine be she binds it vp vnder paine of Excommunication yea and kindles the fagot too sometimes when nothing else will serue the turn Witness the books of Canons which inflicts Eccommunication ipso facto vpon any that denyes the 39. Articles of the Church of England and the proceedings against seuerall persons who haue been burn't hang'd draw'n and quarter'd in this nation meerly for Religion since Protestantisme bore sway here To false premisses the Bishop ioynes a Conclusion as enigmaticall and ambiguous This then sayth he may be enough for vs to leaue Rome though the old Prophet 3. king 13. 11. left not Israel By leauing Rome 〈◊〉 vnderstands surely their refusing any longer to adhere to the Roman Church and to communicate with her in those things which they account superstitions and errours But did not both that old Prophet and also all the true Prophets and people of God in this sense 〈◊〉 corrupted Israel in the time of Aobaband and Jezabel did they ioyne thinke you with the Idolatrous Tribes in the Sacrifices at Dan and Bethel 9. The like is to be sayd of the comparison he mak's between A. C. and Petilian the Donatist it signifies not much For who sees not a manifest difference in the case and argument of these two Petilian would haue Catholiques refuse and desert the Churches Baptisme to embrace that of the Donatists only because Catholiques or the Catholique Church acknowledg'd the Donatists Baptisme to be in it 〈◊〉 valid or true Baptisme though by reason of their 〈◊〉 the same Church likewise taught it to be 〈◊〉 sinne and inconsistent with Saluation for any Catholique to seeke their Baptisme voluntarily or to admitt of it otherwise then in case of extreme necessity whereas A. C. would haue Protestants become Catholiques vpon this ground viz. because that euen Protestants themselues at least the most learned most wise and most considerable amonge them Doc grant vs possibility of Saluation notwithstanding any thing that wee beleeue or doe How then can the Bishop as he pretends answer A. C. iust as St. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist That which deceiu'd him is that he did not well obserue
cleerly in this case His fifth instance is that Catholiques and Protestants agree that in the English Lyturgie there is noe positiue errour but both parties doe not agree that there is no errour in the Roman Missal Therfore says the Bishop according to A. Cs. rule it should be better and more safe to worship God by the English Lyturgie then by the Roman Missal which he is sure wee will not grant I answer first all Catholiques doe not agree that there is no positiue errour in the English Lyturgie neither dares the Relatour affirme they doe but only that some Iesuits confess 't so much in his hearing Secondly though they did that is though all Catholiques did grant there were no positiue errour in the English seruice-booke yet it followes not that therfore the English Lyturgie is better or more safe to be vsed in the seruice of God then our Missal Why because Catholiques doe not agree that it is so much as positiuely safe or consistent with Saluation to vse it as Protestants doe that is out of Hereticall persuasion and with Hereticall contempt of the Roman Missal For though it containes no positiue errour yet to vse it out of any such principles is certainly damnable sin and destructiue of Saluation The Arian Creeds contain'd no positiue errour against Fayth yet because they did not containe all that was necessarily to be beleeu'd and confessed by Christians and were sett forth by such as were know'n enemyes of the Catholique Fayth which was wanting in them they were always anathematiz'd and condemn'd by the Church as much as if they had contain'd positiue and express errour Did Catholiques grant that those who both vse the English Lyturgie and reiect the Roman Missal as Protestants doe were for all that in state of Saluation though they neuer repented and did sufficiently know the grounds and reasons why the Church forbids the vse of it the argument would haue force but seeing 't is otherwise our maxime stands yet good and 't is safer in order to Saluation to worship God according to the Roman Missal rather then according to the English seruice-booke notwithstanding it were granted which wee doe not that the English booke contain'd no positiue errour To his Sixth of the Arians confessing Christ to be of like substance with the Father and the Catholiques consessing him to be of the same substance J answer the Catholiques neuer granted possibility of Saluation to the Arians vpon the account of that Confession but always withstood and condemn'd it as an Hereticall False and impious assertion taken in their know'n sense that is restrictiuely and as importing no more then like For in this sense that Maxime holds good nullum simile est idem and to say the son of God was of like substance with the Father in that sense was plainly to deny him to be true God and of the same substance with the Father The like is to be sayd of his seauenth grounded vpon the agreement of dissenting parties in the Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule from sinne whence the Bishop would gather that by A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue only the sayd Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule and lett that of the body alone But most vntruly For did euer any good Christian allow possibility of Saluation to any that deny'd the Resurrection of the body If not how is this instance within the rule which supposeth that both parties must agree in granting Saluation to one in his way or contested opinion The same Fallacy is apparent in his Eighth and Ninth For did euer any Catholique Christian allow Saluation to a Turke or a Jew in his Religion because they beleeued one God or to a Nestorian Heretique because he beleeu'd that Christ was true man what gross impertinences are these But no maruaile For 't is too apparent our aduersarie has quite forgotten the rule and fram'd another thing of it A. Cs. rule speakes precisely this andnomore viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion 't is in prudence safest to take that way wherein both parties grant Saluation to be obtainable or to containe nothing in it opposite or inconsistent with Saluation whereas the Relatour presents it in an other dress and makes it speake thus viz. that when parties disagree as abouesayd 't is safest to resolue a mans Fayth into that in which the dissenting parties agree and to beleeue no more then they doe agree in which is farre from truth and a thing which neuer came into A. C. s thoughts and yet vpon this mistake 't is euident to any that will consider them most of the Bishops instances runne Tlius all the Relatours examples duly weighed are found too light and discouer'd to be indeed rather amusements then proofs A. Cs proposition that 't is safest in Religion to goe that way which is confessed by both parties to afford possibility of Saluation or to containe no damnable sinne in it remaining in the meane while a firme and vnshaken truth notwithstanding all our aduersaries endeauours to vndermine it If any thing yet be wanting to the due iustifying of it it shall be declar'd in the following chapter At present the Bishop hauing made soe many assaults in vaine seems to retire and put himselfe vpon the defensiue pleading he is not out of the Catholique Church though out of the Roman because the Roman is not the Catholique but a member of it as the Church of England he sayes is and requiring vs to shew how one and the same Church can be in different respects and relations both a particular and also the Catholique Church But I answer how often hath this been shew'n already by all Catholique writers had his Lordship been more willing to vnderstand the truth from them then to cauill about words and also by vs in this treatise namely that the Roman Church as it signifies the Christians of the Diocess or Prouince of Rome only is a particular Church but as it signifies the Society of all such Christians as professing the Catholique Fayth doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for St. Peters Successor and Head of the whole Church vnder Christ so it is formally and properly speaking not a particular but the very Catholique and vniuersall Church of Christ they beeing all eyther Hereticall or Schismaticall Churches or both that doe not acnowledge this Our aduersary therfore might flourish as much as he pleas'd with his vain and feigned Allegorie of an elder and younger sister but wee tell his followers such Rhetorique may serue to palliate but shall neuer iustifie nor excuse Schisme The Roman Church will be found in the day of account to haue been not an elder sister but a mother and such a mother whose Law and Authority was not so lightly to haue been forsaken and reiected by any of her petulant and disobedient Daughters Nor matters it much whether Brittains first Conuersion were before St. Peters coming to
Rome or after He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church before he settled his seate at Rome and the Brittish Christians if any such were before that time might very well at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary be instructed by their preachers to beleeue and acknowledge him for such CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques and the Roman Fayth prou'd to be the same now that it euer was ARGVMENT 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation and all Protestant teachers excluded by the Bishops own grounds 2. No Church different in doctrine from the Roman can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation vpon the account of his Fayth rather presumptuous then well grounded 4. His pretending to beleeue as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd disprou'd by instance 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM the doctrine and worshiping of Images the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church 6. A. C ' Interrogatories defended 7. Protestants haue not the same Bible with Catholiques in any true sense 8. The index expurgatorius not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques in points defined by the Church 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely or implicitely but Protestants none at all that is infallible 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth nettled a little as it seems by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that returns smartly vpon him in these words she may be better saued in it then you and bids him marke that too Well wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant touching the Ladies Saluation but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe for that in the Bishops opinion his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation But what is his reason because for sooth any man that know's so much of the truth as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling doe and yet opposes it must needs be in greater danger So that it seems learning and sufficiency according to the Bishop haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one and not to see the truth of the other But how false this surmize is appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants that the more learned they are and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine Againe what likelyhood is there that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's seeing it is euident that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing that belongs to Diuine Fayth For teaching as they doe that all particular men all Generall Councils and the whole Church of God may erre what assurance can they giue me that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true or that the sense of the words of Scripture by which they proue their doctrine is such as they vnderstand or that their Church which they grant to be fallible doth not erre in those points wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques viz. because they are within the Church and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation is a Paradox and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds For seeing he hath often deliuer'd that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points as are Prime Radicall and Fundamentall in the Fayth necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians in order to Saluation and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized and hold the Foundation in this sense what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body most of the Heretiques that euer were and that euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it Nor is he content with one absurdity vnless he adioyne a second There is no question sayth he but many viz. ignorant Catholiques were saued in the corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented before their death as 't is morally certain none of them did were lost See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall But what were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours which as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together How could that be were they not all euen by the Bishops own principles members of the true visible Church of Christ notwithstanding those errours by reason of their beeing Baptized and holding the Foundation If they neither lost that Fayth by which they were members of the true Church nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace with what truth or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them He adds that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction or to vse all the meanes they can to come to the knowledge of truth But J demand if no Misleaders but such doe perish with what countenance conscience J might say could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours in the manner he doth that they were lost Can it with any colour of equity or truth be charg'd vpon them that they refus'd the Churches instruction what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together by which had they been neuer so willing they could be instructed to teach otherwise then themselues taught in their respectiue ages and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did to come to the knowledge of truth Why should not our aduersarie in reason haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion from Heresie and all other damnable errour then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers seeing 't is manifest these last oppos'd and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side in the points now controuerted and for which Protestants condemne them of errour The truth is the Bishop is a little intangled here Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques to keep his own people in awe and to fright them from becoming Catholiques but positiuely and determinately what
if our aduersaries like not his answer wee challendge them againe to shew vs such a Church Moreouer wee auerre that from Doctor Whites grant aboue-mentioned A. C. inference is rightly gathered namely that the Roman Church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point Fundamentall and that the Bishops Criticisme is much more subtle then solid when to make good his denyall of it he distinguishes betwixt the holding vnchanged Fayth in all Fundamentall points and the Not-erring in any Fundamentall point granting the first of these viz. that the Roman Church hath in all ages held vnchanged Fayth in all such points to follow out of Doctor Whites concession but not the second viz. that she hath not erred in any point Fundamentall But with what ground or consonancy to himselfe and truth lett the Reader iudge His precense is that the Church of Rome hath kept the Fayth vnchang'd only in the expression as he calls it or bare letter of the Article but hath err'd in the exposition or sense of it J answer if she hath err'd in the exposition and sense of an Article how can she be truly sayd to haue held it Can any man with truth say that the Arians held the Article of Christs Diuiunity or the Antitrinitarians the doctrine of three diuine Persons because they allow and hold Scriptures in which these Mysteries are contain'd who euer 〈◊〉 this word hold in a question of Fayth to signifie no more then profession or keeping of the bare letter of the Article and not the beleefe of the Misterie it selfe in its true sense Is it not all one to say Roman Catholiques hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saynts etc. and to say they beleeue the sayd doctrines Jf then it be true that the Church of Rome hath euer held all Fundamentall points 't is likewise true that she hath euer beleeu'd them and if she hath euer beleeu'd them all 't is manifest she hath not err'd in any there beeing noe other way properly and truly speaking wherby a man can erre against an Article of Fayth but only by disbeleeuing it If therfore it be granted that the Roman Church held and beleeu'd in all ages all Fundamentall points it is by necessary consequence likewise granted that she neuer erred in any such points how vnwilling soeuer the Bishop is to haue it so He tells vs indeed but his accusation has noe proofe that our Church hath erred grossly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of Fundamentall points that in the exposition both of Creeds and Councils she hath quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them lastly that her beauty in this respect is but meere painting as preseruing only the outside and bare letter of Christs doctrine but in regard of inward sense and beleefe beeing neither beautifull nor sound Thus he But was euer calumny more falsely and iniuriously aduanc'd Let our aduersaries shew in what one Article of all the three Creeds the Roman Church hath eyther lost its true sense or err'd in her exposition of it Beside they must likewise shew how this censure can stand with the Bishops former grant touching the possibility of Catholiques Saluation Jf true Fayth in all Fundamentall points be necessary to Saluation as 't is certaine none can be sau'd without it and that true Fayth consists in the sense and inward beleefe and not in the bare letter how can those which liue and dye in the Roman Churches Communion beleeuing all things as she teacheth and noe otherwise attain Saluation 3. The Lady here asks a second question whether she might be sau'd in the Protestant Fayth in answering whereof the parties conferring are againe put into new heats vpon my soule sayes the Bishop you may vpon my soule sayes Mr. Fisher there is but one sauing Fayth and that 's the Roman You see their mutuall confidence but which of them is better grounded the Reader must iudge Mr. Fisher seemes to lay the ground of his vpon that which cannot be deny'd to be a Fundamentall meanes and condition also of Saluation viz. Catholique Fayth which vnless it be entirely and inuiolately professed saues none witness St. Athanasius in his Creed admitted by Protestants The Bishop declares the ground of his assertion in these words To beleeue the Scripture and the Creeds to beleeue these in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the fowre great Generall Councils so much magnifyed by Antiquity to beleeue all points of doctrine generally receiu'd by the Church as Fundamentall is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation to which he adds in all the points of doctrine that are contreuerted between vs I would faine see any one point maintained by the Church of England that can be prou'd to depart from the Foundation This in fine is the ground of the Bishops confidence But I answer his Lordship failes in two things The first that he doth not shew that such a Fayth as he here mentions is sufficient to Saluation notwithstanding whateuer errour or opinion may be ioyned with it The second that he doth not shew that at least his English-Protestant Fayth is really and indeed such a Fayth as he here professeth that is in nothing different from the Fayth of the Ancient Primitiue Church and from the doctrine of those fowre great Generall Councils he speaks 〈◊〉 For as to the first of the pariculars did not the Bishop himselfe but euen now affirme that St. Cyprians followers were lost without repentance because they opposed the authority of the Church which in and by a Generall Council had declar'd their opinion to be erroneous Put case then that in after-times the whole Church or a Generall Council of like Authority with that of Nice should declare some other opinion to be erroneous which were not sufficiently declar'd to be so eyther by Scripture Creeds or those Fowre first Generall Councils were not he that should hold it after such definitiue declaration of the Church or Council in a like damnable condition with those followers of St. Cyprian though he beleeu'd the Scripture the Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils If not lett our aduersaries shew why rebaptizers only should be put into a damnable condition meerly by the authority of the Church or the Councils definition and other people who doe no less resist and contradict like definitions and authority should not Doth not the Bishop himselfe in effect teach it to be damnable sinne to oppose the definition of a Generall Council when he auerrs that the decrees of it binde all particulars to obedience and submission till the contrary be determined by an other Council of equall authority and censures the doing otherwise for a bold fault of daring times and inconsistent with the Churches peace How can this possibly be made good if to beleeue Scripture and the
question for none of vs euer yet granted him that there was such light but also contrary to experience there beeing noe man that meerly by reading such books as are called Canonicall and others that are accounted Apocryphall can come to know which are Canonicall which not as may appeare by the example not only of such as were neuer taught the maximes of Christian Religion but also of many Christians who though they be able to read yet beeing neuer taught which books were Apocryphall which not know them not by reading Whence it followes likewise that all the insuing discourse which the Bishop makes touching his infallible beleefe of Scripture falls to nothing seeing what he layes as its principall Foundation apparently sinks vnder the weight For a meerly-humane and infallible assurance will neuer support an infallible Fayth of Scripture as euen our Aduersary himselfe grants Nor can he in any better sort make good what he affirm's concerning the Creed and fowre first Generall Councils namely that he beleeues them infallibly in their true incorrupted sense and knowes that he beleeues them so in points necessary to Saluation For seeing he has no infallible certainty that the words or text of the Creed and the acts of the Councils or the books of the ancient Fathers haue not been corrupted how can he haue infallibility in the true sense of them and their conformity to Scripture He pretends indeed to be sure that he beleeues Scripture and the Creed in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitrue Church beleeu'd them because he crosseth not in his beleese any thing deleuered by the Primitiue Church and this againe he is sure of because he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express'd and deliuer'd by the Councils and ancient Fathers of those times But how true this is and how sincerely he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express't by Fathers and Councils may appeare to any that duly considers by the testimonies wee haue already alledg'd against him vpon seuerall occasions out of the Councils and Fathers particularly in this very Chapter and shall yet further alledge in those which follow A. C. asks againe what text of Scripture assures vs that Protestants now liuing doe beleeue all this to witt the Scriptures Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in their incorrupted sense or that all this viz. all that Protestants take to be the true sense of Scripture Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Acts of Councils or writings of the Primitiue Fathers which are now in the Protestants bands and at this his Lordship will needs seeme to wonder But lett them wonder that will The Querie will euer be found both rationall and pertinent notwithstanding such wondering For can any man deny but this is a good consequence Protestants admitt Scripture to be the only infallible rule of Fayth therfore they cannot beleeue infallibly all this aboue mentioned without some particular text or texts of Sripture to be shew'd for it And had not A. C. iust cause to aske whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are now in Protestants hands For seeing it is not in our Bible if it were not likewise in theirs it would be J hope sufficiently euidenc'd to a reasonable Aduersary that it can be found in none But sayth he it is not necessary that this should be shew'd by any particular text because t is made plaine before how wee beleeue Scripture to be Scripture and by diuine and infallible Fayth too and yet wee can shew no particular text for it But how wee pray was this made plaine He told vs indeed that he beleeu'd the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church then by other credible motiues lastly by the light of Scripture it felfe But the two first of these are by his own confession of no infallible authority and the third in effect no more then the Priuate spirit as wee haue often demonstrated to him But admitt the Bishop were sure that the Primitiue Church expounded Scripture in the same sense as Protestants beleeue it yet how will he be able to make good what he adds standing to his own principles this Rule meaning the Scripture as expounded by the Primitiue Church can neuer deceiue mee Did Christ promise infallibility to the Primitiue Church and not to the succeeding Church and if no such infallibility be promised or signifyed in Scripture how can he be certaine they could not erre or deceiue him in their expositions 7. The Bishop tells vs they haue the same Bible with vs but I see not how this can be affirm'd with any truth For Protestants both leaue out many books which wee esteeme part of our Bible and those which they haue with vs are corrupted both in Originalls and Translations Neither doe they admitt and receiue the Bible vpon the same motiue or reason that wee doe Wee admitt it for the infallible authority of the Church propounding it to vs as a diuine booke which infallible authority Protestants deny and by consequence seeing they assign noe other in lieu of it cannot in reason be so infallibly sure of their Bible as wee are of ours Much less could the Bishop iustly say that all is expressed in their Bibles that is in ours vpon this ground only because all Fundamentall points are as proueable without the Apocrypha as with it For who sees not that the same may be affirm'd with exclusion of diuerse other books admitted into the Protestants Canon noe less then ours for example the Epistle of St. Iude the two last Epistles of St. Iohn the Epistle to Philemon the books of Ester Ruth Paralipomena yea perhaps all or very many of the small Prophets it beeing scarce credible the Relatour or any other Protestant should maintaine there were any Fundamentall points of Fayth in their sense to be prou'd out of those books which cannot be prou'd out of any other books or parts of Scripture Soe that if this reason were good an Heretique that reiects vpon the matter one 〈◊〉 or one third part of the old and new Testament shall yet be allow'd to pretend that he has the same Bible with Catholiques and deliuer'd to him by the same hands and that all is expressed in his that is in the Catholique Bible Sure with very much truth and modestie Wee agree with Bellarmin that all matters of Fayth speaking properly are reueal'd only by the word of God Written or vnwritten but wee auerre that they are infallibly declar'd and testify'd to vs to be so reueai'd by the authority of the Church or Generall Councils Nor doth St. Austins text against Maximinus the Arian any way cross or preiudice our 〈◊〉 although it be manifest he speaks there 〈◊〉 by way of condescension and voluntary yeelding to his aduersary and not as forced there to by any necessity of reason St.
Fayth to the Pope and a Councill of Bishops held at Rome whither he had been called vpon occasion of some things layd to his charge by Heretiques and with the acts of the sayd Councill was it registred and preseru'd till in tract of time it came to be publiquely and generally vsed in the Church Now the latin copie reads 〈◊〉 and anciently euer did so lett our Aduersaries shew any thing to the contrary and 't is euident by the Creed it selfe that it was not this Fathers intention to exhorte to good life or to teach how necessary good works were to Iustification or Saluation but only to make a plaine and full Confession of the Catholique Fayth concerning those two chiefe and grand Mysteries of Christian Religion viz. of the B. Trinity and the Incarnation of the sonne of God 3. What the Relatour's reachis is in affirming that 't is one thing not to beleeue the Articles of Fayth in the true sense and an other to force a wrong sense vpon them intimating that this only is to violate the Creed and not the other I must confess I doe not well vnderstand For supposing I beleeue that is giue my assent to the Creed sure I must beleeue or giue my assent to it in some determinate sense or other Jf therfore I beleeue it not in the true sense I must necessarily beleeue it in a false and what is that but to offer violence or put a foreed sense vpon the Creed vnless perhaps he would haue vs thinke the Creed were so composed as to be equally or as fairly capable of a false sense as a true But this is not the first time our Aduersaries acuteness hath carryed him to inconueniences It is therfore a naturall and well-grounden inference and noe straine of A. C. to assume that Protestants haue not Catholique Fayth because they keep it not entire and inuiolate as they ought to doe and as this Father St. Athanasius teaches 'tis necessary to Saluation for all men to keep it which is also further manifest For if they did beleeue any one Article with true diuine Fayth they finding the same formall reason in all viz. diuine Reuelation sufficiently attested and applied by the same meanes to all by the infallible Authority of the Church they would as easily beleeue all as they doe that one or those few Articles which they imagine themselues to beleeue And this our Antagonist will not seeme much to gain say roundly telling A. C. that himselfe and Protestants doe not beleeue any one Article only but all the Articles of the Christian Fayth for the same formall reason in all namely because they are reuealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word and by his Churches ministration But this is only to hide a false meaning vnder false words Wee question not what Protestants may pretend to doe especially concerning those few points which they are pleas'd to account Articles of Christian Fayth to witt Fundamentalls only but what they really doe Now that really they doe not beleeue eyther all the Articles of Christian Fayth or euen those Fundamentall points in any sincere sense for Gods Reuelation as sufficiently applied by the ministration of the Church is manifest from their professing that the Church is fallible and subiect to errour in all points not-Fundamentall and euen in the deliuery of Scripture from whence they pretend to deduce theyr sayd Fundamentalls consequently they can in no true sense beleeue any thing as Catholiques doe for the same formall reason sufficiently applyed To beleeue all in this sort as A. C. requires and as all Catholiques doe were in effect to renounce their Heresie and to admitt as matter of Christian Fayth whatsoeuer the Catholique Church in the name and by the Authority of Christ doth testifie to be such and require them to receiue and beleeue for such which the world sees how vnwilling they are to doe 4. The like arte he vseth in his answer to A. Cs. obiection pag. 70. viz. that Protestants as all Heretiques doe MAKE CHOICE of what they will and what they will not beleeue without relying vpon the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church He answers first that Protestants make no choice because they beleeue all viz. all Articles of Christian Fayth But this is both false and equiuocall False because as was iust now shew'd they beleeue none with true Christian Fayth as Catholiques ought or for the true formall reason of diuine Reuelation rightly applied but only for and by their owne election Equiuocall because 't is certaine he meanes by Articles of Fayth only Fundamentall points in Protestant sense whereas 't is the duty of Catholiques and the thing by which they are most properly distinguish't from Heretiques to beleeue all Articles or points of Christian doctrine whatsoeuer deliuer'd to them by the Authority of the Church in the quality of such truths as she deliuers them Secondly he sayes Protestants with himselfe doe rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and the Whole Catholique Church True soe farre as they please they doe but not so farre as they ought not entirely as A. C. requires And what is this but to make choice as all Heretiques doe Againe why speakes he not plainly If the Bishop mean't really and effectually to cleere himselfe of A. Cs. charge of doing in this case as all other Heretiques doe why does he not say as euery Catholique must and would haue done wee rely vpon the infallible Authority of Gods word and of the Catholique Church therby acknowledging the Authority of the Catholique Church to be an infallible meanes of applyinge Gods word or diuine Reuelation to vs. Whereas to ascribe infallibility only to the word of God and not to the Catholique Church what is it in effect but to doe as all Heretiques doe and tacitly to acknowledge that really and in truth he cannot cleere himselfe of the imputation Lett our aduersaries know it is not the bare relying vpon the whole Catholique Church which may be done in some sort though she be beleeu'd to haue noe more then a meere humane morall and fallible Authority in proposing matters of Fayth but it is the relying vpon the Churches infallible Authority or vpon the Church as an infallible meanes of applying diuine Reuelation which can only make them infallibly sure both of Scripture and its true sense A C. therefore had noe reason to be satisfyed with the Bishops answer but had iust cause to tell him that though Protestants in some things beleeue the same verities which Catholiques doe yet they cannot be sayd to haue the same infallible Fayth which Catholiques haue But the Bishop here takes hold of some words of A. C. which he pretends to be a confession that Protestants are good Catholiques bidding vs marke A.Cs. phrase which was that Protestants in some Articles beleeue the same truth which other good Catholiques doe The Relatour's reason is because the word other cannot be
Churches are made one and doe in effect continue one and the same Catholique Primitiue and Apostolicall Church or Churches which the Apostles first of all founded So that till our aduersaries either disproue this gloss or giue a better wee shall make no scruple to assert that in Tertullians iudgement as well as St. Cyprians Rome or the Roman Church may well be termed the roote and matrix of all other Churches because none remaine in the Catholique Church but by vnity with Rome and the Bishop thereof Nor matters it that Pamelius reckons vp diuerse Churches which he calls Originall and Mother-Churches before the Roman For as to the name Originall and Mother-Churches wee haue giuen the reason of it in the precedent chapter when wee spake of the Church of Hierusalem and for the thing viz. that he reckons Rome in the last place as if therfore the Church of Rome were to be accounted inferiour to those other wee answer his Lordship would neuer haue made this obseruation twice had he first consulted the Master of Ceremonies about it For he certainly would haue resolu'd him that in marshalling dignityes subordinate one to an other as the case was here all the particular Churches mentioned by Pamelius viz. Smyrna Philippi Corinth Ephesus beeing subordinate to Rome the Principall or Souereign is to be ranked in the last place Doth Pamelius or Tertullian himselfe acknowledge the like priuiledges and authority in regard of the whole Church to belong to those other originall and Mother-Churches which they doe to the Roman As for that irreligious Acte of the Emperour Adrian which the Bishop mentions 't is but too much imitated by Protestants For as he sett vp the Image of Jupiter in the very place where Christ suffered and as he profaned Bethlehem with erecting the Temple of Adonis as thinking to destroy Christian Religion by laying wast the place where it was first founded soe doe our Aduersaries plant all their batteries against Rome persuading themselues that if they could beate downe that chiefe fortress of the Catholique Church they should soone destroy our whole Church But as that Heathenish Emperour Adrian did soe doe these enemyes of God and true Religion they labour in vayne For the Church is inuincible the gates of Hell it selfe cannot preuaile against her and as St. Austin long since obserued all Heresies whatsoeuer doe indeed goe out of her beeing cutt off from her as vnprofitable branches from the vine But the Church herselfe always remaines in her ROOTE in own VINE in her own CHARITY viz. by remayning always vnited with the Bishop of Rome Jn the most principall and proper sense then the Roman Church and that only is both the rocke and roote of the Church-Catholique as beeing by institution and appointment of Christ principally and solely ordain'd to supplie the place and performe the office both of rocke and roote to all other Churches whatsoeuer how be it in a less principall and limited sense in reference to particulars only wee doe not deny but some other particular Church or Churches beside the Roman may sometimes be are the style that is be called rocke or roote Thus for example wee confesse St. Austin cited by the Bishop styles the Eastern Churches the roote in regard of the Africans Pars Donati non consider at se praecisant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 RADICE Orientalium Ecclesiarum But the reason is 〈◊〉 't was eyther because the Eastern Churches were a larger and more noble part of the Church vniuersall then the Africans were or because the Africans first receiued the Gospell from them as St. Austin also testifieth in the same place and not that they were such a roote of the whole Catholique Church as Kome was or in all properties pertaining to a roote equall to Rome That 's only the Relatours voluntary supposition and mistaken inference 4. Nor will his speculation hold wherby he distinguishes the essence of the Church from its existence and makes that vnity which is an attribute of ENS to be the roote and matrix of the Church For first in true Philosophy the essence of a thing is not really 〈◊〉 from its existence Secondly because in this sense of his the Church should rather be the roote and matrix of vnity then vnity the roote and matrix of the Church for vnity as an attribute flowes from ENS and not ENS from it as like wise in naturall Philosophy all Properties flow from their subiects and not their subiects from them Thirdly what vnity does our Aduersary here speake of when he tells vs ENS and VNVM beeing and beeing one are conuertible This is Metaphysicall vnity only entitatiue vnity But is that all the vnity the Bishop acknowledges to be necessary in the Church if not why is that only mention'd here and no other Christians when they dispute and teach that the Church is one vnderstand sure a further vnity then this namely a morall vnity an vnity of minde and iudgement touching the verityes of Christian Religion and not only an vnity of nature definition and essence This therfore was 〈◊〉 to equiuocate or mistake 〈◊〉 in the business But wee pass it by as likewise wee doe the remaynder of the paragraph as beeing farc'd only with assertions without proose or with proofs against no Aduersary 5. As St. Cyprian ought to be commended for his exhorting those who crauelled to Rome to acknowledge and maintaine the ROOTE and MATRIX of the Catholique Church soe did the Jesuit well to persuade the lady to doe the same Of whose Counsell by the report of Mr. 〈◊〉 she made thus farre good vse that vpon this and the precedent conferences the rested in iudgement fully satisfy'd of the truth of the Roman Churches Fayth yet vpon frailtie and feare to offend the king she yeelded for a while to goe to Church for which she was 〈◊〉 very sorry The Relatour seems willing enough to haue 〈◊〉 all this if he had know'n how but not beeing able to doe that he contents himselfe to 〈◊〉 it as suspicious and 〈◊〉 as he can 〈◊〉 it were so or no. He 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 that honourable 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 in conscience and iudgement nor 〈◊〉 it were feare or 〈◊〉 or other 〈◊〉 that made hor yeeld to goe to Church nor how sorry she was for it nor who can testifie that sorrow The Bishop knowes none of all these particulars Well it is sufficient that others did and doe know them Howeuer he confidently tells vs the lady would more 〈◊〉 be able to answer to God for her coming to Church then for leauing the Church of England To which when A.C. takes modest exception and only tells him that he neither doth proue nor can proue it to be lawfull for one especinlly so persuaded as the lady was to goe to the Protestant Church the Bishop sharply replies there 's a 〈◊〉 deale of cunning and as much malice in this passage of A. C. But where I pray 〈◊〉 eyther the
cunning or malice of this speech or what does it containe but plaine reall truth and 〈◊〉 A. C. had prou'd through his whole discourse as wee likewise haue 〈◊〉 to doe in this or ours and the lady 〈◊〉 that the Protestant Church was not an Orthodox but 〈◊〉 Church that it protessed a salfe and corrupt Fayth so as a man could not communicate with it without making himselfe guilty of Heresie To 〈◊〉 this and yet goe to Church were euidently to halt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two opinions which in Religion is neuer lawfull 〈◊〉 doe It were to serue God and Baall too though neither of 〈◊〉 well Lastly it were to dissemble in that wherein it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man more then in all other matters to be sincere and vse 〈◊〉 doubling 〈◊〉 to walke with integrity and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 before God and the world For as the Scripture sayth 〈◊〉 2. 12. fearfull 〈◊〉 fearfull hearts and 〈◊〉 hands and to the 〈◊〉 that gods TWOE WAYES one in outward shew and protession and an other in the inward iudgement of conscience Is there now any such cunning or 〈◊〉 to admonish one of 〈◊〉 But the Relatour tells vs he neuer went about to proue that a Roman-Catholique beeing and 〈◊〉 such might against his conscience goe to Church Neither doth A. C. tell him that he euer 〈◊〉 about to proue it but yet in effect he did say it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he affirin'd that life lady beeing so persuaded as the was by Mr. Fishers report and as the Bishop himselfe 〈◊〉 did nor could 〈◊〉 her to haue been might more eastly 〈◊〉 to God for her coming to the English Protestant Church then for her going to the Roman which though he be pleas'd to 〈◊〉 with the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 yet that afters not the case at all to the 〈◊〉 who was otherwise persuaded of those things which he calls superstitions and errours nor doth it 〈◊〉 his assertion to plead as he doth that the Church of England is an 〈◊〉 Church and that he hath prou'd it so For still wee say the lady was otherwise 〈◊〉 she neither did nor could possibly thinke beeing thus persuaded in iudgement that the Church of England was an Orthodox Church or that the Bishop had sufficiently 〈◊〉 it to be such but rather 〈◊〉 the contrary How then is it possible for the Bishop to make good what he 〈◊〉 that though the lady were a Roman-Catholique yet she might more easily answer to God for coming to the Church of England then by 〈◊〉 English Church to communicate with Rome which is as much as to 〈◊〉 that she might more easily answer to God for coming to a Church wherein she verily beleeu'd Heresie and false doctrine was taught then for ioyning her selfe to a Church whose communion she verily beleeu'd was necessary to Saluation and wherein she was firmly persuaded that noe 〈◊〉 doctrine was taught by any publique allowance nor superstition practised for all this is necessarily implyed in beeing a Roman-Catholique Nay is it not manifestly contrary to his own professions here J say the same thing with A. C. viz. that 't is not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to serue and worship God because that were to halt on both sides to serue two masters to dissemble with God and the world and that noe man may outwardly profefs a Religion in conscience know'n to be false 〈◊〉 Scripture for it Rom. 10. 10. For with the heart man beleeueth to righteousness and with the mouth he consesseth to Saluation adding withall that noe man can confess a know'n false Religion to his saluation Whence I argue Jf a Roman-Catholique beeing and continuing such may not against his conscience goe to the Protestant Church if it be not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to ferue and worship God if noe man ought to beleeue Religion after one sort and practice it after an other if it be sinne to dissemble with God and the world in such maine points of Religion as are in controuersie betwixt Catholiqucs and Protestants how could the lady beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique better answer to God for coming to the English Church and leauing the Roman then for continuing to communicate with the Church of Rome what sinne could the Bishop thinke she committed by communicating with the Roman Church if in her heart she were a Roman-Catholique and apprehended nothing as superstitious and vnlawfull that was allowed by that Church but rather pious and godly In this she did nothing contrary to her conscience but in going to the Protestant Church she did that which was cleerly against her conscience and by consequence sinned in doing it Againe admitt there were errours and superstitions in the Roman Church as the Bishop will needs suppose yet how will he proue the lady should be in any sort answerable for them vnless wee suppose also that she held them against her conscience or by holding and practising them opposed the know'n truth which to doe were contrary not only to all Christian charity but euen to the 〈◊〉 own maximes who confesses that none but God and a mans selfe can know how farre he opposes truth in that manner and § 37. num 1. tells A. C. thus you are the happier in your errour that you hold nothing against your conscience especially if you speake not against conscience while you say so But this noe man can know but your selfe For noe man knowes the thoughts of man but the spirit of man that is within him 1. Cor. 2. 11. if now errours in Religion be not sinne so long as the person that holds them opposes not the know'n truth or holds them not against conscience and that by the Bishops own confession also 't was not possible for him to know that the lady by embracing our Fayth and Church did any thing contrary to her conscience or oppos'd any truth she knew vpon what ground could he condemn her of sinne in what she did or say as in effect he doth that she could not so easily answer to God for her doing so as she might for going to his English-Protestant Church wherein euen by his own grounds beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique she did manifestly committ sinne in doing against her conscience which is always sin more or less in dissembling with God and the world in matters of so great moment in halting on both sides and in beleeuing Religion after one sort and practising it after an other 6. As for what concerns Catholique Authours who may possibly affirm it lawfull in some cases and with due limitations for Catholiques to goe to Protestant-Churches there doctrine is necessarily restrained vnto such countries and places in which going to Protestant-Churches is no distinctiue signe of Religion that is where it
well to the verity of doctrine Who teaches otherwise who sayes 't is tyed to place and persons only who denyes but succession of the same and by consequence of true doctrine is requir'd together with succession of persons This Memorandum therfore serues vs only for an occasion to acknowledge with Tertullian that besides the order of Bishops which is personall succession there is requir'd consanguinitas doctrinae conformity of doctrine in those persons to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles 't is requir'd I say that the doctrine which succeeding Pastours teach be allyed in bloud and of Kin to that which Christ and his Apostles taught as the Relatour also vrges in so much as if the doctrine which succeeding Pastours teach be strange that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the succession it selfe will be iudged Alien and strange too what neereness soeuer of persons is pretended All this wee willingly confess with Tertullian in the places cited by the Bishop Irenaeus likewise teacheth that wee are to obey those Presbyters or Bishops who together with the succession of their Bishopriques haue receiued the grace or guift of truth to which wee subscribe and for this reason maintaine that the Greeke Church would want one necessary marke of the true Church though she could shew a continuall visible succession of persons in her Hierarchy because they haue long since erred and doe still continue in errour against the true Fayth by denying the procession of the holy Ghost to be from the Father and the Sonne as it hath been defin'd in Generall Councills As for Protestants 'tis manifest that vpon this account they are excluded from beeing part of the true Church seeing 't is confess 't by Protestants that for neere a thousand yeares before Luther there was noe visible Church that denyed those points of doctrine which Protestants now deny and account damnable errours and superstitions in our Church And J wonder how any rationall man can imagin that in so long a tract of time wherein the pretended errours are sayd to be introduc'd all those Watchmen appointed by God to be vigilant ouer the Church and not to hold their peace should be soe dead a-sleepe as not to take the least notice of them for such and Protestants alone after a a thousand yeares so much awake as not only to obserue them but to breake Communion vpon account thereof 10 Well But wee must now help Doctor Stapleton out of the brieres vpon which sayes the Bishop he hath torn his credit The Relatour himselfe acknowledges this Authour for a great Clarke but will haue 〈◊〉 beleeue that to make good the succession to the Roman Church he is forced to contradict himselfe Why because he first affirms that sound doctrine is iudiuisible or inseparable from true and 〈◊〉 succession and presently after tells vs that a lawfull Pastour may become a Wolfe to witt by teaching Heresie and false doctrine which if it may happen the Bishop concludes sound doctrine and lawfull succession are separated which is contrary to what Stapleton sayd before But our Doctour needs no such help as the Bishop imagins it is but fairly and rightly vnderstanding him and the business is done Doctor Stapleton when he teaches that sound doctrine is inseparable from true and lawfull succession takes succession collectiuely or for the whole succession of lawfull Pastours in any particular age of the Church meaning therby that it can neuer happen that all the lawfull Pastours of the Church in any age should desert sound doctrine or teach Heresie he takes it not distributiuely for any particular Pastour or Pastours of the Church all which generally speaking he knowes very well may erre in their own persons and desert sound doctrine Like as when the Bishop himselfe teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall he meanes only that the whole Church cannot so erre but any particular person or member of the Church may Now what contradiction is there betwixt these two propositions the whole succession of lawfull Pastours cannot be separated from sound doctrine and some particular Pastours that is part of the whole may and become of Pastours wolues truly iust as much as there is betwixt these the whole Church of Christ cannot fall away from the truth but euery particular member of the Church may This worthy Doctour therfore will neuer be forc't as the Relatour thinks and would faine haue it to quit the great note of Church-succession that he may agree with the Fathers but he will inuincibly and vnanswerably maintaine that which both the Fathers and himselfe meane by this great note to witt a legitimate succession a succession of Pastours which hold entire both the vnity and Fayth of the Church this beeing the summe and vpshot of all his doctrine touching this point namely that the true Catholique Church is know'n by this that there is in her a perpetuall succession of lawfully-sent Pastours deliuering and receiuing the doctrine of Christ one from an other continually or in all ages which likewise they are always to be suppos'd to haue done and to doe so long as the Church in no succeeding determinate age notes any change of doctrine or publique introduction of nouelty to hane been made by any of them nor that any such change is found recorded by any of those approued Authours who liued in the respectiue ages of the Church and in their writings left report to posterity of all such publique occurences both concerning Religion and the Church as happened in and about their times Wherfore to accuse the Church of Rome of change in doctrine as the Bishop here and all Protestants doe without alleadging such Authentique proofe what is it but out their own arbitrary presumption and malice to pass an vncharitable and rash censure vpon their mother contrary to all rules of equity truth iustice and Christian pietie Till therfore such proofe of change be alledged from sufficient and creditable Records all prudent and impartiall men will iudge the accusation signifies not much saue only that the Church is vnworthily and shamefully wronged by her Aduersaries which is no new thing This then is the haire if wee may so speake in which the strength of that our English Sampson Doctor Stapleton lyes which none of the Philisthims of Gath or Ekron eyther Prelaticall or Presbyterian Aduersaries whateuer they may talke shall be able to cutt off The promise and power of Christ so defends it that no Aduersarie powers shall euer preuaile against it Matth. 16. 18. J meane the continuall vninterrupted succession of lawfull Pastours teaching the same doctrine of Christ in all ages of the Church without any assignable beginning since the time of the Apostles 11. Those pretended Schim's which the Bishop obiects out of Onuphrius that is to say the contestations which haue sometimes been touching elections to the Papall dignity wherby seuerall persons at the same time
Nor doe wee make the infallibility of the Church to depend vpon the Pope alone as the Relatour perpetually insinuates but vpon the Pope and a Generall Councill together So that if this be granted by our Aduersaries wee shall acquiesce and require no more of them because this only is matter of Fayth 13. But neither the Pope by himselfe alone nor a Generall Councill with him doe euer take vpon them to make new articles of Fayth properly speaking but only expound and declare to vs what was before Yome way reueal'd eyther in Scripture or the vnwritten word Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority that wee are oblig'd vnder paine of eternall damnation neither to deny nor question any doctrine of Fayth by them propos'd to be bclceued by vs. This vnder Christ is the true Foundation of the Catholique Church and Religion Whosoeuer goes about to lay any other and to erect superstructures vpon it will finde in the end that he layd but a sandy Foundation and rais'd a tottering edisice which will one day fall vpon his own head and crush him to his vtter ruine Lett this therfore remaine as a settled conclusion that the Catholique Church is infallible in all her definitions of Fayth and that there is noe other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace which the Bishop will seeme so much to haue laboured for in his lifetime J beseech God to giue all men light to see this truth and grace to assent vnto it to the end that by liuing in the militant Church with vnity of Fayth wee may all come at last to meete in glory in the triumphant Church of Heauen which wee may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Sauiour Jesus-Christ to whome with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glorie world without end AMEN An Alphabetical Table of the most remarkable matters contained in this Book Apostles CHrists promises to his Apostles when extendible to their Successours and when not page 103 The Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible not by Scripture but by their Miracles page 56 57 As necessary for the Church in some cases that the Apostles Successors be guided and settled in all Truth as the Apostles themselves page 103 104 Appeals The Canons of the Council of Sardica expresly allow Appeals to Rome page 194 195 Appeals to Rome out of England anciently practised page 189 From all parts of Christendom in St. Gregories time page 〈◊〉 Councils that restrain them look onely at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing page 194 What the Council of Carthage desir'd of the Pope in the matter of Appeals Ibid. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden to Appeal to Rome page 188 Authority No Authority meerly Humane absolutely Infallible page 123 Nor able sufficiently to warrant the Scriptures Infallibility Ibid. Divine Authority necessary for the Belief of Scriptures Infallibility and what that is page 64 65 69 Authority of the Church sufficient to ground Infallible Assent page 75 78 108 The supream Authority of One over all as necessary now as ever page 207. And will be so to the end of the world Ibid. Authors Either misalledg'd or misinterpreted by our Adversary page 4 7 8 9 10 22 47 80 81 98 113 118 134 135 136 137 138 139 143 175 187 193 201 202 204 210 218 222 240 248 309 310 Baptism INfant-Baptism not evidently exprest in Scripture nor demonstratively prov'd from it page 51 52 53. Acknowledg'd for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin p. 26 53 67 That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Bishops Not meerly the Popes Vicars or Substitutes page 219 224 They govern in their own right and are jure divino Pastours of the Church no less then the Pope Ibid. Yet by the same law of God under the Pope Ibid. In what sense it may be said that all Bishops are equal or of the same merit and degree in the Ecclesiastical Priesthood page 222 The Bishop of Canterbury made Primate of England by the Pope p. 190 Universal Bishop The title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop anciently given to the Popes page 196 But never assum'd or us'd by them Ibid. Us'd by the Patriarchs of Constantinople but never lawfully given them page 196 What the more ancient Patriarchs of that Sea intended by their usurpt title Ibid. The Sea of Constantinople alwayes subiect to that of Rome page 196 197 198 In what manner Gregory the seventh gave the title of Universal Bishop to his Successors page 199 Likewise in what manner Phocas the Emperor might be said to give it Ibid. Catholick THe several Acceptions of the word Catholick page 130 Causally the particular Church of Rome is styl'd the Catholick and why Ibid. No such great Paradox that the Church in general should be styled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome Ibid. In what sense 't is both true and proper to say the Roman-Catholick Church page 132 Certainty No absolute Certainty of any thing reveal'd by God if the Churches Testimony be not Infallible page 29 30 Moral Certainty even at the highest not absolutely Infallible p. 123 Church The Church cannot erre and General Councils cannot erre Synonymous with Catholicks page 19 20 177 The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in it self but more certainly known to us page 21 24 How the Churches Definition may be said to be the Churches Foundation page 35 Nothing matter of Faith in the Churches Decrees but the naked Definitions page 64 What the ground of Church-Definitions in matter of Faith is and must of necessity ever be page 230 Roman Church The Principality of the Roman Church deriv'd from Christ. p. 183 The Roman Churches Tradition esteem'd of old the onely Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine page 202 No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church page 212 No Errours or Abuses in Religion at any time more imputable to the Roman then to the whole Catholick Church of Christ. page 142 The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman p. 190 191 The Roman Churches Defining of Superstructures or Non-Fundamental Points no cause of Schism page 332 The Roman Church rightly styl'd the Root and Matrix of the Catholique page 391 392 393 394 395 Church of Hierusalem Why with some others styled sometimes Mother-Church p. 389 390 and why Pamelius in his list of those Churches might reckon them before the Roman page 397 Contradictions Slipt from our Adversaries pen. page 51 54 70 83 90 99 112 124 146 150 223 249 308 310 Councils General and Oecumenical Councils of how great Authority page 32 The most proper remedy for errours and abuses that concern the whole Church page 165 National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith without consulting the Apostolick Sea page 164 166 167 168 To confirm General Councils no Novelty but the Popes ancient Right page 215 The Churches
pag. 65. But why joyns he a wrangling to an erring Disputer are these think you Synonyma's I esteem his Lordship an erring Disputer yet he had reason to think me uncivil if I should call him a wrangling Disputer If they be not of the same signification why ha's he added in the exposition of St. Augustins words the word wrangling seeing in the sentence here debated there is neither wrangler not any thing like it Oh! I see now it is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Catholique Church when they are ill founded But where findes he any such Disputer in St. Augustins words upon whose Authority he grounds his Position Seeing that most holy and learned Doctor is so far from judging that any one can proceed solidly aud demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholique Church and Occumenicall Councils that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod Universa Ecclesia senti which is held by the whole Church and that they have hearts not onely of stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenicall Council for of that he speaks 3. After this the Bishop makes mention of one who should say That things are Fundamentul in Faith two wayes one in the matter such as are all things in themselves The other in the manner such as are all things which the Church hath defined and declared to be of Faith 'T is not set down who it was that spake thus But whoever he was I am not bound to defend him neither was his speech so proper He might have said some thing like it and have hit the mark viz. That Things are Fundamentall in Faith two wayes one in regard of the material object such as are the prime Articles of our Faith which are expresly to be believed by all The other in regard of the formal object such as are all Things that the Church hath defined to be of Faith because he that denies his assent to any one of these when they are sufficiently proposed does in effect deny his assent to the authority and word of God declared to him by the Church and this being to take away or deny the very formal object of Divine Supernatural Faith by consequence it destroyes the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever Wherefore let any man with the Bishop view as long as he pleases the Morter wherewith this Foundation is laid and if he consider it rightly he will finde it well tempered Our assertion is That all points defined by the Church are Fundamental because according to St. Augustin to dispute against any thing settled by full Authority of the Church and such are all things defined by her is to shake the Foundation Hence the Relator would inferre we intend to maintain that the point there spoken of the remission of original sin in the Baptizing of Infants was defined when St. Augustin wrote this by full sentence of a General Council But I deny that from urging that place of St. Augustin we can be concluded to have any such meaning For by Authority of the Church we mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena Authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima full though not the fullest and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in St. Augustins sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it Wherefore although one grant what Bellarmin sayes That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in an Oecumenical Council but onely by a National yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresie would be justly condemn'd without calling a General Council as one that oppos'd himself against the full Authority of the Church and did shake its foundation But the Bishop sayes Bellarmin was deceived in this business and that the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd in the first Ephesine Council which was Oecumenical I answer first 'c is not credible that Bellarmin who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his concealing the matter had he found it there because it would make nothing against the Catholick Church but rather for it However till the Councils words be brought I desire to be pardoned if I suspend my Assent to what the Bishop sayes Truly I have my self viewed that Council upon this occasion but cannot finde it there I fear therefore his Lordship hath been misinformed But suppose all were there which he pretends yet would it conclude nothing against Bellarmin who onely sayes that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in any General Council and the Bishop to disprove him shewes that some who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresie and Nestorianisme also were condemned in the Ephesine Council But how does this contradict Bellarmin Certain Pelagians were indeed condemned in the Ephesine Council but it was not for Pelagianisme but Nestorianisme that they were condemned Had they been condemned for Pelagianisme his Lordship had hit the mark but now he shoots wide He should have observed that Bellarmin denyed onely the condemnation of the Heresie and not of the persons for holding another Heresie wholly distinct from that of Pelagianisme 4. As for St. Augustins not mentioning the Pope when he speaks in the place before cited of the full Authority of the Church which the Bishop tearms an inexpiable omisson if our Doctrine concerning the Popes Authority were true It is easie to answer there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwayes chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church His Lordships followers might as well quarrel with me because I many times speak of the Authority of the Church without naming the Pope though I do ever both with that great Doctor and all other Catholiques acknowledge and understand the Popes Authority compris'd in that of the Church When my Lord of Canterbury findes in ancient Lawyers and Historians that such and such things were decreed by Act of Parliament without any mention of the King by whose Authority and consent they were decreed would he not think you condemn those Authors also of an inexpiable omission and thence conclude that the King in those dayes had not the prime Authority in Parliament and that whatsoever was said to be decreed by Act of Parliament was not eo ipso understood to be done by Authority of the King 5. We grant what is urged that it is one thing in nature and Religion too to be firme and another to be Fundamental For every thing that is Fundamental is firme but every thing that is firme is not Fundamental Wherefore we distinguisht before in the material
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
this Divine Authority to that company of men or to the Holy Scriptures A. C. there discoursing of one who considers Church-Tradition as 't is deliver'd from a company of men assisted by the Holy Ghost speaks thus He would finde no difficulty in that respect to account the Authority of Church-Tradition to be Infallible and consequently not onely able to be an Introduction but also an Infallible motive or reason or at least a condition EX PARTE OBJECTI to make both it self and the Books of Scripture appear infallibly though obscurely to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith These words in them are clearly referr'd to Books of Scripture not to any company of men and those words sufficient to breed in us divine Faith have relation to the Authority of the Books of Scripture and not to those men For though he put before two Antecedents it self that is Church Tradition and Books of Scripture to both which in them may seem to have relation yet it is one thing to affirm that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine and Infallible Authority and another to affirm that those men so assisted have in them Divine and Infallible Authority as he accuses A. C. to have said For seeing that in Church-Tradition is included Apostolical Tradition in A. C's principles and that even according to our Adversary Apostolical Tradition is of Divine Authority it will be true to assert that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine Authority even though those men delivering it had not in them any absolute Divine but onely Infallible Authority Our Apology for A. C. being ended let us see how his Lordship goes about to prove Scripture to be Gods Word For the better understanding whereof 't is necessary to know what he is to prove He tells us that this his Method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the Ancient Church ever held c. Now his Lordships Method and manner of proving this includes two particulars The first that Church-Tradition is onely a humane moral and fallible inducement able onely to found a moral perswasion that Scripture is the Word of God but insufficient to conveigh infallibly to us the Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures-being Gods word whence he concludes that before the reading of Scripture we cannot in vertue of that Apostolical Tradition thus conveighed to us believe with Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This is the first part of his Position The second is that Scripture by the internal light which is in it founds a Divine Faith that it is the Word of God when we frame a high Moral esteem of it and are induc'd to read it as a thing most likely to be Gods Word by the fallible Testimony of the Church While therefore he here undertakes to prove that his Method and Manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is according to the use of the ancient Church let us have an eye to these two points and see whether his Authorities prove them or no. First then his Authorities must prove that before we read Scripture it self we have not Divine Faith but onely a Moral perswasion by Church-Tradition that it is the Word of God He cites first Vincentius Lirinensis lib. 1. cap. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholique Church The Faith he here speaks of is not any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian and Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it Sound Faith and his Faith Fidem suam the Faith of a Christian nay he sayes the Tradition of the Catholique Church must needs as truly munire fidem confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture does it in a more high and noble manner as being the immediate prime Revelation of God This then proves not his intent but the quite contrary Secondly Henricus à Gandavo sayes expresly Credunt per istam famam they believe by this Relation of Church-Tradition and this is such a Belief that Christ is said to enter their hearts by means of the Church Christus intrat per mulierem id est Ecclesiam But Christ cannot enter into a Soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith onely A Gandavo goes on Plus verbis Christi in Scripturis credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti ergo credit Ecclesiae He believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith A little after à Gandavo sayes Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis secundam subistâ Definitionibus Consuetudinibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Here 's prima secunda fides But yet both of them are properly and truly Faith And to the end all may understand he means no other but Supernatural and Divine Faith as to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church he addes a third manner of giving credit to others Post istas studiosis viris non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae After these two viz. Scriptures and Church-Definitions he sayes we believe also learned men but in a far other degree of assent from that which was given to the Scriptures and to the Church non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae For the credit we give to them obliges not under pain of Infidelity or errour in Faith if we dissent from them but under pain of pertinacious pride in preferring our selves before them Seeing therfore he addes this limitation to the third kinde of belief onely he tacitely grants that if we contradict either Scripture or Church it is sub poenâ perfidiae under pain of Infidelity and not of Proterviousness onely Ergo he accounts the Definitions of the Church sufficient to assure us infallibly of Divine Truths otherwise it would not be Infidelity Errour in Faith or Heresie to contradict them Lastly à Gandavo is cited in these words Quod autem credimus posterioribus c. Here is credimus again and that with a Divine Faith in regard of the Church for he asserts presently that it is clear constat that the writings of the Scripture and other Articles of Faith preach'd by the former Pastours are not changed by their Successours and this does constare ex consensione concordi in 〈◊〉 omnium Succedentium 〈◊〉 ad tempor a nostra by the unanimous consent of all Succeeders even to our present times But sure a thing that is fallible uncertain and questionable cannot be said constare to be clear and unquestionable as he affirms the unanimous consent of succeeding ages to be Now the Bishop minces it in his Translation of the word constat turning it now it appears For a thing may be said to appear either clearly or obscurely He should therefore have rather translated it now it evidently appears had he not intended to make some pretty Turn by his Translation Hence is evinced that every
so resolv'd would his Lordship press us to shew those very terms resolving of Faith c. in the Ancient Fathers it being a School-term not used in their times It seems he would by his false citation of St. Austin in these words Fidei ultima resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. contr Fund cap. 14. where there is no such Text to be found nor any where else I am confident in all St. Austin For us it is sufficient that the Fathers frequently say We believe Scripture for Tradition we would not believe Scripture unless the Authority of the Church moved us that Traditions move to piety no less then Scripture c. But since he urges to have our Resolution of Faith shewed him in those terms in the Fathers we challenge his Defenders to shew any Father who saith that we cannot believe Scripture to be the Word of God infallibly for the Churches authority but must resolve it into the light of Scripture 5. I come now to his Considerations and begin with the first point touching his proving Scripture to be a Principle in Theology that must be pre-suppos'd without proof because in all Sciences there are ever some Principles presupposed I answer first he confounds Theology a Discursive Science with Faith which is an act of the understanding produced by an Impulse of the will for Gods Authority revealing and not deduced by discursive Principles and consequently holds no parallel with any Science whatsoever in this particular Secondly I say I have already answered this matter to the full chap. 7. num 7. and chap. 6. num 5. in the Dialogue to which places I refer the Reader for further satisfaction Must we make that a Prime principle in the Resolution of our Faith which has further principles and clearer quoad nos to move our assent to them He himself acknowledges that Scripture was ascertained for Gods Word to those of the Apostles times by the Authority of Prime Apostolical Tradition how was it then a Principle which cannot ought not to be proved but must be presupposed by all Christians Concerning his second point the difference betwixt Faith and other Sciences we acknowledge For there the thing assented to remains obscure which in Sciences is made clear and all the difficulty is to be certifi'd of the Divine Authority assuring us that Scripture is Gods Word of which we cannot be ascertain'd without sufficient Motives inducing us to give an Infallible Assent to it But no fallible Motives can produce Certainty There must be therefore some Infallible Motive to assure us and seeing he denies the Church to be it and we have prov'd that it cannot be the sole light of Scripture we must have some further light clearer quoad nos then God hath reveal'd to us in Scripture which is plainly contradictory to his Proposition His third point contains no more in summe then what I have said above in my first Answer to his first point of Consideration I shall not therefore quarrel with it As to his fourth point we grant that the Incarnation of our Saviour the Resurrection of the dead and the like Mysteries cannot finally be resolv'd into the sole Testimony of the Church nor did we ever do it but into the Infallible Authority of God as we have often confessed In his fifth point recommended to Consideration there are also divers things which the Relatour himself should have better considered before they fell from his pen. For first he asserts on the one side that Faith was never held a matter of Evidence and that had it been clear in its own light to the Hearers of the Apostles that they were inspir'd in what they preacht and writ they had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge and not by Faith Yet on the other side almost with the same breath avoucheth that it appeared clear to the Prophets and Apostles that what ever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth and that they had clear Revelation What is this in effect supposing the Truth of his first Proposition but to exclude the Prophets and Apostles from the number of the Faithful and make them in that respect like the Blessed in Heaven Comprehensores while they were yet in the way Which is manifestly contrary to their own frequent professions that they walked by Faith not by Sight and that they saw onely per speculum in aenigmate Secondly in point of Miracles he avers that they are not convincing proofs alone and of themselves Sure the Bishop thought no proof convincing but what is actually converting which is a great mistake For true Miracles are in themselves convincing proofs since in themselves they deserve belief whether they actually convert or not and leave the Hearers inexcusable in Gods sight for not believing Otherwise why should our Blessed Saviour have said Had I not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned and again Woe be to thee Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida for had the Miracles done amongst you been wrought in Tyrus and Sidon they had long since done Pennance in sackcloth and ashes Likewise The works which I do in my Fathers name bear witness of me and though you believe not me believe my works Thirdly the Bishops reasons brought in disparagement of Miracles seem as strange as his Doctrine First saith he the Apostles Miracles were no convincing proofs alone of the Truth they attested because forsooth there may be Counterfeit Miracles just as if a man should say Simon Peters Miracles did not convincingly oblige men to believe because 〈◊〉 Magus's did not Secondly they are not convincing proofs because even true Miracles may be marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Is not this a strange Paradox Do not all Divines even Protestants themselves confess that true Miracles are not feasable but by the special and extraordinary power of God That they are Divine Testimonies and that by them God sets as it were his Hand and Seal to the truth of the Doctrine attested by them Say they not 't is Blasphemy to affirm that God bears witnesse to a Lye See the Margin It may well suffice therefore to leave our Adversary to the reproof of his own Party Neither need we take notice of his Scripture-Texts since they cannot without impiety be understood of any other then false and feigned Miracles The sixth Point concerning the light of Scripture hath nothing but what is already answered chap. 7. num 5 6 and 7. Were Scripture by its own light capable of being the Prime Infallible Motive of our Belief that 't is Gods Word though it need not be so evident as the Motives of Knowledge yet at least it must have something in it to make that Infallible Belief not imprudent Which in the Relatours Principles is not found The Flourishes of his seventh Consideration are very handsome but the Dilemma in his Consequence flows
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
instructed his Apostles touching all points absolutely necessary to Salvation especially considering what himself professeth in his Prayer for them to the Father John 17. 8 14. I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me and they have received them c Can those words in any Protestants opinion signifie less then all points absolutely necessary to Salvation His Lordship here stumbles in the plain way endeavouring to impose this absurd Disjunctive upon his Reader viz. that all Truth must either signifie simply All whatsoever matter of Fact as well as Faith or be restrained to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation that is without which no man can in any circumstance be saved the apparent falsity whereof a man half blinde may perceive it being in effect to say that either All men are wise and learned or none but Socrates and Plato To as little purpose is his other limitation viz. that a Councill is then onely Infallible when it suffers it self to be led by the Blessed Spirit by the word of God By this again it seems that in things absolutely necessary to Salvation a General Council is not absolutely Infallible but may possibly refuse to be led by the Spirit and Word of God and consequently fall into Fundamental Errour in which the Bishop is not constant to himself professing the contrary when it makes for his turn But if it may so erre what a sad condition might the whole Church be in since what a General Council teaches is as obligatory to the whole Church as what the Parliament enacts is obligatory to the whole Kingdom His last shift to evade the force of those words leading into All Truth is that the promise of Assistance was neither so absolute nor in such manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles nor directly to a Council at all Who contends it was who makes it a question whether the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost were not more absolutely and directly intended to the Apostles then to the Church or not more absolutely and directly to the Chureh then to General Councils It sufficeth us if it were in any sort truly and really intended to them all and that so it was the very nature of the promise evinceth since otherwise neither the said succeeding Pastours northe Church of their times could infallibly decide any arising Controversies touching the sense of Scriptural Texts which are not onely ambiguous but lyable to damnable Interpretations as the Scripture it self averrs 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expresly deliver'd in Scripture as many are not But note that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever the Bishop sayes not any thing The truth is their clearness is not easily eluded To the second proof which is from Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you 〈◊〉 unto the end of the world the Bishop answers the Fathers are various in their Exposition and Application of this Text. We grant they are various in words but agreeing in sense and that the same in effect we here plead for The Fathers by the Bishops own Confession understood a presence of Aid and Assistance to support the weakness of the Apostles and their Successours against the Difficulties they should finde for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them no part of the Difficulties Christs Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel Sure they are And if this be the Native sense of the words as 't is in the Relatours opinion it follows necessarily that the said Ministers or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promis'd them in this place as effectually inables them to withstand and overcome those Difficulties which in reason cannot be more conveniently effected then by a General Council so assisted Declaring against them But sayes our Adversary few of the Fathers mention Christs presence in Teaching by the Holy Ghost What matters that The reason is because this is but one Special kinde of presence and the Fathers usually in their expositions of Scripture unless some particular occasion carries them to the contrary content themselves to express the general importance of the Sacred Text without descending to particulars And yet some of them as even the Bishop himself observes do expresly interpret this place of Christs presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost But they do not extend it saith he to Infallible Assistance further then the Succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit No more do we We confess the Succeeding Church could not be Infallible should it depart from or teach contrary to the word of the Apostles no more then the Apostles themselves could have been Infallible had they departed from the guidance of the Spirit But as the Infallibility of the Apostles consisted in their constant adhering to and following the guidance of that Holy Spirit in all matters concerning Faith and Religion so is there and the Fathers teach such a presence of Christ with the Succeeding Church as causeth her in all Definitions of Faith constantly to adhere to the word of the Apostles and as need requires infallibly to expound it all which we have sufficiently prov'd and could it otherwise happen Christ would not be alwayes found so present with his Church as to keep her from incurring ruine by erroneous Doctrines which this his promise must at least imply Lastly whereas Maldonat proves that this kinde of presence by Infallible Teaching is rightly gathered from this Text though not expresly signified by it the Bishop by his mis-translation makes him deny it to be the intention of Christ which learned Authour does not onely assert the Truth of this Exposition but brings in proof of it the testimonies of St. Cyril St. Leo and Salvianus To the Third Matth. 16. 18. touching the Rock on which the Church is founded the Bishop sayes first he dares not lay any other Foundation then Christ. We answer all the Apostles are styl'd Foundations of the Church witness St. Paul who was one of them Eph. 2. 20. Christ indeed was and is the Principal Foundation the Chief corner stone in the Churches building as the Apostle there speaks yet Ministerially and by Authority Derived from Christ not onely the Apostles but the Successours of the chief of them St. Peter may be and are in a true sense Foundations of the Church Secondly the Bishop sayes and he does but say it that St. Peter was onely the first in order whereas the Fathers teach and we have sufficiently prov'd that he was not onely the first in order but in Authority Thirdly he tells us that by the Rock is not meant St. Peters person onely but the Faith which he professed and for this saith he the Fathers come in with a very full consent I answer we pretend not to understand by the Rock
himselfe holds that both matter and 〈◊〉 are essentially necessary and that without them the Sacrament were voyd But who sees not how easie it is for the Priest especially in Country-Churches and villages amongst poore ignorant people and in priuate howses too when he is call'd to Christen children ready to dye Jsay how easie it is for the Priest if he will be so wicked to vitiate something pertaining to the Essentialls of Baptisme without beeing perceiu'd which if he does the Baptisme is voyd Secondly as to his pretended inconuenience that then people should not be absolutely and infallibly certaine that they are truly Baptis'd is not Morall assurance or such as is lyable to no iust cause of doubting and suspecting the contrary sufficient or can any man in his witts pretend to more assurance then this touching his Baptisme Such Metaphysicall and rare cases therfore as the Relatour seems to put ought not to trouble sober men much less to fright them out of the true beleese of the Church they only prouing that wee cannot by ordinary course without speciall reuelation haue absolute and infallible certainty of our Justification and Saluation which is no way contrary to Catholique Fayth but most consonant to it As for those wandring Thoughts the Bishop speaks of wee easily grant they doe not nullyfy the Sacrament because they well stand with a virtuall intention which in the generall doctrine of our diuines is sufficient to the essence of the Sacrament Virtuall intention is when the Priest really does operate or celebrate the Sacrament in vertue of an express intention which he had to doe it but now at this or that instant hath not by reason of some distraction of minde or that his thoughts are vpon some other thing which wee may illustrate by an example or two A Seruant vpon command of his Master vndertakes a iourney When he first receiues the command and is bidden to prepare himselfe no doubt but in obedience to his Master he hath an express intention to doe what he is commanded which probably continues till his first setting out and some time after But vpon the roade he meets with frends lights vpon company falls into discourse c. so that he hath no longer that express intention vpon the business he goes about which at first he had but yet he still goes on his way by vertue of his intention to obey his master A labouring man that is hir'd to a dayes-worke whilest he sings or talks to his fellow-labourers hath not any express intention of getting money yet certaine it is he labours all day in vertue of an intention to get money though grown so flacke that he cannot perceiue it So is it in the administration of Sacraments and in all other actions of like nature wee doe not alwayes expresly intend the worke wee doe for that 's morally impossible but wee doe alwayes virtually intend it if euer wee went seriously and deliberately about it vntil wee doe expresly and actually cease or intend the contrary For seeing the hand moues not without some impulse of the will nor the will act at any time without some motiue represented by the vnderstanding 't is cleere in all these cases that the motiue which was first represented to the will and by which the wil was first of all moued doth stil remaine and operate vpon the will though so obscurely and vnperceiuedly by reason of other obiects interuening that it can hardly be discerned to moue vs. Let the Priest therefore be neuer so much distracted in his thoughts and wander at the instant of applying the matter and forme of the Sacrament if he begun the action not with an intention to deride the Church but to doe what is vsuall for Christs Ministers to doe in the like occasions he makes a true Sacrament by virtue of that first intention though he does not cleerly perceiue it Now as for the Neapolitan Bishop wee answer that the most Eminent Sforza Palauicino late of the Societie of IESVS and now Cardinal in his elaborate and learned tomes of the historie of the Council of Trent obserues that the Council in their definition touching the Priests intention in the Sacrament aym'd only at the condemning of that errour of Luther which denyes all vertue to the Sacrament and auerrs it to haue its full effect from the Receiuers Fayth alone so farre as though the whole action were done in mockage and derision of the Church yet it should be to him that receiues it a true Sacrament This doctrine the Council expresly condemn'd as indeed it deseru'd beeing so apparently vnsuitable both to the wisdome of our Sauiour and the Decorum of his Church contrary to the vniuersall apprehension of the Faythfull and repugnant to the nature of all other humane actions But as for Catharinus who is the person the Relatour meanes by the Neapolitan Bishop who as his Lordship sayes disputed so learnedly against the common opinion in the Council of Trent the Cardinal aboue mention'd is cleere of opinion that the Council decreed nothing against him because he deny'd not an intention to be necessary in the Sacrament but only explicated the thing differently from the common way of schole-men into which dispute neither the Council of Florence nor Trent thought it necessary to engage but defin'd in generall terms that in the Minister of the Sacrament an intention was requir'd faciendi quod facit Ecclesia of doing what the Church doth which Catharinus did not deny 2. Thus haue wee I hope sufficiently answer'd the Bishops first Charge of Errour against Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope Before he brings in the second he presents the Reader with such a quaint subtletie against the Popes Right to confirme them and the necessity wee maintaine of their beeing so confirm'd by him that wee cannot well auoid taking notice of it Thus then he argues Noe Councill is confirm'd till it be finished and when 't is finished euen before the Popes confirmation be putt to it eyther it hath erred or it hath not erred 〈◊〉 it hath erred the Pope ought not to confirme it and if he doe 't is a voyd Acte for no power can make Falsehood Truth If it hath not erred then it was true before the Pope confirm'd it so his Confirmation 〈◊〉 nothing but his own assent Thus the Relatour But I answer wee must distinguish in the business A Generall Council makes a definition in matter of Fayth eyther with the ioynt consent of the Pope or without it By defining with the Popes ioynt consent I vnderstand that eyther the Pope be personally present in the Council and concurre with it which happens but seldome or that his Legats doe it following the Popes instruction in eyther of these cases the definition of a Generall Council is vnquestionably infallible By defining without the Popes consent I meane when neither the Pope is present in the Council nor haue the Legats that are present any instruction from
the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS
communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament how is it possible that a man should be moued to this beleefe by the common consent of Catholiques Lutherans and English Protestants seeing only these last agree in this point That which the Relatour adds to this is no less absurd He cites 〈◊〉 a Catholique diuine as teaching that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques as if he had ouercome them with their own arms asking A. C. what he can say to this and seems to admire the force of truth which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie But J answer what matter is it though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation were that sufficient ground to say that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour or noc point of Catholique Fayth because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation very true it is all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church is an article of Fayth which may neither be doubted of nor disputed yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined by an express act A Protestant versed in scripture would thinke it a sinne if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent yet J conceiue he will hardly say that it is Simply necessary to Saluation or that he is bound absolutely Speaking to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation But the truth is Suarez speaks to no such purpose as the Bishop alledges him He confesses indeed that the manner of explicating the change or conuersion that is made in the B. Sacrament which Schoole-men vse is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles but as for the conuersion it selfe or Transubstantiation it is most euident that he holds it for a point of Fayth which to deny were Heresie His words are these in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes Secundò infero etc. Secondly Sayth he J inferre that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as also the absense of bread yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body he falls into Heresie because the Catholique Church hath defined and doth teach not only the two first but also this last what say you to this Protestants you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church was it truth and honestie thinke you that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour They that please to consult the Author himselfe in the place alledged will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it but a farre different thing as wee haue sayd aboue His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent whome he censures forsooth of tediousness and for making as he conceiues an intricate and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion a thing which in the Relatours opinion neither Diuinity nor Philosophy euer heard of till then But let the indifferent reader be Judge Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition and becomes a liuing and animate part of man not because the soule which informs it is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd but because the same soule which was in the body before begins now to be in the new matter so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion the bread is turned into the Body of Christ not as if Christs Body were properly speaking produced vnder the elements for it was preexistent before and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense be sayd to be produced but because it was not there before and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms by vertue of Consecration Lett any man iudge whether this explication be not farre more intelligible then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence First of all he affirms with Bishop Ridley and other Protestants cited by him that the true reall naturall and Substantiall Body of Christ that very Body which was born of the Virgin which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead is truly really and Substantially in the B. Sacrament and yet for all this denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation that is in effect he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament yet neither with the Substance of bread nor without it He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time and yet stiffly denies with all Caluinists that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once Is not this to say in effect that Christs Body really is only in Heauen and no where else and yet to acknowledge that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth But who is able to vnderstand and reconcile these speeches His saying that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth by Grace and the like is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence which in no true sense can be called reall In my opinion Zuinglius Peter Martyr and those of the Sacramentary party deale faric more candidly in this point who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence both name and thing then the Bishop and some other Protestants alledged by him who confess the name but deny the thing 6. The Catholique Authors which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter are grossly eyther misunderstood or misexpounded by him For 't is euident when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane for the most part that which is by desire and deuotion only when for want of opportunity or some 〈◊〉 reason wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament but yet doe vse most of those affections and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God and our B. Sauiour which wee are wont to practise when wee doe really communicate Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament where he is present not like a bodily substance but rather like a spirit that is whole in the whole consecrated host and whole in euery part of it But sure
the force of A. Cs. maxime viz. that 't is safest in order to Saluation to take that way which both parties agree in which imports not any agreement whatsoeuer indefinitely speaking but determinately and specially such an agreement or an agreement so farre betwixt aduerse parties concerning such a point or thing as to acknowledge the beleefe or doing of it doth not destroy Saluation or doth not hinder the parties beeing sau'd that does it Had due notice been taken of this it would haue sau'd him the trouble of bringing this and so many other instances to noe purpose of which more in due place Jn the meane time wee conceiue the disparity betwixt the case and argument of Petilian and A. C. so manifest that it needs no further illustration 10. But here the Relatour growes into choler taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉 vntruth and such as an ingenuous man would not haue spoken for no other reason but for saying there is confessedly noe perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church J answer whateuer the Bishop granted or granted not in express terms to A. C. touching this matter 't is certaine that from what he doth confess it really and necessarily followes that there is no perill of damnation per se loquendo or precisely by liuing and dying in the Roman Church For first as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errours of our Church but cannot discern them those he professedly exempts from perill of damnation if they conforme themselues to a religious life Secondly he grants that such others of the Roman Church as doe euen 〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and liue accordingly are not to be deny'd Saluation Whence I argue If according to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary nor inuoluntary superstition excludes a Papist from possibility of beeing sau'd it is no lowd vntruth nor indeed so much as a mistake to say that in the Roman Church there is confessedly noe perill of damnation in the sense abouesayd that is meerly by liuing and dying in that Communion What he adds after this of some amonge vs who wish the superstitions abolished which they know and pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not and would haue all things amended that are amiss were it in their power if he meanes that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion or that they would haue any thing amended in the Churches publique Authoriz'd doctrine he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion it beeing contrary to Catholique Fayth to beleeue that any such errours or uperstitions can be taught by the Church and he might as well suppose if he had pleas'd that those are Protestants who goe to Church and ioyne with Protestants in exteriour seruice only to saue their estates or for some other temporall ends though they hold the Protestant Tenets contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church for no better then Heresies and would if it were in their power much more willingly heare Mass then common prayer when they goe to Church Neither can he be a Catholique who prayes to God to forgiue his errours in any matter or point defined by the Church for that implies a beleefe or doubt that the Church may haue erred in defining some doctrine of Fayth which according to vs is absolutely inconsistent whith true Fayth no more then wee presume he could haue been thought a Christian or Protestant in the Bishops opinion who should aske God forgiueness for beleeuing some thing deliuered in Canonicall scripture Jn answer to A. Cs. Assertion wherby he preferrs both for number and worth those who deny there is any perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church before those who affirm there is the Bishop that he might more easily confute the passage first of all cunningly diuides it and endeauours to shew that number alone is no sufficient ground of truth Who sayes it is Not A. C. J am sure who as cleerly as he could ioyn'd both together worth to number as a necessary supplement and concluds what he intends ioyntly from them both Now this term worth comprehending not only eminency of power and authority but also of vertue learning zeale prudence sanctity etc. can any man doubt but those who haue the greater number and worth on their side are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth then those who haue incomparably less or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them His long marginall allegations therfore which mention number only serue to no purpose but to amuse And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of vs say that our Fayth rests vpon the number or worth of men as the Bishop will needs insinuate but vpon Gods infallible veracity and authority number and worth of men beeing only motiues of credibility to induce and direct vs prudently to determin to which of the two parties wee are to giue credit when they teach vs contrary doctrines A. C. thought it so euident a thing that those of the Catholique beleefe in the points controuerted betwixt vs and Protestants doe incomparably exceed those of the contrary partie as the Bishop would neuer haue call'd for a proofe of it as indeed it needs none For if wee compare those spread ouer the whole face of Christendome for the last thousand yeares a space of time commonly granted vs by our aduersaries who beleeu'd as wee beleeue and neuer dream't of any perill eyther of schisme Heresie or sinne by liuing and dying in the Roman Church with those few that since yesterday as it were began to dissent from vs and pretend there was perill of schisme c. by liuing and dying in the sayd Church wee shall finde these in worth and number iust nothing in regard of the other So that in truth the Relatour himselfe had he well consider'd it should haue blusht at his own extrauagant obiection you haue not yet prou'd your partie more worthy for life or learning then the Protestants and not bid his aduersary blush for speaking the truth For in this case who sees not that all true Christians who for a thousand yeares together liu'd in the world were and are of our party II. But let vs consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. Cs. maxime that 't is safest to follow that way in Religion in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Saluation His first is taken from the article of our Sauiours descent into hell The Church of Rome sayth he and the Church of England dissenting parties doe agree that our Sauiour descended into hell and that hell is the place of the damned Therfore according to A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue that our Sauiour descended into the place of the damned But this
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
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
eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and resule of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church disfusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church difsusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their desinitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a mans own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or auow that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doc they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt no otherwise then euery true Proposition is or may be sayd to be infallible that is hipothetically and vpon supposition only For surely no true Proposition quâ talis or soe farre as t is suppos'd or know'n to be true though but by some one person can deceiue any man or possibly be false Jn this sense 't is a know'n maxime in Logique Quicquid est quando est necesse est esse Euery thing that is has an hypotheticall necessity and infallibility of beeing since it cannot but be so long as it is And is it not thinke you a worthy prerogatiue of the Church to be thus infallible in her definitions Does not the Bishop assigne a very worthie and fitt meanes to apply diuine Reuelation to vs in order to the eliciting an acte or assent of diuine infallible Fayth Now that this is all he meanes by allowing Generall Councills to be infallible de post-facto is euident from his own words which he giues as the reason of that his concession For soe sayth he all truth is that is infallible in it selfe and is to vs when 't is once know'n to be truth What J say is this but to proclayme to all the world that the decisions of Generall Councills are noe more infallible then any contingent yet true proposition is though deliuer'd by a person neuer so much
giuing to lying 7. Finally J adde that though A. C. speaks of a Councill sett down to deliberate as the Bishop vrges yet when he styles it infallible 't is euident in his principles that eyther he meanes a compleate and full Councill including the supreme Pastour of the Church ioyntly with the rest and voting in Council with the rest of the Prelats in which case his suffrage is a confirmation of their decrees or in case the chiefe Pastour be absent A. C. accounts it not a full and and compleate Councill till his consent be had and annexed to the votes of the other Prelats Soe that the Relatour does but mistake A. Cs. meaning when he talks of a Councill held or supposed by him to be infallible A PARTE ANTE when it first sitts down to deliberate etc. Neither doth A. C. vse any cunning at all in the business but as much plaine dealinge as possible nor had the Bishop the least cause to suspect that the words lawfully-called continued and confirmed were shuffled together by A. C. out of designe to hide his own meaning or shrowde himselfe from his Aduersary For are not the words themselues of most plaine and obuious signification are they not also of absolute necessity to be vs'd by him for the full and cleere expression of his meaning in this point and doth he not so often as occasion requires constantly vse them or the like to that end treating vpon this subiect what ground or euen occasion then could the Relatour haue to obiect cunning and shuffling here And yet by the way wee little doubt but Generall Councils may in a very true sense be styl'd insallible euen a parte ante as the Bishop speaks at their first sitting down and before any thing is so much as voted or deliberated vpon by the Prelats much less confirm'd by the Pope to witt by vertue of Christs promise by which they are sure in due time to be led into truth and preseru'd from errour in the issue and result of their deliberations in the manner aboue-declar'd euen as the whole Catholique Church is sayd by the Bishop to be infallible in Fundamentall points For as Christ hath promised not to suffer the whole Church to erre in points Fundamentall so he hath promised that Generall Councils consisting of the Head and Prelats of the Catholique Church shall not erre in their definitions So that to this infallibility the Churches acceptance is wholy vnnecessary Nay it is certain the whole Church diffusiue is soe farre from confirming in any authoritatiue and proper sense the decrees of such Councils as wee in this case and controuersie style oecumenicall that it selfe the Church diffusiue I meane is absolutely bound to accept and receiue their definitions and cannot without Schisme and sinne refuse to accept them The following Paragraph is wholy spent in palliating obstinacy in priuate opinion against the sense and beleefe of the Church with the title and pretense of Constancy which for the most part is taken in a good sense and held for a vertue but here it cannot be so and deliberately to doubt yea to deny if a man please the doctrine that is defin'd and declar'd by the Church to be matter of Christian Fayth is styl'd a modest proposall of doubts But wee haue already sufficiently discouer'd the fraude and impertinency of these pretenses and likewise largely treated the whole matter of externall obedience which the Relatour here againe brings vpon the stage Wee only desire at present to haue some certain and infallible direction or rule giuen vs to know when the resusall to submitt to a Generall Council is out of pride and presumption of a his own iudgement which the Bishop himselfe condemns and when perhaps from better and more honest motiues Was there euer yet Heretiques so impudent and past shame as to profess or 〈◊〉 that he contradicted the doctrine of the Church or the definitions of Generall Councils meerly out of pride and presumption of his own iudgement Doe they not all pretend euident reason and conuiction of conscience for what they doe What is it then but a masque that may serue all faces and a plea for all delinquency in matter of Religion for the Bishop to talke as he doth of probable grounds modest Proposalls without pride and presumption etc these beeing things that all Heretiques pretend alike to and with equall truth But as for those words of the Bishop that a man may not vpon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and vpon demonstratiue grounds constantly deny euen such definitions viz. the definitions of Generall Councils in matter of Fayth yet submitting himselfe and his grounds to the Church in that or an other Council is that which vntill now was neuer imposed vpon beleeuers etc. I wonder what sense can be made of them First he supposes that a man may haue very probable yea demonstratiue grounds against the definitions of a Generall Council and by vertue thereof be warranted both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny such definitions and yet tells vs he must submitt both himselfe and grounds to the Church in that or an other Council Eyther his grounds are really such as he speaks of viz. 〈◊〉 certaine and demonstratiue or only seemingly such If only seeming such what is it but to giue power to euery Phanatique and presumptuous spirit to oppose Generall Councills and contradict their definitions whensoeuer he fancies to himselfe to haue an cuident text or conuincing argument against them how foolish and fallacious soeuer it be If reall and true demonstrations how can he that knows them submitt himselfe and his grounds to a Generall Councill Can any thing be more absurd and vnreasonable then that a true demonstration and a true iudgement grounded vpon it should yeeld to a fallible Authority such as that of all Generall Councils is suppos'd to be Againe who shall assure vs that the Generall Councill to which he submitts shall not desine the same article or errour which was defin'd before In this case eyther he is bound to beleeue the article de nouo defin'd or he is not If he be not bound to beleeue it why doth the Bishop teach that notwitstanding a man may constantly deny the definitions of a Generall Councill vpon monstratiue grounds yet he is bound to submitt himselfe and his grounds to an other Councill if it be lawfull for him to oppose the second Councills definition as well as the first 's where 's his submission If he be bound to beleeue as the second Council defines 't is euident he is bound to preferre a fallible Authority before a true demonstration and know'n to be such which is not only absurd but also impossible 8. As to that text of St. Austin which the Bishop cites againe in his margent touching the emendation of former Generall Councils by latter wee haue already answer'd the obiection taken from it
certainty nor meanes of infallible certainty less in the Church for the teaehing and beleefe of any points at all euen of the most absolutely and vniuersally necessary In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride who will not 〈◊〉 their private iudgements where with good conscience they may and ought Wee may easily diuine whom he meanes but are sure he could not exempt himselfe and his adherents from the sting of that censure though he endeauours it by saying 't is noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errouts Very good But wee aske what Sect or company of Heretiques in the world vses not this plea Doe not euen the Artans Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselues vrge it as earnestly against Protestants as Protestants doe against vs So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the conuocation of English Prelates and Clergie adherent to them should 〈◊〉 Dictatours in the business of Religion ouer all Christendome beside and determin vncontroulably what is what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous errour I see not what his discourse here signifies But whereas himselfe obiects errour to three Generall Councills at once viz. those of Lateran Constance and Trent yea such errour as in his opinion gaue a greater and more vrgent cause of breaking the vnity of the Church then any pride of men wee shall not for the present taxe him with want of modesly wee only tell his followers 't is as yet only saying without prouing and they cannot but acknowledge that in point of morality 't is oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man barely to deny a crime that is obiected to him but it is neuer sufficient nor euer honest barely to obiect it Beside wee haue much more reason to think that he a priuate Doctour is mistaken in his censure then that those three Generall Councils were deceiued in the matters of Fayth which they defin'd 10. His acknowledgement that it is noe worke for his pen to determin how farre the necessary points of soule-sauing Fayth extend would haue been ingenuous enough had he not made it intricate and meander-like by applying it to different persons but kept it in its absolute nature viz. what is simply necessary for all in which sense he hath treated the point all this time Now sure it the determining this maine and as I may say Cardinall difficulty be not worke for his pen neither was it of any right worke for his pen to draw vpon himselfe and his party a necessity of at least beeing call'd vpon and requir'd to doe it who counsells them contrary vnto and without the example of any Orthodox Christians to restraine the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controuersies of Religion to they know not what or to such points as they neither doe nor euer will be able certainly to know and determin For as 't is that only which brings our vnanswerable demand vpon them so till they haue answer 〈◊〉 and cleerly determin'd what those simply or absolutely necessary points are in which the Church cannot erre wee must proclayme they leaue all Christians that well consider what and vpon what grounds they beleeue vnsatisfy'd vncertaino and doubtfull how farre or in what matters they are oblig'd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue what is declar'd by the Church to be diuine truth and yet withall teach them that they neither can with true infallible Fayth nor ought nor lawfully may belecue her in all she teacheth because in much of it she cyther erres or is subiect to erre and teach them falsehood yea gross and dangerous errour in stead of diuine truth which if it be iust or reasonable in our Aduersaries to doe or tending to any thing else but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the mindes of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader iudge Nor can he to any purpose help himselfe here by what St. Thomas and our Authours teach concerning points precisely necessary necessitate medij For neither will the Bishop stand to that scantling as he calls it that is he will not dare to teach there are no more Fundamentall points in his sense then our Diuines teach there are points necessary necessitate medij nor is the case alike For that doctrine hath place only where inuincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express beleefe whereas here both sufficient proposition and actuall knowledge of all articles defin'd by the Church is supposed so as noe Jgnorance can be pleaded in excuse of the partie that erres and yet they teach that of these articles all equally so farre as concerns the Church defin'd and propounded some may be refused but all the rest must of necessity vnder paine of damnation be beleeu'd with diuine and infallible Fayth neuertheless giuing no certaine rule to know eyther the one or the other Is not this Daedalus-like to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth and there leaue them 11. Jn the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else but dally with his Reader in the equiuocation of words Catholique Roman Church particular vniuersall one holy Mother-Church etc. vpon all which he makes a briefe descant at pleasure But wee answer much is sayd nothing prou'd nor so much as offer'd to be prou'd to any purpose The Church of Rome in the sense that wee maintaine and haue often declar'd is not only one but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that wee maintaine she is holy all her doctrine defined all her Sacraments all her institutes are holy and tend to Holiness In the sense that wee maintaine she is Catholique or vniuersall both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine with continued succession of Pastours There is no Christian Countrie in the world where there are not some that acknowledge the Popes Authority and profess the Roman Fayth Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Fayth which is contrary to what the Catholique Church hath euer taught Lastly wee haue shewed that euen in the Primitiue Church or first siue-hundred yeares after Christ the Faythfull owned subiection to the Roman Church and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine Wee acknowledge the Church of Hierusalem is sometimes by Antiquity styl'd a Mother-Church and the Head of all other Churches But wee say withall 't is meerly a title of honour and dignity giuen her probably for this reason viz. because the first Foundations as it were of Christian Religion were layd there by the preaching and Passion of our Sauiour and because from thencë the first sound and publication of the Gospell was made by the Apostles to all the Churches of the Gentiles It was noe title of Authority and power properly so called as it was in the Roman Church Jf our Aduersaries thinke it was let them shew what Authority or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Church or Bishop of Hierusalem exercised ouer all other Churches eyther before it was