communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament how is it possible that a man should be moued to this beleefe by the common consent of Catholiques Lutherans and English Protestants seeing only these last agree in this point That which the Relatour adds to this is no less absurd He cites 〈◊〉 a Catholique diuine as teaching that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques as if he had ouercome them with their own arms asking A. C. what he can say to this and seems to admire the force of truth which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie But J answer what matter is it though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation were that sufficient ground to say that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour or noc point of Catholique Fayth because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation very true it is all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church is an article of Fayth which may neither be doubted of nor disputed yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined by an express act A Protestant versed in scripture would thinke it a sinne if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent yet J conceiue he will hardly say that it is Simply necessary to Saluation or that he is bound absolutely Speaking to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation But the truth is Suarez speaks to no such purpose as the Bishop alledges him He confesses indeed that the manner of explicating the change or conuersion that is made in the B. Sacrament which Schoole-men vse is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles but as for the conuersion it selfe or Transubstantiation it is most euident that he holds it for a point of Fayth which to deny were Heresie His words are these in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes Secundò infero etc. Secondly Sayth he J inferre that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as also the absense of bread yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body he falls into Heresie because the Catholique Church hath defined and doth teach not only the two first but also this last what say you to this Protestants you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church was it truth and honestie thinke you that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour They that please to consult the Author himselfe in the place alledged will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it but a farre different thing as wee haue sayd aboue His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent whome he censures forsooth of tediousness and for making as he conceiues an intricate and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion a thing which in the Relatours opinion neither Diuinity nor Philosophy euer heard of till then But let the indifferent reader be Judge Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition and becomes a liuing and animate part of man not because the soule which informs it is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd but because the same soule which was in the body before begins now to be in the new matter so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion the bread is turned into the Body of Christ not as if Christs Body were properly speaking produced vnder the elements for it was preexistent before and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense be sayd to be produced but because it was not there before and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms by vertue of Consecration Lett any man iudge whether this explication be not farre more intelligible then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence First of all he affirms with Bishop Ridley and other Protestants cited by him that the true reall naturall and Substantiall Body of Christ that very Body which was born of the Virgin which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead is truly really and Substantially in the B. Sacrament and yet for all this denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation that is in effect he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament yet neither with the Substance of bread nor without it He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time and yet stiffly denies with all Caluinists that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once Is not this to say in effect that Christs Body really is only in Heauen and no where else and yet to acknowledge that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth But who is able to vnderstand and reconcile these speeches His saying that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth by Grace and the like is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence which in no true sense can be called reall In my opinion Zuinglius Peter Martyr and those of the Sacramentary party deale faric more candidly in this point who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence both name and thing then the Bishop and some other Protestants alledged by him who confess the name but deny the thing 6. The Catholique Authors which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter are grossly eyther misunderstood or misexpounded by him For 't is euident when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane for the most part that which is by desire and deuotion only when for want of opportunity or some 〈◊〉 reason wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament but yet doe vse most of those affections and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God and our B. Sauiour which wee are wont to practise when wee doe really communicate Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament where he is present not like a bodily substance but rather like a spirit that is whole in the whole consecrated host and whole in euery part of it But sure
praecognitum we seek for is not such a one as the Relatour makes Tradition viz. an Introducer onely but such a one as we may rely upon for an Infallible Testimony in the Resolution of Faith Nay I adde Scripture is not a primum praecognitum even to this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation For if in this Proposition it be suppos'd that Scripture is the Word of God it must also at least implicitely be suppos'd as prov'd by Tradition and consequently both in this and all other Questions Tradition must be the praecognitum and primò cognitum 9. But put case the Bishop held the Scriptures-being the Word of God as a supposed Principle meerly in materiâ subjectâ yet should he not have said absolutely as he doth That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need not to be proved but should have said We are now to suppose Scripture to be the Word of God in order to this Question and are not to prove it But the truth is in this Question of Mr. Fisher viz. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture even as it related to the present Controversie betwixt them Scripture was not to be supposed as a Principle to be Gods Word For the Question then agitated was not Whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation there being no mention of that but onely whether the Creed contained all Fundamental Points And the immediate occasion of Mr. Fishers demanding this Question was this answer of the Bishop viz. That the Scriptures onely not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith Whereupon Mr. Fisher demanded how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are believed sayes Mr. Fisher to be Scripture yet not proved out of any place of Scripture Now 't is manifest that in this Debate Mr. Fisher had Logically right to demand this Question it being a direct Medium and Argument to infringe the Bishops Tenet For by this means his Doctrine was evinced to be false because if there be some point of Protestant Faith not founded in Scripture Scriptures onely are not the Foundation of their Faith Whence it follows that even though the Question had been whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation yet Scriptures in order to that were not to be suppos'd to be the Word of God since the very believing them to be so at least in his principles is a point necessary to salvation which gives right to his Antagonist to disprove his assertion by instancing that Scriptures-being the word of God is not contained in Scripture 10. His Lordship here undertakes a hard task and pretends to make it appear to A. C. how Scripture is a praecognitum even in the strictest sense But behold his reason Scripture is a praecognitum because 't is known in clear light by God and the Blessed in heaven Is not this an invincible argument I am sorry to see him so much mistake the Question For we are not in search after a praecognitum in order to God and the Saints in heaven but in relation to us upon earth to whom it is as much unknown whether God and the Saints see Scriptures to be his Divine Oracles as it is whether the same Scriptures be Gods word or not abstracting from Tradition Is not this in respect of us to bring non-cognita for praecognita Besides what avails it me for the Resolution of my Faith that the Revelation is clear to God and his Saints unless I know it be so who have no other light for its admittance then the Tradition of the Church Having labour'd to prove that Scriptures are the Oracles of God from the clear science God and the Saints have of them which clear Science of theirs is derived by Apostolical Tradition to the Church the Relatour drawes a conclusion quite contrary to his Premises namely that Scripture is to be supposed Gods word and needs no precedent proof If it needs no proof why does his Lordship endeavour to prove it by such a strange kinde of Argument Had he indeed said Scriptures being prov'd by another principle to be the word of God must be suppos'd to be so by all that admit that proof he had said a manifest truth But on the one side to hold it must be prov'd by a further principle and on the other to maintain that it needs not be prov'd at all cannot but seem a strange Vertigo to any Logical head As to his conclusion in these words And therefore now to be suppos'd at least by all Christians that the Scripture is the word of God I answer if he means by now to be suppos'd for Gods word as prov'd such by Apostolical Tradition 't is most true but if he mean 't is to be suppos'd the word of God without any precedent proof in order to us it s all out of joynt and his answer contrary to his own principles 11. Touching the Jewes they had the like proof for the Old Testaments-being the word of God that we have for the New For theirs was delivered by Moyses and the Prophets and ours by the Apostles who were Prophets too And as they that came after received the Old Testament from the Tradition of the Church so do we now And this is it that St. Chysostome affirms We know why By whose Testimony do we know By the Testimony of our Ancestors Which words being spoken without restriction and in answer to the question proposed must of necessity be understood as well of the immediate as prime Ancestors however the Bishop labours by his Gloss to exclude the immediate ones which is incompatible with Reason since the witness that is able to make me know any thing must attest it immediately to me that so I may hear his testimony my self Now the Jewes who liv'd many hundred years after Moyses and the Prophets did not could not hear them immediately therefore Moyses and the Prophets could not give them an immediate testimony And since they had none that witnessed this immediately to them but those of the present Jewish Church who with a most full consent deliver'd what they had receiv'd from those who flourished in the next age before them they could not know that their Ancestors taught it but by those of their present age and consequently it was not their prime Ancestors onely that made them know it as the Relatour would insinuate This is most clearly signified Psalm 77. ver 3. c. where the Children of Israel were to receive the Law and Works of God successively by Generations one immediately from another And the same is also commanded them Deut. 6. ver 6 7 20. viz. that fathers should instruct their children concerning the great Works and Mercies of God c. As to what the Bishop observes touching the word Knowledge which is attributed to the Jews by holy Scripture as also by
defined by the Church were Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation that is whether all those Truths which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes The one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self that not onely the disbelief of it when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express Knowledge and Belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti in regard of the matter which they contain But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti onely conditionally that is by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formall object or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense is a thing so manifest that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability thought it his onely course to divert it according to his ordinary custome by turning the Difficulty which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality or necessity derived from the formall Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that point to the materiall Object that is to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the formall object whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation The Major is evident For to refuse to believe Gods revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition For though his Lordship say he grants it not yet for the present he sayes that though it were supposed he should grant that the Church or a lawful General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamental that is as we have proved necessary to Salvation Supposing therefore that the Church and a lawful General Council be taken in this occasion for the same thing as he affirms they are saying in the beginning of num 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general and a General Council which is her representative and admitting this he proceeds in his argument Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre I prove the Minor thus Whosoever refuses to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre refuses to believe that which is revealed from God But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre Ergo Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God The Major is evident ex terminis For if the Authority which testifies it is revealed from God cannot erre that which it testifies to be so revealed is so revealed The Minor is the Bishops supposition viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre as is proved Ergo c. And this I hope will satisfie any ingenuous Reader that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation as Mr. Fisher took it Yet to deal freely with the Bishop even taking Fundamental in a general way as he in this present Conference mistakes it for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion it is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal object or Infallible Authority propounding them though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain Whoever deliberately denies or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point delivered as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church For whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other Now I subsume But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church erres Fundamentally Ergo c. This Subsumptum is evident For if he believe none at all he neither believes God nor Christ nor Heaven nor Hell c. with an Infallible Divine Christian Faith and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine Infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous or fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority It is manifest that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point
Bishop frames a notable Turn in his Labyrinth winding in the words of St. Augustin quite contrary to St. Augustins meaning to make them speak for himself For having affirmed in his own Text as we heard but now that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling Disputant may not be allowed just over against these words in his own Margent at Litera F. he puts these Latin words of St. Augustin Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor In English thus Which truly if it be shewed so clear that there can be no doubt of it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholique Church Now by citing these words and no more but leaving out those immediately precedent he leaves it also doubtful to what the word quae which in St. Augustins Text is to be referred but yet by putting plain Scripture c. in his own Text right over against it he supposed doubtless his Reader would not judge that Quae could be referred to any thing else save Scripture and that which follows it in his Text and consequently would conclude that St. Augustin and he were of the same opinion viz. that plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument is to be preferred before all the Definitions of the Church Whereas St. Augustin in the place cited hath nothing at all either of plain Scripture or evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manichaeans he writes th us Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat VERITATIS POLLICITATIO and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit c. But with you saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretiques who have nothing at all of those Things which may invite and hold me onely a promise of Truth makes a noise WHICH Truth if it be Demonstrated to be so clear as it cannot be called in doubt is to be preserred c. where it is plain Quae which is relative onely to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else Nay it is Relative onely to that Truth in this place which the Manichees bragg'd of and promised which was so far from being plain Scripture c. that it was no other then what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus intituled Fundamentum which St. Augustin at that present confuted as appears by the following words Neither indeed could St. Augustin be understood to speak of plain Scripture in this place as though that were to be preferred before the Definition of the Catholique Church or a General Council and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholique Church or of General Councils to be contrary to plain Scripture understanding by plain Scripture Scripture truly sensed and interpreted for he Disputes ex professo against that supposition or perswasion and proves that no clear place of Scripture can be produc'd against the common received Doctrine of the Church from this grand inconvenience necessarily following upon it viz. That if such a Thing could happen that the Doctrine of the Catholique Church could be contrary to Scripture or the Gospel he should not be able to believe rationally and infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because he receives them onely upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the Plain Scripture which is supposed to be brought against her Though therefore St. Augustin had said in express terms as 't is manifest he doth not that clear Scripture is to be preferred before all things which he had named before yet he is so far from supposing as the Bishop here supposes that evident Scripture can be contrary to the Churches received Doctrines that he professedly teaches and proves the contrary and uses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. onely ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo c. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed Saint Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from Heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel yet so he speaks And the same may be said in answer to the evident Reason or full Demonstrative Argument which the Bishop talks of for neither can that truly and properly speaking be any more brought against the Churches Authority and Doctrine then plain Scripture The Relatours supposition then has no more ground in St. Augustin then if one should prove that an Angel from Heaven can preach against the doctrine of the Apostles because St. Paul sayes Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed Now if the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugne it so long at least as he is so farre from seeing his errour that he is fully perswaded he erres not and that the Church erres in Defining against him as those Heretiques were perswaded against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place His second winding is that he labours to prove from the fore-cited words of St. Augustin that plain Scripture is to be preferred before the Definitions of the Church and may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Now St. Augustin speaks as little of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain in this sentence as he doth of Scripture For by those words Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor there is not once named the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental or any comparison or contrariety mentioned betwixt them For the question was not whether St. Augustin might reject some of the Churches Definitions which by plain Scripture he found to be erroneous in matters of small moment and yet remain still a member of the Church submitting to her in all Fundamental points but the question was this whether St. Augustin were to forsake the Catholique Church and become a profest enemy of her as he once had been in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine if plain and undenyable Truth should be brought against the Church and for Manichaeus So that the Truth mentioned by him in this place was to have been so Fundamental that it had been able utterly to overthrow the Church and establish Manichaeisme if any such Truth could have been undoubtedly demonstrated If therefore this Text could prove any thing it must prove that the whole visible Church can erre Fundamentally and so become no Church which is clearly against his Lordship
My Lord having been sufficiently informed of your eminent Authority and great Learning I desire to receive some satisfaction from you in matter of Religion but being not verst in your Christian Principles I am uncapable of accepting of any save what can be evidenc'd to me by the light of Natural Reason Bishop I willingly condescend to your request and doubt not to render you fully satisfied by the means you require Heath I understand by your learned Relation of a Conference c. that the sole Foundation of your Faith is a Certain Book called by you the BIBLE which contains many different Tracts and Histories written in very distant times by several Authours and bound up together in one volume And this you say must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of your Religion as it ought to be believed Now I have employed sometime in perusing this your Bible and am no way inclined by the light of Reason to assent that it is Gods word in such manner as you believe it Bish. Surely you have not employed the Talent of Reason as reason required you should have done otherwise you would have discerned this Book to be the very Word of God For our Faith contains nothing against Reason neither is Grace placed but in a Reasonable Soul Heath But yet your Faith is above Reason and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature so that by Reasons light I can reach neither of them nor can my reason without Grace say you see my way to heaven nor believe this Book Bish. I confess it is so yet Natural Reason is cleared by Grace to see what by Nature alone it cannot Heath Tell not me of Grace I understand nothing of that and believe as little Unless therefore you satisfie me that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being Gods word by conviction of naturall Reason my search is at a stand Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the Question yet I must tell you you may not think that this Principle of Religion That Scriptures are the Word of God is so indifferent to a natural eye that it may as justly lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other for 't is strengthned abundantly with Probable Arguments even from the light of Nature it self Heath A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthned with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may be also said to be but probably false Wherefore I fear Naturall Reason goes not very far in the decision of this question Bish. Say not so For Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason then any thing in the world which any Infidell or meer Naturalist can adhere unto against it Heath This your assertive Answer is doubly defective as I conceive First because it is not enough for one to prove his Religion to stand upon surer grounds then another mans since 't is possible there may be a third Religion resting on surer grounds then either of the other two Secondly because in your own Principles you are not to prove your Bible by your Religion as you here seem to endeavour but your Religion by your Bible which must therefore be first proved and that by Naturall Reason too for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it Bish. This Canon of Scripture the Container of Christs Law is or hath been received and believed for infallible Verity in almost all Nations under Heaven which could never have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason Heath Did the Nations you speak of receive the Scriptures on the sole Account of Reason and thereupon by diligent reading and conferring of Texts became Christians or were they first made Christians and after upon the Churches Authority received them for Gods undoubted word The Authors by you cited in your Book averre not their reception of them for Gods word before they were made Christians What wonder then if I who am yet no Christian see not sufficient reason to receive them for such Truly to me by what has hitherto been said it seems impossible to prove by Reason that your Bible is Gods Infallible Truth Bish. Nay it is not impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth Infallible or make you deny some apparent Principle of your own Heath Evidence me that and your Lordship will accomplish a great work Bish. 'T is an apparent Principle with those of your perswasion that God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of possession since if he could he were neither Absolute nor God in your own Theology But your Gods have been forced out of possession viz. out of the Bodies they possessed by the name of the true God and Christ whom the Scriptures teach and we believe to be the onely true God Therefore Heath Therefore what By what kinde of Logick can you inferre even out of your own premises which yet I might well question that therefore the Scripture is Gods word Bish. Does it not follow that you must either deny your own Gods or your own Principle in Nature And if it be reasonable to deny him for God who is under command why is it not also reasonable to believe that the Scripture is Gods word since there you finde Christ doing that viz. dispossessing Bodies and giving power to do it after Heath My Lord I cannot a little wonder to see you swerve so grosly from the known Rules of Logick as to beg the Question which here you do most palpably while you rest on the sole Authority of Scripture for proving the same Scripture to be the word of God If this be not a meer petitio principii I know not what is Bish. I perceive you are willfull and self-conceited for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard However I shall adde this more that if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if even in the Mathematiques where are the exactest Demonstrations there be quaedam postulata some things to be first demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed who can justly deny that to Divinity a Science of the highest object which he easily 〈◊〉 to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach There must therefore in Reason some principle be supposed in Divinity viz. the Text of Scripture as a Rule which Novices and weaklings may be taught first to believe that so they may come to the knowledge of the Deducibles out of this rich Principle I see not how right Reason can deny this ground Heath I did not think to finde your Lordship so disingenuous as not onely to contradict your self by unsaying all
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
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
according to the common sense and beleefe of the whole Church Whatsoeuer Origen taught in other places certaine it is in the place alledged by Bellarmin he teaches noe such Heresie speaking there only of soules beeing expiated from light and veniall sinnes which doe not deserue Hell or damnation eternall These he styles aliquid de specie plumby they are in Faythfull soules as a mixture of lead or some baser mettal in gold soules are defiled by them And then putting a difference betwixt those soules which haue much gold and but small quantity of lead and such as haue much lead and but little gold he sayes of them both that they shall after this life be purg'd by fire more or less for a longer or shorter time of paine according as they had more or less lead that is vice and sinne to be purged in them but for others viz. such as be all lead and haue noe gold that is noe true merit of vertue and grace in them they sayth Origen shall sinke down into the bottomless pitt for euer This is the summe of his discourse in that place and can any thing be spoken more cleerly for Purgatory In the fourth and fifth ages Bellarmin brings more plenty of authorities and the Relatour is pleas'd to call these the great and learned ages of the Church therfore surely the less subiect to be seduced and led away from the truth by any priuate false doctrine of Heretiques St. Ambrose is plaine enough for Purgatory for speaking of what happens to the dead after this life he sayes some shall be saued as by fire alluding manifestly to those words of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. If any mans worke burn he shall suffer detriment but he himselfe shall be saued yet so AS BY FIRE But the words in St. Ambrose AS by fire at which the Bishop will seeme to stumble and pretend difficulty relate not so much to the thing or fire it selfe as if St. Ambrose mean't not true fire or that it were not truly and really to be passed thorough saue only in way of similitude or figure but it relates to the person to witt of him that does pass thorough it signifying that those who are cleansed after this life are not burn't vp and quite destroyed by fire as those in Hell are ouer whom that fire preuailes for euer but only that they suffer detriment for a while like him that passes through fire and in his passage hath his haire and garments singed Thus I say it is that St. Ambrose teaches some are saued quasi per ignem as by fire I adde that suppose St. Ambrose by his quasi per ignem did not intend to signifie true and materiall fire but only Metaphoricall as paines analogicall to fire yet it will not thence follow that he intended not to signifie Purgatory since it is not yet declared by the Church to be matter of necessary beleefe that soules in Purgatorie are tormented by fire in that sense but only that they endure paines and dolours there by which they are purged and which for their extremity are not vnfittly according to Scripture phrase express'd and signify'd by fire what euer the meanes or immediate instrument be by which God inflicts them See Concil Florentin in lit vnion likewise St. Ambrose in his oration vpon the death of that good Emperour Theodosius where he prayes for his soule in these words giue REST to thy Seruant Theodosius that REST which thou hast prepared for thy saynts and prosesses out of great affection to him that he would neuer leaue so praying day nor night till by his prayers and teares he had brought him to the place whither his merits call'd him to the holy mountaine where is life euerlasting Jf you obiect that St. Ambrose in this very oration professes to beleeue that Theodosius was already in heauen J answer out of his charity he might hope so knowing how good a Christian that Emperour was yet not beeing certaine of it he held it necessary as wee see and agreeable to Christian piety to pray for him which cleerly rather confums then ouerthrows the doctrine of Purgatorie St. Hierome also is nce less plaine for a purging fire after this life yea so expresly that he makes it to differ from that of Hell only because through this they pass as the Israelites did through the red sea but through that of Hell none pass but all with the Egyptidns are drown'd therein and perish eternally As for the word arbitramur which the Relatour catches at as if St. Hierome therby deliuer'd only his own priuate and but coniecturall opinion and not any matter of Christian beleefe wee answer arbiramur doth not alwayes signifie opinion or doubt but simply a mans sense or iudgement in whatsoeuer matter or question propounded as euery common Lexicon might haue inform'd him Does the word signifie noe more then meere opinion in that text of St. Paul Philip. 2. non rapinam ARBITRATVS est esse se aequalem Deo etc And would not the Bishop thinke you haue been shrewdly putt to it to finde a proofe for iustificationby Payth been only should that of Rom. 3. 28. haue been wrested from him in this manner St. Paul is heere only at his ARBITRAMVR WEE THINKE that a man is iustisyed by Fayth without the works of the Law he deliuers not a point of Fayth but only his priuate opinion leauing it sree for other men to thinke otherwise if they see cause Howeuer the Reader shall doe well to take a little notice of the Bishops doubling here He makes a shew of answering the texts which Bellarmin brings out of the fathers to proue Purgatory but in stead of performing punctually what he pretends is content to pass by many of them and to frame an answer only to some few which he thought fitt Can any reason be conceiu'd of 〈◊〉 proceeding but only that he found the omitted places too hot for him and not capable of any colourable peruerting Lett the Reader iudge in part by this one of St Hierome which to that end is here presented in the margent verbatim as it stood and should haue been answer'd in Bellarmin si autem Origenes etc. what is it to vs sayth St. Hierome if Origen teach that all reasonable creatures whatsoeuer shall be sau'd at last and that euen the Deuill shall come to repentance seeing wee hold no such matter but confess that the Deuill and his Ministers are damned for euer and that all wicked impenitent sinners shall likewise eternally perish and that such Christians only as ARE PREVENTED IN SINNE that is dye before they haue done full and perfect pennance for the sinnes of which they had truly repented shall be siued after a time of punishment To which wee may adde what he sayth in his Commentaries vpon the Prouerbs where he plainly auoucheth that the faythfull after death may be absolued from light sinnes in which they dyed
fire for purging of soules after this life which can be no other then the fire of Purgatory which wee assert in which the effects of mortall sinne and also veniall sinnes are purged Neither is it against vs that this purging fire is sayd by St. Gregory to be a fire that sleeps not seeing his meaning is that it goes not out nor ceaseth to burn till the soule be perfectly refined by it Wee confess also that St. Gregory proues the Resurrection of the bodie by this argument because 't is fitting the body which hath been partaker in sinne should likewise be partaker in punishment But how does this disproue Purgatorie Yes sayes the Bishop for this Father teacheth withall that the soule cannot suffer by fire but in the body Jf he meanes naturally and by materiall fire Weo grant it too but supernaturally and by diuine power so ordaining it wee auerre that both Deuills and damned foules doe now suffer by fire in Hell though it be not matter of necessary Fayth to beleeue that soules in Purgatorie are now purg'd by materiall fire It sufficeth that they suffer reall paines reall affliction and dolours whatsoeuer those be and by what meanes soeuer applyed and that by suffering them they are purged from their sinnes What the Relatour adds here concerning diuerse of the ancients especially of the Greeks viz. that they were a little too much acquainted with Plato's schoole if his meaning be that they were thereby led into errour or that they corrupted the Christian doctrine with the opinions of Plato or any other Paganish Philosophers 't is a groundless calumny and extremely iniurious to those worthies But our Aduersarie seemes not much to care what he imputes to the fathers soe he may impose vpon his Reader and make him beleeue those primitiue and zealous Assertours of Christian verity against both Philosophers Heretiques and all enemies whateuer held against vs in this point or taught not Purgatorie as a part of Catholique doctrine 12. But St. Austin has the ill hap to be vs'd worst of all The Bishop makes him say and vnsay and wauer in his doctrine touching this matter as if he had been rather a nouice in the Fayth then a father of the Church thence concluding that the doctrine of Purgatorie was noe matter of Fayth in St. Austins time for if it had been such St. Austin would neuer haue spoken so doubtfully of it Excellenty concluded But I answer the argument proceeds only vpon a willing mistake of our Aduersarie and an affected ignorance of St. Austins meaning in the places alledged That he could not possibly be thought to deny or doubt of Purgatory quoad rem that is as it signifies a pen all state of faythfull soules departed from which they are in time deliuered is so euident that wee referre it to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader after he hath seriously weighed these places not to repeate here those other which Bellarmin cites out of him Constat animas purgari post hancvitam c. this the Bishop himselfe also cites 't is certaine sayth he that some soules are purged after this life If St. Austin held it certaine how could he be thought to doubt of it neque negandum est etc. Jt is not a thing to be denyed sayth he againe but the soules of the dead are holpen by the piety of their liuing friends when the sacrifice of Christs Body is offered for them or Alms giuen on their behalfe To the same purpose he writes also lib. 21. de Ciuit. Det. pag. 13. lib. 2. de Genes contr Manich. cap. 20. Epist. 64. ad Aurel. Episc. Item in psalm 37. Lastly what he sayth Serm. 32. de verb. Apost Orationibus Sanctae Ecclesiae et Sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adiuuari etc. wee may not at all doubt sayth he but the Prayers and Sacrifice of the Holy Church with Alms distributed for their soules doe help the dead so as to procure that our Lord deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes haue deserued this beeing a thing which the vniuersall Church obserues by Tradition from the Fathers Compare this good Reader with that know'n maxime and resolution of St. Austin in his Epistle to Januarius that 't is noe better then insolent madness to question or dispute that which the vniuersall Church holds and tell mee if thou can'st possibly thinke that St. Austin doubted of Purgatorie The thing he doubted of was not whether there were such a state of soules after this life as wee now style Purgatory but only what was the most proper and genuine sense of that place of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. 13. etc. siquis superaedificauerit etc. and more particularly whether the Apostle mean't the afflictions of this life or those after this life by this fire he speaks of He doubted also and offer'd it to consideration whether soules departed might not be thought to be in part tormented euen after death with the sense of such griefe as they suffer'd in this life when they were depriu'd of things which were most deare to them Of these wee confess St. Austin seems in some sort to doubt but yet so little that 't is euident he always allowes it for a good and sound exposition of text abouesayd 1. Cor. 3 12. etc. to vnderstand it literally of the paines of the next life and very frequently so vnderstands it himselfe without making any difficulty or question about it and without mentioning any other sense All which presupposed and well reflected on it could haue been no hard matter sure for the Bishop to haue reconciled all that St. Austin deliuers vpon this subiect without making him seeme to doubt of that which he teacheth datâ occasione no less constantly then he doth the doctrine of Heauen and Hell or else to speake contrary to himselfe which is neither beseeming nor soe easily to be imputed to such a person as this Father was know'n and confessed to be in the Church of God Nor can I but wonder seeing the Bishop grants that St. Austin sometimes asserted Purgatorie though at other times he left it doubtfull why the Bishop and his party should make it such a necessary point of their doctrine to deny it whereas St. Austin neuer deny'd Purgatory Whence is deriued to Protestants that light which St. Austin and the whole Church of his time could not see They had the word of God then as well as Protestants can pretend to haue it now and were much neerer to the Primitiue and Apostolicall times in which euen by our Aduersaries acknowledgement there was not that dross of superstition which they complaine of in latter times If it were a truth so important to Saluation and so cleere in Scripture as Protestants now make it or the beleese of Purgatory an errour so derogatory to the merits and satisfaction of Christ as they say it is