even after our Saviours Ascension had they no promise of Divine Assistance in the delivery of those Truths Thus the promises of Christ come to nothing But if one should ask some of this Bishops Disciples how their Master proves that the promises of Christ are to be limited to Truths necessary to Salvation they must answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipse dixit just as Pythagoras his Pupils did of old when they were urg'd to give a Reason of their Masters Philosophy For where I pray hath Christ so limited his promises where do the Apostles teach us to understand them with such limitation Neither do we extend them to Truths wholly unnecessary or to curious Truths as the Bishop seems willing to insinuate No We tell him there is a medium a middle sort of Truths between those which are absolutely necessary for all mens Salvation and those which are simply unnecessary or curious We extend these promises to all Truths of this middle sort that is to all such Truths as the Church findes consonant to Catholique Faith and Piety and necessary to be defin'd for the preventing of Heresies Schismes and Dissentions among Christians But I pray observe our Adversaries unparallel'd Subtlety in the close of all Christ saith he hath promis'd that the Spirit should lead his Church into all Truth but he hath no where promis'd that the Church should follow her leader What a rare Acumen is here Then belike to lead and to follow are not Relatives in Protestant Logick But let them take heed 't is to be fear'd they will be found Relatives and that if the Devil chance to lead any of them to Hell for their Heresie and other sins nothing will help but they must infallibly follow him And I wish that all his Lordships party would duly consider this as often as they interpret Scripture after this manner CHAP. 15. Of the Roman Churches Authority ARGUMENT 1. Whether Protestants beside reforming themselves did not condemn the Church of errour in Faith 2. That St. Peter had a larger and higher Power over the Church of Christ then the rest of the Apostles 3. The History or matter of Fact touching the Donatists appealing to the Emperor related and how little it advantages the Bishop or his party 4. St. Gregories Authority concerning the question of Appeals and the Civil Law notably wrested by the Bishop 5. St. Wilfrid Archbishop of York twice appealed to Rome and was twice restor'd to his Bishoprick by vertue of the Popes Authority 6. The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman 7. St. Peters placing his Sea at Rome no ground of his Successors Supremacy 8. Why the Emperours for some time ratified the Popes Election 9. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden by the Canons to appeal to Rome 10. The Pope never accus'd by the Ancients of falsifying the Canons and that he might justly cite the Canons of Sardica as Canons of the Council of Nice BY the precedent Discourse it appears that the Bishops main task for a long time hath been to prove that the General Church may erre and stand in need of Reformation in matters of Faith this being the thing which A. C. most constantly denyes But his Lordship finding the proof of this not so easie by little and little was fain to slide into another question concernig the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves thinking by this to Authorize the pretended Reformation of his particular English Church To this purpose were his many Allegations of the Councils of Carthage Rome Gangres Toledo c. § 24. num 5. which how they succeeded the Reader may easily have perceiv'd by our Answers in the precedent Chapter 1. He goes on with his wonted Art which is to alledge his Adversary with not overmuch sincerity A. C. treating the abovesaid question touching the Power particular Churches have to reform themselves and not denying but in some cases particular Churches may reform what is amiss even in matter of Faith for greater caution addes these express words pag. 58. WHEN THE NEED of Reformation IS ONELY QUESTIONABLE particular Pastours and Churches may not condemn others of Errour in Faith But these words when the need is onely questionable the Bishop thinks fit to leave out to what end but to have some colour to contradict his Adversary and abuse his Reader Let us now see whether his Lordships party be far from judging and condemning other Churches as he seems to make them by his simile A man that lives religiously sayes he doth not by and by sit in judgement and condemn with his mouth all prophane livers But yet while he is silent his very life condemns them First of all Who are these men that live so religiously They who to propagate the Gospel the better marry Wives contrary to the Canons and bring forsooth Scripture for it Non est bonum esse hominem solum and again Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi Who are these men I say that live so religiously They who pull down Monasteries both of Religious men and women They who cast Altars to the ground They who partly banish Priests partly put them to death They who deface the very Tombs of Saints and will not permit them to rest even after they are dead These are the men who live so religiously But who are according to his Lordship prophane Livers They who stick close to St. Peter and his Successors They who for the Catholique Faith endure most willingly Sequestrations Imprisonments Banishments Death it self They in a word who suffer Persecution for Righteousness These in his Lordships opinion are Prophane Livers I return now to the Relatours men that live so religiously Do these men never condemn the Catholique Church but by their vertuous lives which you have seen Surely they condemn her not onely by quite dissonant lives but also by word of mouth by their pens nay by publick and solemn Censures Witness to go no further the Protestant Church of England Artic. 19. where she condemns of errour not onely the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria but even of Rome it self Again Rogers in his allowed Analyse and Comment upon the said Article pronounces that the Church of Rome hath not onely shamefully err'd in matters of Faith but that the whole visible Church may likewise erre from time to time and hath err'd in doctrine as well as conversation Do they not say Artic. 21. that General Councils may erre and have err'd even in things pertaining to God Do they not pronounce of Purgatory Praying to Saints Worship of Images and Reliques c. Artic. 22. of Transubstantiation Artic. 28. and of the Sacrifice of the Mass Artic. 31. respectively that they are fond things vainly invented by men contrary to Gods Word Blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits Though it be as clear as the sun at noon-day that both these and many other points deny'd and rejected by Protestants were the doctrine and
practise not onely of the Roman but of the whole Church near upon a thousand years together even by the confession of Protestants Is this onely to reform themselves and not to condemn other Churches otherwise then by silence and example Do not all other Protestant Confessions of Faith speak the same language Do they not all take upon them with a more then censorious presumption to condemn the Doctrine and practise of the Roman Catholique that is of the whole true Church of Christ in the same and divers other contested points 2. A. C. therefore well mindes us that in all matters of difficulty belonging to Faith particular Churches should have recourse to the Church of Rome as Irenaeus intimates which hath a more powerful Principality and to her Bishop who is chief Pastour of the whole Church as being St. Peters Successour to whom Christ promis'd the Keyes Math. 16. for whom he pray'd that his Faith might not fail Luke 22. and whom he charg'd to Feed and Govern his Flock John 21. which saith A. C. he shall never refuse to do in such sort as that his neglect shall be a just cause for any particular man or Church under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Schisme or Separation from the whole General Church In answer to this the Bishop tells us the Roman Church hath indeed a more powerful Principality then any other particular Church but not from Christ which is contrary to St. Austin or rather to the whole Council of Milevis who in their Epistle to Innocent the first professe that the Popes Authority is grounded upon Scripture and consequently proceeds from Christ. Secondly he sayes the Patriarchs were all as even and equal for any Principality of Power as the Apostles were But this is first Equivocal the Apostles themselves were not in all respects equal or of even Authority They had a Superiour among them viz. Saint Peter 'T is true indeed except St. Peter they were are all equal among themselves every one of them had equal mission unto and Jurisdiction over the whole Church and none of them any Authority preceptive or coercive over another whereas St. Peter together with his Authority Apostolical over the whole Church which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles had also Jurisdiction and Authority over the Apostles themselves as being in the number of Christs sheep committed to his charge by our Saviour John 21. as is clear in all Antiquity Secondly 't is contrary to the Council of Nice In the third Canon whereof which concerns the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs the Authority or Principality if you will of the Bishop of Rome is made the patern or model of that Authority and Jurisdiction which the Patriarchs were to exercise over the Provincial Bishops The words of the Canon are these Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub potestate ejus sunt sicut ille qui tenet Sedem Romae CAPUT ESTET PRINCEPS OMNIUM PATRIARCHARUM The Patriarch say they is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as He who holds the Sea of Rome is Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs And in the same Canon the Pope is afterward stiled Petro similis Autoritate par resembling Saint Peter and his equal in Authority This also the practise of the Church shews which is alwayes the best Expositour and Assertour of the Canons For not onely the Popes Confirmation was required to all new-elected Patriarchs but it belong'd likewise to him to depose unworthy ones and restore the unjustly deposed by others We read of no less then eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sixtus the third deposed also Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem as his Acts set down in the first Tome of the Councils testifie On the contrary Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople were by Julius the first restored to their respective Seas having been unjustly expell'd by Hereticks The same might be said of divers others over whom the Pope did exercise the like authority which he could never have done upon any other ground then that of divine Right and as being generally acknowledg'd St. Peters Successour in the Government of the whole Church St. Austin therefore said well in Romanâ Ecclesiâ semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus in the Roman Church the Principality of the Apostolique Chair hath alwayes flourisht Here the Bishop will have some other Apostolique Chairs like this of Rome viz. equal to it in Authority But this he does partly to level the Dignity of the Roman Sea contrary to St. Austin and all Antiquity and partly to make way to some other pretty perversions of the same Father For we must know he is now entring upon that main question concerning the Donatists of Africk of whose proceedings the whole forecited Epistle of St. Austin treateth and therefore to make our answer to his objections more compendious and clear it will not be amiss in the first place to state that business by way of Narrative and matter of Fact onely which I shall briefly do out of St. Austin and Optatus Milevitanus Thus then it was 3. The Donatists of Africk finding themselves sharply oppos'd by Caecilianus Arch-bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa by way of revenge accuse him of having in time of Persecution deliver'd up the Holy Scriptures with other Sacred Utensils of the Church into the possession of the Heathens which was accounted a most capital crime amongst Christians They added to their accusation that he was made Bishop by one guilty of the same crime viz. by Felix Bishop of Aptung and they prosecuted the business so hotly that by a Synod of seventy African Bishops Caecilian was condemn'd and outed of his Bishoprick But he making no great reckoning of the sentence as being condemn'd absent and unheard and knowing himself to be in Communion with the Roman Church the Donatists are forced to prosecute their charge against him in other Churches beyond Sea But not daring to appear at Rome or at least knowing it would be to little purpose they address themselves to the Emperour Constantin and desire him to command their cause to be heard by some Bishops of the Gaules in France where the Emperour then resided But the Emperour was so far from favouring them that he shew'd a great dislike of their proceedings telling them exprefly that it belong'd not to him neither durst he act the part of a Judge in a cause of Bishops Nevertheless knowing very well the turbulent disposition of Schismatiques and perceiving they meant not to acquiesce in the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Tribunal to which they were immediately subject he thought good to take a middle way which was to send them to Rome there to be heard and judged by the Pope to whom the cause did most properly belong but yet
thereof they so govern the Church as we may securely relie on them in matters of Faith at least in such as they definitively teach and promulgate to the whole Church But in the close the Bishop undertakes a strange task He will prove that Epiphanius in most express terms and that twice repeated makes not St. Peter but St. James Successour to our Lord in the Principality of his Church But he every way mistakes For first in the places he alledges there 's not a word of the Churches Principality Secondly he meerly equivocates in the words ante caeteros omnes which signifie onely priority of time because St. James was the first of the Apostles that was ordain'd Bishop of any particular place viz. at Jerusalem as both Eusebius and St. Hierome witness which is call'd Christs Throne because our Saviour himself had there preach't the Gospel and was principally and immediately sent thither Nor is it unusual in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to give the title of Christs Throne to any Episcopal Chair or Seat whatsoever To the Relatours assertion that we all say but no man proves that the Bishop of Rome succeeded in all St. Peters Prerogatives which are ordinary and belong'd to him as a Bishop though not in the extraordinary which belong'd to him as an Apostle I answer Bellarmin beside many Catholique Divines doth not onely say but prove that the Pope succeeds St. Peter not onely in the Prerogatives that belong'd to him as a Bishop but in all Prerogatives Apostolical which were of Ordinary necessity to continue in the Church for its Government and preservation of the True Faith as his Disputations upon this Subject sufficiently shew to any man that reads him with an unbyassed judgement For can any thing be more express then these words lib. 1. De Rom Pont. cap. 9. Mortuis autem Apostolis Apostolica Authoritas in solo Petri Successore permansit When the Apostles were dead the Authority Apostolical resided onely in St. Peters Successor Is this to say the Pope succeeded St. Peter onely in his Episcopal Prerogatives I adde that Bellarmin in the same chapter goes on shewing the difference between St. Peters Successour and the Successours of the rest of the Apostles viz. that they were Bishops onely and that their Authority reached not to a Jurisdiction over the whole Church as that of St. Peters Successours did who were therefore stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolical Bishops and their Sea the Sea Apostolique and their Office The Apostolate See his words in the Margin all which he there proves by the Authority of the Ancient Fathers Wherefore the Bishop 〈◊〉 very largely upon his Readers Credulity while he quotes Bellarmin for this Assertion that the Pope succeeds not St. Peter in any Prerogative that belong'd to him as an Apostle 10. However the Relatour is so kinde to St. Peter as to allow him a Primacy of Order but that is not so much as the Fathers allow him For by his own Confession Doctor Reinolds against Hart chap. 5. proves at large that the Fathers allow St. Peter and that in the way of Prerogative above the rest of the Apostles not onely Primacy of Order but Authority and Principality too which surely imply Power and I would have any man shew us some good Authour of ancient times in whom either the Latine word Primatus or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to it are attributed to any Ecclesiastical person as signifying onely Precedency in order and place and not a true Superiour Authority and Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom such a person is said to have Primacy or to be Primate Is not the contrary most evident viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes signifies Preheminence in Authority and Primatus more especially Preheminence or Superiority in Ecclesiastical Government Is the Primate of any Christian Nation no more then one that hath Precedence in place Doth that Title signifie no more in England then that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury ought to have the chief place in the Convocation-House Have not all Catholique Authours yea and many Protestants too ever thought they signified the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome both sufficiently and properly by the word Primatus Are there not many Volumes extant on both sides De Primatu Romani Pontificis Were their Authors ever tax'd for speaking ambiguously in using that terme wherefore if St. Peter had Primacy he had also Supremacy and if his Primacy were Universal over all his Supremacy was so too Since they both signifie the same thing viz. an eminency of Authority and Power in one above the rest Again St. Hierome speaking of this very subject saith Primatus Petro datur ut Capite constituto ' Schismatis tollatur occasio Can any man in his wits think that by Primatus he mean't onely Precedency of Order was that sufficient to prevent Schisme If therefore a True and Proper Primacy be granted by Protestants to St. Peters Successour also before and above all other Bishops and Patriarchs of the whole Church as divers of them grant the Fathers did it must be also granted that Supremacy of Power over all Bishops and Patriarchs of the Church is due unto him Now that Primacy or Supremacy of right belongs to St. Peters Successour no less then to himself I evince by this following Argument Whatsoever Power or Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schismes and procurement of Unity must à fortiori be necessary in all succeeding ages But the Power and Jurisdiction of One viz. St. Peter or his Successour over all Christians whatsoever not excepting even the Apostles themselves was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church in order to prevention of Schisms and procurement of Unity Ergo the Power and Jurisdiction of One viz. St. Peter or his Successour is à fortiori necessary in all succeeding Ages The Major viz. that whatsoever Power and Jurisdiction was necessary in the Apostles time for the due Government of the Church c. must needs be necessary in all succeeding Ages is clear from meer Inspection into those succeeding Ages to this present where it is visible by what degrees the great zeal of the Primitive Christians has decay'd and cooled even to this day to the production of infinite Schismes and Heresies which must needs ere this have overwhelm'd and utterly confounded the Church had not our Blessed Saviour that Divine Law-giver laid that original Platform of Church-Government which was to serve us as a pattern to the end of the world our Saviour Christ not so much regarding the need of it during the Apostles lives as the necessity his all-seeing wisdom foresaw would be of it in all future Ages The Minor is prov'd effectively by the precedent Discourse where St. Peters Primacy that is as we there shew his Supremacy over all
is confest by his Lordship and other Protestants The Conclusion therefore is undenyable viz. that 't is necessary for the Due Government of the Church that one should be endow'd with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages Adde hereunto that so long as the End is but in Acquisition and not compleatly gained the Necessary Means to obtain it is alwayes necessary But the End in our present case viz. the Due Government of the Church the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholick Faith and Christian Charity is and ever hath been since the Apostles time but in Acquisition and shall not be compleatly gained till the end of the world Ergo the Necessary Means viz. the Supreme Authority of One over All in the Government of the Church is hath been and ever will be necessary to the Worlds End CHAP. 17. The Popes Authority asserted and vindicated ARGUMENT 1. Our Saviours prayer for St. Peter extended to his Successours 2. What it effected for St. Peter and what for them 3. PASCE OVES AGNOS John 21. 15. 17. a Special charge to St. Peter and not common in all respects to the rest of the Apostles 4. A.C. begs not the question but proves it 5. The Bishop willingly mistakes him about the Notion of a General Council 6. Optatus and St. Austins words cited nothing to the purpose 7. The Popes Ancient and undoubted right to confirm General Councils 8. The Bishops Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies examin'd and shew'n to be vain 9. The Popes Authority duly acknowledged sufficient to prevent Schismes and Heresies 10. The Government of the Church not purely Monarchical but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope and other Catholique Bishops differ'd 1. THe Bishop himself in his Answers to the Argument drawn from our Saviours Prayer for St. Peter Luke 22. 32. Ego rogavi pro Te c. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not shews the insufficiency of his Evasions Card. Bellarmin by the Testimony of seven Popes most of them very Ancient proves that our Saviour by that Prayer obtain'd both for St. Peter and his Successours this priviledge namely that they should never teach the Church any thing contrary to True Faith What sayes the Bishop to this As for St. Peter himself he tells us it will be easily granted that such a priviledge was obtain'd for him but that it should be obtain'd or intended for his Successours also that never came within the compass of ROGAVI PROTE Petre. Yea Bellarmin's proof according to the Relatour is its own Confutation And why because forsooth all his proofs are from witnesses in their own Cause and from Interessed persons I answer first that all his proofs are not from Popes fot he gives several pregnant reasons for his Assertion drawn from the Text it self had the Bishop been pleas'd to answer them Secondly I ask How interressed so far as to assert a manifest untruth in a matter of so great importance to the whole Church Surely no. Can our Adversaries have the Confidence Temerity rather to affirm that Felix the first a most Holy Martyr about the year 273. that Lucius the first another most Holy Martyr as some think or as others say a Confessour about the year 337. and Leo the first a most Holy Pope as all Antiquity acknowledg'd about the year 440. would dare pervert and mis-alledge Scripture onely for Interest and to advance their own Authority had they not known it to be the just Authority of their Sea and rightly grounded on this Text Truly I could never yet understand this proceeding of Protestants who make so many publick professions to stand to the Fathers Authority of the first Five or Six hundred years yet when such Fathers are alledged fly presently back and reject their Authority upon such weak pretenses as these And though Pope Agatho were something after those ages viz. about the year 678. yet I see not how they can refuse his Testimony in this matter unless they be resolved to contemn not onely him but all the Fathers in the sixth General Council where the Epistle of this Pope was read and approv'd who could much better judge whether his words were written out of proper Interest then the Relatour or any of his party The other Three 't is confest are of somewhat a later standing yet the latest of them flourisht above four hundred years since and we desire to know what Authour of good repute ever taxed any of them as by assed with proper interest when they publish't that St Peter does in his Successours still teach the Church and confirm his Brethren in the True Faith by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour His assertion that Bellarmin upon the matter confesses there is not one Father in the Church before Theophylacts time that understands this Text as Bellarmin doth is wholly groundless Must he needs confess there are no more Authours citable in any subject but what he cites himself Certainly though Bellarmins Learning was great and his Reading much yet was he known to be a person of too great modesty and humility to pretend to this But suppose he had confest as much as the Bishop desir'd what follows onely this that till Theophylacts time none had given so full an Exposition of those words Ego rogavi pro Te c. as those seven Popes which is no wonder at all considering how few of the Fathers have purposely commented upon the place and how many of them do in effect deliver the same Doctrine drawn from other Texts of Scripture as Bellarmin also shews in other Chapters The force therefore of Bellarmins proof out of Theophylact is this If our Saviours prayer was to have a special effect in St. Peter because he was to be the Churches Foundation under Christ it must also have the like effect in those who were to be such Foundations in succeeding ages that is in all his lawful Successours Neither doth this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith belong to him precisely as an Apostle which the Relatour insinuates but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him 2. To what he addes touching the two Effects or Priviledges our Saviours prayer obtain'd for St. Peter and their descending to his Successours I answer Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his did effectively so descend But I confess 't is a disputable question whether every thing which Christ by this prayer intended and obtain'd for St. Peter was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours That some special priviledge both intended and obtain'd by this prayer was to descend to them is manifest both by the Authorities and Reasons brought by Bellarmin in proof thereof and this Priviledge was that none of St. Peters Successours should ever so far fall from the Faith as to teach Heresie or any
instructed his Apostles touching all points absolutely necessary to Salvation especially considering what himself professeth in his Prayer for them to the Father John 17. 8 14. I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me and they have received them c Can those words in any Protestants opinion signifie less then all points absolutely necessary to Salvation His Lordship here stumbles in the plain way endeavouring to impose this absurd Disjunctive upon his Reader viz. that all Truth must either signifie simply All whatsoever matter of Fact as well as Faith or be restrained to Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation that is without which no man can in any circumstance be saved the apparent falsity whereof a man half blinde may perceive it being in effect to say that either All men are wise and learned or none but Socrates and Plato To as little purpose is his other limitation viz. that a Councill is then onely Infallible when it suffers it self to be led by the Blessed Spirit by the word of God By this again it seems that in things absolutely necessary to Salvation a General Council is not absolutely Infallible but may possibly refuse to be led by the Spirit and Word of God and consequently fall into Fundamental Errour in which the Bishop is not constant to himself professing the contrary when it makes for his turn But if it may so erre what a sad condition might the whole Church be in since what a General Council teaches is as obligatory to the whole Church as what the Parliament enacts is obligatory to the whole Kingdom His last shift to evade the force of those words leading into All Truth is that the promise of Assistance was neither so absolute nor in such manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles nor directly to a Council at all Who contends it was who makes it a question whether the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost were not more absolutely and directly intended to the Apostles then to the Church or not more absolutely and directly to the Chureh then to General Councils It sufficeth us if it were in any sort truly and really intended to them all and that so it was the very nature of the promise evinceth since otherwise neither the said succeeding Pastours northe Church of their times could infallibly decide any arising Controversies touching the sense of Scriptural Texts which are not onely ambiguous but lyable to damnable Interpretations as the Scripture it self averrs 2 Pet. 3. 16. much less determine any point of Faith not expresly deliver'd in Scripture as many are not But note that to the closing words of this first Text and that for ever the Bishop sayes not any thing The truth is their clearness is not easily eluded To the second proof which is from Matth. 28. 20. Behold I am with you 〈◊〉 unto the end of the world the Bishop answers the Fathers are various in their Exposition and Application of this Text. We grant they are various in words but agreeing in sense and that the same in effect we here plead for The Fathers by the Bishops own Confession understood a presence of Aid and Assistance to support the weakness of the Apostles and their Successours against the Difficulties they should finde for preaching Christ. But are Heresies and the perverse maintainers of them no part of the Difficulties Christs Ministers meet with in preaching his Gospel Sure they are And if this be the Native sense of the words as 't is in the Relatours opinion it follows necessarily that the said Ministers or Preachers of the Gospel have such a presence of Christ promis'd them in this place as effectually inables them to withstand and overcome those Difficulties which in reason cannot be more conveniently effected then by a General Council so assisted Declaring against them But sayes our Adversary few of the Fathers mention Christs presence in Teaching by the Holy Ghost What matters that The reason is because this is but one Special kinde of presence and the Fathers usually in their expositions of Scripture unless some particular occasion carries them to the contrary content themselves to express the general importance of the Sacred Text without descending to particulars And yet some of them as even the Bishop himself observes do expresly interpret this place of Christs presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost But they do not extend it saith he to Infallible Assistance further then the Succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit No more do we We confess the Succeeding Church could not be Infallible should it depart from or teach contrary to the word of the Apostles no more then the Apostles themselves could have been Infallible had they departed from the guidance of the Spirit But as the Infallibility of the Apostles consisted in their constant adhering to and following the guidance of that Holy Spirit in all matters concerning Faith and Religion so is there and the Fathers teach such a presence of Christ with the Succeeding Church as causeth her in all Definitions of Faith constantly to adhere to the word of the Apostles and as need requires infallibly to expound it all which we have sufficiently prov'd and could it otherwise happen Christ would not be alwayes found so present with his Church as to keep her from incurring ruine by erroneous Doctrines which this his promise must at least imply Lastly whereas Maldonat proves that this kinde of presence by Infallible Teaching is rightly gathered from this Text though not expresly signified by it the Bishop by his mis-translation makes him deny it to be the intention of Christ which learned Authour does not onely assert the Truth of this Exposition but brings in proof of it the testimonies of St. Cyril St. Leo and Salvianus To the Third Matth. 16. 18. touching the Rock on which the Church is founded the Bishop sayes first he dares not lay any other Foundation then Christ. We answer all the Apostles are styl'd Foundations of the Church witness St. Paul who was one of them Eph. 2. 20. Christ indeed was and is the Principal Foundation the Chief corner stone in the Churches building as the Apostle there speaks yet Ministerially and by Authority Derived from Christ not onely the Apostles but the Successours of the chief of them St. Peter may be and are in a true sense Foundations of the Church Secondly the Bishop sayes and he does but say it that St. Peter was onely the first in order whereas the Fathers teach and we have sufficiently prov'd that he was not onely the first in order but in Authority Thirdly he tells us that by the Rock is not meant St. Peters person onely but the Faith which he professed and for this saith he the Fathers come in with a very full consent I answer we pretend not to understand by the Rock
Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church with all Fundamentall points generally held for such and to receiue the fowre first Generall Councils only and noe more be a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation Did our Sauiour meane the Primitiue Church only or only the fowre first Generall Councils and noe others when he sayd Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not heare the Church lett him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And if it be to be vnderstood as without doubt it is of the Church and Generall Councils in all ages how could the Bishop how can Protestants thinke themselues secure only by beleeuing the fowre first Councils and the Church of Primitiue times if they oppose and contradict others or contemne the authority of the true Catholique Church of Christ that now is And for the second viz. that the English-Protestant Fayth is not really and indeed such a Fayth as the Bishop here professeth will appeare vpon examination thus You beleeue say you Protestants the Scripture and the Creeds and you beleeue them in the sense of the Primitiue Church J aske first doe you meane all Scripture or only a part of it if part of it only how can your Fayth be thought such as cannot but giue Saluation seeing for ought you know there may be damnable errour and sinne in reiecting the other part If you meane all Scripture you profess more then you are able to make good seeing you refuse many books of Scripture that were held Canonicall by very many in the Primitiue Church and admitt for Canonicall diuerse others that were for some time doubted of and not reckoned for any part of the Canon by many ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church more then those were which for that reason chiefly you account Apocrypha 4. You pretend to beleeue both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church But when will this be prou'd wee bring diuerse testimonies from the Fathers and Doctours of those ancient times vnderstanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholy agreeable to vs and contrary to your doctrine Must all our allegations be esteem'd apocryphall and counterfeite or mis-vnderstood because they impugne your reformed beleefe must nothing be thought rightly alledged but what suites with your opinions you pretend conformity with the fowre first Generall Councils too but the proceedings of those Councils cleerly shew the quite contrary The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Syluester to confirm their decrees Doe Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope The great St. Athanasius with the Bishops of Egypt assembled in the Council at Alexandria profess that in the Council of Nice it was with one accord determined that without consent of the Bishop of Rome neither Councils should be held nor Bishops condemned Doe not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon by one common voyce profess that St. Peter spake by the mouth of Leo that the sayd Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter deposed Dioscorus Doe they not call him the vniuersall Bishop the vniuersall Patriarch the Bishop of the vniuersall Church Doe they not terme him the Interpreter of St. Peters voyce to all the world Doe they not acknowledge him their Head and themselues his members and consets that the custody or keeping of Christs vineyard which is the whole Church was by our Sauiour committed to him Js this the dialect or beleefe of English Protestants Did not likewise the whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first Bishop of Rome to confirme what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresie with the authority of the Sea Apostolique pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the sauing of many and for correcting the peruerse wickedness of some and did they not with all reuerence and submission receiue the Popes answer sent to them in these words In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you haue made it appeare sayth he not only by vsing all diligence as is required of a true and Catholique Council in examining matters of that concernment but also in referring your debates to our iudgement and approbation how sound your Fayth is and that you are mindefull to obserue in all things the examples of ancient tradition and the discipline of the Church knowing that this is a duty which you owe to the Apostolique Sea wherein wee all desire to follow the Apostle from whome both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is deriued and following him wee cannot be ignorant both how to condemne what is ill and also to approue that which is praise-worthy oYou doe well therfore and as it becometh Priests to obserue the customes of the ancient Fathers which they grounded not vpon humane but diuine authority that nothing should be finally determined in remote Prouinces without the knowledge of this Sea by whose full authority the sentence giuen if it were found to be iust might be confirm'd this Sea beeing the proper Fountaine from which the pure and vncorrupted waters of truth were to streame to all the rest of the Churches Will English Protestants consent to this Doe not the Prelats in the Council of Ephesus heare with like attention and approbation Philip the Priest one of the Popes Legats to that Council auouching publiquely in full Council the authority of St. Peters Successour in these words noe body doubts sayth he nay it is a thing manifest and acknowledged in all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter PRINCE AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES AND FOVNDATION OF THE CHVRCH receiued from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and that to this day he still liues in his Successours and determines causes of Fayth and shall euer continue so to doe With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend that Protestants conform themselues to the doctrine of the fowre first Generall Councils Those Councils submitt their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome Protestants disclayme from him as from an enemy of Christs Gospell Those Councils acknowledge him vniuersall Pastour and Head of the Church Protestants cry out against him as an Vsurper and Tyrant ouer the Church Those Councils confess him St. Peters Successour who was Prince and Chiefe of the Apostles Protestants call him and esteem him Antichrist The Councils own his authority ouer the whole Church as proceeding from Christ Protestants allow him noe more power by diuine right then they allow to euery ordinary Bishop Lastly these Councils with all submission profess that the Pope was their Head and themselues his members Protestants giue vs in contempt and derision the nickname of Papists for doing the same that is for owning subiection to the Pope and Sea of Rome I might instance in many other points wherein Protestants disagree from the fowre first Generall Councils but I pass them ouer to take notice of what followes There is sayth the Bishop but one sauing Fayth But then euery thing which you call
Damned page 336 Heresies Even in points Not-Fundamental in Protestants sense by St. Austin and the Churches account page 17 Pelagian Heresie not condemned in the Council of Ephesus page 33 Nor in any other General Council acknowledg'd by Protestants Ibid. Heresie what it is page 178 Properly speaking not within but without the Church page 218 Hereticks Those of former times as great Pretenders to Scripture as Protestants page 50 Faith necessary to be kept with Hereticks the constant Tenet of all Catholicks page 152 Jews THe Jews prov'd the Old Testament to be Gods Word the same way that we Catholicks do the New page 121 They held not the Old Testament for their sole Rule of Faith page 122 Images No real difference betwixt the Ancient and the Modern Church of Rome in point of Images page 294 The Second Council of Nice expresly forbad the Worship of Images with Latria or Divine Worship Ibid. c. The Definition of the Council of Trent touching the Worshipping of Images Ibid. The Church hath done what in her lyeth to prevent abuses in Image-Worship Ibid. Images in common use and veneration amongst Christians in Primitive Times page 295 296 Index The Index Expurgatorius justified against the Bishops Calumnies page 342 Infallible The Catholick Church prov'd to be Infallible by the same Means that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were prov'd such page 55 56 62 In what sense Catholicks maintain that the Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive and Apostolical p. 80 No Means to be Infallibly sure of Prime Apostolical Tradition if the present Church be Fallible page 83 Necessary for the Church to have power to determine Infallibly as well Not-Fundamental as Fundamental points page 385 Infallibility Whence the Infallibility both of the Catholick Church and General Councils proceeds page 43 The Infallibility of the present Church prov'd from Scripture page 101 102 c. page 177 178 179 In what manner the Churches Infallibility in Teaching is rightly infer'd from the Holy Ghosts Assistance page 375 376 Intention What kinde of Intention in the Priest is absolutely necessary to the validity of the Sacraments page 281 282 283 No real Inconveniencies following the Catholique Doctrine touching the Priests Intention page 284 285 Judge Our Adversaries demand of a Third person to be Judge and Umpire betwixt the Roman Church and Them nugatory and frivolous pag. 157 171 172 173 The notorious partiality of English Protestant Prelats in this case p. 174 General Councils by the Bishops own confession the best Judge on earth for Controversies of Faith where the sense of Scripture is doubted page 213 A visible supreme living Judge to determine Controversies as necessary in the Church as State page 219 Legats NEither Hosius nor any other person presided at the Council of Nice but onely in quality of the Popes Legats page 231 Why the Pope sent no Legats to the second Council at Constantinople page 232 At the Council of Ephesus St. Cyril presided as Legat to Pope Celestin. Ibid. The like was at Chalcedon and other General Councils Ibid. Limbus Patrum The Fathers generally teach Limbus Patrum page 336 Literae Communicatoriae The Literae Communicatoriae by whom first ordain'd and to what end page 220 They evidently prove the Popes Authority Ibid. The difference betwixt Those granted by the Pope and Those granted by other Catholique Bishops Ibid. Lyturgie The English Lyturgie why unlawful to be us'd by Catholiques page 319 Manichees GReat Braggers and pretenders to Truth when they most oppos'd it page 30 Miracles None ever wrought in confirmation of the present Canon of Scriptures either Protestant or Catholique page 109 Miracles rather confirm the Churches Infallibility then the Scripture's page 110 They are always sufficiently convincing though they do not actually convert page 115 Monarchy That of the Church not a pure but mixt Monarchy page 219 224 Monarchy acknowledg'd by Philosophers the most perfect form of Government page 220 The impugning Monarchical Government of the Church to what it tends page 224 Multitude Catholiques make not Multitude alone any Infallible Mark of the True Church page 162 Necessary POints said to be Necessary to Salvation in a double sense p. 15 92 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation to believe Scripture p. 91 92 Nice No Synod held at Rome in the time of the Nicen Council page 237 The Council of Nice of absolute Authority without the concurrence of any other Council Ibid. The Council of Sardica esteem'd anciently but an Appendix of the Council of Nice and the reasons why page 194 195 The probable occasion of Pope Zosimus his citing the Council of Nice for that of Sardica Ibid. Obedience NO External Obedience to be given to the Definitions of General Councils should they manifestly erre against Scripture and Demonstration page 241 242 Object of Faith Material and Formal a necessary Distinction page 15 18 What it imports Ibid. Patriarchs IN point of Authority not Equal to the Bishop of Rome p. 183 184 The Bishop of Rome Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs by the very Canon of the Council of Nice Ibid. The Popes Confirmation requir'd to all new-elected Patriarchs Ibid. Eight several Patriarchs depos'd by the Bishop of Rome Ibid. Other Patriarchs restor'd to their Seas by the Popes Authority Ibid. St. Peter In what manner St. Peter represented or bare the person of the whole Church when he receiv'd the Keyes Matth. 16. 19. page 266 267 Christs whole flock more absolutely and unlimitedly committed to St. Peter then to the other Apostles page 211 Pope The Popes Authority alwayes included and suppos'd in that of the Church pag. 33 The Infallibility of the Pope not necessarily tyed to the particular Church or city of Rome page 132 Catholiques not oblig'd to maintain the Pope Infallible save onely with a General Council page 133 143 In what manner the Popes trewhile indur'd the Emperours censures page 192 The Popes Authority duly acknowledg'd would effectually prevent Heresies and preserve Unity in the Church page 218 The Popes Greatness no effect of Humane Policy page 13 Nor of his Residence in the Imperial-City page 192 The Definition of the Council of Florence touching the Popes Authority page 228 229 The Popes Authority not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes p. 223 Pope Alexander the Third and Pope Innocent the Third not contrary to one another in the cause of Peter Lombard page 279 Pope Honorius not really guilty of the Monothelites Heresie p. 279 280 Priest The judgement of the High Priest and his Sanhedrim in Controversies concerning the Law Infallible under the Old Testament p. 97 123 Prescription Justly pleaded by Catholiques for their Religion not so by Protestants page 333 334 Primacy PRIMATUS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what they signifie especially in Ecclesiastical sense page 200 Primacy inferrs Supremacy and belongs to St. Peters Successors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to himself Ibid. Protestants Neither Scripture nor any other
nothing against the Truth practised in the Church The Bishop goes on and endeavours to shew that St. Augustin speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture because immediately before he sayes There was a question moved to St. Cyprian whether Baptisme was tyed to the eighth day as well as Circumcision and no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin and that out of this thing about which no question was moved that question that was made was answered And again That St. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church to confirm a stone that was shaking But all this proves nothing against us but for us because St. Cyprian might answer the question that was made by that which was granted by all and questioned by none although the thing granted and not questioned were the Doctrine of the Church For this Doctrine of the Church or Foundation as the Bishop calls it might be given in answer to confirm a Stone that was shaking that is some particular matter in question Although whatsoever is taught by the Church may be granted without contradicting Catholique Principles to be some way or other infolded or contained in Scripture Wherefore all the Definitions of the Church may be said to be Foundations of Doctrine in Scripture although many times they be so involved there that without the Definition of the Church we could not be bound expresly to believe them nay without the Authority of the Church we should not be obliged to believe the Scripture it self as St. Augustin tells us in the words formerly cited Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas So that it cannot be doubted but that St. Augustins judgement was that all our Faith depended upon the Authority of the Church and therefore that he who opposeth himself against this endeavoureth to shake and destroy the very ground-work and Foundation of all Divine and Supernatural Faith Now whether the Bishop or Mr. Fisher hath wronged the Text of St. Augustin we shall presently see For first the Bishop sayes that St. Augustin speaks of a doctrine founded in Scripture not a Church-Definition How untrue this is viz. that St. Augustin speaks not of the Churches Definition let St. Augustin himself determine in the very place cited where speaking of Christs profiting of Children Baptized he useth these words Hoc habet Authoritas Matris Ecclesiae Hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon contra hoc robur contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur This saith he hath the Authority of our Mother the Church this hath the well founded Canon or Rule of Truth against this invincible Rampart whoever runneth himself is sure to be broken in pieces And again speaking of St. Cyprian he tells us that he will shew quid senserit de Baptismo parvulorum imò quiá semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit What that Holy Martyr thought of the Baptisme of Infants or rather what he demonstrated the Church had alwayes taught concerning it and many such like places are in this very Sermon It is therefore manifest that St. Augustin here speaks of the Churches Definition nay and that so fully that he acknowledges in another place that the Baptisme of Infants was not to be believed but because it is an Apostolical Tradition His words are these Tom. 3. De Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 13. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis Parvulis nequaquam spernenda est neque ullo modo 〈◊〉 deputanda NEC O M NINO CREDENDA nisi Apostolica esset Traditio The custom of our Mother the Church to Baptize Infants is by no means to be despised or counted in any sort superfluous nor yet at all to be believed if it were not a Tradition of the Apostles Though therefore St. Cyprian in those few lines which St. Augustin referres to doth not expresly mention the Definition of the Church as the Bishop objects yet a man would think St. Augustins Authority should be sufficient to assure us that in those very words St. Cyprian shews what was the sense and Doctrine of the Church in the same manner as when the Bishop himself proposes any Doctrine contained in Scripture 't is true to say he delivers a Doctrine contained in Scripture though himself doth not expresly say at the propounding of it it is in Scripture Seeing therefore St. Augustin speaks here of a point which he sayes was not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical Tradition which is in effect to say that it cannot be proved by sole Scripture how can he be understood to say that Scripture is the Foundation of the Church But that he may one way or other draw St. Augustin to speak in appearance for him he gives a most false Translation of his words For he translates these words of St. Augustin ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur thus He shall endeavour to shake the Foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded all in a different letter Whereas in the Latin Text of St. Augustin there is nothing that answers to any of those words which the Bishop thrusts into his English upon which or whole Church or is grounded so that all this latter part is meerly an Addition of his own and no part of St. Augustins sentence But such fraudulent dealing was necessary to give a gloss to his interpretation For he would make St. Augustin speak of a foundation different from the Churches Authority no wit the Scriptures whereupon sayes he the Authority of the Church is grounded which is farre from St. Augustins meaning For by Fundamentum ipsum Ecclefea the very foundation of the Church he means nothing else but the Church it self or her Authority which is the foundation of Christianity as when St. Paul sayes superadificati super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum c. being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets he means nothing else but that we are built upon the Apostles and Prophets as upon a foundation or as if one should say of a destroyer of the Fundamental Laws of a Nation Fundamentum ipsum begum quatere molitur he endeavours to shake the very foundation of our Laws or of one that rejected the Authority of Scripture fundamentum ipsum Scripturarum quatere molitur he labours to shake the very Foundation of holy Scripture no man would understand him to mean any other Foundation then what the Laws and the Scriptures themselves are Now that nothing but this can be the meaning of St. Augustin is evident For in this very sentence he allows of Disputes held in such things as are not yet establish't by the full Authority of the Church nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis Wherefore all consequence and coherence of discourse requires that when he disallows of those disputes which go so far as to shake the foundation of the Church he must mean those
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
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
Lordships Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points Wherefore he must needs agree with us in this that the perfection of Infallibility may be applied to the whole Church though not to every particular Member thereof Now further concerning the Churches Infallibility though she be so tyed to means as that she is bound to use them yet in her Definitions she receives not her Infallibility from the Means as the Bishop must also affirm of his Fundamentals but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Church which makes her Definitions truly Infallible though they be not New Revelations but onely Declarations of what was formerly Revealed For as the immediate Revelation it self is for no other reason Infallible but because it proceeds from God and in case it should happen to be not true and Certain the Errour would be ascribed to God So in the Definitions of the Church if she should fall into Errour it would likewise be ascrib'd to God himself Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is Gods immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false Gods Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averre that Gods promise would be infring'd as truly it would in that Supposition For did he not so preserve his Church in her Definitions of Faith by Assistance of the Holy Ghost as that she should never Define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not Revealed from God it would imply a destruction of Gods veracity and make him deny himself All which Doctrine is so well grounded on Christs Promise assuring us he will alwayes assist his Church that the Bishop has little reason to accuse us of rather maintaining a party then seeking Truth as though we set Doctrines on foot to foment Division and were rather lead by Animosity then Reason CHAP. 6. No unquestionable Assurance of Apostolicall Tradition but for the Infallible Authority of the Present Church ARGUMENT 1. Apostolical Traditions are the unwritten word of God and eight Instances concerning them witnessed by St. Augustin 2. Many things spoken by our Saviour not deliver'd by way of Tradition to the Church and many Church-Traditions not the word of God 3. Tradition not known by its own light any more then Scripture to be the word of God 4. The Private Spirit held by Calvin and Whitaker for the sole Motive of Believing Scripture to be the word of God 5. A Dialogue between the Bishop and a Heathen Philosopher 6. The case of a Christian dying without sight of Scripture 7. Occham Saint Augustin Canus Almain and Gerson either miscited or their sense perverted by the Bishop 1. THe Bishop having been hardly put to it in the precedent Chapter to finde some way whereby to prove Scripture to be the Word of God he continually treading on the brink of a Circle at length falls on the unwritten Word It seems he is afraid he shall be forc'd to come stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority But being loath to trust her he grows so wary that hee 'l admit no unwritten word but what is shew'n him deliver'd by the Prophets and Apostles Would he read it in their Books Now if you hearken to his Discourse he presently cryes out he cannot swallow into his belief that every thing which his Adversary sayes is the unwritten word of God is so indeed Nor is it our desire he should But we crave the indifferent Readers Patience to hear reason According to which it is apparent that there must be some Authority to assure us of this main Principle of Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This our Ensurancer is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition Declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God We do not pretend as the Bishop objects that every Doctrine which any particular Person as A. C. Bellarmin or other private Doctour may please to call Tradition is therefore to be receiv'd as Gods unwritten Word but such Doctrinal Traditions onely as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently Gods unwritten word Of which kinde are those which not I but St. Augustin judged to be such in his time and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first Apostolical Tradition named by Saint Augustin is that we now treat that Scripture is the Word of God He affirms he would not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto and sticks so close to her Authority that he sayes If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church Nay that he as much believed the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel it self because the same Authority of the Church assured him both of the one the other A second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other Person A third that the blessed Virgin Mary was and remained alwayes a Virgin both before in and after the Birth of Christ St. Augustin terming Helvidius his opinion who denied it a Blasphemy and for that reason inserting him in his Catalogue of Hereticks The fourth That those who are Baptized by Hereticks are not to be Rebaptized The fifth That Infants are to be baptized The Sixth that Children Baptized are to be numbred amongst the faithful The seventh that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting The eighth that Sunday the first Day of the Week is to be kept holy by Christians It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds that they cannot enter into a question without supposing a Falshood so his Lordship here feeds his humour and obtrudes many He makes Bellarmin and all Catholique Doctours maintain that whatever they please to call Tradition must presently be received by all as Gods unwritten Word After he keeps a fluttering between Tradition and the unwritten Word asking if they be Convertible Terms and then whether any Word of God be unwritten c. Which digressive Discourse is nothing but a new Turn in his Labyrinth to avoid the foil he foresaw himself in danger of in case he did here grapple with Bellarmin who clearly delivers his Doctrine in the place cited by the Bishop cap. 2. viz. That the word Tradition is general and signifies any Doctrine communicated from one to another whether it be written or unwritten By which 't is evident he makes not Tradition and the unwritten Word of God Convertible Afterwards he divides Traditions into Divine Apostolical and Ecclesiastical and again into Traditions belonging to Faith and Traditions belonging to Manners So that
not dissenting from it Again as Christ and his Apostles shew'd they had Divine Authority to all who had the Grace to believe them and none to whom their preaching was sufficiently propounded could disbelieve them without damnable sin so also if the Scripture hath light enough after the recommendation of the Church to be seen by all that have Grace whoever dissents from that light commits a damnable sin in not believing it to be the word of God Now to affirm that all who dissent from that light commit damnable sin were to condemne not onely all the Luther an Protestants but many of the holy Ancient Fathers of damnable sin who read some of those Books which other Protestants account Scripture even upon the recommendation of the Church and yet dissented from their being the word of God at least accounted it not infallibly certain that they were 6. Thus we have seen quite contrary to the Bishops Doctrine that Scripture gives not so great and high Reasons of Credibility to it self that the Believer may rest his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority upon that Divine light which Scripture hath in self For there appears no such light to any but to the Bishop and those who pretend to the private Spirit 'T is true the Scripture is said by the Royal Prophet to be a Light because after we have once receiv'd it from the Infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe Therefore David saith not Verba scripta in Bibliis lumen pedibus meis but Verbum tuum THY WORD is a light to my feet so that he first believ'd the Scripture to be the word of God and then said it was a light c. But without this Authority 't is neither lumen manifestativum sui nec alterius neither a light that evidences it self nor any thing else because without this we may with just reason doubt as well of Scripture as of the true sense thereof Wherefore though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspir'd from God yet he doth never avow that this could be prov'd out of them unless they were receiv'd by the Infallible Authority of the Church And Henricus a Gandavo quoted by his Lordship for affirming that Christians in the Primitive Church did principally believe for the Authority of God and not of the Apostles means onely that Christians were not mov'd to believe for any humane Authority of the Apostles but for the Authority of God speaking by them So that this argument must be solv'd as well by the Bishop as by us for he has already granted that the Authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as we And Origen whom he cites in the Margent speaks to such as believ'd that Scriptures were the word of God whom by those proofs out of Scripture he endeavour'd to confirm and settle in their Faith by shewing how Scripture it self testified as much We may therefore assert that 't is not any humane or fallible Authority of the Church that moves us to embrace the Scripture as the Infallible word of God but the voyce of God speaking by the Church or the Authority of God declar'd to us infallibly by the present Church And this Infallible Authority is no less requisite to the knowledge of the first Apostolicall Tradition of the Scriptures then it is to know the Scripture it self But I finde another handsome Turn or two in this discourse of the Bishop He undertook to evince that the Scripture hath such light in it self that being introduc'd by the Tradition of the Church it can shew it self to be the most undoubted Divine word of God which to perform he assumes this medium The Scripture is a light Therefore it can manifest not onely other things but also it self by it self to be a light Ergo it can manifest it self to be the word of God This must be his consequence if he will conclude his intent But what windings are here The Scripture is a light I grant it Ergo 't is able to manifest it self to be a light I grant that too Ergo it can manifest it self to be an infallible light or the undoubted word of God That I deny and this which was the onely thing to be prov'd he never so much as goes about to prove For unless he could shew that there are no other lights save the word of God and such as are Infallible he can never make good his consequence In Seneca in Plutarch in Aristotle I read many lights and those lights manifest themselves to be lights Ergo they manifest themselves to be Infallible lights or the very Divine word of God what consequence is this The Scripture teacheth that there is one God this is a light and manifests it self to be a light Ergo it manifests it self to be the word of God how follows that May not the same light be found in hundreds of Books even in the Talmud of the Jews and Alcoran of the Turks as well as in Scripture The same may be said of a thousand Moral Instructions which either the very same or much like to them may be sound in other Moral Writers as well Christians as Jews and Heathens which all manifest themselves to be lights but follows it thence that they manifest themselves to be Divine lights or lights undoubtedly proceeding from the mouth of God The intricacy therefore of this Meander consists in making a sly Transition from the light to the person who is cause of this light I finde for example a candle lighted in a room it is a light and enlightens all the room and shews it self to be a light by its own light but it shews not by that light who lighted it I see some good sentence written on a wall it manifests it self by it self to be good but it manifests not whether it were written by Man Angel or God himself this must be evinc'd some other way Thus the words and sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves by themselves to be lights yet because the very same or such as are perfectly like and so the same in substance and sense may have been conceiv'd and express'd not onely by God but by good Men or Angels it follows not as he would have it they shew themselves to be lights by their own light Ergo they shew themselves to be Gods-lights or Infallible lights produc'd by none but God himself We have made I hope a pretty good progress through this Meander But no looner is one past over but we fall into another He was to prove that Scripture has light enough in it self to give Divine Infallible proof that 't is the word of God so as our Faith may rest upon that light as on its proper formall object and to evince this he cites here and there Authorities of the Fathers where they took some proofs out of Scripture to conclude Scripture to be the word of God
interpretation suits not with those high Elogium's given by St. Cyprian to the Roman Church as being the Principal Church the Church whence Unity of Faith and Discipline is derived to all other Christian Churches Nay this interpretation gives no more Prerogative to the Church of Rome then to that of Alexandria or 〈◊〉 c. to none of which in those Primitive times Errour in Faith could have easie access At length after much ado he grants perfidia may be taken for Errour in Faith or for perfidious Misbelievers and Schismaticks who had betray'd their Faith but then he cavils with the word Romanos This must be limited onely to those Christians who then lived in Rome to whom quatales as long as they continued such Errour in Faith could have no access Is not this a great praise As if St. Cyprian should say St. Peters Sea could not erre so long as it continued constant in the Truth What Nationall Church nay what faithfull Christian then living might not have challenged as much priviledge as this Finally he concludes St. Cyprian meant no Infallibility in the Roman Church by the sentence alledged because he himself had some Contrast afterward with Pope Stephen touching the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Heretiques But his Lordship should have remembred that common distinction of Divines whereby they consider the Pope sometimes as a Private Doctour and sometimes as the Doctour or Pastour universall of all Christians and that St. Cyprian might very well be suppos'd to think the Pope err'd onely in the first sense For Pope Stephen did not properly define any Doctrine in that contestation which was between them but onely commanded that those in Africa should alter nothing that was observed in the ancient practice about receiving such into the Church as had been Baptized by Heretiques Nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est neither had the Council of Carthage any just cause to mention it as an errour in St Cypirian for thinking the Pope might erre in quality of a Private Doctour Again if this be a good Argument against the Infallibility of Popes viz. St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd therefore the Pope may erre in matters of Faith it will be good consequence also to say St. Cyprian held Pope Stephen err'd even whilst he maintain'd an universal immemorial Tradition receiv'd and practis'd as such by the whole Catholick Church ever since the Apostles ergo the Pope may erre even whilst he follows such an Universal Immemorial Tradition By this manner of arguing not onely the Popes infallible Authority but the infallible Authority of the most Universal Immemorial Traditions in the Church will be infring'd through St. Cyprians erroneous judgement and if it be plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman infallibility as the Relatour here sayes it is it will be also plain enough to prove St. Cyprian had no great opinion of the infallibility of such an Universal Tradition which is altogether absurd The Bishops exceptions therefore to this Text of St. Cyprian being of no force it remains that his meaning must be this and no other viz. that the Sea of St. Peter which is the principall of all Churches was so infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost that no errour in Faith could have access to it or be admitted by it if not as a particular Church which is a School-question and as such disputed here by Bellarmin yet at least as the Head of the Universal Church of Christ and as the Fountain of Priestly Unity which St. Cyprian here plainly affirms that Church and Sea to be The second Authority is out of St Jerome who speaks in this manner to Ruffinus Scito Romanam fidem Apostolica voce laudatam cjusmodi praestigias non admittere etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mutari I will not here dispute whether Bellarmin by Romanam Fidem means Romanos Fideles or no yea I most willingly agree with his Lordship in this that by Romanam Fidem St. Jerome understands the Catholique Faith of Christ. But by the way 't is worth noting how inconsequently our Adversaries speak who usually condemn us for joyning as Synonyma's Roman and Catholick together viz. when we say the Roman-Catholick Faith or the Roman-Catholick Church and yet the Bishop has no other way to avoid the force of St. Jeromes words but by acknowledging in this place that the Roman and Catholick is all one Well then be it granted that in St. Jeromes time the Roman was accounted the Catholique Faith what will this advantage the Bishop Very much as he imagins at least For thus he discourses The Roman being here taken for the Catholique Faith and the Catholique Faith being uncapable of any change or of admitting any praestigias that is Illusions or Alterations it will of necessity follow that Saint Hieromes words evince not the perpetuall unchangeableness of the Faith as taught and professed in the Church of Rome Excellent But did not his Lordship see how easily this exposition of his might be blown away Can it be thought a thing any way suitable to Saint Hieromes wisdom to tell Ruffinus so great a Scholar as he was known to be that the Catholique Faith in abstracto in its own precise nature can never be any other then what it is knew not Ruffinus as well as St. Hierome himself that neither Faith nor any thing else can change its essence would he make St. Hierome so simple as to perswade Ruffinus not to go about to undermine the people of Rome for such a reason as this because the Catholique Faith abstracted from those who teach and maintain it can never be but what it is essentially Seeing that notwithstanding any such Immutability it might easily enough be extirpated out of the hearts of the people of Rome and the contrary errours admitted how unalterable soever the Faith in it self be The unchangeableness therefore of the Catholique Faith in this sense could no way hinder Ruffinus from spreading such Books among the Romans as might endanger their perversion but rather the Immutable Faith of the Sea Apostolique so highly commended both by the Apostle and St. Hierome which is founded upon such a Rock that even an Angel himself is not able to shake it The third Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nazianzen whose Elogium in behalf of the Roman Church is very Emphatical Vetus Roma sayes he ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem semper eam retinet sicut decet urbem quae toti orbi praesidet semper de Deo integram 〈◊〉 habere For the clearing of which passage I say first the Bishop is not faithful in his Translation of him for he leaves out the word Ever in the latter part of the sentence whereas St. Gregory speaking of the sound and entire Faith of the Roman Church sayes that Rome alwayes holds it as becomes
that City which is Governess over the whole world to have EVER an entire Faith in and concerning God Secondly in his Gloss upon the Sentence he omits the same word again saying onely it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire Well but how long for some years onely or an age or two doth St. Gregory limit any time No he saith semper it becomes that city alwayes to hold the true Faith not onely till St. Gregories time but for ever to all posterity The Bishop indeed sufficiently intimates what he drives at in those words of his In St. Gregory Nazianzens time Rome did certainly hold both RECTAM ET INTEGRAM FIDEM the right and the entire Faith of Christ but there is no promise nor prophesie in St. Gregory that Rome shall ever do so I answer though there be no prophesie yet there is a sufficient acknowledgement in those words of St. Gregory that Rome shall ever do so For are not these his very words Rome saith he of old hath the right Faith and alwayes holds it as becomes the City which rules over the whole world to have EVER the entire Faith concerning God Does he not expresly affirm Rome had the right Faith of old and that she alwayes holds it as becomes such a City to hold the right Faith of God I put my Argument into form thus It alwayes becomes that great City to have and likewise to hold INTEGRAM FIDEM the entire Faith of Christ. But St. Gregory here affirms that Rome alwayes holds the entire Faith as becomes that great City to have and hold it Ergo he affirms that Rome holds alwayes the entire Faith of Christ and not for some ages onely or to St. Gregories time The Major is his Lordships own words The Minor is prov'd from St. Gregory's express words which are even according to that Translation of them which the Bishop cites semper eam retinet sicut decet urbem c. semper de Deo integram fidem habere He sayes not onely Rome ever holds the true Faith but that it ever holds it as becomes that City EVER to hold it which presides over the whole world that is with full Authority teaching it and by continual profession maintaining it in all future ages The Bishop at length acknowledges a double semper in St. Gregories words but misplaceth the latter with what pure intention let any indifferent man judge His words are plain sayes the Bishop semper decet c. it alwayes becomes that City to have and hold the entire Faith c. Whereas St. Gregory sayes not semper decet it alwayes becomes but decet it becomes that City which governs the whole world alwayes to have the entire Faith of God Now who sees not a manifest difference betwixt these two Propositions It alwayes becomes that City to have and it becomes that City to have alwayes even as it is one thing to say It alwayes becomes a man to keep honest company and another thing to say It becomes a man to keep honest company alwayes seeing this last implies that a man must never cease from keeping such company or never be out of such company In like manner 't is one thing to affirm it alwayes becomes Rome to hold the entire Faith for this onely signifies the keeping of the Faith entire whensoever it is done is a thing well-becoming the City of Rome and another thing to say It becomes that City to keep the entire Faith alwayes for that signifies it must never fail or cease to keep it His Criticizing upon the present Tense of the Verb retinet holds saith he not shall hold is a meer impertinency derected sufficiently by what we said in the first Chapter For to speak nothing of the Tautology he fastens upon St. Gregory if the Verbs habet and retinet relate to the present or past time onely 't is to be observ'd St. Gregory sayes not barely it holds ever the true Faith but it holds it sicut decet c. in such manner as becomes that Capital City to hold it viz. for ever which of necessity relates to all future times and therefore is as much as semper retinebit From St. Gregory the Bishop passes to or rather by St. Cyrill and Ruffinus pretending that Bellarmin names indeed these Authors but neither tells us where nor cites their words Truly no small fault if not untruly objected especially in a man so learned to amuse his Reader with empty names onely But surely his Lordship read Bellarmin but superficially and perhaps with other mens eyes more then his own when he wrote this For otherwise how was it possible he should oversee both himself and his Authour so much as not to perceive that Bellarmin refers his Reader to the Authorities of St. Cyril and Ruffinus above-mentioned St. Cyrils words are clear enough to be seen in Bellarmin cap. 3. § 〈◊〉 and the Authority of Ruffinus in the same Chapter § Quinto probatur St. Cyril is quoted apud D. Thomam in Catenâ Ruffinus in exposit Symbol But peradventure our Adversary had no great minde to encounter with such pregnant Authorities and therefore by a figure which is call'd Omissio Rhetorica pass'd them over in silence St. Cyrill averres that according to the promise of our Saviour which is not limited to any time the Aposlolical Church of St. Peter remains free from all spot of seducing and Heretical circumvention c. Ruffinus also affirms That in the Church of Rome never any 〈◊〉 took its beginning and that the ancient Custom which where 't is well observ'd excludes all Innovation in matter of Faith is there kept But the Relatour seems willing to make us amends and seeing change is no robbery he restores Bellarmin another Text of St. Cyril in lieu of that he took from him yea if we believe his Lordship the most pregnant place in all St. Cyril But it is not his part to finde Authorities for us but fairly and ingenuously to satisfie those we urge against him It was not for Bellarmins purpose as it seems to press that so pregnant place nor is it for mine to maintain it Valeat quantum valere potest I make no doubt but they who urge it will be found able to defend it against all his evasions The place in Ruffinus he himself findes at last but it likes him no better then the other and much discourse he useth to invalidate the force of it But our Answer is Bellarmin brings it onely in favour of his own private opinion touching the Infallibility of the particular Church of Rome which being onely matter of probable and disputable opinion not of Catholique and necessary Belief as I resolv'd in the beginning not to undertake the defence of any such points so I hold not my self oblig'd to maintain the proofs of them I return therefore to his Lordship who taking his best advantage from St. Cyrils pregnant place
any thing else that they pluckt down Altars burnt Images defac'd the Monuments of the Dead brake the Church-windows threw down Crosses tore the Holy Vestments in pieces c. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship as they tearm it was it for any thing else that they possest themselves of Ecclesiastical Benefices took upon them Spiritual Jurisdictions and Pastoral Charges by force of Secular Power and Authority from those that were in lawful and quiet possession of them according to the Canons of the Church but because according to the Maximes of their new Belief they held the old Pastours of the Church to be False Teachers and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians 'T is clear then that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation differ onely as the Tree and its Fruit they are not altogether the same but yet the one springs connaturally from the other the one begets and bears the other as naturally as a corrupt Tree bears bad fruit Nor can his Lordship so easily wash his hands of the guilt as he seems willing to do by saying they are long since gone to God to answer it as if none could be involv'd in this crime but onely the first Actors Are the Successors then Free No such matter Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entail'd upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings since they have no better ground nor title to enjoy them then those who first acted But I shall not prosecute this Theam any further Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Paragraph where he pretends to minde us of the General Church forced for the most part under the Government of the Roman Sea By what force I pray Is it possible or can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man in good earnest to believe that a single Bishop of no very large Diocess if it reacht no further then most Protestants will have it should be able by force to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes power when the pretended Reformation began Force implies resistance of the contrary part and something done against the will and good liking of the party forced But can his Lordship shew any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claim'd and exercis'd confessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom when the Reformers first began their resistances Does any Classick Author of present or precedent times mention or complain of any such force 〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us that whensoever any Novellist started up and preacht any thing contrary to the Popes Authority the Bishops of other Provinces were as ready to censure and forbid him as the Pope himself Are not all Eeclesiastical Monuments full of examples in this kinde This therefore is as false a calumny as any and serves onely to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉 but false Pasquils CHAP. 14. Protestants further convinc'd of Schisme ARGUMENT 1. A. C's Parallel defended 2. Protestants proceedings against their own eperatists justifie the Churches proceeding against them 3. No danger in acknowledging the Church Infallible 4. Points Fundamental necessary to be determinately known and why 5. The four places of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility weigh'd the second time and maintain'd 6. Why the Church cannot teach errour in matter of Faith 7. How she becomes Infallible by vertue of Christs prayer for St. Peter Luc. 22. 31. 8. The Relatours various Trippings and Windings observ'd MR. Fisher askt his Lordship QUO JUDICE doth it appear that the Church of Rome hath err'd in matters of Faith as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Roman Church The Relatour in answer to this confesseth that no man in common equity ought to be suffer'd to be Accuser Witness and Judge in his own cause But yet addes there is as little reason or equity that any man who is to be accused should be the accused and yet Witness and Judge in his own cause If the first may hold saith he no man shall be innocent and if the last 〈◊〉 will be nocent To this I answer We have already prov'd the 〈◊〉 Church in the sense we understand Roman Infallible and therefore she ought not to be accus'd for teaching errours Neither can she submit her self to any Third to be judg'd in this point both because there is no such competent Third to be found as also because it were in effect to give away her own right yea indeed to destroy her self by suffering her Authority to be question'd in that whereon all Certainty of Faith depends for such is the Catholique Churches Infallibility 1. Again I make this demand Suppose that Nicolas the Deacon or some other Heretique of the Apostles times separating themselves from the Apostles and Christians that adhered to them should have accus'd them of false doctrine and being for such presumption excommunicated by the Apostles would it have been a just plea think you for the said condemned Heretiques to have pretended that the Apostles were the party accused and that they could not be Witnesses and Judges too in their own cause but that the trial of their doctrine ought to be resert'd to a Third person I suppose no man will be so absurd I say then Whatever shall be answer'd in defence of the Apostles proceeding will be found both proper and sufficient to defend the Church against her Adversaries For if the Apostles might judge those Heretiques in the Controversies abovesaid then the persons accused may sometimes and in some causes be Judges of those that accuse them and if the Infallibility of the Apostles judgement together with the Fullness of their Authority were a sufficient ground and reason for them to exercise the part and office of Judges in their own cause seeing both these do still remain in the Church viz. Infallibility of Judgement and Fullness of Authority doubtless the lawful Pastours thereof duly assembled and united with their Head may lawfully nay of duty ought to judge the Accusers of their doctrine whoever they be according to that acknowledged Prophesie concerning Christs Church Isa. 54. 17. after our Adversaries own Translation Every tongue that ariseth against thee in judgement or that accuses thee of errour thou shalt condemn Protestants indeed having neither competent Authority nor so much as pretending to Infallibility in their doctrine cannot rationally be permitted to be Accusers and Witnesses against the Roman Church much less Judges in their own cause Wherefore A.C. addes that the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church and that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in
those points are which he calls simply fundamental or simply necessary to all mens salvation Bellarmin from very good Authority tells us that some barbarous and ignorant people have been saved without believing Scripture at all and if trial were made I believe it would be found the more common opinion even amongst Protestants themselves that the Explicite Belief of the Trinity or Incarnation it self as the Catholique Faith and Oecumenical Councils declare it is not simply necessary to all mens salvation So that if the Church be exempt from errour onely in such points the promises of Christ will be brought to little more then nothing and the Churches Infallible Authority be shrunk into so narrow a compass that most of the Hereticks she ever yet condemned will be found to have been out of her reach and may require her if not to reverse yet at least to review her sentence against them since his Lordship will have it Fallible lest perhaps she might erre in pronouncing it Neither indeed can any rational man be ever satisfied by hearing onely in general that the Church cannot erre in matters simply necessary to all mens Salvation if he be not withall determinately inform'd which are those points For so long as he knows not what is or is not so universally necessary how can he be assur'd whether the Church may not erre or hath not err'd in Defining such and such a particular matter Let it therefore be first established either by a determinate Catalogue of such simply necessary and Fundamental points or by some certain and determinate Rule whereby we may undoubtedly know them otherwise we speak at random 5. The strength of the places formerly alledg'd by A. C for the Churches Infallibility in all points of Faith whatever his Lordship here again endeavours to enervate telling us first that they are known places and cited by A. C. three several times and to three several purposes What matters this They lose nothing of their force for being thrice cited by A. C. and more then thrice by Stapleton Bellarmin and other Champions of the Catholique Faith circumstances so requiring it And does it seem strange to his Lordship that A. C. should apply them to several purposes he should have remembred how often Scripture it is stiled by the Fathers gladius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a two-edged sword which surely cuts-several wayes Bellarmin Stapleton and A. C. following the receiv'd assertion of most Catholiques viz. that the Pope is Infallible even without a General Council when he defines any thing ex Cathedrâ and with intention to oblige the whole Church urge the places to that purpose as with very great probability they may yet because some Catholique Divines deny it the matter it self being not yet clearly De Fide I shall be content that the said places prove at least the Infallibility of the Church in general or of the Pope and a General Council which in this question are to be accounted all one For if the Pope and a General Council may erre the whole Church might erre as being oblig'd to follow the Doctrine and Definitions of such a Council and if the whole Church be fallible what infallible certainty can we have of any Tradition Wherefore seeing the Infallibility of the Church Councils and Tradition depend so necessarily upon each other whatever Authorities prove the Infallibility of any one do in effect and by good consequence prove the same of all the rest 6. But let us come to the places in particular The first assures us that Hell gates shall never prevail against the Church Here the Bishop speaks loud and sends us a challenge There is no one Father of the Church sayes he for twelve hundred years after Christ that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this place And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can St. Austin had he been more fully cited by the Bishop would alone have been able to answer this challenge Let us hear him speak Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta sayes he Ecclesia una Ecclesia vera Ecclesia Catholica contra omnes haereses pugnans Pugnare potest expugnari tamen non potest She is the Holy Church the onely Church the true Church the Gatholick Church WHICH FIGHTS AGAINST ALL HERESIES therefore yields to none complyes with none Fight she may but she cannot be overcome All Heresies depart from her as unprofitable branches cut off from the Vine But she remains still in her root in her Vine in her Charity the Gates of Hell shall not overcome her Thus Saint Austin Can any man doubt but this holy Doctour in the precedent words doth in effect teach the Church to be infallible when he sayes she perpetually fights against all Heresies or Errours in Faith and that she can never be over come by them Doth he not clearly prove this truth by the allegation of this Text in the close of them But I shall adde one or two Authorities more to this purpose First St. Cyrils Secundum hanc promissionem Ecclesia Apostolica Petri c. According to this promise saith he the Church Apostolique of St. Peter abides alwayes immaculate or free from all spots of Heretical Circumvention and Errour The Text hath been cited already You may observe the like sense in St. Epiphanius Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum Primum Apostolorum PETRAM FIRMAM supra quam c. Our Lord saith he speaking of St. Peter ordained him chief of the Apostles A FIRM ROCK upon which the Church is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her which Gates of Hell are Heresies and Arch-heretiques 6. For the better understanding of which Texts 't is necessary to know that every errour contrary to Divine Faith is Heresie as St. Austin and all Divines generally teach Wherefore if the Church should teach any thing contrary to what God has reveal'd she should teach Heresie and contradict these Fathers who all clear the Church from that aspersion by vertue of this promise of Christ Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her and withall tacitly at least acknowledge that if she did teach Heresie at any time the Gates of Hell in that case would be found to have prevail'd against her Seeing therefore every errour in Faith or against Divine Revelation is Heresie and since the Church in the judgement of these Fathers grounded upon this promise cannot teach Heresie it follows evidently that in the judgement of the same Fathers she cannot erre in any point of Faith whatever by vertue of the same promise How the Infallibility of the Church is gather'd out of the second place hath been shew'd already and is here confirm'd even by his Lordships own discourse out of St. Leo epist. 91. which is that Christ in that place promis'd to be present with his Ministers in all those things which he committed
to their execution But surely one and a chief one of those ALL was to teach Infallibly the whole doctrine of Christs Gospel Wherefore Christ is still present with his Ministers inabling them to perform this so important a work when 't is necessary to be executed that is when the necessities of the Church require some point in controversie among Christians to be determined Nor will that conclusion hence follow which his Lordship fears viz. that all the Sermons of every Pastour of the Church would be Infallible for 't is no wayes necessary that every particular Pastour should be Infallible but 't is absolutely necessary that the Church in general or a General Council should be Infallible because otherwise there would no means be left in the Church sufficient to determine Controversies of Faith or prevent the spreading of Schismes and Heresies To the end my Reader may the better conceive this he is to understand there are divers degrees of Christs presence and assistance in reference to the Ministers of his Church All of them cannot challenge all priviledges but must be content with those that properly belong to their respective state and condition in the sacred Hierarchy And yet as all the said degrees are grounded upon this and the like promises of our Saviour so 't is necessary they be all verify'd according to the respective necessities of the Church The Supream Degree we affirm to be that of Infallible Assistance and therefore assign it onely to those who have Supream Authority in the Church and in cases onely of most urgent necessity for preventing of Heresies and Schismes In all other cases and in reference to all other Ministers of the Church we profess that so long as the Teaching and Governing part of them is continually so assisted by Christ that it generally leads not his Flock into errour in Faith nor neglects to teach them the observation of all things Christ commanded the promise is sufficiently perform'd on Christs part and St. Leo's words In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda rightly enough explicated though every private Pastour become not a Prophet and every Pulpit an Oracle as the Relatour vainly surmizes The third place urged by A. C. is out of St. Luke 22. 32. where Christs prayer for St. Peter is as efficacious as his promise both of them implying an Infallibility in the Church against all errours in Faith whatsoever The words are these Simon Simon Behold Satan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have prayed for Thee that thy Faith fail not and thou once converted confirm thy Brethren 'T is clear that Christ here prayed that Faith in the Church might not fail either by praying for St. Peter as he was a Figure of the whole Church which is the exposition of the Parisians or by praying immediately for St. Peters person and mediately for the whole Church which he represented Aud thus at least that our Saviour in that Taxt prayed for the whole Church Bellarmin expresly grants in the very beginning of the Chapter cited by the Bishop It seems strange therefore that his Authority should be brought for denial of our Saviours praying here for the Church The prayer then of Christ extended it self to St. Peter and his Successors and by them to the whole Church according to those words of St. Bernard Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum Cui enim alteri Sedi dictum est aliquando Ego rogavi pro Te ut non deficiat fides tua c. I think it fitting saith he that the damages in Faith should be there chiefly repaired where Faith can suffer no defect For to what other Chair was it ever said I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not Take therefore which of these Expositions you please if an Infallible Assistance of Christ be once granted whereby his Church is sufficiently preserv'd from all errour in Faith whether that Assistance be immediately intended in this prayer to St. Peter and his Successors as Supream Teachers of the Church or to the Church immediately as represented in St. Peter yet still the Church will be Infallible by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour 8. The fourth place named by A. C. is that of St. John chap. 14. 16. to which he addes a consequent place John 16. 13. both of them containing another promise of Christ to his Apostles and in them to his Church viz. that the Comforter the Holy Ghost shall come and abide with them for ever teaching them all things c. and guiding them into all Truth We have already sufficiently explicated these places in proof of the Churches Infallibility So that our chief labour at present shall be to observe the Bishops various Trippings and Windings in his review of them First he sayes these promises if you apply them to the Church consisting of all Believers and including the Apostles are absolute and without any restriction which certainly is but a loose assertion taking it in the Bishops sense which is that the Apostles were free not onely from all errour but from all ignorance in Divine Things for so his Authour a Dr. Field speaks whom he cites in the Margin Were the Apostles not ignorant of any Divine matters why then doth St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 13. 9. We know in part Did the Apostles understand the whole counsel of God concerning mankinde why then doth the same Apostle cry out Rom. 11. 33 35. O the depth of the Wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements c. and who hath known the minde of our Lord Secondly if these promises of Christ be so absolute and without any restriction in regard of the Apostles to what purpose is that Text of Theodoret cited in his Margin which sayes expresly they ought to be limited in regard of them and that they did not signifie the Apostles should be led simply into all Truth but into all Truth necessary or expedient to Salvation Thirdly the Bishop having limited the promises of being taught and led into all Truth as they relate to the present Church onely to Truths necessary to Salvation he is not yet satisfied but addes another limitation to that viz. Direction of Scripture Against this Truth saith he meaning Truth necessary to Salvation the whole Catholique Church cannot erre keeping her self to the Direction of Scripture as Christ hath appointed her But I ask what Priviledge then has the Catholique Church in these promises of Christ more then every private Christian Surely with this condition of following the direction of Scripture there is none of the faithful but may pretend to be as Infallible as the Church Fourthly they must be limited sayes he to all such Truths as our Saviour had told them But the Apostles were taught divers things of principal concernment in order to Salvation by the Holy Ghost
the whole Church when necessity required and particularly over the Bishops of Constantinople who were then risen to the Highest Patriarchall Dignity in the Church next the Pope In those very Epistles where Saint Gregory so much inveighs against the Title of Universal Bishop and him that arrogantly assum'd it 't is manifest that Pope 〈◊〉 St. Gregories Predecessour annull'd the Decree of the Council of Constantinople wherein this Title had been given to the Bishop of that City And did not St Gregory himself repeal it again and threaten to excommunicate John Bishop of Constantinople in case he desisted not from the usurpation of it Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 sayes St. Gregory I will use the Churches Authority against him Another Argument that St. Gregory takes not the word Universal in the Metaphorical sense when he calls it Antichristian and Blasphemous is that even in the Epistle here cited by the Bishop he teaches that the Care and Principality over the whole Church was committed to St. Peter which is all that the Metaphoricall sense of Oecumenicus or Universal contains and yet denies he was ever call'd Universal Apostle He grants likewise that the High Priest was supream Ecclesiasticall Governour of the whole Jewish Church yet was not call'd Universal Priest all which evidently shews that St. Gregory quarrels not the word in that signification Why because he acknowledges the lawfulness of the thing signified by it This premised it will not be hard to answer all the Bishop objects against us in this particular To his first objection we grant that according to the Literal sense of the word in which St. Gregory took it the assuming such a Title argued so great a pride in the Assumer as might portend the nearness of Antichrists time To his second taking the word Universal in the sense disclaimed by St. Gregory and the word Monarch in its rigorous propriety whereby it answers to the literal sense of Oecumenicus or universalis Episcopus I deny that there was ever any Vniversal Bishop or Monarch over the whole Militaut Church either for the first 600. years before St. Gregory or at any time since For to be a Monarch over the Church in propriety of speech or such an Vniversal Bishop is in effect to un-bishop all other Prelates of the Church and make them onely Officers ad placitum and Delegates of the said Vniversal Bishop or Monarch placeable and displaceable at his sole pleasure like the Officers of Temporall Monarchs To what he alledges out of Baronius of Gregory the seventh his giving the Title of Vniversal to the Bishop of Rome in a Councill about the year 1076. I answer it signifies no more then this that anciently the said Title still understood in the Metaphorical and lawful sense was due to the Bishop of Rome and to no other which is undeniably true Neither are we to think that those seven and twenty Dictatus Papae as they are call'd recounted by Baronius and objected here by the Bishop are all matters of Faith but as it were a Catalogue or Abridgement of such Priviledges as partly by Divine Institution partly by long Custom and Prescription partly by Canon and partly by probable consequences drawn from Principles of Faith were found agreeable to the Supream Authority of the Roman Bishop 5. What he sayes of Phocas the Emperour's conferring the Title of Universal Bishop upon Boniface the Third thereby intimating that it was never given to Popes before is most false For all that Phocas did was but to declare that the Title in contest did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome onely which is a sufficient evidence that before the said Declaration it had been given to the Bishop of Rome Neither was there of this any question all the Dispute was whether it might not be also extended to the Bishop of Constantinople and this indeed was declar'd in the Negative by Phocas Now who seeth not that 't is a far different thing to declare a Title or Dignity to be of right due and another to conferre it de Novo upon any one If his late Majesty of glorious memory had been pleas'd when time was to have declar'd W. L. Patriarch of England we may well suppose his Lordship would not have granted the Title had been de Novo conferr'd on him seeing he has already contended that long before viz in Vrban the second 's time it was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury But put case Phocas had indeed conferr'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop upon Pope Boniface as a new Dignity not formerly belonging to him yet would it make but little to his Lordships purpose For we say again 't is not all one to have a Title conferr'd by another and to assume or use it ones self The Bishop should have prov'd that Pope Boniface us'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop in his ordinary style as the Bishops of Constantinople are prov'd to have done of late times and as anciently the said John and Cyriacus his Successour attempted to do which was the thing St. Gregory inveigh'd against The Bishop therefore makes here a fallacious Turn when he shifts the question from taking to giving and passeth from ones self to another person Let it be shewen that Boniface the Third or any other Popes his Successourss assum'd this Title as the Bishops of Constantinople did for till this be prov'd it will not follow that either Pelagius and St. Gregory erred in reproving and condemning the Bishop of Constantinoples undue assuming that Title to himself or that Pope Boniface and his Successours did erre by having it declar'd due to them by another Why may not the same person be very unwilling to take an extravagant Title upon himself and yet for good reasons be well content that another give it him Who knows not that anciently the Bishop of Rome was styled Caput Ecclesiae Custos Vineae and Vicarius Christi they being Titles due to his place and Office and though the Popes gainsay'd them not yet Christian Humility ever taught them to forbear the use of such titles themselves The Relatour here professes to give an Historical account how the Popes grew under the Emperours and by degrees attained the heighth they are now at To which I answer We deny not but that in Temporal Power and Authority the Popes grew great by the Patronage of Christian Emperours But what is this to the purpose If he would have said any thing material he should have prov'd that the Popes rose by the Emperours means to their Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction over all other Bishops throughout the whole Catholique Church which is the onely thing they claim jure divino and which is so annexed to the Dignity of their Office by Christs Institution without the least dependance of any Emperours or Secular Powers that were the Pope depriv'd of all his Temporalties which can never be done by any Secular Power without committing a most enormous Sacriledge and reduc'd to the
have opened the Fathers meaning viz. that not onely the Church of Rome as 't is a particular Church kept intirely the Apostolical Tradition but that in it all the Faithful every where did keep the same Apostolical Tradition by being in unity and Communion with her Thus you may see to what shifts and upon what shelves even learned men are often driven by maintaining errour From the Premises I argue thus All the Faithful every where must of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem by reason of her more powerful Principality This is St. Irenaeus his Proposition But there could be no necessity they all should have recourse to that Church by reason of her more powerful Principality if her said power exended not to them all This is evident to reason Ergo this more powerful Principality of the Roman Church must needs extend to all the Faithful every where and not onely to those of the Suburbicary Churches or Patriarchal Diocess of Rome as the Bishop pleads 7. Little therefore is it to his advantage what he pretends to shew out of Ruffinus viz that the extent of the Roman Patriarchate was contain'd within the Islands and Precincts of Italy since it is inconsistent with the Vote of all Antiquity and gives St. Irenaeus the lye Nay it makes her Jurisdiction incomparably less then any of the other Patriarchal Churches yea of much less extent then many Metropolitan Churches To which I add 't is contrary even to the common compute of Protestants themselves who often grant the Bishop of Rome to have been Patriarch of the West which undeniably contains many vaste Provinces and Nations beside Italy and the Islands about it Wherefore as the Bishop could not altogether deny but the word Suburbicary was unduly added by Ruffinus in the Translation of the Nicene Canon so I say 't is necessary to understand it unless we will contradict all the world not in the Bishops sense as signifying onely the Churches of Italy and the Islands thereto belonging but as generally signifying all Churches and Cities any way suburdinate to the City of Rome which was at that time known as also to this day by the name of Urbs or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency not as it related to the Prefect or Governour of Rome in regard of whose ordinary Jurisdiction we confess it commanded onely those few places about it in Italy but as it related to the Emperour himself in which sense the word Suburbicary rightly signifies all Cities or Churches whatsoever within the Roman Empire as the word Romania also anciently signified the whole Imperial Territory as Card. Perron clearly proves upon this Subject This exposition of Ruffinus his term Suburbicary wants not ground even in his own Text who makes as it were a contradistinction between Egypt and the Suburbicary Churches Now under Egypt he comprehends Lybia Pentapolis and Ethiopia which being without the Precincts of the Empire were committed to the power and care of the Patriarch of Alexandria but all Suburbicary Cities that is such as were under the City of Rome as it was Imperial were left under the Bishop of Rome and he by reason of his Seat at Rome was still to be their chief Prelat and to have a more immediate and ordinary care over them then he had over those other Cities which were out of the Empire though as St. Peters Successour he had the universal care of the whole Church and that full Potentiorem Principalitatem which St. Irenaeus ascribes unto him 8. Touching Calvin's conjecture that recourse was therefore had to Rome because at that time the Roman Church was more constant to the Truth and less distracted with dangerous opinions it is wholly inept For 't is false that before St. Irenaeus's time Rome was more constant in the Faith then the other Churches of Greece and Africk had been seeing the African Churches were then as free from Heresie as Rome 9. The Bishop here gives himself a great deal of trouble to wrest from us a Text or two of Epiphanius touching the Authority of St. Peter and his Successours wherein though he grants somewhat beyond his wonted reservedness that St. Peters person is understood in that Text of the Gospel Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Matth. 16. 18. yet will he by no means be perswaded to extend it any further then his person But we affirm 't is clear even by the Texts of St. Epiphanius that this promise made by Christ to St. Peter is derived to his Successours For first after the words Et Portae inferorum c. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it this Father immediately addes Quarum Portarum nomine Hereses Haeresewn conditores intelliguntur by the Gates of Hell Heresies and the Authours of Heresies are understood that is to say All Heresies and all Authours of Heresies whatever shall arise Such indefinite Propositions being equivalent to Universal True it is the Bishop omits these last words by his wonted Et caetera However since he acknowledges that by the Firm Rock whereon our Saviour according to Epiphanius promised to build his Church St. Peter is personally understood we shall easily make good our Argument from it and solve his objections For he must consequently acknowledge the Church so founded on St. Peter as by vertue of that foundation it was to prevail against all Heresies and Inventors of Heresie that should at any time impugne the Churches Faith which could not possibly be verified in case Christs promise were to be limitted to St. Peters person alone For else why might not Heresies and Heretiques after St. Peters death prevail against the Church yea so far prevail as utterly to extinguish the true Faith Wherefore the Bishops long discourse by way of Gloss on this and some other Texts of the same Father concerns us not at all For it being once granted that St. Peter was personally to uphold the Church in the profession of the true Faith as its principal Foundation under Christ we have our desire Nevertheless we deny that he hath any ground to limit to St. Peter onely those Elogiums given him by St. Epiphanius and not allow them extendible to his Successours so far as they are necessary for their upholding the Church also in the profession of true Faith Wherefore as St. Peters Authority is by the Bishops own confession rightly urg'd by Epiphanius to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost against the Hereticks that deny'd it so doubtless by vertue of the same promise and institution of Christ may and ought the Authority of his Successors be urg'd in time to come in proof of any other contested Article or point of Faith Though therefore we affirm not as the Relatour is frequently imposing upon us that St. Peter and his Successours are by vertue of this Text to governe the Church as Princes and Monarchs yet we say that by vertue
Pope as he is Pope or in respect of that Supereminent Authority which belongs to him as Saint Peters Successour but onely compares him with another private Bishop in respect of meer Character or power of a Bishop as Bishop onely And as he doth not de facto speak of the Pope as Successour of St. Peter so is it certain that de jure he could not speak any thing to the prejudice of that part of the Bishop of Rome's Authority without contradicting and condemning himself not onely in his Epistle to Pope Damasus already cited where he professeth that to be out of the Popes Communion is to be an Alien from the Church of Christ but also in his Commentaries on the 13. Psalm where he calls St. Peter Head of the Church and Epist. ad Demetriad Virg. where he stiles the Pope Successour of the Apostolick Chair and speaks to the same purpose in divers other places of his works But now the Bishop to give a home-blow as he imagin'd to the Popes Authority over the whole Church pretends to bring a great and undoubted Rule given by Optatus who tells us the Church is in the Commonwealth not the Commonwealth in the Church whence he positively concludes it impossible that the Government of the Church should be Monarchical For saith he no Emperour or King will endure another King within his Dominions to be greater then himself since the very enduring it makes him that endures it upon the matter no Monarch But the force of this Argument will presently vanish if we but consider that these two Kingdoms are of different natures the one Spiritual the other Temporal the one exercis'd onely in such things as concern the Worship of God and the Eternal Salvation of Souls the other in affairs that concern this world alone and consequently do not of their own nature hinder but help one another where they are rightly administred Neither must it come under debate whether the administration of the spiritual Monarchy ought to be endur'd or not seeing Christ hath so ordain'd it nor would the Relatour I suppose have urg'd this argument had he well reflected on the person of our Saviour who as the Bishop himself would not deny was whilst he lived on earth most truly and properly the visible Monarch of the whole Church his Kingdom whether the Kings of the earth would endure it or not Again is it not in a manner the same thing in regard of Temporal Kings to have had the Apostles Universal Governours over all Christians as if some one had been a Monarch or chief amongst them and yet the Bishop cannot in his own principles deny but Temporal Kings were bound to endure this and did actually endure it without unkinging themselves thereby Nay is it not as prejudicial to their Temporal Crowns Titles and Prerogatives to have all their people together with themselves subject to the decrees of a lawful General Council which the Bishop denyes not as to be subject to the Decrees of some one chief Bishop 3. Lastly who sees not that the force of this Argument is utterly broken by the daily experience we have of the contrary to what our Adversary pretends For instance do not the Two great Christian Kings of France and Spain endure it Nay do's not all the world see that they do not onely endure it but maintain the Authority and Government of such a Spiritual Monarch as we speak of in the very midst of their Dominions and is it not evident they prosper so well under it that it would be no less then Dotage to contend that the enduring it is a Diminution of their Majesty Our Adversaries reflection upon this particular by way of Answer is not onely injurious to those Two great Monarchs but destructive of his own Argument For he tells us the Popes power is of little esteem in the Kingdoms of these Two Catholique Princes further then to serve their own turns of him which they do saith he to their great advantage Thus what the two great Catholique Princes of Christendom profess to do upon the Account of Faith and Conscience the Relatour hath the confidence to tell us they do it meerly on the score of policy and for temporal ends though he plainly contradicts himself in this assertion since he told us but just now the enduring such a Monarchy made him that endur'd it no Monarch You see at once both his Civility towards Christian Princes and his Constancy to himself Moreover I wonder the Relatour could not see that this Argument The Church is within the Commonwealth ergo Subordinate unto it had it any force would conclude as much against the Aristocratical Government of the Church for which he so much pleads as the Monarchical For how I pray could the Bishops of so many different Kingdoms and States when the good of the Church did necessarily require it Convene in a General Councel or authoritatively Declare what ought to be believ'd when matters of Faith were question'd or how should they otherwise then precariously cause their Decisions to be receiv'd through the whole Church if either there were no Supream Spiritual Governour at all or he bound as it were to ask Princes leave to do what belongs to his Office Is not a General Council as much within the Commonwealth as the Pope If therefore the Pope in the administration of his Office be any way subject de jure to the Authority of Temporal Princes how can a General Council be absolute and independent of the same Authority in the execution of theirs Thus you see how by impugning the Monarchical Government of Christs Church he in effect overthrows all Church-Government whatsoever even that which himself would seem to approve It remains therefore fully prov'd that the external Government of the Church on earth is Monarchical not purely and absolutely but mixed as hath been already declar'd Neither do we stile the Pope Monarch of the Church but the Deputy or Vicar General of Christ that is his Chief Bishop by whom he governs his Church in chief He is neither King nor Lord of the Church but the Chief-Servant of it a Steward of Christs Family yea a Fellow-Servant with other Bishops to one and the same Master Yet the Care of the whole Family is committed to him and but part of it to other Bishops who govern by Commission from Christ with him but under him 4. This duly consider'd what the Relatour objects out of the Council of Antioch St. Cyprian and Bellarmin for the power of Bishops comes just to nothing For we acknowledge Bishops to have a portion jure Divino in the Government of Christs Flock They are no less Chief Officers of Christ then the Pope though not in all respects equal to him or so absolute as to govern without dependance on him And it seems strange the Bishop should attempt to prove out of Bellarmin that the Government of the Church Militant is not Monarchical in the sense
of the sayd Infallibility shee may euer bee aseuredly preseru'd in the Beleefe and Profession of the true Fayth But the principall thing the Bishop would haue vs consider here is that Jnfallibility resides according to power and Right of Authority in the whole Church and in a Generall Council only by power deputed To which purpose hec cites St. Austin Petrus personam Ecclesiae Sustinet et huic datae sunt claues quum Petro datae Peter sayes hee beares the person of the Catholique Church and to her were the Keyes giuen when they were giuen to Peter I answer there is a twofold representing or bearning the person of an other to bee obseru'd The one Parabolicall or by way of meere Figure and supposition only Thus Agar Abrahams bondwoman Galat. 4. 25. 26. represents the nation or people of the Iewes yet liuing vnder the bondage of the Mosaicall law and Mount-Sion or Hierusalem the Churh of God The other Historicall and Reall viz. when the person representing has right or relation aparterei in and towards the thing represented by vertue whereof it doth in the rust and and necessary interpretation of Reason beare the person or stand for the thing represented Now St. Peter Sustained the person of the Church in this latter sense I meane Historicè non Parabolicè really and in verity of fact not in Figure or Parabolicall supposition only hee beeing such a principall and cheife member of the Church as did ratione officij virtually and truly containe in himselfe the fullness of Ecclesiasticall Power in the same manner as a King receiues the keyes of a town whereof hee takes possession for himselfe though he representeth the whole kingdome and receiues the keyes for the good thereof Thus Isay St. Peter receiu'd the keyes for himselfe as hee was Head of the Church though that Reception were indeed ordain'd for the good of the whole Church To receiue a thing in this manner is not to receiue it in the others right but in his own not withstanding it bee finally meant for the good of the other This is so cleere euen to common sense that wee haue no need of turning ouer many Classique Authours to proue it wherfore the example of an Attorney taking possession of land for a Purchaser and of one who hauing a Proxy receiues a woman with the Ceremonies of Marriage in the name of an other are not to the purpose because in such cases the person of an other is Sustain'd only Parabolicè or by way of voluntary supposition pro tempore as when a Legate receiues the keyes of a town meerly as substitute for and in the name of his King But in our case the keyes were receiued Historicè and in way of reall propriety as by the King himselfe Head of the Common-wealth so by St. Peter Head of the Church This Answer is grounded in St. Austin himselfe who teaches St. Peters receiuing the souereign Authority of the gouerning the whole Church signified hero by the keyes as hee was a Figure of the Church and represented the person of the Church to haue been propter Primatum c. by reason of the PRIMACY which hee had amongst the Apostles The like hee hath in other places So cleerly does hee explicate his own meaning and confirm the answer wee haue giuen to the text the Bishop brings Why therfore doth the Relatour labour in vayne to wrest the Keyes out of St. Peters hands and to bestow them hee knows not where They must remaine where Christ has left them St Peter and his successours know best how to vse them and how to turn them in their proper wards as the Bishop speaks In his Third Consideration hee supposes that though a Generall Council bee granted lyable to errour yet so long as the whole Catholique Church Diffusiue bee exempt from it in the Prime Foundations of Fayth absolutely necessary to saluation there is still a sufficient Meanes to preserue and reduce vnity and to preuent all inconueniences that vsually trouble the Church One of the greatest inconueniences that can possibly fall vpon the Church is errour in fayth which vpon supposition that a Generall Council may erre in such matters does vnauoydably befall the whole Church as wee haue already shew'n and that without any hopes of euer beeing certainly cleer'd of it For as one Generall Council fell into Errour so may an other and a third and a fourth etc. Vnless therfore Generall Councils bee granted infallible in matters of Fayth where is the Bishops remedy against Jnconueniences How shall the Church bee freed from Perplexity How shall vnity bee preseru'd or reducd Hee tells vs the Church vpon discouery of the errour of a former Council may represent herselfe in an other body or Council and take order for what was concluded amiss But who shall warrant that the remedy shall not proue as bad as the disease or perhaps worse who shall secure vs that the second Council shall rightly condemne the supposed errour of the first or if it happen so shall not broach two other for that one and thereby bee an occasion of fresh Jnconueniences Perplexities Contentions in and to the Church Againe how shall the whole Church vpon euidence found of the miscarriage of a Generall Council represent her selfe in an other body must euery particular member of the Church first except against the sayd errours and concurre to the election and holding of an other Council That will neuer happen For in such a multitude very many will bee of the same minde with the precedent representatiue of the Church If not all but some part only of the Churches members bee conuinced of the pretended errour and would call an other Council to 〈◊〉 it then not the whole Church in Generall but only a part of it should take vpon them to remedy the abuses of a Generall Council which is absurd Moreouer if the power of calling Generall Councils reside only in the whole Church Diffusiuely taken as the Bishop here supposeth what likelyhood is there that there should euer bee such a Council called it beeing not to bee done but by the generall consent of all Christians whose interests are so diuided and for the most part so repugnant to each other that it cannot bee doubted but when one Nation or Countrie is willing to haue a Generall Council called some other will bee found as vnwilling When will all Christians thinke you agree that both Protestants Catholiques Grecians Lutherans and all other Sectaries should meete in Councill and haue equall power and libertie to vote there which if they haue not who can expect that the excluded party will hold it a Generall Council and thinke themselues bound to submitt to it The Bishop tells vs that the Church heeretofore vsed to reforme the errours of former Councils by calling and representing her selfe in a new Councill and that this is euident in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus and in
Protestants to note it only in a word by the way haue not the like reason to require any such thing of vs Catholiques viz. that wee should positiuely and by speciall euidence proue our Fayth to be the same with that of the Primitiue Church not that wee are vnable or vnwilling to doe this in due time and place but because beeing in full and quiet possession of our Fayth Religion Church and all things pertaining thereto by immemoriall Tradition and succession from our ancestours wee doe vpon that sole ground viz. of quiet possession iustly prescribe against our aduersaries and our plea must in all Law and equity be admitted for good till they who are our aggressours in this case doe by more pregnant and conuincing arguments disproue it and shew that our possession is not bonafidei but gain'd by force or fraude or some other wrongfull and vnallowed meanes A Gentleman that is in quiet possession of an estate receiu'd from his ancestours is not to be outed of it because an other say's and perhaps beleeues he has a better title to it neither is 〈◊〉 in possession to be forc'd to make good his title by producing his euidence but the other is bound to euict him and demonstrate that his possession is not good and to shew by speciall euidence and proofe that his own clayme is better otherwise in stead of gaining an estate he will get nothing but a checke In like manner the Lady beeing in possession of a Fayth which for many ages together had been professed by her ancestours and generally by the whole Christian Church 't is not the Bishops telling her that he beleeues the Scriptures and Creeds in the same sense the ancient Church beleeu'd them that must eyther turn her out of the Church of Rome or iustly moue her to beleeue that the Fayth of Protestants is agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church but he must make it appeare to be so by producing euident and cleere testimonies out of all or the chiefe Doctours of those ancient times otherwise his pretended beleefe of any such matter is to be accounted folly and his confidence rashness I adde how is it possible for the Bishop to make good what his answer pretends viz. that his English Protestant Fayth is the same with that of the Primitiue Church English Protestants for example beleeue the Popes power iure diuino is no more then of an other ordinary Bishop but the Primitiue Church accounted him to be the Souereign Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Bishops witness Tertullian and this long before the Canons of the Church or Imperiall Constitutions had giuen him any authority The Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the authority of the Roman and Apostolique Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians was not from men but from our Lord Jesus Christ. Witness the Epistles of St. Clement St. Anaclet St. Sixtus the first St. Pius the first St. Anicet St. Victor with diuerse other Epistles of those ancient Primitiue Popes and Martyrs of the first ages of the Church all of them cleerly testifying and asserting the souereign authority of the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and of the Roman Sea ouer all other Churches and Christians whatsoeuer So as euen the Centurists themselues and all other Protestants neuer so little ver'st in antiquity are forc'd to confess it They pretend indeed that these Epistles are counterfeite and not the genuine Epistles of these Popes A weake plea for beside what wee haue already sayd in derence of them 't is certain that Isidorus Hispalensis who is an Authour of aboue a thousand yeares antiquity In his collection of Ecclesiasticall Canons mentions these Epistles as owned by the Bishops of his time and professes that himselfe was specially commanded by a Synod of fowrescore Bishops to make his collection out of them as well as out of other Epistles and writings which Protestants doe not question Not to vrge that the Councill called vasense celebrated in St. Leo the firsts time mentions some of them and Rufinus himselfe others who was contemporary with St. Hierome nor yet the absolute conformity in point of doctrine and style that there is betwixt those Primitiue Epistles and those of succeeding Popes in the most flourishing ages of the Church viz. Iulius the first Pope Damasus Syricius Innocentius Leo and others which euen Protestants themselues neyther doe nor can pretend to be forged but only say that the Popes of those times were arrogant men and began to take too much vpon them The Primitiue Church beleeu'd the roote and originall of Heresies to be because the whole Fraternity of Christians did not according to Gods commandement acknowledge ONE PRIEST AND ONE JUDGE for the time beeing Vicar of Christ in the Church The Primitiue Church professed that for what concerned the correction and consolation of the Faythfull to witt in matter of Religion and Fayth the Roman and Apostolique Sea was the bond and mother of all Churches Witness St. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt with him in their Epistle to Pope Marcus that the forme and pattern of that Church was to be followed in all things witness St. Ambrose and the whole Council of Arles in their Epistle and petition to Pope Julius The Primitiue Church accounted them all Scismatiques and sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sett vp an other Chaire against that one Chaire of St. Peter in the Roman Church Witness optatus Mileuitanus that the Roman Church was that sealed Fountuine and Garden inclosed to which all must repaire for the waters of life that she is the Rock vpon which the Church is built that to be out of her Communion was to be an Alien from the houshold of God to be out of the Church to be as a profane or vncleane person who might not come into the Campe or Congregation of Israel in briefe it was to belong not to Christ but to Antichrist witness St. Hierome The Bishops of the Primitiue Church beeing at any time persecuted and uniustly eiected out of their Seas from all parts and Prouinces of Christendome had recourse to the Pope and Sea of Rome as to their proper and lawfull Judge for iustice and reliefe and were likewise by him righted and for the most part effectually restor'd to their Seas againe Witness the examples already alledged of St. Athanasius and his fellow Bishops eiected by the Arians also of St. Chrysostome The odoret and diuerse others Lastly not to insist vpon many other particular Acknowledgements of the Popes authority already mention'd and prou'd in this treatise the Primitiue Church beleeu'd that the Principality of the Apostolique Sea had always flourish'tin in the Roman Church and that by reason there of the Pope had power both to iudge in matters of Fayth and also finally to decermin the causes of all Bishops whatsoeuer Witness St. Austin the Councils
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
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
of the Church in Fundamentals is most unreasonable For if a man ask you why you believe all those points which you hold for Fundamental for example the Resurrection of the Dead and life everlasting your answer will be because they are agreeable to the Doctrine and Tradition of Christ. And if you be asked how you know them to be so you will no doubt produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental points But if he ask you a third time by what means you are assured that those Testimonies do make for you or are indeed the Words Sentences and Works of Christ you will not then have recourse to the Testimonies and Words themselves that is to the Bible but your final Answer will be you know them to be so and that they do make for you because the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much to you from Tradition and according to Tradition which is to prove Idem per Idem as much as we And if the said Separatist further enquiring about the precedent Authorities of Scriptures Councils Fathers Apostles and Christ himself while he lived on Earth shall ask why such Fundamentals are believed upon the sole Authority of the Present Church as the last Testimony Infallibly assuring that those Fundamental Points and all the precedent Confirmations of them are from God 't is evident the Bishops party has no other way to avoid a Circle but by answering they believe the Scriptures Councils c. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church as the Infallible Organ Ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us Which Infallibity must come from the Holy Ghost and be more then Humane or Moral and therefore must be truly 〈◊〉 and proceed from Gods most absolute and Divine Veracity in fulfilling his Promises as from its Radical Principle and from the Operation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate Cause preserving the Church from errour in all such points Thus we are easily got out of the Circle leaving the Bishop still tumbling himself in it For we do not finally rest on the Present Church as consisting of men subject to errour as his Lordship vainly suggests Nor do we rest upon the Motives of Credibility as the Formal Object of our Faith but as inducing us to rely on the said Church ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us and is consequently Infallible Whereas the Bishop does but dance in a Round while enquiring for some Infallible warrant of the Word of God he thus concludes pag. 66. 'T is agreed on by me it can be nothing but the Word of God which must needs end in an apparent Circle as proving Idem per Idem And whereas immediately after he runs on prolixly in Distinguishing between Gods written and unwritten Word as though he would make the latter serve for Infallible proof of the former he never reflects that the said latter viz. Gods unwritten Word does necessarily stand in as much need of proof as the former Now as concerning the Authority of the Church of which the Motives of Credibility do ascertain us 't is not necessary that it be esteem'd or stiled absolutely Divine as the Bishop would have it yet as to this purpose and so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self I mean in respect of the precise Infallibility and absolute veracity of whatsoever it Declares and Testifies to be matter of Divine Faith though in many other respects we do not deny but the Authority of the Church is much inferiour to that of Scripture For first the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth because there not onely every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believ'd by all that know it to be a part of Scripture but in the Definitions of the Church neither the Arguments Reasons nor Words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but onely the Thing Declared to be such Besides the Church has certain limits and can Define nothing but what was either Reveal'd before or hath such connexion with it as it may be Rationally and Logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before Revealed Moreover the Church hath the Receiving and Interpreting of Scripture for its End and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it Hence it is that Holy Scripture is per Excellentiam called the Word of God and Divine whereas the Testimony of the Church is onely said by Catholique Divines and in particular by A. C. IN SOME SORT or IN A MANNER Divine By which manner of speaking their intention is not to deny it to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility but onely to shew the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church Adde that although we hold it necessary and therein agree with our Adversary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God upon DIVINE Authority yet standnig precisely in what was propounded by Mr. Fisher pag. 59. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture there will be no necessity of Defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine For if it be but Infallible by the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost it must give such Assurance that whatever is Defined by it to be Scripture is most certainly Scripture that no Christian can doubt of it without Mortal Sin and shaking the Foundation of Christian Faith as hath been often Declared And the immediate reason why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely Infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church has Defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be Reveal'd or taught by Divine Authority this also must be so revealed and consequently no Authority less then Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith Now it is to be remembred and A. C. notes it pag. 49 50. that the Prime Authority for which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which moves us as the formal Object of our Faith to believe that Scripture is the Written Word of God and the Definition of the Present Church assuring us Infallibly that there is such a Tradition applies this Article of our Faith unto us as it does all the rest whether the Voice or Definition of the Present Church in it self be absolutely Divine or no. Neither can there be shew'n any more difficulty in believing this as an Apostolical Tradition upon the Infallible Declaration of the Church then in believing any other Apostolical Tradition whatsoever upon the like Declaration His
from the pretended light that is in Scripture Whereas if he had cited the whole Sentence it would have appear'd most clearly that Canus makes Infidels and Novices in Faith so convinc'd to believe Scripture for the Infallible word of God by the authority of the Church that the said authority is not a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it For he asserts that an Infidel is victus convinc'd by that Authority that it is via certa a sure and certain way and that we take argumentum certum a certain and assured argument of this from the Churches Authority Again by this citing of Nominatives without Verbs he puts off by a nimble Turn the esteem that Infideles Novicii make of the Churches Authority in regard of Scripture sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii ad sacras literas ingrediantur the Churches Authority is a sure way and none but that Observe I pray you those words None but that whereby he excludes all others and consequenly this pretended Light of Scripture it self from being a sure and infallible way of entring into the Scriptures that is of beginning to believe them expresly to be the word of God This Verb therefore ingrediantur which was omitted would have given light to 〈◊〉 his full meaning For though the greatest Doctours of the Church believe Scriptures upon this sole Authority as a certain and infallible foundation yet onely Infideles Novicii Infidels and Novices in Faith enter into Scriptures that is make their first beginning to believe them by the same authority As for Stapleton he never so much as mentions in the cited place this Text of St. Augustin but onely averres that nothing can be prov'd from Scripture against such an one as is either ignorant of Scripture or denies it St. Augustin therefore in this place speaking according to those cited Authors of a sure way for believing Scripture to be the word of God cannot possibly favour the Bishops assertion who makes the Authority of the Church in this case to be but fallible and unsure Neither doth this great Doctour any where affirm that this way of Church authority is onely for Infidels as the Bishops explication of him seems to insinuate but both affirms and proves that neither Infidels nor Believers can be any other way convinc'd When therefore his Lordship cites St. Augustins Text Quibus ergo obtemper avi dicentibus CREDITE EVANGELIO c. Whom therefore I have obeyed saying BELIEVE THE GOSPEL c. and thence gathers that St. Augustin speaks of himself when he did not believe I see very little consequence in this his Illation unless he suppose that Saint Augustin never obeyed this command of Gods Church but onely at his first Conversion from Infidelity For certainly his meaning was that he had and did alwayes even till that instant from his first Conversion obey that command of the Church One thing I am sure may be far better inferr'd from those words against the Relatour then this was against us For St. Augustin sayes not Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus LEGITE EVANGELIUM vel INSPICITE EVANGELIUM c. whom I obeyed saying Read the Gospel or persue the Gospel but Credite Evangelio believe the Gospel The Church commanded St. Augustin to believe the Gospel Ergo The Church in St. Augustins time esteem'd her self most undoubtedly certain that the Gospel and by consequence all other Scriptures which she recommended to her children to believe were the Infallible word of God For otherwise to impose a command of so high a nature in that wherein she might be deceiv'd her self and deceive them had been to expose her Authority to the hazard of commanding Christians to do that which had been a grievous injury to God namely to believe that to be his Divine Word which was onely the word of man CHAP. 7. The prosecution of the former Question ARGUMENT 1. No means sufficient in the Bishops Principles to be assured what Tradition is Apostolical or what Scripture Divine 2. St. Augustins Text concerning Church-Authority examin'd 3. That the Bishop yields at last to the Private Spirit mask'd under the title of Grace 4. His way of Resolving Faith demonstrated to faile 5. That no man with him can be a true Christian unless he be a good Grammarian and Logician too 6. How the Scripture is said to be a Light 7. His falling again upon the Private Spirit 8. Bellarmine vindicated 9. Brierley defended Hooker shamefully mangled miscited and misconstrued by the Bishop 1. HItherto our Antagonist hath endeavour'd with all the engins of his wit to shake the Infallible Authority of the present Catholique Church but in vain Let 's now see whether he can build better then he destroyes The ground on which he builds our Faith is Primitive Apostolical Tradition I demand how comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible or why cannot we as well being induc'd and prepar'd by the voice of the Church if fallible believe with Divine Faith and rest upon Apostolical Tradition as a Formal Object for it self as believe the Scriptures for themselves If it be answer'd we have no other certainty that the Church now delivers that Primitive Tradition which the Apostles deliver'd but the voyce of the Church I reply We have also no other certainty that the Scripture we now have is the very same which was recommended by Apostolicall Tradition but the Voyce and perpetual Testimony of the Church Yes sayes our Adversary we have the more ancient Copies which confirm ours But the same Difficulty returns upon those ancienter Copies What infallible certainty have we of them beside Church-Tradition They may replyes his Lordship be examin'd and approv'd by the Authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles But first how many of those are now extant Secondly how few will be able to come to the sight of them Thirdly what certainty have we that they are the Authenticall Autographa's but by Tradition Fourthly may not every Universall Tradition be carried up as clearly at east to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authors who wrote in their respective succeeding ages If therefore when he sayes there 's a double Authority c. he mean onely that in the Apostles time Christians had a double Authority to believe Scripture viz. Tradition and Scripture it self he brings nothing to the present purpose for our dispute is not of that but of Our present time If he say we have now that double Authority he contradicts himself and puts a foundation of our Faith beside Scripture and so denies that Scripture alone is the foundation of our Faith Yet it seems by speaking in the present Tense Here 's a double Authority that confirms Scripture to be the word of God he means that we have now both Apostolicall Tradition and Scripture it self as two Authorities and each containing the Formal Object of Faith to believe Scripture to be
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
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
any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may accuse witness judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children To this the Bishop replies that for the present he will suppose the Roman Church to be both a Prince and a Mother that he may not seem to avoid the shock of A. C.'s Argument but addes withall that no moderate Prince ever thought it just or took upon him to be Accuser Witness and Judge in any case of moment against his Subjects I answer that a Prince being liable many wayes to errours and mistakes in judgement ought in equity to submit to some indifferent Judge in all matters of personal and private interest between him and his Subjects though in matters of publick concern as of Treason or the like where the business is evident and admits not the delayes of legal Formality I think it would not be accounted unjust for the Prince to be Accuser Witness and Judge too againct a Traiterous Subject However the Church may lawfully judge her Accusers because she is Infallible in her decisions of Faith and hath full Authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature As for Parents the Bishop grants that while Children are young they may chastise them without other Accusers or Witnesses then themselves and the Children are not withstanding such correction to give them reverence But saith he when Childen are grown up and come to some full use of reason there ought to be remedy for them against their Mother if she forget all good nature and turn stepdame unto them which I willingly grant and leave such injur'd Children for remedy to the Magistrate and the Law to both which the Children may lawfully appeal and the Mother ought to submit as to her Superiours But the Catholique Church duly and compleatly represented in a General Council hath no superiour on earth neither is it lawfull for any private Christian or Christians upon any pretence to appeal from her to any Third Person in causes of Faith the case therefore is not alike Secondly I deny the Bishops supposition viz. that the Roman Church taken in the sense we take it is or ever can be such a Stepdame to her Children or so far forget her duty both to God and them as justly to deserve the Accusations which Protestants her undutiful and rebellious sons bring against her and therefore towards them as well as towards the rest of her children she still retains the rights of a Mother and they must not take it ill if as occasion serves she exercise towards them some part of her Motherly Authority but rather bethink themselves of returning to their Due Obedience and conforming themselves to that holy Exhortation of St. Peter which for their better content I shall give them out of their own Bible viz. that laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and evil speakings as New-born Babes they desire the sincere Milk of the Word that is the pure uncorrupted Christian Catholique Doctrine that they may grow thereby to salvation 2. But even abstracting from the Churches Infallibility in matters of Faith her proceedings towards Protestants will be found upon due examination most just For though a Prince or Parents may not in all cases be Accusers witnesses and Judges of their Subjects or Children because it may possibly be evident that they tyrannize over them or treat them injuriously yet when matter of fact is so evident that it cannot be deny'd by their respective Children or Subjects when laws and custom of the whole Nation do also evidently declare the things criminal for which they are punish'd what need is there absolutely speaking of any further Witness or Judge to punish them Now this is our case The things for which the Roman Church condemns and punishes Protestants are clearly matter of Fact viz. preaching and teaching such Doctrine as the Church forbids to be taught actual disobedience to her Canons separating themselves from the communion of other Catholique Christians opposing and contradicting their lawful Pastours in matters concerning Religion c. all which are criminal actions and clearly punishable not onely by the Canons of the Church but by the Laws and Constitutions of every Catholique Countrey No need surely of Accusers and Witnesses where the Offence is notorious Well therefore might the Pastours of the Church who were their proper Judges proceed to Canonical Sentence against them seeing as I said it was notoriously evident and by themselves not deny'd that they oppos'd and contradicted not onely the publique doctrine and belief of all Christians generally throughout the world but also the Laws both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Statutes Decrees Customs and Practises universally in force in all Nations where they began their pretended Reformations When the Separatists of England in Queen Elizabeth's or King James his time pretended to reform the Protestant Church-Decrees and Customs in England and call'd for a Judge between the Prelates and them did the then-Church-Governours scruple to condemn and punish them though they neither esteem'd themselves Infallible nor to act by any Infallible Rule for their Commission to do this was onely from the King and State and their Rule not the Scripture which the Separatists pretended to as much as themselves but either the Book of Common Prayer or the thirty nine Articles or the Queens Injunctions and Book of Canons Do not their Canons excommunicate all that deliberately oppose any of their said thirty nine Articles Did they not for this reason ordinarily summon Anabaptists Brownists Familists and other Separatists to appear at their Spiritual Courts as they call them did they not proceed to sentence of Excommunication and other Censutes as the case requit'd and the Laws of their Church enabled them to do Nay did they not upon this ground oftentimes Excommunicate us Roman Catholicks for refusing to frequent their Churches did they not bring us into Sequestrations Imprisonments and a thousand other troubles Would they hear us when we appeal'd either to Scripture Fathers Church Councils or any other third person to be Judge between them and us Behold a very just proceeding When they fall foul either upon us or their own Separatists they are content to be Accusers Witnesses and Judges but when they are call'd to justifie their actings against the Roman Church then forsooth 't is an unjust and unreasonable thing then they call for a Third Person to judge not because they are indeed willing to be judged or regulated by any authority under heaven except themselves but because they know that a competent Judge between the Roman Church and them distinct from the Roman Church is impossible to be found A. C. therefore had reason to tell the Bishop that never any competent judge had so censured the Church as he had done and that indeed no power on Earth or in Hell it self could so far prevail against the
unto the Faith of Christ we grant to you the use of the PALL the proper Badge or Sign of Archiepiscopal Dignity to wear it when you say MASS and we condescend that you ordain twelve Bishops under your Jurisdiction yet so that the Bishop of London be consecrated hereafter by a Synod of his own Bishops and receive the PALL from this Holy Apostolical Sea wherein 〈◊〉 by the Authority of God do now serve Our will likewise is that you send a Bishop to York to whom we intend also to give the PALL that is to make him an Archbishop But TO YOU shall be subject not onely the Bishops you make and he of York but all the Bishops of Brittain Behold here the Original Charter as I may say of the Primacy of Canterbury in this Letter and Mandate of the Pope it is founded Nor can it with any colour of reason be drawn from other Origin By vertue of this Grant have all the succeeding Bishops of that Sea enjoy'd the Dignity and Authority of Primates in this Nation which is a thing so out of question that truly I see not how 't is possible either to excuse the Relatours gross ignorance if he knew it not or his great ingratitude if knowing it he would be so unworthy as to belye his own knowledge and dissemble his obligations to that Pope who had done so much for the Sea of Canterbury 6. In the following pages his Lordship spends not a few lines in vain labouring to prove a Separation of the African Church from that of Rome chiefly out of two Instruments found in several Editions of the Councils which seem to testifie as much One is an Epistle or Supplication rather which Eulalius Bishop of 〈◊〉 is suppos'd to have written to Pope Boniface the second in the name of the African Church desiring a Reconciliation with the Roman and disclaiming the Separation made between them for many years before The other is an Epistle of the same Pope Boniface the second to Eulalius Patriarch of Alexandria wherein he imparts the good news of the African Churches Submission and Reconciliation with the Roman and rejoyces with him upon the occasion But I answer As the Bishop himself stands not to maintain the Credit of these Epistles which he knows to be generally question'd by Catholiques nor answer the exceptions which Baronius and Bellarmin bring against them so the use he makes of them is to very little purpose To the first part of his Dilemma viz. If the said Instruments be false then Pope Boniface the second and his Accomplices at Rome or some for them are notorious forgers c. We deny the consequence there is no necessity to affirm that either Boniface the second or his Accomplices were forgers of these pretended Instruments but rather the contrary In regard such a forgery would presently have been discover'd and exclaim'd against seeing in that Popes time no such man as Eulalius was Bishop of Alexandria but one Timotheus an Heretique and great opposer of the Roman Church Neither could the other Eulalius he speaks of be then a Catholique Bishop of Carthage it being a time when there was not one Catholique Bishop in all Africk As to his closing words or some for them if he mean they did it by the Popes consent 't is answer'd under the word Accomplices but if he intend no more but that they were forged by some body 't is very true but what will it concern the Roman Sea if some other feign an Epistle in the Popes name Were there not some that feign'd Epistles and other writings in the Apostles names was that the Apostles fault or did it bring any just prejudice either to the Authority or Integrity of their writings To the second part viz. If these Instruments be true then the Church of Africk did separate from the Roman and the Separation continued for above a hundred years I answer Till it be evinced that these Instruments are true we cannot suffer by them but his Lordship is so far from offering at this that he doth not so much as positively affirm it He shews us indeed several Editions of the Councils wherein these Instruments are inserted But it is well known that the Editions of Councils cited by the Bishop have many other Apocryphal and unauthentique writings inserted in them besides these The reason of this may be because the Compilers of those times did not take upon them to be Censurers of what they found upon ancient Record but onely to be faithful Publishers of the Records Whence it is that as they did not except against these Instruments no more then against others of like nature so neither did they expresly approve them but meerly publish'd what they found upon Record leaving the further scrutiny to the learned But as for the Schismatical Separation of the African Church from the Roman argued out of the said Instruments 't is inconsistent with the truth of Story and confuted by many pregnant and undeniable instances which prove that the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage touching matter of Appeals were alwayes in true Catholique Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation Witness in the first place St. Austin himself who though he were present and subscrib'd as 't is most probable to that Epistle of the Council of Carthage which gave all the offence yet after his death Pope Celestin in his Epistle to the Bishops of France using many expressions of high commendation professeth that he both liv'd and dyid in the Communion of the Roman church Witness likewise Pope Leo the first who for some time of the said pretended Separation had his Legats in Africk ordering Ecclesiastical matters there and receiv'd Lupicinus an African Bishop appealing unto him Witness also Eugenius a Catholique Bishop of Carthage who in his answer to the 〈◊〉 requiring a Disputation with him touching matters of Faith 〈◊〉 the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches and that he ought not to enter into dispute with any concerning such matters without first consulting that Church Witness Fulgentius another of the most eminent Bishops of the African Church living also within the said term whose testimony is already cited Chap. 10. § 5. pag. 131 132. Witness the two African Bishops Restitutus and Octavius who were present at the Council of Rome under Pope Hilarius about the Year 467. and subscrib'd the Canons one whereof was That none ought to violate the Constitutions of the Nicen Council nor the Deorees of the Apostolique Sea Witness further Pope Gregory himself who in several of his Epistles acknowledges the Bishop of Carthage and other African Bishops to have been at that time in Communion with him yea particularly praises them for their respects to the Sea Apostolique and asserts his own right of receiving Appeals from all parts of Christendom as necessity requires Witness finally no less
against this Monarchical Government they rather prove our Assertion being ordain'd by Sixtus the first in favour of such Bishops as were call'd to Rome or otherwise forc'd to repair thither to the end they might without scruple be receiv'd into their own Diocess at their return having also decreed that without such Letters Communicatory none in such case should be admitted Now what can more clearly prove that the Pope had power over all Bishops and all Diocesses in the Church then the making of such a Decree We deny not but the like Literae Communicatoriae were mutually sent from one Patriarch to another But as for that even equal and Brotherly way whereby the Bishop pretends that these Letters were sent reciprocally from other Patriarchs and Bishops to the Bishop of Rome for admitting any into Episcopal or Priestly Office that went from them to him as I finde nothing of it in Baronius who yet handles the matter at large so I doubt not but it is a meer Chimaera And had the Bishop pleas'd with all his professed diligence in the search to have afforded us any instance in a business of such importance there would doubtless have appear'd a manifest difference and inequality between them viz. that those sent to the Pope from other Prelates were meerly Testimonial to assure him that the person bringing them was capable of his Communion whereas those from the Pope to other Bishops were not onely Testimonial but Mandatory or such as enjoyn'd the reception and restitution of the Bringer to such place and office in the Church as he pretended to Witness beside many other examples in Ecclesiastical Story the case of St. Athanasius and those other Catholick Bishops persecuted and expell'd their Seas by the Arrians and restor'd by vertue of the Popes Letters Communicatory But should the Pope voluntarily submit to the Equity of his own Law that is not onely allow such Letters to be written from others to him as he writes to them but also permit them to be so far of force as equity requires what would this prejudice his just Authority It might argue indeed the Humility of his Spirit but could surely be no Argument against his Right and Power to do otherwise if he saw cause CHAP. 18. A Continuation of the Defence of the Popes Authority ARGUMENT 1. Gersons Book de auferibilitate Papae proves nothing for the Bishop or his Party 2. St. Hierome and Optatus expounded 3. The Popes Spiritual Sovereignty not prejudicial to that of Temporal Princes 4. Bishops of Divine Institution yet Subordinate to the Pope by the Law of Christ. 5. Pope Innocents Simile of the Sun and Moon in relation to the Spiritual and Civil Government an usual Allegory 6. Why the Book of the Law was anciently deliver'd to the Prince 7. The Pope never pretended to Subject the Emperour to himself in Temporals 8. The Jesuites unjustly charged by the Bishop 9. Occham no competent Judge in the question of the Popes Authority 10. The Definition of the Council of Florence touching that matter 1. BUt before we pass any further it will not be amiss to look back and examine more narrowly the Bishops Marginal Allegations Gerson that famous Chancellour of Paris and undoubted Catholique writ a Book in troublesome times intituled De auferibilitate Papae whence the Relatour concludes that the Authour was of opinion the Church might continue in very good being without a Monarchical Head A strange Illation and contrary to what Gerson expresly teaches in the very treatise the Bishop cites The drift of Gerson's discourse is to shew how many several wayes the Pope may be taken away that is depriv'd of his Office and cease to be Pope as to his own person so that the Church pro tempore till another be chosen shall be without her visible Head But he no where teaches that the Government of the Church settled in a Monarchical way or rul'd by a Pope lawfully chosen can be absolutely abolisht by any power on earth but his judgement is clear even beyond all dispute for the contrary Hear Gersons own words and you will see to what great purpose and with what Fidelity our Adversary sometimes alledges Authours Auferibilis est saith he aut mutabilis LEGE STANTE quaelibet Politia Civilis Monarchica seu Regalis ut fiat Aristocratica at non sic de Ecclesiâ quae in UNO MONARCHA SUPREMO per universum fundata est à Christo quia nullam aliam Politiam instituit Christus IMMUTABILITER MONARCHIC AM quodammodò Regalem nisi Ecclesiam In English thus Any Civil Monarchy or Regal Government may be taken away or changed into an Aristocracy the Law still continuing in force But it is not so in the Church which was founded by Christ in one Supream Monarch throughout the world Because Christ instituted no other Government unchangeably Monarchical and as it were Regal besides the Church Can any words be more express in proof of the Authority of one over the whole Church And yet forsooth from the bare title of the Book the Relatour will inferre that in Gerson's judgement the Church is not by any Command or Institution of Christ Monarchical 2. Neither hath the Bishop much better success in his Allegation of St. Hierome who in his Epistle to Evagrius enveighing as his manner is somewhat vehemently against one that seem'd to preferre Deacons before Priests proceeds so far in vindication of the dignity and honour of Priesthood that he almost equalizes it with the office of Bishops plainly asserting that Diocesan Bishops have no more belonging to them jure Divino or by the Institution of Christ then Priests save onely the Power of Ordination that the riches wealth and amplitude of their respective Diocesses make not one Bishop greater then another but that all Bishops where ever they be plac'd are of one and the same merit and degree in regard of Ecclesiastical Priesthood which speaking precisely of the Office and Power Episcopal in it self is very true for a larger or lesser Diocess makes not one man more or less a Bishop then another St. Austin was as much a Bishop at little Hippo as Aurelius was at great Carthage But this is no impediment to the additional or accessory collation whether by divine or humane Institution of some special and more eminent Power and Authority upon the Bishop of one Diocess then of another as we say there is conferr'd jure Divino upon the Bishop of Rome as he is St. Peters Successour and jure Ecclesiastico upon many other Bishops viz. Archbishops Metropolitans Primates c. who by the Canons of the Church exercise authority over many Bishops who in regard of the power meerly Episcopal are equal to them St. Hierome therefore when he sayes ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii speaks not of the
infallibly the Assistance of the Holy Ghost But he does not finde he sayes that any General Council since did ever take upon them to say punctually and in express terms of their Definitions VISUM EST SPIRITUI SANCTO ET NOBIS acknowledging even thereby a great deale of difference as hee conceiues in the Certainty of those things which After-generall Councils determined in the Church and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sate in Council I answer there 's no Essentiall difference between the Certainty of the things determined by the Apostles and those decided by a Generall Councill confirm'd by the Roman Bishop Great difference there is indeed between the Apostles and Succeeding Bishops in respect of Personall Prerogatiues and graces but none at all between the Certainty of what eyther the Apostles by themselues or succeeding bishops in a lawfull Generall Council assembled define for Truth seeing what is completely determin'd therin is no lesse determin'd by Apostolicall Authority then what was determin'd by the Apostles in that first Council at Hierusalem And if After-Councils vse not the same Expression punctually and in terms it is not materiall since they doe it in effect by vniversally enioyning the Beleefe of their Decisions vnder paine of Anathema And this the Holy fathers well vnderstood when they averr'd the Decrees of a Generall Council to bee a most Holy and Diuine Oracle a sentence inspir'd by the Holy Ghost not to bee 〈◊〉 not to bee question'd without errour that it is the last sentence that can bee expected in matters of fayth What the Relatour meanes by alledging Valentia I vnderstand not that Author cleerly speaking of Councils not yet ratify'd by the Pope The Bishop therfore hath sayd nothing in disproofe of what Stapleton and Bellarmin affirme viz. that this passage of Scripture is a proper proofe of the Jnfallibility of Generall Councils which considered Dr. Stapleton is so farre from beeing iustly Censurable for styling the Decrees of Generall Councils Oracles of the Holy Ghost that his Lp. is rather blameable for pretending such words to bee little short of Blasphemie Is there any thing more common with the fathers then to giue them such like Attributes Does not St. Athanasius terme the definition of the Nicen Council against Arius the word of our Lord which endureth for ever Does not St. Cyrill aboue cited call it likewise a Diuine and most Holy Oracle Doth not Constantin the Emperour style the same Definition a Celestiall mandate Doth not St. Gregory with the applause of all true Christians professe to reuerence the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councils as hee reuerences the foure Ghospells Doth not St. Leo St. Gregory Naziazen Pope Nicolas the first with others speake to the same sense Bellarmins Argument deduc'd from this Apostolicall Council as 't was a President to all future Councils oecumenicall holds good for their Jnfallibility since otherwise they must haue been ineffectuall as to the principall purpose of calling them Viz. so to determin Controuersies of fayth as to put an end to all debates of that nature in the Church which can never bee effectually done where Infallibility is not acknowledg'd as hath been proued To what hee obiects that there is not THE LIKE Jnfallibility in other Councils where no man Sate that was inspired as was in this of the Apostles where all that sate as iudges were inspired I answer 't is sufficient that the whole Body of the Prelats concurring with their Head in any other lawfull Generall Council were ioyntly infallible in any kinde of reall infallibility whether like to the former or not So in the Bishops own principles a Generall Council or at least the Catholique Church is infallible in fundamentalls or Things absolutely necessary to saluation though hee would not acknowledge any ONE in the Church to haue that prerogatiue of infallibility As touching Ferus hee avouches nothing contrary to our doctrine of infallibility though his Authority would bee of no greater force then if hee were none of ours His Comment vpon the Acts which the Bishop here cites beeing listed with most of his other works in the ROLL of Prohibited Books Thus haue I gone thorough all the forecited passages of scripture and in euery one of them solv'd the Bishops obiections for rendring them incompetent proofs of the Infallibility of Generall Councils which yet I needed not haue done since what is cleerly prou'd by any one Text of scripture is as vndoubtedly true as what is prou'd by more But the Bishop tells us hee easily grants a Generall Council cannot erre in Things necessary to 〈◊〉 suffering it selfe to bee led by the spirit of Truth in scripture wherein hee seems but to trifle saying no more in effect then that a Generall Council cannot erre so long as it doth not erre This is a very small Prerogatiue and might bee affirm'd of any kinde of Council nay of any particular person of how meane capacity soever The question is whether a lawfull Generall Council can ever bee presumable to fall into the Bishops hinted disorder of leauing scripture or defining any thing contrary to its true sense But to speake truth there can bee no question of it as beeing inconsistent with the veracity of Diuine Promises to permitt the whole Church to erre in any Doctrinall point she finds necessary to define by a Generall Council for preuenting of schisms and settling of mens minds in the Truth To what hee adds as the Result of his discourse vpon these several Texts that supposing they promisd Assistance even to Infallibility yet they are to bee understood of the whole Church principally and of its Representatiue but by consequent nor any further then the sayd Representatiue consents and eleaues to that vpon which it is consequent viz. the Catholique Body of the Church This I say is but a weake cuasion For seeing the Catholique or Diffusiue Body of the Church is bound to beleeue and profess the Doctrine taught by her Representatiue if the Church Diffusiue haue an Infallible Assistance for her Beleeving the Council or Church Representatiue must also necessarily haue Infallible Assistance in Teaching To which of these this Assistance is promised principally is but a vayne speculation since they both haue it as beeing absolutely necessary for them both Here the Bishop falls againe to his Considerations and wil haue vs to obserue fourthly that there is not the like consent that Generall Councils cannot erre as there is thatthe Church in Generall cannot erre from the fayth necessary to Saluation since in this all agree but not in the former J answer all that haue not deserted nor adher'd to the Desertors of the Catholique Church doe vna nimously agree that a lawfully-call'd and confirm'd Generall Council can no more erre in point of fayth then the Church in general and his Lp. was much out in quoting Waldensis for the
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
two A. C. could not doubt but that really it was intended and must necessarily be included in the sense of those words of the Apostle how shall they preach etc. no less then the former J say that speciall annunciation or preaching of Christian doctrine must necessarily be included in the latitude of those words wherby the Prelats of the Church doe sufficiently applie diuine reuelation to Christian people for the grounding and eliciting an assent of true diuine Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done by any Authority or meanes which is not infallible A. C. therfore takes not the whole but only the principall part or one principall kinde of preaching Christs Gospell when he so glossed vpon St. Pauls words And well might he so doe it beeing that without which the preaching of all particular Pastours to their particular flocks would be to little purpose for they could preach nothing but vncertainties or at best but probable doctrine As little cause had his Lordship to taxe A. C. of bragging because he auerrs that wee Catholiques vse to interpret Scripture by vnion consent of fathers and definitions of Councils For in a iust and true sense soe wee doe in as much as wee neuer decline but alwayes follow that interpretation of Scripture which hath consent of Fathers and the definition of Generall Councils Can Protestants say so much for themselues And yet our meaning is not that noe exposition of Scripture is good but what hath express consent of Fathers or the definition of some Generall Councill to backe it wee doe not deny but euen priuate persons may discourse vpon Scripture and declare their iudgement concerning the sense and meaning of it prouided they neither hold nor obtrude any sense contrary to the common consent of Fathers or the definitions of Generall Councils but hold and doe all things with due submission to the Church But the Relatour will proue from the authorities of Scotus and Canus cited in his margent that the Apostle in this place speaks not at all of infus'd that is of diuine and infallible Fayth but of Fayth acquit a to witt by naturall and humane industrie and meanes which beeing not infallible nor requiring any infallible Authoritie in them that preach it the Bishop thence concludes that A. C ' Gloss is not good but rather that he grossly abuses the text by it J answer first the precedent discourse and reason giuen for the gloss doe sufficiently discharge A. C. of that imputation leauing the note of a Precipitate censure vpon his aduersary Secondly I say the Bishops information abuses him there beeing not one word or syllable in Scotus which denyes infused that is supernaturall diuine true Christan and infallible Fayth to be vnderstood in that Tex't of the Apostle T is true Scotus alledges the words in particular proofe of Fayth acquir'd viz. of that Fayth which is gained by hearing of particular Preachers and depends only on their Authoritie But yet he there maintaines with all Diuines an absolute necessity of Fayth infused or supernaturall which as the Bishop himselfe here proues out of Canus must rest vpon some infallible motiue and consequently requires an infallible preaching to applye it sufficiently to vs which is all that A. C ' gloss imports Adde hereunto that acquired Fayth beeing according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence prerequired and antecedent to Fayth diuine and supernaturall as Canus likewise here teacheth it cannot in any sort be suppos'd to exclude it Lastly by an argument a fortiori 't is euidently concluded that the text ought to be extended to diuine and infallible Fayth as well as to humane and acquired For if wee cannot beleeue euen with naturall and acquired Fayth without a Preacher surely much less can wee beleeue with infus'd and supernaturall Fayth without one still speaking according to ordinary course which Preacher must also be infallible eyther in his owne person as all the Apostles were or as he deliuers the doctrine and performes the office committed to him by an infallible autority such as is that of the Church by whome euery particular Preacher is deputed to deliuer the doctrine which she holds I might vrge also the common consent of interpreters who expound the place of noe other Fayth but that by which Christians are iustify'd and sau'd which surely can be noe other but supernaturall and infused Fayth And this is most certain whateuer Biel out of his priuate opinion asserts to the contrary But wee haue stood longer vpon this subiect then the small importance of it requires since neither our nor A. C ' doctrine touching the infallibility of Generall Councils does at all depend vpon this text but is sufficiently prou'd by those other already alledged to that purpose 3. The Bishop in the next place tells A. C. he has ill lucke in fitting his conclusion to his premisses and his consequent to his antecedent The business is because he seems from the assistance of the holy Ghost to inferre infallibility But J answer our Aduersary hath not much better lucke so often to mistake and peruert A. C ' meaning For certainly A. C. does not deduce infallibility eyther of Church or Councils from any assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer but from such assistance as is necessary for them both and from thence infallibility is rightly and inuincibly concluded as wee haue often shew'n by the grand inconueniencies which otherwise would vnauoydably follow both to Religion and the Church What therfore he vrges that the ancient Bishops and Fathers of the Church were assisted by Gods Spirit and yet not held to be of infallible creditt is beside the purpose A. C. making no such inference as the Relatour by this obiection supposes him to doe As for the question which A. C. asks if a whole Generall Council defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible Creditt what man in the world can be sayd to be infallible the Bishop seems rather to slight then satisfie it when he sayes I 'le make you a ready answer noe man no not the Pope himselfe No. Lett God and his word be true and euery man a lyar citing Scripture for it Rom. 3. 4. But what cannot Gods word be true vnless the Pope and Generall Councils be held fallible and subiect to erre when they define matters of Fayth were not those words of the Apostle true when both himselfe and all the rest of his Fellow-Apostles liu'd vpon earth and were infallible And if they were true then why not also now though the Pope and Generall Councils be held infallible Certainly A. Cs. question deseru'd a better answer then this or rather was vnanswerable by the Bishop without deserting his auowed principles For thus J argue ex concessis Jf Generall Councils defining what is diuine truth be not of infallible creditt noe man nor men in the world can be sayd to be so this the Bishop grants But then
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
to the doctrine of the other But in the Roman Church and Religion many are sau'd according to the principles which are granted on both sides viz. both by Catholiques and Protestants and in the Protestant Church many are saued only according to the principles and doctrine of Protestants but very few or none according to the doctrine of Catholiques Ergo the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to Saluation then the Church and religion of Protestants The Maior I'conceiue none will deny The Minor I proue thus In the Catholique Church 't is euident that many beeing to depart out of this life doe receiue the Sacrament of Pennance These according to the doctrine of the Roman Church are saued because by vertue of this Sacrament they receiue the grace of Iustification wherby of sinners they are made the sons of God and Heires of Eternall life nor can they be deny'd to be sau'd according to the doctrine of Protestants seeing they beleeue in Christ their Redeemer they confide in Gods Goodness and mercy for the pardon of their sins they truly repent of them and truly purpose for the future to amend their liues which is all that Protestant doctrine requires to make men partakers of Christs sanctifying Grace and is also necessarily requir'd by Catholiques to make them free subiects for the Sacrament of pennance Who can therfore doubt but that all such persons are saued both according to the doctrine of Catholiques and Protestants too J say who can rationally and with charity doubt but that Catholiques generally speaking beeing taught that Fayth Hope true repentance for sins past and a purpose of amendment are necessary to the due receiuing of the Sacrament of pennance doe not omitt to exercise those acts with all necessary diligence and sincerity especially when they are to prepare themselues against that dreadfull passage to Eternity That they may exercise such acts if they will by the help of Gods ordinary Grace and by exercising them be effectually sau'd the Bishop himselfe cannot deny seeing he grants so much to the Donatists themselues whom he confesses at least to haue been Schismatiques iustly condemn'd by the Orthodox Church and in some respects in greater danger of damnation then wee Romanists His words are these A plaine bonest Donatist hauing as is confessed true Baptisme and holding the Foundation as for ought I know the Donatists did and repenting of what euer was sinne in him and would haue repented of the Schisme had it been know'n to him might be saued Neither will J suppose any other Protestant deny vs the possibility of exercising such acts seeing they all grant that with involuntary errours true Fayth and repentanoe may stand and haue no sufficient reason to thinke that our errours at death are voluntary and willfull or that wee doe willfully omitt any thing that wee beleeue to be necessary for the attaining of Saluation But now according to the doctrine of Catholiques there are very few or none among Protestants that escape damnation or that are 〈◊〉 if they liue and dye out of the Communion of our Church Not that it is a point of our beleese that many Protestants shall be damn'd precisely vpon the account of beeing Heretiques because heresie is an obstinate and willfull errour against Fayth and wee cannot easily much less infallibly determin whose errours are willfull but because there are none or surely but very few amongst them but are guilty of mortall sinne against Gods Commandements and because the ordinary meanes they vse and prescribe is not according to our principles sufficient to expiate and blott out such sinne 'T is well know'n that though Protestants to obtaine Saluation beleeue in Christ trust in his merits and repent of their sins yet they doe it not purely out of a perfect loue of God so as to hate sin aboue all euills meerly as it is an offence against the Diuine Maiestie and to preferre God and his holy Commandements before our selues and all other creatures for this is a very hard and rare act euen amongst the best of Christians but at best vpon inferiour and lower motiues as the manner of most men is to doe viz. in consideration of the Beatitude of Heauen as it is their own particular good or for the auoyding of the paines of Hell as it is their particular and chiefest harme Now according to our doctrine such kinde of repentance as this is no sufficient remedy to blott out sinne vnless it be ioyn'd wich the Sacrament of pennance viz. Confession and Priestly Absolution c. which Protestants reiect J say without the Sacrament of pennance actually and duly recoin'd all Catholiques hold that neither Fayth nor Hope nor any repentance or sorrow for sinne can saue vs but that only which is ioyned with a perfect loue of God wherby wee are dispos'd to loose all and suffer all that can be imagin'd rather then to offend God yea though there were indeed neither Heauen to reward vs nor Hell to punish vs which beeing a thing so hard to be found especially 〈◊〉 such as beleeue a man is iustifyed by Fayth only it followes euidently that in our doctrine very few or no Protestants are saued The Conclusion therfore is vndenyable that our Church is a safer way to Salua ion then that of Protestants My second Argument is this That Church and Religion which affords all necessary meanes of Saluation is a safer way to Saluation then an other which does not But the Roman Church and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation and the Protestant doth not Ergo the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to Saluation then the Church and Religion of Protestants The Maior is euident The Minor consists of two parts which I shall proue in order The First which is that the Roman Church and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation appeares partly by the confession of Protestants themselues who acknowledge generally that in our Church and Religion are contained all Foundamentall points that is all things absolutely necessary to Saluation and partly because it cannot be proued that any thing is of absolute necessity in order to Saluation which is not found in our Churches Communion The second that Protestants standing to their owne principles neither haue nor can haue things necessary for Saluation J proue by this one Argument Jt is certaine that diuine Fayth necessary to Saluation according to these places of Holy Writt sine fide impossibile est placere Deo Hebr. 11. without Fayth it is impossible to please God Qui non crediderit condemnabitur Marc. 16. He that beleeueth not shall be damned 'T is likewise certaine that this diuine Fayth must be firme sure and without doubt or hesitation in so much that if an Angel from Heauen should preach the contrary to what wee beleeue it ought not to be altered according to that of the Apostle Galat. 1. 8. Now how is it possible that Protestants standing to their
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
Rome or after He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church before he settled his seate at Rome and the Brittish Christians if any such were before that time might very well at least for ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary be instructed by their preachers to beleeue and acknowledge him for such CHAP. 24. The conclusion of the point touching the Saluation of Roman Catholiques and the Roman Fayth prou'd to be the same now that it euer was ARGVMENT 1. All Catholiques in possibility of Saluation and all Protestant teachers excluded by the Bishops own grounds 2. No Church different in doctrine from the Roman can be shew'n to haue held all Fundamentall points in all Ages 3. The Bishops confident pretense to Saluation vpon the account of his Fayth rather presumptuous then well grounded 4. His pretending to beleeue as the Primitiue Church and fowre first Generall Councils beleeu'd disprou'd by instance 5. Christs descent into LIMBVS PATRVM the doctrine and worshiping of Images the publique allowed practice of the Primitiue Church 6. A. C ' Interrogatories defended 7. Protestants haue not the same Bible with Catholiques in any true sense 8. The index expurgatorius not deuis'd by vs to corrupt the Fathers 9. Noe disagreement amongst Catholiques in points defined by the Church 10. Catholiques haue infallible Fayth of what they beleeue eyther explicitely or implicitely but Protestants none at all that is infallible 1. THe Controuersie goes on touching Roman-Catholiques Saluation The Bishop hauing first yeelded absolutely that the Lady might be saued in the Roman Fayth nettled a little as it seems by Mr. Fishers bidding her marke that returns smartly vpon him in these words she may be better saued in it then you and bids him marke that too Well wee will not interpret this to be any restraining of his former grant touching the Ladies Saluation but only an item to his aduersarie to looke to himselfe for that in the Bishops opinion his case was not so good as the Ladies in order to Saluation But what is his reason because for sooth any man that know's so much of the truth as Mr. Fisher and others of his calling doe and yet opposes it must needs be in greater danger So that it seems learning and sufficiency according to the Bishop haue such a connexion with Protestant doctrine that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easie matter to haue the one and not to see the truth of the other But how false this surmize is appeares by the experience of so many learned men in the Catholique Church who are so farre from discouering errours in the Roman Church and truth in the contrary doctrine of Protestants that the more learned they are and the better they vnderstand and weigh the grounds of Controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and her aduersaries the more they are confirm'd in the Catholique doctrine Againe what likelyhood is there that by pondering the pretended reasons of Protestants for their Religion I should euer come to a right and full vnderstanding of Diuine truth's seeing it is euident that following their principles I can be certaine of nothing that belongs to Diuine Fayth For teaching as they doe that all particular men all Generall Councils and the whole Church of God may erre what assurance can they giue me that eyther their Canon of Scripture is true or that the sense of the words of Scripture by which they proue their doctrine is such as they vnderstand or that their Church which they grant to be fallible doth not erre in those points wherein they disagree from vs. What he asserts afterward by way of reason why he allowes possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques viz. because they are within the Church and that no man can be sayd simply to be out of the Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation is a Paradox and may be prou'd to be false euen from his own grounds For seeing he hath often deliuer'd that by Foundation he vnderstands only such points as are Prime Radicall and Fundamentall in the Fayth necessary to be know'n and expressly beleeu'd by all Christians in order to Saluation and seeing that many Heretiques are Baptized and hold the Foundation in this sense what does he but bring into the Fold of the Church and make Members of Christs Mysticall Body most of the Heretiques that euer were and that euen while they remayne most notoriously and actually diuided from it Nor is he content with one absurdity vnless he adioyne a second There is no question sayth he but many viz. ignorant Catholiques were saued in the corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnless they repented before their death as 't is morally certain none of them did were lost See here a heauy doome pronounced against all the Roman Doctours in generall But what were they all lost who repented not of those pretended errours which as Pastours of the Roman-Catholique Church they taught so many yeares together How could that be were they not all euen by the Bishops own principles members of the true visible Church of Christ notwithstanding those errours by reason of their beeing Baptized and holding the Foundation If they neither lost that Fayth by which they were members of the true Church nor can be prou'd to haue taught any false doctrine against their conscience by meanes whereof they might fall from Grace with what truth or Charity could the Bishop pronounce such a sentence against them He adds that erroneous Leaders doe then only perish when they refuse to heare the Churches instruction or to vse all the meanes they can to come to the knowledge of truth But J demand if no Misleaders but such doe perish with what countenance conscience J might say could the Relatour pass his iudgement of ours in the manner he doth that they were lost Can it with any colour of equity or truth be charg'd vpon them that they refus'd the Churches instruction what visible Church was there in the whole world for so many hundred yeares together by which had they been neuer so willing they could be instructed to teach otherwise then themselues taught in their respectiue ages and what other meanes could they be bound to vse more then they did to come to the knowledge of truth Why should not our aduersarie in reason haue rather excus'd these Leaders of the Roman Fayth and Communion from Heresie and all other damnable errour then he does euen St. Cyprian himselfe and his followers seeing 't is manifest these last oppos'd and contradicted the more generall practice of the whole visible Church whereas the Roman Catholique Doctours had alwayes the vniuersall practice of the Church on their side in the points now controuerted and for which Protestants condemne them of errour The truth is the Bishop is a little intangled here Something he must say by way of threatning against Catholiques to keep his own people in awe and to fright them from becoming Catholiques but positiuely and determinately what