defined by the Church were Fundamental or Necessary to Salvation that is whether all those Truths which are sufficiently propos'd to any Christian as Defined by the Church for matter of Faith can be disbelieved by such a Christian without Mortal and Damnable Sin which unrepented destroyes Salvation Now Points may be necessary to Salvation two wayes The one absolutely by reason of the matter they contain which is so Fundamentally necessary in it self that not onely the disbelief of it when it is sufficiently propounded by the Church but the meer want of an express Knowledge and Belief of it will hinder Salvation and those are such Points without the express belief whereof no man can be saved which Divines call necessary necessitate medij others of this kinde they call necessary necessitate praecepti which all men are commanded to seek after and expresly believe so that a Culpable Ignorance of them hinders Salvation although some may be saved with Invincible ignorance of them And all these are absolutely necessary to be expresly believed either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti in regard of the matter which they contain But the rest of the Points of Faith are necessarily to be believed necessitate praecepti onely conditionally that is by all such to whom they are sufficiently propounded as defined by the Church which necessity proceeds not precisely from the material object or matter contained in them but from the formall object or Divine Authority declared to Christians by the Churches definition Whether therefore the points in question be necessary in the first manner or no by reason of their precise matter yet if they be necessary by reason of the Divine Authority or formal object of Divine Revelation sufficiently declared and propounded to us they will be Points Fundamental that is necessary to Salvation to be believed as we have shewed Fundamental must here be taken 4. The truth of the question then taken in this sense is a thing so manifest that his Lordship not knowing how to deny it with any shew of probability thought it his onely course to divert it according to his ordinary custome by turning the Difficulty which onely proceeded upon a Fundamentality or necessity derived from the formall Object that is from the Divine Authority revealing that point to the materiall Object that is to the importance of the matter contained in the point revealed which is a plain Fallacy in passing à sensu formali ad materialem Now I shew the difficulty being understood as it ought to be of the formall object whereby points of Faith are manifested to Christians That all points defined by the Church as matter of Faith are Fundamentall that is necessary to Salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined by this Argument Whosoever refuses to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God commits a sin damnable and destructive of Salvation But whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuses to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a Truth revealed from God Ergo Whosoever refuses to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him for defined by the Church as matter of Faith commits a sinne damnable and destructive of Salvation The Major is evident For to refuse to believe Gods revelation is either to give God the lye or to doubt whether he speak Truth or no. The Minor I prove from this supposition For though his Lordship say he grants it not yet for the present he sayes that though it were supposed he should grant that the Church or a lawful General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all Points even so defined were Fundamental that is as we have proved necessary to Salvation Supposing therefore that the Church and a lawful General Council be taken in this occasion for the same thing as he affirms they are saying in the beginning of num 3. pag. 27. We distinguish not betwixt the Church in general and a General Council which is her representative and admitting this he proceeds in his argument Supposing then that the Church in a General Council cannot erre I prove the Minor thus Whosoever refuses to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre refuses to believe that which is revealed from God But whosoever refuses to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is testified to be revealed from God by an Authority which cannot erre Ergo Whosoever refuseth to believe that which is defined by the Church as matter of Faith refuseth to believe that which is revealed from God The Major is evident ex terminis For if the Authority which testifies it is revealed from God cannot erre that which it testifies to be so revealed is so revealed The Minor is the Bishops supposition viz. That the Church in a General Council cannot erre as is proved Ergo c. And this I hope will satisfie any ingenuous Reader that the forementioned Proposition is fully proved taking Fundamental for necessary to Salvation as Mr. Fisher took it Yet to deal freely with the Bishop even taking Fundamental in a general way as he in this present Conference mistakes it for a thing belonging to the Foundation of Religion it is also manifest that all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental by reason of that formal object or Infallible Authority propounding them though not alwayes by reason of the matter which they contain Whoever deliberately denies or doubts of any one Point proposed and declared as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the Catholique Church cannot for that time give Infallible credit to any other Point delivered as a Divine Infallible Truth by the Authority of the same Church For whoever gives not Infallible credit to the Authority of the Church in any one Point cannot give Infallible credit to it in any other because it being one and the same authority in all points deferveth one and the same credit in all And therefore if it deferve not Infallible credit in any one it deserveth not Infallible credit in any other Now I subsume But he that believes no Point at all with a Divine Infallible Faith for the Authority of the Catholique Church erres Fundamentally Ergo c. This Subsumptum is evident For if he believe none at all he neither believes God nor Christ nor Heaven nor Hell c. with an Infallible Divine Christian Faith and thereby quite destroys the whole foundation of Religion And seeing there is no means left to believe any thing with a Divine Infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholique Church be rejected as erroneous or fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority It is manifest that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point
without defaulking of any part And did they not intend that the like should be done by continuall succession of Pastours in all ages of the Church for cuer And how can the Church performe this if she hath not sull and equall Authority to attest both the one and the other and to condemn all errour whatsoeuer contrary to them How can she be accounted in those respects the Pillar and Foundation of truth as 't is certain euen by the exposition of Protestants St. Paul doth style her 1. Tim. 3. 15. or how is she sayd to be a Faythfull Preseruer of that whole DEPOSITVM 1. Tim. 6. 20. committed to her charge as the fathers frequently profess and teach her to be J say how is it possible the Church should be accounted eyther a sure Foundation Faythfull Depositary Guardian or witness of all diuine truth pertaining to Religion as she is by Scripture and all Antiquity generally if eyther through ignorance and ouersight she her selfe might possibly happen to corrupt it as the Bishop with all Protestants supposes she may or that she wanted any necessary power and authority to prohibit them that would Whereas therfore the Bishop affirms that want of vnity and peace proceeds too often euen where Religion is pretended from men and their humours rather then from things and errours to be found in them J grant it to be very true in those that will not relie vpon the Churches iudgement and authority but vpon their own reason and interpretation of Scripture which is the practice of Protestants and all Heretiques before them and if the Bishops Adherents thinke it to be otherwise lett them fairly make it appeare that the disagreement which is at present 〈◊〉 the English-Protestant and Roman-Catholique Church proceeded not originally from the bad humours of English men as much as the disagreement betwixt the Prelaticall and Sectarian parties in the sayd Church of England proceeds not from the Prelats and their adherents but meerly from the Sectaries who it cannot be deny'd alledge scripture abundantly and accuse the English Prelaticall Church of errour and superstition both in doctrine discipline and worship no less then they accuse vs of the same faults 9. But the Relatour will now giue vs a reason why it cannot be necessary for the Church to haue power infallibly to determin points not-Fundamentall in Protestant sense although euen by his own supposition they be diuine truths and theyr opposite errours dangerous to soules His reason is because St. Paul tells vs 1. Cor. 11. 19. oportet Hoereses esse c. there must be Heresies whence he concludes 't is out of doubt Christ neuer left such an infallible assurance as is able to preuent them or such a mastering power in his Church as is able to ouer-awe them But J answer what consequence is here There must be 〈◊〉 there will vnauoydably be Heresies crgo the Church hath not full powre to condemne them and to vindicate the contrary truth To mee the contrary seemes farre more iustly and rightly concluded viz. that because there will be Heresies euer and anon springing vp amongst Christians therefore the Pastours of the Church haue and ought to haue all necessary power to obuiate their proceedings and to preserue the flocke of Christ in the integrity of true Fayth which as wee haue often shew'n cannot be done if the Pastours of the Church lawfully assembled in Generall Councills to that purpose should eyther themselues happen to crre or to determine the truth withless then absolute and vnquestionable certainty But as to the obiection it selfe the Bishop cleerly mistakes our meaning When wee say the Church hath power to preuent Schismes and Heresies it is not mean't that they shall not be at all but so as they shall not be without iust controule and censure so as they shall not so much as seeme lawfully and reasonably to be nor so farre preuaile by theyr beeing as to peruerte the true doctrine of the Church Heresies may be but the Faythfull members of the Church hauing due care of themselues and performing their duty well towards their lawfull Pastours shall be euer fully secured against their snares and none deceiued by them at least not vnto damnation or guilt of mortall sinne but such as through their own voluntary fault and negligence suffer themselues to be misted by them Could his Lordship possibly be ignorant that the Church susficiently preuents Heresies and Schismes on her part when she certainly declares the truth and rightly determins the matter about which Christians began to contend and to be diuided in opinion one from another when the duly censures and anathematizeth the contrary errour lastly when she vseth all lawfull and practicable meanes within her power to preuent and extirpate them This is preuention both necessary and also sufficient on the Churches part and this beeing done if the effect follow not it must not be ascribed to want of any spirituall power and authority in the Church but only to the incorrigible pride obstinacy and malice of her rebellious children which nothing but the hand of God can ouerrule and master A thing most cleere and manifest in all ciuill Common-wealth's prudently instituted wherein when seditions and rebellions happen to arise and they doe happen sometimes in the very best wise men doe not thinke 't is for want of any requisite power and authority in the chiefe Magistrate or state to command and compell all men to be obedient to lawes but that it proceeds from those vnauoydable distempers which by corruption and frailtie of humane nature are incident to mens mindes and which can neither be foreseen nor quelled in an instant by any power on earth J adde that the Relatours obiection oportet Haereses esse c. has as much force to proue the Church not infallible euen in points Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to Saluation and would exclude the necessity of any infallible power and authority in the Church to preuent errours contrary to such points which were repugnant euen to the Bishops own assertions For the words of St. Paul ther must be Heresies are as true of errours contrary to Fundamentall points as other and there will be Heresies more or less in all ages in matters absolutely necessary as well as in things not necessary Yea surely according to the more common principles and opinion of Protestants such errours only are properly to be esteem'd Heresies which are contrary to Fundamentall and absolutely necessary points in regard they say that sauing Fayth may consist with all other errours whatsoeuer So that if because Heresies must be or will be the Bishop will conclude there is neither infallible certaintie nor any meanes of infallibbe certainty in the Church for the knowing and determining the truth in such points as are contested by Heretiques as he doth most plainly and euidently pretend to conclude by his allegation of this text he must in consequence also confess there is noe infailible
Nor doe wee make the infallibility of the Church to depend vpon the Pope alone as the Relatour perpetually insinuates but vpon the Pope and a Generall Councill together So that if this be granted by our Aduersaries wee shall acquiesce and require no more of them because this only is matter of Fayth 13. But neither the Pope by himselfe alone nor a Generall Councill with him doe euer take vpon them to make new articles of Fayth properly speaking but only expound and declare to vs what was before Yome way reueal'd eyther in Scripture or the vnwritten word Yet they declare and expound with such absolute authority that wee are oblig'd vnder paine of eternall damnation neither to deny nor question any doctrine of Fayth by them propos'd to be bclceued by vs. This vnder Christ is the true Foundation of the Catholique Church and Religion Whosoeuer goes about to lay any other and to erect superstructures vpon it will finde in the end that he layd but a sandy Foundation and rais'd a tottering edisice which will one day fall vpon his own head and crush him to his vtter ruine Lett this therfore remaine as a settled conclusion that the Catholique Church is infallible in all her definitions of Fayth and that there is noe other way but this to come to that happy meeting of truth and peace which the Bishop will seeme so much to haue laboured for in his lifetime J beseech God to giue all men light to see this truth and grace to assent vnto it to the end that by liuing in the militant Church with vnity of Fayth wee may all come at last to meete in glory in the triumphant Church of Heauen which wee may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Sauiour Jesus-Christ to whome with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glorie world without end AMEN An Alphabetical Table of the most remarkable matters contained in this Book Apostles CHrists promises to his Apostles when extendible to their Successours and when not page 103 The Apostles were first prov'd to be Infallible not by Scripture but by their Miracles page 56 57 As necessary for the Church in some cases that the Apostles Successors be guided and settled in all Truth as the Apostles themselves page 103 104 Appeals The Canons of the Council of Sardica expresly allow Appeals to Rome page 194 195 Appeals to Rome out of England anciently practised page 189 From all parts of Christendom in St. Gregories time page 〈◊〉 Councils that restrain them look onely at the abuse of too frequent and unnecessary Appealing page 194 What the Council of Carthage desir'd of the Pope in the matter of Appeals Ibid. Inferiour Clerks onely forbidden to Appeal to Rome page 188 Authority No Authority meerly Humane absolutely Infallible page 123 Nor able sufficiently to warrant the Scriptures Infallibility Ibid. Divine Authority necessary for the Belief of Scriptures Infallibility and what that is page 64 65 69 Authority of the Church sufficient to ground Infallible Assent page 75 78 108 The supream Authority of One over all as necessary now as ever page 207. And will be so to the end of the world Ibid. Authors Either misalledg'd or misinterpreted by our Adversary page 4 7 8 9 10 22 47 80 81 98 113 118 134 135 136 137 138 139 143 175 187 193 201 202 204 210 218 222 240 248 309 310 Baptism INfant-Baptism not evidently exprest in Scripture nor demonstratively prov'd from it page 51 52 53. Acknowledg'd for an Appstolical Tradition by St. Austin p. 26 53 67 That lawful Baptism may not be reiterated a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Bishops Not meerly the Popes Vicars or Substitutes page 219 224 They govern in their own right and are jure divino Pastours of the Church no less then the Pope Ibid. Yet by the same law of God under the Pope Ibid. In what sense it may be said that all Bishops are equal or of the same merit and degree in the Ecclesiastical Priesthood page 222 The Bishop of Canterbury made Primate of England by the Pope p. 190 Universal Bishop The title of Universal or Oecumenical Bishop anciently given to the Popes page 196 But never assum'd or us'd by them Ibid. Us'd by the Patriarchs of Constantinople but never lawfully given them page 196 What the more ancient Patriarchs of that Sea intended by their usurpt title Ibid. The Sea of Constantinople alwayes subiect to that of Rome page 196 197 198 In what manner Gregory the seventh gave the title of Universal Bishop to his Successors page 199 Likewise in what manner Phocas the Emperor might be said to give it Ibid. Catholick THe several Acceptions of the word Catholick page 130 Causally the particular Church of Rome is styl'd the Catholick and why Ibid. No such great Paradox that the Church in general should be styled Catholick by its agreeing with Rome Ibid. In what sense 't is both true and proper to say the Roman-Catholick Church page 132 Certainty No absolute Certainty of any thing reveal'd by God if the Churches Testimony be not Infallible page 29 30 Moral Certainty even at the highest not absolutely Infallible p. 123 Church The Church cannot erre and General Councils cannot erre Synonymous with Catholicks page 19 20 177 The Churches Definitions make not Divine Revelation more certain in it self but more certainly known to us page 21 24 How the Churches Definition may be said to be the Churches Foundation page 35 Nothing matter of Faith in the Churches Decrees but the naked Definitions page 64 What the ground of Church-Definitions in matter of Faith is and must of necessity ever be page 230 Roman Church The Principality of the Roman Church deriv'd from Christ. p. 183 The Roman Churches Tradition esteem'd of old the onely Touchstone of Apostolical and Orthadox Doctrine page 202 No peril of Damnation in adhering to the Roman Church page 212 No Errours or Abuses in Religion at any time more imputable to the Roman then to the whole Catholick Church of Christ. page 142 The African Church alwayes in Communion with the Roman p. 190 191 The Roman Churches Defining of Superstructures or Non-Fundamental Points no cause of Schism page 332 The Roman Church rightly styl'd the Root and Matrix of the Catholique page 391 392 393 394 395 Church of Hierusalem Why with some others styled sometimes Mother-Church p. 389 390 and why Pamelius in his list of those Churches might reckon them before the Roman page 397 Contradictions Slipt from our Adversaries pen. page 51 54 70 83 90 99 112 124 146 150 223 249 308 310 Councils General and Oecumenical Councils of how great Authority page 32 The most proper remedy for errours and abuses that concern the whole Church page 165 National and Provincial Councils determine nothing in matter of Faith without consulting the Apostolick Sea page 164 166 167 168 To confirm General Councils no Novelty but the Popes ancient Right page 215 The Churches
late vnhappy times some of all other Religions in England oppos'd eyther his sacred Maiestie that now is or his Royall Father they only haue been all and euer Faythfull to them both therby shewing that the doctrine of Allegiance to their lawfull Soureigns is a necessary point of their beleefe and a part of that duty which not only interest and ends but Religion and conscience obliges them to pay The Relatour would haue vs obserue that the Church of England is between two factions as between two mill-stones like to be grown'd to powder pag. 15. Epist. meaning by one of these Catholiques for whome alone I haue vndertaken to plead The Bishop here seemes to complaine of persecution himselfe as well as wee but with farre less reason as is euident seeing wee Catholiques if wee were so ill minded haue no other instruments to persecute withall but our tongues and our pens which draw noe bloud and in the vse whereof I presume no indifferent man well confidering what hath passed both from the pulpitts and presses of our Aduersaries will thinke that in any thing they fall short of vs eyther for lowdness or passion 'T is no such idle Querie as the Relatour would haue it thought pag. 16 Epist. but a very pertinent one to demand where the Protestant or this pretended Church of England was before Luther For haue any Protestants as yet been able to shew a visible Church in the world before Luthers time professing the doctrine which distinguishes them from vs 'T is true they haue been often call'd vpon to this purpose but haue euer any of them done it was the question euer answer'd categorically or otherwise then by tergiuersation and shifting it off with ambiguioyes of their owne fiction as the Relatour himselfe for example here doth by telling vs their Church was there where ours is now one and the same Church still noe doubt of that one in substance but not one in condition of state c. Is this to answer categorically wee doe not enquire whether or noe or in what feigned sense theirs and ours may be sayd to be one and the same Church the following treatise doth sufficiently confute that pretense But our enquirie is whether there were a Ptotestant Church before Luthers time there where our Church now is I say a Protestant Church be it in name or thing that is a visible Society of Christians openly Protesting against the pretended errours and superstitions of our Church and beleeuing the doctrine which Protestants now beleeue and hold in opposition to our Church This neither the Bishop nor any body else was euer able to proue Wee Catholiques therfore doe not only doubt but absolutely deny that there was any Protestant Church or any Church which the Bishop can properly and truly call his Church or their Church speaking of Protestants before Luthers time not only there where ours now is but in any other part or corner of the world Neither is their Church and ours one and the same Church in any other sense then what is meerly fictitious and arbitrary and wherby all Heretiques whatsoeuer may if they will pretend to be one and the same Church with the Catholique Nor is it possible for Protestants to confute them seeing they can bring no conuincing argument to proue that such errours are more destructiue of the Foundation then those which they account damnable and to shake the very Foundation of Christian Religion Who knowes not that wee Catholiques differ from Protestants in the Sacraments which certainly are of the substance of Religion if any thing be and by our Aduersaries own principles and definition of a Church pertaine to the Churches essence Wee differ from them in the matter of Sacrifice which they reiect but wee hold and beleeue to be the most principall and solemne action of all that pertaines to Religious worship Wee differ from them also in many other points of maine concernment to the honour of God and Saluation of soules They charge vs and wee them errours directly derogatory to Gods honour directly contrary to divine Reuelation directly contrary to the institution and ordinance of Christ and repugnant to Saluation How then are wee one and the same Church or how can Protestants pretend to become members of the Catholique Church 〈◊〉 s they maintaine principles or articles of doctrine of such high concernment in Religion contrary to the beleefe of the whole Catholique Church in so many ages before Luther What he layes to our charge Epist. pag. 17. of crying vp the Church aboue Scripture and that so farrae as to indanger the beleefe of it with a great part of men will be abundantly shew'n in the following discourse to be a calumny of the greatest magnitude At present wee only protest against it as such and auerre with himselfe that the Scripture where it is plaine should guide the Church and the Church where there is doubt or difficulty should expound Scripture Only to that Prouiso which he adds touching the Churches exposition of Scripture viz. that shee may reuise what in any case hath slipt from her wee cannot allow it till wee certainly know his meaning For if by reuising what hath shipt from her he mean't to intimate as 't is most probable he did that the Church should erre in any thing shee defines to be beleeu'd 't is his own errour to affirm it as wee shall proue hereafter if any thing else wee meddle not with it Whereas he obserues Epist. pag. 18. that many rigid Professo urs haue turn'd Roman Catholiques and in that turn haue been more Iesuited then any other and that such Romanists as haue chang'd from them haue for the most part quite leap't ouer the meane and been as rigid the other way to the first part of his obseruation I assent reason it selfe teaching it to be true For the streames of that zeale which formerly wrought extrauagantly in them by reason of their ignorance and errour beeing now cleer'd and turn'd the right way make the Professours of it still feruorous for that which is good and no less vehemently auerted from what they know to be ill But of the second part I cannot approue it beeing so contrary to all experience which shew's that the desertours of our Religion seldome become so zealous in the contrary way as the Relatour pretends nay reason it selfe is against it For commonly speaking the motiues of their turn are eyther the preseruation of their estates the obtaining of some other wordly and temporall ends or lastly some voluptuous pleasure of which in the way of Catholique Religion they finde themselues debarr'd And hereof this is an assured Argument that when these motiues cease as at the howre death they all doe many of them through the mercy of God returne from whence they had departed Whereas on the other side I neuer yet heard of the man who professing the Catholique Fayth in time of health desired in sickness to dye a Protestant The Relatour
disputes which properly and directly question matters fully establish't by the Authority of the Church His Lordship therefore finding his first solution to fail him recurrs to a second much weaker then the first For granting the Church to be the foundation whereof St. Augustin spake he denyes it to follow thence that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith But against this I thus argue out of St. Augustin All those points the disbelief whereof shakes the Foundation are Fundamental in Faith But all the points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is defined by the Church are such as the disbelief of them shakes the foundation Ergo all points establish't by full Authority of the Church that is Defined by the Church are Fundamental in Faith If he distinguish the Major that they shake some foundation of our Religion but not every foundation I disprove him thus Whoever shakes the foundation St. Augustin speaks of which is the Church shakes consequentially every foundation of our Religion This I have above proved because nothing can be infallibly believed when the Churches foundation is shaken But the denial of points defined by the Church shakes the Foundation St. Augustin speaks of that is the Church as the Bishop now supposes foundation to be taken Ergo the disbelief of points defined by the Church shakes every foundation of Religion His proving that some things are founded which are not Fundamental in Faith is very true for St. Pauls Steeple is well founded yet is no Fundamental point in Faith but as little to the present purpose as can be for who ever asfirmed that all things founded even upon the Authority of the Church are Fundamental in Faith and as little concludes that which follows about Church Authority For I have already proved that the Authority of the Catholique Church in defining matters of Faith whereof onely we now treat as it is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost is either Divine in it felf to wit as informed with that Assistance or so necessary for the giving infallible assent to Divine Revelation that no man rejecting it can give an infallible assent to any point of Christian Faith For seeing upon that Authority only we are infallibly certified that the Articles of our Faith are revealed from God if in any thing we oppugne the firmness of that Authority we cannot believe infallibly that any one of them is revealed from God Though therefore it were granted that Church-Definitive Authority were not simply Divine yet is it so necessary to salvation that if it be rejected it destroyes salvation which is to be Fundamental in our present debate CHAP. 3. A Continuation of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. All Definitions of the Catholique Church concerning Doctrine Infallible and by many of the learned held Divine 2. One Text of St. Augustin shamefully abused three several wayes 3. NO MANS opinion confuted by his Lordship Bellarmin miscited 4. The Pope alwayes included in the Church and Councils 5. A. C's words cited by halves 6. How the Churches Definition is said to be her Foundation 7. A. C. corrupted the second time 8. Vincentius Lirinensis falsified thrice at least 9. Stapleton and Bellarmin good Friends notwithstanding the Bishops endeavour to make them jarre IN the first place we grant what is here set down viz. that Things may be founded upon humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith for we say nothing that hath any shadow of contradicting this But our Assertion is that those Things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church because this is according to St. Augustin to shake the Foundation Therefore all things made firm by the full Authority Definition Declaration or Determination use what tearm you please of the Church are Fundamental to wit in respect of the formal object of Gods revelation contained in them as we have often said 1. Now concerning what is added that full Church-Authority when it is at full Sea is not simply Divine I will not dispute with his Lordship whether it be or no because it is sufficient that such Authority be infallible For if it be infallible it cannot propose to us any thing as revealed by God but what is so revealed So that to dispute against this Authority is in effect to take away all Authority from Gods Revelation we having no other absolute certainty that This or That is revealed by God but onely the Infallibility of the Church proposing or attesting it unto us as revealed Whence also it follows that to doubt dispute against or deny any thing that is proposed by the infallible Authority of the Church is to doubt dispute against and deny that which is Fundamental in Faith This Discourse may be granted I say and yet the Church be denyed to be of Divine Authority notwithstanding that Infallible and Divine seem to many great Divines to be tearms Convertible And Stapleton whom the Bishop cites in the Margin is farre from denying it as would have better appeared if his words had been fairly cited For I finde him thus to write Si quaeratur quare Ecclesia est veritatis tam certa testis respondemus quia DEUS PER ILLAM loquitur If it be asked why the Church is so certain a witness of Truth we answer because God speaks by her Thus he Now if God speaks by the Church certainly she is of Divine Authority The same doctrine we finde elsewhere taught by him Deum per Ecclesiam loqui non ex solo Ecclesiae testimonio sed ex ipsis maximè Scripturis Fidei Symbolo ex communi omnium Christianorum conceptione certò constat That God speaks by the Church is most certain not onely by the Testimony of the Church but by the Scriptures themselves the Greed and the common perswasion of Christians The Bishop indeed grants thus much to the Church that no erring Disputant may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in general Councils layes yet he adds that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring disputant may not be allowed it Must have room that is must be allowed to shake the Foundation which the Church in General Councils layes For that is the necessary sense of his words An Assertion truly worthy of a Protestant Primate But I shall not here insist upon the manifold inconveniences of it I onely tell his Lordship at present that it begs the question and supposes what never was nor ever will be proved viz. that there can be plain Scripture in the true sense thereof or a full Demonstrative Argument brought against the Definition of a lawfull Generall Council We deny that any such case can happen or that the Definitions of a General Council in points of Faith can ever be so ill founded 2. Here therefore if we observe it the
object of Faith Fundamentals from not Fundamentals In this sense a Superstructure may be said to be exceeding firme and close joyn'd to a sure foundation but not Fundamental But here his Lordship misconceives or rather misalledges A. C's Argument For it is not as he frames it All points defined are made firme ergo all points defined are Fundamental but thus All points defined are made firme by the full Authority of the Church ergo all points defined are Fundamental And his reason is because when any thing is made firme by the full Authority of the Church it is so firme that it cannot be denyed without shaking the whole foundation of Religion and consequently is Fundamental 6. But the Bishop proceeds further and makes this Argument Whatsoever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in her absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid This Argument will lose all its force by putting the Reader in minde of the Distinction between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals which we admitted in the material object of Faith for if this be reflected on there will be a foundation for the Church without supposing her to be in perfect being before her foundation be laid We have often declared what we understood by Fundamental viz. That to which we cannot refuse our assent by denying or doubting of it when it is proposed to us by the Church as a matter of Faith without damnation and without destroying the formal object of Faith and without making our selves during that deliberate doubting or denying uncapable of believing any thing with Divine and Supernatural Faith For surely whatever is of this nature must needs be Fundamental in Religion So that we admit the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in respect of the material object of Faith but not in respect of the formal that is as we have often said some matters of Faith are more universally necessary to be expresly known and believed by all then others and yet the Authority revealing that is God and declaring them infallibly to be revealed that is the Church is truly Fundamental in both As in the Scripture it self this Text John 1. And God was the word according to the matter it contains viz. the Divinity of our Saviour is a Fundamental point universally to be known and believed expresly to Salvation and that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas according to the matter it contains is no Fundamental point nor of any necessity to Salvation to be universally known and believed expresly yet the formal object revealing both these truths being the Authority of the Holy Ghost is equally Fundamental in both and doubtless if any one to whom it is as clearly propounded to be affirmed in Scripture that St. Paul left his Cloak at Troas as that it is affirmed in Scripture that the word was God should yet deny or doubt of the first he could neither be saved so long as he remained in that misbelief nor believe the second with divine infallible Faith as all Christians both Catholiques and Protestants must grant Had this been well considered by his Lordship we should not have been forced to so frequent repetitions of the same Doctrine The Bishop thinks he has got a great advantage by pressing A. C. to this That the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation But what absurdity is it to grant that the Definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught or the Definition of the Church representative is the foundation of the Church diffusive who can doubt but the Pastours in all ages preserving Christian people from being carried away with every winde of Doctrine Ephes. 4. are a foundation to them of constancy in Doctrine were not the Apostles in their times who were Ecclesia docens by their Doctrine and Decrees a foundation to the Church which was taught by them Doth not St. Paul expresly affirm it Superaedificati supra fundamentum Apostolorum c. Did not the Bishop just now pag. 34. except the Apostles as having in their Definitions more Authority then the Church had after their times yea even so much as was sufficient to make their Definitions Fundamental and the opposing of them destructive of the Foundation of Religion their Authority being truly Divine which he sayes that of the Church after them was not Now this doctrine of the Bishop supposed I urge his own Argument against himself thus Whatever is Fundamental in the Faith is Fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church in the time of the Apostles be Fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Definition in the Apostles time is the Churches foundation and so upon the matter the Church in their time could lay her own foundation and then the Church must have been in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation was laid Who sees not here how the Bishop fights against himself with his own weapons and destroyes his own Positions by his own Arguments And whatever may be answered for him will satisfie his Argument in defence of us Now the answer is plain to any one who hath his eyes open for the Prime foundation of the Church are the Doctrines delivered by our Saviour and inspired by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whereby it took the first being of a Church and the Prime foundation to the insuing Church after the Apostles is the most certain Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by our Saviour to his Church By these two Prime foundations the Church is in being and so continues the Definitions of the Church grounded in these are a secondary foundation whereby Ecclesia docens the Church teaching established upon that promised assistance of the Holy Ghost fundat Ecclesiam doctam founds and establishes in every age the Church taught in the true Faith 7. But what shall we say in defence of A. C whom we finde blamed for these words That not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or prime Articles of Faith but all that which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church The answer is these are not the precise words of A. C. and therefore no wonder if the Bishop easily confute him whom he either mistakes or makes to speak as himself pleases A. C's words are these By the word FUMDAMENTAL is understood not onely the PRIMA CREDIBILIA or Prime Principles which do not depend upon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as the Bishop and Dr. White say they are FUNDAMENTAL points but
My Lord having been sufficiently informed of your eminent Authority and great Learning I desire to receive some satisfaction from you in matter of Religion but being not verst in your Christian Principles I am uncapable of accepting of any save what can be evidenc'd to me by the light of Natural Reason Bishop I willingly condescend to your request and doubt not to render you fully satisfied by the means you require Heath I understand by your learned Relation of a Conference c. that the sole Foundation of your Faith is a Certain Book called by you the BIBLE which contains many different Tracts and Histories written in very distant times by several Authours and bound up together in one volume And this you say must be believed Infallibly with every part and parcel in it to be the undoubted Word of the true God before I can believe any other point of your Religion as it ought to be believed Now I have employed sometime in perusing this your Bible and am no way inclined by the light of Reason to assent that it is Gods word in such manner as you believe it Bish. Surely you have not employed the Talent of Reason as reason required you should have done otherwise you would have discerned this Book to be the very Word of God For our Faith contains nothing against Reason neither is Grace placed but in a Reasonable Soul Heath But yet your Faith is above Reason and your Grace above a Reasonable Creature so that by Reasons light I can reach neither of them nor can my reason without Grace say you see my way to heaven nor believe this Book Bish. I confess it is so yet Natural Reason is cleared by Grace to see what by Nature alone it cannot Heath Tell not me of Grace I understand nothing of that and believe as little Unless therefore you satisfie me that your Bible can justly challenge an infallible belief of its being Gods word by conviction of naturall Reason my search is at a stand Bish. Though you will have Grace utterly excluded from the Question yet I must tell you you may not think that this Principle of Religion That Scriptures are the Word of God is so indifferent to a natural eye that it may as justly lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other for 't is strengthned abundantly with Probable Arguments even from the light of Nature it self Heath A man cannot be infallibly certain of what is strengthned with but probable Arguments since that which is but probably true may be also said to be but probably false Wherefore I fear Naturall Reason goes not very far in the decision of this question Bish. Say not so For Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands on surer grounds of Nature and Reason then any thing in the world which any Infidell or meer Naturalist can adhere unto against it Heath This your assertive Answer is doubly defective as I conceive First because it is not enough for one to prove his Religion to stand upon surer grounds then another mans since 't is possible there may be a third Religion resting on surer grounds then either of the other two Secondly because in your own Principles you are not to prove your Bible by your Religion as you here seem to endeavour but your Religion by your Bible which must therefore be first proved and that by Naturall Reason too for otherwise it will never work me into an infallible belief of it Bish. This Canon of Scripture the Container of Christs Law is or hath been received and believed for infallible Verity in almost all Nations under Heaven which could never have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason Heath Did the Nations you speak of receive the Scriptures on the sole Account of Reason and thereupon by diligent reading and conferring of Texts became Christians or were they first made Christians and after upon the Churches Authority received them for Gods undoubted word The Authors by you cited in your Book averre not their reception of them for Gods word before they were made Christians What wonder then if I who am yet no Christian see not sufficient reason to receive them for such Truly to me by what has hitherto been said it seems impossible to prove by Reason that your Bible is Gods Infallible Truth Bish. Nay it is not impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth Infallible or make you deny some apparent Principle of your own Heath Evidence me that and your Lordship will accomplish a great work Bish. 'T is an apparent Principle with those of your perswasion that God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of possession since if he could he were neither Absolute nor God in your own Theology But your Gods have been forced out of possession viz. out of the Bodies they possessed by the name of the true God and Christ whom the Scriptures teach and we believe to be the onely true God Therefore Heath Therefore what By what kinde of Logick can you inferre even out of your own premises which yet I might well question that therefore the Scripture is Gods word Bish. Does it not follow that you must either deny your own Gods or your own Principle in Nature And if it be reasonable to deny him for God who is under command why is it not also reasonable to believe that the Scripture is Gods word since there you finde Christ doing that viz. dispossessing Bodies and giving power to do it after Heath My Lord I cannot a little wonder to see you swerve so grosly from the known Rules of Logick as to beg the Question which here you do most palpably while you rest on the sole Authority of Scripture for proving the same Scripture to be the word of God If this be not a meer petitio principii I know not what is Bish. I perceive you are willfull and self-conceited for otherwise you would have been wrought upon by what you have heard However I shall adde this more that if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if even in the Mathematiques where are the exactest Demonstrations there be quaedam postulata some things to be first demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed who can justly deny that to Divinity a Science of the highest object which he easily 〈◊〉 to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach There must therefore in Reason some principle be supposed in Divinity viz. the Text of Scripture as a Rule which Novices and weaklings may be taught first to believe that so they may come to the knowledge of the Deducibles out of this rich Principle I see not how right Reason can deny this ground Heath I did not think to finde your Lordship so disingenuous as not onely to contradict your self by unsaying all
likewise invited with full security to come and go if they had pleas'd but of this we have spoken already Whereas at London to that Synod of English Protestants not one of the lawfull English Prelates were call'd or permitted to come who yet of all others were most concern'd and ought to have been there present as well by reason of their Authority and Function as of their just interest What speak I of the Prelates not so much as one of the English Catholiques how numerous soever they were at that time were call'd to that Assembly but all both Pastours and people were condemn'd together without being heard or allow'd to speak one word for themselves At Trent there were no Bishops illegally depriv'd of their Bishopricks purposely to cashier their Votes in Council nor any others included into their places contrary to the Canons of the Church purposely to vote down the said Churches established Doctrine and Canons In England it is notorious that all the lawful Prelates of that Nation were most illegally and arbitrarily depriv'd of their Bishopricks for no other end but to evacuate their Authority in the Nation and Lay-Bishops thrust into their places purposely to vote down and abolish Catholique Religion by some colour of Authority and seigned shew of a pretended Ecclesiastical Synod At Trent nothing had been done or was done in matter of Religion by the Pope or any other person in way of Determination or New Decree but by and upon the most unanimous and general resolutions of that Council In England 't is too notorious to be deny'd Religion was already chang'd by the Queen and a few meer-lay-persons in Parliament scarce enough to make a legal vote had the matter been proper for them and this Synod of London call'd apparently not to debate matters of Religion as they ought to be debated in a Free Ecclesiastical Synod but to serve designs and to boulster up by their pretended titular and usurp'd Authority what before-hand had most Uncanonically been resolv'd upon by the State This his Lordship should have a little reflected on when he objected want of Freedom to the Council of Trent But it seems he could more easily see a Mote in another man's eye then a Beam in his own 8. Our desire is not that any man should rather be blinde then open his owneyes God forbid we would have him onely clear them to see that Catholiques approve of National Provincial and also Diocesan Synods and onely disapprove of such Assemblies as Convene and Act contrary to the Canons in opposition to the chief Pastour of the Church universally receiv'd Doctrines and General Councils The Bishop therefore might very well have spar'd his pains of proving so industriously that many Reformations have been made by particular Councils for who denyes it Bellarmin had sufficiently shew'd it already who also observes out of St. Austin that for the Defining of easie things 't is not convenient to trouble all Christian Provinces Non omnis Haeresis est talis ut propter eam debeant vexari omnes provinciae We deny not but matters of less moment such as concern Rites and Ceremonies onely or Abuses in Manners and Discipline may be reform'd by particular Councils and that without asking express leave of the Pope for who knows not that the Discipline of the Church allows this Who knows not that the Pope is so far from being a hinderance to such Assemblies that it is no small part of his Apostolical vigilancy for the good of the Church to encourage and stir up the Bishops of other Nations and Provinces to the frequent holding of them But we affirm that in matters of greater moment which concern the Faith and publique Doctrine of the Church Sacraments and whatever else is of Divine Institution or universal obligation particular Councils if they duly proceed attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolique and the Popes consent either expresly granted or justly presum'd The Bishop indeed all along pretends the contrary viz. that National and Provincial Councils did reform in matters of Faith and Doctrine both without and against the Popes consent and it concerns him so to do for without this granted his Lordship knew well enough it would be impossible for him to justifie the pretended Reformation of his English Church But let us examine his proofs First Gerson speaks nothing expresly touching matters of Faith but onely that he would have all the States or Degrees of the Church reform'd which may be understood as well of personal abuses or corruption in Manners and Discipline as in matters of Faith Besides writing his first-alledg'd Treatise upon this subject de Concilio unius obedientiae and pleading hard for such a General Council as should acknowledge one Head 't is manifest he allow'd of no Schismatical Reformations nor any thing to be done in that kinde contrary to the Authority and good liking of the Churches Head Secondly the Bishop cites Concilium Romanum sub Sylvestro but here the very title confutes his pretence for the Council was held sub Sylvestro under the Pope therefore not without or against him And at the Council of Gangres Osius was Popes Sylvesters Legate and the Canons of this Council as Pope Symmachus related by Baronius affirms were enacted by the Authority of the Sea Apostolique His third proof is Concilium Carthiginense primum which was indeed assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage but no new Article Defined in it onely the perpetual Tradition of the Church touching Non-rebaptization was confirm'd therein having been defined long before by sundry Popes and also by the Council of Nice For this Council therefore of Carthage no man can be so hardy as to deny but that the Popes consent if it were not expresly had yet might be justly presum'd In the Synod of Aquileia which is his fourth proof the Bishop himself findes nothing but only that Palladius and Secundinus were therein condemn'd for embracing the Arian Heresie which having been already condemn'd by the Council of Nice and St. Ambrose with other Bishops of Italy being present at Aquileia who can doubt but every thing was there done by the Popes Authority and consent His fifth proof is the second otherwise call'd the third Council of Carthage which was so far from being held against the Popes consent that in the forty eighth Canon 't is expresly resolv'd by the Council to consult Pope Syricius concerning the matter of that Decree His sixth proof is the Council of Milevis in Africa condemning the Heresie of Pelagius But was not I pray the Sea Apostolique consulted in that grand affair Sure it was St. Austin above cited will avouch as much His seventh proof is the second Council of Aurange which was assembled by means of Felix Bishop of Rome so far was it from being held without the Popes consent After this comes the third Council of Toledo which was so devoted to the Authority of the Sea of Rome
pretended reforming Council must be one of Equal Authority with the supposed Erring Council that preceded this being a Condition expresly requir'd by the Bishop Now since Protestants do not hold all General Councils to be of Equal Authority who shall determine or how shall men satisfie themselves whether the Succeeding Imaginary General Council be of Equal Authority with the precedent The Bishop gives us no light in this particular but leaves us to grope in the dark But let us indulge so much to our Adversary as to suppose such a Council met as the Bishop would have General and of Equal Authority yet Maldonats Argument which the Relatour allowes for a shrewd one evinces clearly that by this way we should never have a certain end of Controversies since to try whether any point of Faith were decreed according to Gods word there would need another Council and then another to try that and so in infinitum The result of which would be that our Faith should never have whereon to settle or rest it self To this the Bishop answers that no General Council lawfully called and so proceeding can be questioned in another unless Evident Scripture or a Demonstration appear against it and therefore we need not fear proceeding IN INFINITUM which is either as ambiguous as the rest or inconsonant to his own Doctrine touching a General Council which he sayes cannot easily erre in Fundamental Verity But this is neither to exclude possibility nor fear of erring c. Ergo possibly it may erre in 〈◊〉 Here the Bishop sayes I might have returned upon you again If a General Council not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirm to what end then a General Council He tells us we may say yes because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre Thus the Relatour makes a simple answer for us and then Triumphs in the Confutation of his own Answer But let this piece of Disingenuity pass and let us examine how uncandidly he imposes both on us and his Reader while he insinuates to him that we hold for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope alone as Head of the Church is unerrable in his Doctrinal Decisions which is but an opinion of particular Doctours and no man oblig'd to believe it as a point of Faith We need not therefore make such a ridiculous answer as the Bishop does for us viz. That a General Council is necessary because the Pope as Head of the Church cannot erre but rather the contrary That a General Council is needfull because it is not De fide or receiv'd for a point of Catholique Faith that the Pope can decide inerrably without a General Council as all Catholiques unanimously believe he ever does when he defines with it What 's now become of his Lordships brag of retorting upon us 3. But the Bishop foreseeing as it were a Volley of Arguments probably to be discharg'd against him upon account of this his Errour-retaining Doctrine viz. That the Determinations of a General Council erring is to stand in force against Evidence of Scripture or Demonstration to the contrary till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it seeks his defence at last under the Covert of these restrictive expressions If the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity and unless it the Council erre manifestly and intolerably In which cases you may see the Relatour holds it not unlawful to oppose the determination of a General Council Now what is this but by seeking to solve one absurdity to fall into another as great viz. to leave not onely his Friends still more in the dark while he neither determines what points of Faith are Fundamental nor what Errours in particular are manifestly against Fundamental Verity nor what manifestly intolerable but opens a wide gate to all Phanatique and unquiet Spirits who never want Evident Scripture for what they fancy to exclaim as warranted by the Bishop against the Church and her Councils for teaching errours manifestly against Fundamental Verity or manifestly intolerable in both which cases they may with the Relatours license spurn against all Ecclesiastical Authority By this you may easily discern upon how Sandy a Foundation the Bishop has built up his ruinous Doctrine touching the Determinations of General Councils whose Authority he endeavours to Square by the Rule of Civil Courts never reflecting on the vast Disparity there is between the Government of the Church in matters of Religion and the Administration of the Civil Affairs of a Kingdom or Commonwealth The former is principally exercis'd in Teaching Declaring and Authoritatively Attesting Christian Faith which must of necessity be alwayes one and the same whereas the chief Object of Civil Government are matters in their own nature variable and changing according to Circumstances of Time Person Place c. So that what is prudently resolved and Decreed by a Parliament now may in a short revolution of time be found inexpedient in reference to the publick good and necessary to be repealed which can never happen in Decisions of Faith The truth of this is evident even from the Penalties imposed by these different Courts the Civil one never inflicting on the infringers any more then a Temporary External punishment Corporal or Pecuniary whereas the Spiritual viz. a General Council layes an Eternal Curse on the Dis-believers of their Decisions Witness the first Four General acknowledg'd for such by Protestants which were they fallible as the Bishop contends they are would be the greatest tyranny not to say Impiety imaginable Most imprudently therefore did the Bishop in labouring to Square a General Council by the Rule of Civil Courts against Catholique Doctrine 'T is true some particular Simile may be drawn from Parliaments against him not for him But the Bishop has another help at a dead lift wherein all pretended Reformers and their Adherents are very deeply concern'd which is that National or Provincial Councils may reform for themselves in case of manifest and intolerable errour if the whole Church upon peaceable and just complaint of this errour neglect or refuse to call a Council and examine it Sure the Bishop had very ill luck or a bad cause to maintain otherwise he could never have spoken so many inter-clashing Ambiguities in so little a Compass as he does For first he leaves us to divine what those Errours are which we must esteem intolerable Secondly he forgets to tell us whither we should repair to be ascertain'd of the Intolerableness of the Errour unless he would have have every man follow herein the Dictate of his own private judgement Thirdly he dismisseth us uninstructed how to make a just and peaceable complaint to the whole Church whither are we to repair to finde the whole Church or its Representative while as is supposed there 's no General Council yet in being Fourthly he leaves us wholly to guess how long we are to expect the whole Churches pleasure in point of calling a
principles should haue this firme Sure and vndoubting Fayth concerning any mysterie of Religion They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation or the written word But Jaske how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly certainly and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word vnless they doe first firmly certainly and infallibly beleeue that scripture is the true word of God and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand and how can they beleeue this most firmly and certainly if they neither are nor can be infallibly sure according to their own principles that the Church erreth not in deliuering such and such bookes for Canonicall scripture or that those passages vpon which they ground their beleefe are the very same with the Originall Text or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty when they teach that not only priuate men but Generall Councils and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence How can they then be sure that the words of scripture for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ for example are to be vnderstood in that sense in which themselues vnderstand them and not in the sense which the Arians put vpon them If Generall Councils and the whole Church may erre in expounding scripture what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this and in diuerse other like points Jf it be answered that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church J reply this answer satisfies not the difficulty For J aske vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point if because the whole Church teaches it to be so and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall I answer it must first be proued that the Arians are no part of the whole Church for if they be a part of it the whole Church doth not teach it To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church because they erre in Christs Diuinity which is a point Fundamentall is to suppose that for certaine which is principally in question That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall must be prou'd some other way then by the Authority of the whole Church If that way be scripture the former difficultie returns viz. how a man shall be sure according to Protestant principles that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense and not in the sense of Arians And if it be any other way beside scripture according to Protestant principles it will not be infallible but subiect to errour and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty 'T is euident therfore that Protestants standing to their grounds cannot beleeue eyther the Trinity or Christs Diuinity and Incarnation or the Redemption of mankinde by his death or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth nay it followes that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion as they are or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians seeing more agree that those things are true then that the sense of scripture in those controuerted points is such as Protestants vnderstand These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding that the Roman Church and Religion is a safer way to saluation then that of Protestants Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers and assertions touching this question 3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church A. C. proued that this denyall besides the threatnings of Christ and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such as are not within the Communion of the true Church is grounded euen vpon Charity it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger then to let him run into it through a false security There is but one true Fayth Sayth he and one true Church out of which is no Saluation and he that will not heare this Church lett him be vnto the Sayth Christ himselfe Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican If Saluation then may be had in our Church as the Bishop with other Protestants consessed and there be noe true Church nor true Fayth but one in and by which Saluation may be had as is likewise confessed it followes that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for and consequently that it is no want of Charity in vs to tell Protestants of this but rather want of light and good vnderstanding in them to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable The Bishop himselfe confesses that he who will not both heare and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too so farre as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall is in as bad a condition as an Heathen or a Publican and perhaps in some respects worse But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs it beeing a thing according to his description more like an Jdea platonica or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine then a true subsistent assemblie or Societie of Christians a thing as little able to speake or declare with requisite authority any certain and vniforme doctrine or matter to be beleeu'd as himselfe and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth For by the Catholique Church in his notion nothing else is 〈◊〉 vnderstood but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉 and facts of Christians viz. Greeks Armenians Lutherans Caluinists Prelaticall and Presbyterian Protestants Anabaptists 〈◊〉 and what not beside the Roman Catholiques But how is it possible that such a Church as this should euer instruct and command vs what to beleeue How shall a man that 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 or in any other remote part of the world heare the common voyed of a Church which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties or how shall a man be sure that such and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church taken euen in the Bishops own sense vnles he be first 〈◊〉 what the Fayth is without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church Lastly how shall he before that all who profess that Fayth doe also teach and command the doctrinal which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉 Church he is requir'd to beleeue Againe if Donatists for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉 held the Foundation and consequently were a part of the Catholique Church and if errours that come too neere 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe may be found in that which is 〈◊〉 the
Austin knew that Maximinus refus'd though very vniustly the Council of Nice as much as himselfe did that of Arimini 〈◊〉 that he might dispute effectually with him he thought fitt for the present to waue the argument taken from the authority of Councils and to vrge him only with such common principles as were admitted by them both such as were chiefly the holy Scriptures but yet not them alone for 't is euident he vsed other reasons against him beside Scripture founded vpon and deduced from such maximes of Christian religion as were not disowned by his Aduersarie And might not I pray any Catholique disputant at this day argue with a Protestant in some particular question only out of Scripture and tell him in these or the like words I will not vrge you with the Councils of Lateran or Trent I will conuince you of errour by Scripture only yea by your own Bible etc. might not I say a Catholique in some case speake thus to a Protestant but he should be thought presently to rerect the authority of those Councils or to esteem them not infallible in their definitions of Fayth 8. The Index Expurgatorius J consess is through misunderstanding such a common stumbling-blocke with all sorts of Protestants that wee doe not much wonder the Bishop himselfe should trip at it as he doth here obliquely and by way of insinuation at least accusing vs of hauing expunged some things out of the true and authenticall writings of the Fathers A heauy charge doubtless but our comfort is no less iniuriously imputed then heauy For how does he proue it What authours or places of authours does he alledge thus expunged by vs why nam'd he not the Index in which such expunctions are registred why cited he not some of his purer and more authentique Copies different from ours and where those texts are restor'd or standing vpon record which our Indexes are pretended to haue expung'd How came 〈◊〉 to finde out the true genuine and authenticall thenticall writtings of the Fathers if they were not so extant and preseru'd amongst vs and by vs of any thing to this purpose which yet alone could be to purpose in the present case the Relatour brings not the least syllable of instance thinking it enough only to accuse For as to what he pretends to alledge out of Sixtus Senensis his Epistle to Pope Pius Quintus whoeuer obserues it well will finde it really to speake the cleane contrary to what the Bishop would seeme to proue by it and directly to accuse not vs but Protestants of corrupting the works of the Fathers The Reader may see the whole text here in the margent at large whereof the Bishop thought not good to giue vs so much as one word but only to make vse of the authors name and therby cleerly perceiue that it was not to purge the ancient texts of the Fathers writtings but only the false readings spurious notes commentaries and interpretations of Heretiques vpon their sayd writings and texts that the Index Expurgatorius was commanded to be made by the authority of Pius Quintus while he was yet Cardinall and President of the holy Inquisition not to speake of their alike false and corrupt translations of them which were also forbidden J say therfore lett all our Jndices expurgatorij pass the sorutiny euen of our most rigid aduersaries and lett them shew vs if they can wherein any authenticall writings of the ancient Fathers haue been eyther purg'd or clipt by vs or any thing of the text alter'd in point of reading but vpon iustifyable and auowed reason namely the authority of some more ancient and better copie and if they cannot lett them here after for shame at least be silent and obiect the Index expurgatorius no more A. C. asks further whether Protestants be infallibly sure that they rightly vnderstand the sense of all that is expressed in their books according to that which was vnderstood by the Primitiue Church and the Fathers that were present at the fowre first Generall Councils and for this the Bishop finds great fault with him as asking the same thing ouer and ouer againe Wee answer first his Lordship might see by this how earnest A. C. was for a direct and punctuall answer to his Querie Secondly the Relatour should haue reflected that as yet A. C. had receiu'd no satisfactory answer to the demand and till satisfaction be giuen in such cases 't is consonant enough to the rules of arguing to repeate and vrge the demand and to doe otherwise were but to run from one thing to an other without end and neuer sift out the certaine truth in any question whatsoeuer The truth is the Querie is such that it will be matter of eueriasting vexation to all that follow or goe about to defend the Bishops assertions it beeing euidently impossible to giue a satisfactory answer to it without hauing recourse to the infallible authority of the Church as wee Catholiques doe when the like demand is made to vs by our Aduersaries The Relatour indeed out of his wonted liberalitie in this kinde is pleas'd to call it a dry shift but the reason he giues is no better then a gross mistake For the Churches authority does not always beget an implicite Fayth as the Relatour thinks but very often an explicite one to witt when eyther the definition it selfe expounds to me the sense of Scripture or that Church-Tradition concerning it is soe cleere that it needs not the definition or declaration of a Council to make it certainly know'n Whersore seeing Generall Councils by reason of their already-prou'd infallibility are always to be presum'd to speake in that sense which is agreeable to the doctrine of Christ and that the vniuersall tradition of the present Church is also an infallible witness of that doctrine wee Catholiques doe euidently shew according to our grounds how wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand the texts of our Bibles conformably to the sense of those fowre first Generall Councils and of the Primitiue Church of their times For why the sense of the Primitiue Church is necessarily inuolued in that of the Councils and if there happens to be obscurity in the words of any Councils by beeing infallibly sure that that only can be their sense which is conformable to the present Church-Tradition and that the opposite sense cannot possibly be theirs howeuer the words themselues may perhaps be wrested to it by consequence wee are infallibly sure that wee vnderstand Scripture in the same sense now which the sayd Generall Councils and Primitiue Church anciently did to witt by the infallible authority and Tradition of the present Church I answer to A. Cs. fourth Jnterrogatorie which is whether Protestants can be infallibly sure that all and only those points which they count Fundamentall and necessary to be expressly know'n by all were so accounted in the Primitiue Church the Bishop would seeme at last to tell vs which points are Fundamentall and
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
certainty nor meanes of infallible certainty less in the Church for the teaehing and beleefe of any points at all euen of the most absolutely and vniuersally necessary In the close of this Paragraph he taxes those of pride who will not 〈◊〉 their private iudgements where with good conscience they may and ought Wee may easily diuine whom he meanes but are sure he could not exempt himselfe and his adherents from the sting of that censure though he endeauours it by saying 't is noe pride not to submitt to know'n and gross errouts Very good But wee aske what Sect or company of Heretiques in the world vses not this plea Doe not euen the Artans Socinians and 〈◊〉 arians themselues vrge it as earnestly against Protestants as Protestants doe against vs So that 〈◊〉 the Relatour pretended that the conuocation of English Prelates and Clergie adherent to them should 〈◊〉 Dictatours in the business of Religion ouer all Christendome beside and determin vncontroulably what is what is not to be accounted gross and dangerous errour I see not what his discourse here signifies But whereas himselfe obiects errour to three Generall Councills at once viz. those of Lateran Constance and Trent yea such errour as in his opinion gaue a greater and more vrgent cause of breaking the vnity of the Church then any pride of men wee shall not for the present taxe him with want of modesly wee only tell his followers 't is as yet only saying without prouing and they cannot but acknowledge that in point of morality 't is oftentimes very sufficient and very bonest for a man barely to deny a crime that is obiected to him but it is neuer sufficient nor euer honest barely to obiect it Beside wee haue much more reason to think that he a priuate Doctour is mistaken in his censure then that those three Generall Councils were deceiued in the matters of Fayth which they defin'd 10. His acknowledgement that it is noe worke for his pen to determin how farre the necessary points of soule-sauing Fayth extend would haue been ingenuous enough had he not made it intricate and meander-like by applying it to different persons but kept it in its absolute nature viz. what is simply necessary for all in which sense he hath treated the point all this time Now sure it the determining this maine and as I may say Cardinall difficulty be not worke for his pen neither was it of any right worke for his pen to draw vpon himselfe and his party a necessity of at least beeing call'd vpon and requir'd to doe it who counsells them contrary vnto and without the example of any Orthodox Christians to restraine the infallible Authority of the Church in determining controuersies of Religion to they know not what or to such points as they neither doe nor euer will be able certainly to know and determin For as 't is that only which brings our vnanswerable demand vpon them so till they haue answer 〈◊〉 and cleerly determin'd what those simply or absolutely necessary points are in which the Church cannot erre wee must proclayme they leaue all Christians that well consider what and vpon what grounds they beleeue vnsatisfy'd vncertaino and doubtfull how farre or in what matters they are oblig'd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue what is declar'd by the Church to be diuine truth and yet withall teach them that they neither can with true infallible Fayth nor ought nor lawfully may belecue her in all she teacheth because in much of it she cyther erres or is subiect to erre and teach them falsehood yea gross and dangerous errour in stead of diuine truth which if it be iust or reasonable in our Aduersaries to doe or tending to any thing else but to 〈◊〉 and perplex the mindes of all conseientious Christians with inextricable doubts and scruples 〈◊〉 the indifferent Reader iudge Nor can he to any purpose help himselfe here by what St. Thomas and our Authours teach concerning points precisely necessary necessitate medij For neither will the Bishop stand to that scantling as he calls it that is he will not dare to teach there are no more Fundamentall points in his sense then our Diuines teach there are points necessary necessitate medij nor is the case alike For that doctrine hath place only where inuincible ignorance excuses from further knowledge and from express beleefe whereas here both sufficient proposition and actuall knowledge of all articles defin'd by the Church is supposed so as noe Jgnorance can be pleaded in excuse of the partie that erres and yet they teach that of these articles all equally so farre as concerns the Church defin'd and propounded some may be refused but all the rest must of necessity vnder paine of damnation be beleeu'd with diuine and infallible Fayth neuertheless giuing no certaine rule to know eyther the one or the other Is not this Daedalus-like to lead men into the midst of a Labyrinth and there leaue them 11. Jn the following Paragraph the Relatour doth little else but dally with his Reader in the equiuocation of words Catholique Roman Church particular vniuersall one holy Mother-Church etc. vpon all which he makes a briefe descant at pleasure But wee answer much is sayd nothing prou'd nor so much as offer'd to be prou'd to any purpose The Church of Rome in the sense that wee maintaine and haue often declar'd is not only one but THE ONE Church of Christ. In the sense that wee maintaine she is holy all her doctrine defined all her Sacraments all her institutes are holy and tend to Holiness In the sense that wee maintaine she is Catholique or vniuersall both for extent of Communion and Integrity of doctrine with continued succession of Pastours There is no Christian Countrie in the world where there are not some that acknowledge the Popes Authority and profess the Roman Fayth Nor doth the Roman Church now teach any thing as Fayth which is contrary to what the Catholique Church hath euer taught Lastly wee haue shewed that euen in the Primitiue Church or first siue-hundred yeares after Christ the Faythfull owned subiection to the Roman Church and a necessity to communicate with her in points of Christian doctrine Wee acknowledge the Church of Hierusalem is sometimes by Antiquity styl'd a Mother-Church and the Head of all other Churches But wee say withall 't is meerly a title of honour and dignity giuen her probably for this reason viz. because the first Foundations as it were of Christian Religion were layd there by the preaching and Passion of our Sauiour and because from thencë the first sound and publication of the Gospell was made by the Apostles to all the Churches of the Gentiles It was noe title of Authority and power properly so called as it was in the Roman Church Jf our Aduersaries thinke it was let them shew what Authority or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Church or Bishop of Hierusalem exercised ouer all other Churches eyther before it was
Acceptation onely a secondary and accessory Confirmation of them Ibid. Not absolutely necessary as the Popes is Ibid. In what sense it is said that all Pastours are gathered together in General Councils page 213 The whole Churches consent virtually included and effectually declar'd by a General Council page 216 The Prelates in General Councils assembled may proceed against the Pope himself if his crimes be notorious page 231 233 What kinde of Free Council it is that Protestants call for page 233 No Conditions or Rules for holding a General Council justly assignable now which have not been competently observ'd by such former General Councils as Protestants reject page 240 The Church Universal indispensably oblig'd to embrace the Doctrine of General Councils page 250 The Decrees of General Councils in matters of Faith to be receiv'd not as the Decisions of men but as the Dictates of the Holy Ghost p. 252 General Councils not of Humane but Divine Institution page 245 No known Heretick or Schismatick hath Right to sit in General Councils page 233 In what Cases General Councils may be amended the former by the latter page 255 256 257 258 They are Infallible in the Conclusion though not in the Means or Arguments on which the Conclusion is grounded page 263 264 Infallibility of the Apostles and succeeding Councils how they differ page 265 266 The Councils of Arimini and second of Ephesus no lawfull Generall Councils page 268 339 The Supposition of a General Councils Erring in one point renders it liable to Erre in all page 378 Creed St. Athanasius his Creed no absolute Summary of the Catholique Faith page 350 351 No not even supposing the Creed of the Apostles Ibid. What the Authours intent was in composing it Ibid. St. Athanasius first compos'd and publisht it in the Latine Tongue page 351 Donatists A Narrative of their proceedings in the business of Cecilianus their Archbishop and Primate of Africk page 185 186 Donatists why they addrest themselves to the Emperour Constantine Ibid. The Emperour openly professes that the Donatists cause belong'd not to his Cognizance Ibid. What he did in it was forc'd from him by importunity page 185 187 He promises to ask pardon of the Bishops for medling in the Donatists business page 186 The Donatists thrice condemned page 185 186 Emperour No secret compact between the Emperor Sigismund and the Council of Constance in the cause of Huss page 156 No just Sentence ever pronounc'd by an Emperour against the Pope p. 192 In what manner the Emperours for some time ratisy'd the Popes Election Ibid. That Custom 〈◊〉 long since by the Emperours themselves p. 193. The Emperours favour some advantage to the Popes Temporal Interest no ground of his Spiritual Authority page 200 The Surmize of having one Emperour over all Kings as well as one Pope over all Bishops a meer Chimaera or fiction page 225 The Emperour as Supream over his Subjects in all Civil Affairs as the Pope is in matters Spirituall page 226 The Popes never practis'd to bring the Emperours under them in Civil Affairs Ibid. No Catholick Emperours ever took upon them to reform religion without or contrary to the Pastours of the Church Ibid. Errour In matters of Faith though not Fundamental inconsistent with the acknowledg'd Holiness of the Church page 150 Every Congregation unchurched that holds Errour in Faith and the reason why page 151 Eucharist That the holy Eucharist be receiv'd Fasting is a Tradition Apostolicall page 67 Receiving it under one kinde no Errour in Faith page 207 271 Nor contrary to Christs Institution Ibid. The Non-obstante in the Council of Constance's Decree touching the Eucharist to what it refers page 271 272 273 The Eucharist under one kinde a perfect Sacrament page 271 Frequently receiv'd in Primitive times under one kinde page 289 Given by Christ himself in one kinde page 318 Why necessary that the Priest who consecrates should receive in both kindes page 319 Excommunication Never pronounc'd in the Catholique Church but where Obstinacy and perverseness inforce it page 48 Incurr'd ipso facto by all English Protestants for denying any one of the 39. Articles page 49 The English Church more justly censurable for tyranny in point of Excommunications then the Roman page 49 50 Faith Divine and infallible Faith inconsistent with the denial of any one point sufficiently propounded by the Church page 17 Faith Implicite what it imports in Catholique sense page 20 Implicite Faith necessary to be had of all Divine Revelations whatsoever Explicite onely of what the Church defines and propounds for such page 20 The English Protestant Faith not the Faith of the Primitive Church page 328 329 330 331 Implicite Faith not us'd by Catholiques at pleasure page 346 347 Roman Faith The Consequence of this Argument made good The Roman Faith was once THE ONE SAVING FAITH Ergo it is so still p. 340 350 Fathers Catholiques shew all due respect to the Fathers yet without derogation from the Authority of the present Church page 60 61 The Fathers account none Catholiques but such as agree with the Roman Church page 131 Proofs of the Churches Infallibility from the Fathers page 102 105 108. 131 137 178 Protestants profession to stand to the Fathers what it signifies page 208 Fundamental A word in Religion of various and ambiguous Acception page 14 How it ought to be taken in the present Dispute page 14 34 44 Catholiques allow a distinction of Fundamental and Non-Fundamental points in some sense page 15 20 21 23 34 44 All points defin'd by the Church and sufficiently known to be so are Fundamental that is not to be doubted of or deny'd under pain of damnation page 15 16 27 Points not-Fundamental deposited with the Church by Christ and his Apostles no less then points Fundamental page 38 Points Fundamental necessary to be known in specie or particularly page 45 176 177 217 243 Government THe Government of the Church in a Monarchical way not changeable by any power on earth page 221 222 The difference between the Government of the Church in matters of Faith and Religion and the Government of the State in matters of Policy and Civil Concern page 243 244 245 Greeks Their Errour against the Holy Ghosts procession from the Son properly Heretical page 6 7 King James his censure of the Greek Church page 5 Ancient Greeks differ'd onely in Words or manner of speaking from the Latins not in sense page 7 8 21 22 The Greeks excluded from the Council of Trent not by the Popes Summons but by their own Schism page 233 Divers Orthodox Bishops of the Greek Church present in the Council of Trent page 233 234 Modern Greeks no True Church page 10 11 The business of Hieremias the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople page 238 His Censure of the Lutheran Doctrine a sufficient Testimony of the sense of the Greek Church Ibid. He utterly rejected the Lutherans Communion Ibid. Hell THe word Hell doth not alwayes signifie the place of the
pag. 65. But why joyns he a wrangling to an erring Disputer are these think you Synonyma's I esteem his Lordship an erring Disputer yet he had reason to think me uncivil if I should call him a wrangling Disputer If they be not of the same signification why ha's he added in the exposition of St. Augustins words the word wrangling seeing in the sentence here debated there is neither wrangler not any thing like it Oh! I see now it is done to distinguish him from such a Disputer as proceeds solidly and demonstratively against the Definitions of the Catholique Church when they are ill founded But where findes he any such Disputer in St. Augustins words upon whose Authority he grounds his Position Seeing that most holy and learned Doctor is so far from judging that any one can proceed solidly aud demonstratively against the Definitions and Tenets of the Catholique Church and Occumenicall Councils that he judges him a mad man who disputes against any thing quod Universa Ecclesia senti which is held by the whole Church and that they have hearts not onely of stone but even of Devils who resist so great a manifestation of Truth as is made by an Oecumenicall Council for of that he speaks 3. After this the Bishop makes mention of one who should say That things are Fundamentul in Faith two wayes one in the matter such as are all things in themselves The other in the manner such as are all things which the Church hath defined and declared to be of Faith 'T is not set down who it was that spake thus But whoever he was I am not bound to defend him neither was his speech so proper He might have said some thing like it and have hit the mark viz. That Things are Fundamentall in Faith two wayes one in regard of the material object such as are the prime Articles of our Faith which are expresly to be believed by all The other in regard of the formal object such as are all Things that the Church hath defined to be of Faith because he that denies his assent to any one of these when they are sufficiently proposed does in effect deny his assent to the authority and word of God declared to him by the Church and this being to take away or deny the very formal object of Divine Supernatural Faith by consequence it destroyes the Foundation of all such Faith in any other point whatsoever Wherefore let any man with the Bishop view as long as he pleases the Morter wherewith this Foundation is laid and if he consider it rightly he will finde it well tempered Our assertion is That all points defined by the Church are Fundamental because according to St. Augustin to dispute against any thing settled by full Authority of the Church and such are all things defined by her is to shake the Foundation Hence the Relator would inferre we intend to maintain that the point there spoken of the remission of original sin in the Baptizing of Infants was defined when St. Augustin wrote this by full sentence of a General Council But I deny that from urging that place of St. Augustin we can be concluded to have any such meaning For by Authority of the Church we mean and not unproperly the Church generally practising this Doctrine and defining it in a National Council confirmed by the Pope For this was plena Authoritas Ecclesiae though not plenissima full though not the fullest and to dispute against what was so practised and defined is in St. Augustins sense to shake the Foundation of the Church if not wholly to destroy it Wherefore although one grant what Bellarmin sayes That the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in an Oecumenical Council but onely by a National yet doubtless whoever should go about to revive that Heresie would be justly condemn'd without calling a General Council as one that oppos'd himself against the full Authority of the Church and did shake its foundation But the Bishop sayes Bellarmin was deceived in this business and that the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd in the first Ephesine Council which was Oecumenical I answer first 'c is not credible that Bellarmin who writ so much of Controversie should not have read that Council nor can there be any suspicion of his concealing the matter had he found it there because it would make nothing against the Catholick Church but rather for it However till the Councils words be brought I desire to be pardoned if I suspend my Assent to what the Bishop sayes Truly I have my self viewed that Council upon this occasion but cannot finde it there I fear therefore his Lordship hath been misinformed But suppose all were there which he pretends yet would it conclude nothing against Bellarmin who onely sayes that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemn'd in any General Council and the Bishop to disprove him shewes that some who were infected both with the Pelagian Heresie and Nestorianisme also were condemned in the Ephesine Council But how does this contradict Bellarmin Certain Pelagians were indeed condemned in the Ephesine Council but it was not for Pelagianisme but Nestorianisme that they were condemned Had they been condemned for Pelagianisme his Lordship had hit the mark but now he shoots wide He should have observed that Bellarmin denyed onely the condemnation of the Heresie and not of the persons for holding another Heresie wholly distinct from that of Pelagianisme 4. As for St. Augustins not mentioning the Pope when he speaks in the place before cited of the full Authority of the Church which the Bishop tearms an inexpiable omisson if our Doctrine concerning the Popes Authority were true It is easie to answer there was no need of any special mention of the Pope in speaking of the Authority of the Church because his Authority is alwayes chiefly supposed as being Head of the whole Church His Lordships followers might as well quarrel with me because I many times speak of the Authority of the Church without naming the Pope though I do ever both with that great Doctor and all other Catholiques acknowledge and understand the Popes Authority compris'd in that of the Church When my Lord of Canterbury findes in ancient Lawyers and Historians that such and such things were decreed by Act of Parliament without any mention of the King by whose Authority and consent they were decreed would he not think you condemn those Authors also of an inexpiable omission and thence conclude that the King in those dayes had not the prime Authority in Parliament and that whatsoever was said to be decreed by Act of Parliament was not eo ipso understood to be done by Authority of the King 5. We grant what is urged that it is one thing in nature and Religion too to be firme and another to be Fundamental For every thing that is Fundamental is firme but every thing that is firme is not Fundamental Wherefore we distinguisht before in the material
upon Scripture that is 't is true if themselves may be competent judges in their own cause But his Lordship not liking that Qualification of his speech professeth for himself and his party that they are willing to be judged by the joynt consent and constant belief of the Fathers which lived within the first Four or Five hundred years after Christ when the Church was as he sayes at the best and by the Councils held within those times and that they will submit to them in all those points of Doctrine This offer is very fair and we do for our selves as Solemnly promise the same and will make it good upon all occasions 9. But to shew the Bishop cannot perform what he hath undertaken Mr. Fisher endeavours to confute him in the point of Infant-Baptisme which saith he is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it words not vainly and cunningly as the Relatour pretends but soberly and discreetly spoken For a point may be exprest and yet not evidently exprest Otherwise there could never be any doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture since men never question things that are evident Now the Baptisme of Infants must not onely be exprest but evidently exprest to prove it sufficiently that is undenyably by Scripture alone For if it be there exprest onely probably it may be probably denyed to be expressed and so Disputations can never have an end out of the Scriptures expression alone For the same reason he addes that Infant-Baptisme is not at least demonstratively concluded out of Scripture because if it be prov'd directly yet onely probably as was said it may probably be denyed and so we shall finde no more end here then in the former Dispute Wherefore our Adversaries cannot in reason mislike this addition of evidently exprest and demonstratively concluded because without this we shall never have an end of Disputations This was it made Mr. Fisher adde those words though the Bishop knew full well that there are many things in good Logick concluded directly which are not concluded Demonstratively as he well shewes But he is much out nay contradicts himself in what he urges That whatsoever is by direct consequence proved out of Scripture is Demonstratively and Scientifically proved For first he supposes Scripture to be a prime principle in Christian Religion that is such a principles as has no dependance on any other to declare it such infallibly to Christian people which he knowes all Catholiques deny Secondly though I should grant Scripture and every Text of it to be a principle amongst all Christians whereof no man should desire any further proof yet unless both Propositions the Major and Minor were evidently in Scripture the Conclusion might directly be inferred but not evidently out of Scripture For in case one Proposition onely be evidently express'd and the other inevidently or but probably the Conclusion indeed will follow directly but not demonstratively This is much more clear if but one Proposition be evidently express'd in Scripture and the other neither in Scripture nor evident to natural reason but onely probable For as Logicians speaks Conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem The Conclusion alwayes follows the nature of the weaker Proposition This will appear to be so in Infant-Baptisme For though no man ought to deny but that many things are Demonstrable in Divinity yet all are not For in this respect as Canus here cited affirms Divinity is like other Sciences which prove not all things Demonstratively but many things onely Topically or probably To illustrate this doctrine a little further by instances First that a Thing may be expresly in Scripture and yet not evidently exprest even according to some Protestants Our Saviour sayes Mat. 26. c. This is my Body where he affirms expresly that what he had then in his hands was his Body and yet according to the Zuinglians this is no evident expression to signifie his reall Body for if that were evidently exprest by these words no man that believes Scripture could deny it as those Heretiques do For 't is impossible to deny an evidence Thus again Mark 16. 16. it is exprest Qui crediderit Baptizatus fuerit Salvus erit yet is it not evidently exprest that every one who believes and is Baptized shall be saved because many are Baptized and Believe who are afterward damned Secondly that a thing may be directly deduced from Scripture and yet 〈◊〉 demonstratively I give these instances All Scripture Divinely inspired c. is profitable c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. But St. James his Epistle is Scripture Divinely inspired Ergo it is profitable c. This consequence is directly deduced in perfect forme from Scripture yet is it not evidently deduced from it for if it were the Lutherans could not deny the consequence as they do because the Minor is not evident in Scripture Or thus Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. But children unbaptized are not born again of water and the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This is directly deduced from Scripture yet all Calvinists must say it is not evidently deduced Or lastly thus That which our Saviour Consecrated in his last Supper was the usual Bread of that place and time but no Bread save what was made of Wheat was the usual Bread of that place and time Ergo that which our Saviour Consecrated was no other save that which was made of Wheat The Major is clear in Scripture but the Minor is onely historically certain so that the consequence is deduced directly but not Demonstratively 10. His Lordships first Demonstration therefore of the necessity of Baptisme to the salvation of Infants is much defective if we stick to sole Scripture as now he is to do For a Pelagian Anabaptist will most easily answer that the Text of John 3. Except a man be born again by water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God speaks onely of such as can be born again Now none can be born again save those who were dead in sinne wherefore Infants having no sin at all as Pelagians hold cannot be born again and consequently must not be Baptized insomuch that this Text is so far from proving against such Anabaptists that Infants must be Baptized that it rather proves the contrary His second That Infants ought to be baptized which he sayes is very near an expression in Scripture it self hath nothing in it at all either of an expression or demonstration For to omit that the word children signifies not Infants but filios or liberos children grown up to years and that by promise is not meant the particular promise there mentioned but the promise of the new Law in Christ the very Text it self confutes him For if the promise be made to their Children which
not immediately from his Premises viz. that either there is no revelation or Scripture is it For if he would prove that Scripture must be it if there be any by the sole light of Scripture as he hath hitherto pretended I have evidenc'd it to be inconsequent Would he prove Scripture to be that Revelation supposing there be any by the intervention of Church-Tradition assuring us that it is such it is true but Diametrically opposite to his Principles Again he wheels a little about For no man ever deny'd that Scripture is Gods Revelation supposing he hath made Revelations so that in proving this he hurts not his Adversary but his Province was to prove that Scripture onely was Gods Revelation Why then omits he here the word onely which caused the whole Controversie His last Consideration is a dark Meander For the Motives of Credibility he there musters up preceding the light of Scripture are indeed of force to justifie ones Belief that Scripture is Gods Word when 't is receiv'd as the Ancients did receive it upon the Infallible Authority of Church-Tradition but never otherwayes And our present Question is not whether his Lordship does well in believing Scripture to be the Word of God as all those Motives of Credibility here mentioned by him perswade but whether he doth well in teaching that Scripture ought to be believ'd with Divine Faith for its onely inbred light as the formal Object And in this opinion I would gladly know how the recounted Motives can justifie his proceeding For though no man can doubt but most of those Motives may be applied to our Belief in the Articles of our Creed yet in his opinion they will not justifie the Believing those Articles with Divine Faith independently of Scripture which he makes the whole Foundation of believing them with Divine Faith 6. It s worth noting what we hear him now at last acknowledge for all the rest in this page is a meer repetition of what hath been already answered viz. that being arrived to the Light of the Text it self and meeting with the Spirit of God c. then and not before we are certain that Scripture is the word of God both by Divine and Infallible proof So that here he manifestly acknowledges that those who are not arrived to the light of Scripture in it self have no divine nor infallible proof of its being Gods Word and consequently have no Divine Faith of the mysteries of Christian Religion and so are neither truly Christians nor capable of salvation which consequences how horridly they will sound in the ears of the unlearned I leave to the Reader And to make them more sensible of the foulness of this errour let them consider that when young and unlearned Christians are taught to say their Creed and profess their belief of the Articles contained in it before they read Scripture they are taught to lye and prosess to do that which they neither do nor can do in his Tenet and consequently since it is unlawfull to lye and much more in matters of Religion then in others it will also follow that it is unlawfull for any one to teach unlearned persons their Creed and as unlawfull for them either to learn it or rehearse it before they have seen those Articles proved by Scripture For by this word Believe there must be meant as all agree a formal Christian and Divine Faith of those Articles 7. Finally we are told of his Lordships good intention in having proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the Benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all Christianly disposed But he had done much better had he proceeded in an Analytical way for in that was the difficulty namely to assign the first Principle on which our Faith is grounded in the Resolution of Faith which we are far from apprehending by this Synthetical way which confounds the Reader with Multiplicity of Arguments and weakens the Authority of the Church without which he might tire himself and others but never be able to make a clear Resolutionof Faith Well therefore might A. C. without note of Captiousness require the Analytical way yet give all all due respect to Scripture though the Relatour it seems would willingly insinuate the contrary For the Question being started whether the Scriptures onely or besides them unwritten Traditions were the Foundation of our Faith the Bishop maintain'd the first and A. C. the second Now A. C. could not more directly nor efficaciously overthrow his Lordships Tenet then by proving that the Assurance we have even of Scriptures themselves relyes upon Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which therefore must necessarily be the Foundation of our Faith His endeavour to bring A. C. and us into a Labyrinth like his own of a vicious Circle by retorting the Question which he calls captious it may be because himself was taken in it I have already prov'd ineffectual because both A. C. and our other Authours give the motives of Credibility as a preceding and uncircular ground for the Infallibility of Church-Tradition So that the Relator cannot retort the Question so easily as he imagines nor rid his hands so soon of the Jesuit by demanding How he knows the Testimony of the Church to be Divine and Infallible falsely supposing us to say that the Churches Infallibility is founded upon the Testimony of Scripture and the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church the contrary whereof I have sufficiently deliver'd and declared chap. 5. When therefore he demands how we know the Testimony of the Church to be infallible we answer that we prove it independently of Scripture by the Motives of Credibility immediately shewing it to be evidently credible in it self as the like motives made this point evidently credible to the Faithful heretofore that the Prophets and Apostles were Infallible And 't is evident to any judicious man that herein is not the least shadow of a Circle 8. The Relatour will not yet permit us to put a period to this Question but wrangles with A. C. for telling him what he thought his Lordship said But I had rather dispute what he doth or can say in this matter He expounds his own minde thus That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need no proof in regard of those men who are born in the Church and in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it that the Books commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God But here he ought to have reflected that to make good this supposition so far as to the breeding in us a Supernatural Act of Faith it must also of necessity be supposed at least tacitely that the Scriptures are delivered to us by the Infallible Authority of the Church Wherefore in this assertion that Scripture onely is the Foundation of Faith he contradicts what he ought to have presuppos'd viz.
that Scripture was held to be Gods Word for the Authority of the Church So that though it be against Art and Reason to question the Subject or put our Adversary to prove Scripture to be the Word of God when we dispute whether Transubstantiation Purgatory or the like Predicates be contain'd in Scripture yet against one that denies the necessity of Tradition we require a proof of Scripture it self as knowing he could not have any other good ground of supposing Scripture to be Gods Word besides the Tradition of the Church which he now denying doth either contradict himself or deprive the Scripture of all Authority Wherefore I make no difference at all in this point between a natural man and a man newly entring or doubting in Faith and those who pretend to be grown up in Faith and yet impugne the Tradition of the Church For all these are after one and the same Method to be dealt with that so they may be brought to admit the true grounds of proving Scripture to be the Word of God It was therefore no familiarity with impiety nor desire to catch advantage that mov'd Bellarmin and A. C. to demand how Scripture could be prov'd the Word of God for they were forced to it by their Adversaries denying the Necessity of Tradition And the advantage is to your selves that by this Medium which Protestants ever decline you may discern the weakness of your own Foundation In the very Porch of this Paragraph the Bishop as if he had untied the Gordian knot of Mr. Fishers Arguments brags he set him to his Book again But I am confident it was rather the not untying this knot that mov'd him to repeat what he had writ before For this repetition shew'd clearly the Bishop said no more then what Dr. White had said before him and consequently that Mr. Fishers words spoken to the Doctour were sufficient to solve all the Bishop had said Wherefore as the Bishop did actum agere do onely what was done by the Doctour before so he made Mr. Fisher dictum dicere to say again what was said before since there needs no new Solution where no new difficulty is propounded And when we hear him talking of Metaphysical Principles it seems they are too clear to be answered and therefore he waves them as too quaint niceties to be reflected upon by the Reader Neither does Bellarmin artificially cited in his Margin any way favour his Lordship For when he gives an Advertisement that all Hereticks suppose with Catholicks as a general Principle that the Word of God is a rule of Faith he speaks not of the sole written Word as the Bishop will needs misinterpret him but of the Word of God abstractively or as it embraces both the written and unwritten Word His omnibus Quaestionibus sayes he praemittenda est Controversia de VERBO DEI c. even as our Adversary cites him he sayes not de VERBO DEI SCRIPTO but de VERBO DEI. The Bishop and Hooker avoid not the difficulty by calling it a supposed Principle amongst Christians For if they suppose this with any ground they must suppose it founded upon Tradition And therefore A. C's Argument has still the same force even in this supposition of a Praecognitum as before For when a thing is admitted as a Principle by both parties in any particular Debate touching Religion 't is presupposed onely as a Praecognitum to that difficulty not as an absolute Prime Principle in Religion and is left in that Order of Priority or Posteriority of Principles which its proper nature requires Wherefore though both the Relatour and Mr. Fisher had supposed Scripture as a Principle agreed on by both parties in order to some further Question depending of Scripture which notwithstanding could not be done in this present Controversie where the Question was about the Priority of Tradition in order of Principles before Scripture yet Scripture is then to be presupposed onely as a Principle to that particular Dispute and cannot be thereby made a Prime Principle absolutely and universally in Faith Suppose for example the Dispute were whether Extream Unction were a Sacrament in this Dispute 't is to be supposed as a Principle granted by both parties that there are some Sacraments But hence follows not that it is supposed as an absolute prime Principle in Religion which neither can nor ought to be proved by other precedent Principles to wit Scripture or Tradition that there are some Sacraments His Lordship confesseth again that Tradition must lead the way like a preparing Morning-light to Sun-shine but then we settle not for our direction upon the first opening of the Morning-light but upon the Sun it self His meaning is that although Tradition must go before yet we ought not to rely upon it as the ground for which we admit Scripture but we are to fix our eyes onely upon the brightness of Scripture it self But I demand how knows the Relatour this Light is rather a Beam then a Dream by which he is deceiv'd by the watchful Enemy of Mankinde who transforms himself into an Angel of Light 'T is true the Scripture is called a Light but 't is like a Candle in a dark Lanthorn or the Sun under a Cloud in regard of all those who deny the Infallibility of the Church and appears in full light onely to them who acknowledge it After some flourishes the Bishop mindes us that there is less light in Principles of Faith then those of Knowledge But A. C. urgeth thus Though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknown in a Science must be primo cognitum needing not another thing pertaining to that Science prius cognitum known before it so if in Faith Scripture be the first and onely Foundation and consequently the first thing foreknown primum praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum needing not any other thing pertaining to Faith prius cognitum known before it This supposed Church-Tradition which is one thing pertaining to Faith could not as the Bishop saith it is and as indeed it is be known first and be an Introduction to the Knowledge of Scripture These are A. C's words pag. 51. not those set down by his Lordship and therefore he had no reason to say he is sorry to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes but had rather cause to employ his sorrow for himself since he could not otherwise avoid the difficulty then by corrupting his words whom he pretends to answer For by omitting the Parenthesis and changing the words he makes A. C. teach not his own but in part the Bishops Doctrine A. C. therefore mistook not at all but prest home his Argument in this manner which the Bishop solves not by saying he consesseth every where Tradition to be the Introducer to the knowledge of Scripture For the primum
take due notice of them and weed them up 't is a thing we confess and the Bishop gains nothing by it No more doth he gain by alledging Cassander whose credit among Catholiques is so little that his testimony would be of no great weight were it positive and home to the purpose whereas 't is manifest he speaks doubtfully and dares not absolutely averre the Bishops had taught any Superstitions all he ventures to say is that through their covetousness he was afraid such Superstitions were continued and even this he ascribes rather to particular and inferiour Bishops then to the Pope 3. 'T is true there have been Schismes at Rome as it happened in the time of St. Cyprian when Novatus leaving Africk went to Rome and there raisd troubles Yea after him Novatianus proceeded so far as to cause himself to be made Antipope against Cornelius and had many followers by which means a Schisme sprung up but still a great part stuck to Cornelius the true Pope Wherefore even during the Schisme as well as before the Roman Church rightly and truly so called continued the Catholique and as incorrupt as ever And why because they that left the Communion of the true Pope and made the Schisme corrupted themselves but not the Roman and Catholique Church which adhered to him and were for the time of their separation of no Church at all but of the Synagogue of Satan Whence it appears that St. Cyprian could not imploy Caldonius and Fortunatus to bring the Roman Church to the Communion of the Catholique as the Bishop pretends but onely to reclaim the Schismatiques and bring those divided Members which followed Novatian to their due Obedience to Cornelius their lawful Bishop and thereby to the unity and communion of the Roman Catholique Church Still therefore the Roman or Catholique Church remained free and exempt from errour either of Schisme or Heresie and so shall ever continue maugre the malice of Hell and whatever vain objections to the contrary 4. A. C. further charges the Relatour to have confes'd that Protestants had made a Rent and Division from the Roman or Catholique Church here the Bishop is not a little nettled and flatly denies that ever he affirm'd or thought that Protestants made it For my part I think it an unprofitable dispute to question much what was said it more concerns us to see what could or can be said in this point Our Assertion is That Protestants made this Rent or Schisme by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous Doctrines contrary to the Faith of the Roman or Catholique Church by their rejecting the Authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiours both immediate and mediate by aggregating themselves into a Separate body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastours at all that were in lawfull and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastours and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully empower'd to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matter of Religion contrary to those anciently receiv'd throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates and Pastours of and from their respective Seas Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing the said Prelates and Pastours for the most part yet living These and the like practices not the calling for truth and redress of abuses as the Bishop vainly pretends we averre to have been the True and Real Causes of Protestants-being thrust out of the Church For as Almighty God leaves no man who leaves not him first so neither doth the Church separate her self from any man or thrust him from her Communion who doth not first depart and separate himself from her by obstinate adhering to novel opinions contrary to the true Faith or by his wicked and enormous demeanour contrary to true Charity or by both together The Orthodox therefore did very well in departing from the Arrians as the Relatour notes in the Margin because the Arrians were already departed from the Church by their false Doctrine and we are so far from denying that the sin of Schisme is theirs who depart first that we charge it upon our Adversaries for as the Arrians then departed first from the Church not the Church from them so did the Protestants now of late and the Faithful did well in both cases to avoid all Communion in matters of Religion both with the one and the other Nor does the Bishop vindicate the Protestant party by saying the cause of Schisme was ours and that we Catholiques thrust Protestants from us because they called for truth and redress of abuses For first there can be no just cause of Schisme this has been granted already even by Protestants and to his calling for Truth c. I answer what Heretiques ever yet forsook the Church of God but pretended truth and complain'd they were thrust out and hardly dealt with meerly because they call'd for Truth and redress of Abuses But he should have reflected that the Church of God is styled a City of Truth by the Prophet and a Pillar and Foundation of Truth by the Apostle and by the Fathers a rich Depository or Treasury of all Divine and Heavenly Doctrines or 〈◊〉 so that to charge her either with the want of Truth or opposition to the preaching of it and upon that ground to forsake her Communion as Protestants did is an inexcusable impiety and presumption That Woe therefore of Scandal mentioned by the Bishop whether Active or Passive falls most heavily upon his own party who first took effence without just Cause and afterwards gave just cause of offence by departing from the Church and making a Schisme A thing so clear and undeniable that to use the Relatours own expression our Adversaries may better defend their cause before a Judge and a Jury then before an Assembly of learned Divines After this the Bishop quarrels with A. C. for vindicating the Jesuit But what 's the subject of their quarrel The Jesuit averr'd the Bishop to have said That Protestants did make the Rent or Division from the Roman Church The Bishop denies he said any such thing A. C. proves he said it either 〈◊〉 or aequipollentibus verbis because the Jesuit writ down his words in fresh memory and upon special notice taken of the passage Hereupon the Bishop falls into exclamations and admirations as if A. C. stood upon the brink of a Contradiction But I answer there is not here the least shew of a contradiction For though his Lordships words were very few though writ down by the Jesuit in fresh memory and upon special notice taken yet might the Jesuit well enough be said to quote them either iisdem or aequipollentibus verbis For timorous and tender Consciences think they can never speak with caution enough for fear of telling a
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
that they are with all submission to bee obserued by euery Christian where scripture or euident demonstration comes not against them But whoe sees not that this Remedy is as bad as the Disease A Generall Council is an awfull Representation if it bee lawfully called and ordered and proceeds lawfully but hee set's not down the Marks wherby wee may know whether it bee lawfuIly called ordered and proceeds lawfully or not Neither does hee tell us whoe shall bee Iudge of those Marks A Generall Council says hee cannot erre in matters of fayth keeping themselues to Gods Rule But this is both ambig uous and vnsatisfactory For if hee meane that a Councill cannot erre so long as it teaches nothing contrary to the word of God what greater Prerogatlue does hee giue to the Representatiue of Gods Church then belongs to any priuate Doctour who cannot erre so long as hee follows and cleaues to this vnerrable Rule If his meaning bee that a Generall Council cannot erre if it considers the testimonies of holy writt and define any thing according to the sense in which they vnderstand those testimonies how can they bee tax't of errour seeing it cannot bee deny'd but Generall Councils in defining many points contrary to Protestant Doctrine did conformetheir definitions to the sense in which vpon serious examination they vnderstood the most pertinent places of holyscripture But Councils must not attempt to make a New Rule of their own True But what the Bishop thinks New is in the iudgement of those graue Prelats as Ancient as the word of God To whom then ought wee to submit To him that is a priu ate Doctor and averrs it to bee New or to that lawfull Assemblie which asserts it to bee Ancient Hee tells us next that Generall Councils are to bee obserued by cuery Christian with all submission where scripture and euident demonstration come not against them But who shall iudge I pray whether scripture or Demonstration make 〈◊〉 against them or not Does not every Heretique that spurns against the Church pretend that the scripture hee vrges is euident and his Reason a demonstration you will reply that the Bishop does not meane by a demonstratiue argument such an one as appeares so only to a private spirit but such as beeing proposed to any man and vnderstood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent vnto it If this bee so how can Protestants bee excused who deny many points defined by Generall Councils Many learned and vnderstanding men of our religion haue read the places of Scripture alledg'd by Protestants against vs and haue diligently ponder'd all the Reasons and pretended euidences their aduersaries bring and yet they are so farre from beeing convinc'd in iudgement that they evidently oppose the beleefe of those points Defined that they are persuaded of the contrary wherfore their arguments are not euident in themselues but only seeme so to their private Spirits and therfore all Christians according to the Bishops rule ought to submit to those Councils in the beleefe of the sayd points Nor wil it serue the turn to say that there was neverany Generall Council besides the foure first wherein nothing was defined contrary to Truth For hence will follow that a Council cannot bee know'n to bee Generall but by the Truth of their Doctrine nor their doctrine to bee true but by the testimony of scripture whence will bee deduc'd that wee ought to beleeue nothing for the Authority of a Council but that wee our selues are the sole Iudges whether the Definitions of Councils bee agreable to Gods word or not If you allow other Councils to haue been also Generall and yet to haue falsely taught any of those points which Catholiques now hold contrary to Protestants you must eyther grant that scripture or demonstration comes not evidently against them or auerre that all learned and vnderstanding Catholiques that haue perus'd their obiections are conuine'd in judgement that what themselues hold is eyther quite opposite to the word of God or contrary to common sense and the light of reason both which are manifestly absurd As for the Remedy hee applies to the second 〈◊〉 it is as ineffectuall as the first The reason hee brings why the supposition of fallibility in Generall Councils does not make way for the whirlewinde of the Priuate spirit is because Priuate spirits are too giddy to rest vpon scripture and too heady and shallow to bee acquainted with Demonstratiue Arguments But this is contrary to experience For which of all those that are taxt to giue way to the private spirit refuse to rest vpon the word of God Doe the Presbyterians in England decline Testimonies of scripture when they Dispute with the Prelatists against Episcopacy and other points Doe the Caluinists flie from scripture when they contend with the Lutherans in Germany against Consubstantiation and vbiquity or with the Arminians in Holland aboute Predestination vniversall Grace free will perseuerance c would the Bishop make us beleeue that all maintainers of the Priuate spirit are so voyd of vnderstanding as not to bee capable of a demonstratiue Argument must they needs bee depriu'd of the light of reason because they thinke fit to follow the Dictamen of their owne reason in what they beleeue or that they cannot comprehend any demonstration in Euclide because they giue way to their private spirit in the vnderstanding of scripture The Bishop esteemes them giddy Shallow insufficient and vncapable of a demonstratiue Argument or of a right vnderstanding of the word of God yet they and their followers are of a different persuasion They take them selues to bee and are reputed by many others to bee persons of strong reason sharp iudgement deep insight in what belongs to scripture and vpon this presumption they will take vpon them to call in question whateuer suites not with their priuate fancie Now to thinke that their priuate spirit is sufficiently oppos'd by saying they are all fooles and vncapable of reason is in my opinion to bee voyd of iudgement and to deserue the like Censure But what shall wee say to the Authority of S. Austin who would haue true demonstrations every where to take place and professes that a Truth so cleerly demonstrated that it cannot bee questioned is to bee preferr'd before all those motiues by which a man is held in the Catholique Church I answer his words are only conditionall and signifie that in case any true and cuident demonstrations could bee brought against the motiues that kept him in the Church they must take place in our vnderstanding in regard the assent which ariseth from those motiues is voluntary and free where as that which would arise from such Demonstratiue Arguments would bee so cleere and necessary that wee could no more preuent it then our assent to this Principle The whole is greater then the part But hence it followes no more that the Church can define what is cuidently contradicted cyther by scripture or demonstration
the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS
question for none of vs euer yet granted him that there was such light but also contrary to experience there beeing noe man that meerly by reading such books as are called Canonicall and others that are accounted Apocryphall can come to know which are Canonicall which not as may appeare by the example not only of such as were neuer taught the maximes of Christian Religion but also of many Christians who though they be able to read yet beeing neuer taught which books were Apocryphall which not know them not by reading Whence it followes likewise that all the insuing discourse which the Bishop makes touching his infallible beleefe of Scripture falls to nothing seeing what he layes as its principall Foundation apparently sinks vnder the weight For a meerly-humane and infallible assurance will neuer support an infallible Fayth of Scripture as euen our Aduersary himselfe grants Nor can he in any better sort make good what he affirm's concerning the Creed and fowre first Generall Councils namely that he beleeues them infallibly in their true incorrupted sense and knowes that he beleeues them so in points necessary to Saluation For seeing he has no infallible certainty that the words or text of the Creed and the acts of the Councils or the books of the ancient Fathers haue not been corrupted how can he haue infallibility in the true sense of them and their conformity to Scripture He pretends indeed to be sure that he beleeues Scripture and the Creed in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitrue Church beleeu'd them because he crosseth not in his beleese any thing deleuered by the Primitiue Church and this againe he is sure of because he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express'd and deliuer'd by the Councils and ancient Fathers of those times But how true this is and how sincerely he takes the beleefe of the Primitiue Church as it is express't by Fathers and Councils may appeare to any that duly considers by the testimonies wee haue already alledg'd against him vpon seuerall occasions out of the Councils and Fathers particularly in this very Chapter and shall yet further alledge in those which follow A. C. asks againe what text of Scripture assures vs that Protestants now liuing doe beleeue all this to witt the Scriptures Creed and fowre first Generall Councils in their incorrupted sense or that all this viz. all that Protestants take to be the true sense of Scripture Creeds and fowre first Generall Councils is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Acts of Councils or writings of the Primitiue Fathers which are now in the Protestants bands and at this his Lordship will needs seeme to wonder But lett them wonder that will The Querie will euer be found both rationall and pertinent notwithstanding such wondering For can any man deny but this is a good consequence Protestants admitt Scripture to be the only infallible rule of Fayth therfore they cannot beleeue infallibly all this aboue mentioned without some particular text or texts of Sripture to be shew'd for it And had not A. C. iust cause to aske whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are now in Protestants hands For seeing it is not in our Bible if it were not likewise in theirs it would be J hope sufficiently euidenc'd to a reasonable Aduersary that it can be found in none But sayth he it is not necessary that this should be shew'd by any particular text because t is made plaine before how wee beleeue Scripture to be Scripture and by diuine and infallible Fayth too and yet wee can shew no particular text for it But how wee pray was this made plaine He told vs indeed that he beleeu'd the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church then by other credible motiues lastly by the light of Scripture it felfe But the two first of these are by his own confession of no infallible authority and the third in effect no more then the Priuate spirit as wee haue often demonstrated to him But admitt the Bishop were sure that the Primitiue Church expounded Scripture in the same sense as Protestants beleeue it yet how will he be able to make good what he adds standing to his own principles this Rule meaning the Scripture as expounded by the Primitiue Church can neuer deceiue mee Did Christ promise infallibility to the Primitiue Church and not to the succeeding Church and if no such infallibility be promised or signifyed in Scripture how can he be certaine they could not erre or deceiue him in their expositions 7. The Bishop tells vs they haue the same Bible with vs but I see not how this can be affirm'd with any truth For Protestants both leaue out many books which wee esteeme part of our Bible and those which they haue with vs are corrupted both in Originalls and Translations Neither doe they admitt and receiue the Bible vpon the same motiue or reason that wee doe Wee admitt it for the infallible authority of the Church propounding it to vs as a diuine booke which infallible authority Protestants deny and by consequence seeing they assign noe other in lieu of it cannot in reason be so infallibly sure of their Bible as wee are of ours Much less could the Bishop iustly say that all is expressed in their Bibles that is in ours vpon this ground only because all Fundamentall points are as proueable without the Apocrypha as with it For who sees not that the same may be affirm'd with exclusion of diuerse other books admitted into the Protestants Canon noe less then ours for example the Epistle of St. Iude the two last Epistles of St. Iohn the Epistle to Philemon the books of Ester Ruth Paralipomena yea perhaps all or very many of the small Prophets it beeing scarce credible the Relatour or any other Protestant should maintaine there were any Fundamentall points of Fayth in their sense to be prou'd out of those books which cannot be prou'd out of any other books or parts of Scripture Soe that if this reason were good an Heretique that reiects vpon the matter one 〈◊〉 or one third part of the old and new Testament shall yet be allow'd to pretend that he has the same Bible with Catholiques and deliuer'd to him by the same hands and that all is expressed in his that is in the Catholique Bible Sure with very much truth and modestie Wee agree with Bellarmin that all matters of Fayth speaking properly are reueal'd only by the word of God Written or vnwritten but wee auerre that they are infallibly declar'd and testify'd to vs to be so reueai'd by the authority of the Church or Generall Councils Nor doth St. Austins text against Maximinus the Arian any way cross or preiudice our 〈◊〉 although it be manifest he speaks there 〈◊〉 by way of condescension and voluntary yeelding to his aduersary and not as forced there to by any necessity of reason St.
if neither Generall Councils nor any man in the world be of infallible creditt who sees it not to follow there can be noe infallible creditt amonge men noe not in the whole Church euen in points Fundamentall For seeing noe testimony can be of infallible creditt except it be know'n and that it is impossible for any man certainly to know eyther who those are that make vp the whole Church in the Bishops sense or that they doe all of them beleeue and testifie such a point of doctrine to be Fundamentall and absolutely necessary to saluation how is it possible for the whole Church in that sense to be of infallible creditt or to giue infallible certainty to any points whatsoeuer whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation To his Aduersaries demand why a Generall Councill if it may erre in defining one diuine truth may not erre in defining an other and so in all the Relatour answers by way of Confession that it may erre euen in all to witt of like nature vsing this limited manner of speech in all of like nature on purpose to auoyd inconueniencies and that he might vpon occasion take the aduantage of his wonted distinction between Fundamentall points For so presently as it were by way of anticipation he tells the Reader that of things not absolutely necessary to Sabuation or not-Fundamentall there can be noe necessity of infallible certaintie in the whole Church much less in a Generall Councill and consequently quently 't is noe matter with him though a Generall Councill be suppos'd lyable to errour in all such points as well as in any one But it sufficeth that wee haue already shew'n the contrary both for Church and Councill namely that in many cases it may be absolutely necessary for the Church to haue infallible certaintle of points in their owne nature not absolutely necessary to saluation or which is all one to haue such points when brought into controuersie amongst Christians infallibly defined by a Generall Councill so as wee need not trouble the Reader here with repetitions Nor could it serue his turn or iustify his assertion from beeing in the highest degree iniurious and derogatory to the honour and authority of Generall Councills though it were otherwise that is though wee had not already prou'd a necessity of infalliblydefining by Generall Councills all controuerted points of Religion whatsoeuer whether absolutely or not-absolutely necessary to Saluation For 't is certaine enough the Relatour holds that Generall Councills may possibly erre euen in points that are absolutely necessary to Saluation or Fundamentall as wee haue heretofore obseru'd though he declines somewhat the open profession of such a doctrine But this suppos'd lett his adherents tell vs what does his maxime if in one possibly in all proclaime but that a Generall Councill may not only fall into errour in defining some one or other point of Christian Fayth but euen totally Apostatize and define against Christianity it selfe A proposition sufficiently confuted by its own apparent impiety and which may iustly serue for a second instance of our Aduersaries sincerity when they profess fo much esteem and reuerence towards Generall Councills 4. Wee doe not say that Christ our Sauiour left infallibility in his Church to satisfie eyther contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits as the Bishop would seeme to impose vpon vs for 't is euident enough by the experience the world hath of the seuerall sects and Heresies of Protestants that such kinde of people will be satisfy'd with nothing but the full swing of their own obstinate and erroneous phansies Nor will wee Catholiques euer desert the confession and defence of it because such people will not be satisfy'd But wee tell them Christ left that legacy to his Church for these ends viz. to guide the humble and sober-minded securely and certainly in the right way of Saluation he left it also to curbe the contentious to restraine the curious and to giue sufficient checke to such presumptuous spirits as should dare in matters of such high and difficult nature as the truths and Mysteries of Religion are to be wise in their own eyes and to preferre their priuate phansies before the publique and generall iudgement of the Church and their own lawfull Ecclesiasticall superious none of all which ends could be effectually attain'd or duly prouided for without the sayd infallibility which therfore for the Relatour or any other out of priuate opinion to goe aboute to take away from the Church is without doubt both intolerable presumption and errour especially doing it vpon no better grounds and pretense of reason then he layes down here viz. because the Foundation that is in his sense all Fundamentall and absolutely-necessary doctrine is so strongly and plainly layd down in Scripture and the Creed Stongly and plainly layd down does he say Surely the Bishop when he wrote this thought little of those swarms of Arian and Socinian Heretiques who deny such points of Fayth as he himselfe grants to be Fundamentall To say those points are so strongly or plainly deliuer'd in Scripture c. as not to require some other infallible authority beside Scripture to support and make good our beleefe of them must needs argue a very strong preiudice to any man that duly considers how those controuersies are handled betwixt the Orthodox and them and how equally those Heretiques bandy texts with their Aduersaries both wayes that is to say as well vpon the offensiue as defensiue part as well by opposing the truth with the pretense and allegation of many Scripture-texts as by answering and euading what euer is by their Aduersaries argued out of Scripture for it or against them So as indeed a modest man to borrow a little of his Lordships own style may iustly wonder whither the Bishop would haue vs to runne for infallible certainty in those points if not to Generall Councill which yet he will by noe meanes allow vs to doe 5. But A. C. sayes the Bishop hath more questions to aske His next is how wee can according to ordinary course be infallibly assur'd that a Council erres in one and not in an other point when she equally defines both by one and the same authority to be diuine truths This may be thought a shrewd question too and the Relatour does a little discouer himselfe nettled by it in telling vs that A. C. turns Questionist here to disturb the business viz. which his Lordship had with Mr. Fisher and indeed the Church as much as he can Howeuer he answers the question by distinction thus If a Generall Councill erres sayes he eyther it erres in things absolutely necessary to Saluation or in things not necessary If in the first sort wee may be infallibly assur'd by the Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generalls Councills and the whole Church where it erres in one and not in an other point Jf in the latter sort 't is not
of Christ of Scripture and the whole Church in the falsely-defined Article that there is in the true and that the Scripture doth not equally giue eyther ground or power to define truth and errour what is it but to trifle tediously For wee neither say nor suppose any such thing So as the Bishop by his discourse here meerly labours to declare ignotunt per ignotius it beeing a thing wholy vnknow'n to vs yea impossible for vs to know infallibly and certainly when the Councill defines matters equally by and according to the Authorities of Scripture or the whole Church but by the Councils own Acte that is by her definition so express't and fram'd as there can be noe iust cause to doubt but that she defin'd or presum d herselfe to define both the one and the other point conformably to Scripture and the sense of the whole Church See now what great reason the Relatour had to obiect cunning and falsity to A. C. in this business Our Aduersarie here againe runnes from the marke A. C. in giuing the reason of his former demand speaks of examining only and not of iudging as his words shew If wee leaue this sayth he meaning the erring and not-erring of a Generall Councill in the points which the Bishop supposes she defines fallibly to be EXAMINE'D by euery priuate man the examination not beeing infallible will need to be examined by an other and that by an other Without end or euer coming to infallible certainty etc. The. Bishop answers that he hath 〈◊〉 vs the way how an erring Councill may be rectifyed and the peace of the Church eyther preseru'd or restor'd etc. viz. § 32. num 5. § 33. consid 7. num 4. of his Relation and wee haue likewise shew'n all his pretended wayes to be deuicus and not to lead to the end he aymes at But does he there or any where else shew how wee may be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one point does not also erre in the other in the case aboue mention'd which is the only thing his Aduersary here vrges him withall does he shew that A. Cs. obiected process in infinitum can be auoyded by any priuate and fallible examination of the Councils decrees or does he prescribe any other meanes of examining them but what is in his own opinion fallible at least though perhaps not priuate First he assignes Scripture for a way to examin a Councils definition but how can the examiner be sure the Scripture beares that sense in which he vnderstands it and not that in which the Councill vnderstands it Secondly he assignes the fowre first Generall Councils but how can he be sure that their Authority in defining is such as euery one ought to obey and not that of after-Councils Thirdly he assignes the Creeds as containing all things necessary and Fundamentall in the Fayth but does he meane all of them all the three Apostolicall Nicen Athanasian By his words it seemes he doth for he makes noe difference betwixt them and in reason 't is necessary he should seeing 't is euident the Apostles Creed alone will not ferue the turn it making no express mention of the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost nor of the Mystery of the Trinity Jncarnation etc. which yet wee confidently presume are all of them Fundamentall points in the Bishops Creed But then wee aske how come these latter Creeds the Nicen and Athanasian to be infallible seeing their Authours in the composing of them were fallible and subiect to errour in the Relatours opinion How can they be a ground of infallible certaintie to me if possibly in themselues they man be false which though it cannot be sayd or suspected of the Apostles nor by consequence of their Creed as it was compos'd and publish't by them yet wee make a Querie what infallible Authority assur'd the Bishop or assur's vs now that the Creed which wee haue at present and commonly call the Apostles Creed is really the same which the Apostles first composed or that wee haue it entire and vnchanged Tradition or the Church by the Relatours grounds must not be pretended here seeing they are both of them fallible with him and may deceiue vs. It followes then euen from his own principles that he neither hath nor can haue infallible certainty for his beleeuing the Creeds and as for the fowre first Generall Councils the Relatour must needs haue less pretense of reason to alledge them for a ground of infallible certainty in beleeuing seeing in all his booke he neuer acknowledges nor with consonancy to his own doctrine could acknowledge Councills to be infallible euen in Fundamentalls Where is then his infallible certaintie for that one Fayth necessary to Saluation 6. How farre the Relatour speakes truth when he sayes be giues noe way to any priuate man to be iudge of a Generall Councill lett any man iudge that considers his doctrine Liberty to examine euen the definitions of Generall Councils if they see iust cause he does expressly grant to priuate persons yea and some kinde of iudgement too he allowes them viz. that of discretion though not the other of power as he distinguishes But is there not a inake lurking in the grass here may wee not feare fome poyson vnder the gilded pill of his Lordships distinction This iudgement of discretion as he calls it especially if common experience and practice may expound it what does it signifie less then a power assum'd by euery priuate person not only to examin the validity of such reasons and grounds as confirme the defined article but constantly to deny both it and them if his priuate spirit or discretion tells him that he hath better reasons for the contrary or that the Councils definition is an errour Has not this always been the way and methode of Heretiques To what end doe they at any time put themselues vpon this scrutiny of examining the definitions of Generall Councills was it euer for any other reason but to see whether they could finde a flaw in them which when they persuaded themselues to haue once spy'd did they not presently in their own vayne hearts fall to despise the Councill which they suppos'd to erre as ignorant and ouerseen in their proper business did they not vsually thereupon pretend scruple presently and tenderness of conscience in lieu of necessary obedience and submission Did they not forthwith imagin themselues inlightened persons and soone after that oblig'd in conscience to impart their pretended lights to other people and vnder a pretense of informing weaker brethren draw them to the like discret examining of the Churches defin'd and generally receiu'd doctrine with themselues Js not this the know'n course of the humour Is not this Satans methode by degrees to vsher in publique and generall defections from the Authority both of Generall Councills and all the Lawfull Pastours and Gouernours of the Church See in effect the whole benefitt of the Bishops goodly deuise
cunning or malice of this speech or what does it containe but plaine reall truth and 〈◊〉 A. C. had prou'd through his whole discourse as wee likewise haue 〈◊〉 to doe in this or ours and the lady 〈◊〉 that the Protestant Church was not an Orthodox but 〈◊〉 Church that it protessed a salfe and corrupt Fayth so as a man could not communicate with it without making himselfe guilty of Heresie To 〈◊〉 this and yet goe to Church were euidently to halt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two opinions which in Religion is neuer lawfull 〈◊〉 doe It were to serue God and Baall too though neither of 〈◊〉 well Lastly it were to dissemble in that wherein it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man more then in all other matters to be sincere and vse 〈◊〉 doubling 〈◊〉 to walke with integrity and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 before God and the world For as the Scripture sayth 〈◊〉 2. 12. fearfull 〈◊〉 fearfull hearts and 〈◊〉 hands and to the 〈◊〉 that gods TWOE WAYES one in outward shew and protession and an other in the inward iudgement of conscience Is there now any such cunning or 〈◊〉 to admonish one of 〈◊〉 But the Relatour tells vs he neuer went about to proue that a Roman-Catholique beeing and 〈◊〉 such might against his conscience goe to Church Neither doth A. C. tell him that he euer 〈◊〉 about to proue it but yet in effect he did say it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he affirin'd that life lady beeing so persuaded as the was by Mr. Fishers report and as the Bishop himselfe 〈◊〉 did nor could 〈◊〉 her to haue been might more eastly 〈◊〉 to God for her coming to the English Protestant Church then for her going to the Roman which though he be pleas'd to 〈◊〉 with the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 yet that afters not the case at all to the 〈◊〉 who was otherwise persuaded of those things which he calls superstitions and errours nor doth it 〈◊〉 his assertion to plead as he doth that the Church of England is an 〈◊〉 Church and that he hath prou'd it so For still wee say the lady was otherwise 〈◊〉 she neither did nor could possibly thinke beeing thus persuaded in iudgement that the Church of England was an Orthodox Church or that the Bishop had sufficiently 〈◊〉 it to be such but rather 〈◊〉 the contrary How then is it possible for the Bishop to make good what he 〈◊〉 that though the lady were a Roman-Catholique yet she might more easily answer to God for coming to the Church of England then by 〈◊〉 English Church to communicate with Rome which is as much as to 〈◊〉 that she might more easily answer to God for coming to a Church wherein she verily beleeu'd Heresie and false doctrine was taught then for ioyning her selfe to a Church whose communion she verily beleeu'd was necessary to Saluation and wherein she was firmly persuaded that noe 〈◊〉 doctrine was taught by any publique allowance nor superstition practised for all this is necessarily implyed in beeing a Roman-Catholique Nay is it not manifestly contrary to his own professions here J say the same thing with A. C. viz. that 't is not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to serue and worship God because that were to halt on both sides to serue two masters to dissemble with God and the world and that noe man may outwardly profefs a Religion in conscience know'n to be false 〈◊〉 Scripture for it Rom. 10. 10. For with the heart man beleeueth to righteousness and with the mouth he consesseth to Saluation adding withall that noe man can confess a know'n false Religion to his saluation Whence I argue Jf a Roman-Catholique beeing and continuing such may not against his conscience goe to the Protestant Church if it be not lawfull for one that is resolued of the truth of the Roman Church to goe to the Church of England and in that manner to ferue and worship God if noe man ought to beleeue Religion after one sort and practice it after an other if it be sinne to dissemble with God and the world in such maine points of Religion as are in controuersie betwixt Catholiqucs and Protestants how could the lady beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique better answer to God for coming to the English Church and leauing the Roman then for continuing to communicate with the Church of Rome what sinne could the Bishop thinke she committed by communicating with the Roman Church if in her heart she were a Roman-Catholique and apprehended nothing as superstitious and vnlawfull that was allowed by that Church but rather pious and godly In this she did nothing contrary to her conscience but in going to the Protestant Church she did that which was cleerly against her conscience and by consequence sinned in doing it Againe admitt there were errours and superstitions in the Roman Church as the Bishop will needs suppose yet how will he proue the lady should be in any sort answerable for them vnless wee suppose also that she held them against her conscience or by holding and practising them opposed the know'n truth which to doe were contrary not only to all Christian charity but euen to the 〈◊〉 own maximes who confesses that none but God and a mans selfe can know how farre he opposes truth in that manner and § 37. num 1. tells A. C. thus you are the happier in your errour that you hold nothing against your conscience especially if you speake not against conscience while you say so But this noe man can know but your selfe For noe man knowes the thoughts of man but the spirit of man that is within him 1. Cor. 2. 11. if now errours in Religion be not sinne so long as the person that holds them opposes not the know'n truth or holds them not against conscience and that by the Bishops own confession also 't was not possible for him to know that the lady by embracing our Fayth and Church did any thing contrary to her conscience or oppos'd any truth she knew vpon what ground could he condemn her of sinne in what she did or say as in effect he doth that she could not so easily answer to God for her doing so as she might for going to his English-Protestant Church wherein euen by his own grounds beeing suppos'd to be a Roman-Catholique she did manifestly committ sinne in doing against her conscience which is always sin more or less in dissembling with God and the world in matters of so great moment in halting on both sides and in beleeuing Religion after one sort and practising it after an other 6. As for what concerns Catholique Authours who may possibly affirm it lawfull in some cases and with due limitations for Catholiques to goe to Protestant-Churches there doctrine is necessarily restrained vnto such countries and places in which going to Protestant-Churches is no distinctiue signe of Religion that is where it
doth not with any presumption signify that a man is a Protestant which falls out otherwise in England For here it hath always been held a conformity to and with the Protestant Religion professed in England to goe to Church and therfore not allowed by any of our Diuines who neuer giue way to the profession of false doctrine Now who is more guilty of dissimulation in Religion which the Bishop charges vpon some of our partie then the Bishop himselfe Doth he not § 35. punct 5. professedly allow possibility of Saluation to such Catholiques as doe both wittingly and knowingly associate themselues euen to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church and such as come euen neere to Idolatrie only because they beleeue the Creed and hold the Foundation what is this but to teach it lawfull at least no sinne excluding Saluation to ioyne ones selfe outwardly to a superstitious Church in a superstitious false and euen Idolatrous way of worshipping God contrary to ones knowledge and constience only for some temporall and worldly respects and consequently that men are not alwayes bound to seeme and appeare as they are but sometimes at least may haue liberty to weare a masque But certainly that which followes is a most strange and inconsequent Paradox if euer any was Jf the Religion of Protestants sayes the Bishop be a know'n false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too For their Religion meaning Catholiques and Protestants is the same sayth he nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants sett vp a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion and the difference is in certaine gross corruptions to the very endangering of Saluation which each side sayes the other is guilty of What is this but to heape absurdities one vpon an other which of all these propositions is maintainable in any true and proper sense The Religion of Catholiques and Protestants is the same The church of Rome and the Churches of Protestants sett not vp different Religions Christian Religion is the same both to Catholiques and Protestants they are of the same Religion and yet differ in it First are wee of the same Religion because wee agree in some few generall points why might he not as well haue sayd that Arians and all other Heretiques are of the same Religion with vs. by reason of their agreement with vs in some points of Fayth Secondly is Christian Religion J meane in the necessary soundness and integrity of it common both to Catholiques and Protestants what Protestant will affirm that it is and if it be not why would the Relatour trifle and abuse his Reader with such vaine and pernicious amphibologie as he here vseth in a business of so great importance Thirdly if wee Catholiques be of the same Religion with Protestants how can wee be sayd to differ from them in the same Religion as the Relatour here expressly sayes wee 〈◊〉 can I be of the same 〈◊〉 with my neighbour and yet differ from him in the same thing surely if our Religion and that of Protestants be the same wee are not to be sayd to differ but to agree in it vnless our aduersary and his party thinke they may vary the common sense and notion of words at their sole pleasure Beside those points about which vnder the notion of corruptions and errours the Bishop himselfe acknowledges that wee doe differ eyther they are parts of Chrstian Religion or they are not So they be parts of Christian Religion seeing by his own confession wee differ in them from Protestants how is Christian Religion in gross sayd to be common to vs both how is it the same to Catholiques and Protestants If they be not parts of Christian Religion how can wee by reason of them be sayd to differ from Protestants in Religion or in the same Christian Religion But what sayes the Bishop cannot I proue any superstition or errour to be in the Roman Church none at all A.C. it seems had told him so now truly I would to God from my heart this were true and that the Church of Rome were so happy and the Catholique Church thereby 〈◊〉 with truth and peace For J am confident such truth would soone eyther command peace or confound peace breakers But is there 〈◊〉 superstition in adoration of Images None in Inuocation of Saynts None in adoration of the Sacrament Js there 〈◊〉 errour in breaking Christs own Institution of the Sacrament by giuing it but in one kinde None about Purgatory and common prayer in an vnknowen tongue These and many more are in the Roman Religion and 't is noe hard worke to proue euery one of these to be errour or superstition or both Wee answer 't is a harder worke to proue them to be so then barely to affirme them to be so otherwise wee are confident his Lordship would haue been as liberall of his proofs in this kinde as he is of his 〈◊〉 for surely it more imported him to proue then to accuse But wee aske how will his friends and adherents after him proue them to be superstitions and errours By Scripture only who shall be iudge that the places alledged out of Scripture to that purpose beare the sense in which Protestants vnderstand rather then that in which Generall Councills vnderstood them when they defin'd the recited particulars as the present Roman Church beleeues and obserues them at this day when they haue done all they can the finall resolution of the business must according to Protestants be reduced to priuate iudgement which in such matters as these according to St. Austin is most insolent madness Nor doe J see vpon what ground the Relatour could be so confident that if the Roman Church were so happy as to teach nothing but truth to witt in Protestants sense that is to agree with Protestants in condemning the worship of Jmages Jnuocation of Saynts Adoration of the Sacrament Purgatory etc. it would so certainly eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers as he imagins What confusion I pray would it be for such people to disagree from a Church which proclaymes her owne erroneousness to all the world by beginning now to teach contrary not only to her selfe and her own former beleefe but contrary to the generall beleefe of all Christendome beside for many hundred of yeares would not the very alteration of doctrine which in this supposition the Roman Church must necessarily make render it euident to all men that both her selfe and the whole Church of Christ with her may erre and hath erred in points of greatest importance concerning the Fayth what peace-breakers would be confounded with the authority of a Church so apt to fall into errours and superstitions of such dangerous nature Truly for my part I am soe farre from thinking such an impossible case as the Bishop here putts would eyther command peace or confound peace-breakers that is the Authours or Abettours of priuate
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
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