if these lawfully assembled pray for the promis'd Assistance of the Holy Ghost they questionless shall obtain it seeing our Saviour cannot fail of his word Another Exception against that cited passage of A. C. is that he speaking of Points decreed by a General Council makes Firm and Infallible to be Synonyma's But here again the Bishop fails in his observation A. C. onely tells us that the Decree of such a General Council was Firm and Infallible that is not onely Firm but also Infallible Is this to make them signifie the same thing Neither doth he speak so much of what is Infallible in it self as what is Infallible in order to us So that this and the Premises considered there must needs be some other visible and Infallible Judge viz. a General Council beside Scripture for setling Controversies in the Church and making all points of Faith not onely Firm but Infallible 6. What the Relatour brings in his swelling Margent out of Optatus and St. Austin serves onely to amuse his Reader We grant that Christ did not dye Intestate but left behinde him a Will which was afterwards written So that in rigour of speech he left onely a Nuncupative Will which was after deliver'd to the Church partly by Writing partly by Tradition However we stand not upon the terms but the thing it self and have recourse with St. Austin and Optatus to the Written Word or Will in matters of Faith We urge and plead it in almost all matters controverted in Religion between us and them But we demand what was to be done by those first Christians who liv'd before this Will was written or at least before it was generally receiv'd or known for such Again what are we now to doe when either this written Word is call'd in question or the matter in Controversie not so clearly set down therein as to put a period to contention Do the forecited Authours deny that in such case we must have recourse to Tradition Nothing less Certainly St. Austin believ'd the necessity of Infant-Baptism the unlawfulness of rebaptizing the duly-Baptiz'd by Heretiques with many other points which no man can evidently prove out of the written Word alone nay the Scripture it self he believ'd for no other reason then the Authority of the Church and Tradition Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder at those words of his Lordship to A. C. in the Margent where by way of defiance he tells him he could shew no Father of the Church who taught that Christ ever lest behinde him a NUNCUPATIVE OBLIGATORY WILL. First what means he by that restrictive expression a Nuncupative Obligatory Will Could any Will left by our Saviour whether Nuncupative or by Writing not be Obligatory Secondly how was it possible the Bishop should challenge us to prove by the Fathers that our Saviour left behinde him a Nuncupative Will since 't is in it self most evident and undeniable Did he leave I pray any other then a Nuncupative Will Was any part of the Gospel written either by himself or by any other at his command in his life time Did he not make his whole Will by word of mouth to his Disciples But we shall not insist wholly upon the self-evidence of the thing Is it not to be shewn out of the Fathers that Christ left a Nuncupative Obligatory Will First touching the word Nuncupative Will we hope it will be held sufficient if we prove the thing viz. an unwritten yet Obligatory Declaration of Christs Doctrine which is equivalent to a Nuncupative Will. And as to this we say that Bellarmin and all Catholique Divines who write of the word of God written and unwritten do effectually prove it not onely by the Authority of St. Austin and the unanimous consent of the Fathers but even by the very Text of Scripture it self Does not Saint Paul command us 2 Thess. 2. 14. TO HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS we have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Doth not this in effect signifie a Nuncupative Will and Obligatory Does not Saint Irenaeus teach us the same Oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis c. We must saith he follow the order of Tradition which they have deliver'd to us to whom the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches Doth he not tell us in the same Chapter of whole Nations of Christians even in his time which was somewhat above two hundred years after Christ who most perfectly believ'd the Christian Faith though they had not any part of the Scripture to direct them Doth not Tertullian teach the same together with Saint Cyprian St. Basil Epiphanius St. Hierome and divers others But we have spoken too much in a matter so evident let us pass on to that which follows 7. His next Marginal Exception against A. C. is for requiring the Popes Confirmation to a General Council telling us 't is one of the Roman Novelties to account that necessary for the validity of a General Council But surely he is not a little mistaken For in the first 〈◊〉 Councils do we not finde the Confirmations of the several Popes who then sate clearly acknowledged See the Acts and Synodical Epistles of the six first Councils and Gelasius epist. 13. ad Episcop Dardan Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 Neither can it rationally be thought that the Decrees of a Council should be taken for the Decrees of the whole Church Representative if the consent of the acknowledged chief Pastour and Head of the Church were wanting And whereas the Relatour brings St. Austin's Authority to prove that the Sentence of a General Council is confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it we answer his Allegation might well have been spar'd for we say so too We acknowledge the Acceptation of the Universal Church to be an Acoessory and Secondary Confirmation of the Decrees of a General Council and as the whole Church Representative or a General Council cannot erre in defining so neither can the whole Church Diffusive and Formal erre in accepting and believing whatever is defined So that ordinarily speaking we acknowledge a Double Confirmation of the Decrees made by a General Council the one of the Pope as Head of the Church the other of the Church it self extended throughout the several Provinces of Christendom But the Popes Confirmation is Primary Essential and absolutely necessary because without it what the Council declares neither is nor can be esteem'd the Act or Judgement of the whole Church Representative the Pope being the chief Member both of Church and Council The Churches Acceptation is as I have said a Confirmation also but this is onely Accessory for the further satisfaction of particular persons that may haply doubt either of the Authority or Proceedings of this or that Council in particular And there is no other ordinary means to assure private persons throughout the Church that such or such a Council was lawfully assembled proceeded duly voted freely and was Authentically confirm'd by the chief Bishop
not thinking it fit for unlearned persons to judge of particular Doctrinals but to depend on the judgement of the true Church which point of Infallibility the Bishop sought to evade saying That neither the Jesuit nor the Lady her self spake very advisedly if she said she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church because an Infallible Church denotes a particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible 2. Here already you may observe the Bishop falling to work on his projected Labyrinth by making its first Crook which is apparent to any man that has eyes even without the help of a Perspective For though he could not be ignorant that the Lady sought not any one Particular Infallible Church in opposition to another Particular Church not Infallible but some Church such as might without danger of Errour direct her in all Doctrinall Points of Faith call it an or the Infallible Church as you please for she had no such Quirks in her head yet the Bishop will by no means understand her sincere meaning but instead of using a charitable endeavour to satisfie her perplexed Conscience vainly pursues that meer Quibble on purpose to decline the difficulty of giving her a satisfactory Answer in his own Principles Neither indeed does that expression an Infallible Church denote a Particular Church in opposition to some other Particular Church not Infallible but positively signifies a Church that never hath shall or can erre in Doctrine of Faith without connotating or implying any other Church that might erre Nor can it be pretended that the Particle a or an is onely appliable to Particulars seeing the Bishop himself applies it to the whole Church For omitting other places see page 141. where speaking of the whole Militant Church he sayes And if she erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then she may be a Church of Christ still Here sure he cannot mean a Particular Church by this expression A true Church but the whole Catholique or Universal Church unless he intended to speak non-sense viz. That the whole Militant Church is a Particular Church And what Learned Interpreter ever understood those words of Saint Paul Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit to himself A glorious Church c. of any other save the Universall Church of Christ And seeing the Lady made enquiry after that Church IN WHICH one may and OUT OF WHICH one cannot attain Salvation as the Bishop sets down the words of Mr. Fisher page 3. it is evident that really and in effect she sought no other save the Universall Visible Church of Christ which A. C. to take away all doubt of her meaning expresses pag. 1. by saying that she desired to depend upon the judgement of THE TRUE Church Why then might not the Lady express her self as the Bishop himself does in the place above cited by the Particle a or an and yet not speak so improperly that he must needs mistake her meaning The truth is it was an affected mistake in his Lordship as any man may easily perceive that has not lost his discerning faculty But the Bishop having now entred his hand and willing to shew his dexterity betimes immediately redoubles the Crook he had made while to countenance his former trisling with the Lady touching an Infallible Church he craftily attacks Bellarmin for maintaining an Infallibility in the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as hoping to make that opinion pass for an Article of Faith among Catholiques which it is not and by confuting it to seem to have overthrown the Infallibility of the whole Catholique Church Now though Bellarmins opinion is indeed That the whole Clergy and People of Rome cannot erre in Faith and desert the Pope so long as his Chair remains in that City yet the Bishop knew very well that the Catholique Church doth not restraine the Doctrine of her Infallibility to that opinion of Bellarmin it being sufficient for a Catholique to believe that there is an Infallibility in the Church without further obligation to examine whether the Particular Church of Rome be Infallible or not By what has been hitherto faid a man may easily perceive the candour of the Bishops proceeding and what he is to expect from him throughout his whole Work which will I assure you for the greater part be found to correspond with that you have already seen 3. From the fourth page to the twentieth he goes on disputing against severall Opinions of Bellarmin as whether the Popes Chair may be removed from Rome and in case of such Removall whether that Particular Church may then erre which seeing they are but Particular Opinions I shall not expostulate them with the Bishop as being no part of the Province I have undertaken And as to the Authorities here quoted by Bellarmin out of St. Cyprian St. Jerom St. Gregory Nazianzen c. in proof of his opinions touching the Particular Church of Rome seeing they are neither cited by the Cardinal to prove any Articles held de Fide among Catholiques nor impugned by the Bishop but as insufficient to make good those particular Opinions though he hoped the Reader would make neither of these reflections I cannot hold my self oblig'd to take notice of his pretended Solutions till I finde them brought to evacuate the Infallibility of the Catholique or Roman Church in its full Latitude as Catholiques ever mean it save when they say expresly the Particular Church or Diocess of Rome as here Bellarmin doth However I intend to examine them when I come to treat the Question of the Infallibility of the Universal Church Where I make no doubt but I shall clearly evince against his Lordship and the whole party these particulars following First that to draw the word perfidia which St. Cyprian useth to his own sense the Bishop leaves out two parts of the Sentence which he ought necessarily to have expressed Secondly that by glossing almost every word of the Text imperfectly alledged he makes that Father give no more Priviledge to Rome then what was due to every particular Church yea to every Orthodox Christian of those times quite contrary to St. Cyprians intent Thirdly how he presses St. Cyprians not being tax'd by the Ancients for holding a possibility of the Popes teaching Errour in matter of Faith but never reflects that he was as little tax'd by them for affixing possibility of Erring to the Universall and Immemorial Tradition of Non-rebaptization embrac'd and practised against him by the whole Church Fourthly I shall shew that his Lordships Answer to St. Hieromes Authority is meerly Nugatory making him advertize Ruffinus that the Apostolicall Faith first preach'd at Rome could not in it self be any other then what it essentially is that is it could not be changed so long as it remained unchang'd Fifthly that he trifles as much in the allegation of St. Gregory Nazianzen For though that Father useth the word Semper retinet as
the Bishop translates him and doth not expresly say Semper retinebit it ever holds and not it shall ever hold the true Faith speaking of the Roman Church yet certainly in this place the word retinet coming after these other ab antiquis temporibus habet and having Semper annexed to it must in all reason be understood to relate to the severall Differences of Time past present and to come Sixthly that he wrongfully imposes upon Bellarmin the alledging of St. Cyril and Ruffinus as holding his opinion about the particular Church of Rome whereas Bellarmin hath not so much as St. Cyrils name in that whole Chapter nor Ruffinus's but onely when he cites St. Hieromes Apology against him and when he alledges those two Authors in his third Chapter he expresses both the places and their words but it is to prove another Proposition and that of St. Cyril is a quite different Text from what the Relatour thrusts into his Margent Thus eagerly fights he by Moon-light with his own shadows Seventhly that his Lordship confounds two Questions that are distinct and distinctly treated by Bellarmin viz. Whether the Pope when he teaches the whole Church can erre in matters of Faith which is the Proposition Bellarmin defends in the third Chapter and belongs to the Pope as he is chief Pastour of the Church with this whether the particular Roman Church that is the Roman Clergy and People cannot erre in Faith which question Bellarmin treats in the 4 th Chapter Lastly that the Text of Matth. 16. 18. Tu es Petrus c. Thou art Peter c. cannot in the Grammatical and proper sense be applied to the confession of St. Peter as abstracted from his Person but onely to his Person as made in that occasion for and in vertue of that Confession perpetually to endure in him and his Successours THE ROCK of Christs Church But of these hereafter The Bishop having long wandered from the Ladies Question concerning Infallibility whether to be admitted in any Church or not at length in the 20 th page removing St. Peters Chair out of his way and from the City of Rome and disporting himself a while in that particular City or Diocess in a kinde of Raillery upon its Infallibility his Lordship comes to the Greek Church on occasion of some words spoken by a friend of the Ladies in defence of that Church I believe that Friend did a friendly office to the Bishop in giving him a rise for a new Dispute and diverting the Lady from pressing him further for a satisfactory answer to her Querie 4. The question started by this friend was as I have already hinted about the Faith of the Greek Church which Mr. Fisher told him had plainly made a change and taught false Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that he had heard his Majesty should say That the Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost This latter part of Mr. Fishers assertion the Bishop will needs interpret as a disrespect in him towards his King whereas in truth he highly honour'd his Majesty and shew'd the Kings great Learning and Judgement in that point touching the Holy Ghost But the Bishop with all his respect and present flattery is resolved to contradict his Majesty yet that he might seem to do it but in part he introduces this distinction viz. That a particular Church may lose the Holy Ghost two wayes 1. The one when it loses such special Assistance of that Blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errours and sins and the punishment that is due unto them 2. The other is when it loses not onely this Assistance but all Assistance to remain any longer a true Church Now the Bishop denyes the Greek Church to have lost the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in this latter Acception viz. totally which would render it no true Church but grants it to have lost that special Assistance specified in the first branch of the distinction But this he sayes is rather to be called an errour CIRCA SPIRITVM SANCTVM about the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost then an errour CONTRA SPIRITVM SANCTVM against the Holy Ghost Thus he minces what he had said before That the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost and that they erred against him But let us see what Arguments his Lordship brings in proof of his Assertion that the Greek Church continues a true Church and that their errour is not properly against the Holy Ghost Here the Bishop makes no great haste but breathing himself a while does very prudently prepare his Reader to expect no great matter from him in this kinde For dilating very speciously on his own modesty he adds There is no reason the weight of this whole Cause should rest upon one particular man or that the personal defects of any man should press any more then himself Also that he entred not upon this service but by command of Supreme Authority there being as he sayes an hundred abler then himself to maintain the Protestant Cause This his acknowledgement as I have no reason to blame him for it so I cannot see what just cause his Lordship had to censure Mr. Fisher for thinking so humbly of himself as to confess there were a thousand better Scholars then he to maintain the Catholick Cause Before we come to the Bishops proofs I must in the first place entreat the Reader to lend attention to his words which are these I was not so peremptory viz. as to affirm the Greeks errour was not in a Fundamental Divers learned men and some of your own were of opinion that as the Greeks expressed themselves it was a question not simply Fundamentall I know and acknowledge that errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity After this he adds as a Theological proof of his own Since their form of speech is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father BY THE SON and is the Spirit of the Son without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons I dare not deny them to be a TRVE CHVRCH though I confess them AN ERRONEOVS Church in this particular Are not these very specious expressions I was not so peremptory Divers learned men were of opinion I know and acknowledge that errour to be a grievous errour in Divinity I dare not deny them to be a true Church They seem to agree with us They think a diverse thing from us But I pass by his trifling and make way for truth It is to be considered that now for many hundred years the whole Latin Church hath decreed and believed it to be a flat Heresie in the Greeks and they decreed the contrary to be an Heresie in the Latin Church and both together condemned the opinion of the Grecians as Heretical in a general Council how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of
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
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
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
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
and contrary opinions in Religion that I see nothing in the world more likely to animate and encourage them still to persist in their obstinate refractariness and to cast off euen all sense of due obedience and reuerence of the Churches authority 7. But the Bishop beeing so well content as he tells vs with men's opinion of his weakeness it will be no hard worke for his friends to excuse his ouer-confidence in this particular when they please vpon that ground only of pride he is not willing to be taxed For which reason A. C. hauing told him as most iustly he might that he could not proue any errour or superstition to be in the Roman Religion but by presuming with intelerable pride to make himselfe or some of his fellowes to be iudge of controuersies and taking authority to censure all for superstition and errour that suites not with their fancies he complaines as beeing in this deeply censur'd by A. C. and demands wherein does his pride appeare I answer his own confession sufficiently shewes that in the very next lines where he sayes indeed if I tooke this vpon mee J were guilty of great pride This that is to make himselfe or some of 〈◊〉 fellowes iudge of controuersies or to endeauour to proue errour and superstition in the Roman Church by taking such authority vpon him he confesses were great pride Well But how does he cleere himselfe of the charge How does he conuince the Roman Church of errour and superstition otherwise then by taking this authority him and making himselfe or some of his fellows Iudge of Controuersies To say only as he does I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councill iudge of conerouersies by and according to Scripture will not serue his turn by reason that if he stand to his own principles and the generall practice of Protestants hitherto none but himselfe and some of his fellowes shall be iudge whether the Councill be lawfull and free or not For if eyther it consists of such as fauour not their opinions or will not obserue such conditions as he and his fellows thinke good to prescribe though neuer so contrary to the Canons and legall proceedings of former Councils wee are sure enough it will neuer be acknowledg'd for free or lawfull by our Aduersaries Againe standing to the Bishops principles and the common practice of his partie expounding them who but himselfe and his fellowes shall be iudge whether a lawfull and free Generall Councill hath defined or doth define by and according to Scripture Doth not the Relatour himselfe expressly teach § 38. num 15. that if a Generall Councill shall forget it selfe and take vpon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and actually beleeu'd by all neither it nor the whole Church hath any such infallible assistance but that Christians euery priuate Christian he sayes num 23. may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions of such Councils Likewise doth he not tell vs Ibidem num 24. that it is no pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours defin'd by Councils instancing by name in the Councils of Lateran Constance and Trent as hauing made erroneous definitions in matter of Fayth what is this in effect but to teach that noe man is bound to admitt the doctrine defined by Generall Councills meerly for the Authority of the sayd Councills and if not who sees it not manifestly to fallow that cuery priuate Christian that is in other terms himselfe or some of his followes is by our Aduersarie made iudge of Controuersies and allowed to take the Authority vpon them of censuring all for superstition and errour that suites not with their priuate iudgement which is the thing his Lordship but euen now confessed to be great pride But the Relatour will proue from the testimony of A C. himselfe that he is not guilty of pride in this particular viz. of making himselfe Judge of Controuersies etc. For why A C. taxes him for giuing too much power to Generall Councils and binding men to a strict Obedience to them euen in case of errour Therfore sure sayth he most innocent I am of the intolerable pride which he is pleas'd to charge vpon mee J aske is this testimony of A C. true or not If it be not true how can he from a false testimony inferre his own innocency If it be true viz. that the Bishop by his doctrine doth really binde men to a strict obedience to the definitions of Generall Councills euen in case of errour how grossly doth he contradict himselfe when he sayes ' tir noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errours euen of Generall Councills and teaches that a priuate man vpon iust grounds may both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the defined doctrines of some Councils This surely is in effect to deny both internall and externall obedience too to Generall Councils For if wee may deliberately doubt where is internall obedience If wee may constantly denie where is the externall Doth he not also teach Ibidem num 23. that a priuate Christian may not only consider and examin the definitions of Generall Councils both for his own and the Churches satisfaction but also propose his doubts in opposition to the Councils doctrine in such manner as the whole Church shall be oblig'd to call an other Generall Councill to consider of the matter etc How can this be done without expressing dislike or shewing some externall disobedience to the precedent Councill lett our Aduersarie if they please shew how But wee haue already chap. 20. and 21. largely treated of this subiect To as little purpose is it for him to plead that be submitts his iudgement in all humility to the Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church But that this is a false pretense wee haue all along in this treatise demonstrated but more particularly chap. 20. 21. The Bishop proceeds saying that he submitts vpon new and necessary doubts to the iudgement of a lawfull and free Generall Councill Fairly spoken Vpon new and necessary doubts he will submitt not otherwise But wee must know in the Bishops sense and according to the principles already aduanc'd and resolutely insisted vpon by him noe doubts are necessary but such as concern matters Fundamentall in Fayth that is as he perpetually explaines himselfe absolutely necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all Christians for Saluation So that in all other points of doctrine eyther determin'd and defin'd already or hereafter to be determin'd and defin'd by the Church he does vpon the matter openly profess that he will not submitt to the iudgement of a Generall Councill but follow his own priuate opinion though contrary to it Now what is this but to take vpon him to be iudge of controuersies in opposition to Generall Councills and to censure for superstition and errour what suites not with his priuate fancie 8. But our Aduersarie would haue A.C. consider how iustly all
findes no difficulty to do Thirdly his Lordship excepts against the Application of the places brought by A. C. out of St. Bernard and St. Austin But we answer his Exceptions do not weaken the force of the said places For first concerning that of St. Bernard let us suppose as the Relatour contends that St. Bernard by those words Quae major superbia c. What greater pride can there be then for one man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation as if he alone had the Spirit of God mean't onely that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching yet is his saying not unaptly apply'd by A. C. to our present purpose by an Argument à minore ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who preferre their private fanatick opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholique Church This certainly Protestants did by their Solemne Protestation and obstinate maintaining their private opinions What the Relatour addes That it is one thing for a private man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation and another thing for an intelligent man in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholique Church is of no advantage to him For first though we should grant his Lordship that Martin Luther Ulrick 〈◊〉 John Calvin Theodore Beza John Knox and the rest of that crew were to be accounted Intelligent Persons yet will he or can he say they propos'd their Doubts modestly to the Church surely not and whoever sayes so will easily be convinc'd of ignorance in their opinions or practices But put case a more modest propounding of Doubts had been used as the Bishop seems to wish yet unless the Doubts were in points undecided by the Church the modest proposall of them could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their Doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholique Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful Heretical and damnable His exceptions against A. C's interpretation of St. Austin are no less weak The Holy Doctor affirms that it is a most insolent madness for a man to dispute whether that ought to be to be done which is usually held and done by the whole Church The Bishop first excepts that there is not a word of the Roman Church but onely of the Catholique yet having often shew'n that the Roman Church and the Catholique are all one and seeing A. C. adds to Roman Faith the practice of the Church this Authority remains still entire against him Next he sayes A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith whereas 't is spoken of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church But first I answer A. C. applies the place both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church of which practice the place is most properly understood even in that sense which the Bishop himself gives to the words Secondly if it were madness to dispute against the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church much greater would it be to dispute against any point of Faith held by the Church so that the Application of the place is still good by the Rule à minore ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God The reason may be because there is alwayes some point or matter of faith involv'd in every universally-practis'd Rite and Ceremony of the Church Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholique Church teacheth is by St. Austin tearm'd a most insolent madness We deny not but a right-sober man modestly proceeding may in some case dispute a point with the Roman either Church or Prelate as Irenaeus did with Pope Victor in the Controversie which arose toward the end of the second Century provided it be done with Submission and profession of Due Obedience to that Church and Prelate which can never be unless the dispute be about matters as yet undecided by the Church 6. Touching A. C's illation I answer since it is certain the whole Catholique or Roman Church in the sense often explicated cannot erre A. C. doth well inferre that there can be no just cause to make a divorce or Schism from it The Relatour grants that the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolute fundamental Doctrine and blames Bellarmin for needlesly busying himself to prove that the visible Church can never fall into Heresie But I answer Bellarmins labour was not needless since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errours save onely in Fundamentals as they call them whereas Bellarmin proves it equally of all Fundamentals or not-Fundamentals Moreover Bellarmin well observes that Protestants generally grant this onely to the Invisible Church whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible and though the Bishop in the Margent endeavours to shew they hold the same also of the Visible Church yet this onely proves that Protestants contradict one another which we deny not and Bellarmin likewise observes it elsewhere yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop when he saith the Church cannot erre addes this restriction if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture So that if she do it seems according to him she may erre But I must confess I have often desired and do yet much long to know which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all mens salvation according to the opinion of Protestants I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down Our Tenet is that the Catholique Church is Infallible in all points of Faith and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholique Church cannot be denied under pain of damnation and consequently is Fundamental to us and to all true Christians So that these following words of the Bishop viz. That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule are injurious to the Church and inconsistent with that Prerogative of Holiness which as he himself in this very place confesses alwayes accompanies the true Church 7. This Holiness consists chiefly in the verity of Faith So the Relatour himself professes in these words The Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners c. Insomuch that if the Church failed in the verity of Faith she could be no longer Holy nay it would follow that the Gates of Hell had prevailed much against her contrary to the promse of Christ. I assert therefore that the present Church is no more liable to errour through curiosity or weakness then was the Primitive nor the Vicar of Christ with a General Council more subject to erre upon that account then were the Apostles of Christ. In the following words the Relatour to
often declar'd because he teaches 't is to be govern'd by Bishops since in the place alledg'd he declares the Government of the Church onely as 't is contradistinct from the government of Temporal Princes not as inferiour Bishops are distinguisht from the Supream or Chief Bishop that 's another question and treated by him in another place it being sufficient to his purpose there to shew that the Church was to be govern'd by Ecclesiastical not Temporal Princes without disputing whether the said Ecclesiastical Governours were Subordinate or not one to another But the Bishop proceeds in his objections and tells us the Church Militant remaining spread in many earthly Kingdoms cannot so well be order'd by one Monarch as a particular Kingdom may by one King For how saith he will this one Supream execute his Office if the Kings of those several Kingdoms will not give leave I answer first this Difficulty makes as much against the Aristocratical form of Church-Government as the Monarchical For how will a General Council to use his own term enter to execute their Office when the necessities of the Church require such a Convention if the Kings of those several Kingdoms from whence the Prelates are to come will not give leave Nay how can the Bishops of any one Christian Kingdom meet in Synods if their respective Sovereigns to whom the Relatour will have them subject even in Spirituals will not give leave 5. As to his Surmize that we would have one Emperour over all Kings as well as one Pope over all Bishops I answer it was a Chimaera of his own Brain and as impossible for him to know as for any of his party to deny with Truth that we pray for Peace and Unity amongst all Christian Princes wishing nothing more then that every one of them may enjoy and rest satisfied with his own right But here the Bishop takes occasion to fall foul upon Innocent the Third because forsooth comparing the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power to the Two great Lights the Sun and the Moon he made the Sun a Symbole of the Ecclesiastical and the Moon of the Civil Power which the Relatour interprets for us to signifie the Pope and the Emperour I answer First did not men love contention there would be no quarrelling about such Conceipts as these which are never taken for Argumentative but meerly Allusive Applications of the Sacred Text touching these Two Powers which diversely considered give ground to different Allegories In times of persecution both the Church and Pope may not unfitly be compar'd to the Moon by reason of their declining condition but in time of prosperity if we consider the same Church in relation to the extent and greatness of her Power beyond the Imperial it reaching to all places and persons in the world professing Christian Faith as also in respect of the Dignity of its Object viz. Things Caelestial whereas the Object of the Imperial Power are onely the Things of this world there 's little question but the Ecclesiastical Power excells the Imperial no less then the Soul does the Body or Eternity the Things of this life In this regard therefore it could be no just matter of offence for the Pope to be understood by the Sun and the Emperour by the Moon But the Pope forsooth makes too much odds between his own power and the Emperours abasing that of the Emperour so far as to make it forty seaven times less then that of the Pope which the Bishop proves from the Gloss upon this Decretal We answer the Allegory led the Glosser to it and that being rather a flourish of wit and pious conceipt then matter of solid Argument it was but lost time for our Adversary to make inferences from it and would be the like in us to answer them The matter we stand upon is that the Pope is Supream Pastour of the whole Church Let our Adversaries disprove this and not trifle about Allegories We confess also that the Emperour is Supream over his Subjects in all Civil affairs in fuch sort as neither of these Powers can of right hinder the other in the due execution of their charge They are both of them absolute and Independent Powers though each in their proper orbe the one in Spirituals the other in Temporals By which it appears we are far from depressing the Imperial power lower then God hath made it as the Relatour most injuriously chargeth us No we honour and very willingly acknowledge the Emperour in Tertullians style Hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem viz. in the administration of all Civil affairs in which doubtless all persons within his Dominion ought to be subject to him Yet does it not belong to the Emperour to order the affairs of the Church resolve Controversies of Faith or interpret Scripture in any sense contrary to the judgement and doctrine of the lawful Pastours of the Church he hath no power to do any thing of this nature neither shall we ever read that any of them took upon them to be Supream Governours of the Church or reform Religion on their own account without or contrary to the said Pastours 6. A Book of the Law 't is true was anciently by Gods special command to be given to the King Deut. 17. 18. But to what intent was it given To govern the Church by reading it or expound the sense of the Law when it happen'd to come in Controversie Surely no It was given him to govern himself and Kingdom by it that by reading it he might learn to fear God and keep his words and statutes commanded in it as the Text it self declares Neither is it to be doubted but in case of Notorious and Gross Abuses manifestly contrary to Religion and connived at by the Pastours of the Church Christian Princes may both lawfully and piously use their Authority in procuring the said abuses to be effectually redressed by the said Pastours as the examples of Ezekias and Josias prove alledged by the Bishop But they prove not that Princes may themselves take upon them the Priests Office either in whole or part they prove not that they may reform Religion in the Substance of it or enact any thing pertaining thereto by their own Authority without or contrary to the Priests consent They prove not that Princes may determine the Controversies of the Law God having expresly reserv'd them to the Priests judgement and commanded all to submit to it under pain of death Nay point blank to the contrary we read 2. Paralip 26. 20. that Osias though a King was stricken by God with a sudden Leprosie for but attempting to usurp the Priests Office which if it were so unlawful then must needs now be yet more by how much the Functions of the Evangelical Priesthood are more Sacred Spiritual and participatively Divine then those of the Mosaical Law 7. Nor did the Popes ever attempt or so much as pretend to bring the Emperours under them in
whose definitions according to him must stand in force and bee obeyed by all particulars and consequently by the whole Church till euident scripture or demonstration bee brought against them If it hath then the whole Church cannot but cleerly perceiue the sayd errours of the former Council and know them to bee such and then what need of an After-Council what good can it doe shall it bee called to declare that which euery man sees already or to define that about which there is no controuersie nor can bee any so long as men continue in their right mindes and doe but consider what they say or thinke You will say a Council ought to bee called in this case to abrogate the law or definition of the precedent Council which erred I answer that supposes the definition of the sayd precedent Councill to bee still in force which is false first because it is vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue anything as matter of Fayth solely upon the authority of a Council that is lyable to errour both against scripture and demonstration Secondly because 't is more vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue what wee cleerly see to bee errour and contrary both to scripture and demonstration and yet in no other case but this euen by the Bishops leaue can the whole Church call an other Council to reuerse the decrees of the former Thirdly because as it did not binde the whole Church from prosessing her dislike of the errours defin'd and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to prosess outwardly a disbeleefe or doubt thereof Wherfore it is euident that his Lordship vpon this subiect says and vnsays the same and what hee seemes to attribute to Generall Councils in one proposition hee takes away in an other The Bishop pretends the Catholique opinion touching infallibility to bee yet more vnreasonable because wee make not only the definitions of a Generall Council but the sentence of the Pope also infallible For a Generall Councill sayth he may erre with vs if the Pope confirm it not So vpon the matter the infallibility wee contend for rests not in the representatiue Body the Council nor in the whole Body the Church but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome and if this bee so to what end sayth he so much trouble for a Generall Council and wherein are wee neerer to vnity if the Pope confirm it not wee answer first the Bishop stumbles at the thresholde a Generall Council is not held by vs to bee infallible at all vnless it inuolue the Pope or his confirmation and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our aduersary to compare together viz. of the Council and the Pope but One infallibility only to witt of the Pope presiding in and confirming the votes of a Generall Council or if you will a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope Secondly wee confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Popes infallibility The first and the more con men is that the Pope euen without a Generall Council is infallible in his definitions of Fayth when he teaches the whole Church The second is that he is not infallible in his definitions faue only when he defines in and with a Generall Council Now had the Bishop as he 〈◊〉 to haue done taken due notice of this second opinion and proceeded in the point accordingly these Doctours would quickly haue satissy'd his obiection and told him that as the Ccuncil is not infallible without the Pope so neither is the Pope infallible without the Ccuncil and that infallibility proceeds ioyntly 〈◊〉 both and is the prerogatiue of both not separately consider'd but as vnited and making vp the compleate representatiue of the Church But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence framing his argument wholy against the other as if it were the opinion of all Catholique Doctours But of this wee haue sayd enough hauing prosesled at the begining that wee intended not to meddle much with any matters of priuate dispute or opinion Wherfore I shall briefly pass cuer what his Lordship hath further touching this matter and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his 7. His first is that if the Pope bee infallible then the Council is called but only in 〈◊〉 to heare the Pope giue his sentence in more state I answer 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time viz. that 't was con only to heare St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state in regard it will not bee deny'd but St. Peters definition alone had been as infallible and as much binding as that of the whole Council Secondly I answer more directly this followes not with any the least shadow of consequence in their opinion who hold the Pope to bee fallible out of a Generall Council as is manifest and in the other opinion 't is easily answer'd For seeing the Pope when euer he defines matters of Fayth ought to proceed maturely and vse all meanes morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth and seeing that the deliberations and notes of a Generall Council are the most proper and efficacious in that kinde it followes euidently enough to all vnpreiudic'd and impartiall iudgements that the Council is called really to help and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affaire and which equally concerns the whole Church also that the aduice of the Councill in such cases is not only a profitable and fitt but speaking in a morall sense a Necessary medium to this Holyness wherby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton here alledged by the Bishop affirms according to his own principles viz. that the Pope acquires no new power or authority or certainty of iudgement by beeing ioyned to the Council For though he acquires no new power authority or certainty of iudgement which in this Doctours opinion he hath whether he be with or without a Councill yet he may acquire some thing which doth connaturally worke and conduce to the due exercise of that power authority and certainty of iudgement to witt counsell aduice and conuenient information touching the matters in Controuersie The like is to be sayd to that of Cardinal Bellarmin when he asserts that the firmeness of a Council to which the Relatour adds of his own Infallibity comes from the Pope only For he intends to shew how the matter passes in regard of vs who are assured no other way of the firmeness of the Councils definition then by the Popes confirmation alone You will obiect that if the Pope be infallible without the Council and the Council subiect to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the infallibility of Generall Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council I answer the Assertours of that opinion
altogether vnsuspected themselues to be warping in religion he had erroneously and scandalously deliuer'd to the preiudice of Catholique verity As to any matter of abuse in this kinde crept in amongst the ignorant wee haue already shew'n how carefull the Council of Trent was to prouide against and preuent all inconueniences that could reasonably be fore seen or feared And if notwithstanding such diligence on the Churches part there happen something now and then to be amiss eyther through the infirmity of some particular persons or the negligence of others yet neyther is the doctrine or practice of the Church iustly to be blam'd for it nor yet the pious and more discrect deuotion of the rest for this reason to be discountenanced much less prohibited or forbiden Otherwise for the like pretended reason of Abuse and Scandall wee might be thought to stand oblig'd to blott out of the 〈◊〉 those words concerning our Saniour that he sitts at the right hand of God and diuerse Texts out of the Bible it 〈◊〉 Why because that by them ignorant and ill-disposed people haue been formerly and may be still induc'd to thinke that God the Father is of a Bodily Shape and hath a right hand and a left as men haue and likewise to forme to themselues many other false and dangerous conceptions of God Abuses of this nature if any be and whensoeuer they happen must be redressed by better instruction and information but the pious and lawfull custome of the Church must not therefore be abolish'd and quite taken away 11. As for what Llamas a Spanish Authour relates of the people of Asturias Cantabria and Gallicia who were so addicted to their old worm-eaten and ill-fashioned Images that when the Bishops of those Prouinces commanded new ones and bandsomer to be sett vp in their stead they begg'd euen with teares to haue their old ones still J confess there might be some indiscretion in their proceeding but J see noe ground the Bishop hath to taxe them of 〈◊〉 For the people did not cry after the Bishops officers when they remou'd these old Jmages why doe you take away our Gods giue vs our Gods againe or the like as Jdolaters would haue done as well as Laban Genes 31. 30. when he reprehended Iacob for stealing away his Gods Beside what euer was amiss in this kinde as the same Authour testifieth was by a little intruction of their Pastours quickly amended though the Bishop a man it seems of very hard beleefe will not thinke so But why should his Lordship make such difficulty to beleeue what a graue Author reports of his own knowledge As to what he further inferrs from the words of Llamas namely that the Jmages of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Diuinity in them and that wee may 〈◊〉 things of them and put trust in them in that regard my answer is the Bishop always shews himselfe ouer ready to expound our Authors in the worst sense euen many times where there is no rationall pretense This Author sufficiently shews he could haue no such meaning as the Bishop imputes to him what euer his words may seeme to import For in the very place cited by the Bishop he cleerly teacheth that wee ought to worship Jmages according to the Prescript of the Council of 〈◊〉 and how carefull that Council was that all might be duly instructed in this matter and no occasion left euen for the most ignorant and weake to offend by conceiuing or beleeuing any Diuine Power to be in the Jmages or by puting trust in them or crauin any thing of them appeares by the words of the Council already cited and by the Relatours own acknowledgement who stiles the Fathers religiously carefull in that respect Adde hereunto the Prouiso which this Author giues in the same chapter which is that wee ought to aske nothing of the Saynts no not of our B. Lady her selfe otherwise then by desiring them to beg it for vs at Gods hand and that to doe otherwise that is to aske any thing of them as if they were Authors of it or could of themselues alone giue or grant vs the good things wee aske were Jdolatrie Thus therfore wee hope this Author Llamas his intention and true meaning is cleer'd of what the Bishop imputes to him but it will not be amiss to take notice also how weakely the Bishops illation is made out of the sayd Authors words Because Llamas writes that the Images of Christ are not to be 〈◊〉 as if there were Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by art but only as they represent Christ and the Saynts the Relatour inferrs thus So then belike according to the Diuinity of this Casuist a man may worship Images AND ASKE OF THEM AND PVT TRVST IN THEM as they represent Christ and his Saynts But what consequence is this How does it follow that wee may aske of Images and put our trust in them as they represent Christ and his Saynts because wee may worship them as they represent Christ and his Saynts wee many times loue and reuerence a picture for the person it represents and yet noe body is so foolish as to aske any thing of it as it represents that person Wee shew a 〈◊〉 respect to the chaire of state and chamber of Presence for the kings sake yet wee neither make to them any ciuill inuocation nor place confidence in them as they relate to the king Why therfore must it follow that wee may call vpon pictures or Jmages as they represent our Sauiour or the Saints because they may be honour'd or worshiped as they doe represent them Nor is it less ridiculous what the Bishop adds in pursuance of his discourse namely his resoluing this proposition of Llamas The Images of Christ and the Saynts are to be worshiped not as if there were any Diuinity in them as they are materiall things made by arte but as they represent Christ and his Saynts into this other The Images of Christ and his Saynts as they represent their Exemplars haue Deity or Diuinity in them making them both to signifie the same thing For why might he not as well haue resolu'd this proposition The kings picture is to be honour'd not as if there were Souereign Authority in it as it is a materiall thing made by arte but as it represents the king into this other The kings picture as it represents its Exemplar hath Souereign Authority in it The Bishop here surely giues the Reader more cause to suspect his iudgement touching the interpretation of Llamas then vpon his interpretation of him to taxe our Church of Idolatric I conclude it therfore most certain and indubitable that Llamas in the wordes cited by the Relatour intended noe more then to signifie that all worship done to Jmages was Relatiue and not Absolute which is to say that it was exhibited to them not for their own but for their exemplars sake which they represent
This and very little else as the experience of all ages and times shew is the fruite that comes to the Church and true Religion by allowing priuate persons this iudgement of discretion or liberty to examin the definitions of Generall Councills Not to vrge that from this doctrine of the Bishop it necessarily and plainly followes that the Authority of Generall Councils is of noe greater force for the settling of our Fayth and the satisfaction of our vnderstanding in matters of Religion then the testimony and resolution of any priuate man is or may be For if J be allowed to examin the grounds of the one as well as of the other and may if in my owne priuate iudgement J thinke J haue iust cause as lawfully doubt and deny the desinitions of the one as the resolution of the other wherein doe J attribute more to a Generall Council then J doe to a priuate person Seeing 't is euident that neither the one nor the other haue further Authority with mee or command ouer my vnderstanding then their seuerall reasons in my own iudgement deserue and that if the reasons of a priuate man appeare to mee to be more weighty and conuincing then those of a Generall Council J am permitted freely and without sinne to embrace the sayd priuate persons opinion and refuse the doctrine of a Generall Councill 7. His asserting so confidently that for things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth wee need noe assistance from other Generall Councills beside the fowre first seemes noe less strange and is sufficiently disprou'd euen by euidence of fact For hath not the assistance of posteriour Generall Councils since the fowre first been really and de facto found necessary for determining matters of Fayth what doe our Aduersaries thinke of the fifth Generall Councill or second of Constantinople was it not matter of Fayth and necessary to Saluation what this Councill defin'd against the Heresie of Origen and his Adherents what thinke they of the sixth against the Monothelites was not the doctrine and beleefe of two distinct wills in Christ defin'd by this Councill in the Bishops opinion as Fundamentall in the Fayth as the doctrine and beleefe of two natures defin'd by that of Chalcedon Againe may not fresh errours arise may not some new vnheardof Heresie spring vp corrupting the Fayth contradicting Fundamentall matters in Religion Jf they doe shall it not be necessary for the Church that such errours be condemned by Generall Councils The Relatour pretends here that some that some of our own very honest and learned men as he is pleas'd to qualifie them when it serues his turn are of the same opinion with him in this point citing in proofe hereof certayn words as he pretends of Petrus de Alliaco an ancient Schoole-Author otherwise know'n by the name of Cardinalis Cameracensis Vertsstmum esse c. 'T is most true all things pertaining to Religion are well order'd by the fathers if they were as well and diligently obserued But first here 's a great mistake The words which the Bishop cites are not the words of Petrus de Alliaco nor any part of the booke which he wrote de reformatione Ecclesiae and presented to the Councill of Constance but of one Orthuinus Grauius who publish't it with diuerse other small tractates of that nature in his fasciculus rerum expetenilarum etc. printed at Basil. 1535. as any man may see that peruses that booke Secondly admitting they were or that Petrus de Aliaco did in his treatise say the same thing in effect yet were it little to the Bishops purpose For the Authours meaning is that those Fathers haue so well ordered all things in respect of the Mysteries which were then opposed by Heretiques that if they were well obserued there would be noe need of making new definitions in reference to the same doctrine But he does not deny but that vpon new emergent occasions other Generall Councills may be necessary in the Church nay the designe of his whole treatise is to shew that how well soeuer all things had been order'd and determin'd by former Councills yet by reason of the long Schisme that had been in the Church and of many Heresies springing vp the Authority of an other Generall Councill to witt of Constance was necessary as well to determin the controuerted points of Fayth as to extirpate the Schisme and all other abuses and disorders in the Church With what truth then could the Bishop pretend that Petrus de Aliaco is of the same opinion with him touching the no-necessity of making any new determinations in matter of Fayth by any Generall Councills whatsoeuer after the fowre first And as for Holkot what euer he may teach concerning Heresie or Infidelity when the errour is not know'n to be against the definition or vniuersall Tradition of the Church yet doubtless when it is know'n to be so and vnder that quality only wee dispute of it with the Bishop neither he nor any other Catholique Authour will deny it to be formall Heresie or Infidelitie to hold it St. Cyprian here likewise alledged speaks cleerly of such matters as were then vndefined and were not till a long while after defin'd by the Councill of Nice St. Thomas speaks only deminis et opinionibus as his words shew of small matters and priuate opinions which in no sort concern our present controuersie and wherein wee acknowledge with the Relatour Christian men may differ one from an other without breach of that one sauing Fayth or Christian charity necessary to Saluation But for matters which the Church hath found necessary for preuention of Schismes preseruation of vnity and for vindicating or cleering the ancient receiued truth from corruption and errour once to determine by Generall Councils how small and vn-fundamentall soeuer the points themselues were in their own nature wee challenge our Aduersaries to produce one Catholique Authour of good name ancient or modern who taught that Christians might lawfully disfer in such points after their sayd definitions or that they might dissent and beleeue contrary to what the Church had defined This the Relatour should haue shew'n had he mean't to deale candidly with his Reader and not meerly to amuse him by filling his pages with Authorities cited to noe purpose 8. Had not the Apostles those first-preachers of Christian Fayth to the world Reuclation from God not only of things absolutely-necessary to Saluation and Fundamentalls in the Relatours sense but of all other diuine truths belonging to Christian Religion and did not they deliuer the one as well as the other for diuine truths to their immediate successours according to that of St. Paul Acts. 20. 27. I haue kept back NOTHING that was PROFITABLE vnto you J haue not shunned to declare vnto you ALL THE COVNSELL of God etc. as the Protestants translate it with command and obligation that they also should both preach and testifie the same diuine truths to the world entirely and
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
Society questionless he means chiefly Is it not fine sport the Bishop here makes that A. C. by Pastours of the Church must chiefly mean and that without all question or dispute those of his own Society When 't is well known there are scarce two Pastours of the Church amongst all the Jesuits in Europe And then to mend the matter that he will have Mr. Fisher and A. C. to be those two Pastours when they neither were Pastours nor could be unless he will suppose likewise they would break their vow made to Almighty God for by Pastours the Apostles Successours are meant Bishops never to admit any such dignity without express command of the Pope But how proves the Bishop the Iesuits perswade themselves they are Infallible Rabbi Casaubon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help him out An Apologist sayes Casaubon averres 't is impossible for a Iesuit to erre Who is this Anonymus Apologist A Iesuit or a Minister For an Apologist and a Jesuit are no more convertible terms then a Iesuit and a Minister How shall we know then whether this nameless Apologist was a Iesuit or a Minister personating a Jesuit The Gospel will tell us Ex fructibus corum cognoscetis eos Is it possible his Lordship should think himself everable to move wise men with such non-proofs as these The Relatour having been so positive in denying the Infallibility of the Church 't is strange he should think it needless for A. C. to urge passages of Scripture in proof of it which though they be well known in this Controversie yet are they not therefore of lesse force The first is in St. Luke where Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me c. The second in St. Matthew where Christ tells us I am with you alwayes unto the end of the world The third is in St. John where 't is written The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever To the first of these passages viz Luke 10. 16. alledg'd by A. C. the Bishop answers that those who hear the Successours of the Apostles hear Christ viz. when they speak the words of Christ but not when they speak their own words But that this is rather to pervert our Saviours words then to interpret them is manifest For can the Bishop bring any ground from the Text that this restraint may not by some other Sectary who denies the Apostles Infallibility no less then the Churches be applied to the Apostles themselves as well as he now applies it to their Successors But his Lordship has haply ground for what he sayes if not here yet in St. Matthew chap. 28. ver 20. where they are commanded to teach all things which Christ commanded them Ergo say I and with more reason for the command was given expresly and immediately to the Apostles themselves the Apostles were neither to be heard when they preach'd other things then what Christ had commanded them and so both these Texts will either include an Infallibility in the Successors of the Apostles or exclude it from the Apostles themselves If he reply we our selves must acknowledge a difference in applying this Text to the Apostles and their Successours for it was true in every one of the Apostles apart but it is not so as we confess in every one of the succeeding Pastours I answer first the difference alledged by us is so clear and unquestionable that our very Adversaries agree with us in it Secondly 't is manifest by experience it self that many Pastours even of very eminent authority in the Church have not onely err'd but invented and maintain'd Heresies Thirdly we have the universal Tradition and consent in all ages that all Pastours apart are not Infallible Fourthly we have plain Scripture for it Acts 20. 30. where the Apostle sayes that even from amongst themselves that is from amongst the Pastours and Bishops of the Church to whom he there speaks ver 17 28. there should arise some in future ages that should speak perverse things Fifthly we so interpret the words for future ages that what is necessary for preserving the Church in the purity of Christs doctrine is still subsistent in all ages in the Infallibility of lawful General Councils whereby we make the words of Christ in both Texts absolutely true without all ifs and conditions which our Adversaries exposition does utterly frustrate in relation to the Church Sixthly we according to the most receiv'd perswasion amongst us preserve that Infallibility in one Supream Pastour of the Church the Bishop of Rome successively which they continue neither in one nor in all the Pastours of the Church assembled together Let those therefore of his Lordships party bring as strong reasons for the Bishops exposition of this Text of St. Luke 10. 16. as we do for ours and we shall not be unwilling to yield to it but we and they too know that to be impossible His answer to the second place Matth. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes even unto the end of the world runs in the same strain with his answer to the former Text and so requires not our further refutation We extend those words I am with you alwayes c. to the whole Church Representative not to every Pastour apart whereby St. Gregories Text is no wayes against us for he speaks of Preachers taken severally and apart We say also with Rhabanus Maurus that Christ in his holy Spirit is alwayes present with his Church diffusive in communicating his Graces unto it But that supposes at least denies not a conjunctive Infallibility of the Pastours as a necessary Foundation and support of the Church diffusive Whence it appears how vain the Bishops challenge is whereby he urges us to shew any one Father of the Church that extends the sense of this place of Scripture to Divine and Infallible Assistance granted thereby to all the Aposties Successours For as to Divine Assistance we have all along prov'd it not to be necessary but as to Infallible Assistance in regard of the whole Church 't is clear that the Fathers in effect do attribute such a Prerogative to the Church viz. that Christ doth assist and preserve her from errour in as much as they teach That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresie That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds That she can never fail That her Faith is invincible even to the very Powers of Hell That she is founded by Christ in the Truth for ever That all the Heretiques in the world cannot pervert the Tradition of her Doctrine and the like which seeing also they limit not to any determinate age or ages but extend indefinitely to all 't is likewise clear that in the judgement of the Fathers this Assistance was granted and intended by Christ to all the Apostles Successours in the sense above declared But whether the Fathers ground their Doctrine
in this point upon this particular Text or no is little material 'T is sufficient they acknowledge the thing we contend for viz. the Prerogative of Infallibility and Immunity from errour in the Church and that they generally derive it from our Saviours special Promises unto the Church and his Presence with it which Presence and Promises this Text with others of like nature do clearly contain as the Bishop himself acknowledges Wherefore with far greater reason we return the challenge upon himself and press the Relatours party to produce any one Father that ever deny'd the sense of this place to reach to infallible assistance granted thereby to all the Apostles Successours in such manner as we maintain it The like answer of our satisfies his exposition of the third place John 14. 16. For what was promis'd there for ever must in some absolute sense so far as is necessary to the preservation of the Church from errour be verified in future ages He frames also an answer to a fourth place viz. John 16. 13. which speaks of leading the Apostles into all truth This he restrains to the persons of the Apostles onely And he needs not tells us so often of simply all For surely none is so simple as not to know that without his telling it But we contend that in whatsoever sense all truth is to be understood in respect of each Apostle apart 't is also to be understood in relation to their Successours assembled in a full Representative of the whole Church 5. Now one main reason of this difference between the Apostles and succeeding Pastours of the Church I take to be this that every Apostle apart had receiv'd an immediate Power from our Saviour over the whole Church so that whatever any one of them taught as Christian Faith all the Church was oblig'd to believe and consequently had he err'd in any thing the whole Church would have been oblig'd to follow and believe that errour Whereas on the other side the succeeding Bishops generally speaking were not to be Pastours of the whole Church but each of his own respective Diocess so that if particular Pastours preach'd any errour in Faith the whole Church was unconcern'd in it having no obligation to believe them But in regard those respective Pastours when they are assembled in a lawful Representative or General Council are in quality of the Pastours of the whole Church if they should erre in such a body the whole Church would be oblig'd to erre with them which is against the promises of our Saviour Hence also it follows in proportion that the Bishop of Rome being Pastour of the whole Church when he teacheth any thing in that quality viz. as Pastour of the whole Church and intending to oblige the whole Church by his Definition cannot in the common opinion erre for the same reason 6. To give also the Fundamentall Reason for this Exposition one and that a certain way to know when our Saviours words spoken immediately to the Apostles are to be extended to their Successours in all ages is this that when the necessary good and preservation of the Church requires the performance of Christs words in future ages no less then it requir'd it in the Apostles times then we are to understand that his words extend themselves to those ages unless there be some express limitation added to his words tying them to the Apostles onely Thus when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to Preach Baptize Remit sins Feed their Flocks c. Seeing these actions are as necessary for all future ages as they were in the Apostles time 't is manifest they were to reach to all succeedinga ges Again in regard he also promised John 16. 13. to lead the Apostles by his Holy Spirit into all truth and seeing 't is as necessary now for those who act as Pastours of the whole Church as all succeeding Bishops do when they meet in a lawful Oecumenicall Council to be led into all those truths into which he promis'd to lead the Apostles for the reason but now alledged it evidently follows by vertue of our Saviours promise that they are alwayes and effectually so led And though it would be boldness as the Relatour terms it to enlarge that promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles so far as to give to every single succeeding Bishop as Infallible a leading into all truth as each of the Apostles had yet may it without any boldness at all be affirmed that the succeeding Bishops assembled as abovesaid have an infallible leading into all truth as being then Representative Pastours of the whole Church to teach and instruct her what she is to believe St. Austins words therefore which the Bishop cites calling them in a manner Prophetical are not with the least shadow of reason applyable to us but to a world of Phanaticks sprung from the stock of Protestancy and who still pass under the general notion of Protestants And this I may boldly assert in regard 't is clear that the said great Saint and Doctor held the self-same Doctrine we here maintain while for instance he accounts our obligation to communicate Fasting to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost of which Will of the Holy Ghost we are not ascertain'd by any Text of Scripture but by the Church alone 'T is manifest sayes he that when the Disciples first received the Body and Blood of our Lord they did not receive Fasting Must we therefore calumniate the Universall Church for alwayes receiving Fasting Since the Holy Ghost was pleased herewith that in honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of our Lord should enter into a Christians mouth before any other meat For this cause this Custom is observ'd throughout the world I might easily produce several other instances to the same effect if this one were not sufficient as I presume it is 7. Neither hath the Bishop any ground to averre that this promise of settling the Apostles in all truth was for the persons of the Apostles onely because the Truths in which the Apostles were settled were to continue inviolably in the Church What wise man would go about to raise a stately Building to continue for many ages and satisfie himself with laying a Foundation to last but for few years Our Saviour the wisest of Architects is not to be thought to have founded this incomparable Building of the Church upon sand which must infallibly have happened had he not intended to afford his continuall Assistance also to the succeeding Pastours of the Church to lead them when assembled in a General Council into all those Truths wherein he first settled the Apostles as Vincentius Lirinensis above attests The Church never changes nor diminishes nor addes any thing at all nihil unquam no she changes nothing She neither cuts off any thing necessary nor adjoyns any thing superfluous she loses not what is her own she usurps not what belongs to another c. but onely