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
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
the Bishop thought this injury not great enough unless he redoubled it by any additional false Imputation of other two absurdities which he avers to follow evidently from our doctrine To the first viz. That we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholique Church as we do to the whole I answer there follows no such thing from any Doctrine of ours but from his Lordships wilfully-mistaken Notion of the Catholique Church which he most desperately extends to all that bear the name of Christians without exception of either Schismatiques or Heretiques that so he might be sure to include himself within her Pale and make the Reader absurdly believe that the Roman Church taken in her full latitude is but a 〈◊〉 or Parcel of the Catholique Church believed in the Creed This indeed to use his Lordships phrase is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in all things For it is to pretend an Addition of Integral parts to a Body already entire in all its Integrals seeing the Roman Church taken in the sense it ought to be as comprising all Christians that are in her Communion is the sole and whole Catholique Church as is evident in Ecclesiastical History which clearly shews throughout all Ages that none condemn'd of Heresie or Schisme by the Roman Church were ever accounted any part of the Catholique Church And this I would have prov'd at large had his Lordship done any more then barely suppos'd the contrary If any man shall object that the Bishop charges the absurdity upon us in respect of the Roman Church that we ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of it as we do to the whole viz. In our General Councils I answer that is so far from being an absurdity that it were absurd to suppose it can be otherwise which the Objecter himself will clearly fee when he considers that the like must needs be granted even in Civil Governments For instance the Parliament of England is but a handful of men compar'd with the whole Nation yet have they greater Authority in order to the making or repealing of Laws then the whole Nation were they met together in a Body Men Women and Children which would produce nothing but an absolute confusion The Application is so easie I leave it to the Objecter himself to make The second accusation which the Bishop layes to our charge is this That in our Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of our Church our proceeding is most unreasonable in regard we will not have recourse to Texts of Scripture exposition of Fathers Propriety of Language Conference of Places c. but argue that the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is true and Catholique because she professeth it to be such which sayes he is to prove Idem per Idem Whereas truly we most willingly embrace and have frequent recourse to all the Bishops mentioned helps and that with much more Candour then Protestants can with any ground of reason pretend to considering their manifold wrestings both of Scripture and Fathers when they either urge them against us or endeavour to evade their clear Testimonies for us Neither are we in any danger of committing a Circle or proving Idem per Idem because his Lordship sees not how we can possibly winde our selves out The business is not so insuperably difficult in our Doctrine For if we be asked how we know the Church to be Infallible our last answer is not as he feigns because she professes her self to be such but we know her to be Infallible by the Motives of Credibility which sufficiently prove her to be such So the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were in their time known to be Infallible Oracles and Teachers of Truth by the like signs and Motives onely this difference there is that these viz. Christ and his Apostles c. confirming their Doctrine gave Infallible Testimony that what they taught was the Immediate Revelation and Word of God whereas the Motives which confirme the Declarations and Authority of the Church do onely shew that she Infallibly delivers to us the same Revelations I mean the same for sense and substance of Doctrine which the other received immediately from God And that to rest in this manner upon the Authority of the present Church in the Resolution of our Faith is not to prove Idem per Idem as the Bishop falsly imputes to us I clearly shew by two several Instances which even those of his party must of necessity allow 5. The first Instance is of the Church in time of the Apostles For who sees not that a Sectary might in those dayes have argued against the Apostolical Church by the very same Method his Lordship here uses against the present Catholique Church might he not have taxed those Christians of unreasonable proceeding in their belief and have set it forth as the Bishop does thus For if you ask them why they believe the whole Doctrine of the Apostles to be the sole True Catholique Faith their answer is because it is agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ. If you ask them how they know it to be so they will produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught it But if you ask a third time by what means they are assured that those Testimonies do indeed make for them and their cause or are really the Testimonies and Doctrine of Christ they will not then have recourse to those Testimonies or doctrine but their final answer is they know it to be so because the present Apostolique Church doth witness it And so by consequence prove Idem per Idem Thus the Sectary By which it is clear that the Bishops objection against the present Roman Church wherein he would seem to make a discovery of her Corruptions and Politique Interests is equally applyable to the Primitive Apostolique Church in its undeniable purity But at once to answer both the Bishops and Sectaries objection I affirm that the prime and precise reason to be given why we believe the voice of the present Church witnessing or giving Assurance of Divine Revelation to us is neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers no nor the Oral Doctrine of Christ himself but the pregnant and convincing Motives of Credibility which moved both the Primitive Christians and us in our respective times to believe the Church Not that we are necessitated to resolve our Faith into the Motives as its Formal Object or ultimate Reason of Assent for that can be no other then the Divine Authority Revealing but as into most certain Inducements powerfully and prudently inclining our will to accept the present Church as the Infallible Organ ordained by Divine Authority to teach us the sure way of salvation The second Instance is ad hominem against the Bishop in relation to those Fundamental Truths wherein he confesses the whole Church neither doth nor can erre For suppose a Separatist should thus argue with his Lordship your Doctrine concerning the Infallibility
one of his Authorities brought to prove that Church-Tradition founds onely a probable humane perswasion that Scripture is Gods Word rather evince the quite contrary The second point to be concluded is that Scripture thus led in by the Church proves it self Infallibly and Divinely by its internall light to such as had no supernatural Faith precedently This he labours to evince from some expressions of the Fathers who use sometimes the like proofs to shew that Scripture is the Word of God But first do they alwayes bring these proofs to such as had no Divine Faith before of Scriptures-being Gods Word Do they not use them both for themselves and others who precedently had a Divine Faith of that point Secondly do the Fathers say that those proofs of theirs are the Primary Infallible and Divine proofs of Scriptures-being the word of God 〈◊〉 do they not rather use them as Secondary arguments perswasive onely to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word precedently to them Thirdly do they use onely such proofs as are wholly internal to Scripture it self All these conditions must be made good to make a full proof for his purpose out of them Now touching the two first conditions 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point not used they them as such And for the third condition viz. of the proofs being internal to Scripture they are not all such For first that of Miracles is externall The Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the word of God Secondly the Conversion of so many people and Nations by the doctrine contain'd in Scripture is also external to Scripture unless haply it came by reading the Scripture and not by the declaration and preaching of the Church which he proves not and the contrary is rather manifest Again many other Books beside Scripture contain the same doctrine yet are not thereby prov'd to be Gods Word Were not many thousands converted to that humble doctrine of Christ before divers of the Canonical Books were written Nay many whole Nations as St. Irenaeus already alledged witnesses some hundreds of years after the said Books were written who knew nothing at all of Scripture But suppose these four proofs mentioned by the Bishop viz. first Miracles secondly Doctrine nothing carnal thirdly performance of it Fourthly The Conversion almost of the whole world by this Doctrine had been all of them internal to Scripture yet how prove they Infallibly and Divinely that Scripture is the Word of God Perswade truly they may but convince they cannot Touching the first how will it appear that Miracles were ever wrought in immediate proof of the whole Bible as it is receiv'd in the Canon As for the second how many Books are there beside Scripture which have nothing of Carnal Doctrine at all in them Concerning the third and fourth how can it ever be prov'd that either the performance of this Doctrine or the Conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be deny'd but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applyable to the Church then to Scripture For first Miracles have most copiously and familiarly confirmed the Authority and lawful Mission of the Pastours Secondly the Doctrine of Gods true Church hath nothing of Carnal in it The Performance or verifying of this Doctrine is onely found in the Members of the Church Lastly it is the Church that hath preach'd this humble Doctrine of Christ and that hath converted and still doth convert Nations to the belief of it and submission to it Who sees not by this that while he disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it CHAP. 9. An End of the Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. St. Austins words explicated 2. The Bishop cannot avoid the Circle without mis-stating the Question 3. He waves the difficulty 4. St. Cyril and St. Austins words examined 5. The Bishops eight Points of Consideration weighed and found too light 6. According to his Principles no man can lawfully say his Creed till he have learnt the Articles thereof out of Scripture 7. His Synthetical way one of the darkest passages in his Labyrinth 8. Scripture when and by whom to be supposed for Gods Word 9. His Lordship argues a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 10. Brings non-cognita for praecognita and proves what he affirms ought not to be proved 11. The Jews Resolved their Faith into Tradition as the Church of Rome now doth 12. Moral Certainty not absolutely Infallible 1. 'T is now high time to put a Period to this Controversie touching the Churches Infallibility and Resolution of Faith which I should have done long since had not our Antagonist led us so long and so intricate a Dance through the redoubled Meanders of his Labyrinth St. Austins proving Scripture by an internal Argument lib. 13. cap. 5. contr Faust. makes little for the Bishops purpose unless St. Austin either affirm that Argument to be such as Faith may fully rest upon as its primary formal Motive and Object for proof of Scripture or that he himself prove it to be so For St. Austin often urges Arguments which are onely Secondary and probable yea sometimes purely conjectural in this kinde See an example of this in the margin What the Bishop quotes out of Thomas Waldensis Doct. Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Art 2. cap. 23. num 9. that if the Church should speak anything contrary to Scripture he would not believe her is most true but it is likewise as true what St. Austin said above contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. that if the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither The truth is both the one and the other that is both Waldensis and St. Austins expressions proceed ex suppositione impossibili and are wholly like that of St. Paul Gal. 1. If an Angel from heaven preach any thing otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed 2. But for all these Turns and Windings it will be hard to free the Bishop from a vicious Circle For if he allow not Scripture to be believ'd with Divine Faith by vertue of the Churches Testimony and Tradition what answer can be made to this Question Why believe you infallibly that Scripture is Gods Word If he say for the Tradition of the Church it will not serve seeing he is suppos'd to have no Divine Faith that
to erre in this sort is certainly to commit high and mortal offence against the honour and veracity of God and consequently the direct way to eternal perdition yea whatever Congregation of Christians teaches in this manner if it be done through malice they are Seducers if through ignorance they are seduced and blinde Guides and so lead the blinde into the same destruction with themselves to neither of which inconveniences can the whole Church be lyable if there be Truth in the Promises of Christ. The example then of a man who may be tearm'd a man though he be not honest comes not home to our case Had the Bishop in lieu of the word Man put Saint which essentially includes both Man and Holiness the Parallel would have held better For the word Church in our present debate implies not a simple or uncompounded term as that of man but is a compound of Substance and Accidents together which Accidents signifie Perfection and Integrity of Condition and exclude the contrary Defects viz. Heresie Schisme and Errour in Faith Wherefore if the Church of Rome be as the Relatour feigns it so corrupt as to misuse the Sacraments of Christ and to make Scripture an imperfect Rule of Faith when Christ had made it a perfect one it would be unchurched This a man may learn even out of the Apostles Creed by which he professes to believe the Holy Catholique Church Moreover St. Athanasius in his Creed teaches that unless a man keep the whole Catholique Faith entire and inviolate he shall without all doubt perish It s undeniable then no Salvation is to be had where such false doctrine is taught and by consequence no true Church Again the Church is the Spouse of Christ and a pure Virgin who loses her Honour by prostituting her self to errour much more by forcing all under pain of damnation to believe those very errours for Gods word To say then that a Congregation so grosly erroneous and seducing is a true Church is in effect to say that Christ hath a Harlot to his Spouse 4. There is yet much skirmishing about the form of words in which the Lady asked the question A. C. averres he is certain that she desired to know of the Bishop whether he would grant the Romane Church to be a right Church because he had particularly spoken with her before and wisht her to insist upon that point whereupon his Lordship makes a special reflection with what cunning Adversaries the Clergy of England hath to deal who prepare their Disciples and instruct them before hand upon what points to insist But this was no cunning but necessary Prudence and Charity to wish the Lady to require satisfaction in those points wherein she had the greatest difficulty and which it most imported her to understand Certainly had any of the Roman Church addressed themselves to the Bishop for satisfaction in matters of Religion he would never for fear of being accounted a cunning Disputant have scrupl'd to instruct them to make the strongest objections he could against the Roman Tenets But the Bishop goes on and acquaints the Reader with a perfect Jesuitisme if you believe him viz. which measures the Catholique Church by that which is in the City or Diocess of Rome and not Rome by the Catholique as it was in the Primitive times But this is no Jesuitisme but rather a Soloecisme against Truth and a falsifying of the Text. For I finde not those words in A. C. which are cited viz. The Lady would know not whether that were the Catholique Church to which Rome agreed but whether that were not the Holy Catholique Church which agreed with Rome No such Quere as this was propounded by the Lady as appears in the former words of A. C. It was all one to her whether Rome must alwayes agree with the Catholick Church or the Catholick Church alwayes agree with Rome Such Punctilio's as these the Lady never dreamt of nor were they so much as hinted at by A. C. It was enough for the Ladies satisfaction to know whether Rome and all particular Churches agreeing with her in Doctrine and Communion or Constantinople if you please and those which communicate with her or the English-Protestant Church and they who consent with it be the Catholique Church Thus that the Jesuits may be thought to have singularities and novelties in their doctrine finding none of their own he has endeavour'd to coin one for them which he esteems a strange Paradox though indeed it be none For put case A. C. had affirm'd that the Church is styled Catholick by agreeing with Rome yet had it been no Jesuitism but a received and known Truth in the Ancient Church 5. For the better understanding of this we are to note the word Catholick may be used in three different acceptions viz. either formally causally or by way of participation Formally the Universal Church that is the Society of all true particular Churches united together in one Body in one Communion and under one Head is called Catholick Causally the Church of Rome is stiled Catholick because it hath an influence and force to cause Universality in the whole Body of the Catholique Church to which Universality two things are necessary One is Multitude which serves as an Analogical Matter whereof it consists for where there is no Multitude there can be no Universality The other is in place of Form viz. Unity For Multitude without Unity will never make Universality Take away sayes St. Austin Unity from Multitude and it is TURBA a Rout but joyn to it Unity an it becomes POPULUS a Community The Roman Church therefore which as a Centre of Ecclesiastical Communion infuses this Unity which is the Form of Universality into the Catholick Church and thereby causes in her Universality may be called Catholick causally though she be but a particular Church So he that commands in chief over an whole Army and makes an unity in that Military Body is stiled General though he be but a particular person Thirdly every particular Orthodox Church is termed Catholick participativè by way of participation because they agree in and participate of the Doctrine and Communion of the Catholique Church In this sense the Church of Smyrna addresses her Epistle thus To the Catholick Church of Philomilion and to all the Catholique Churches which are spread through the whole world Thus we see both how properly the Roman Church is called Catholick and how the Catholick Church it self takes causally the denomination of Universal or Catholick from the Romane considered as the chief particular Church infusing Unity to all the rest as having dependance of her and relation to her Nay it was an ordinary practice in Primitive times to account those Catholicks who agreed with the Sea Apostolick and this is manifest by many examples St. 〈◊〉 relates that his brother Satyrus going on shore in a certain City of Sardinia where he desired to be baptized demanded of the Bishop of
take due notice of them and weed them up 't is a thing we confess and the Bishop gains nothing by it No more doth he gain by alledging Cassander whose credit among Catholiques is so little that his testimony would be of no great weight were it positive and home to the purpose whereas 't is manifest he speaks doubtfully and dares not absolutely averre the Bishops had taught any Superstitions all he ventures to say is that through their covetousness he was afraid such Superstitions were continued and even this he ascribes rather to particular and inferiour Bishops then to the Pope 3. 'T is true there have been Schismes at Rome as it happened in the time of St. Cyprian when Novatus leaving Africk went to Rome and there raisd troubles Yea after him Novatianus proceeded so far as to cause himself to be made Antipope against Cornelius and had many followers by which means a Schisme sprung up but still a great part stuck to Cornelius the true Pope Wherefore even during the Schisme as well as before the Roman Church rightly and truly so called continued the Catholique and as incorrupt as ever And why because they that left the Communion of the true Pope and made the Schisme corrupted themselves but not the Roman and Catholique Church which adhered to him and were for the time of their separation of no Church at all but of the Synagogue of Satan Whence it appears that St. Cyprian could not imploy Caldonius and Fortunatus to bring the Roman Church to the Communion of the Catholique as the Bishop pretends but onely to reclaim the Schismatiques and bring those divided Members which followed Novatian to their due Obedience to Cornelius their lawful Bishop and thereby to the unity and communion of the Roman Catholique Church Still therefore the Roman or Catholique Church remained free and exempt from errour either of Schisme or Heresie and so shall ever continue maugre the malice of Hell and whatever vain objections to the contrary 4. A. C. further charges the Relatour to have confes'd that Protestants had made a Rent and Division from the Roman or Catholique Church here the Bishop is not a little nettled and flatly denies that ever he affirm'd or thought that Protestants made it For my part I think it an unprofitable dispute to question much what was said it more concerns us to see what could or can be said in this point Our Assertion is That Protestants made this Rent or Schisme by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholique Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a Separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawfull and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully empower'd to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently receiv'd throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective Seas Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living These and the like practices not the calling for truth and redress of abuses as the Bishop vainly pretends we averre to have been the True and Real Causes of Protestants-being thrust out of the Church For as Almighty God leaves no man who leaves not him first so neither doth the Church separate her self from any man or thrust him from her Communion who doth not first depart and separate himself from her by obstinate adhering to novel opinions contrary to the true Faith or by his wicked and enormous demeanour contrary to true Charity or by both together The Orthodox therefore did very well in departing from the Arrians as the Relatour notes in the Margin because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine and we are so far from denying that the sin of Schisme is theirs who depart first that we charge it upon our Adversaries for as the Arrians then departed first from the Church not the Church from them so did the Protestants now of late and the Faithful did well in both cases to avoid all Communion in matters of Religion both with the one and the other Nor does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying the cause of Schisme was ours and that we Catholiques thrust Protestants from us because they called for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schisme this has been granted already even by Protestants and to his calling for Truth c. I answer what Heretiques ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for Truth and redress of Abuses But he should have reflected that the Church of God is styled a City of Truth by the Prophet and a Pillar and Foundation of Truth by the Apostle and by the Fathers a rich Depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines or 〈◊〉 so that to charge her either with the want of Truth or opposition to the preaching of it and upon that ground to forsake her Communion as Protestants did is an inexcusable impiety and presumption That Woe therefore of Scandal mentioned by the Bishop whether Active or Passive falls most heavily upon his own party who first took effence without just Cause and afterwards gave just cause of offence by departing from the Church and making a Schisme A thing so clear and undeniable that to use the Relatours own expression our Adversaries may better defend their cause before a Judge and a Jury then before an Assembly of learned Divines After this the Bishop quarrels with A. C. for vindicating the Jesuit But what 's the subject of their quarrel The Jesuit averr'd the Bishop to have said That Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church The Bishop denies he said any such thing A. C. proves he said it either 〈◊〉 or aequipollentibus verbis because the Jesuit writ down his words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the passage Hereupon the Bishop falls into exclamations and admirations as if A. C. stood upon the brink of a Contradiction But I answer there is not here the least shew of a contradiction For though his Lordships words were very few though writ down by the Jesuit in fresh memory and upon special notice taken yet might the Jesuit well enough be said to quote them either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis For timorous and tender Consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a
findes no difficulty to do Thirdly his Lordship excepts against the Application of the places brought by A. C. out of St. Bernard and St. Austin But we answer his Exceptions do not weaken the force of the said places For first concerning that of St. Bernard let us suppose as the Relatour contends that St. Bernard by those words Quae major superbia c. What greater pride can there be then for one man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation as if he alone had the Spirit of God mean't onely that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching yet is his saying not unaptly apply'd by A. C. to our present purpose by an Argument à minore ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who preferre their private fanatick opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholique Church This certainly Protestants did by their Solemne Protestation and obstinate maintaining their private opinions What the Relatour addes That it is one thing for a private man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation and another thing for an intelligent man in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholique Church is of no advantage to him For first though we should grant his Lordship that Martin Luther Ulrick 〈◊〉 John Calvin Theodore Beza John Knox and the rest of that crew were to be accounted Intelligent Persons yet will he or can he say they propos'd their Doubts modestly to the Church surely not and whoever sayes so will easily be convinc'd of ignorance in their opinions or practices But put case a more modest propounding of Doubts had been used as the Bishop seems to wish yet unless the Doubts were in points undecided by the Church the modest proposall of them could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their Doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholique Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful Heretical and damnable His exceptions against A. C's interpretation of St. Austin are no less weak The Holy Doctor affirms that it is a most insolent madness for a man to dispute whether that ought to be to be done which is usually held and done by the whole Church The Bishop first excepts that there is not a word of the Roman Church but onely of the Catholique yet having often shew'n that the Roman Church and the Catholique are all one and seeing A. C. adds to Roman Faith the practice of the Church this Authority remains still entire against him Next he sayes A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith whereas 't is spoken of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church But first I answer A. C. applies the place both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church of which practice the place is most properly understood even in that sense which the Bishop himself gives to the words Secondly if it were madness to dispute against the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church much greater would it be to dispute against any point of Faith held by the Church so that the Application of the place is still good by the Rule à minore ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God The reason may be because there is alwayes some point or matter of faith involv'd in every universally-practis'd Rite and Ceremony of the Church Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholique Church teacheth is by St. Austin tearm'd a most insolent madness We deny not but a right-sober man modestly proceeding may in some case dispute a point with the Roman either Church or Prelate as Irenaeus did with Pope Victor in the Controversie which arose toward the end of the second Century provided it be done with Submission and profession of Due Obedience to that Church and Prelate which can never be unless the dispute be about matters as yet undecided by the Church 6. Touching A. C's illation I answer since it is certain the whole Catholique or Roman Church in the sense often explicated cannot erre A. C. doth well inferre that there can be no just cause to make a divorce or Schism from it The Relatour grants that the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolute fundamental Doctrine and blames Bellarmin for needlesly busying himself to prove that the visible Church can never fall into Heresie But I answer Bellarmins labour was not needless since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errours save onely in Fundamentals as they call them whereas Bellarmin proves it equally of all Fundamentals or not-Fundamentals Moreover Bellarmin well observes that Protestants generally grant this onely to the Invisible Church whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible and though the Bishop in the Margent endeavours to shew they hold the same also of the Visible Church yet this onely proves that Protestants contradict one another which we deny not and Bellarmin likewise observes it elsewhere yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop when he saith the Church cannot erre addes this restriction if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture So that if she do it seems according to him she may erre But I must confess I have often desired and do yet much long to know which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all mens salvation according to the opinion of Protestants I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down Our Tenet is that the Catholique Church is Infallible in all points of Faith and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholique Church cannot be denied under pain of damnation and consequently is Fundamental to us and to all true Christians So that these following words of the Bishop viz. That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule are injurious to the Church and inconsistent with that Prerogative of Holiness which as he himself in this very place confesses alwayes accompanies the true Church 7. This Holiness consists chiefly in the verity of Faith So the Relatour himself professes in these words The Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners c. Insomuch that if the Church failed in the verity of Faith she could be no longer Holy nay it would follow that the Gates of Hell had prevailed much against her contrary to the promse of Christ. I assert therefore that the present Church is no more liable to errour through curiosity or weakness then was the Primitive nor the Vicar of Christ with a General Council more subject to erre upon that account then were the Apostles of Christ. In the following words the Relatour to
but this viz. that its Decrees are universally receiv'd as obligatory by all particular Churches or the whole Church Diffusive Neither is this Confirmation so simply and absolutely necessary but that the Decrees of a General Council lawfully assembled and duly confirm'd by the Pope are obligatory without it and antecedently to it But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop cites him for viz. to prove that 't is the consent of the whole Church Diffusive that confirms the Decrees of General Councils and not the Popes Authority His words are these Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ quid in hâc re sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset visum est ei c. where 't is evident the Father speaking of St. Cyprians errour the whole drift of his speech is to tell us it was the more excusable in him because he defended it onely before the consent of the whole Church had by the sentence of a General Council established what was to be held in that point Is this to say that the Decrees of a General Council are to be confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it and not otherwise as the Bishop will needs perswade us Surely no. To conclude therefore we think the Bishop could not well have more effectually justifi'd our assertion concerning the Authority both of the Church and a General Council then by citing this Text of St. Austin Since it clearly signifies that the Church doth settle and determin matters of Controversie by the sentence of a General Council in which the whole Churches consent is both virtually included and effectually declared 8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his angry exceptions against him for interposing as he tells us new matter quite out of the Conference But how can it be called new matter as not pertinent to the question debated in the Conference if A. C. urg'd and prov'd by what reasons he could the necessity of the Popes Authority for ending Controversies in Faith that being the point his Adversary most especially deny'd A. C. desires to know what 's to be done for reuniting the Church in case of Heresies and Divisions when a general Council cannot be held by reason of manifold impediments or being call'd will not be of one minde Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this case provided no Rule no Judge Infallible to determine Controversies and procure unity and certainty of Belief Yes sayes the Bishop He hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture But this Answer A. C. foreseeing prevented by his following words had the Relatour pleas'd to set them down which shew the inconvenience of admitting that Rule as Protestants admit it since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain What sayes the Bishop to that First he cunningly dissembles the objection takes no notice of A. C. s discourse to that purpose and yet finding it necessary to apply some salve to the sore he addes in the second place as it were by way of Tacit prevention In necessaries to Salvation the Scripture by the manifest places of it which admit no dispute nor need any external Judge to interpret them is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief amongst Christians and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermin'd they be But surely here the Bishop went too farre and lost himself in his own Labyrinth For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands onely such as are of absolute necessity to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians necessitate medii as Divines speak though we should grant they were so clear in Scripture as not to fall under dispute among Christians yet to affirm as he does that there ought to be no contention to a separation about any other points is to condemn the perpetual practice of the Catholique Church which hath ever oblig'd her Children under pain of Anathema to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretiques as namely from the Montanists the Quarto-Decimani the Rebaptizers Monothelites Pelagians Semi-Pelagians Vigilantians Iconoclasts and the like who held all those foresaid necessary matters and err'd onely in such as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians whatsoever But if by necessaries to salvation he mean any of those which Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti he should have assign'd them in particular for till that be done such General Answers as the Bishop here gives signifie nothing either to the just satisfaction of us or security of their own proceedings since they cannot possibly know in what points they ought to hold contention to a separation and in what not Moreover we having already prov'd at large Chap. 2. and in other places that 't is necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church whether clearly contain'd in Scripture or not it follows there must be some other Infallible Rule beside Scripture whereon to ground our Faith of such Things as are not clearly deliver'd in Scripture The Holy Scripture alone is not qualifi'd for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is For though it may be granted to be certain and Infallible in it self yet is it not so in order to us nor so much as known to us for Gods Word without the Authority of the Church assuring us of that truth and he is very much mistaken when he supposes the Ancient Church had no other Additional Infallible Rule viz. Tradition by which to direct their Councels Nor is there any thing alledgeable out of Bellarmin contrary to this sense if his words be candidly interpreted Tertullian indeed calls Scripture the principal rule and we if we have not sufficiently acknowledg'd it already upon sundry occasions will now say so too it is the principal not the onely Rule He adores the fulness of Scripture so do we as to that particular point about which he then disputed We confess the Scriptures do most fully prove against Hermogenes the Heretique that the world or matter whereof this world consists was not eternal but created by God in time Again 't is no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fulness of Seripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition which in other parts of his works he maintains more expresly then many other of the Fathers What 's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus but to shew that Heretiques cannot be confuted by Scripture alone without Tradition Now we say both with him St. Hierome and St. Basil that to superinduce any thing contrary to what is written is a manifest errour in Faith and that it hath a woe annexed to it but to superinduce what is no way dissonant but rather consonant and agreeable to Scripture hath no such curse
may say that Christ hath made two promises to his Church the one to assist her souereign Head and Pastour so as that he shall neuer define any thing to be beleeu'd by all the Faythfull but what is diuine truth The other so to assist Generall Councils or the Representatiues of the Church that they shall neuer erre in the doctrine they determin Now those that affirme the Pope alone or without a Generall Council to be infallible as well as Generall Councils hold these two promises to haue been made by our sauiour and that when the Pope defines in Generall Councils his infallibility proceeds from the latter promise by vertue of which the definitions of Councils confirm'd by the Pope would be infallible although the other promise had not been made as the Council at Hierusalem would haue been infallible by vertue of the infallible Assistance which was promised to euery Representatiue of Christs Church though each Apostle had not been endowed with that prerogatiue The Bishop wonders that they which affirme the Pope cannot erre doe not affirm likewise that he cannot sinne But why does he not wonder too that Christ should giue infallibility in teaching to St. Peter as the Relatour cannot denie but he did and yet not preserue him from those defects for which St. Paul sayth 〈◊〉 was truly reprebensible Could not his Lordship obserue that infallibility in the Head of the Church would be an effectuall meanes to settle Religion confirme the Faythfull suppress Heresies preuent differences in matter of Fayth c. seeing none would oppose the doctrine of the Pope if they held him infallible whereas no such good would accrue to the Church in point of sanctity though the Pope were impeccable and held so to be by all Christians For seeing that Prerogatiue in Christ whome they hold to be their iudge and to haue power to condemne them to euerlasting flames cannot keep them in their duty much less would the Popes impeccability doe it though they did all generally beleeue it Lastly as the infallibility of the Pope is in so many respects profitable for the Church more then his immunity from sin would be so the Assertours of it doe alledge many probable and pregnant arguments from scripture and Ecclesiasticall Writers to proue it but for his impeccability none can be alledged 8. What can be inferred from Pope Liberius his demanding the iudgement of St. Athanasius I cannot see vnless the Relatour had first shew'n that the Pope did this after he had pass'd a definition ex 〈◊〉 in the matter But in his allegation of S. Ambrose he mistaks worst of all The Bishops intent is to shew that the Popes definitions in matters of Fayth are fallible and subiect to errour why because St. Ambrose lib. 1. epist. 83. 〈◊〉 that many did aske his opinion touching the obseruation of Easter post 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae definitionem Episcopi quoque Romanae Ecclesiae after the definition of the Church of Alexandria and also of the Bishop of Rome whereas the context of St. Ambrose makes it cleere that he speakes not of any Doctrinall or 〈◊〉 definitions touching that point which had been long before determined by the Council of Nice but only of such Definitions and Rules for obseruing the precise time on which Easter day fell as by the appointment of the Nicen Council the Bishop of Alexandria was yearly to send to the Pope and the Pope yearly to publish to the rest of the Church That such Astronomicall not Thcologicall Definitions were published annually is manifest from Baronius and the reason was for that though by the decree of the Councill of Nice all Christian Churches of Catholique Communion did celebrate Easter not vpon the Decima quarta mensis primi or day of the Iewish Pasche but vpon the day following yet by reason of the different accompts or computation of time through the various ending and begining of Monthes it fell out that all did not celebrate it vpon the same sunday Wherfore to remedy this inconuenience and reduce the obseruation of Easter as much as might be to a generall vniformity it was order'd by the Councill of Nice that by reason the Egyptians were held to be the most exact and experienced of all other nations in the calculation of time the Bishop of 〈◊〉 in Egypt should take care that the fall of Easter day might be exactly calculated euery yeare by such as were most skillfull in that art and the calculation sent to the Bishop of Rome so seasonably as that he might haue time enough to 〈◊〉 notice of it to all other Christian Churches to the end that Easter might be obseru'd on the same day throughout the whole Church Hence comes the frequent mention of the Cycly and 〈◊〉 Paschales in antiquity and of these only St. Ambrose speakes as is cleere by the whole epistle cited by the Bishop and not of any thing Doctrinall or Dogmaticall touching the question of Easter or anything else The Reader may see if he please Baronius Tom. 3. ad Ann. 325. num 110. 111. and Petauius de doctrin Temp. against Scaliger lib. 2. cap. 57. pag. 205. Also his notes upon Epiphanius in Heres Quarto-decimam Nor will those Prophesies as the Bishop calls them out of 〈◊〉 amount to any iust proofe of the Popes fallibility in the sense where in Catholiques deny it vnless he proue the Popes taught them as matters of Fayth to the whole Church Againe he mistakes by affirming that Pope Alexander the Third with a Councill of three hundred Archbishops and Bishops held at Rome condemn'd Peter Lombard of Heresie and that after he had layn vnder that sentence for the space of thirty six yeares Innocent the Third restor'd him and condemn'd his accusers The 〈◊〉 of the historie is only this After Peter Lombards death there was obseru'd in some of his writings this proposition Christus secundum quod est homo non est aliquid which beeing contrary to the Catholique doctrine touching the perfection of Humane Nature in Christ was indeed condemned by Pope Alexander as the Bishop tells you but was neuer approu'd by Pope Innocent That which Innocent approu'd was only the sayd Peter Lombards doctrine concerning the Trinity against which the Abbot 〈◊〉 had written all which you may read in Baronius and Spondanus his continuation of him in the yeares 1164. 1179 and 1215. Whence it appears that neither part of the Bishops 〈◊〉 concludes any thing against vs. For neither did Pope Alexander erre in comdemning the sayd Proposition of Lombard notwithstanding the Relatour 〈◊〉 and without any reason giuen reproaches him with errour nor yet Pope Innocent in iustifying his doctrine against the Abbot Ioachim for the ones condemnation and the others approbation were of seuerall propositions Alexander condemning a proposition touching the matter of the Incarnation which was neuer repeald by Pope Innocent and Jnnocent approuing his doctrine in the matter of the B. Trinity which was neuer condemn'd by
J am they neuer say or thinke he is there by such a spirituall presence as Protestants meane that is exclusiue of his truly-reall presence and by Fayth only or that he is not there as truly and really as he is in heauen whether wee exercise an act of Fayth or no. Now when the Bishop insists so much vpon a spirituall participation of the true and reall Body and Bloud of Christ truly and really by Fayth eyther he meanes such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament and cannot be had saue only in the orall and actuall receiuing of the Sacramentall elements or he meanes such a participation of Christs Body and Bloud as deuoute persons may haue in their soules whether they receiue those elements corporally or no. If he meanes this second only then both parties cannot be sayd to agree in the proper point of Sacramentall participation seeing it is now suppos'd to be such but only a spirituall kinde of receiuing Christ common to other devoute offices of Christian pietie as well as to the Sacrament If he meanes the first viz. such a participation of Christs Body as is proper only to the Sacrament and cannot be had but when the Sacrament is orally and actually receiu'd to make it appeare that wee agree with Protestants in it they must first shew what it is and particularly that it is something really different and distinct from a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits etc. otherwise they relapse into the former difficulty viz of putting such a participation of Christ as is not proper to the Sacrament for certainly none of all those participations of Christ last mentioned are proper to the Sacrament but may be exercised at other times and by other meanes as namely when one eates his common food at the table when he drinks wine or beere when he looks vpon a Crucifix when he prayes meditates or the like But this neither the Bishop not any of his partie can shew standing to Caluin and their own principles that is they cannot shew what their spirituall participation or receiuing of Christ signifies in effect more then a deuoute eleuation of heart remembrance of Christs Passion trust and application of his merits or something of like nature done and performed oftentimes as really without the Sacrament as with it and consequently it can neuer be sayd that both parties viz. Roman-Catholiques and Protestants are of the same sentiment or doe agree in any reall reception or participation of Christ proper to the Sacrament For all the world knows the 〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament which Catholiques beleeue signifies a quite different thing from this 7. Lett vs now consider what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming there is no perill of any damnable Heresie Schismo or other sinne in resoluing to line and dye in the Roman Church This the Relatour cannot digest therfore he replies not so neither For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution is presum'd to beleene as that Church beleenes and he that doth so in the Bishops opinion is guilty more or less not only of the schisme which that Church caused at first by her corruptions and now continues by her power but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbeleefe and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbeleefe of that Church leads him into He seemes by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques For how can they possibly be sau'd that liue and dye in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins or what sort of Catholiques are they whome the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Saluation are they such only as doe not beleeue as that Church viz. the Roman beleeueth but only liue in outward Communion with her and making only outward shew and feigned profession to beleeue that which in heart they disbeleeue He giues indeed some cause to thinke that this is his meaning when he tells vs how willing he is to hope there are many among vs which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished and would haue all things amended that are amiss if it were in their power etc. and of such particularly professeth that he dares not deny them possibility of Saluation But how could it possibly sinke into a sober mans head to iudge him capable of Saluation that for temporall and sinister ends only contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinfull and Jdolatrous practices all his life long and deny it to him who hates all superstition and sin in his very soule and would not comply with any if he knew it but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church meerly for conscience sake and for noe other reason but because he simply and sincerely beleeues all her doctrine to be true and consonant to Gods word and all her allowed customes and obseruances to be pious and holy what is this but to say he is an honest man that takes his neighbours goods wittingly and willingly from him knowing them to be his and that he is a knaue and deserues to be hang'd that takes them vnwittingly and verily beleeuing that they are his own Secondly he tells vs that 't is one thing to liue 〈◊〉 Church and not to comunicate with it in Schisme or in any false worship and an other thing to liue in a Schismaticall Church and to Communicate with it in the schisme and corruptions which that Church teacheth wee grant it beeing our selues in some sort an instance of this truth whome the Catholique Church permuts both in England Germany and other Countries to liue amonge those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretiques too though wee thinke this is not properly speaking to liue in a schismaticall Church yet she does not permit vs to communicate with them in their shisme But when he proceeds therevpon to charge the Roman Church with beeing worse and more cruell then the Church of Israell euen vnder Achab and Jezabel was when so many worshiped the calues in Dan and Bethel because forsooth he doth not finde that this doctrine YOV MVST SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES or this YOV MVST NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN HIERVSALEM was eyther taught by the Priest or maintained by the Prophets or enioyned by the Sanedrim Whereas the Church of Rome sayth he hath solemnly decreed her errours and imposed them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties yea and erring hath decreed withall that she cannot erre wee answer this is not to argue as a Logician should ex concessis or probatis but rather vpon false and vnproued suppositions to bring in lieu of argument railing accusation against our superiours which the Apostle Jude 8. 9. vtterly condemned Is it sufficient for the Relatour to say that Transubstantiation Purgatory
DE FIDE of Fayth because some Council or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Fayth as that he which expressly beleeues it not nay as that he which beleeues the contrary is excluded from Saluation so his disobedience therenhile offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor the charity that ought to be amongst Christians Wee doe not say that euery thing is de Fide that some Council or other indefinitely speaking be it generall or particular hash defined but that euery thing is de fide which is defined by a Lawfull Generall Council And for this how contemptuously soeuer he is pleas'd to speake of it because some Council or other hath defined it wee challenge all his adherents to shew what one Generall Council acknowledg'd for such eyther by themselues or vs did euer define any point of doctrine which they did not require all Christians to hold and beleeue as matter of Fayth after it was so defined as likewise to shew how 't is possible for Christians to disbeleeue what such a Generall Council hath defined without making themselues guilty of that sentence of our Sauiour Matth. 18. 17. He that will not heare the Church lett him be as an Heathen or Publican yea of that other Luc. 10. 16. He that despiseth you despiseth me Why shall not such a man be excluded from Saluation seeing that by the Bishops own doctrine the decrees of all Generall Councils are binding till they be reuers'd by an other Council of like authority why did he account it damnable sin to adhere to the condemned errour of St. Cyprian after it was condem'd by a Generall Councill seeing 't is manifest disobedience in that particular did of it selfe neither offer more violence to the peace of the Church nor to the charity that ought to be amongst Christians then disobedience in points determined by other Generall Councils is apt to doe and hath euer done as experience witnesseth So that in truth to suppose a disobedience to Generall Councils in point of defined doctrine which shall offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor to charity that ought to be amongst Christians is to suppose an impossibility and in effect to thinke that rebellion may consist with the peace of the state and that to cast of obedience to superiours is not to contemn their authority Wee doe not deny but there is a Latitude in the Fayth as the Bishop speakes that is all things pertaining to the doctrine of Fayth are not necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all persons in order to Saluation and this Bellarmin's authority cited by the Bishop rightly proues But it follows not from hence that any man may deny or doubt of any point whatsoeuer that he knows is defin'd and propos'd by the Church to be beleeued as the Bishop and all Protestants doe It is not in it selfe absolutely necessary to Saluation to know or expressly beleeue many things reported in Scripture as for Example that Iudas hang'd himselfe that St. Paul was thrice beaten with rods that he left his cloake at Troas etc. but yet for any man to deny or doubt of these knowing them to be testifyed in Scripture I doe not doubt but euen Protestants themselues will acknowledge to be a great sin and without repentance inconsistent with Saluation In like manner though it be not absolutely necessary to know or beleeue expressly all verities defined by the Church as Bellarmin truly teaches yet it may be and is absolutely necessary not to disbeleeue or doubt of any one point that is know'n to be so defined As for our aduersaries beeing sure that our peremptory establishing so many things that are remote deductions from the Foundation to be beleeu'd as matters of Fayth hath with other errours lost the peace and vnity of the Church 't is but a partiall and groundless faney which all Heretiques and Schismatiques will plead as well as himselfe when they are put to it and may with as much right Was there not more disturbance and tumults in the Church during those Primitiue ages by reason of Arianisme Pelagianisme Manicheisme and other Heresies that then raged then there was for many hundred of years together before Luther began in which time neuertheless eyther all or most of the points now contested by Protestants were as fully defined by the Church and as generally beleeu'd by Christians as now they are With what truth or conscience then can it be sayd that the defining or establishing such points haue lost the peace of the Church True it is the Greekish Church hath opposed the Roman for a long time but what does that help Protestants seeing the world know's it is not for such points as Protestants doe now condemne in the Roman Church but for such errours as they themselues for the most part doe as much condemne in the Greeks as the Roman Church doth 'T is euident the Greeke Church consents with the Roman in all the chiefe points of controuersie betwixt the Roman Church and Protestants and this generall peace of the Church might still haue continued had not the pride arrogancy and temerity of Protestant Predicants first opened the gap to dissention by reuiuing and setting on foote condemned Heresies and by cooperating to so many other wicked Schismaticall and vnchristian disorders under pretense of reformation and obedience to the Gospell A C. tells his aduersarie it is not sufficient to beget a confidence in this case to say wee beleeue the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeued them What says the Bishop to this He confesses 't is most true to witt that which A. C. told him if he ' did only SAY so and did not beleeue as he sayd But sayth he if wee doe say it you are bound in charity to beleeue vs vnless you can proue the contrary For I know no other proofe to men of any point of Fayth but confession of it and subscription to it J reply the Bishops answer falls short of A. Cs. demand For who can doubt but A. C. when he told the Bishop it was not sufficient in this case to say wee beleeue Scripture etc. mean't that beside verball profession and giuing it vnder his hand that he doth beleeue so and so he should proue it by solid and conuincing arguments that the sense in which he beleeues the Scripture and the Creeds is the same with that in which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeu'd them for otherwise he can neither be sufficiently assured himselfe nor can he giue sufficient assurance there of to others Just reason I fay had A. C. to demand this of the Bishop namely that he should proue his Fayth to be agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church obsignatis tabulis as they say that is by speciall vndenyable euidence and not thinke it sufficient only to profess and affirm it to be so But
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
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
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
Term Fundamentall all strangers to the Question 3. What must be understood by Fundamentall Points of Faith in this Debate 4. His flying from the Formall to the Materiall Object of Faith 5. The distinction of Points of Faith into Fundamentall and not-Fundamentall according to Protestan Principles destroyes it self 6. No Infallibility in Church-Authority no Faith 7. How Fundamentals are said to be an Immoveable Rock 8. How the Churches Authority renders us certain of Divine Revelations 9. How Superstructures may become Fundamental and how Fundamentals must be known to all 10. Scotus vindicated from one foul corruption and St. Augustin from another THe Bishop in the end of the ninth § parting friendly with the Greeks before he enters into war again with the Roman Church in the tenth § he scoureth up his best Defensive weapon the Point of Fundamentals having hitherto given us but a glimpse of it He tells of Mr. Fisher that he read a large discourse out of a Printed Book saying 't was his own his Lordship would seem to mistrust it written against Dr. white concerning Fundamentals The Bishop sayes not what he answer'd to this Discourse but puts all off with an I do not remember might he not have call'd to his Chaplain for Mr. Fishers Book if he had minded an Answer But I see him now drawing up his great Artillery of Fundamentals to attack his Adversary for saying All Points Defined by the Church are Fundamentall yet this proves but a Squib for he presently goes out of the question to disport himself with a fancy of his own a piece of Policy forsooth which he hath spied in the Roman Church 1. Rome sayes he to shrivel the credit of its Opposers blasts them all with the name of Heretique and Schismatique and so by that means grew into Greatnesse To make good which proceeding this course was taken The School must maintain that all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the Substance of Faith and then saith he leave active Heads to determine not what is truest but what is fittest for them Now what a weak discourse have we here from a grave Primate of England Thinks he all the world is turn'd mad or Heathen No truth left upon earth but all become Juglers Is the whole business of Religion but a Legerdemain to serve the Popes Ambition a puff of winde Is it credible so many learned and Venerable Prelates and other Holy men whose eminent Sanctity it hath pleased God to illustrate by the Testimony of glorious Miracles so many famous Doctors and Heads of Schools so many Austere and Religious Persons as have secluded themselves from all Temporal Concernments to attend wholly to the Service of God and Salvation of their Souls is it credible I say that all these were such egregious dissemblers as to prostitute their own Salvation to the Popes Greatness by determining not what they conceived Truest but what they esteemed fittest for his Temporal ends Such stuff as this might serve sometimes for Pulpit-babble to deceive the giddy multitude and to cast a mist before their eyes that they might not see the Impurity of their own English-Protestant Church even in its first rise under Henry the eighth and the People-cheating Policies it was beholding to for its restauration under Queen Elizabeth as may be seen in History But who could have imagined his Lordship would betray so great a weakness of Judgement nay so much want of Charity as to affirm so groundless so impossible a slaunder But let it pass for one of the Bishops Railleries Yet I must confess it becomes not one that would be esteem'd a grave Doctor of the English Church an alterius orbis Patriarcha as the Ancient Primates of England have been called 2. After his Lordship has sported thus a while with all that can be serious upon earth Mans Salvation he returns again to the question Whether all Points Defined by the Church be Fundamental and like one that provides for a Retreat or Subter-fuge he cuts out a number of ambiguous Distinctions as so many Turnings and Windings to fly away by when he shall be put to it He blames Mr. Fisher for not distinguishing between a Church in general which he supposes cannot erre and a general Council which he sayes he grants not that it cannot erre Would he have Women and Children come to determine Doctrines you will finde he alwayes perplexes the Question he staggers in the delivery of his own judgement he sayes he is slow in opposing what is concluded by a Lawful General and consenting Authority this must needs be a Church in General It seems then sometimes he opposeth it or staggers at it as those sometimes do that go slowly One while hee 'l take Fundamental for a point necessary to be believed explicitè as distinguish't from a point that is necessary to be believed onely implicitè Another while he takes it for a Prime and Native Principle of Faith as contradistinguish't from what he calls a Superstructure or Deducible from it Now he takes Fundamental for a point common to all and contain'd expresly in the Creed then for a point necessary to be known of all in order to Salvation as distinguish 't from a point necessary onely to some particular mens Salvation and thus by shifting from one acception to another he carries on the design of his Labyrinth with so much Art that the Reader is in great danger to be lost in following him 3. Having therefore seen the word Fundamental used in so many different senses we will first deduce even from the Bishops own Discourse the right sense in which for the present we ought to take the word Fundamental His Lordship and Mr. Fisher fell upon this Dispute about points Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation occasionally from what was touched in their Debate concerning the Greek Church where the Bishop affirmed that though they had grievously erred in Divinity yet not in a point Fundamental sufficient to un-church them which must needs have happened had they erred in a point necessary to Salvation Wherefore the Bishop in his 25 th page takes it for the same to put the Greeks out of the Church and to deny to them Salvation We have also seen how in the words lately cited he calls Fundamental what ever is necessarily to be believed Nor can the Lady be thought to have required satisfaction concerning Fundamentals in the Bishops sense For she is to be supposed to have understood what both Catholiques and Protestants usually mean in this Dispute and Mr. Fisher pag. 42. even as the Bishop § 2. pag. 2 cites his words gives an express Advertisement that by points Fundamental neither he nor the Lady understood any other then Points necessary to Salvation when he sayes thus in all Fundamental Points that is in all Points necessary to Salvation The question then in Controversie between the Bishop and Mr. Fisher was Whether all Points
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
object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firme and close joyn'd to a sure foundation but not Fundamental But here his Lordship misconceives or rather misalledges A. C's Argument For it is not as he frames it All points defined are made firme ergo all points defined are Fundamental but thus All points defined are made firme by the full Authority of the Church ergo all points defined are Fundamental And his reason is because when any thing is made firme by the full Authority of the Church it is so firme that it cannot be denyed without shaking the whole foundation of Religion and consequently is Fundamental 6. But the Bishop proceeds further and makes this Argument Whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in her absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid This Argument will lose all its force by putting the Reader in minde of the Distinction between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals which we admitted in the material object of Faith for if this be reflected on there will be a foundation for the Church without supposing her to be in perfect being before her foundation be laid We have often declared what we understood by Fundamental viz. That to which we cannot refuse our assent by denying or doubting of it when it is proposed to us by the Church as a matter of Faith without damnation and without destroying the formal object of Faith and without making our selves during that deliberate doubting or denying uncapable of believing any thing with Divine and Supernatural Faith For surely whatever is of this nature must needs be Fundamental in Religion So that we admit the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in respect of the material object of Faith but not in respect of the formal that is as we have often said some matters of Faith are more universally necessary to be expresly known and believed by all then others and yet the Authority revealing that is God and declaring them infallibly to be revealed that is the Church is truly Fundamental in both As in the Scripture it self this Text John 1. And God was the word according to the matter it contains viz. the Divinity of our Saviour is a Fundamental point universally to be known and believed expresly to Salvation and that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas according to the matter it contains is no Fundamental point nor of any necessity to Salvation to be universally known and believed expresly yet the formal object revealing both these truths being the Authority of the Holy Ghost is equally Fundamental in both and doubtless if any one to whom it is as clearly propounded to be affirmed in Scripture that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas as that it is affirmed in Scripture that the word was God should yet deny or doubt of the first he could neither be saved so long as he remained in that misbelief nor believe the second with divine infallible Faith as all Christians both Catholiques and Protestants must grant Had this been well considered by his Lordship we should not have been forced to so frequent repetitions of the same Doctrine The Bishop thinks he has got a great advantage by pressing A. C. to this That the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation But what absurdity is it to grant that the Definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the foundation of the Church diffusive who can doubt but the Pastours in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every winde of Doctrine Ephes. 4. are a foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not St. Paul expresly affirm it Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum c. Did not the Bishop just now pag. 34. except the Apostles as having in their Definitions more Authority then the Church had after their times yea even so much as was sufficient to make their Definitions Fundamental and the opposing of them destructive of the Foundation of Religion their Authority being truly Divine which he sayes that of the Church after them was not Now this doctrine of the Bishop supposed I urge his own Argument against himself thus Whatever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church in the time of the Apostles be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition in the Apostles time is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church in their time could lay her own foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation was laid Who sees not here how the Bishop fights against himself with his own weapons and destroyes his own Positions by his own Arguments And whatever may be answered for him will satisfie his Argument in defence of us Now the answer is plain to any one who hath his eyes open for the Prime foundation of the Church are the Doctrines delivered by our Saviour and inspired by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whereby it took the first being of a Church and the Prime foundation to the insuing Church after the Apostles is the most certain Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by our Saviour to his Church By these two Prime foundations the Church is in being and so continues the Definitions of the Church grounded in these are a secondary foundation whereby Ecclesia docens the Church teaching established upon that promised assistance of the Holy Ghost fundat Ecclesiam doctam founds and establishes in every age the Church taught in the true Faith 7. But what shall we say in defence of A. C whom we finde blamed for these words That not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or prime Articles of Faith but all that which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church The answer is these are not the precise words of A. C. and therefore no wonder if the Bishop easily confute him whom he either mistakes or makes to speak as himself pleases A. C's words are these By the word FUMDAMENTAL is understood not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or Prime Principles which do not depend upon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as the Bishop and Dr. White say they are FUNDAMENTAL points but
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
We grant they did so but what follows thence Ergo Scripture gives sufficient Divine proof to it self before it be believ'd infallibly to be Gods word This he was to inferre from it but how proves he this consequence which is the onely difficulty He doth it thus or no way at all The Fathers who precedently to the reading of Scripture believ'd infallibly that Scripture was the word of God prov'd by Scripture that it was such Ergo those who believe not infallibly that Scripture is Gods word may evince by Scripture that 't is the word of God Is not this a strong inference The difficulties occurring in this his Lordships Doctrine though slighted by him are as many as in that of the private Spirit the odium of which opinion he will never be able to avoid by desiring not to have it so much as nam'd in the state of the question For if the Church may erre yea and hath err'd according to Protestants in this point how can we have Infallible assurance either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition or of the Scripture it self We read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture yet see we not such convincing and infallible arguments as can give us assurance that those Books are infallibly the word of God which Protestants admit and no other Now when he sayes they resolve their Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolical and in the next number knows not how to be certain of that Tradition he dissolves what he resolv'd before and makes one part of his Resolution impossible Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolicall Tradition he would quite undoe what he said before that Scripture is the onely foundation of our Faith and not Tradition Thus he turns quite opposite wayes in his Labyrinth 7. Here therefore to averre without any further proof that there appears such light to Protestants and no others is in effect to challenge the Private Spirit to himself and his party which is something more then onely to allow it in general For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self why do not we see it as well as they seeing we read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as they do To say that all are blinde besides themselves or that all beside themselves have such perverse eyes such unsanctified understandings that they cannot see nor reach that light which Protestants most easily discern is very great presumption and the same may with as much reason be challeng'd by every Heretique for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them as shall occurre to his fancy Nor can he upon any just ground make the Scripture to be like those Principles which are known of themselves so soon as the Terms are understood For such Principles are either evidently or probably known of themselves Of the former sort are these and others of like nature The whole is greater then a part thereof The same thing cannot be and not be at the sametime Of the latter sort is this and such others Every mother loves her childe from which 't is probably concluded that Katharine for example loves her childe by this argument Every mother loves her childe But Katharine is a mother Therefore Katharine loves her childe Now if we speak of principles of the first kinde the Relatour grants that Scripture is no such principle and 't is manifest in it self that it is not otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God as all agree in those Metaphysicall Principles above-named Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort for of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God then some other Book which is not truly such And though it had some probability that it were such yet were it not sufficient for we must have certainty and infallible certainty too as his Lordship grants But how that can be had without the infallible Authority of the Church I am confident neither he nor any of his party will ever be able to shew But if we betake our selves to the infallible Authority of the Church we may be as certainly and infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God as those who heard the Apostles say that Scripture was Gods word For as the Signs and Motives which accompanied the Apostles prov'd them to be Infallible so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible insomuch that we can no more erre in taking the Scripture from the Church then the Christians of the Primitive Church could erre in taking it from the Apostles And yet as their Faith was of things not seen both in regard of the Object which is not seen and of the Subject that sees onely in aenigmate enigmatically and darkly so is ours Will the Bishop then account the greatest part or rather all the Fathers either blinde or sensual men who saw no such light for some hundreds of years after Christ as Protestants with his Lordship here pretend they see in some Books of Scripture Were all those of the Roman Church for so many ages before blinde when you of the new-found Church first began who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture as could evince it self to be the word of God to such as before believ'd it not to be so with Divine certainty Or will Protestants be content that we upon this their own principle account them all blinde and sensual men because they see not the light of many other Books which our Church recommends to them and us and which we believe to be Divine Scripture as a great part of the Ancient Fathers did before us What do any Sectaries in the world more then this either against us or them or one against another in asserting the Private Spirit For the Bishop and his party affirm themselves to be so enlightned that they can see and discover that in Scriptures which no other Christians beside themselves ever did or could even before they believe it infallibly to be Scripture 8. As for Bellarmin whom the Bishop will needs have to be 〈◊〉 and unable to stand upon his own ground for teaching lib. 3. De Ecclesia cap. 14. that 't is not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that which in it self hath no shadow of difficulty it being as Bellarmin asserts it a truth so evident that the Bishop himself could not have deny'd it And if his Lordship had not too hastily run over Bellarmin he would have found that he distinguishes times as well as Gandavo cited in the same page For he saith that to believe there are any Divine Scriptures 't is not absolutely necessary to salvation for his omnino signifies no more because many were saved who lived before Divine Scriptures were written and since
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
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.
St. Chrysostome in the place above cited it imports not evident or Scientificall Knowledge properly so called but a firm and perfect assurance onely otherwise our Faith would neither be free nor meritorious His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one both because the Royall Prophet intimates that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors Psalm 77. 6. and because they that heard Moyses the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles speak knew as perfectly by that hearing as could be known in matters of Faith and likewise because St. Paul saith Rom. 10. 17. Fides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing and lastly because his Lordship himself asserts that Scripture is known in this sense to be the word of God by hearing from the mouthes of the Apostles Now to averre that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle then an ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition is a truth delivered by me all along this debate For I have always held the voice of the present Church to be onely an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures for which prime Tradition onely we believe Scripture to be the word of God as for the formal motive of our Belief To his Quere therefore touching the Jewes proceeding in the like controversie I answer when it shall be shewn that any of the Jewes held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith to the exclusion of Tradition I shall then be ready to shew what the Bishop here demands viz that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove that the Old Testament was Gods word But to return to their resolution of Faith certain it is they had alwayes at least very often Prophets amongst them insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth that God promised to provide there should never be wanting a Prophet in Israel Moreover besides these 't is well known there was in the Jewish Church a permanent infallible Authority consisting of the High Priest and his Clergy to which all were bound to have 〈◊〉 in doubts and difficulties of Religigion as is expressed in Holy Writ Wherefore we have not the least reason to doubt but the Jews would have proceeded the same way in all difficulties concerning Scripture and Tradition that we do though his Lordship would perswade us the contrary 12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in as he was once before for averring that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being Gods word but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point to which the Relatour replies that the Argument would have been stronger had he said to assure us of this point by Divine Faith But certainly Mr. Fisher meant such an assurance and no other as appears by the expression he uses viz. to assure us in this point What point That Scriptures are the Word of God which being a point of Faith he could not be thought in reason but to require an assurance proportionable to a point of Faith that is infallible assurance sufficient to breed in us Divine Faith though it be also true that no certain assurance at all touching this matter could be had without admitting the infallible Authority of the Church For as it hath been urged heretofore many Books of Holy Writ have been doubted of upon very good grounds and the rest questioned as corrupted So that without the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost it were impossible in this case to come to any certain determination at all much less could we arrive to an infallible certainty Sure I am the School doth not maintain with his Lordship here that Moral certainty is infallible Philosophers are so far from this as to admit that even Physical certainty falls short of infallibility as being lyable to deception As for example when I have my eyes open and look upon the wall I have Physical certainty that it is the wall which I see but I have no infallible certainty of it for by the power of God it may be otherwise Now the reason why a moral and humane authority so long as 't is fallible can never produce an infallible assurance is because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority can be no greater then the Authority that grounds it Since therefore according to the Relator all humane Authority is absolutely fallible 't is impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty This Doctrine is expresly delivered by the Bishop § 16. num 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THEN DIVINE then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are contained are not objects of Divine Belief which once granted will inforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance then humane and moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then SIMPLY DIVINE must make good the Scriptures infallibity at least in the last resolution of our Faith in that point This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone for the Church consists of men subject to errour Thus he No humane testimony therefore in the Bishops opinion can make good the Scriptures infallibility that is give us an infallible assurance of that or any other point of Faith But how this can stand with what he delivers § 19. num 1. when speaking of the very same question viz. of Scriptures-being Gods Word he positively affirms we may be even infallibly assured thereof by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof I see not let the Reader judge This is not the first contradiction we have observed in his Lordships discourses Nor will it serve his turn to say as he doth that by infallible assurance may be understood no more then that the thing believed is true and truth QUA TALIS cannot be false For however he playes with the word infallible yet that cannot touch assurance For the infallibity he there talks of is onely in the object and that in sensu composito too viz. onely so long as the object remains so But assurance relates to the subject or person believing and his act which is the thing we chiefly mean when we teach that Faith is of divine and infallible certainty For otherwise in the Bishops sense of infallibility there is no true proposition how contingent and uncertain soever in it self of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain So for example should I say meerly by guess The Pope is now at Rome or in the Conclave and it were so de facto I might be said to be infallibly certain of it which is extreamly absurd as confounding verity with infallibility which no true Philosophy will admit Wherefore it is ridiculous to distinguish as the Bishop does here one infallibility cui non subest falsum viz.
credulous Reader that the Fathers in the Council of Trent were so aw'd by the Popes Authority or sway'd by his Interest that either they durst not or would not open themselves so farre as to speak freely what they thought What is this but an empty and injurious suspicion or rather an unworthy accusation of so many grave Prelats assembled in Council A little more of Christian charity might have taught his Lordship to frame a far different judgement and believe that so many worthy Prelats would not be neglectful of their charge to the betraying of their conscience especially seeing the Pope had fully declared his desire that the matters in Controversie might receive a free and fair Dispute in the Council in order to a Settlement of the Truth To put a period therefore to this long and groundless Dream of the Popes strong party and the Bishops-being over-aw'd in the Council of Trent I conclude that seeing none of the Fathers there assembled no not any of those who liv'd either under the wing of Protestant Princes or where Liberty of Conscience was allowed ever sided with Protestants but constantly and zealously persever'd even till death in the Faith and Doctrine they had subscribed in that Council and shew'd themselves solicitous that all its Definitions should be Universally held by their people no Evidence can possibly be given of any Free Consent or Vote in Council if this may be call'd in question 9. Touching HIEREMIAS Patriarch of Constantinople you must know that some Eminent Protestants of the Lutheran Party about the end of the last Century endeavour'd to feel the Pulse of the Greek Church to see if they could there finde any Symptoms of their own Disease The design was to close with the Greeks for the better making out of the pretended perpetual Succession of their Church which Project they so hotly pursu'd though formerly in vain attempted that they would not desist till the Patriarch being settled in his Throne they had sent to him the summe of their Reformed Belief drawn up according to the Augustan Confession which had been compos'd by Melancthon and approv'd by their Patriarch Luther After a long intercourse of Letters Answers and Replyes mutually continued for some years and all arguments us'd that might induce the Patriarch to receive them into his Communion he could not be courted to so much as the least shew of approving their doctrine but did in all his Answers clearly confirm the Tenets of the Roman-Catholique Church which those Lutherans endeavour'd to overthrow Insomuch that at last the Patriarch tyred with their importunity gave them a rebuke for their departure from the Doctrine of the Catholique Church and desir'd them not to trouble him any more with their writings All this is more largely related by Spondanus out of the writings of those very Protestants that treated with the Patriarch in the business Neither can the Censure passed by this Patriarch upon the Lutheran errours be accounted rash or precipitate seeing they had a full Hearing by him they had made their address to who was not onely the chief Patriarch of the Greeks but a person of that eminent Esteem among them that his Censure must in reason be taken to declare the sense of the Greek Church Nor matters it that Catholiques account him a Shismatique this cannot prejudice his Censure in reference to Protestants He was such a Schismatique as they would gladly have made Patron of their Religion The Bishop therefore by giving no other Answer to this Patriarchs-proceeding against Protestants but that he findes not this Censure of Hieremias warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church shews he had very little to say in opposition to it Was not this Hieremias chief Patriarch of the Greek Church Doth not he write in a style Definitive and peremptory touching the matters debated between him and Protestants Does he not upon all occasions testifie the Doctrine he declares to be the Doctrine of the Catholique Church of the Holy Fathers and of the Sacred Councils Did any of the Greek Bishops ever disclaim the said Doctrine either in whole or part as they disclaim'd the Doctrine of one of his successours whom they depos'd and ejected as an Heretique because his Tenets savour'd of the Protestant Leaven who then can doubt but what he delivers is the common Belief of the whole Greek Church as is likewise in effect acknowledg'd by the Interessed Lutherans themselves in their Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium c. publisht after the Treaty ended and more expresly by some English Writers Well therefore might A. C. affirm without making himself a Prophet that if ever such a Free Council as the Relatour seem'd to wish were gather'd out of the East and West Provinces of Christendom Protestants would doubtless be condemn'd for Heretiques For this is not to Prophesie but to discourse and draw a Certain Conclusion out of Principles morally Evident that is to say if the French Spanish and Schismatical Greeks also in their respective Churches do teach and profess as matter of Catholique Faith Doctrine Diametrally opposite to that of Protestants no man can doubt but had or were they met in a General Council to declare their said Belief they would infallibly condemn Protestantisme no less then did this Patriarch Hieremias CHAP. 20. Of the Infallibility and Authority of General Councils ARGUMENT 1. The Bishops pretended Forwardness for a General Council meerly Delusive 2. His Erring General Council qualifi'd at most but to unite in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration 3. The Bishops Remedy against his Council intolerably Erring instrumental to all Disunion 4. The Authority of Oecumenical Councils whence derived 5. Their Infallibility evidenc'd from the same Texts of Scripture that prov'd the Church Infallible 6. The Text Mat. 18. 20. Where Two or Three are gathered together in my Name c. Vindicated in proof of the Infallibility of lawful General Councils 7. The Decrees of Legally-Confirm'd General Councils in points of Faith truly styled the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 8. The whole Church lyable to Errour if a General Council may Erre in points of Faith 9. St. Austins Text lib. 2. De Baptism cap. 3. That General Councils may be amended the former by the latter c. explicated at large 1. THe Bishop having cast as much dirt as he was able upon the Council of Trent wishes in fine that a lawful General Council were called to end Controversies A pure one you may be sure if according to his wish who bearing himself very confident upon the impossibility of assembling such a Council as he would call General sayes as it were to insinuate an unwillingness on our part to have Controversies ended in so fair a way as by a General Council If you have a most gracious King inclined unto it how can you acquit your selves if you do not consent As though forsooth there were no more requir'd to the assembling of a General Council then
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
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
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
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
so vsed as here it is but that Protestants as well as wee must be supposed good Catholiques J answer 't is cleere enough A. C. mean't only this that Protestants in some things beleeue the same truth with other people who are good Catholiques which is very true but farre from implying that confession which the Bishop would inferre from him Howeuer I thinke not the matter worth standing vpon The Bishop himselfe acknowledges A. C. intended 〈◊〉 to call them Catholiques and if vnawares some thing slipt from his pen whereby he might seeme to call them so what matter is it seeing 't is incident euen to the best Authours sometimes to lett fall an improper expression 5. To as little purpose is it for him to tell vs that next to the infallible Authority of Gods word Protestants are guided by the Church For as wee sayd before so farre as they please they are guided by the Church and where they chinke good they leaue her Wee entreate our Adversanes to tell vs what is this but to follow their own fancy and the fallible Authority of humane deductions in beleeuing matters of Fayth both which the Bishop doth so expressly disclayme in this place To what A. C. adds that by the Church of God he vnderstands here men infallibly assisted by the spirit of God in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils the Relatour answers according to his wonted dialect that he makes no doubt the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation The whole Church cannot doe thus Surely his kindeness is great and the Catholique Church is much obliged to him for allowing her such a large prerogatiue and portion of infallibility as that of necessity some one person or other must still be sound in the Church beleeuing all the Articles of the Creed or if that be too much at least all Fundamentall points in Protestant sense For so longe as but two or three persons hold all such points it will be true that the whole Church is not by any errour totally sallen away from Christ the Foundation All the lawfull Pastcurs of the Church may in the Bishops opinion erre euery man of them and fall away euen from Christ the Foundation yea draw all their people to Hell with them without any preiudice to the promises which Christ made to his Church if but two or three poore soules be still found whome God preserues from such errour as our Aduersaries call Fundamentall All is well the gates of Hell doe not prevaile ouer Christs Church though euery particular Christian saue only some few in an age perish by Heresie the holy Ghost doth not cease to teach the Church all necessary truth notwithstanding that in all ages and times of the Church he suffers such an vniuersall deluge of all damning and Soule-destroying errours as this to ouerspread the whole face of Christendome 6. This is the infallibility our Aduersary grants the whole But A. Cs. words concerning the holy Ghosts assistance in lawfully-called continued and confirmed Generall Councils oblige the Bishop some what further to declare himselfe in that point wherein though wee sufficiently know his minde already yet it shall not be amiss to heare him speake He vtterly denies therfore and that twice ouer for failing that Generall Councils be they neuer so lawfully called continued and confirmed haue any infallible assistance but may erre in their determinations of Fayth Whether they can or no hath been already sufficiently handled and the Relatours assertion confuted so that there is noe necessitie of repeating what hath been sayd All that I shall desire of the Reader here is that from this and the former passage of the Bishop he would take a right measure of his iudgement and of the iudgement of all his followers in this maine point concerning the Churches Authority and to reflect how much they doe in reality attribute to it They are oftentimes heard indeed to speake faire words and to profess great respect to the Church and to Councils especially such as be Generall and oecumenicall pretending at least to refuse none but for some manifest defect or faultiness as that they were not truly or fully Generall or did not obserue legall and warrantable proceeding in their debates etc. But lett them giue neuer such goodly words lett them counterfeite Iacobs voyce neuer so much here 's the touch-stone of their iudgement and inward sense whatsoeuer they say this they all hold Generall Councils how lawfullysoeuer and how lawfully and warrantably soeuer proceeding haue no infallible assistance from God but may erre and that vniuersally too for so he meanes as wee haue already proued that is in all matters and points whatsoeuer Fundamentall or Not-Fundamentall But you will replie the Bishop grants infallibility to a Generall Council to witt de post facto as his words are after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church I answer this is to giue as much infallibility to a Generall Council as is due to the meanest Society or Company of Christians that is For while they iudge that to be an Article of Christian Fayth which is so indeed and receiu'd for such by the whole Church they are euery one of them in this sense infallible and can noe more be deceiu'd or deceiue others in that particular iudgement then a Generall Council or then the thing that is true in it felfe and also found to be true by the whole Church can be false In this indeed the Relatour is iust as liberall now to a Generall Council as he was formerly to the whole Church in granting it not to erre while it erres not The truth is he vainly trifles in the whole business and dallyes with the Reader by obtruding vpon him a Grammaticall or at best but a Logicall notion or sense of the word infallible in stead of the Theologicall For how J pray or in what sense is a Generall Councill acknowledg'd by the Relatour to be infallible euen de post facto after t is ended and as he will haue it confirm'd by the Churches acceptance Certainly if you marke it 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
how happen'd it that St. Austin and the Church of his time could not see both the one and the other J must not omitt the Authorities of St. Cyrill of Hierusalem and St. Iobn Chrysostome though the Bishop does in his answer the first of which giues testimony to the doctrine of Purgatory in these words Wee pray sayth he for those amongst vs who are departed this life beleeuing that it is GREAT HELP TO THEIR SOVLES for whome the Oblation of his holy and dreadfull Sacrifice vpon the Altar is offered The second speaks thus Jt is not in vaine that wee make Oblations for the dead it is not in vaine that wee pray and giue Alms for them doubt not but there comes much good of it and more towards the end lett vs consider sayth he how great consolations wee may cause to the dead by these our teares and giuing of Alms for them and by our prayers Againe If thy dead Brother be departed with any sinne that is with sin not so fully repented for and not so fully expiated by works of Pennance as it ought and as wee haue often declar'd wee ought to the vtmost of our power to GIVE HIM SVCCOVR by our prayers supplications and teares and by procuring Oblations or Masses for him For it is not in vaine that in the diuine Mysteries wee remember the faythfull departed Wee doe it to the end they may receiue CONSOLATION and what wee doe in this kinde is not any superstitious inuention of man as the Relatours 139. Articles say it is but the Ordination of the Holy Ghost 13. What can be sayd more then this to the full assertion of our Catholique beleefe in this point Especially seeing out Aduersary himselfe grants concerning St. Gregory and all the fathers after his time that they vndoubtedly held Purgatory so that for a thousand yeares and more he confesses Purgatory was the generall Fayth of Christians Jt would be considered by indifferent men whether it be not sarre more likely to haue been always the Fayth of Christians and that our fore-fathers were in truth frighted into the beleefe of it as the Bishop will needs speake by noe other meanes then they were frighted into the beleefe of Hell that is by the Tradition of the Catholique Church and the preaching of their lawfull Pastours conformably thereto I conclude therfore that Purgatory can be noe other then a doctrine of Apostolicall Tradition if St. Austins Rule be good lib. 4. de Baptism cap. 24. which teacheth that wee iustly hold all things of this nature proceed from the Apostles if they be taught by the whole Church and wee finde noe beginning or first Institution of them in Councils Nationall Prouinciall or oecumenicall Now wee challenge our Aduersaries to shew when or in what age the doctrine of Purgatory first began to be taught or which is all one when the doctrine of Praying for the dead that their sins might be remitted to them that they might finde mercy and milder chastisement from God refreshment ease of their paines help and reast in our Lord etc. first began to be practis'd in the Catholique Church Neither doth Bellarmins prouing it from Scripture hinder the point from beeing a Tradition of the Apostles For does not St. Austin with Bellarmin and all diuines not excepting euen Protestants themselues acknowledge the Baptisme of infants and doctrine of Originall sinne and diuerse other points to proceed from Apostolicall Tradition and yet endeauour to proue them also from Scripture much less does the Cardinall contradict himselfe as our Aduersary likewise pretends he doth by endeaucuring on the one side to proue Purgatory by nineteene places of Scripture and yet auerring on the other that wee finde no beginning of this doctrine For first his assertion that wee finde noe beginning of this doctrine imports noe more then that noe first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie could be found since the Apostles that beeing fully sufficient to his purpose which was only to shew that the beleefe of Purgatory was an Apostolicall Tradition And yet secondly supposing his speech absolute that no beginning at all could be found of this doctrine in any age eyther since the time of the Apostles or before yet should he not contradict himselfe by thinking or saying it might be prou'd by Scripture Who doubts but the doctrine of soules immortality is effectually prou'd out of the Gospell and the bodies resurrection out of St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 15 Yet will any man pretend that the first beginning of those doctrines is found in the Gospell or in St. Pauls Epistles was not the immortality of the soule and resurrection of the body beleeu'd by the faythfull before Christs Incarnation So that in truth the Relatour committs the grand absurdity himselfe in arguing as he doth that if Bellarmin did finde it in Scripture to witt the doctrine of Purgatory then he is false in saying wee finde noe beginning of it Certainly to finde a thing to be taught and to finde the first beginning of its beeing taught is not all one in any sober mans iudgement except it be the Relatours What he adds touching Alphonsus a Castro's telling vs the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all and that it is not beleeu'd by the Grecians to this very day is in part contrary to himselfe who hath already confess 't that from St. Gregories time all the Fathers taught and all Christians generally beleeu'd Purgatory and misunderstood in the whole For certainly 't is only of the name Purgatory and quality of the fire there that a Castro and some others speake when they affirme that few of the ancients beleeu'd Purgatory it beeing impossible to conceiue they could be ignorant of what is both generally taught by the Fathers and was vnanimously without the least difference or dispute concluded both by Greeks and Latins in the Councill of Florence touching the thing that is the penall state of some Faythfull soules departed after this life The Bishop might as well haue told vs that those Authours pronounce the same touching the Holy Ghosts proceeding from the Father and the Sonne and of some other points namely that there is little mention of them in the ancient Fathers to witt express and in terminis but yet without doubt suppose those ancient and Orthodox Pastours of the Church did euer teach the sayd points as to the substance of doctrine and sense His Lordships assigning Origen to be the first Authour of the doctrine of Purgatorie is a manifest falsity already disprou'd by the testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian ancienter then he likewise by St. Denys the Areopagite contempory with the Apostles to whom wee may adde St. Clement an Authour of the same age cited by Bellarmin in both which such prayer for the dead as doth necessarily inferre Purgatory is auouch'd to be a Tradition receiu'd from the Apostles Tertullian
of Christ of Scripture and the whole Church in the falsely-defined Article that there is in the true and that the Scripture doth not equally giue eyther ground or power to define truth and errour what is it but to trifle tediously For wee neither say nor suppose any such thing So as the Bishop by his discourse here meerly labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius it beeing a thing wholy vnknow'n to vs yea impossible for vs to know infallibly and certainly when the Councill defines matters equally by and according to the Authorities of Scripture or the whole Church but by the Councils own Acte that is by her definition so express't and fram'd as there can be noe iust cause to doubt but that she defin'd or presum d herselfe to define both the one and the other point conformably to Scripture and the sense of the whole Church See now what great reason the Relatour had to obiect cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business Our Aduersarie here againe runnes from the marke A. C. in giuing the reason of his former demand speaks of examining only and not of iudging as his words shew If wee leaue this sayth he meaning the erring and not-erring of a Generall Councill in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly to be EXAMINE'D by euery priuate man the examination not beeing infallible will need to be examined by an other and that by an other Without end or euer coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers that he hath 〈◊〉 vs the way how an erring Councill may be rectifyed and the peace of the Church eyther preseru'd or restor'd etc. viz. § 32. num 5. § 33. consid 7. num 4. of his Relation and wee haue likewise shew'n all his pretended wayes to be deuicus and not to lead to the end he aymes at But does he there or any where else shew how wee may be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one point does not also erre in the other in the case aboue mention'd which is the only thing his Aduersary here vrges him withall does he shew that A. Cs. obiected process in infinitum can be auoyded by any priuate and fallible examination of the Councils decrees or does he prescribe any other meanes of examining them but what is in his own opinion fallible at least though perhaps not priuate First he assignes Scripture for a way to examin a Councils definition but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture beares that sense in which he vnderstands it and not that in which the Councill vnderstands it Secondly he assignes the fowre first Generall Councils but how can he be sure that their Authority in defining is such as euery one ought to obey and not that of after-Councils Thirdly he assignes the Creeds as containing all things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth but does he meane all of them all the three Apostolicall Nicen Athanasian By his words it seemes he doth for he makes noe difference betwixt them and in reason 't is necessary he should seeing 't is euident the Apostles Creed alone will not ferue the turn it making no express mention of the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost nor of the Mystery of the Trinity Jncarnation etc. which yet wee confidently presume are all of them Fundamentall points in the Bishops Creed But then wee aske how come these latter Creeds the Nicen and Athanasian to be infallible seeing their Authours in the composing of them were fallible and subiect to errour in the Relatours opinion How can they be a ground of infallible certaintie to me if possibly in themselues they man be false which though it cannot be sayd or suspected of the Apostles nor by consequence of their Creed as it was compos'd and publish't by them yet wee make a Querie what infallible Authority assur'd the Bishop or assur's vs now that the Creed which wee haue at present and commonly call the Apostles Creed is really the same which the Apostles first composed or that wee haue it entire and vnchanged Tradition or the Church by the Relatours grounds must not be pretended here seeing they are both of them fallible with him and may deceiue vs. It followes then euen from his own principles that he neither hath nor can haue infallible certainty for his beleeuing the Creeds and as for the fowre first Generall Councils the Relatour must needs haue less pretense of reason to alledge them for a ground of infallible certainty in beleeuing seeing in all his booke he neuer acknowledges nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge Councills to be infallible euen in Fundamentalls Where is then his infallible certaintie for that one Fayth necessary to Saluation 6. How farre the Relatour speakes truth when he sayes be giues noe way to any priuate man to be iudge of a Generall Councill lett any man iudge that considers his doctrine Liberty to examine euen the definitions of Generall Councils if they see iust cause he does expressly grant to priuate persons yea and some kinde of iudgement too he allowes them viz. that of discretion though not the other of power as he distinguishes But is there not a inake lurking in the grass here may wee not feare fome poyson vnder the gilded pill of his Lordships distinction This iudgement of discretion as he calls it especially if common experience and practice may expound it what does it signifie less then a power assum'd by euery priuate person not only to examin the validity of such reasons and grounds as confirme the defined article but constantly to deny both it and them if his priuate spirit or discretion tells him that he hath better reasons for the contrary or that the Councils definition is an errour Has not this always been the way and methode of Heretiques To what end doe they at any time put themselues vpon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of Generall Councills was it euer for any other reason but to see whether they could finde a flaw in them which when they persuaded themselues to haue once spy'd did they not presently in their own vayne hearts fall to despise the Councill which they suppos'd to erre as ignorant and ouerseen in their proper business did they not vsually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience in lieu of necessary obedience and submission Did they not forthwith imagin themselues inlightened persons and soone after that oblig'd in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people and vnder a pretense of informing weaker brethren draw them to the like discret examining of the Churches defin'd and generally receiu'd doctrine with themselues Js not this the know'n course of the humour Is not this Satans methode by degrees to vsher in publique and generall defections from the Authority both of Generall Councills and all the Lawfull Pastours and Gouernours of the Church See in effect the whole benefitt of the Bishops goodly deuise