of the Church in Fundamentals is most unreasonable For if a man ask you why you believe all those points which you hold for Fundamental for example the Resurrection of the Dead and life everlasting your answer will be because they are agreeable to the Doctrine and Tradition of Christ. And if you be asked how you know them to be so you will no doubt produce the Words Sentences and Works of Christ who taught the said Fundamental points But if he ask you a third time by what means you are assured that those Testimonies do make for you or are indeed the Words Sentences and Works of Christ you will not then have recourse to the Testimonies and Words themselves that is to the Bible but your final Answer will be you know them to be so and that they do make for you because the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much to you from Tradition and according to Tradition which is to prove Idem per Idem as much as we And if the said Separatist further enquiring about the precedent Authorities of Scriptures Councils Fathers Apostles and Christ himself while he lived on Earth shall ask why such Fundamentals are believed upon the sole Authority of the Present Church as the last Testimony Infallibly assuring that those Fundamental Points and all the precedent Confirmations of them are from God 't is evident the Bishops party has no other way to avoid a Circle but by answering they believe the Scriptures Councils c. by reason of the Convincing Motives of Credibility powerfully inducing and inclining the will to accept the Present Church as the Infallible Organ Ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us Which Infallibity must come from the Holy Ghost and be more then Humane or Moral and therefore must be truly 〈◊〉 and proceed from Gods most absolute and Divine Veracity in fulfilling his Promises as from its Radical Principle and from the Operation of the Holy Ghost as the immediate Cause preserving the Church from errour in all such points Thus we are easily got out of the Circle leaving the Bishop still tumbling himself in it For we do not finally rest on the Present Church as consisting of men subject to errour as his Lordship vainly suggests Nor do we rest upon the Motives of Credibility as the Formal Object of our Faith but as inducing us to rely on the said Church ordain'd by Divine Authority to teach us and is consequently Infallible Whereas the Bishop does but dance in a Round while enquiring for some Infallible warrant of the Word of God he thus concludes pag. 66. 'T is agreed on by me it can be nothing but the Word of God which must needs end in an apparent Circle as proving Idem per Idem And whereas immediately after he runs on prolixly in Distinguishing between Gods written and unwritten Word as though he would make the latter serve for Infallible proof of the former he never reflects that the said latter viz. Gods unwritten Word does necessarily stand in as much need of proof as the former Now as concerning the Authority of the Church of which the Motives of Credibility do ascertain us 't is not necessary that it be esteem'd or stiled absolutely Divine as the Bishop would have it yet as to this purpose and so far as concerns precise Infallibility or certain Connexion with Truth it is so truly supernatural and certain that in this respect it yields nothing to the Scripture it self I mean in respect of the precise Infallibility and absolute veracity of whatsoever it Declares and Testifies to be matter of Divine Faith though in many other respects we do not deny but the Authority of the Church is much inferiour to that of Scripture For first the Holy Scripture hath a larger extent of Truth because there not onely every reason but every word and tittle is matter of Faith at least implicitely and necessarily to be believ'd by all that know it to be a part of Scripture but in the Definitions of the Church neither the Arguments Reasons nor Words are absolutely speaking matters of Faith but onely the Thing Declared to be such Besides the Church has certain limits and can Define nothing but what was either Reveal'd before or hath such connexion with it as it may be Rationally and Logically deduced from it as appertaining to the Declaration and Defence of that which was before Revealed Moreover the Church hath the Receiving and Interpreting of Scripture for its End and consequently is in that respect inferiour to it Hence it is that Holy Scripture is per Excellentiam called the Word of God and Divine whereas the Testimony of the Church is onely said by Catholique Divines and in particular by A. C. IN SOME SORT or IN A MANNER Divine By which manner of speaking their intention is not to deny it to be equal even to Scripture it self in point of Certainty and Infallibility but onely to shew the Prerogatives of Scripture above the Definitions of the Church Adde that although we hold it necessary and therein agree with our Adversary that we are to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God upon DIVINE Authority yet standnig precisely in what was propounded by Mr. Fisher pag. 59. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture there will be no necessity of Defending the Churches Authority to be simply Divine For if it be but Infallible by the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost it must give such Assurance that whatever is Defined by it to be Scripture is most certainly Scripture that no Christian can doubt of it without Mortal Sin and shaking the Foundation of Christian Faith as hath been often Declared And the immediate reason why the Authority teaching Scripture to be the Word of God must be absolutely Infallible is because it is an Article of Christian Faith that all those Books which the Church has Defined for Canonical Scripture are the Word of God and seeing every Article of Faith must be Reveal'd or taught by Divine Authority this also must be so revealed and consequently no Authority less then Divine is sufficient to move us to believe it as an Article of Faith Now it is to be remembred and A. C. notes it pag. 49 50. that the Prime Authority for which we believe Scripture to be the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition or the unwritten Word of God which moves us as the formal Object of our Faith to believe that Scripture is the Written Word of God and the Definition of the Present Church assuring us Infallibly that there is such a Tradition applies this Article of our Faith unto us as it does all the rest whether the Voice or Definition of the Present Church in it self be absolutely Divine or no. Neither can there be shew'n any more difficulty in believing this as an Apostolical Tradition upon the Infallible Declaration of the Church then in believing any other Apostolical Tradition whatsoever upon the like Declaration His
according to Bellarmin 't is clear there are some Traditions which are not Gods unwritten word Nevertheless Bellarmin A. C. and all Catholiques agree against the Bishop that we believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is Gods Word and that there is no other Word of God to assure us of this point but the Tradition deliver'd to us by the Church and that such Tradition so delivered must be the unwritten Word of God I say such Tradition for that we admit in practise divers Ecclesiastical Traditions but neither in quality of Gods Word or Divine Traditions nor are any of them contrary to the Word of God whether written or unwritten 2. Now to return to his Lordship we grant there are many unwritten Words of God never deliver'd over to the Church for ought appears and that there are many Traditions of the Church which are not the unwritten word of God yet not contrary to it Wherefore his Lordship might herein have spared his labour since he proves but what we grant And if the Church hath received by Tradition some Words of Christ not written as well as written and hath delivered them by Tradition to her Children such written and unwritten Word of God cannot be contrary to one another For as the Church was Infallible in Defining what was written so is she also Infallible in Defining what was not written And so she can neither tradere non traditum as the Bishop urgeth that is make Tradition of that which was not deliver'd to her nor can she be unfaithful to God in not faithfully keeping the Depositum committed to her Trust. Neither can her Sons ever justly accuse her of the contrary as he insinuates they may but are bound to believe her Tradition because she being Infallible the Tradition she delivers can never be against the Word of their Father Now whereas the Bishop so confidently averrs that whereever Christ held his peace and that his words are not registred no man may dare without rashness to say they were THESE or THESE his Lordship must give me leave to tell him I must binde up his whole Assertion with this Proviso But according as the Church shall declare for it is her Authority whereon we depend to know when and in what Christ held his peace or whether his words some or none were registred as much as we depend on her to know whether Scripture be the Word of God or not This our proceeding does unqestionably free us from all shadow of rashness Neither doth St. Augustin say any thing in contradiction hereof For he onely speaks against determining of a mans own head what was spoken by Christ without ground or warrant from the Church In like manner we grant there were many unwritten Words of God which were never deliver'd over to the Church and therefore never esteem'd Tradition As there are many Traditions according to Bellarmin which we cannot own for Gods unwritten Word yet all such as the Church receives are conformable at least not contrary to his Word written or unwritten Such are the Ceremonies used in Baptisme of which the Relatour here speaketh For the party to be baptiz'd is Anointed to signifie that like a Wrestler he is to enter the list So St. Chrysostom Inungitur baptizandus more Athletarum qui stadium jam ingressuri sunt Spittle is applied to their Ears and Nostrils as St. Ambrose saith in Imitation of that our Saviour did Mark 7. who spitting touched the tongue and put his Fingers into the ears of the deaf and dumb man before he cured him The like he did John 9. 3. to the blinde man Wherefore these Ceremonies are conformable to Scripture Three Dippings were used in Baptisme to signifie the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or our Saviours remaining for three dayes in the Sepulcher as St. Gregory teacheth But this Ceremony is not us'd at all times nor in all places as being not absolutely commanded by the Church Wherefore Bellarmin who proveth the Ceremonies us'd in Baptisme to be Apostolical Traditions sayes not that every Tradition is Gods unwritten Word but that we must necessarily believe Scripture to be the Word of God which seeing we cannot believe for any written Word of his we must either admit some Word of God not written to ground this our Belief on which can be no other then Apostolical Tradition applied to us by the voice of the Church or we shall have no Divine Faith at all of this point because all Divine Faith must relie upon some Word of God The Bishop therefore hath no reason to go on with his Enquiry but must either fix here or he will finde no firm ground whereon to rest his foot as will appear both by the other wayes of Resolving Faith by him confuted and by his own which is every whit as confutable 3. For the second way of proving Scripture to be the Word of God to wit that it should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony lumine proprio by the sole resplendency of the light it hath in it self and by the witness it can so give to it self this the Relatour himself sufficiently confutes and we agree with him in the confutation However though the Bishop knew full well that we deny this Doctrine of knowing Scripture for Gods Word by its own light as much as himself or any of his party can do yet as it were to justifie the more my late accusation of his obtruding Falshoods to asperse us he will needs suppose another here viz. that the said Doctrine may well agree with our grounds in regard we hold if you will believe him That Tradition may be known for Gods Word by its own Light and consequently the like may be said of Scripture Which Inference indeed would be true were it not drawn from a false supposition as most certainly it is For all Catholicks hold it ridiculous to believe that either Scripture or Tradition is discernable for Gods Word by its own Lustre Nor is A. C. justly accusable in this point as the Bishop would make him by misconstruing his words to signifie that Tradition is discernable by its own Light to be the Word of God For A. C's words even as they are lamely cited by the Bishop do sufficiently vindicate him from having any such meaning as his Lordship would impose on him The cited words are these Tradition of the Church is of a company which by its own light shews it self to be Infallibly assisted c. where any man may easily see that the word which must properly relate to the immediate preceding word company even to make sense and not to the more remote word Tradition 'T is therefore clear that A. C's Intention is onely to affirm that the Church is known by her Motives of Credibility which ever accompany her and may very properly be called her own Light As concerning the Question propounded by Mr. Fisher to be answered by Dr.
them still to correspond with the Churches recommendation that is to be the word of God by the inbred light that is in them which is a very Artificiall Turn and needs an Ariadne's clew to pass through it For by this means he never enters into nay never comes near the main difficulty which is how one shall discover true Scripture and discern it clearly from false when the Church through errour delivers as well false as true to be the word of God as she may do if she be fallible Yea how shall it be certainly known whether de facto she now erres not in her delivery of it And seeing either Theirs or Ours must erre who is such a Lynceus that by the sole light of Scripture upon the recommendation of our respective Churches can discover which erres in the number and designation of Canonicall Books and which doth not Neither can it be gather'd by his discourse what they are to do who are unresolv'd which is the true Church and go about as most of our late Sectaries do to finde out the true Church by the Scriptures For seeing such have not the ushering and in-leading direction of the Church whereof the Bishop speaks they must either finde out the true Scriptures by their sole light or by the private Spirit or lastly by the light of naturall Reason which are all equally against our Adversary Should he say they are first to finde out the Church by the Motives of Credibility as we hold and then take Scripture from her inducing though fallible Authority I demand whether by those Motives in his opinion one may become sufficiently certain that the Congregation of Christians which is invested with the same is the true Church If one can then antecedently to Scripture one may infallibly believe this main Article of our Creed the Holy Catholique Church and consequently may have divine and saving Faith which being suppos'd sole Scripture will not be the foundation of our Faith as the Bishop every where contends If one cannot be sufficiently certain which is the true Church by those Motives as he must say then one may still doubt notwithstanding those Motives whether that be the true Church or no and consequently shall not have undoubtedly the Tradition of the true Church to induce him into the esteem and reading of Scripture and in this case Scripture must be known by its own light independently of the recommendation thereof from the Church The Instance he brings of Logick evinces not the truth of that for which it is brought since there is not any such Analogy between Logick and Church-Tradition as he labours to perswade his Reader For though Logick 't is true does help as he sayes to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a Truth viz. in Naturall Sciences wherewith it hath a kinde of connexion they all depending on Naturall Reason yet Church-Tradition cannot so qualifie the understanding as to enable it to see the Scripture to be Gods word but either makes a man believe and receive it for such upon its sole Authority or leaves him as much in the dark touching this point as it did finde him And for the Scriptures themselves they appear no more to be the word of God then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number or the distinction of colours to a blinde man Wherefore if the Church may erre in this point yea and hath err'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants because we hold many Books for Canonicall Scripture which they reject as Apocryphall we shall be so far from having Infallible Certainty that Scripture is the word of God that we shall have no certainty at all no nor so much light as to make a rationall man lean more to one part of the Contradiction then to the other neither at the first reading of Scripture nor afterwards The same may be urg'd in the interpretation of Scripture For Protestants hold that the Church may erre yea and hath err'd in this and not onely in small matters but in such which as they say have made us guilty of Superstition and Idolatry How then can one that doubts in any point of Faith resolve what he ought to believe For to speak modestly he findes as many and as learned men defending our Canon of Scripture against theirs as there are that defend their Canon against ours and as many standing for our Interpretation as for theirs It s impossible therefore to satisfie such a man without the Infallible Authority of the Church unless you will betake your self to the Private Spirit which in other respects would bring you into as great straits and make way for all Heretiques to allow or disallow what Scripture they please and interpret each place according to their own fancy pretending still and with as much reason as you can do the private Spirit 5. The Bishop here requires so many conditions viz. Grammar Logick Study Comparison of Scripture with it self and other writings Ordinary Grace a minde morally induc'd and reasonably perswaded by the voyce of the Church c. that he scarce makes any one capable to perceive this Scripture-light and consequently attain the formall object of Faith without which no true Faith can subsist or be found in any person save onely men of extraordinary parts and learning which is a very obscure passage indeed in this his Labyrinth much darker then our Saviour ever made the way to heaven for that is a way so plain and open that even fools cannot erre in it Isa. 35. 8. But how comes he now to require Grace which himself before rejected under the title of private Spirit as not pertinent to the present question Grace belonging onely to the subject that believes not to the object believed nor to the manner of proposing it to fit it for belief If the Scripture hath that light he speaks of it will be able to shew it self so clearly that every one may see it who will but seriously look upon it and consider it for if it be not so clear 't is a manifest sign that 't is not the light of certainty and consequently needs some other light to certifie us that Scripture is the word of God For seeing this certainty is not such as makes the thing revealed evident but onely certifies it self to be a Divine Revelation or the word of God if our Faith can rest hereupon it must make it self so certain that to whomsoever it is sufficiently propounded 't is no less sin to dissent from it then it was to dissent from the voyce of Christ or his Apostles in those to whom their Authority was sufficiently propounded Scripture therefore must either shew its Divine Authority as clearly by it self in his opinion as either Christ or his Apostles did theirs by their miracles and other signs of Credibility or it will not sufficiently manifest it self to be the word of God so far as to induce an obligation of
We grant they did so but what follows thence Ergo Scripture gives sufficient Divine proof to it self before it be believ'd infallibly to be Gods word This he was to inferre from it but how proves he this consequence which is the onely difficulty He doth it thus or no way at all The Fathers who precedently to the reading of Scripture believ'd infallibly that Scripture was the word of God prov'd by Scripture that it was such Ergo those who believe not infallibly that Scripture is Gods word may evince by Scripture that 't is the word of God Is not this a strong inference The difficulties occurring in this his Lordships Doctrine though slighted by him are as many as in that of the private Spirit the odium of which opinion he will never be able to avoid by desiring not to have it so much as nam'd in the state of the question For if the Church may erre yea and hath err'd according to Protestants in this point how can we have Infallible assurance either of the Prime Apostolical Tradition or of the Scripture it self We read esteem nay very highly reverence the Scripture yet see we not such convincing and infallible arguments as can give us assurance that those Books are infallibly the word of God which Protestants admit and no other Now when he sayes they resolve their Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolical and in the next number knows not how to be certain of that Tradition he dissolves what he resolv'd before and makes one part of his Resolution impossible Yet could he derive infallibly the Resolution of his Faith into Prime Apostolicall Tradition he would quite undoe what he said before that Scripture is the onely foundation of our Faith and not Tradition Thus he turns quite opposite wayes in his Labyrinth 7. Here therefore to averre without any further proof that there appears such light to Protestants and no others is in effect to challenge the Private Spirit to himself and his party which is something more then onely to allow it in general For if there be sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self why do not we see it as well as they seeing we read it as diligently and esteem it as highly as they do To say that all are blinde besides themselves or that all beside themselves have such perverse eyes such unsanctified understandings that they cannot see nor reach that light which Protestants most easily discern is very great presumption and the same may with as much reason be challeng'd by every Heretique for the admitting of what Books he pleaseth into the Canon and for giving whatsoever Glosses and Interpretations upon them as shall occurre to his fancy Nor can he upon any just ground make the Scripture to be like those Principles which are known of themselves so soon as the Terms are understood For such Principles are either evidently or probably known of themselves Of the former sort are these and others of like nature The whole is greater then a part thereof The same thing cannot be and not be at the sametime Of the latter sort is this and such others Every mother loves her childe from which 't is probably concluded that Katharine for example loves her childe by this argument Every mother loves her childe But Katharine is a mother Therefore Katharine loves her childe Now if we speak of principles of the first kinde the Relatour grants that Scripture is no such principle and 't is manifest in it self that it is not otherwise all men would agree which is the word of God as all agree in those Metaphysicall Principles above-named Neither is the Scripture a Principle of the second sort for of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the word of God then some other Book which is not truly such And though it had some probability that it were such yet were it not sufficient for we must have certainty and infallible certainty too as his Lordship grants But how that can be had without the infallible Authority of the Church I am confident neither he nor any of his party will ever be able to shew But if we betake our selves to the infallible Authority of the Church we may be as certainly and infallibly assured that Scripture is the word of God as those who heard the Apostles say that Scripture was Gods word For as the Signs and Motives which accompanied the Apostles prov'd them to be Infallible so the Motives of Credibility prove the True Church to be Infallible insomuch that we can no more erre in taking the Scripture from the Church then the Christians of the Primitive Church could erre in taking it from the Apostles And yet as their Faith was of things not seen both in regard of the Object which is not seen and of the Subject that sees onely in aenigmate enigmatically and darkly so is ours Will the Bishop then account the greatest part or rather all the Fathers either blinde or sensual men who saw no such light for some hundreds of years after Christ as Protestants with his Lordship here pretend they see in some Books of Scripture Were all those of the Roman Church for so many ages before blinde when you of the new-found Church first began who discovered no such Infallible and Divine light in Scripture as could evince it self to be the word of God to such as before believ'd it not to be so with Divine certainty Or will Protestants be content that we upon this their own principle account them all blinde and sensual men because they see not the light of many other Books which our Church recommends to them and us and which we believe to be Divine Scripture as a great part of the Ancient Fathers did before us What do any Sectaries in the world more then this either against us or them or one against another in asserting the Private Spirit For the Bishop and his party affirm themselves to be so enlightned that they can see and discover that in Scriptures which no other Christians beside themselves ever did or could even before they believe it infallibly to be Scripture 8. As for Bellarmin whom the Bishop will needs have to be 〈◊〉 and unable to stand upon his own ground for teaching lib. 3. De Ecclesia cap. 14. that 't is not altogether necessary to salvation to believe any Divine Scriptures I wonder he should make such Sallies and Skirmishes against that which in it self hath no shadow of difficulty it being as Bellarmin asserts it a truth so evident that the Bishop himself could not have deny'd it And if his Lordship had not too hastily run over Bellarmin he would have found that he distinguishes times as well as Gandavo cited in the same page For he saith that to believe there are any Divine Scriptures 't is not absolutely necessary to salvation for his omnino signifies no more because many were saved who lived before Divine Scriptures were written and since
this Divine Authority to that company of men or to the Holy Scriptures A. C. there discoursing of one who considers Church-Tradition as 't is deliver'd from a company of men assisted by the Holy Ghost speaks thus He would finde no difficulty in that respect to account the Authority of Church-Tradition to be Infallible and consequently not onely able to be an Introduction but also an Infallible motive or reason or at least a condition EX PARTE OBJECTI to make both it self and the Books of Scripture appear infallibly though obscurely to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith These words in them are clearly referr'd to Books of Scripture not to any company of men and those words sufficient to breed in us divine Faith have relation to the Authority of the Books of Scripture and not to those men For though he put before two Antecedents it self that is Church Tradition and Books of Scripture to both which in them may seem to have relation yet it is one thing to affirm that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine and Infallible Authority and another to affirm that those men so assisted have in them Divine and Infallible Authority as he accuses A. C. to have said For seeing that in Church-Tradition is included Apostolical Tradition in A. C's principles and that even according to our Adversary Apostolical Tradition is of Divine Authority it will be true to assert that Church-Tradition hath in it Divine Authority even though those men delivering it had not in them any absolute Divine but onely Infallible Authority Our Apology for A. C. being ended let us see how his Lordship goes about to prove Scripture to be Gods Word For the better understanding whereof 't is necessary to know what he is to prove He tells us that this his Method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the Ancient Church ever held c. Now his Lordships Method and manner of proving this includes two particulars The first that Church-Tradition is onely a humane moral and fallible inducement able onely to found a moral perswasion that Scripture is the Word of God but insufficient to conveigh infallibly to us the Apostolical Tradition of the Scriptures-being Gods word whence he concludes that before the reading of Scripture we cannot in vertue of that Apostolical Tradition thus conveighed to us believe with Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This is the first part of his Position The second is that Scripture by the internal light which is in it founds a Divine Faith that it is the Word of God when we frame a high Moral esteem of it and are induc'd to read it as a thing most likely to be Gods Word by the fallible Testimony of the Church While therefore he here undertakes to prove that his Method and Manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God is according to the use of the ancient Church let us have an eye to these two points and see whether his Authorities prove them or no. First then his Authorities must prove that before we read Scripture it self we have not Divine Faith but onely a Moral perswasion by Church-Tradition that it is the Word of God He cites first Vincentius Lirinensis lib. 1. cap. 1. who makes our Faith to be confirmed both by Scripture and Tradition of the Catholique Church The Faith he here speaks of is not any humane fallible perswasion but true Christian and Divine Faith for he opposes it to Heresie and calls it Sound Faith and his Faith Fidem suam the Faith of a Christian nay he sayes the Tradition of the Catholique Church must needs as truly munire fidem confirm Divine Faith as Scripture though Scripture does it in a more high and noble manner as being the immediate prime Revelation of God This then proves not his intent but the quite contrary Secondly Henricus à Gandavo sayes expresly Credunt per istam famam they believe by this Relation of Church-Tradition and this is such a Belief that Christ is said to enter their hearts by means of the Church Christus intrat per mulierem id est Ecclesiam But Christ cannot enter into a Soul by a meer humane fallible perswasion but by Divine Faith onely A Gandavo goes on Plus verbis Christi in Scripturis credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti ergo credit Ecclesiae He believes the Church but how can he believe without Faith A little after à Gandavo sayes Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis secundam subistâ Definitionibus Consuetudinibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Here 's prima secunda fides But yet both of them are properly and truly Faith And to the end all may understand he means no other but Supernatural and Divine Faith as to be given both to the Scriptures and the Church he addes a third manner of giving credit to others Post istas studiosis viris non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae After these two viz. Scriptures and Church-Definitions he sayes we believe also learned men but in a far other degree of assent from that which was given to the Scriptures and to the Church non sub poenâ perfidiae sed proterviae For the credit we give to them obliges not under pain of Infidelity or errour in Faith if we dissent from them but under pain of pertinacious pride in preferring our selves before them Seeing therfore he addes this limitation to the third kinde of belief onely he tacitely grants that if we contradict either Scripture or Church it is sub poenâ perfidiae under pain of Infidelity and not of Proterviousness onely Ergo he accounts the Definitions of the Church sufficient to assure us infallibly of Divine Truths otherwise it would not be Infidelity Errour in Faith or Heresie to contradict them Lastly à Gandavo is cited in these words Quod autem credimus posterioribus c. Here is credimus again and that with a Divine Faith in regard of the Church for he asserts presently that it is clear constat that the writings of the Scripture and other Articles of Faith preach'd by the former Pastours are not changed by their Successours and this does constare ex consensione concordi in 〈◊〉 omnium Succedentium 〈◊〉 ad tempor a nostra by the unanimous consent of all Succeeders even to our present times But sure a thing that is fallible uncertain and questionable cannot be said constare to be clear and unquestionable as he affirms the unanimous consent of succeeding ages to be Now the Bishop minces it in his Translation of the word constat turning it now it appears For a thing may be said to appear either clearly or obscurely He should therefore have rather translated it now it evidently appears had he not intended to make some pretty Turn by his Translation Hence is evinced that every
General Church as to make it erre generally in any one point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be mater of Faith which is contrary to divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith could be needful in the General Church but onely in particular Churches citing to this purpose Matth. 16. 18. Luc. 22. 32. John 14. 16. In answer to which the Bishop onely tells us how unwilling he is in this troublesome and quarrelling age to meddle with the erring of the Church in geveral he addes though the Church of England professeth that the Roman Church hath err'd even in matters of Faith yet of the erring of the Church in general she is modestly silent It matters not what she sayes or sayes not in this but our question is what she must say if she speak consequently either to her principles or practise For this is certain that many of those particular points of Faith which are rejected as errours by the English Protestant Church were held and taught for points of Faith by all the visible Churches in Christendom when this pretended Reformation began If therefore they be dangerous errours as the Bishop with his English Church professes they are by good consequence it must follow that the English Protestant Church holds that the whole Catholique Church hath erred dangerously But how unwillingly soever his Lordship seems to meddle with the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general yet at last he meddles with it and that very freely too for in effect he professes she may erre in any point of Faith whatsoever that is not simply necessary to all mens salvation Hear his own words in answer to A. C.'s assertion that the General Church could not erre in point of Faith If saith the Bishop he means no more then this viz. that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary but his 〈◊〉 fiction What is this but tacitely to grant that the whole Church of Christ may universally erre in any point of Faith not simply necessary to all mens Salvation Is not this great modesty towards the Church Nay a great satisfaction to all Christians who by this opinion must needs be left in a wood touching the knowledge of Points absolutely necessary to their salvation 3. But the Bishop suspects a dangerous consequence would be grounded upon this if it should be granted that the Church could not erre in any point of Divine Truth in general though by sundry consequences deduced from principles of Faith especially if she presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as he affirms Bellarmin to say she may I answer When God himself whose Wisdom is such that he cannot be deceiv'd and Verasity such that he cannot deceive speaks by his Organ the Holy Church that is by a General Council united with its Head the Vicar of Christ what danger is there of Errour As concerning Bellarmin who is falsly accus'd I wonder the Relatour should not observe a main difference between defining matters absolutely without Scripture and defining without express Scripture which is all that Bellarmin affirms For though the points defined be not expresly in Scriptures yet they may be there implicitly and rightly deduc'd from Scripture As for example no man reads the Doctrine of Christs Divinity as 't is declar'd by the Council of Nice and receiv'd for Catholique Faith even by Protestants themselves expresly in Scripture it is not there said in express terms that he is of the same substance with the Father or that he is God of God Light of Light and True God of True God c. and yet who doubts but the sense of this Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture and consequently that the Defining of this and other points of like nature by the Church was not done absolutely speaking without Scripture Besides who knows not that the Scriptures do expresly commend Traditions Wherefore if the Doctrine defin'd for matter of Faith be according to Tradition though it be not express'd in Scripture yet the Church does not define it without Scripture but according to Scripture following therein the Rule which is given her in Scripture But 't is further urged by the Bishop that A. C. grants the Church may be ignorant of some Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture or otherwise Therefore in that state of Ignorance she may both erre and teach her errour yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not nay perhaps teach that as matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth He addes to this that we have as large a promise for the Churches knowing all points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuit can produce for her not erring in any Thus the Bishop To which I answer The Argument were there any force in it would conclude as well against the Infallibility of the Apostles as of the present Catholique Church For doubtless the Apostles themselves were ignorant of many Divine Truths though the promise intimated by the Bishop of being taught all truth John 16. 13. was immediately directed to them and yet 't is granted by Protestants that the Apostles could not teach that to be Divine Truth which was not much less could they teach that as matter of Divine Truth which was contrary to it Ignorance therefore of some Divine Truths and for some time onely when they are not necessary to be known doth not inferre errour or possibility of erring in those Truths when they are necessary to be known The Apostles Matth. 10. 19. were charged not to be Sollicitous beforehand what they should answer to Kings and Presidents being brought before them because it should be given them in that hour what to speak In like manner with due proportion is it now given to their Successours what to answer that is what to define in matters of Faith when ever emergent occasions require it Secondly I say that an ignorant man is of himself subject to errour but taught and informed by a master that is infallible he may become infallible So that his Lordships Argument from bare ignorance concluding errour or an absolute possibility of erring is it self as erroneous as this A young Scholar of himself alone is ignorant and apt to mistake the signification of words Ergo he can do no otherwise then mistake while his Master stands by him and teaches him 4. But the Bishop at last bethinks himself and puts in a Proviso Provided alwayes saith he that this erring of the Church be not in any point simply Fundamentall for of such points even in his own judgement the whole Church cannot be ignorant nor erre in them To which proposition of his Lordship at present we shall return no other answer but this We desire to know what
whose definitions according to him must stand in force and bee obeyed by all particulars and consequently by the whole Church till euident scripture or demonstration bee brought against them If it hath then the whole Church cannot but cleerly perceiue the sayd errours of the former Council and know them to bee such and then what need of an After-Council what good can it doe shall it bee called to declare that which euery man sees already or to define that about which there is no controuersie nor can bee any so long as men continue in their right mindes and doe but consider what they say or thinke You will say a Council ought to bee called in this case to abrogate the law or definition of the precedent Council which erred I answer that supposes the definition of the sayd precedent Councill to bee still in force which is false first because it is vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue anything as matter of Fayth solely upon the authority of a Council that is lyable to errour both against scripture and demonstration Secondly because 't is more vnreasonable wee should bee bound to beleeue what wee cleerly see to bee errour and contrary both to scripture and demonstration and yet in no other case but this euen by the Bishops leaue can the whole Church call an other Council to reuerse the decrees of the former Thirdly because as it did not binde the whole Church from prosessing her dislike of the errours defin'd and calling an other to 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 so did it not oblige the particulars not to prosess outwardly a disbeleefe or doubt thereof Wherfore it is euident that his Lordship vpon this subiect says and vnsays the same and what hee seemes to attribute to Generall Councils in one proposition hee takes away in an other The Bishop pretends the Catholique opinion touching infallibility to bee yet more vnreasonable because wee make not only the definitions of a Generall Council but the sentence of the Pope also infallible For a Generall Councill sayth he may erre with vs if the Pope confirm it not So vpon the matter the infallibility wee contend for rests not in the representatiue Body the Council nor in the whole Body the Church but in the Head thereof the Pope of Rome and if this bee so to what end sayth he so much trouble for a Generall Council and wherein are wee neerer to vnity if the Pope confirm it not wee answer first the Bishop stumbles at the thresholde a Generall Council is not held by vs to bee infallible at all vnless it inuolue the Pope or his confirmation and by consequence here are not two distinct infallibilityes for our aduersary to compare together viz. of the Council and the Pope but One infallibility only to witt of the Pope presiding in and confirming the votes of a Generall Council or if you will a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope Secondly wee confess there are two opinions taught in 〈◊〉 schcoles concerning the Popes infallibility The first and the more con men is that the Pope euen without a Generall Council is infallible in his definitions of Fayth when he teaches the whole Church The second is that he is not infallible in his definitions faue only when he defines in and with a Generall Council Now had the Bishop as he 〈◊〉 to haue done taken due notice of this second opinion and proceeded in the point accordingly these Doctours would quickly haue satissy'd his obiection and told him that as the Ccuncil is not infallible without the Pope so neither is the Pope infallible without the Ccuncil and that infallibility proceeds ioyntly 〈◊〉 both and is the prerogatiue of both not separately consider'd but as vnited and making vp the compleate representatiue of the Church But the Bishop sound it more for his turn to pass by this opinion in deep silence framing his argument wholy against the other as if it were the opinion of all Catholique Doctours But of this wee haue sayd enough hauing prosesled at the begining that wee intended not to meddle much with any matters of priuate dispute or opinion Wherfore I shall briefly pass cuer what his Lordship hath further touching this matter and only correct some 〈◊〉 of his 7. His first is that if the Pope bee infallible then the Council is called but only in 〈◊〉 to heare the Pope giue his sentence in more state I answer 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 hath the same force against the Council called in the 〈◊〉 time viz. that 't was con only to heare St. Peter 〈◊〉 his sentence in more state in regard it will not bee deny'd but St. Peters definition alone had been as infallible and as much binding as that of the whole Council Secondly I answer more directly this followes not with any the least shadow of consequence in their opinion who hold the Pope to bee fallible out of a Generall Council as is manifest and in the other opinion 't is easily answer'd For seeing the Pope when euer he defines matters of Fayth ought to proceed maturely and vse all meanes morally 〈◊〉 to find out the truth and seeing that the deliberations and notes of a Generall Council are the most proper and efficacious in that kinde it followes euidently enough to all vnpreiudic'd and impartiall iudgements that the Council is called really to help and 〈◊〉 the Pope in that most important affaire and which equally concerns the whole Church also that the aduice of the Councill in such cases is not only a profitable and fitt but speaking in a morall sense a Necessary medium to this Holyness wherby to make a full inspection into the matters he is to define Nor doth this any way infringe what Doctor Stapleton here alledged by the Bishop affirms according to his own principles viz. that the Pope acquires no new power or authority or certainty of iudgement by beeing ioyned to the Council For though he acquires no new power authority or certainty of iudgement which in this Doctours opinion he hath whether he be with or without a Councill yet he may acquire some thing which doth connaturally worke and conduce to the due exercise of that power authority and certainty of iudgement to witt counsell aduice and conuenient information touching the matters in Controuersie The like is to be sayd to that of Cardinal Bellarmin when he asserts that the firmeness of a Council to which the Relatour adds of his own Infallibity comes from the Pope only For he intends to shew how the matter passes in regard of vs who are assured no other way of the firmeness of the Councils definition then by the Popes confirmation alone You will obiect that if the Pope be infallible without the Council and the Council subiect to errour without the Pope it must needs follow that all the infallibility of Generall Councils proceeds from the Pope only not partly from the Pope and partly from the Council I answer the Assertours of that opinion
requisite in his opinion wee should haue any infallible assurance at all viz. whether the Councill errs or errs not in such points or in which of them she does and in which she does not erre Where first good Reader obserue what J hinted aboue the Bishop doth not deny but a Generall Councill may erre in things absolutely necessary to Saluation seeing he here prescribes thee a rule how to know infallibly when such a Councill does erre in such matters and when not to witt Scripture the Creeds the fowre first Generall Councils and consent of the whole Church But I aske why doth he referre vs to the fowre first Generall Councils and the whole Church to know when a Generall Councill erres in things necessary to Saluation and when not Fyther the fowre first Generall Councills were infallible in their definitions or no if infallible why are not other Councills also infallible seeing Christ hath not made promise of infallibility to one Generall Councill more then to an other Jf not infallible how can J by their authority be infallibly assur'd that an after-Generall Councill hath err'd or doth erre in some things absolutely necessary to Saluation Againe what does he meane by the whole Church by whose authority he pretends wee may be infallibly sure when a Generall Councill erreth in things absolutely necessary If all particular persons that hold the Fundamentalls where shall I finde them what meanes can I possibly vse to be certainly assur'd of their testimony If only the generality of all particular Churches they are noe more the Whole Church then a Generall Councill is seeing all beleeuers make vp the true Church of Christ. Neither can I by the consent of the Whole Church only be infallibly assur'd whether some after-Councills definition be erroneous in matters Fundamentall For seeing the essence of the Church according to the Bishop consists in the beleefe of such points as he terms Fundamentall vnless J know before-hand all Fundamentalls how can I know what particular Churches or Assemblyes of Christians doe constitute the Whole Church How can J be certaine but that some particular Church whose iudgement J refuse may by beleeuing the point controuerted as truly Fundamentall be a part of the whole Church and some others whose testimony J embrace may by not-beleeuing the sayd point be no part of the Church whose consent J seeke I demand secondly how does this rule of the Bishop hold good The Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councills and the whole Church shall infallibly assure mee when after-Councills erre in defining Fundament all points Does the Scripture Creeds fowre first Generall Councils etc. particularly tell vs or giue vs any certaine and infallible rule by which wee may know when it is Fundamentall errour to contradict what they teach and when it is not or to know what and how much of the doctrine they containe is absolutely necessary to Saluation and all the rest only expedient and profitable Jf they doe wee request some of the Relatours friends to be so charitable to vs as to shew vs that rule or direct vs where to finde it for as yet wee Catholiques neuer heard of such a thing If they doe not how is it possible for vs to be infallibly assured by them when a posteriour Councill erres in one point and not in an other when it defines both of them for diuine truth by one and the same authority equally The Relatours answer therfore as to the first part of his disiunctiue which concerns Generall Councills erring in points Fundamentall is so manifestly vnsatisfactory that it may be iustly wonder'd how he could thinke it should giue satisfaction to that Querie of A. C. And as to what he affirm's in the latter part viz. that 't is not requisite to haue infallible assurance in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation our answer is wee haue fully prou'd the contrary Wee only demand here whether the determinate beleefe that such and such books for example the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. Iames St. Iude etc. are diuine Scripture or the word of God be in the list of the Bishops absolutely-necessaryes or not He could not haue sayd they are without condemning a very great part of Orthodox Christians for three or fowre hundred years after Christ if St. Hierome and others say true and yet 't is certaine the Relatour does not only assert but earnestly endeauour to proue that wee ought to haue insallible assurance of this point Seeing therfore the Bishop pretends infallibly to beleeue that these books of Scripture are the true word of God and that he cannot beleeue this but for the Authority of the Church some ages after the Apostles eyther he must grant that our infallible beleefe may be grounded vpon an authority meerly fallible which is absurd and often denyed by himselfe or that the Church is infallible euen in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation His next period containes only a long and captious discourse touching the words one and the same authority vsed by A. C. in framing his demand to the Bishop it beeing euident to any man not vnwilling to see that when his Aduersary supposed a Council according to the Relatours opinion to define both truth and errour by one and the same authority equally he mean't precisely the authority of the Councill abstracting from any other whether of Scripture Tradition consent of Fathers or the like It is cleere I say from the subiect aboute which A. C. treahs that his meaning could be no other then this viz. that the sayd Councill in the supposed case intended to define and did actually define both the pretended falle article and the true one with sull conciliary authority and did as much exact the infallible beleefe of that as this by vertue of the power they had from Christ to determine such matters and the obligation that is vpon Christians to receiue and submitt to their determinations in such cases vnder paine of Anathema Now lett our Aduersaries if they can shew vs how 't is possible to be infallibly assur'd that a Councill erring in one doth not erre in the other point when she defines both by the same Authority in this sense that is by her own Authority precisely for example how a man may be infallibly assur'd that a Generall Councill err'd not in defining that there is Originall sinne as well as in defining that there is a Purgatory as well in defining that the Apocalipse is diuine Scripture as that the Books of Machabees are and once againe wee aske them in case a Generall Council defines any point of doctrine verily iudging it to be agreeable to Scripture how can our Aduersaries be infallibly sure that it is not so or that their contrary interpretation is better then that of so great and learned an Assembly of the Prelats of the Church To tell vs therfore and dispute the matter soe largily as he doth that there is not the same Authority
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
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
Infallible Assent but if the Church be not Infallible in her Definitions of Superstructures no Superstructure can be believed with an In fallible Assent Ergo if the Church be fallible in her Definition of Superstructures no Superstructure can be a Point of Faith The Major is granted both by his Lordship and those Protestants who coin this objection The Minor is already proved in the former Argument For there is no means left to believe any point with an Infallible Assent if the Authority of the Church defining those points to be believed be fallible Neither can he avoid the force of this Argument by replying that Scripture believed to be the word of God by the introducing authority of the Church and its own light may be a formal object and reason of an infallible Assent to such superstructures as are expressed in it though the authority of the Church be fallible in defining them For first we will shew hereafter that we can have no infallible certainty that any canon of Scripture is the word of God but onely by the authority of the Catholique Church declaring it infallibly to us Secondly there will be no infallible means to know what Superstructures are contained sufficiently in Scripture what not if the Church can erre in that declaration Thirdly seeing as we shall prove hereafter many superstructures are not expresly and some not at all contained in Scripture how can we believe them with an infallible assent if the Church can erre in the definition of them And this shall serve for the present to remove this objection as Implicatory and Chymerical in it self when we meet with it hereafter it shall be further satisfied As concerning those things which the Church either doth or can define which the Relatour hints at pag. 27. whether they must be in Scripture at least implicitely or whether they may be out of Scripture though not so entirely as perchance he would inferre them to be but deduced from thence or making for the clearer explication of that which is contained in Scripture concerning this I say Catholique Divines agree not and it concerns not our present purpose to dispute Neither will I discourse much of the Difference between the Church in general and a General Council The first containing the Head and all the Members of the Church the latter onely the Head and principal Members thereof although the latter represent the former I say I will not discourse much about this Difference because without a further distinction which the Bishop would have it is as well known what we mean when we say The Church cannot erre in defining matters of Faith as when we say A General Council cannot erre in defining them For no man will conceive that we put this power of Defining in the common people which were nothing else but to bring all things to confusion but we place it in the Prelates and Pastours of the Church assembled together when they may write in Capital Letters what was written by the Primitive Church as we read in Holy Writt IT HATH SEEMED GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US Acts 15. 28. Now to come a little closer to the point we finde his Lordship to say pag. 28. That although he should grant that a General Council cannot erre yet this cannot down with him that all points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations But this Difficulty of his would not have risen had he considered the distinction of Fundamental and not-Fundamental which Catholique Divines admit in the material objects of Faith For in the manner before declared we grant some are prime and Native Principles others Deductions and Superstructures But this we stand to that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental reductivè that is points whereto when we know them to be defined we cannot deny our Assent by denying or doubting of them without destroying the formal object of Faith by taking away all Authority from the Church whereby we may be Infallibly assured what God has revealed to be believed by Christians 7. For answer to the rest in that page you will finde enough in my discourse a little before of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals let us now examine those words of his pag. 29. That which is FUNDAMENTAL in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be Fundamental after the Church hath Defined it it was Fundamental before the Definition All this may be granted if rightly understood For whatsoever is to be believed as a matter of Faith by the Definition of the Church was believed before though not expresly Wherefore Implicite Faith of all may be said to be Fundamental but Explicite Faith of that which is onely now defined is not required before the Definition Therefore the Christian to use the Bishops phrase hath whereon to rest as not being bound to believe more expresly then is declared by the Church to be revealed from God Therefore the Church makes not the Implicite Faith Fundamental but the Explicite Faith it maketh Fundamental When I say Implicite I mean not a point so implicitely believed that none before might have Explicite belief of it but such points as were not generally known to be certainly revealed though they might be known to some of greater learning and knowledge which by the Churches Definition are Authentically attested to have been revealed from God after which Declaration there arises an obligation to all who know they are defined as such by the Church to believe them Explicitely Now what we have here said may be granted to the Church without giving her power to make new Articles of Faith 8. For to this it is sufficient that she declares those which were so before in themselves though not so well known to be such as alwayes to oblige them to believe them explicitely who are bound to it when they know them to be revealed from God by the Churches Definition And by this time I hope you finde that Bellarmin speakes truth and wrongs not the Catholique Church For in those places he onely sayes that the Definitions of the Church give no strength or greater certainty to the revelation of God that being wholly impossible to be done for nothing can be more certain then is the revelation of God who is Truth it self But withal he teaches even in the places cited that the Definitions of the Church make it known to us that such and such a point is an object of Divine Faith and that so certainly that she cannot erre in it which is all we either say or need to say For though the Church makes the Divine revelation no certainer then it is in it self yet she makes us more certain that such a point is a Divine revelation As a faithful and honest Servant telling one that his Master being a man of great and entire credit said such a thing gives no strength to his
as for that expression of Scotus Declaravit the Church hath declared c. out of which the Bishop would infer that Scotus makes for his party Because every thing which belongs to the exposition or Declaration of another INTUS EST is not another contrary thing but is contained within the Bewels or Nature of that which is interpreted from which if the Declaration depart it is faulty and erroneous because in stead of Dealaring it it gives another and contrary sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Council either that which she declares was INTV'S or EXTRA viz. In the nature and verity of the thing or out of it If it were EXTRA without the nature of the Thing Declared then the Declaration of the Thing is false and so far from being Fundamental in the Faith If it were INTVS within the compass and nature of the thing though not open and apparent to every eye then the Declaration is true but not otherwise Fundamental then the thing is which is Declared For that which is INTVS cannot be larger and deeper then that in which it is If it were it could not be INTVS Therefore nothing is simply Fundamental because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church Declares Thus far his Lordship I answer therefore to this Argument That his expression is learnedly solid and good and that the Declaration of the Church gives not the thing Declared this extrà viz. that is altered from intùs or its internal being which it had before it was declared Wherefore in this sense Those which were not intùs of themselves prime Articles of our Faith before the Declaration change not their nature nor do they become prime Articles by their Declaration and in this manner even afterwards they have no extraneous mutation to become Fundamental But this doth not hinder them from becoming Fundamental in that sense in which we dispute that is such as cannot be denyed or doubted of under pain of damnation although they were not thus Fundamental before the Declaration as not being so clearly proposed to us as that we were bound to believe them Neither does this take away any thing from their intùs or that being which they had of themselves but onely gives a certainty of their being so and declares that they ought to be so quoad nos as well as quoad se and internally And it is no evasion but a solid distinction That the Declaration of the Church varies not the thing in it self but quoad nos in its respect to us For though he sayes true in this sense that no respect to us can vary the Foundation quoad rem attestatam that is make those to be prime Articles which are not such in themselves yet it can binde us not onely to peace and external obedience as he would have it but also oblige us not so much as internally to doubt or deny any Articles after they are declared by the Church to be of Faith which is to be Fundamental in the sense we now Dispute that is necessary to Salvation to be believed Neither can the Bishop inferre that if the Church can make any thing to be in this sense Fundamental in the Faith that was not then it can take away something from the Foundation and make it to be declared not to be Fundamental This I say he cannot inferre because to do this were to define a Thing not to be of Faith which was before defined to be of Faith which were to make the Church subject to errour For as the Church cannot Define any thing to be of Faith which she had Defined before not to be of Faith so can she not Define any thing not to be of Faith which she had defined before to be of Faith But yet she can define something to be of Faith which she had not Defined before to be so because she never before had defined any thing about it For in this Third case which is ours there is no contradicting of her self as in the Two former Wherefore Vincentius Lirinensis sayes very well as the Relator cites him pag. 32. The power of adding any thing contrary or detracting any thing necessary are alike forbidden Now to all this discourse A. C. said nothing because perchance it was not in that Disputation urged against him But I having found it in his Lordships Book have said something and that which I hope will abundantly satisfie any judicious Reader It remains now that we return to Mr. Fisher who as his Lordship sayes endeavoured to prove the Doctrine we have delivered out of St. Augustin who speaks thus Fundata res est In aliis questionibus non diligentèr digestis nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate firmatis ferendus est Disputator errans ibi ferendus error non tamen progredi debet ut etiam Fundamentum ipsum Eclesiae quatere moliatur In english thus This is a thing founded An erring Disputant is to be born with in other questions not diligently digested nor yet made firm by full Authority of the Church There errour is to be born with But it ought not to proceed so far that it should labour to shake the very Foundation of the Church By these words of St. Augustin it appears that though a man may be admitted to dispute freely in other things yet he is not to be born with when he goes so far as to question Doctrine digested and confirmed by the full Authority of the Church for this is to shake the foundation Now all things that are defined by the Church are both digested and confirmed by the Churches full Authority Therefore to dispute against such points is to shake the very foundation of the Church and by consequence all such things are Fundamental according to St. Augustin Let us now consider what his Lordship brings to weaken this Argument First he sayes this Doctor St. Augustine speaks of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not of a Definition of the Church But here the Relatour commits the same offence against St. Augustin for which he blamed Mr. Fisher that is he wrongs both the Saint and the Place For I appeal to any indifferent judge whether St. Augustin speaks any thing here of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture and not rather against those who impugne the Doctrine of the Church whether it be expresly in Scripture or not His words are these in the same Sermon Detrahunt nobis ferimus Canoni Detrahunt veritati non detrahant Ecclesiae Sanctae pro remissione peccati originalis parvulorum quotidiè labor anti non contradicant They detract from us sayes he we suffer it They detract from the Canon too let them not detract from the Truth Let them not contradict Holy Church daily labouring for the remission of the original sinne of little Children Where you see that he will endure any thing spoken against his Person or Authority but
Bishop frames a notable Turn in his Labyrinth winding in the words of St. Augustin quite contrary to St. Augustins meaning to make them speak for himself For having affirmed in his own Text as we heard but now that plain Scripture with evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling Disputant may not be allowed just over against these words in his own Margent at Litera F. he puts these Latin words of St. Augustin Quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholicâ teneor In English thus Which truly if it be shewed so clear that there can be no doubt of it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholique Church Now by citing these words and no more but leaving out those immediately precedent he leaves it also doubtful to what the word quae which in St. Augustins Text is to be referred but yet by putting plain Scripture c. in his own Text right over against it he supposed doubtless his Reader would not judge that Quae could be referred to any thing else save Scripture and that which follows it in his Text and consequently would conclude that St. Augustin and he were of the same opinion viz. that plain Scripture evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument is to be preferred before all the Definitions of the Church Whereas St. Augustin in the place cited hath nothing at all either of plain Scripture or evident sense or a full Demonstrative Argument but addressing his speech to the Manichaeans he writes th us Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat sola personat VERITATIS POLLICITATIO and then follow the words cited by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit c. But with you saith St. Augustin to the abovesaid Heretiques who have nothing at all of those Things which may invite and hold me onely a promise of Truth makes a noise WHICH Truth if it be Demonstrated to be so clear as it cannot be called in doubt is to be preserred c. where it is plain Quae which is relative onely to Truth and not to Scripture or any thing else Nay it is Relative onely to that Truth in this place which the Manichees bragg'd of and promised which was so far from being plain Scripture c. that it was no other then what was contained in that Epistle of Manichaeus intituled Fundamentum which St. Augustin at that present confuted as appears by the following words Neither indeed could St. Augustin be understood to speak of plain Scripture in this place as though that were to be preferred before the Definition of the Catholique Church or a General Council and that it were a possible case for the Definitions of the Catholique Church or of General Councils to be contrary to plain Scripture understanding by plain Scripture Scripture truly sensed and interpreted for he Disputes ex professo against that supposition or perswasion and proves that no clear place of Scripture can be produc'd against the common received Doctrine of the Church from this grand inconvenience necessarily following upon it viz. That if such a Thing could happen that the Doctrine of the Catholique Church could be contrary to Scripture or the Gospel he should not be able to believe rationally and infallibly either the one or the other Not the Scriptures because he receives them onely upon the Authority of the Church nor the Church whose Authority is infringed by the Plain Scripture which is supposed to be brought against her Though therefore St. Augustin had said in express terms as 't is manifest he doth not that clear Scripture is to be preferred before all things which he had named before yet he is so far from supposing as the Bishop here supposes that evident Scripture can be contrary to the Churches received Doctrines that he professedly teaches and proves the contrary and uses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. onely ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Si Angelus de caelo c. If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed Saint Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from Heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel yet so he speaks And the same may be said in answer to the evident Reason or full Demonstrative Argument which the Bishop talks of for neither can that truly and properly speaking be any more brought against the Churches Authority and Doctrine then plain Scripture The Relatours supposition then has no more ground in St. Augustin then if one should prove that an Angel from Heaven can preach against the doctrine of the Apostles because St. Paul sayes Though an Angel from Heaven should denounce unto you otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed Now if the Church may be an erring Definer I would gladly know why an erring Disputer may not oppugne it so long at least as he is so farre from seeing his errour that he is fully perswaded he erres not and that the Church erres in Defining against him as those Heretiques were perswaded against whom St. Augustin disputes in this place His second winding is that he labours to prove from the fore-cited words of St. Augustin that plain Scripture is to be preferred before the Definitions of the Church and may convince the Definition of the Council if it be ill founded Now St. Augustin speaks as little of the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental according to the matter they contain in this sentence as he doth of Scripture For by those words Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor there is not once named the Definitions of the Church in matters not Fundamental or any comparison or contrariety mentioned betwixt them For the question was not whether St. Augustin might reject some of the Churches Definitions which by plain Scripture he found to be erroneous in matters of small moment and yet remain still a member of the Church submitting to her in all Fundamental points but the question was this whether St. Augustin were to forsake the Catholique Church and become a profest enemy of her as he once had been in adhering to Manichaeus his Doctrine if plain and undenyable Truth should be brought against the Church and for Manichaeus So that the Truth mentioned by him in this place was to have been so Fundamental that it had been able utterly to overthrow the Church and establish Manichaeisme if any such Truth could have been undoubtedly demonstrated If therefore this Text could prove any thing it must prove that the whole visible Church can erre Fundamentally and so become no Church which is clearly against his Lordship
English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christs Descending into Hell But the Bishop will needs have the English Church resolved in this point I will not much trouble my self about it as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense or ours But Mr. Fisher grounded his speech upon those words of Mr. Rogers viz. In the interpretation of this Article there is not that consent that were to be wished Thus he Whereupon the Relatour also confeffeth That some have been too busie in Crucifying this Article As for Catholiques upon whom the Bishop would lay the same charge they all believe it as it lyes in the Creed and is proposed by the Church But it being not defined by the Church whether we have this Article from Tradition onely or also from Scripture I hope Divines may be permitted to hold different opinions about it without prejudice to the Unity or Integrity of Faith Durand may also be suffered to teach though somewhat contrary to the common opinion that the Soul of Christ in the time of his death did not go down into Hell really but virtually and by effects onely The like may be said of that other question whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in its Essence into the Lower Pit and place of the Damned or really onely into that place or Region of Hell which is called Limbus Patrum but Virtually from thence into the Lower Hell Our Adversaries may know that all Catholique Divines agree Durand excepted that Christ our Saviour in his Blessed Soul did really descend into Hell our School Disputes and Differences being into what part of Hell he really descended as likewise touching the manner of exhibiting his Divine Presence amongst the Dead and of the measure of its effects to wit of Consolation and Deliverance towards the Good or of Terrour Confusion and Punishment towards the Bad. And though they should differ in their opinions more then they do in this or any other question concerning Religion yet they all submitting their judgements as they do to the Censure and Determination of the Church when ever she thinks fit to interpose her Authority and define the matter all these seeming Tempests of Controversie amongst us will end in a quiet calme I could wish his Lordship had been in his time and that his Followers would now be of the same Temper for then all Disputes and Differences in matters of Faith would cease yet School-Divinity remain entire Wherefore to what the Bishop asserts That the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without further Dispute and in that sense which the Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in I answer all Catholiques profess to do the same so that the question can onely be touching the sense of the words as they lye in the Creed and the sense of the Primitive Church concerning them Now as for Stapletons affirming That the Scripture is silent in the point of Christs descending into Hell and in mentioning that there is a Catholique and Apostolique Church suppose we should grant that Christs Descent into Hell were not exprest in Scripture yet his Lordships party will not deny it to be sufficient that it is in the Creed And for the other point Stapleton was not so ignorant as to think there was no mention of the Church of Christ in Scripture for every ordinary Scholar knows that place of Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Nor that she was to be even by the testimony of Scripture both Catholique and Apostolical for how often and invincibly doth this most worthy Doctor prove both these points from Scripture in several parts of his works wherefore in the place alledged 't is evident his meaning was onely to deny that the words Catholique and Apostolique were expresly in Scripture though they be there in sense and effect as I presume our Opponents themselves will not be so hardy as to deny So that his Lordships facetious discourse here upon Stapleton and some Texts of Scripture may rather be taken for a jeast to please his own humour then for an Argument against us This Incidental quarrel with Stapleton being over the Bishop fiercely again falls to expostulate both with Mr. Fisher and A. C. for citing Mr. Rogers Authority for the Doctrine of the Church of England But with how little reason it appears by the very Title of Mr. Rogers's Book which as the Bishop himself acknowledges runs thus The Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England and for this gives him a jerk that possibly he might think a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title Truly I conceive it of small importance to bestow much time upon this Subject either in relation to the Bishops Disagreement with Master Rogers or the pretended variance between Vega and Soto touching mens certain assurance of Justification or Salvation which jarre is denyed by Bellarmin who cites both of them for the Common opinion that a man cannot be certain of his Justification or Salvation by certainty of Faith without an especial Revelation 5. However I cannot but observe that though Catharinus disagrees from Bellarmin and the Common opinion concerning the foresaid point as the Bishop objects yet he dissents not formally from the Decree and Doctrine of the Church whose sense he professeth to follow submitting himself in that and all other his opinions to her Censure So that though I grant him to have fallen into an errour yet he is not accusable of Heresie as not being obstinate in his mistake 6. The Bishop is our good friend in saying that all Protestants he might have added all other profest enemies of the Catholique Church do agree with the Church of England in the main exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions For by their agreeing in this but in little or nothing else they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church which is one and onely one by unity of Doctrine from whence they must needs be judged to depart by reason of their Divisions Now that our Authours disagree not in Faith we have shewed a little before The Relatour doth much perplex himself about the Catholique Churches pronouncing Anathema But this is not done so easily as he imagined For this Anathema falls onely upon such as obstinately oppose the Catholique Church And if in such cases it should not be pronounced we should be so far from being in peace and quietness that all would be brought to confusion as appears by the concord we finde in our own Church and those sad Dissentions and Disorders most apparent in theirs Wherefore I believe that reason will rather ascribe the troubles of Christendome to the freedom which others take and give in matters of Faith by permitting every one to believe what he
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
that God spake them which we could never elevate our hearts to believe with Divine Faith but by the Testimony of Gods Church which gives us a full assurance of his Revelation Thus then the Church being supernaturally Infallible in all her Definitions of Faith will be a sufficient ground to ascertain us of those Holy writings which God by unwritten Tradition revealed to the Church in time of the Apostles to be his written word For if her Definition herein be absolutely infallible then what she defines as reveal'd from God to be his written word is undoubtedly such insomuch that Christians being irrefregably assured thereof by the Churches Infallible declaration believe this Article with Divine Faith because revealed from God who cannot deceive them that Revelation being the onely formal object into which they resolve their Faith and the Churches Assurance the ground to perswade them that it is infallibly a Divine Revelation or Tradition The Churches Definition therefore is like Approximation in the working of natural causes to wit a necessary condition prerequired to their working by their own natural force yet is it self no cause but an application onely of the efficient cause to the subject on which it works seeing nothing can work immediately on what is distant from it Thus Gods Revelations delivered to the Church without writing were and are the onely formal cause of our assent in Divine Faith but because they are as it were distant from us having been delivered that is revealed so many ages past they are approximated or immediately applyed to us by the Infallible Declaration of the present Church which still confirming by her doctrine and practice what was first revealed makes it as firmly believed by us as it was by the Primitive Christians to whom it was first revealed So a Common-wealth by still maintaining practising and approving the Laws enacted in its first Institution makes them as much observ'd and esteem'd by the people in all succeeding Ages for their Primitive Laws as they were by those who liv'd in the time of their first Institution Hence it appears our Faith rests onely upon Gods immediate Revelation as its formal object though the Churches voice be a condition so necessary for its resting thereon that it can never attain that formal object without it By which Discourse the Bishops Argument is solv'd as also his Text out of Aristotle For seeing here is no Scientifical proof per principia intrinseca there can be no necessary and natural Connexion of Principles evidencing the Thing proved as is required in Demonstrative Knowledge the thing it self which is believed remaining still obscure and all the Assurance we have of it depending on the Authority of Him that testifies it unto us Lastly hence are solved the Authorities of Canus cited also by his Lordship who onely affirms what I have here confessed viz. That our Faith is not resolv'd into the Authority of the Church as the formal object of it and that of pag. 65. where he contends that the Church gives not the Truth and Authority to the Scriptures but onely teaches them with Infallible Certainty to be Canonical or the undoubted Word of God c. the very same thing with what I here maintain The Churches Authority then being more known unto us then the Scriptures may well be some reason of our admitting them yet the Scriptures still retain their Prerogative above the Church For being Gods Immediate Revelation they require a greater respect and reverence then the meer Tradition of the Church Whence it is likewise that our Authours do here commonly distinguish Two Sorts of Certainty the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other ex parte subjecti The first proceeds from the Clearness of the Object the other from the Adhesion as Philosophers call it of the Will which makes the Understanding stick so close to the Object that it cannot be separated from it This latter kinde of Certainty hath chiefly place in Faith a thing unknown to Aristotle Whence it is that when we believe we do adhere more firmly to the Articles of Faith then to any Principle whatsoever though evident to natural reason which firme Adhesion of ours is grounded partly on the Greatness and Nobleness of the Object and partly on the importance of the matter which is such that our Salvation depends upon it For that Immediate Revelation namely the Scripture being in it self of so much greater Worth and Dignity then the Churches meer Tradition doth worthily more draw our affection then the other notwithstanding the other be more known to us and the Cause of our admitting his Thus we have shew'n that we hold not the Churches Definition for the formal object of Faith as the Relatour by disputing so much against it would seem to impose on us though our present Faith 't is true relyes upon it as an Infallible Witness both of the written and unwritten word of God which is the Formal Object Wherefore when we say we believe the Catholique Church we profess to believe not onely the Things which she teacheth but the Church her self so teaching as an Infallible witness and the contrary we shall never believe till it be prov'd otherwise then by saying as the Bishop here does it were no hard thing to prove By what hath been said it appears that there is no Devise or Cunning at all as the Relatour would have it thought of us either in taking away any thing due to the Fathers Councils or Scripture or in giving too much to the Tradition of the present Church For we acknowledge all due respect to the Fathers and as much to speak modestly as any of our Adversaries party But they must pardon us if we preferre the general Interpretation of the present Church before the result of any mans particular Phansie As for Scripture we ever extoll it above the Definitions of the Church yet affirm it to be in many places so obscure that we cannot be certain of its true sense without the help of a living Infallible Judge to determine and declare it which can be no other then the Present Church And what we say of Scripture may with proportion be applyed to Ancient General Councils For though we willingly submit to them all yet where they happen to be obscure in matters requiring Determination we seek the Assistance and Direction of the same living Infallible Rule viz. The Tradition or the Sentence of the present Church This being the Substance of our Doctrine concerning the Resolution of Faith as we have osten intimated 't is evident the cunning of the Device the Bishop speaks of is none of ours but his own while he falsly chargeth us that we finally resolve all Authorities of the Fathers Councils and Scriptures into the Authority of the present Roman Church whereas in points of Faith we ever resolve them finally into Gods word or Divine Revelation though we must of necessity repair to the Catholick Church to have them Infallibly testified unto us But
that you had said before by way of proof upon the Account of Naturall Reason but to put so gross a fallacy upon me That because Naturall Sciences admit some Principles without proof as being so clear in themselves that there needs no more then the bare apprehension of their tearms therefore in Reason the Bible must be supposed for Gods word and admitted without probation for an unquestionable Principle May not any Religion pretend the like The Turks for example may they not say their Alcoran is the Rule and Principle of their Religion and consequently unquestionable You know very well and confess it too elsewhere That the Principles of Naturall Knowledge appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding And you know as well that there is an infinite disparity in the case between such Principles and your Bible The later having exercis'd the wit and learning of a world of Expositors in regard of its obscurity and the former being uncapable of proof by reason of their evident clearness I may therefore rationally conclude that your Bible cannot justly challenge an infallible Belief of being Gods word by conviction of Natur all Reason This was my opinion of your Bible before I met you and I am now more confirmed in it by your Lordships discourse of whom I take my leave By this Interlocutory Discourse of the Bishop with the Heathen wherein I have not wrong'd him by either falsly imposing on him or dissembling the force of his Arguments a man may easily discern how irrationall it is to take the Bible for the sole Rule and Guide in matters of Faith A Doctrine which had it been held in the Primitive Church would have laid the World under an impossibility of ever being converted to Christianity But now 't is high time to return to our Church-Tradition which I press a little further in this manner 6. A Child is brought up and instructed in the Roman Church till he arrives to some ripeness of years Amongst other things he is commanded to believe the Bible is the True word of God that he must neither doubt of this nor of any other Article of Faith receiv'd universally amongst Christians He gives therefore the same Infallible assent to the Scriptures being the word of God that he gives to the other Articles of Faith and so without once looking into the Scripture departs this life I demand had this Christian saving Faith or not if he had then upon the Churches Authority he sufficiently believed the Scriptures to be the word of God Ergo the Churches Authority was sufficient to ground an Infallible Faith in this point If he had not saving Faith in this Article he could not have it in any of the rest for he had them all from the very same Authority of the Church Therefore he had no saving Faith at all Ergo such a Christian could not be saved Would his Lordship have ventured to affirm this But let us suppose now that this young Christian yet lives and applies himself to study makes progress in learning becomes a profound Philosopher a learned Divine an expert Historian then betakes himself upon the Churches recommendation to the reading of Scriptures discovers a new light in them and by force of that light discerns also that the Faith he had before was onely a humane perswasion and that he had no divine Faith at all before he found by that light in Scripture that they were the undoubted word of God and sole foundation of Faith and consequently that not having that foundation he had no saving Faith of any Article of Christian Belief and for want thereof was out of the state of Salvation What gripes and torture of spirit would spring out of such a Doctrine amongst Christians Moreover either the Church whereof he is suppos'd a member taught that he was to believe Scripture infallibly to be the word of God upon her sole Tradition as an infallible Testimony thereof as we before supposed or not If the first then he reflects that this Church has plainly deceiv'd him and if she have deceiv'd him in assuming that Infallibility to her self and teaching him that by resting upon her Authority he had saving Faith when he had nothing but humane and uncertain perswasion she had deceived all her other Subjects as well as himself and consequently expos'd them all to the hazard of eternall damnation by following her Doctrine and therefore was no true Church but a seducer and deceiver Hence he gathers that her recommendation of Scripture is as much as nothing and so at last is left to the sole letter of Scripture without any credible voyce of the Church and then must either gather the Divine Authority of Scripture from sole Scripture which the Bishop denies or there will he no means left him to believe even according to the Bishops principles infallibly that Scripture is Divine and the true word of God If the Church teach him onely that her testimony of Scripture is no more then Humane and Fallible but that the Belief it self that Scripture is Gods word rests upon sole Scripture as his Lordship speaks he begins presently to consider what then becomes of so many millions of Souls who both in former and present times either were uncapable to read and examine Scripture by reason of their want of learning or made little use of that means as assuring themselves to have infallible Faith without it Had such Christians a morall and fallible perswasion onely and no divine Faith then they were all uncapable of salvation This consequence seems very severe to our supposed Christian. Wherefore he begins to make a further reflection and discourses in this manner Is the Tradition and Definition of the Church touching the Divine Authority and Canon of Scripture onely Humane and Fallible how then can I rationally believe that my single perswasion of its being the word of God is Divine and Infallible The Bishops Pastours and Doctors of the Church have both 〈◊〉 and understood it upon the Testimony of former Tradition and thereby discover'd its Divine Authority much more fully and exactly then I alone am able to do If therefore notwithstanding all their labour and exactness their perswasion concerning Scriptures being Gods word was onely Humane and Fallible what reason have I to think I am Divinely and Infallibly certain by my reading of Scripture that it is Divine Truth He goes on If the light of Scripture on the other side be so weak and dim that it is not able to shew it self unless first introduc'd by the recommendation of the Church how came Luther Calvin Zuinglius Huss Wickless c. to be so sharp-sighted as to discover this light of Scripture seeing they rejected the Authority of all visible Churches in the world coexistent with them or existent immediately before them and consequently of the true Church Hence he proceeds to a higher enquiry Had not sayes he the Ancient Primitive Fathers in the first three hundred years
not dissenting from it Again as Christ and his Apostles shew'd they had Divine Authority to all who had the Grace to believe them and none to whom their preaching was sufficiently propounded could disbelieve them without damnable sin so also if the Scripture hath light enough after the recommendation of the Church to be seen by all that have Grace whoever dissents from that light commits a damnable sin in not believing it to be the word of God Now to affirm that all who dissent from that light commit damnable sin were to condemne not onely all the Luther an Protestants but many of the holy Ancient Fathers of damnable sin who read some of those Books which other Protestants account Scripture even upon the recommendation of the Church and yet dissented from their being the word of God at least accounted it not infallibly certain that they were 6. Thus we have seen quite contrary to the Bishops Doctrine that Scripture gives not so great and high Reasons of Credibility to it self that the Believer may rest his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority upon that Divine light which Scripture hath in self For there appears no such light to any but to the Bishop and those who pretend to the private Spirit 'T is true the Scripture is said by the Royal Prophet to be a Light because after we have once receiv'd it from the Infallible Authority of the Church it teacheth what we are to do and believe Therefore David saith not Verba scripta in Bibliis lumen pedibus meis but Verbum tuum THY WORD is a light to my feet so that he first believ'd the Scripture to be the word of God and then said it was a light c. But without this Authority 't is neither lumen manifestativum sui nec alterius neither a light that evidences it self nor any thing else because without this we may with just reason doubt as well of Scripture as of the true sense thereof Wherefore though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves that they were inspir'd from God yet he doth never avow that this could be prov'd out of them unless they were receiv'd by the Infallible Authority of the Church And Henricus a Gandavo quoted by his Lordship for affirming that Christians in the Primitive Church did principally believe for the Authority of God and not of the Apostles means onely that Christians were not mov'd to believe for any humane Authority of the Apostles but for the Authority of God speaking by them So that this argument must be solv'd as well by the Bishop as by us for he has already granted that the Authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as we And Origen whom he cites in the Margent speaks to such as believ'd that Scriptures were the word of God whom by those proofs out of Scripture he endeavour'd to confirm and settle in their Faith by shewing how Scripture it self testified as much We may therefore assert that 't is not any humane or fallible Authority of the Church that moves us to embrace the Scripture as the Infallible word of God but the voyce of God speaking by the Church or the Authority of God declar'd to us infallibly by the present Church And this Infallible Authority is no less requisite to the knowledge of the first Apostolicall Tradition of the Scriptures then it is to know the Scripture it self But I finde another handsome Turn or two in this discourse of the Bishop He undertook to evince that the Scripture hath such light in it self that being introduc'd by the Tradition of the Church it can shew it self to be the most undoubted Divine word of God which to perform he assumes this medium The Scripture is a light Therefore it can manifest not onely other things but also it self by it self to be a light Ergo it can manifest it self to be the word of God This must be his consequence if he will conclude his intent But what windings are here The Scripture is a light I grant it Ergo 't is able to manifest it self to be a light I grant that too Ergo it can manifest it self to be an infallible light or the undoubted word of God That I deny and this which was the onely thing to be prov'd he never so much as goes about to prove For unless he could shew that there are no other lights save the word of God and such as are Infallible he can never make good his consequence In Seneca in Plutarch in Aristotle I read many lights and those lights manifest themselves to be lights Ergo they manifest themselves to be Infallible lights or the very Divine word of God what consequence is this The Scripture teacheth that there is one God this is a light and manifests it self to be a light Ergo it manifests it self to be the word of God how follows that May not the same light be found in hundreds of Books even in the Talmud of the Jews and Alcoran of the Turks as well as in Scripture The same may be said of a thousand Moral Instructions which either the very same or much like to them may be sound in other Moral Writers as well Christians as Jews and Heathens which all manifest themselves to be lights but follows it thence that they manifest themselves to be Divine lights or lights undoubtedly proceeding from the mouth of God The intricacy therefore of this Meander consists in making a sly Transition from the light to the person who is cause of this light I finde for example a candle lighted in a room it is a light and enlightens all the room and shews it self to be a light by its own light but it shews not by that light who lighted it I see some good sentence written on a wall it manifests it self by it self to be good but it manifests not whether it were written by Man Angel or God himself this must be evinc'd some other way Thus the words and sentences in Scripture are lights and shew themselves by themselves to be lights yet because the very same or such as are perfectly like and so the same in substance and sense may have been conceiv'd and express'd not onely by God but by good Men or Angels it follows not as he would have it they shew themselves to be lights by their own light Ergo they shew themselves to be Gods-lights or Infallible lights produc'd by none but God himself We have made I hope a pretty good progress through this Meander But no looner is one past over but we fall into another He was to prove that Scripture has light enough in it self to give Divine Infallible proof that 't is the word of God so as our Faith may rest upon that light as on its proper formall object and to evince this he cites here and there Authorities of the Fathers where they took some proofs out of Scripture to conclude Scripture to be the word of God
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
St. Chrysostome in the place above cited it imports not evident or Scientificall Knowledge properly so called but a firm and perfect assurance onely otherwise our Faith would neither be free nor meritorious His distinction therefore betwixt hearing and knowing is but a slender one both because the Royall Prophet intimates that the succeeding ages know the prodigious works of God by hearing them from their immediate Ancestors Psalm 77. 6. and because they that heard Moyses the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles speak knew as perfectly by that hearing as could be known in matters of Faith and likewise because St. Paul saith Rom. 10. 17. Fides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing and lastly because his Lordship himself asserts that Scripture is known in this sense to be the word of God by hearing from the mouthes of the Apostles Now to averre that they resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward principle then an ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition is a truth delivered by me all along this debate For I have always held the voice of the present Church to be onely an Infallible Application to us of the Prime Divine Tradition concerning Scriptures for which prime Tradition onely we believe Scripture to be the word of God as for the formal motive of our Belief To his Quere therefore touching the Jewes proceeding in the like controversie I answer when it shall be shewn that any of the Jewes held the Old Testament for their sole rule of Faith to the exclusion of Tradition I shall then be ready to shew what the Bishop here demands viz that in controversies of Religion one Jew put another to prove that the Old Testament was Gods word But to return to their resolution of Faith certain it is they had alwayes at least very often Prophets amongst them insomuch that Calvin himself confesseth that God promised to provide there should never be wanting a Prophet in Israel Moreover besides these 't is well known there was in the Jewish Church a permanent infallible Authority consisting of the High Priest and his Clergy to which all were bound to have 〈◊〉 in doubts and difficulties of Religigion as is expressed in Holy Writ Wherefore we have not the least reason to doubt but the Jews would have proceeded the same way in all difficulties concerning Scripture and Tradition that we do though his Lordship would perswade us the contrary 12. Mr. Fisher is here brought in as he was once before for averring that no other answer could be made of the Scriptures-being Gods word but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point to which the Relatour replies that the Argument would have been stronger had he said to assure us of this point by Divine Faith But certainly Mr. Fisher meant such an assurance and no other as appears by the expression he uses viz. to assure us in this point What point That Scriptures are the Word of God which being a point of Faith he could not be thought in reason but to require an assurance proportionable to a point of Faith that is infallible assurance sufficient to breed in us Divine Faith though it be also true that no certain assurance at all touching this matter could be had without admitting the infallible Authority of the Church For as it hath been urged heretofore many Books of Holy Writ have been doubted of upon very good grounds and the rest questioned as corrupted So that without the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost it were impossible in this case to come to any certain determination at all much less could we arrive to an infallible certainty Sure I am the School doth not maintain with his Lordship here that Moral certainty is infallible Philosophers are so far from this as to admit that even Physical certainty falls short of infallibility as being lyable to deception As for example when I have my eyes open and look upon the wall I have Physical certainty that it is the wall which I see but I have no infallible certainty of it for by the power of God it may be otherwise Now the reason why a moral and humane authority so long as 't is fallible can never produce an infallible assurance is because all certainty grounded upon sole Authority can be no greater then the Authority that grounds it Since therefore according to the Relator all humane Authority is absolutely fallible 't is impossible it should ground in us an infallible certainty This Doctrine is expresly delivered by the Bishop § 16. num 6. where speaking of the Scriptures he saith If they be warranted unto us by any Authority LESS THEN DIVINE then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance then the Scripture in which they are contained are not objects of Divine Belief which once granted will inforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance then humane and moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then SIMPLY DIVINE must make good the Scriptures infallibity at least in the last resolution of our Faith in that point This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone for the Church consists of men subject to errour Thus he No humane testimony therefore in the Bishops opinion can make good the Scriptures infallibility that is give us an infallible assurance of that or any other point of Faith But how this can stand with what he delivers § 19. num 1. when speaking of the very same question viz. of Scriptures-being Gods Word he positively affirms we may be even infallibly assured thereof by Ecclesiastical and Humane proof I see not let the Reader judge This is not the first contradiction we have observed in his Lordships discourses Nor will it serve his turn to say as he doth that by infallible assurance may be understood no more then that the thing believed is true and truth QUA TALIS cannot be false For however he playes with the word infallible yet that cannot touch assurance For the infallibity he there talks of is onely in the object and that in sensu composito too viz. onely so long as the object remains so But assurance relates to the subject or person believing and his act which is the thing we chiefly mean when we teach that Faith is of divine and infallible certainty For otherwise in the Bishops sense of infallibility there is no true proposition how contingent and uncertain soever in it self of which we might not be said to be infallibly certain So for example should I say meerly by guess The Pope is now at Rome or in the Conclave and it were so de facto I might be said to be infallibly certain of it which is extreamly absurd as confounding verity with infallibility which no true Philosophy will admit Wherefore it is ridiculous to distinguish as the Bishop does here one infallibility cui non subest falsum viz.
POWER was given by our Lord Jesus Christ to FEED RULE and GOVERN the Universal Church as 't is likewise contain'd in the Acts of other Oecumenical Councils and in the Sacred Canons So that Occham or any other that seem to oppose this if they be Catholiques must be understood to speak onely de possibili of what Christ our Saviour might have done if he had pleas'd or to mean onely that the Pope doth not govern the Church in such an absolute Monarchical way as that he alone is the onely Governour jure Divino in it and that all other Bishops are but his Vicars and Substitutes CHAP. 19. Of the Council of Trent ARGUMENT 1. The Council of Trent as Legal as any other General Council whatsoever 2. The Popes Presiding therein necessary and of Ancient Right 3. The Place it self indifferent for all parties 4. No Oath taken by the Bishops but what the Ancient Canons prescrib'd and was wont to be taken a thousand years before 5. The Council Full especially in its latter Sessions towards the end when the Acts formerly passed were consented to de Novo by all the Prelates 6. No real Disparity as to Legalness between the Council of Nice and that of Trent 7. Neither the Number nor the Quality of Italian Bishops any prejudice to the Councils Liberty 8. Groundless Suspicions evince nothing either against the Pope or Council 9. Protestants no less Censured in effect by the Greek Church then by the Latin 1. THe Bishop pleading so much the necessity of General Councils as if he meant to submit to their Determinations occasion'd A. C. to tell him that a General Council viz. that of Trent had already judged the Protestants to hold errours This was indeed to lay the Axe to the root and bring the cause to a speedy issue but the Relatour will not be taken unprovided He answers therefore the Council of Trent was neither a Legal nor a General Council Why not Legal It had all the Conditions ever yet required by Catholiques to the Legality of a General Council and why not General seeing all Bishops were invited to come and that a greater number actually came and assisted at the end of the Assembly then were present at some other Councils confessedly General But let us hear the Bishops exceptions against this Council His first exception is that the Abettours of this Council maintain publickly that 't is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and make it DE FIDE and so in our judgement FUNDAMENTAL though it be not contain'd in Scripture nor so much as probably deduced thence and for this opinion Doctor Stapleton is cited in the Margent I answer No Catholique Authour ever taught that it is lawful for the Council to make what ever they please Matter of Faith as the Bishop would seem to insinuate but onely that which is exprest or involved in the word of God written or unwritten that is Tradition And this indeed is defin'd by the very Council of Trent in these terms that in matters of Faith we are to rely not onely upon Scripture but also on Tradition Now that this doctrine is true hath been already prov'd and that it cannot make the Council illegal is manifest even from the Bishops own Principles For he confesseth that Apostolical Tradition when it can be certainly known for such is as truly the word of God as Scripture it self and 't is certainly known to be such by the Tradition or Definition of the Church as hath been likewise heretofore prov'd and by the Bishop himself granted in the question touching Scriptures-being the Word of God Nor did the Council herein proceed in a different manner from other lawful and Oecumenical Councils whiles she grounded her Definitions partly on Scripture partly on Tradition even in matters not deducible by any particular or Logical inference from Scripture 2. A second exception is that the Pope the person chiefly to be reform'd Presided in the Council of Trent and was chief Judge in his own cause against all Law Divine Natural and Humane But the Pope by his Legates presided also in the fourth General Council at Chalcedon as the Bishop himself acknowledges and yet 't is esteem'd by all parties a Lawful and Authentical Council Nor can it be prov'd that the Pope was more the person to be reform'd at Trent then at Chalcedon 'T is true the persons condemn'd by both these Councils pretended that excepting onely themselves the whole Church and chiefly the Pope err'd and by consequence were to be reform'd but as the former complain'd without ground in the opinion of all but themselves so did the latter and so do all their Adherents Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria was esteem'd a great Party and Delinquent by the Arrians for having acted so zealously in defence of the Catholique Faith against their Master Arius Yet he sate a chief Judge with the other Bishops and had both a Prime place and Vote in the first Council of Nice where their Heresie was condemn'd Saint Cyril presided in the Third General Council though by the Nestorian Heretiques there condemn'd he were counted a Party Adde to this that in the abovemention'd Council of Chalcedon the cause was very particular between Pope Leo and Dioscorus and yet not onely the Legats of the said Pope presided in the Council during the whole agitation of the business but the condemnation of Dioscorus was even fram'd by Pope Leo and approv'd by the whole Council So far was it from being thought a solid objection against him that he was a party in the cause or the person to be reform'd We deny not but the other Bishops being also Judges in the Council may proceed even against the Pope himself if the case do necessarily require it as should he for example manifestly appear to be an Heretique Protestants therefore have no just cause to quarrel the Popes presiding in Councils especially so long as he is not justly accusable of any crime but such as must involve not onely the Council but the whole Church as much as himself as 't is evident he was not when he presided in the Council of Trent 'T is not therefore contrary but conformable to all Law Divine Natural and Humane that the Head should preside over the Members and to give Novellists liberty to Decline the Popes judgement or the judgement of any other their lawful Superiours upon 〈◊〉 of their being parties or by them accus'd of errour who sees not that it is in effect absolutely to exempt such people from all legal censure nay even to grant there is no sufficient means left effectually to govern the Church or condemn Heresie Schisme and other offences against Religion But the Bishop in his large Margent denyes as well matter of Fact as matter of Right in this question of the Popes presiding in General Councils telling us that in the First Council of Nice Hosius was President and not the Bishop of Rome either
the Kings inclination and the English Catholiques consent Is not this a gross delusion He tells us for a wonder That A. C. marvels what kinde of General Council he would have and what Rules observed in it that were Morally like to make an End of Controversies better then our Catholique General Councils Was this to express any backwardness to a lawfull General Council or could any thing be more reasonably demanded of him Could the Relatour expect an End of Contention between us by means of a General Council unless the Conditions and Rules by which the said Council should proceed were first known and consented to by both parties Are not Protestants themselves a sufficient proof of the Negative in their Cavillings against the Authority and Proceedings in the Council of Trent But what particular Conditions or Rules for the legitimating of a future General Council could he assign which had not been competently observ'd in former General Councils nay even in that of Trent whose Authority and Decrees nevertheless the Bishop with the whole party utterly rejects As to his profession that any General Council shall satisfie him that is called continued and ended according to the same course and under the same conditions which General Councils observ'd in the Primitive Church it is too general to be ingenuous or give real satisfaction to the demand signifying nothing at all in relation to a finall End of our Controversies seeing Catholiques hold those general conditions as much as the Bishop or any of their opposers and yet our Differences are still the same as to particulars To as little purpose save onely to deceive the Reader cites he the Latin Text of Bellarmin in his Margent as though he concurr'd with him in the requisite conditions of a General Council whereas by those conditions are clearly excluded all Excommunicated Bishops Heretiques and Schismatiques from being any necessary part of a General Council But to come yet closer to the point who should call this his wished General Council If we follow the example of those most Ancient Councils which himself acknowledges for General and lawfully called then the Pope must be the Summoner of it or at least the Emperour with the Popes consent in both which cases we are not to divine with what contempt the Protestant party would look upon such a Council especially if it insisted in the steps of those Primitive Councils in which the Pope as we have shewn presided To call therefore for a General Council in the Protestants sense is a meer nothing an empty name to amuse silly people with since morally speaking 't is impossible there should ever be such a General Council as they fancy to themselves viz. an Oecumenical Council that should consist as well of Schismatiques Heretiques and Desertors of the Catholique Church as of true Catholique Bishops But if it were never thought reasonable in a Civil Commonwealth which yet the Bishop makes the pattern of his Spiritual one in point of Authority that Out-Laws and condemned persons should be admitted to sit with their Lawful Judges to determine whether they were Delinquents or not how instantly soever they might demand it how can it be thought to stand with any colour of Reason that Spiritual Out-Laws and Desertors of the Catholique Church that maintain many anciently condemned Heresies should be admitted to Sit and Vote in Council among their Lawful Judges whether they were guilty or not What Rebel would ever be found Criminial if he might be allow'd to be his own Judge 2. Here Mr. Fisher to shew the Bishop to how little purpose he called for a General Council asked him Whether he thought a General Council might erre viz. in its Decisions and Determinations of Faith To which the Relatour having answer'd in the Affirmative that it might erre Mr. Fisher thus further Queried If a General Council may erre what nearer are we to Unity after a General Council hath determined What the Bishop reply'd to this I shall not deliver out of the mouth of either Mr. Fisher or A. C. because he quarrels with them though to little purpose touching the precise words he used in the Conference wherein his memory might as well fail him as the other You shall have them from his own pen upon more mature deliberation But first hear how he disputes pro and con touching Mr. Fishers first Querie Whether sayes he a General Council may erre or not is a question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot erre leaves the Church without remedy against an errour once determined To say it can erre seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in Faith to make unquiet Spirits not onely disrespect former Councils of the Church but to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine To each member of this discourse I answer thus in order To say and but meerly to say it without good proof that a General Council cannot erre may leave the Church indeed without remedy against an errour But to say it cannot erre and prove it too both from Reason Authority and Gods Word as Catholiques do is so far from leaving the Church without remedy against an errour that it secures all the adhering members thereof from erring in any matter of Faith Now for the latter branch or member To say it can erre does not onely seem to expose as the Bishop hath it but does actually expose and abandon all the Adherents of that opinion to an inevitable wavering and uncertainty in Faith and makes them utterly contemn all former and future Councils when ever they determine any thing contrary to these mens fancies Now to Mr. Fishers second Querie wherein are we nearer to Unity if a General Council may erre the Bishop thus positively answers The Determination of a General Council erring is to stand in force and to have external obedience at least yielded to it till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the contrary make the errour appear and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority do reverse it Is not this a strange not to say an impious doctrine to be advanc'd without Authority either of Gods Word or of Antiquity nay contrary to all solid Reason that men should be tyed up by an Erring Conciliary Decision in points of Divine Truth against Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration of the Errour For till thereupon another Council of Equal Authority reverse it the errour is still to be submitted to by all men even when they know it This indeed is a rare effect of a General Council to oblige all the members of the Church to Unity in Errour against Scripture and Demonstration during their whole lives or rather to the worlds end since such an Utopian rectifying Council as the Bishop here fancies is morally impossible ever to be had as I have already shewn And to mend the matter that is to make us still at a greater loss this
St. Peters person onely but his Faith conjoyned with his person or his person confessing and asserting the Faith and that the Fathers speak in this sense and no other when they say the Church is built upon St. Peters Faith Bellarmin proves by a whole Jury of the most Ancient among them and most of them the same the Bishop here pretends to bring for himself beside the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon consisting of above six hundred Catholique Bishops As to what he asserts that by Hell-gates-prevailing against the Church is not understood principally the Churches not Erring but her not falling away from the Foundation we have already fully prov'd the Contrary both by the Testimony of the Fathers and Solid Reason shewing that if any Errour in Faith could be admitted by the Catholique Church the Gates of Hell might in such case be absolutely said to have prevaild against her contrary to this promise of Christ. And how Bellarmin here cited by the Bishop is to be understood when he sayes there are many things DE FIDE which are not necessary to salvation is already shewn where we also prov'd that every errour in Faith contrary to what is propounded by the Church is Fundamentall But the Relatour as if his own word were a sufficient proof tells us finally that the promise of this stable Edification is made to the whole Church not to a Council Why not to both I pray to a General Council as well as to the Church The truth is it was made neither to Church nor Council directly and immediately but to St. Peter and his Successours as the Fathers above mentioned shew though for the good of the Church viz. her preservation from errour in Faith which morally could not be effected if a General Council lawfully called and confirm'd by St. Peters Successour be not Infallible or exempt from errour in its decisions of Faith To what the Bishop concludes with upon this Text that a Council hath no interest in this promised Edification further then it builds upon Christ that is upon the Doctrine Christ deliver'd the Rules he gave and the Promises he made to his Apostles and their Successours we agree with him but that a General Council confirmed by the Pope does ever reject or go contrary to these we absolutely deny To the fourth place viz. of Christs prayer for St. Peter that his faith should not fail Luke 22. 32. the Relatour will have the native sense of it to be that Christ prayed and obtained for St. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong Temptation which was to winnow him above the rest And you must take it if you please upon his bare word that by Faith is here meant Grace Had the Bishop weighed the pregnancy of Bellarmins Reasons in confutation of this Exposition he could not surely have been so positive in it It should be an unnecessary prolixity to insert them here where 't is sufficient to observe the contradiction involv'd in this pretended Native sense of Christs prayer Christ according to the Bishop obtain'd for St. Peter that he should persevere in Grace But St. Peter did not still persevere in Grace for he lost it when he committed that enormous sin of Denying his Master Therefore Christ obtain'd and did not obtain one and the same thing of his Eternal Father which is a formal contradiction Our Saviour therefore prayed according to his own expression in Scripture that St. Peter might not lose Faith by an Internal act of Disbelief though the Devil should so far prevail by his Temptations as to make him say contrary to his own knowledge I know not the man you have taken prisoner But the Bishop objects thus against this Text to conclude an Infallibility hence in the Pope or in his Chair or in the Roman Sea or in a General Council though the Pope be President I finde no Antient Father that dare adventure it I answer 't is no wonder that they do not sinde who are unwilling to see Bellarmin cites and that out of Authentique Records whatever the Bishop mutters against them as Counterfeit without the least proof Lucius Felix St. Leo and Petrus Chrysologus the last of which lived above twelve hundred years ago these I say Bellarmin affirms to have adventur'd to prove from this Text what the Bishop denies And though the three first of these were Bishops of Rome yet such was their Sanctity and Learning as might well vindicate them from the least jealousie of challenging either through ignorance or ambition more then of right belong'd to their office Nay the Church of Rome was so confessedly Orthodox in their dayes that even Dr. Heylin a man bitter against Catholiques thought it not fit in his Geography to term the Roman Bishops Popes till almost two hundred years after St. Leo the last of the three And as for Chrysologus his Contemporary and no Pope he adventur'd as it were to ground the Infallibility we plead for upon this Text when he said St. Peter as yet lives and presides in his Sea and affords the true Faith to those that seek it which speech the Bishop will have to be but a flash of Rhetorique an easie way of answering the most unanswerable Authorities Had Chrysologus written or addressed his words to the Pope there might have been some colour for the Evasion but speaking them to an Heretique whom he sought to reduce into the bosome of the Catholique Church who can imagine he intended to complement the Pope Nothing but a weak Cause could drive so learned a person as the Bishop to so poor a shift So the Testimonies of Theophylact and St. Bernard are slighted by him as men of yesterday though they lived the one above five hundred the other near six hundred years ago But whoever charges St. Bernard with corrupt Doctrine either in point of Faith or Manners might as justly charge St. Austin and the Fathers of his time in which time even by the acknowledgement of Calvin when he is sober the the Church had made no departure from the Doctrine of the Apostles And for Theophylact he being a Greek Bishop and of the forwardest in siding against the Latin Church and in taxing her of Errour touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost it cannot be rationally imagin'd but what he speaks in favour of the Roman Church is extorted from him by the evidence of Truth and the known consent of all Catholique Christians in that particular As to the Gloss upon the Canon Law I answer it speaks onely of the Pope in his personal capacity as a private Doctour in which quality it is not deny'd but he may possibly erre even in Faith Hence may easily be perceiv'd how unsatisfactorily the Bishop endeavours to elude the force of this Text concerning Christs prayer for St. Peter which I have already prov'd to be extended to his Successours
then that an Angel may feele tast heare because this Proposition is true An Angel would seele tast or heare if hee had a body a tongue or corporall eares But to what purpose does the Bishop goe about to shew that Councils are not to bee our Iudges in points that are cleerly taught by reason or scripture wee shall neuer haue recourse to Councils to know whether the whole bee greater then the part nor whether Jsaac had two sons Iacob and Esau. Neither ever will there arise any case in which all wise persons of the Roman Church will outwardly profess the Doctrine defined by Councils and inwardly aslent that it is contrary to the word of God and to euident demonstration The Controuersie which the Bishop should haue resolu'd is this whether in case one partie pretend and verily beleeue they haue cleere scripture and demonstration for what they say and the other consisting of men at least equall if not superiour to them in point of learning vnderstanding Morall Honestie Prudence and all other helps conducing to right iudgement shall affirme the contrary whether in this case there bee not an absolute necessity of a liuing and infallible iudge to end the Controuersie and whether all Christians ought not to submitt to that iudge notwithstanding any reasons or seeming euidences to the contrary T is strange the Bishop should thinke Bellarmin to grant that a priuate man may lawfully dissent from a Generall Council by reason of some manifest and intolerable errour The Cardinall asserts indeed that inferiours may not iudge superiours whether they proceed lawfully or not vnless it manifestly appeare that an intolerable errour is committed by them But there hee speaks of the Council of the Iews which condemned our sauiour and in condemning him committed an intolerable errour And in that very place hee teaches that the Council of the Jewes wherein the High Preist presided could not erre in matters of fayth before the coming of the Messias but that after his birth they might according to diverse Prophesyes hee there alledges adding that at the very time when the Council was lyable to errour subiects were to submitt to their superiours viz. the people to their Council vnless it manifestly appear'd that an intolerable errour had been committed by them But how can the Relatour inferre from thence that such an errour may bee committed by our Generall Councils since the Cardinal expressly teaches in that very booke that our Generall Councils cannot possibly erre in their definitions of fayth The Bishops next quarrel is with Doctor Stapleton for teaching that the voyce of the Church in determining Controuersies of fayth in Generall Councils is Diuine telling vs that the Proposition stick 's in his throate as if the Doctor had felt some checke in the vttering of it Why because forsooth by way of explicating himselfe Stapleton adds that it is not simply but in a manner diuine Is this to retract in any sort what hee had sayd who sees not rather that 't is only to speake with that necessary caution which the cause requires and which the cauilling disposition of Heretiques doth particularly oblige vs to This Proposition The voyce of the Church determining in Generall Councils is in a manner diuine is doubtless not only most true in it self but also most consonant to Catholicke grounds to witt as expressing that it is not Gods immediate reuelation but only an infallible meanes of applying immediate reuelation to us His next obiection against the sayd Doctor is Blasphemy viz. for aucrring that the Church is the foundation of fayth in a higher kinde then scripture I answer that I haue diligently sought for the words alledged in Stapletons works and cannot finde them The Bishop quotes Relect. Contr. 4. quest 4. art 3. but that question hath no article at all in it 'T is true in the fifth question hee teaches that the Church is more know'n to us then scripture and that it is the meanes of applying to us both scripture and all things else that wee beleeue But this is neither Blasphemy nor Contradiction to his own grounds However should any such proposition bee found in Stapleton J am not bound to maintaine it seeing J haue only engag'd to defend the receiu'd Doctrine of the Catholique Church which no ways depends vpon any such assertion as is here layd to Stapletons charge 2. In the sixth Consideration the Relatour argues to this purpose if a Generall Council bee infallible the infallibility of it is eyther in the Conclusion alone or in the Meanes that proue it alone that is to say in the Premisses or in both together But the Council sayth hee is neither infallible in the Conclusion alone nor in the Meanes or premisses alone nor yet in both together ergo 't is not infallible at all Wee desire to bee breife and therfore not standing to consider the reasons why hee thinks 't is not infallible in the Meanes wee answer 't is infallible in the Conclusion that is in the Doctrine defined though it bee not infallible in the meanes or arguments vpon which it proceeded to the definition The reason is because the one viz. that the Conclusion or defined Doctrine of a Generall Council should bee infallibly true is necessary for the due gouernment of the Church But the other viz. that there should bee infallibility also in the Meanes or in the disquisition aboute the matter before it comes to bee defined is not necessary and it is a know'n maxime Deus non deficit in necessarijs nec abundat in superfluis which holds good in Theologie as well as in Nature God is not wanting in the supply of necessaries noris hee profuse in affording things superfluous To this our Aduersarie replies that 't is a thing altogether vnknow'n in nature and art too that fallible Principles can eyther as father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion But this is a false supposition of the Bishop for the Conclusion is not so much the childe of those principles as the fruite of the Holy Ghost directing and guiding the Council to produce an infallible Conclusion what ever the premisses may bee This is necessary for the peace and vnity of the Church and therfore not to bee deny'd vnless an impossibility can bee shew'd therein But I hope no man will attacque Gods Omnipotency and depriue him of the power of doing this Hence it appeares how vainly the Relatour fancies to himselfe that Stapleton and all Catholiques are miserably hamper'd in this Argument whereas they all easily answer it as wee haue done What hee sayes next is a meere peruersion of Stapletons meaning whoe neuer teaches that the Church is Simply Propheticall eyther in the Premisses or Conclusion but rather the quite contrary as the Relator might haue seen if hee had pleas'd in the place hee cites T is true hee vses the word Propheticall sometimes speaking of the Conclusion or Definition of a General Council but
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
the force of A. Cs. maxime viz. that 't is safest in order to Saluation to take that way which both parties agree in which imports not any agreement whatsoeuer indefinitely speaking but determinately and specially such an agreement or an agreement so farre betwixt aduerse parties concerning such a point or thing as to acknowledge the beleefe or doing of it doth not destroy Saluation or doth not hinder the parties beeing sau'd that does it Had due notice been taken of this it would haue sau'd him the trouble of bringing this and so many other instances to noe purpose of which more in due place Jn the meane time wee conceiue the disparity betwixt the case and argument of Petilian and A. C. so manifest that it needs no further illustration 10. But here the Relatour growes into choler taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉 vntruth and such as an ingenuous man would not haue spoken for no other reason but for saying there is confessedly noe perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church J answer whateuer the Bishop granted or granted not in express terms to A. C. touching this matter 't is certaine that from what he doth confess it really and necessarily followes that there is no perill of damnation per se loquendo or precisely by liuing and dying in the Roman Church For first as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errours of our Church but cannot discern them those he professedly exempts from perill of damnation if they conforme themselues to a religious life Secondly he grants that such others of the Roman Church as doe euen 〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and liue accordingly are not to be deny'd Saluation Whence I argue If according to the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary nor inuoluntary superstition excludes a Papist from possibility of beeing sau'd it is no lowd vntruth nor indeed so much as a mistake to say that in the Roman Church there is confessedly noe perill of damnation in the sense abouesayd that is meerly by liuing and dying in that Communion What he adds after this of some amonge vs who wish the superstitions abolished which they know and pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not and would haue all things amended that are amiss were it in their power if he meanes that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion or that they would haue any thing amended in the Churches publique Authoriz'd doctrine he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion it beeing contrary to Catholique Fayth to beleeue that any such errours or uperstitions can be taught by the Church and he might as well suppose if he had pleas'd that those are Protestants who goe to Church and ioyne with Protestants in exteriour seruice only to saue their estates or for some other temporall ends though they hold the Protestant Tenets contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church for no better then Heresies and would if it were in their power much more willingly heare Mass then common prayer when they goe to Church Neither can he be a Catholique who prayes to God to forgiue his errours in any matter or point defined by the Church for that implies a beleefe or doubt that the Church may haue erred in defining some doctrine of Fayth which according to vs is absolutely inconsistent whith true Fayth no more then wee presume he could haue been thought a Christian or Protestant in the Bishops opinion who should aske God forgiueness for beleeuing some thing deliuered in Canonicall scripture Jn answer to A. Cs. Assertion wherby he preferrs both for number and worth those who deny there is any perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church before those who affirm there is the Bishop that he might more easily confute the passage first of all cunningly diuides it and endeauours to shew that number alone is no sufficient ground of truth Who sayes it is Not A. C. J am sure who as cleerly as he could ioyn'd both together worth to number as a necessary supplement and concluds what he intends ioyntly from them both Now this term worth comprehending not only eminency of power and authority but also of vertue learning zeale prudence sanctity etc. can any man doubt but those who haue the greater number and worth on their side are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth then those who haue incomparably less or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them His long marginall allegations therfore which mention number only serue to no purpose but to amuse And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of vs say that our Fayth rests vpon the number or worth of men as the Bishop will needs insinuate but vpon Gods infallible veracity and authority number and worth of men beeing only motiues of credibility to induce and direct vs prudently to determin to which of the two parties wee are to giue credit when they teach vs contrary doctrines A. C. thought it so euident a thing that those of the Catholique beleefe in the points controuerted betwixt vs and Protestants doe incomparably exceed those of the contrary partie as the Bishop would neuer haue call'd for a proofe of it as indeed it needs none For if wee compare those spread ouer the whole face of Christendome for the last thousand yeares a space of time commonly granted vs by our aduersaries who beleeu'd as wee beleeue and neuer dream't of any perill eyther of schisme Heresie or sinne by liuing and dying in the Roman Church with those few that since yesterday as it were began to dissent from vs and pretend there was perill of schisme c. by liuing and dying in the sayd Church wee shall finde these in worth and number iust nothing in regard of the other So that in truth the Relatour himselfe had he well consider'd it should haue blusht at his own extrauagant obiection you haue not yet prou'd your partie more worthy for life or learning then the Protestants and not bid his aduersary blush for speaking the truth For in this case who sees not that all true Christians who for a thousand yeares together liu'd in the world were and are of our party II. But let vs consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. Cs. maxime that 't is safest to follow that way in Religion in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Saluation His first is taken from the article of our Sauiours descent into hell The Church of Rome sayth he and the Church of England dissenting parties doe agree that our Sauiour descended into hell and that hell is the place of the damned Therfore according to A. Cs. rule it should be safest to beleeue that our Sauiour descended into the place of the damned But this
Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church with all Fundamentall points generally held for such and to receiue the fowre first Generall Councils only and noe more be a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue Saluation Did our Sauiour meane the Primitiue Church only or only the fowre first Generall Councils and noe others when he sayd Matth. 18. 17. He that doth not heare the Church lett him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And if it be to be vnderstood as without doubt it is of the Church and Generall Councils in all ages how could the Bishop how can Protestants thinke themselues secure only by beleeuing the fowre first Councils and the Church of Primitiue times if they oppose and contradict others or contemne the authority of the true Catholique Church of Christ that now is And for the second viz. that the English-Protestant Fayth is not really and indeed such a Fayth as the Bishop here professeth will appeare vpon examination thus You beleeue say you Protestants the Scripture and the Creeds and you beleeue them in the sense of the Primitiue Church J aske first doe you meane all Scripture or only a part of it if part of it only how can your Fayth be thought such as cannot but giue Saluation seeing for ought you know there may be damnable errour and sinne in reiecting the other part If you meane all Scripture you profess more then you are able to make good seeing you refuse many books of Scripture that were held Canonicall by very many in the Primitiue Church and admitt for Canonicall diuerse others that were for some time doubted of and not reckoned for any part of the Canon by many ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church more then those were which for that reason chiefly you account Apocrypha 4. You pretend to beleeue both Scripture and Creeds in the sense of the Primitiue Church But when will this be prou'd wee bring diuerse testimonies from the Fathers and Doctours of those ancient times vnderstanding and interpreting Scripture in a sense wholy agreeable to vs and contrary to your doctrine Must all our allegations be esteem'd apocryphall and counterfeite or mis-vnderstood because they impugne your reformed beleefe must nothing be thought rightly alledged but what suites with your opinions you pretend conformity with the fowre first Generall Councils too but the proceedings of those Councils cleerly shew the quite contrary The Council of Nice beseecheth Pope Syluester to confirm their decrees Doe Protestants acknowledge the like authority in the Pope The great St. Athanasius with the Bishops of Egypt assembled in the Council at Alexandria profess that in the Council of Nice it was with one accord determined that without consent of the Bishop of Rome neither Councils should be held nor Bishops condemned Doe not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon by one common voyce profess that St. Peter spake by the mouth of Leo that the sayd Pope Leo endowed with the authority of St. Peter deposed Dioscorus Doe they not call him the vniuersall Bishop the vniuersall Patriarch the Bishop of the vniuersall Church Doe they not terme him the Interpreter of St. Peters voyce to all the world Doe they not acknowledge him their Head and themselues his members and consets that the custody or keeping of Christs vineyard which is the whole Church was by our Sauiour committed to him Js this the dialect or beleefe of English Protestants Did not likewise the whole Council of Carthage desire Jnnocentius the first Bishop of Rome to confirme what they had decreed against the Pelagian Heresie with the authority of the Sea Apostolique pro tuenda Salute multorum etc. for the sauing of many and for correcting the peruerse wickedness of some and did they not with all reuerence and submission receiue the Popes answer sent to them in these words In requirendis hisce rebus etc. you haue made it appeare sayth he not only by vsing all diligence as is required of a true and Catholique Council in examining matters of that concernment but also in referring your debates to our iudgement and approbation how sound your Fayth is and that you are mindefull to obserue in all things the examples of ancient tradition and the discipline of the Church knowing that this is a duty which you owe to the Apostolique Sea wherein wee all desire to follow the Apostle from whome both the office of Episcopacy and all the authority of that name is deriued and following him wee cannot be ignorant both how to condemne what is ill and also to approue that which is praise-worthy oYou doe well therfore and as it becometh Priests to obserue the customes of the ancient Fathers which they grounded not vpon humane but diuine authority that nothing should be finally determined in remote Prouinces without the knowledge of this Sea by whose full authority the sentence giuen if it were found to be iust might be confirm'd this Sea beeing the proper Fountaine from which the pure and vncorrupted waters of truth were to streame to all the rest of the Churches Will English Protestants consent to this Doe not the Prelats in the Council of Ephesus heare with like attention and approbation Philip the Priest one of the Popes Legats to that Council auouching publiquely in full Council the authority of St. Peters Successour in these words noe body doubts sayth he nay it is a thing manifest and acknowledged in all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter PRINCE AND HEAD OF THE APOSTLES AND FOVNDATION OF THE CHVRCH receiued from our Lord Jesus Christ the Keyes of the kingdome of Heauen and that to this day he still liues in his Successours and determines causes of Fayth and shall euer continue so to doe With what confidence then could the Bishop pretend that Protestants conform themselues to the doctrine of the fowre first Generall Councils Those Councils submitt their definitions and decrees to the Bishop of Rome Protestants disclayme from him as from an enemy of Christs Gospell Those Councils acknowledge him vniuersall Pastour and Head of the Church Protestants cry out against him as an Vsurper and Tyrant ouer the Church Those Councils confess him St. Peters Successour who was Prince and Chiefe of the Apostles Protestants call him and esteem him Antichrist The Councils own his authority ouer the whole Church as proceeding from Christ Protestants allow him noe more power by diuine right then they allow to euery ordinary Bishop Lastly these Councils with all submission profess that the Pope was their Head and themselues his members Protestants giue vs in contempt and derision the nickname of Papists for doing the same that is for owning subiection to the Pope and Sea of Rome I might instance in many other points wherein Protestants disagree from the fowre first Generall Councils but I pass them ouer to take notice of what followes There is sayth the Bishop but one sauing Fayth But then euery thing which you call
DE FIDE of Fayth because some Council or other hath defined it is not such a breach from that one sauing Fayth as that he which expressly beleeues it not nay as that he which beleeues the contrary is excluded from Saluation so his disobedience therenhile offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor the charity that ought to be amongst Christians Wee doe not say that euery thing is de Fide that some Council or other indefinitely speaking be it generall or particular hash defined but that euery thing is de fide which is defined by a Lawfull Generall Council And for this how contemptuously soeuer he is pleas'd to speake of it because some Council or other hath defined it wee challenge all his adherents to shew what one Generall Council acknowledg'd for such eyther by themselues or vs did euer define any point of doctrine which they did not require all Christians to hold and beleeue as matter of Fayth after it was so defined as likewise to shew how 't is possible for Christians to disbeleeue what such a Generall Council hath defined without making themselues guilty of that sentence of our Sauiour Matth. 18. 17. He that will not heare the Church lett him be as an Heathen or Publican yea of that other Luc. 10. 16. He that despiseth you despiseth me Why shall not such a man be excluded from Saluation seeing that by the Bishops own doctrine the decrees of all Generall Councils are binding till they be reuers'd by an other Council of like authority why did he account it damnable sin to adhere to the condemned errour of St. Cyprian after it was condem'd by a Generall Councill seeing 't is manifest disobedience in that particular did of it selfe neither offer more violence to the peace of the Church nor to the charity that ought to be amongst Christians then disobedience in points determined by other Generall Councils is apt to doe and hath euer done as experience witnesseth So that in truth to suppose a disobedience to Generall Councils in point of defined doctrine which shall offer no violence to the peace of the Church nor to charity that ought to be amongst Christians is to suppose an impossibility and in effect to thinke that rebellion may consist with the peace of the state and that to cast of obedience to superiours is not to contemn their authority Wee doe not deny but there is a Latitude in the Fayth as the Bishop speakes that is all things pertaining to the doctrine of Fayth are not necessary to be expressly know'n and beleeu'd by all persons in order to Saluation and this Bellarmin's authority cited by the Bishop rightly proues But it follows not from hence that any man may deny or doubt of any point whatsoeuer that he knows is defin'd and propos'd by the Church to be beleeued as the Bishop and all Protestants doe It is not in it selfe absolutely necessary to Saluation to know or expressly beleeue many things reported in Scripture as for Example that Iudas hang'd himselfe that St. Paul was thrice beaten with rods that he left his cloake at Troas etc. but yet for any man to deny or doubt of these knowing them to be testifyed in Scripture I doe not doubt but euen Protestants themselues will acknowledge to be a great sin and without repentance inconsistent with Saluation In like manner though it be not absolutely necessary to know or beleeue expressly all verities defined by the Church as Bellarmin truly teaches yet it may be and is absolutely necessary not to disbeleeue or doubt of any one point that is know'n to be so defined As for our aduersaries beeing sure that our peremptory establishing so many things that are remote deductions from the Foundation to be beleeu'd as matters of Fayth hath with other errours lost the peace and vnity of the Church 't is but a partiall and groundless faney which all Heretiques and Schismatiques will plead as well as himselfe when they are put to it and may with as much right Was there not more disturbance and tumults in the Church during those Primitiue ages by reason of Arianisme Pelagianisme Manicheisme and other Heresies that then raged then there was for many hundred of years together before Luther began in which time neuertheless eyther all or most of the points now contested by Protestants were as fully defined by the Church and as generally beleeu'd by Christians as now they are With what truth or conscience then can it be sayd that the defining or establishing such points haue lost the peace of the Church True it is the Greekish Church hath opposed the Roman for a long time but what does that help Protestants seeing the world know's it is not for such points as Protestants doe now condemne in the Roman Church but for such errours as they themselues for the most part doe as much condemne in the Greeks as the Roman Church doth 'T is euident the Greeke Church consents with the Roman in all the chiefe points of controuersie betwixt the Roman Church and Protestants and this generall peace of the Church might still haue continued had not the pride arrogancy and temerity of Protestant Predicants first opened the gap to dissention by reuiuing and setting on foote condemned Heresies and by cooperating to so many other wicked Schismaticall and vnchristian disorders under pretense of reformation and obedience to the Gospell A C. tells his aduersarie it is not sufficient to beget a confidence in this case to say wee beleeue the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeued them What says the Bishop to this He confesses 't is most true to witt that which A. C. told him if he ' did only SAY so and did not beleeue as he sayd But sayth he if wee doe say it you are bound in charity to beleeue vs vnless you can proue the contrary For I know no other proofe to men of any point of Fayth but confession of it and subscription to it J reply the Bishops answer falls short of A. Cs. demand For who can doubt but A. C. when he told the Bishop it was not sufficient in this case to say wee beleeue Scripture etc. mean't that beside verball profession and giuing it vnder his hand that he doth beleeue so and so he should proue it by solid and conuincing arguments that the sense in which he beleeues the Scripture and the Creeds is the same with that in which the ancient Primitiue Church beleeu'd them for otherwise he can neither be sufficiently assured himselfe nor can he giue sufficient assurance there of to others Just reason I fay had A. C. to demand this of the Bishop namely that he should proue his Fayth to be agreeable to that of the Primitiue Church obsignatis tabulis as they say that is by speciall vndenyable euidence and not thinke it sufficient only to profess and affirm it to be so But
were esteem'd such in the Primitiue Church A question hitherto often askt in vaine and which himselfe once plainly declin'd the answering * as beeing no worke for his pen. But let vs heare what he says vpon second thoughts Fundamentalls sayth he so accounted by the Primitiue Church are but the Creed and some sew and those immediate deductions from it But this leaues vs 〈◊〉 in the darke Who shall resolue which those sew and immediate deductions are And what does he meane by immediate deductions only such as 〈◊〉 in themselues euident and necessary If so it were in effect to deny both the Diuinity and Incarnation of Christ to be Fundamentall points Jf in euident and only probable who shall infallibly assure vs that the deduction is true and certaine what shall wee thinke of Scripture Is not that a Fundamentall point in the Relatours beleefe can any man be sau'd that reiects Scripture prouided he admitts the Creed and some few immediate deductions from it Nay wee are told that euen the immediate deductions themselues are not formally Fundamentall for all men but only for such as are able to make and vnderstand them and that for others 't is enough if they doe not obstinately and Schismatically refuse them after they are once reuealed But had not preiudice troubled his eye-sight our Aduersarie might easily haue seen as much reason to say 'T is Fundamentall in the Fayth not to question or deny Schismatically and obstinately any thing at all that is sufficiently propos'd to vs as reuealed by God Let him cite what he can out of the Fathers he shall neuer proue that a man cannot fall from the true fayth by an act of disbeleefe so long as he beleeues the Articles of the Creed seeing the Apostle teaches that some fall from the Fayth by forbiding Marriage and certaine meates as absolutely vnlawfull and many haue been condemned for Heretiques in those ancient times who neuer oppos'd the Creed Now if a man may beleeue the Creed and yet be damned for Heresie and mis-belcefe in other matters how can Protestants assure themselues of Saluation or be accounted Orthodox Christians meerly by this pretended conformity with the Primitiue Church in the beleefe of the Creed vnless it could be prou'd withall that they held no other vnlawfull doctrine But certaine it is that to deny Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and diuerse other points as Protestants doe is most vnlawfull and was so held by the Primitiue Church 9. As for Tertullian Ruffinus St. Irenaeus and St. Basil here alledged by the Bishop they neither seuerally nor all together make an infallible authority to assure Protestants that all and only those points which they account Fundamentall were soe esteem'd by the Primitiue Church which yet was the only thing that A. C. in his Interrogatorie requir'd him to shew The doctrine by vs deliuer'd stands very well with the resolution of Occham here cited that it is not in the power of the Church or Council to make new Articles of Fayth For the Church neuer tooke vpon her to doe this but only to declare infallibly what was expressed or inuolued eyther in Scripture or the word of God not-written viz. Tradition And 't is a meere vntruth to affirme that Catholiques agree not in this that all points determined by the Church are Fundamentall in the sense declared For neither Sixtus Senensis nor any other Catholique did euer doubt or make scruple of those books of holy Scripture which they acknowledg'd to haue been defin'd by the Church for Canonicall they only question some other books concerning which wee haue not had as yet the resolution of any Generall Council such as are the third and fourth of Machabees the third and fourth of Esdras the prayer of Manasses etc. 'T is true Sixtus Senensis hath something about those chapters of the booke of Ester which Protestants count ` Apocryphall wherby he may be thought not to hold them for Canonicall Scripture euen after the decree of the Council of Trent But the reason was because he iudged that the decree of the Council touching Canonicall Scriptures did not comprehend those loose vncertaine peices as he calls them Beside his opinion therein was both singular and disallowed as may appeare euen by the booke it selfe where ouer against the place whence the Bishop takes his obiection there stands printed in the margent this note or censure Non est haec Sententia Sixti probanda cum repugnet sess 4. Concilij Tridentini quam ipse detorquet ne videatur ei repugnare This opinon of Sixtus sayes the note is not to be allowed seeing it is contrary to the fourth session of the Council of Trent which Sixtus wresteth that he may not seeme to be contrary to it The edition of Sixtus Senensis his booke where this Censure is found is that of Paris 1610. in folio which 't is hardly credible that the Bishop himselfe should not haue seen and if he had seen and did know it with what conscience or ingenuity towards his Reader could he make the obiection To what he sayth touching Pope Leo the tenths defining in the last Council of Lateran that the Pope is aboue a Generall Council I answer our Aduersaries know that those Catholique Authours that hold the negatiue doe likewise deny that the point was there defined as a matter of Fayth but only that by way of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall Constitution it was declar'd that the right of calling translating from one place to another and likewise dissoluing of Generall Councils did entirely and solely belong to the Bishop of Rome Successour to St. Peter those beeing the things which had been formerly contested by the Councils of Constance and Basil against the Pope likewise the sayd Authours deny that the last Council of Lateran was a full Generall Council After so many questions none of which as yet haue been sufficiently answer'd A. C. inferrs that his Aduersary had need seeke out some other infallible rule or meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or else that he hath noe reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule vpon it that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth What sayes the Relatour to this His answer is that if he cannot be confident for his soul vpon Scripture and the Primitiue Church expounding and declaring it he will be confident vpon no other But this is still to begg the question For the difficulty is how he comes infallibly to know Scripture and the exposition of the Primitiue Church or that the Primitiue Church did not erre in her exposition without certaine knowledge of which his confidence in this case cannot be well grounded He might more truly and ingenuously haue answer'd if I cannot be confdent for my soule vpon the Scripture and exposition of the Primitiue Church receiu'd and interpreted according to my own priuate sense and iudgement J will be confident vpon noe other For this in effect
he doth say and with truth can say noe more standing to his own principles 10. The implicite Fayth of Catholiques at which the Relatour againe glanceth in points they are oblig'd to know only implicitely giues them sufficient infallibility in their Fayth but hath noe place in this present debate For wee now treate only of such points as are Fundamentall quoad rem attestatam as wee haue formerly distinguish't them that is according to the importance of the matter they containe such as are the prime radicall Articles of our Fayth which euery one is oblig'd necessitate medij or praecepti to know expressly in so much that where ignorance of these points is culpable and through our owne default wee are soe farre from thinking that implicite Fayth can be sufficient for the attaining of Saluation that wee teach the cleane contrary asserting likewise that in those of the first kinde viz. which are necessary by necessity of meanes euen inuincible ignorance will not serue the turn So little cause in truth had the Bishop to tells vs by way of Irony and scoff that a Roman-Catholique may vse implicite Fayth at pleasure As to his carping at the word know vsed by A. C. the Relatour should haue know'n that his aduersary takes it not in the most proper sense for demonstratiue or scientificall knowledge as some speake but only for certaine assurance and for infallible beleefe as it is frequently taken by others But as for Protestants standing to the Bishops grounds it is impossible they should haue infallible Fayth eyther explicite or implicite of any thing they bleeue because the authority of the Church beeing in his opinion fallible they can neuer by force thereof be infallibly certain that the books of Scripture which it commends are all or any of them the word of God or that the exposition of Scripture made eyther by the Church or any priuate man is agreeable to the true sense of the holy Ghost Now so long as he is not infallibly certaine of this it may happen for ought he knowes to the contrary that some of them may proue not to be Gods word and seeing the Churches authority attests them all alike he may if he please conceiue a like feare of every one of them What he further adds in this page viz. 337. is only matter of references to what himselfe hath formerly deliuer'd so as I thinke it also sufficient to referre my reader to what I haue answer'd in those places viz. § 25. num 3. § 33. Consid. 3. num 1. § 21. num 1. But I cannot sufficiently wonder to heare him affirme here that he holds the authority of the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. does This surely must be accounted a Paradox or nothing can be iustly taken for such For is not the greatest part of this comerence spent in debating the difference between himselfe and A. C. toutching the extent of the Churches infallibility and doth not the Bishop all along professedly sustaine and endeauour to proue that she is fallible both in the deliuery of Scriptures and in the defining of all points in his opinion Not-Fundamentall and also in her Traditions euen immemoriall and vniuersall And doth not A. C. in direct opposition to him maintaine and assert the Churches infallibility in all these But J wonder yet more at the proofe he brings for this assertion to witt his referring vs to § 21. num 5. of his owne booke For there pag. 139. he expresly limits the Churches infallibility to absolute Fundamentall doctrines which A. C. neuer doth and in the progress of his discourse explicating the sayd infallibility euen in Fundamentalls too he falls so low and attributes so small a portion thereof to the Church that he brings it down at last to this pittifull state and if she erre sayth he in some ONE or MORE Fundamentall points she may be a Church of Christ still but not holy etc. Is this to acknowledge the Catholique Church as infallible as A. C. doth not to vrge here the dangerous consequence and also inuolued implicancy of the assertion it selfe which I haue already noted in my answer to that place The rest of this Paragraph is spent only in repeating obiections which haue been more then once sufficiently answer'd viz. concerning Transubstantiation Communion vnder one kinde etc. wherein wee cannot thinke our felues oblig'd to follow our Aduersaries example but rather to remitt the Reader to the places where wee haue already giuen satisfaction touching those matters As little notice shall wee take of his obiecting againe to vs the doctrine of deposing and killing of kings This was added to inuenome the rest of his arguments which he knew otherwise would not be mortall to vs. Wee hope our demeanour in these late dismall distracted times of tryall hath sufficiently cleer'd vs from all such aspersions in the iudgement of indifferent persons nay indeed in the opinion of our greatest enemyes For who knowes not that vnder the late vsurping powers the greatest crime layd to our charge was our Loyalty and Fidelity to our Souereign in so much as 't was held by all that partie a thing almost impossible for a man to be a profess't Catholique and not a Caualier too But to this obiection wee haue likewise already spoken what may suffice To summe vp all in briefe wee vtterly renounce all doctrine and opinions whatsoeuer preiudiciall vnto or destructiue of that loyall obedience and Fidelity which is due to all Souereign Princes and Magistrates And if any thing of that nature hath perchance dropt srom the pen of any of ours wee owne it not but censure it deeply prohibite it strictly and in case it be obstinately maintained punish it seuerely and lastly command all books to be corrected that containe any such doctrine CHAP. 25. A further prosecution of the point touching the vnchangedness of the Roman Fayth with a defence of Purgatory ARGVMENT 1. A. C. Argument that the Roman Fayth is still the ONE SAVING CATHOLIQVE Fayth made good 2. The words of St. Athanasius his Creed Quam nisi quisque INTEGRAM JNVIOLATAMQVE seruauerit etc. vindicated from the Bishops Gloss. 3. The Bishops distinguishing betwixt not-beleeuing the Creed in its true sense and forcing a wrong sense vpon it vayn and impertinent 4. Protestants are chusers in point of beleefe noe less then all other Heretiques 5. They are not guided by the Church further then they please themselues 6. Church-infallibility to what it amounts according to the Bishops measure 7. In what sense Generall Councils may be sayd to be infallible euen a parte antè or at first sitting down 8. All the ancient Fathers generally speaking beleeu'd Purgatorie 9. Prayer for dead as vsed by the ancients necessarily inferres Purgatory 10. The Relatour labours in vayn to auoyd the Authorities of the Fathers in this point 11. St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret euen by his owne confession cleere for Purgatory 12. St. Austin not wauering
according to the common sense and beleefe of the whole Church Whatsoeuer Origen taught in other places certaine it is in the place alledged by Bellarmin he teaches noe such Heresie speaking there only of soules beeing expiated from light and veniall sinnes which doe not deserue Hell or damnation eternall These he styles aliquid de specie plumby they are in Faythfull soules as a mixture of lead or some baser mettal in gold soules are defiled by them And then putting a difference betwixt those soules which haue much gold and but small quantity of lead and such as haue much lead and but little gold he sayes of them both that they shall after this life be purg'd by fire more or less for a longer or shorter time of paine according as they had more or less lead that is vice and sinne to be purged in them but for others viz. such as be all lead and haue noe gold that is noe true merit of vertue and grace in them they sayth Origen shall sinke down into the bottomless pitt for euer This is the summe of his discourse in that place and can any thing be spoken more cleerly for Purgatory In the fourth and fifth ages Bellarmin brings more plenty of authorities and the Relatour is pleas'd to call these the great and learned ages of the Church therfore surely the less subiect to be seduced and led away from the truth by any priuate false doctrine of Heretiques St. Ambrose is plaine enough for Purgatory for speaking of what happens to the dead after this life he sayes some shall be saued as by fire alluding manifestly to those words of St. Paul 1. Cor. 3. If any mans worke burn he shall suffer detriment but he himselfe shall be saued yet so AS BY FIRE But the words in St. Ambrose AS by fire at which the Bishop will seeme to stumble and pretend difficulty relate not so much to the thing or fire it selfe as if St. Ambrose mean't not true fire or that it were not truly and really to be passed thorough saue only in way of similitude or figure but it relates to the person to witt of him that does pass thorough it signifying that those who are cleansed after this life are not burn't vp and quite destroyed by fire as those in Hell are ouer whom that fire preuailes for euer but only that they suffer detriment for a while like him that passes through fire and in his passage hath his haire and garments singed Thus I say it is that St. Ambrose teaches some are saued quasi per ignem as by fire I adde that suppose St. Ambrose by his quasi per ignem did not intend to signifie true and materiall fire but only Metaphoricall as paines analogicall to fire yet it will not thence follow that he intended not to signifie Purgatory since it is not yet declared by the Church to be matter of necessary beleefe that soules in Purgatorie are tormented by fire in that sense but only that they endure paines and dolours there by which they are purged and which for their extremity are not vnfittly according to Scripture phrase express'd and signify'd by fire what euer the meanes or immediate instrument be by which God inflicts them See Concil Florentin in lit vnion likewise St. Ambrose in his oration vpon the death of that good Emperour Theodosius where he prayes for his soule in these words giue REST to thy Seruant Theodosius that REST which thou hast prepared for thy saynts and prosesses out of great affection to him that he would neuer leaue so praying day nor night till by his prayers and teares he had brought him to the place whither his merits call'd him to the holy mountaine where is life euerlasting Jf you obiect that St. Ambrose in this very oration professes to beleeue that Theodosius was already in heauen J answer out of his charity he might hope so knowing how good a Christian that Emperour was yet not beeing certaine of it he held it necessary as wee see and agreeable to Christian piety to pray for him which cleerly rather confums then ouerthrows the doctrine of Purgatorie St. Hierome also is nce less plaine for a purging fire after this life yea so expresly that he makes it to differ from that of Hell only because through this they pass as the Israelites did through the red sea but through that of Hell none pass but all with the Egyptidns are drown'd therein and perish eternally As for the word arbitramur which the Relatour catches at as if St. Hierome therby deliuer'd only his own priuate and but coniecturall opinion and not any matter of Christian beleefe wee answer arbiramur doth not alwayes signifie opinion or doubt but simply a mans sense or iudgement in whatsoeuer matter or question propounded as euery common Lexicon might haue inform'd him Does the word signifie noe more then meere opinion in that text of St. Paul Philip. 2. non rapinam ARBITRATVS est esse se aequalem Deo etc And would not the Bishop thinke you haue been shrewdly putt to it to finde a proofe for iustificationby Payth been only should that of Rom. 3. 28. haue been wrested from him in this manner St. Paul is heere only at his ARBITRAMVR WEE THINKE that a man is iustisyed by Fayth without the works of the Law he deliuers not a point of Fayth but only his priuate opinion leauing it sree for other men to thinke otherwise if they see cause Howeuer the Reader shall doe well to take a little notice of the Bishops doubling here He makes a shew of answering the texts which Bellarmin brings out of the fathers to proue Purgatory but in stead of performing punctually what he pretends is content to pass by many of them and to frame an answer only to some few which he thought fitt Can any reason be conceiu'd of 〈◊〉 proceeding but only that he found the omitted places too hot for him and not capable of any colourable peruerting Lett the Reader iudge in part by this one of St Hierome which to that end is here presented in the margent verbatim as it stood and should haue been answer'd in Bellarmin si autem Origenes etc. what is it to vs sayth St. Hierome if Origen teach that all reasonable creatures whatsoeuer shall be sau'd at last and that euen the Deuill shall come to repentance seeing wee hold no such matter but confess that the Deuill and his Ministers are damned for euer and that all wicked impenitent sinners shall likewise eternally perish and that such Christians only as ARE PREVENTED IN SINNE that is dye before they haue done full and perfect pennance for the sinnes of which they had truly repented shall be siued after a time of punishment To which wee may adde what he sayth in his Commentaries vpon the Prouerbs where he plainly auoucheth that the faythfull after death may be absolued from light sinnes in which they dyed
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
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
yet Faith which is the Foundation of all our Supernatural Building remain firme But if one part of the Foundation be shaken the whole ground-work will be but in a tottering condition and as A. C. sayes in a certain manner shaken By which kinde of speech I conceive he onely means that by questioning or denying one point of Faith though we do not eo ipso deny all others directly yet indirectly we do to wit by taking away or denying all Authority to Gods Revelation and for that reason rendring our selves at the same time uncapable of believing any thing else with Supernatural and Divine Faith 9. His Lordship must be pardoned if he dissent from A.C's. Assertion that all Determinations of the Church are made some to us by one and the same Divine Revelation which in the sense we have declared his Lordship doth not disprove but in the pursuance of his Discourse he brings in Doctor Stapleton as contradicting Bellarmin because Bellarmin sayes that nothing can be certain by the certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the word of God or deduced out of it by evident consequence whereas Stapleton is vouched to affirme that some Decisions of the Church are made without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Scripture I have sought this place in Stapleton and finde his words to be onely these We ought not to deny our Assent in matters of Faith though we have them onely by Tradition or the Decisions of the Church against Heretiques and not consirmed with evident or probable Testimony of Holy Scripture His meaning is we must submit to the Determinations of the Church and the Traditions she approves though they be not expresly contained in Scripture which questionless may very well stand with Bellarmins Doctrine that nothing can be believ'd with Divine Faith unless it be either contain'd in the word of God or drawn from thence by evident consequence For that Bellarmin by the word of God understands not onely Gods written but his not-written word also or Tradition is manifest because he makes all our Faith even of Scripture it self to be grounded upon it as is clear by his very words Itaque hoc Dogma 〈◊〉 necessarium quod scilicit sit aliqua Scriptura Divina non potest sufficientèr haberi ex Scripturâ proinde cum Fides nitatur verbo Dei nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum nulla nobis erit Fides Therefore this so necessary Maxime viz. that there is any Divine Scripture at all cannot sufficiently be had by Scripture alone Wherefore seeing Faith relyes upon the word of God unless we have a word of God not-written we shall have no Faith at all Many like instances he gives in the same Chapter of other matters pertaining to Christian Faith which can onely be believ'd for the word of God not-written Now in the place cited by the Bishop he teaches that we cannot be certain of our Salvation with certainty of Faith because this is not reveal'd by the word of God either written or unwritten nor is evidently deduc'd from either of these which is a good Argument but no way contradicted by Stapleton Besides a Proposition may be not so much as probably expressed in Scripture and yet be inferred by necessary consequence from something contained in Scripture I mean inferred at least from such general Principles and Rules as the Scriptures recommend to us and command us to follow But the reason the Bishop brings to prove that Bellarmin speaks onely of the written word is very strange For Bellarmin sayes he treats there of the knowledge a man can have of the certainty of his own Salvation and I hope that A. C. will not tell us that there is any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Thus he Now first we say not that Bellarmin speaks of the word unwritten and Stapleton of the word written but that Stapleton speaks of the unwritten word onely and Bellarmin of both the written and unwritten word which he calls the compleat word of God Secondly Bellarmin was not to affirme there was any unwritten Tradition by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations but the contrary That there was no such unwriten Tradition to be found For had he intended to prove any such unwritten Tradition he should have consequently proved the foresaid assurance to be Infallible and equal to the Certainty of Faith which he there professedly labours to prove fallible and not of the Certainty of Faith which had been a Turn like one of his Lordships the quite contrary way And for Stapleton he purposely proves that the Church hath not power to make new Articles of Faith but onely to declare and explain those already delivered His Lordship cannot believe that all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applyed by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church saith he though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the power it commits to General Councills lawfully called yet it is not alwayes of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and Integrity c. To this I answer that these Ornaments of Knowledge Sufficiency Conscience and Integrity are not the Causes of Infallibility either in the Church or Councils for that proceeds onely from the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost which is of the same power in weaker and stronger Instruments as it appear'd by the Apostles who being of themselves persons altogether ignorant of Divine matters yet by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost became not onely able to Teach them but also Infallible in their Teaching Neither doth the want of Conscience or Integrity in some particular persons deprive either the Church or a General Council of this promised Infallibility any more then the same want deprived the Scribes and Pharisees in old time of their Authority concerning whom notwithstanding their manifest and great defects in point of Conscience and Integrity c. our Saviour himself pronounceth Matth. 23. 2. Upon the Chaire of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees all things therefore they shall say to you observe you and do The Relatour again repeats that all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are not alike Fundamental in the Faith But this is answer'd by the Doctrine we have so often delivered to clear his often mistaking touching Fundamentals that some are in this sense Fundamental to wit of necessity to be believ'd by all and known expresly of all others not Fundamental that is not of necessity to be known and believed expresly by all In this sense I say we agree with his Lordship and his party touching the Distinction of Fundamentals and not-Fundamentals Our onely controversie is whether there be in the Catholique Church any points of Faith not-Fundamental in this sense that is such as
being declared by the Church to us as points of Faith may lawfully that is without peril of sin and damnation be denyed or doubted of For in this they hold the Affirmative we the Negative The reason why we have no occasion in this Controversie to treat this distinction in any sense save this is because it relates onely to our Adversaries who maintain they are not obliged under pain of damnation to believe some Definitions of the Church made in lawful General Councils even whilest they expresly know them to be so defined because say they those Councils may erre in such Definitions by reason the matter they contain is not-Fundamental Wherefore we neither say nor intend to shew it Sub Anulo Piscator is which are his Lordships tearms that 't is as necessary to believe St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men as that Christ dyed and rose again the Third Day We hold the contrary the one being a Prime Article and Fundamental in the first explicated sense the other neither Prime nor Fundamental But we stand to this That whoever shall finde in Scripture That St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and yet question or deny the truth of it cannot for that time believe any thing with Divine Faith Therefore in the second sense it is Fundamental to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made Fishers of men and though the contrary should be shewed under the Great Seal of England I would not believe it Now if the belief of every point of Faith decreed by the Church be as necessary to Salvation when sufficiently propounded to us for a point decreed by the Church as it is necessary to believe that St. Peter and St. Andrew were made by our Saviour Fishers of men when it is sufficiently propounded to us as clearly delivered in Scripture then it will be as necessary to Salvation that is as much a Fundamental point by reason of the Authority which delivers it as the other CHAP. 4. The Conclusion of Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation ARGUMENT 1. What points Fundamental what not a Necessary question 2. The Apostles Creed confessedly contains not all Fundamentals in particular 3. Albertus Magnus cited to small purpose 4. A. C's words wrested in defense of Mr. Rogers 5. Catharinus might erre but was no Heretique 6. How Protestants agree 7. A. C. mutilated the second time in favour of the English Canons 8. English Protestants excommunicate Catholiques as much as Catholiques them 9. Some Things contain'd in Scripture expresly not evidently Some Truths deduced from Scripture directly not demonstratively 10. Baptisme of Infants not demonstratively proved by the Bishop from Sole Scripture 11. What St. Augustin thought of that matter 12. The Bishop proved to contradict himself 1. 'T Was a very pertinent question which Mr. Fisher afterwards moved requiring to know what points the Bishop would account Fundamental For if he will have some Fundamental which we are bound to believe under pain of Damnation and others not Fundamental which we may without sin question or deny it behoves us much to know which they are I have ever desir'd a fatisfactory answer from Protestants to this question but could never yet have it in the sense demanded 2. What if the Council of Trent call the Creed the onely Foundation it containing the Prime points of our Faith which all are obliged to know and expresly believe yet I hope his Lordships followers will not grant that we may question or deny every thing that is not exprest in the Creed and yet this must be done if the Creed onely be held for Fundamental in the sense the question was propounded in If they should reply that not onely those points are Fundamental which are exprest in the Creed but those also which are there infolded by this means they may as the Bishop speaks lap up in the Creed all particular points of Faith whatever And truly seeing his Lordship goes so far as to include all the Scripture in the Creed there appears no great reason of Scruple why the same should not be said of Traditions and other points especially of that Tradition for which we admit Scripture it self For this would not make the fold much larger then it was before and if it did yet I see no hurt in it But let us briefly reflect how well the Bishops Answer satisfies the question propounded by Mr. Fisher. The matter proceeded thus The Jesuit had said that the Greek Church was not right because it held an errour concerning the Holy Ghost The Bishop confessed that what the Greeks held in that point was an errour and a grievous one in Divinity but not Fundamental and so hindered them not from being a True Church Whereupon that it might appear whether the errour of the Greek Church were Fundamental or not Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop what points he would account Fundamental To this question the Bishop after diverse artificial flourishes serving to little or no purpose but to draw the Readers attention from the Obligation he had to give a perfect list of his Fundamentals answered All points in the Creed as they are there expressed are Fundamental but soon after affirms that he never either said or meant that they onely are Fundamental By which it evidently appears his Lordship neither gave nor meant to give a Categorical Answer to the question but did industriously decline it while granting there were other points Fundamental beside those contain'd in the Apostles Creed he would not assign them in particular Wherefore though the Greeks errour were not contrary to any point expressed in the Creed yet seeing it might be contrary to some other Fundamental point not contained therein Mr. Fisher must needs remain as unsatisfied as before whether the Greeks erred in a Fundamental point or not Is not this fine shuffling 3. Before I leave this § I shall note by the way that to prove this Proposition that the Belief of Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather preceding Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed he cites Albertus Magnus in these words Regula 〈◊〉 Concors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Articulis Fidei c. the Rule of Faith is the Concordant sense of Scripture with Articles of Faith Now first here 's nothing of believing the Scripture to be the word of God and Infallible for that 's presupposed but onely what sense the Scripture must have to be the Rule of Faith Secondly here 's no mention of the Creed but of Articles of Faith which Albertus held to be many more then those specified in the Creed Thirdly this sentence of Albertus makes the Scripture no further a Rule of Faith then as it accords with the Articles of Faith first delivered by Tradition 4. By what hath been said is confuted whatever the Bishop hath to pag. 44. where Mr. Rogers is brought in by Mr. Fisher as acknowledging that the
is that they amend their lives and be Baptized and they shall receive the Holy Ghost it cannot appertain to their Children till they be capable of mending their lives which Infants as all know are not And therefore by a new Turn he tells us the means to receive the Holy Ghost was Baptisme as if nothing but Baptisme had been exacted by the Apostle in that place when he expresly requires amendment of life as well as Baptisme 11. Notwithstanding all this I would not have it thought I intend to weaken the Argument out of John 3. for proving the Baptisme of Infants for I have onely endeavoured to shew that it cannot be demonstratively proved out of that Text of Scripture alone against a perverse Heretique We must therefore embrace St. Augustins counsel cited by his Lordship who fayes The custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition In which words St. Augustin expresly asfirmeth that the point of Baptizing Infants were not at all to be believ'd but for Tradition Therefore it is not demonstrable out of Scripture alone for if it were we should be bound to believe it though we had it not from Tradition which is contrary to St. Augustins words 'T is true this Father having first learn't the abovesaid Doctrine from Tradition proves it or rather confirms it out of Scripture and so do other Catholique Authours But all these proofs would be far from Demonstrations were it not for Tradition Writing against Pelagius he applyes that saying of our Saviour Matth. 10. 14. Suffer little ones to come unto me to the Baptizing of Infants yet no man ever brought this place for a Demonstration or a Text evidently proving of it self without Tradition that Infants ought to be Baptized For those our Saviour spake of came not unto him to be Baptized but to receive his Benediction And 't is clear that he spake of the Children of the Jews who were either circumcized or otherwise justified and if we stick to the sole words they may be understood of such as were capable to understand what was commanded or forbidden them and consequently had some use of reason which the Text it self intimates nolite prohibere eos forbid them not For as I have said we grant that Tradition being supposed this point is proveable out of Scripture Wherefore 't is true that it hath a root and foundation in Scripture yet so obscurely that it could not be sufficiently discovered without Tradition because an Anabaptist might give a probable solution to all our Arguments had we onely Scripture and not Tradition for this point of Faith Wherefore though Scripture may in some general sense be said to contain in it all things necessary yet it cannot be said to contain expresly and evidently all things necessary in particular 12. I prove my Assertion that Infant-Baptisme must be believed by Divine Faith as 't is an Apostolical Tradition that is considered purely as delivered orally by the Apostles whether it can be prov'd by Scripture or no. My Argument is ad hominem against the Bishop thus He grants expresly pag. 66. and 67. that unwritten Apostolical Traditions if any such can be produced are as properly and formally the word of God and to be believed with Divine Faith as Scripture it self Ergo Baptisme of Infants considered onely as an unwritten Apostolical Tradition as he considers it precedently to its being drawn from Scripture is to be believed with Divine Faith being in that precise consideration the proper and formal object of Faith to wit the true word of God So that according to this his doctrine not onely such Traditions as are not at all written are Gods word but such as are both delivered by word of mouth and also by writing are the word of God as well by reason they were delivered by word of mouth as by writing because God hath equally revealed them by both these means When therefore he sayes pag. 52. that the Scriptures onely are the Foundation of Faith it must be acknowledg'd that he speaks contrary to what he sayes pag. 57. That Baptisme of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition which he there takes as contradistinguisht from Scripture and therefore to be believed For if it be therefore that is because it is an Apostolical Tradition even precedently to Scripture proofs to be believed not onely the Scriptures but Apostolical Tradition also as contradistinguisht from Scripture will be a foundation of Faith If he should reply that when he sayes therefore to be believed he means not as the formal object and foundation of Faith but as a disposition preparing us to found the belief of it in Scripture as he seems to insinuate though something obscurely pag. 57 he contradicts himself pag. 66 67. where he grants that assured unwritten Tradition is the true word of God and by consequence properly to be believed as having in it the formal object of Faith to wit Gods Revelation CHAP. 5. Of the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. No vicious Circle incurr'd by Catholiques in their Resolution of Faith 2. The Church prov'd Infallible by the same way that Moyses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so 3. The Difference between Principles of Science and Faith 4. No Necessity that the Churches Definitions should be held the formal object of Faith but onely an Infallible Application of the Formal Object to us 5. His Lordships Argument disproved by Instances HAving ended our large discourse of Fundamentals drawn out to so great a length by necessity of following our Adversary through all his Doubles and ambiguous Windings wherein yet I hope we have given Satisfaction to the judicious Reader we are come at last to that main Question How Scriptures may be known to be the word of God and in particular Genesis Exodus Leviticus c. These are believ'd to be the word of God though not proved so out of any place of Scripture but onely by Gods unwritten word Tradition His Lordship thinks this too curious a question but it is not so much a question of curiosity as of necessity that so we may know how to resolve our Faith and give an account thereofto others But the plain truth is that though this question hath no difficulty at all in our principles who say we believe them to be the true and undoubted word of God because the Catholique Church delivers them as such to us yet was it so insuperably hard to be solved in Protestant principles that I fear the Relatour had rather have given it a put off by a Turn in his Labyrinth then engaged himself therein could the business have been conveniently avoided Now if some do prove Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture falling into that faulty kinde of Argumentation which the Schools call Circulus vitiosus the blame lyes not in him that asks the question
Lordships Argument that the whole may erre because every part may erre is disproved by himself because in Fundamentals he grants the whole Church cannot erre and yet that any particular man may erre even in those points Wherefore he must needs agree with us in this that the perfection of Infallibility may be applied to the whole Church though not to every particular Member thereof Now further concerning the Churches Infallibility though she be so tyed to means as that she is bound to use them yet in her Definitions she receives not her Infallibility from the Means as the Bishop must also affirm of his Fundamentals but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Church which makes her Definitions truly Infallible though they be not New Revelations but onely Declarations of what was formerly Revealed For as the immediate Revelation it self is for no other reason Infallible but because it proceeds from God and in case it should happen to be not true and Certain the Errour would be ascribed to God So in the Definitions of the Church if she should fall into Errour it would likewise be ascrib'd to God himself Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is Gods immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false Gods Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averre that Gods promise would be infring'd as truly it would in that Supposition For did he not so preserve his Church in her Definitions of Faith by Assistance of the Holy Ghost as that she should never Define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not Revealed from God it would imply a destruction of Gods veracity and make him deny himself All which Doctrine is so well grounded on Christs Promise assuring us he will alwayes assist his Church that the Bishop has little reason to accuse us of rather maintaining a party then seeking Truth as though we set Doctrines on foot to foment Division and were rather lead by Animosity then Reason CHAP. 6. No unquestionable Assurance of Apostolicall Tradition but for the Infallible Authority of the Present Church ARGUMENT 1. Apostolical Traditions are the unwritten word of God and eight Instances concerning them witnessed by St. Augustin 2. Many things spoken by our Saviour not deliver'd by way of Tradition to the Church and many Church-Traditions not the word of God 3. Tradition not known by its own light any more then Scripture to be the word of God 4. The Private Spirit held by Calvin and Whitaker for the sole Motive of Believing Scripture to be the word of God 5. A Dialogue between the Bishop and a Heathen Philosopher 6. The case of a Christian dying without sight of Scripture 7. Occham Saint Augustin Canus Almain and Gerson either miscited or their sense perverted by the Bishop 1. THe Bishop having been hardly put to it in the precedent Chapter to finde some way whereby to prove Scripture to be the Word of God he continually treading on the brink of a Circle at length falls on the unwritten Word It seems he is afraid he shall be forc'd to come stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority But being loath to trust her he grows so wary that hee 'l admit no unwritten word but what is shew'n him deliver'd by the Prophets and Apostles Would he read it in their Books Now if you hearken to his Discourse he presently cryes out he cannot swallow into his belief that every thing which his Adversary sayes is the unwritten word of God is so indeed Nor is it our desire he should But we crave the indifferent Readers Patience to hear reason According to which it is apparent that there must be some Authority to assure us of this main Principle of Faith that Scripture is the Word of God This our Ensurancer is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition Declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God We do not pretend as the Bishop objects that every Doctrine which any particular Person as A. C. Bellarmin or other private Doctour may please to call Tradition is therefore to be receiv'd as Gods unwritten Word but such Doctrinal Traditions onely as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently Gods unwritten word Of which kinde are those which not I but St. Augustin judged to be such in his time and have ever since been conserved and esteemed such in the whole Church of Christ. The first Apostolical Tradition named by Saint Augustin is that we now treat that Scripture is the Word of God He affirms he would not believe the Gospel but for the Authority of the Church moving him thereto and sticks so close to her Authority that he sayes If any clear Testimony were brought out of Scripture against the Church he would neither believe the Scripture nor the Church Nay that he as much believed the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel it self because the same Authority of the Church assured him both of the one the other A second Tradition is That the Father is not begotten of any other Person A third that the blessed Virgin Mary was and remained alwayes a Virgin both before in and after the Birth of Christ St. Augustin terming Helvidius his opinion who denied it a Blasphemy and for that reason inserting him in his Catalogue of Hereticks The fourth That those who are Baptized by Hereticks are not to be Rebaptized The fifth That Infants are to be baptized The Sixth that Children Baptized are to be numbred amongst the faithful The seventh that the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received fasting The eighth that Sunday the first Day of the Week is to be kept holy by Christians It is so natural to Protestants to build upon false grounds that they cannot enter into a question without supposing a Falshood so his Lordship here feeds his humour and obtrudes many He makes Bellarmin and all Catholique Doctours maintain that whatever they please to call Tradition must presently be received by all as Gods unwritten Word After he keeps a fluttering between Tradition and the unwritten Word asking if they be Convertible Terms and then whether any Word of God be unwritten c. Which digressive Discourse is nothing but a new Turn in his Labyrinth to avoid the foil he foresaw himself in danger of in case he did here grapple with Bellarmin who clearly delivers his Doctrine in the place cited by the Bishop cap. 2. viz. That the word Tradition is general and signifies any Doctrine communicated from one to another whether it be written or unwritten By which 't is evident he makes not Tradition and the unwritten Word of God Convertible Afterwards he divides Traditions into Divine Apostolical and Ecclesiastical and again into Traditions belonging to Faith and Traditions belonging to Manners So that
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
from the pretended light that is in Scripture Whereas if he had cited the whole Sentence it would have appear'd most clearly that Canus makes Infidels and Novices in Faith so convinc'd to believe Scripture for the Infallible word of God by the authority of the Church that the said authority is not a fallible but a certain and sure way to make them believe it For he asserts that an Infidel is victus convinc'd by that Authority that it is via certa a sure and certain way and that we take argumentum certum a certain and assured argument of this from the Churches Authority Again by this citing of Nominatives without Verbs he puts off by a nimble Turn the esteem that Infideles Novicii make of the Churches Authority in regard of Scripture sive Infideles sive in fide Novicii ad sacras literas ingrediantur the Churches Authority is a sure way and none but that Observe I pray you those words None but that whereby he excludes all others and consequenly this pretended Light of Scripture it self from being a sure and infallible way of entring into the Scriptures that is of beginning to believe them expresly to be the word of God This Verb therefore ingrediantur which was omitted would have given light to 〈◊〉 his full meaning For though the greatest Doctours of the Church believe Scriptures upon this sole Authority as a certain and infallible foundation yet onely Infideles Novicii Infidels and Novices in Faith enter into Scriptures that is make their first beginning to believe them by the same authority As for Stapleton he never so much as mentions in the cited place this Text of St. Augustin but onely averres that nothing can be prov'd from Scripture against such an one as is either ignorant of Scripture or denies it St. Augustin therefore in this place speaking according to those cited Authors of a sure way for believing Scripture to be the word of God cannot possibly favour the Bishops assertion who makes the Authority of the Church in this case to be but fallible and unsure Neither doth this great Doctour any where affirm that this way of Church authority is onely for Infidels as the Bishops explication of him seems to insinuate but both affirms and proves that neither Infidels nor Believers can be any other way convinc'd When therefore his Lordship cites St. Augustins Text Quibus ergo obtemper avi dicentibus CREDITE EVANGELIO c. Whom therefore I have obeyed saying BELIEVE THE GOSPEL c. and thence gathers that St. Augustin speaks of himself when he did not believe I see very little consequence in this his Illation unless he suppose that Saint Augustin never obeyed this command of Gods Church but onely at his first Conversion from Infidelity For certainly his meaning was that he had and did alwayes even till that instant from his first Conversion obey that command of the Church One thing I am sure may be far better inferr'd from those words against the Relatour then this was against us For St. Augustin sayes not Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus LEGITE EVANGELIUM vel INSPICITE EVANGELIUM c. whom I obeyed saying Read the Gospel or persue the Gospel but Credite Evangelio believe the Gospel The Church commanded St. Augustin to believe the Gospel Ergo The Church in St. Augustins time esteem'd her self most undoubtedly certain that the Gospel and by consequence all other Scriptures which she recommended to her children to believe were the Infallible word of God For otherwise to impose a command of so high a nature in that wherein she might be deceiv'd her self and deceive them had been to expose her Authority to the hazard of commanding Christians to do that which had been a grievous injury to God namely to believe that to be his Divine Word which was onely the word of man CHAP. 7. The prosecution of the former Question ARGUMENT 1. No means sufficient in the Bishops Principles to be assured what Tradition is Apostolical or what Scripture Divine 2. St. Augustins Text concerning Church-Authority examin'd 3. That the Bishop yields at last to the Private Spirit mask'd under the title of Grace 4. His way of Resolving Faith demonstrated to faile 5. That no man with him can be a true Christian unless he be a good Grammarian and Logician too 6. How the Scripture is said to be a Light 7. His falling again upon the Private Spirit 8. Bellarmine vindicated 9. Brierley defended Hooker shamefully mangled miscited and misconstrued by the Bishop 1. HItherto our Antagonist hath endeavour'd with all the engins of his wit to shake the Infallible Authority of the present Catholique Church but in vain Let 's now see whether he can build better then he destroyes The ground on which he builds our Faith is Primitive Apostolical Tradition I demand how comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us if the present Church be fallible or why cannot we as well being induc'd and prepar'd by the voice of the Church if fallible believe with Divine Faith and rest upon Apostolical Tradition as a Formal Object for it self as believe the Scriptures for themselves If it be answer'd we have no other certainty that the Church now delivers that Primitive Tradition which the Apostles deliver'd but the voyce of the Church I reply We have also no other certainty that the Scripture we now have is the very same which was recommended by Apostolicall Tradition but the Voyce and perpetual Testimony of the Church Yes sayes our Adversary we have the more ancient Copies which confirm ours But the same Difficulty returns upon those ancienter Copies What infallible certainty have we of them beside Church-Tradition They may replyes his Lordship be examin'd and approv'd by the Authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles But first how many of those are now extant Secondly how few will be able to come to the sight of them Thirdly what certainty have we that they are the Authenticall Autographa's but by Tradition Fourthly may not every Universall Tradition be carried up as clearly at east to the Apostles times as the Scriptures by most credible Authors who wrote in their respective succeeding ages If therefore when he sayes there 's a double Authority c. he mean onely that in the Apostles time Christians had a double Authority to believe Scripture viz. Tradition and Scripture it self he brings nothing to the present purpose for our dispute is not of that but of Our present time If he say we have now that double Authority he contradicts himself and puts a foundation of our Faith beside Scripture and so denies that Scripture alone is the foundation of our Faith Yet it seems by speaking in the present Tense Here 's a double Authority that confirms Scripture to be the word of God he means that we have now both Apostolicall Tradition and Scripture it self as two Authorities and each containing the Formal Object of Faith to believe Scripture to be
the word of God which is also sutable to his words § 16. num 22. We resolve saith he meaning Faith into Prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scriptures it self and yet confesses we have no means to be infallibly certain that Scripture is the word of God but by the Testimony of Church-Tradition He would fain have the difference betwixt us to consist onely in this that we affirm Church-Traditions to be the Formal Object Prime Motive and last Resolution of Faith and that they deny it to be so But the difference as it appears in the Resolution we have already given is not in that For we are now both agreed that it is not necessary to say the Faith of Scripture is resolv'd into the Tradition of the present Church as its Formall Object or Prime Motive c. but the onely substantiall Difference is this We say the Tradition of the present Church is Infallible and that necessarily to the end it may infallibly apply the Formal Object to us you say 't is Fallible Grant us once that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible and the controversie in this is ended How our Antagonist can resolve his Faith as here he speaks into the Prime Apostostolical Tradition Infallibly without the Infallibility of the present Church I see not unless he could tell how to be infallibly certain of that Tradition without it which he knows not well how to compass as appears in the next number So that now he abandons his Fort again by not shewing how we can know infallibly that Apostolicall Tradition is Divine otherwise then by the Tradition of the present Church For as to what he asserted num 21. that there 's a double Authority and both Divine viz. Apostolical Tradition and Scripture even in respect of us it doth not satisfie the difficulty as I have prov'd but serves onely to make one contrary Turn upon another in his Labyrinth so that you know not where to follow him For if Church-Tradition fail to ascertain us infallibly of that Divine Apostolicall Tradition we are left without all Divine certainty whether Scripture it self be the Infallible word of God or no. That the Authority then of the present Church is Infallible may be thus sufficiently prov'd We cannot be infallibly certaine that Scripture is the word of God unless the Authority of the present Church be Infallible For we acknowledge many Books for Canonicall Scripture which Protestants admit not and they now hold some for such which have not been alwayes approv'd for such And those Books of Scripture which Protestants have are said by Catholiques to be corrupted Others also cry up some Books for Canonicall Scripture which both Catholiques and Protestants disallow If therefore the Church can erre in this point with what shadow of truth can Protestants pretend to bring an Infallible ground that Scripture is the word of God The Tradition therefore of the Church serves to assure us infallibly that Scripture is the word of God and not onely as his Lordship would have it to work upon the mindes of unbelievers to move them to read and consider the Scripture or among Novices Weaklings and Doubters of Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scriptures 2. Neither can the often cited place of St. Austin I would not believe the Gospel c. be rationally understood of the foresaid Novices Weaklings and Doubters in the Faith For it is clear that St. Austin by those words gives a reason why he then a Bishop would not follow the Doctrine of Manichaeus and why no Christian ought to follow it As if a man should say he that believes the Gospel believes it onely for the Authority of the Church which condemning Manichaeus it is impossible rationally proceeding to admit the Gospel and follow Manichaeus Neither is the contrary any wayes deducible out of those words cited by the Bishop § 16. num 21. If thou shouldst finde one who did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldst thou do to make him believe For the holy Doctor there speaks to Manichaeus and shewes how neither Infidels nor Christians had reason to believe the Apostleship of Manicheus Not Infidels because Manichaeus proves this onely out of Scriptures which they not admitting might rationally enough slight his proof Not Christians because they receiving the Scripture upon the sole Authority of the Church could no more approve of the Apostleship of Manicheus condemned by the Church then if they admitted not of Scripture at all Wherefore A. C. had no reason to pass by this place of St. Austin which his Lordship sayes pag. 82. he urged at the Conference unless it were because he did not then remember it As for the Catholique Authors cited by the Relatour certainly they all hold that the Authority of the present Church is an Infallible proof that Scripture is the word of God And though they teach that the fore-mentioned place of St. Austin is of force for Infidels Novices and those who deny or doubt of Scripture yet they averre not that it is of less force for all others But their meaning is that the Authority of the Church appears more clearly necessary against Infidels and those who doubt of the Faith For suppose a learned man be an Infidel or doubt of Scripture he will say if the Church may erre he can have no infallible certainty that Scripture is Gods word If you tell him the Church though subject to errour is yet of authority enough to make him esteem the Scripture and read it diligently and that then he will finde such an inbred light in it as will assure him infallibly that 't is the word of God he will reply he hath done what you require and yet findes no more inbred light in those Books which Protestants receive for Canonical then he doth in others which Catholiques admit but Protestants reject as Apocryphall no no more then he doth in other counterfeit pieces disapprov'd both by Catholiques and Protestants 3. Who doth not here most clearly see that we cannot deal with such a man without the unerring or Infallible Authority of the Church unless we will have recourse to the Private Spirit from which though the Bishop would seem so free that he excludes it from the very state of the Question yet he falls into it and palliates it under the specious title of Grace and where others us'd to say they were infallibly resolv'd that Scripture was the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83 84. averres that he hath the same assurance by Grace so holding the same thing with the Calvinists in this particular he onely changeth their words 4. The Relatour is very much out when he maintains on the one side that the Church is fallible in her Tradition of Scriptures and yet still supposes throughout his whole discourse that whoever comes to read Scriptures deliver'd by the Church findes
Scriptures morally speaking more obnoxious to alteration then Universall Tradition 3. He mistakes his Adversaries words contradicts his Brethren and himself falsifies A. C. and most unhandsomely traduces the whole Order of the Jesuits 4. Texts of Scripture for the Churches Infallibility maintained 5. Why each Apostle Infallible and not each Bishop 6. Christs promises to his Apostles when to be extended to their Successours 7. Not the Apostles onely but their Successours also settled in all Truths 8. The Scripture the Church and her Motives of Credibility not unfitly compar'd to a Kings Word his Embassadours and his Credentials 9. Vincentius Lirinensis and Henricus a Gandavo misconstrued and the Fathers misalledged 1. THe Bishop num 26. of this Paragraph to withdraw his Reader from the Thesis or main matter in question viz. the Church descends very dextrously indeed but yet without any necessity to the Hypothesis or Church of Rome For though A. C. believes that the Roman in a true sense is the Catholique Church yet here he abstracts from that question and means no more then he plainly asserts viz. that the Tradition of the Catholique Church is Infallible c. But whether theirs or ours or some other Congregation of Christians be the Catholique Church that 's another question of which A. C. affirms nothing in this place yet the Relatour as if he were somewhat nettled is pleas'd to say that after a long silence he thrusts himself in again and desires the Bishop to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is the Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit in which sense he might easily finde it to be Infallible Truly in my opinion A. C. deserv'd no rough language for his respects to the Bishop in being so long and silently attentive to his discourse though at length through zeale he became something earnest in the business out of a desire to bring his Adversary into the right way and to this end urged him to consider the Tradition of the Church not onely as it is a Tradition of a company of fallible men but as a Tradition of a company of men assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit and not assisted by them in any common way but in such a manner as reacheth to Infallibility For such assistance is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof Such assistance the Relatour confesseth the Prophets to have had under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New The like we say the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of the 17. of Deuteronomy verse 8. c. where in doubts the people were bound not onely to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in points of Faith amongst all the different Sects of Christians that deny it Neither had he any reason to break forth into those exclamations Good God whither will these men go For they go no further then Christ himself leads them by promises made unto them in the places of holy Scripture which shall be set down 〈◊〉 And the Pastours of the Catholique Church may very well acknowledge this Infallibility yet make it no occasion to Lord it over others unless he will also accuse the Apostles upon the same account Neither do they equal the Tradition of the present Church as the Relatour urgeth to the written word of God and this hath been shew'd before Touching what he writes of Divine Infallibility we have already declar'd that 't is sufficient to our present purpose to assert Church-Tradition to be Infallible whether it be simply Divine or no is another question to be determin'd when time and place requires Whence it follows that there 's no necessity of equalizing Church-Tradition to the Word of God For we have already acknowledg'd that 't is not in all respects equal to Scripture Again he falls from the Thesis to the Hypothesis We have nothing now to do with this question whether the Roman Bishop and his Clergy be the Head of the Catholique Church or no but whether that which is the Catholique Church be able to breed in us Divine Faith or no whatsoever Congregation of Christians it be So that his impeaching the Roman Church of errours here whilst we are in dispute about another question is wholly out of season His answer to St. Basils Text Parem vim habent ad pietatem that unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word is very deficient First 't is true he speaks of Apostolical Traditions yet of such as were come down from their times to St. Basils For otherwise how should they have had in his time any force at all to move to piety as he said they then had Parem vim habent ad pietatem Secondly his exception taken against that Work of St. Basil from Bishop Andrews and that borrowed from Erasmus and he collecting it onely from the stile which yet others far more ancient and better acquainted with St. Basils stile then Erasmus acknowledge to be his this exception I say we esteem of no great force Thirdly St. Basils making the unwritten Traditions whereof he speaks to be such as are not contrary to Scripture proves not Scripture it self so to be the Touch-stone of Apostolical Tradition as that Scripture must therefore needs be of greater force and superiour dignity then that of Tradition For the Bishop himself grants Prime Apostolical Tradition to be equally divine with Scripture and yet 't is true to say that those Prime Traditions are such as are not contrary to scripture But the sense of Stapletons words is quite perverted by the Bishop For he speaks as his words clearly intimate of later and fresher Traditions then are the Prime Apostolical viz. such as were begun by General Councils or perhaps in some particular Church His words are recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem c. which do not signifie such Traditions as we now treat of viz. Traditions primely Apostolical deliver'd from hand to hand in all succeeding ages by the universal and constant Tradition of the Church and conveighed as such unto us by the Tradition of the present Church 2. A. C. urging the present Copies of Scripture c. presses the Relatour very hard as I have already shew'd Now I adde what if the Ancienter Copies disagree How shall we know which is the true Word of God His saying that true Scripture may be more easily known then true Tradition because the one is written and not the other is not consequent
Society questionless he means chiefly Is it not fine sport the Bishop here makes that A. C. by Pastours of the Church must chiefly mean and that without all question or dispute those of his own Society When 't is well known there are scarce two Pastours of the Church amongst all the Jesuits in Europe And then to mend the matter that he will have Mr. Fisher and A. C. to be those two Pastours when they neither were Pastours nor could be unless he will suppose likewise they would break their vow made to Almighty God for by Pastours the Apostles Successours are meant Bishops never to admit any such dignity without express command of the Pope But how proves the Bishop the Iesuits perswade themselves they are Infallible Rabbi Casaubon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must help him out An Apologist sayes Casaubon averres 't is impossible for a Iesuit to erre Who is this Anonymus Apologist A Iesuit or a Minister For an Apologist and a Jesuit are no more convertible terms then a Iesuit and a Minister How shall we know then whether this nameless Apologist was a Iesuit or a Minister personating a Jesuit The Gospel will tell us Ex fructibus corum cognoscetis eos Is it possible his Lordship should think himself everable to move wise men with such non-proofs as these The Relatour having been so positive in denying the Infallibility of the Church 't is strange he should think it needless for A. C. to urge passages of Scripture in proof of it which though they be well known in this Controversie yet are they not therefore of lesse force The first is in St. Luke where Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me c. The second in St. Matthew where Christ tells us I am with you alwayes unto the end of the world The third is in St. John where 't is written The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever To the first of these passages viz Luke 10. 16. alledg'd by A. C. the Bishop answers that those who hear the Successours of the Apostles hear Christ viz. when they speak the words of Christ but not when they speak their own words But that this is rather to pervert our Saviours words then to interpret them is manifest For can the Bishop bring any ground from the Text that this restraint may not by some other Sectary who denies the Apostles Infallibility no less then the Churches be applied to the Apostles themselves as well as he now applies it to their Successors But his Lordship has haply ground for what he sayes if not here yet in St. Matthew chap. 28. ver 20. where they are commanded to teach all things which Christ commanded them Ergo say I and with more reason for the command was given expresly and immediately to the Apostles themselves the Apostles were neither to be heard when they preach'd other things then what Christ had commanded them and so both these Texts will either include an Infallibility in the Successors of the Apostles or exclude it from the Apostles themselves If he reply we our selves must acknowledge a difference in applying this Text to the Apostles and their Successours for it was true in every one of the Apostles apart but it is not so as we confess in every one of the succeeding Pastours I answer first the difference alledged by us is so clear and unquestionable that our very Adversaries agree with us in it Secondly 't is manifest by experience it self that many Pastours even of very eminent authority in the Church have not onely err'd but invented and maintain'd Heresies Thirdly we have the universal Tradition and consent in all ages that all Pastours apart are not Infallible Fourthly we have plain Scripture for it Acts 20. 30. where the Apostle sayes that even from amongst themselves that is from amongst the Pastours and Bishops of the Church to whom he there speaks ver 17 28. there should arise some in future ages that should speak perverse things Fifthly we so interpret the words for future ages that what is necessary for preserving the Church in the purity of Christs doctrine is still subsistent in all ages in the Infallibility of lawful General Councils whereby we make the words of Christ in both Texts absolutely true without all ifs and conditions which our Adversaries exposition does utterly frustrate in relation to the Church Sixthly we according to the most receiv'd perswasion amongst us preserve that Infallibility in one Supream Pastour of the Church the Bishop of Rome successively which they continue neither in one nor in all the Pastours of the Church assembled together Let those therefore of his Lordships party bring as strong reasons for the Bishops exposition of this Text of St. Luke 10. 16. as we do for ours and we shall not be unwilling to yield to it but we and they too know that to be impossible His answer to the second place Matth. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes even unto the end of the world runs in the same strain with his answer to the former Text and so requires not our further refutation We extend those words I am with you alwayes c. to the whole Church Representative not to every Pastour apart whereby St. Gregories Text is no wayes against us for he speaks of Preachers taken severally and apart We say also with Rhabanus Maurus that Christ in his holy Spirit is alwayes present with his Church diffusive in communicating his Graces unto it But that supposes at least denies not a conjunctive Infallibility of the Pastours as a necessary Foundation and support of the Church diffusive Whence it appears how vain the Bishops challenge is whereby he urges us to shew any one Father of the Church that extends the sense of this place of Scripture to Divine and Infallible Assistance granted thereby to all the Aposties Successours For as to Divine Assistance we have all along prov'd it not to be necessary but as to Infallible Assistance in regard of the whole Church 't is clear that the Fathers in effect do attribute such a Prerogative to the Church viz. that Christ doth assist and preserve her from errour in as much as they teach That the Church cannot be adulterated with Heresie That what she once hath received from Christ she ever holds That she can never fail That her Faith is invincible even to the very Powers of Hell That she is founded by Christ in the Truth for ever That all the Heretiques in the world cannot pervert the Tradition of her Doctrine and the like which seeing also they limit not to any determinate age or ages but extend indefinitely to all 't is likewise clear that in the judgement of the Fathers this Assistance was granted and intended by Christ to all the Apostles Successours in the sense above declared But whether the Fathers ground their Doctrine
polishes and perfects what was begun before He tells us next he will grant to A. C. that Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other provided that A. C. will grant his Lordship that they do it not equally This is kindely done But what if A. C. will not be so good natur'd as to grant so much What would the Relatour do in that case Call you this answering or rather making Meanders He 'l grant to A. C. what he cannot deny by reason of its evidence if in return thereof A. C. will acquiesce to that which is so apparently false that he had already refus'd to grant it and in the mean time his Lordship gives no absolute answer to the difficulty 8. To A. C's similitude of the Words and Letters Credential of an Embassador he sayes that the Kings Letters confirm the Embassadors Authority infallibly and the Embassadours word probably onely But to whom do those Letters confirm it infallibly To all that know the Seal and hand sayes the Bishop That 's pretty Suppose then he go to a Forreign King who neither knows Seal nor Hand how will those Letters confirm infallibly the Embassadours authority To this here 's not a word of answer yet this is the question For we now dispute how we come to know infallibly that the Scripture is Gods Word and this is neatly put off by a dexterous Turn 'T is true the Kings Letters may give some moral Testimony to purchase credit to the Embassadour supposing that he who gives himself out for an Embassadour do either by private Letters Informations or other Motives gain so much credit as to merit the repute of a person of worth and honour and therefore not likely to wrong his King and himself in a matter of so high concern Wherefore standing in this similitude the Kings Letters are Letters of Credence because they are written in the usual form of such Letters and deliver'd from the hand of such a person as for other reasons deserves the repute of an honest man so as according to the style of all Royal Courts he is not to be receiv'd as Embassadour without those Letters Where we see to fit this instance to our present purpose that the first Motive inducing the Forreign King to receive either the Person or the Letters are those reasons whereby the King is perswaded the Embassadour is a person of credit to which correspond our Motives of Credibility for receiving the Church as most deserving all credit with us who afterward affirming her self in her Prelates to be Christs Embassadour we receive her as such and give credit to what she sayes or does next she producing also Christs Letters of Credence the holy Scriptures which affirm that her Prelates are his Embassadours we are yet further confirm'd in the whole affair But in case we should so far give way to the Relatours answer in this particular as to yield that the Letters infallibly give credit to all that know the Seal and Hand sure he must say that if this make them infallibly certain they must also know infallibly that Seal and Hand for by knowing them onely probably they can never be infallibly certain of the Letters Now if they know that Seal and Hand infallibly they will also infallibly know that they are true Letters of Credence even independently of the Embassadours assertion Whence it follows that if we can be infallibly certain of any thing corresponding to the Seal and Hand of God in the Scriptures we likewise shall be infallibly certain that they are his Letters whether the Church as Gods Embassadour attest them or not So that this way reduces all to the sole light of Scripture which is against his Lordship and already rejected by him But after all how can one be infallibly certain of that Seal and Hand unless he be as certain of the Embassadours sincerity who brought them otherwise there can be no Infallibity of his Embassie How many wayes are there of counterfeiting both Seal and Hand Nay how many wayes of obtaining them surreptitiously May not the Embassadour himself or some other interessed person procure them by some artificial practice May they not combine with the Secretary of State to impose upon his Majesty by drawing him to sign one thing for another But enough of this it being a matter so obvious to the understanding Let us now follow the Bishop page by page who stomacks very much at this Assertion of A. C. That these Letters the Scriptures do warrant that the people may hear and give credit to those Legates of Christ as to Christ himself Soft sayes the Bishop this is too high a great deal no Legat was ever of so great credit as the King himself Durst I be so bold I might soft it to his Lordship too and tell him he sayes too much a great deal Where I beseech him doth A. C. say in the forecited words that a Legat is of as great credit as the King himself I 'm sure in his words there is no such sentence He averres indeed that we may give credit to those Legats as to Christ the King himself but he sayes not that we may give as much or as high credit to the one as to the other This was the Bishops Turn onely There is therefore a more eminent degree of credit to be given to a King then to his Legate and yet we give credit to the Legate as to the King himself that is we doubt no more of the one then of the other And I would gladly know if his Lordship had heard our Saviour speak in his life time and his Apostles preach after our Saviours death whether he would have doubted of the truth of the Apostles doctrine any more then of the doctrine of Christ himself whose Legates they were To give credit therefore to them as to Christ himself is as undoubtedly to believe them as Christ himself though with a higher degree of respect and regard to Christ then to them And our Saviour affirm'd as much when he said He that hears you hears me Luke 10. 16. Next he tells us that A. C. sayes that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition hath in them Divine and Infallible Authority and consequently are worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Has he not here plaid the Divine and Rhetorician both at once What means this Rhetorical repetition thrice together But the worst is A. C's words are misapply'd and miscited by an artificial Turn in the Labyrinth He accuses A. C. of attributing Divine Authority twice over and that absolutely without any restriction or modification to that company of men which delivers the present Churches Tradition and then sayes their Divine Authority and credit is so great that 't is sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Now Reader judge whether A. C. applies
one of his Authorities brought to prove that Church-Tradition founds onely a probable humane perswasion that Scripture is Gods Word rather evince the quite contrary The second point to be concluded is that Scripture thus led in by the Church proves it self Infallibly and Divinely by its internall light to such as had no supernatural Faith precedently This he labours to evince from some expressions of the Fathers who use sometimes the like proofs to shew that Scripture is the Word of God But first do they alwayes bring these proofs to such as had no Divine Faith before of Scriptures-being Gods Word Do they not use them both for themselves and others who precedently had a Divine Faith of that point Secondly do the Fathers say that those proofs of theirs are the Primary Infallible and Divine proofs of Scriptures-being the word of God 〈◊〉 do they not rather use them as Secondary arguments perswasive onely to such as believed Scripture to be Gods Word precedently to them Thirdly do they use onely such proofs as are wholly internal to Scripture it self All these conditions must be made good to make a full proof for his purpose out of them Now touching the two first conditions 't is evident these proofs were made by Christians namely the Holy Fathers and commonly to Christians who lived in their times And as clear is it that they never pronounced them to be the Primary Infallible and Divine Motives of their belief in that point not used they them as such And for the third condition viz. of the proofs being internal to Scripture they are not all such For first that of Miracles is externall The Scriptures themselves work none neither were ever any Miracles wrought to confirm that all the Books now in the Canon and no more are the word of God Secondly the Conversion of so many people and Nations by the doctrine contain'd in Scripture is also external to Scripture unless haply it came by reading the Scripture and not by the declaration and preaching of the Church which he proves not and the contrary is rather manifest Again many other Books beside Scripture contain the same doctrine yet are not thereby prov'd to be Gods Word Were not many thousands converted to that humble doctrine of Christ before divers of the Canonical Books were written Nay many whole Nations as St. Irenaeus already alledged witnesses some hundreds of years after the said Books were written who knew nothing at all of Scripture But suppose these four proofs mentioned by the Bishop viz. first Miracles secondly Doctrine nothing carnal thirdly performance of it Fourthly The Conversion almost of the whole world by this Doctrine had been all of them internal to Scripture yet how prove they Infallibly and Divinely that Scripture is the Word of God Perswade truly they may but convince they cannot Touching the first how will it appear that Miracles were ever wrought in immediate proof of the whole Bible as it is receiv'd in the Canon As for the second how many Books are there beside Scripture which have nothing of Carnal Doctrine at all in them Concerning the third and fourth how can it ever be prov'd that either the performance of this Doctrine or the Conversion of Nations is internal to Scripture But who can sufficiently wonder that his Lordship for these four Motives should so easily make the Scripture give Divine Testimony to it self upon which our Faith must rest and yet deny the same priviledge to the Church Seeing it cannot be deny'd but that every one of these Motives are much more immediately and clearly applyable to the Church then to Scripture For first Miracles have most copiously and familiarly confirmed the Authority and lawful Mission of the Pastours Secondly the Doctrine of Gods true Church hath nothing of Carnal in it The Performance or verifying of this Doctrine is onely found in the Members of the Church Lastly it is the Church that hath preach'd this humble Doctrine of Christ and that hath converted and still doth convert Nations to the belief of it and submission to it Who sees not by this that while he disputes most eagerly against the present Churches Infallibility he argues mainly for it CHAP. 9. An End of the Controversie touching the Resolution of Faith ARGUMENT 1. St. Austins words explicated 2. The Bishop cannot avoid the Circle without mis-stating the Question 3. He waves the difficulty 4. St. Cyril and St. Austins words examined 5. The Bishops eight Points of Consideration weighed and found too light 6. According to his Principles no man can lawfully say his Creed till he have learnt the Articles thereof out of Scripture 7. His Synthetical way one of the darkest passages in his Labyrinth 8. Scripture when and by whom to be supposed for Gods Word 9. His Lordship argues a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 10. Brings non-cognita for praecognita and proves what he affirms ought not to be proved 11. The Jews Resolved their Faith into Tradition as the Church of Rome now doth 12. Moral Certainty not absolutely Infallible 1. 'T is now high time to put a Period to this Controversie touching the Churches Infallibility and Resolution of Faith which I should have done long since had not our Antagonist led us so long and so intricate a Dance through the redoubled Meanders of his Labyrinth St. Austins proving Scripture by an internal Argument lib. 13. cap. 5. contr Faust. makes little for the Bishops purpose unless St. Austin either affirm that Argument to be such as Faith may fully rest upon as its primary formal Motive and Object for proof of Scripture or that he himself prove it to be so For St. Austin often urges Arguments which are onely Secondary and probable yea sometimes purely conjectural in this kinde See an example of this in the margin What the Bishop quotes out of Thomas Waldensis Doct. Fid. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Art 2. cap. 23. num 9. that if the Church should speak anything contrary to Scripture he would not believe her is most true but it is likewise as true what St. Austin said above contr Epist. Fundament cap. 5. that if the Scripture should speak any thing contrary to the Church we could not believe that neither The truth is both the one and the other that is both Waldensis and St. Austins expressions proceed ex suppositione impossibili and are wholly like that of St. Paul Gal. 1. If an Angel from heaven preach any thing otherwise then we have preached let him be accursed 2. But for all these Turns and Windings it will be hard to free the Bishop from a vicious Circle For if he allow not Scripture to be believ'd with Divine Faith by vertue of the Churches Testimony and Tradition what answer can be made to this Question Why believe you infallibly that Scripture is Gods Word If he say for the Tradition of the Church it will not serve seeing he is suppos'd to have no Divine Faith that
praecognitum we seek for is not such a one as the Relatour makes Tradition viz. an Introducer onely but such a one as we may rely upon for an Infallible Testimony in the Resolution of Faith Nay I adde Scripture is not a primum praecognitum even to this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation For if in this Proposition it be suppos'd that Scripture is the Word of God it must also at least implicitely be suppos'd as prov'd by Tradition and consequently both in this and all other Questions Tradition must be the praecognitum and primò cognitum 9. But put case the Bishop held the Scriptures-being the Word of God as a supposed Principle meerly in materiâ subjectâ yet should he not have said absolutely as he doth That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and need not to be proved but should have said We are now to suppose Scripture to be the Word of God in order to this Question and are not to prove it But the truth is in this Question of Mr. Fisher viz. How the Bishop knew Scripture to be Scripture even as it related to the present Controversie betwixt them Scripture was not to be supposed as a Principle to be Gods Word For the Question then agitated was not Whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation there being no mention of that but onely whether the Creed contained all Fundamental Points And the immediate occasion of Mr. Fishers demanding this Question was this answer of the Bishop viz. That the Scriptures onely not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith Whereupon Mr. Fisher demanded how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are believed sayes Mr. Fisher to be Scripture yet not proved out of any place of Scripture Now 't is manifest that in this Debate Mr. Fisher had Logically right to demand this Question it being a direct Medium and Argument to infringe the Bishops Tenet For by this means his Doctrine was evinced to be false because if there be some point of Protestant Faith not founded in Scripture Scriptures onely are not the Foundation of their Faith Whence it follows that even though the Question had been whether Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to Salvation yet Scriptures in order to that were not to be suppos'd to be the Word of God since the very believing them to be so at least in his principles is a point necessary to salvation which gives right to his Antagonist to disprove his assertion by instancing that Scriptures-being the word of God is not contained in Scripture 10. His Lordship here undertakes a hard task and pretends to make it appear to A. C. how Scripture is a praecognitum even in the strictest sense But behold his reason Scripture is a praecognitum because 't is known in clear light by God and the Blessed in heaven Is not this an invincible argument I am sorry to see him so much mistake the Question For we are not in search after a praecognitum in order to God and the Saints in heaven but in relation to us upon earth to whom it is as much unknown whether God and the Saints see Scriptures to be his Divine Oracles as it is whether the same Scriptures be Gods word or not abstracting from Tradition Is not this in respect of us to bring non-cognita for praecognita Besides what avails it me for the Resolution of my Faith that the Revelation is clear to God and his Saints unless I know it be so who have no other light for its admittance then the Tradition of the Church Having labour'd to prove that Scriptures are the Oracles of God from the clear science God and the Saints have of them which clear Science of theirs is derived by Apostolical Tradition to the Church the Relatour drawes a conclusion quite contrary to his Premises namely that Scripture is to be supposed Gods word and needs no precedent proof If it needs no proof why does his Lordship endeavour to prove it by such a strange kinde of Argument Had he indeed said Scriptures being prov'd by another principle to be the word of God must be suppos'd to be so by all that admit that proof he had said a manifest truth But on the one side to hold it must be prov'd by a further principle and on the other to maintain that it needs not be prov'd at all cannot but seem a strange Vertigo to any Logical head As to his conclusion in these words And therefore now to be suppos'd at least by all Christians that the Scripture is the word of God I answer if he means by now to be suppos'd for Gods word as prov'd such by Apostolical Tradition 't is most true but if he mean 't is to be suppos'd the word of God without any precedent proof in order to us it s all out of joynt and his answer contrary to his own principles 11. Touching the Jewes they had the like proof for the Old Testaments-being the word of God that we have for the New For theirs was delivered by Moyses and the Prophets and ours by the Apostles who were Prophets too And as they that came after received the Old Testament from the Tradition of the Church so do we now And this is it that St. Chysostome affirms We know why By whose Testimony do we know By the Testimony of our Ancestors Which words being spoken without restriction and in answer to the question proposed must of necessity be understood as well of the immediate as prime Ancestors however the Bishop labours by his Gloss to exclude the immediate ones which is incompatible with Reason since the witness that is able to make me know any thing must attest it immediately to me that so I may hear his testimony my self Now the Jewes who liv'd many hundred years after Moyses and the Prophets did not could not hear them immediately therefore Moyses and the Prophets could not give them an immediate testimony And since they had none that witnessed this immediately to them but those of the present Jewish Church who with a most full consent deliver'd what they had receiv'd from those who flourished in the next age before them they could not know that their Ancestors taught it but by those of their present age and consequently it was not their prime Ancestors onely that made them know it as the Relatour would insinuate This is most clearly signified Psalm 77. ver 3. c. where the Children of Israel were to receive the Law and Works of God successively by Generations one immediately from another And the same is also commanded them Deut. 6. ver 6 7 20. viz. that fathers should instruct their children concerning the great Works and Mercies of God c. As to what the Bishop observes touching the word Knowledge which is attributed to the Jews by holy Scripture as also by
findes no difficulty to do Thirdly his Lordship excepts against the Application of the places brought by A. C. out of St. Bernard and St. Austin But we answer his Exceptions do not weaken the force of the said places For first concerning that of St. Bernard let us suppose as the Relatour contends that St. Bernard by those words Quae major superbia c. What greater pride can there be then for one man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation as if he alone had the Spirit of God mean't onely that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching yet is his saying not unaptly apply'd by A. C. to our present purpose by an Argument à minore ad majus to shew the more exorbitant pride of those who preferre their private fanatick opinions before the judgement of the whole Catholique Church This certainly Protestants did by their Solemne Protestation and obstinate maintaining their private opinions What the Relatour addes That it is one thing for a private man to preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation and another thing for an intelligent man in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholique Church is of no advantage to him For first though we should grant his Lordship that Martin Luther Ulrick 〈◊〉 John Calvin Theodore Beza John Knox and the rest of that crew were to be accounted Intelligent Persons yet will he or can he say they propos'd their Doubts modestly to the Church surely not and whoever sayes so will easily be convinc'd of ignorance in their opinions or practices But put case a more modest propounding of Doubts had been used as the Bishop seems to wish yet unless the Doubts were in points undecided by the Church the modest proposall of them could not at all help the Protestant cause in regard their Doubts were in points of Faith already determined for such by authority of the Catholique Church to question any of which with what seeming modesty soever is sinful Heretical and damnable His exceptions against A. C's interpretation of St. Austin are no less weak The Holy Doctor affirms that it is a most insolent madness for a man to dispute whether that ought to be to be done which is usually held and done by the whole Church The Bishop first excepts that there is not a word of the Roman Church but onely of the Catholique yet having often shew'n that the Roman Church and the Catholique are all one and seeing A. C. adds to Roman Faith the practice of the Church this Authority remains still entire against him Next he sayes A. C. applies this Text of St. Austin to the Roman Faith whereas 't is spoken of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church But first I answer A. C. applies the place both to the Roman Faith and practice of the Church of which practice the place is most properly understood even in that sense which the Bishop himself gives to the words Secondly if it were madness to dispute against the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church much greater would it be to dispute against any point of Faith held by the Church so that the Application of the place is still good by the Rule à minore ad majus and reaches to every person that in any matter whatever obstinately opposes himself against the Church of God The reason may be because there is alwayes some point or matter of faith involv'd in every universally-practis'd Rite and Ceremony of the Church Wherefore a pertinacious defending of any point whatsoever contrary to what the Catholique Church teacheth is by St. Austin tearm'd a most insolent madness We deny not but a right-sober man modestly proceeding may in some case dispute a point with the Roman either Church or Prelate as Irenaeus did with Pope Victor in the Controversie which arose toward the end of the second Century provided it be done with Submission and profession of Due Obedience to that Church and Prelate which can never be unless the dispute be about matters as yet undecided by the Church 6. Touching A. C's illation I answer since it is certain the whole Catholique or Roman Church in the sense often explicated cannot erre A. C. doth well inferre that there can be no just cause to make a divorce or Schism from it The Relatour grants that the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolute fundamental Doctrine and blames Bellarmin for needlesly busying himself to prove that the visible Church can never fall into Heresie But I answer Bellarmins labour was not needless since Protestants grant not the Church exempt from all Errours save onely in Fundamentals as they call them whereas Bellarmin proves it equally of all Fundamentals or not-Fundamentals Moreover Bellarmin well observes that Protestants generally grant this onely to the Invisible Church whereas he proves 〈◊〉 of the Visible and though the Bishop in the Margent endeavours to shew they hold the same also of the Visible Church yet this onely proves that Protestants contradict one another which we deny not and Bellarmin likewise observes it elsewhere yea Calvin himself here cited by the Bishop when he saith the Church cannot erre addes this restriction if she do not propose Doctrine besides the Scripture So that if she do it seems according to him she may erre But I must confess I have often desired and do yet much long to know which are Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and necessary to all mens salvation according to the opinion of Protestants I believe scarce any man will be able to set them down Our Tenet is that the Catholique Church is Infallible in all points of Faith and that whatever is sufficiently proposed to us by the Catholique Church cannot be denied under pain of damnation and consequently is Fundamental to us and to all true Christians So that these following words of the Bishop viz. That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule are injurious to the Church and inconsistent with that Prerogative of Holiness which as he himself in this very place confesses alwayes accompanies the true Church 7. This Holiness consists chiefly in the verity of Faith So the Relatour himself professes in these words The Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners c. Insomuch that if the Church failed in the verity of Faith she could be no longer Holy nay it would follow that the Gates of Hell had prevailed much against her contrary to the promse of Christ. I assert therefore that the present Church is no more liable to errour through curiosity or weakness then was the Primitive nor the Vicar of Christ with a General Council more subject to erre upon that account then were the Apostles of Christ. In the following words the Relatour to
is confest by his Lordship and other Protestants The Conclusion therefore is undenyable viz. that 't is necessary for the Due Government of the Church that one should be endow'd with Power and Jurisdiction over all Christians in all succeeding ages Adde hereunto that so long as the End is but in Acquisition and not compleatly gained the Necessary Means to obtain it is alwayes necessary But the End in our present case viz. the Due Government of the Church the preserving it in the Unity of True Catholick Faith and Christian Charity is and ever hath been since the Apostles time but in Acquisition and shall not be compleatly gained till the end of the world Ergo the Necessary Means viz. the Supreme Authority of One over All in the Government of the Church is hath been and ever will be necessary to the Worlds End CHAP. 17. The Popes Authority asserted and vindicated ARGUMENT 1. Our Saviours prayer for St. Peter extended to his Successours 2. What it effected for St. Peter and what for them 3. PASCE OVES AGNOS John 21. 15. 17. a Special charge to St. Peter and not common in all respects to the rest of the Apostles 4. A.C. begs not the question but proves it 5. The Bishop willingly mistakes him about the Notion of a General Council 6. Optatus and St. Austins words cited nothing to the purpose 7. The Popes Ancient and undoubted right to confirm General Councils 8. The Bishops Lesbian Rule for deciding Controversies examin'd and shew'n to be vain 9. The Popes Authority duly acknowledged sufficient to prevent Schismes and Heresies 10. The Government of the Church not purely Monarchical but Mixt. 11. How the Literae Communicatoriae of the Pope and other Catholique Bishops differ'd 1. THe Bishop himself in his Answers to the Argument drawn from our Saviours Prayer for St. Peter Luke 22. 32. Ego rogavi pro Te c. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not shews the insufficiency of his Evasions Card. Bellarmin by the Testimony of seven Popes most of them very Ancient proves that our Saviour by that Prayer obtain'd both for St. Peter and his Successours this priviledge namely that they should never teach the Church any thing contrary to True Faith What sayes the Bishop to this As for St. Peter himself he tells us it will be easily granted that such a priviledge was obtain'd for him but that it should be obtain'd or intended for his Successours also that never came within the compass of ROGAVI PROTE Petre. Yea Bellarmin's proof according to the Relatour is its own Confutation And why because forsooth all his proofs are from witnesses in their own Cause and from Interessed persons I answer first that all his proofs are not from Popes fot he gives several pregnant reasons for his Assertion drawn from the Text it self had the Bishop been pleas'd to answer them Secondly I ask How interressed so far as to assert a manifest untruth in a matter of so great importance to the whole Church Surely no. Can our Adversaries have the Confidence Temerity rather to affirm that Felix the first a most Holy Martyr about the year 273. that Lucius the first another most Holy Martyr as some think or as others say a Confessour about the year 337. and Leo the first a most Holy Pope as all Antiquity acknowledg'd about the year 440. would dare pervert and mis-alledge Scripture onely for Interest and to advance their own Authority had they not known it to be the just Authority of their Sea and rightly grounded on this Text Truly I could never yet understand this proceeding of Protestants who make so many publick professions to stand to the Fathers Authority of the first Five or Six hundred years yet when such Fathers are alledged fly presently back and reject their Authority upon such weak pretenses as these And though Pope Agatho were something after those ages viz. about the year 678. yet I see not how they can refuse his Testimony in this matter unless they be resolved to contemn not onely him but all the Fathers in the sixth General Council where the Epistle of this Pope was read and approv'd who could much better judge whether his words were written out of proper Interest then the Relatour or any of his party The other Three 't is confest are of somewhat a later standing yet the latest of them flourisht above four hundred years since and we desire to know what Authour of good repute ever taxed any of them as by assed with proper interest when they publish't that St Peter does in his Successours still teach the Church and confirm his Brethren in the True Faith by vertue of this prayer of our Saviour His assertion that Bellarmin upon the matter confesses there is not one Father in the Church before Theophylacts time that understands this Text as Bellarmin doth is wholly groundless Must he needs confess there are no more Authours citable in any subject but what he cites himself Certainly though Bellarmins Learning was great and his Reading much yet was he known to be a person of too great modesty and humility to pretend to this But suppose he had confest as much as the Bishop desir'd what follows onely this that till Theophylacts time none had given so full an Exposition of those words Ego rogavi pro Te c. as those seven Popes which is no wonder at all considering how few of the Fathers have purposely commented upon the place and how many of them do in effect deliver the same Doctrine drawn from other Texts of Scripture as Bellarmin also shews in other Chapters The force therefore of Bellarmins proof out of Theophylact is this If our Saviours prayer was to have a special effect in St. Peter because he was to be the Churches Foundation under Christ it must also have the like effect in those who were to be such Foundations in succeeding ages that is in all his lawful Successours Neither doth this priviledge of the Indeficiency of St. Peters Faith belong to him precisely as an Apostle which the Relatour insinuates but rather as he was Prince of the Apostles and appointed to be Christs Vicar on earth after him 2. To what he addes touching the two Effects or Priviledges our Saviours prayer obtain'd for St. Peter and their descending to his Successours I answer Whatever our Saviour intended should descend by vertue of that prayer of his did effectively so descend But I confess 't is a disputable question whether every thing which Christ by this prayer intended and obtain'd for St. Peter was likewise intended by him to descend to St. Peters Successours That some special priviledge both intended and obtain'd by this prayer was to descend to them is manifest both by the Authorities and Reasons brought by Bellarmin in proof thereof and this Priviledge was that none of St. Peters Successours should ever so far fall from the Faith as to teach Heresie or any
thing contrary to Faith tanquam Pontifex as the Cardinals words are that is in vertue of that Authority which they were to have in the Church as his Successors His Lordship quarrels this Priviledge and sayes 't is not out of all doubt though Bellarmin affirms it is And why so Because many learned men have affirm'd the contrary and challeng'd many Popes for teaching Heresie I ask what learned men does he mean his own or ours If his own 't is no marvel they challenge those of teaching Heresie from whose subjection they have revolted and whose persons to justifie their unjust revolt they daily load with bitter invectives and opprobrious appellations If ours What Teaching do's he mean Is it teaching onely in quality of a private Doctour This is not the question here this belongs to the first Priviledge Bellarmin sayes our Saviour obtain'd for St. Peter by his prayer viz. of not personally erring against Faith If he mean Publique Teaching as Doctour and Pastour of the whole Church what Catholique Divines ever taught that the Pope can in this quality teach Heresie Some haply will reply Many Catholique Divines hold that the Pope without a General Council may erre though he teach ex Cathedrâ or as Doctour of the Universal Church Let them name those Authors and let their words be exactly cited which will soon undeceive them seeing they that hold the Pope may erre when he defines without a General Conncil do consequently to their principles deny that without a General Council he either doth or can define any matter as Doctour of the whole Church constantly averring that he never acts in that quality but when he presides in a General Council If our Adversaries please to yield so farre to the Popes Infallibility as to grant him exempt from erring in matters of Faith when ever he defines with a General Council I shall not desire to have further Controversie with them touching that point But by the By I cannot dissemble a slye Turn the Relatour here makes to disguise Bellarmins words Bellarmin speaking of the second Priviledge obtain'd by this Prayer of Christ for St. Peter and his Successours expresly sayes it was ut ipse TANQUAM PONTIFEX non posset c. that he should never as Supreme Bishop or Pastor teach any thing contrary to the Faith But the Bishop leaves out the principal words tanquam Pontifex which should give light to those that follow citing in his English Text onely the latter part of the words thus That neither St. Peter himself nor any other that should sit in his Seat should ever teach any thing contrary to true Faith whereby he makes the Cardinal speak absolutely of all manner of Teaching when he clearly limits his words to teaching onely as Pastour or Doctour of the whole Church which was much to his Lordships advantage indeed but little to his credit Neither is it any absurdity much less a contradiction in Bellarmin to affirm in one place that the Gift not the whole Gift that 's an addition of the Bishops pure liberality obtain'd by this prayer for St. Peter did belong to his Successours and afterwards say perhaps some part of it did not belong to them For what do's this signifie more then that the one was not so absolutely certain as the other though he really believ'd that both parts of the Gift did belong to them and strongly disputes for that his opinion May not a learned Authour positively affirm a thing to be true though it be not infallibly certain If he cannot who can affirm any thing but what is either Demonstratively certain in Science or Infallibly certain in Faith So rigorous a restraint as this would surely cause a deep silence in the Schools of Oxford and Cambridge Nor is the Relators reason of greater force viz. that either both or neither part of the Priviledge must belong to St. Peters Successours because they both stand upon the same foot the validity of our Saviours prayer For I answer the validity of our Saviours prayer depends on his intention What therefore can be certainly prov'd to have been intended by our Saviour to St. Peters Successours we may be certain shall be extended to them but what can be shewn onely probably intended to them we can be onely probably perswaded do's belong to them and may therefore as Bellarmin doth say perhaps it do's not belong to them What absurdity is there in this 3. The Text Pasce Oves Agnos John 21. 15 16 17. comes next to be examin'd wherein our Daedalus windes to and fro to finde a plausible evasion but all will not do Feed my Sheep and my Lambs that is sayes A. C. Christs whole Flock But at this the Bishop bids soft and fair It is onely his Sheep and his Lambs As if Sheep and Lambs were not Christs whole Fock What means this nice distinction between Sheep and Lambs and the whole Flock the Bishop tells us because forsooth every Apostle and every Apostles Successor hath charge to feed both Sheep and Lambs no less then St. Peter I ask where The Bishop replies in Matth. 28. 29. he would say haply 19. for there is no 29 th verse in all this Chapter and Matth. 10. 17. Nay soft there say I. I finde no mention Matth. 28. or Matth. 10. either of Sheep or Lambs Those mention'd Matth. 28. Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti were not yet brought to Christs fold they were as yet unbaptized and uninstructed in the Faith and therefore not pertaining to this Text of St. John nor to the present question For as the Text speaks onely of such as were actually Christs Sheep or Lambs that is actually his Flock so the question is onely whether all such were nor by our Saviour in this Text committed to St. Peters charge and government and collectively speaking to him onely We say the words themselves being so absolutely and indefinitely pronounced without restriction or limitation to any part of Christs Sheep must according to the rules of right Interpretation be understood generally and indefinitely of all that were Christs Sheep and Lambs that is of all Christians whatsoever Till therefore it be evidenc'd from some other place of Scripture as clear as this of St. John that the other Apostles had the feeding of all Christs Sheep as universally and unlimitedly committed to them as here they were to St. Peter or that they themselves who are as properly comprehended under the notion of Christs sheep as any others were excepted out of St. Peters charge it must of necessity be granted both that all Christs Sheep even the Apostles themselves were in some sort to be fed that is govern'd as Christs Sheep ought to be by St. Peter and also that A. C's Gloss expounding Sheep and Lambs to be Christs whole Flock stands unshaken by any thing the Bishop replies Nay he replies nothing at all by way
but this viz. that its Decrees are universally receiv'd as obligatory by all particular Churches or the whole Church Diffusive Neither is this Confirmation so simply and absolutely necessary but that the Decrees of a General Council lawfully assembled and duly confirm'd by the Pope are obligatory without it and antecedently to it But what if St. Austin say no such thing as the Bishop cites him for viz. to prove that 't is the consent of the whole Church Diffusive that confirms the Decrees of General Councils and not the Popes Authority His words are these Illis temporibus antequà m Plenarij Concilij Sententiâ quid in hâc re sequendum esset totius Ecclesiae consensio confirmasset visum est ei c. where 't is evident the Father speaking of St. Cyprians errour the whole drift of his speech is to tell us it was the more excusable in him because he defended it onely before the consent of the whole Church had by the sentence of a General Council established what was to be held in that point Is this to say that the Decrees of a General Council are to be confirm'd by the consent of the whole Church yielding to it and not otherwise as the Bishop will needs perswade us Surely no. To conclude therefore we think the Bishop could not well have more effectually justifi'd our assertion concerning the Authority both of the Church and a General Council then by citing this Text of St. Austin Since it clearly signifies that the Church doth settle and determin matters of Controversie by the sentence of a General Council in which the whole Churches consent is both virtually included and effectually declared 8. The Bishop is not yet well pleased with A. C. but goes on in his angry exceptions against him for interposing as he tells us new matter quite out of the Conference But how can it be called new matter as not pertinent to the question debated in the Conference if A. C. urg'd and prov'd by what reasons he could the necessity of the Popes Authority for ending Controversies in Faith that being the point his Adversary most especially deny'd A. C. desires to know what 's to be done for reuniting the Church in case of Heresies and Divisions when a general Council cannot be held by reason of manifold impediments or being call'd will not be of one minde Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this case provided no Rule no Judge Infallible to determine Controversies and procure unity and certainty of Belief Yes sayes the Bishop He hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture But this Answer A. C. foreseeing prevented by his following words had the Relatour pleas'd to set them down which shew the inconvenience of admitting that Rule as Protestants admit it since it renders all matters of Faith uncertain What sayes the Bishop to that First he cunningly dissembles the objection takes no notice of A. C. s discourse to that purpose and yet finding it necessary to apply some salve to the sore he addes in the second place as it were by way of Tacit prevention In necessaries to Salvation the Scripture by the manifest places of it which admit no dispute nor need any external Judge to interpret them is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief amongst Christians and about things not necessary there ought not to be contention to a Separation and therefore no matter how uncertain and undetermin'd they be But surely here the Bishop went too farre and lost himself in his own Labyrinth For if by matters necessary to Salvation he understands onely such as are of absolute necessity to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians necessitate medii as Divines speak though we should grant they were so clear in Scripture as not to fall under dispute among Christians yet to affirm as he does that there ought to be no contention to a separation about any other points is to condemn the perpetual practice of the Catholique Church which hath ever oblig'd her Children under pain of Anathema to separate themselves from thousands of Sectaries and Heretiques as namely from the Montanists the Quarto-Decimani the Rebaptizers Monothelites Pelagians Semi-Pelagians Vigilantians Iconoclasts and the like who held all those foresaid necessary matters and err'd onely in such as were not absolutely and universally necessary to be expresly known and believ'd by all Christians whatsoever But if by necessaries to salvation he mean any of those which Divines term necessary necessitate praecepti he should have assign'd them in particular for till that be done such General Answers as the Bishop here gives signifie nothing either to the just satisfaction of us or security of their own proceedings since they cannot possibly know in what points they ought to hold contention to a separation and in what not Moreover we having already prov'd at large Chap. 2. and in other places that 't is necessary to salvation to believe whatever is sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church whether clearly contain'd in Scripture or not it follows there must be some other Infallible Rule beside Scripture whereon to ground our Faith of such Things as are not clearly deliver'd in Scripture The Holy Scripture alone is not qualifi'd for such a Rule of Faith as the Bishop would make us believe it is For though it may be granted to be certain and Infallible in it self yet is it not so in order to us nor so much as known to us for Gods Word without the Authority of the Church assuring us of that truth and he is very much mistaken when he supposes the Ancient Church had no other Additional Infallible Rule viz. Tradition by which to direct their Councels Nor is there any thing alledgeable out of Bellarmin contrary to this sense if his words be candidly interpreted Tertullian indeed calls Scripture the principal rule and we if we have not sufficiently acknowledg'd it already upon sundry occasions will now say so too it is the principal not the onely Rule He adores the fulness of Scripture so do we as to that particular point about which he then disputed We confess the Scriptures do most fully prove against Hermogenes the Heretique that the world or matter whereof this world consists was not eternal but created by God in time Again 't is no way probable that Tertullian here extends the Fulness of Seripture so far as to exclude all unwritten Tradition which in other parts of his works he maintains more expresly then many other of the Fathers What 's the Subject of his whole Book De praescriptionibus but to shew that Heretiques cannot be confuted by Scripture alone without Tradition Now we say both with him St. Hierome and St. Basil that to superinduce any thing contrary to what is written is a manifest errour in Faith and that it hath a woe annexed to it but to superinduce what is no way dissonant but rather consonant and agreeable to Scripture hath no such curse
laid upon it For St Basil himself even as the Bishop quotes him professes to fight against Heresies by unwritten Doctrine or Tradition yet such as was not contrary but according to Scripture Lastly we say with Biel that Scripture is a Rule which applied by the Church and that is Biels express caution though it might not appear in English measures all things yea and contains all things necessary to salvation either mediately or immediately Wherefore to take notice by the way of the Bishops conceit upon Gedeon's Fleece we averre that Scripture hath not onely Dew upon it but water in it and that enough not onely for a Lamb to wade thorow but for an Elephant to swim but whosoever shall presume to wade or swim there without help of Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradition will surely perish by his presumption He asks what warrant we have to seek another Rule beside Scripture but considers not how groundless his own assertion is that God hath left us Scripture as the onely Infallible Rule which is contrary to the common belief of all true Christians contrary to express Scripture and the constant judgement and practise of the Church in all ages and according to the example of none but confess'd and condemn'd Heretiques 9. But the Bishop tells us that though the Pope should be granted a living Infallible Judge yet would it not suffice against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all times from renting even in Doctrine of Faith or to soder the rents which are made His reason is because oportet Haereses esse c. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith I answer the Church is at all times sufficiently and effectually secur'd from such Rents by the Authority of its chief Pastour where 't is duly acknowledg'd The malice of the Devil and impious men by inventing Heresies hurt not the Church but themselves and their Adherents who by their Heresie and Schism make a divorce from the Church that is either sever themselves or are justly cut off from her for their errours the Church to speak properly remaining still as pure and incorrupt as she was before Heresies are not within but without the Church and the Rents or Schismatical party which stand in need of Sodering are not found amongst the true Members of the Church who continue still united in Faith and due obedience with their Head and in all necessary Communion with one another but in those who have deserted the true Church and either made or adher'd to Schismatical and Heretical Congregations And herein truly if passion did not too much blinde us experience would tell us that had not the Pope receiv'd from God the power he challenges of Governing the Church as Supream Head thereof under Christ he could never have been able to preserve that Peace and Unity in matters of Religion that is found in the Roman Church there being upon other Accounts so many Feuds and Animosities among the Professours of that Religion or to have subsisted thus long had his pretension to it been grounded on meer Policy and Interest as Protestant Ministers continually suggest to their Disciples especially in these latter ages wherein the wit and malice of his enemies have been sharpened to the utmost and every thing objected even with notorious calumny that might possibly serve to render his Authority suspected and contemptible even with those who acknowledg'd it But leaving him to the execution of his Pastoral Charge let us see how matters go between the Bishop and his Adversary 10. A. C. tells us there is no earthly Kingdom that when matters cannot opportunely be compos'd by Parliament which upon all occasions and at all times cannot be summoned hath not beside the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Supream Magistrate and Judge to determin emergent Controversies and preserve peace in Temporal affairs and thence à paritate rationis or rather à fortiori inferrs that Christ the wisest of Kings hath in like manner provided in his Kingdom the Church beside the Law-Books of Holy Scripture some visible Magistrates and Judges and above all one chief Magistrate and Judge sufficiently impower'd and assisted by his Spirit as to put an end to all Controversies concerning Ecclesiastical affairs and preserve his Church in the Unity and Certainty of Faith To which the Relatour thinks it sufficient to say all this is but a Simile and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing The Similitude upon which A. C. grounds his discourse is that the whole Militant Church is a Kingdom which the Bishop denyes telling us they are no mean ones who think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successours in an Aristocratical or mixt Government But I answer though A. C. urges the Argument in the Similitude of a Kingdom onely yet is it of force in any other kinde of settled Government In a Common-wealth beside the Law-Books 't is requisite there be a living Judge or Judges invested with Supream Authority to determin all matters in difference amongst the people What the Relatour brings against the Monarchy of the Militant Church shews onely that it is not a pure but a mixt Monarchy participating somewhat both of Aristocracy and Democracy I call that a Pure Monarchy in which all the Sovereign Power is so in one alone as that no other person or persons in the Kingdom govern but in vertue of the Monarchs Authority and meerly as his Substitutes A mixt Monarchy is that in which one indeed is Supream and in some cases commands all yet so as others within the Monarchy are Princes and do govern both Towns and Provinces as their own and with rights of Sovereignty though not absolute but holding and depending on the Monarch in chief Now the Supream Government of the Church is clearly Monarchical Seeing the Pope as Vicar of Christ and St. Peters Successour hath a Supream Authority over the whole Church yet is not his Monarchy pure but mixt because Bishops within their respective Diocesses and Jurisdictions are Spiritual Princes also that is Chief Pastours and Governours of such a part of the Church in their own right and not meerly his Vicars and Substitutes placeable and displaceable at his pleasure In this respect therefore the Government of the Church hath something of the Aristocratical in it And because any man if sufficiently qualified for it may be promoted to a Bishoprick it hath something also of Democratical 11. But since the Government of one in chief is by all Philosophers acknowledged for the most perfect what wonder is it that Christ our Saviour thought it fitter to govern his Church by one Viceroy as the Bishop is pleas'd to tearm him then Aristocratically or by many as he would have it And as for the Literae Communicatoriae which himself alledges
all the visible Hierarchical Congregations of Christians in the World had Mass used Prayer for the Dead invoked the Saints reverenced Holy Images and Reliques believed Purgatory the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist and generally acknowledg'd all other Sacraments declar'd for such by the said Council As yet therefore there appears no Disparity between the Councils of Trent and Nice But he tells us the consent of the whole Church was that Scripture stood for the Council of Nice against the Arians which he denies it to have done for the Council of Trent To omit that the Bishop proves not his Assertion which therefore may as easily be deny'd as he affirms it if we extend nor the Church beyond its due limits can it be said the consent of the whole Church was that Scripture stood for the same Council in all that they defin'd to be Heretical Had they Scripture for the condemnation of the Quarto-decimani and Rebaptizers both which the said Council condemn'd together with the Arians If our Adversaries cannot shew us the particular Texts of Scripture by which the Council confuted these Heresies will it not be manifest they did it by sole Tradition 7. The Relatour having insinuated that the Pope made Bishops purposely for his side does here disclaim it upon this account that none can know the Popes intention but God who is the Surveyour of the heart Is not this to be religiously impertinent first to possess his Reader with a strong presumption of the Popes corrupt Designe and then to come no better off then by saying he could not see the secrets of his heart But he will have it that there were valuable Presumptions of making Bishops purposely to maintain his party I answer the Bishop should not have put us off with Ifs and And 's in that whereon he grounds an Accusation of so great importance but have sufficiently prov'd that there was de facto an extraordinary creation of Supernumerary and meerly Titular Bishops made about that time and sent to the Council to serve the Popes designs which we deny to have been done Secondly his pretence that the Council of Trent could be no competent judge in matters of Religion because the Pope had made himself a strong party in it is disprov'd by the very Argument he brings to assert it viz. the multitude of Italian Prelats For who knows not that the Italians are more divided in point of Interest and Dependence then any other Nation in Christendome by reason of the many Sovereign Principalities and States into which Italy is divided Though therefore we should surmize that the Italian Prelats in this Council were not guided by true principles of piety yet surely there is little reason to think they should combine with the Pope to serve his designs which in all probability would not suit so well with their own or Princes Interest on whom themselves and hope of advancement depended This Argument therefore hath so much in it of the Chimaera that certainly no solid judgement will esteeme it considerable To what the Relatour sayes touching the number of Bishops in the said Council that there were in it a hundred and four Italian Bishops more then of all the rest of Christendome I answer first that having viewed the Council of Trent with some diligence I cannot reconcile the numbers there set down with what is here avouched to be taken thence Secondly supposing his computation true what do's it prejudice our cause 'T is manifest the farre greater number of Italian Bishops were of the Domions of other Princes and had not the least shadow of any Temporal Dependance on the Pope and consequently no stricter tye upon them to serve his Interests then all the rest of the Bishops in that Council The reason why there might be more Bishops of Italy then other places is evident in regard that Countrey was in a far more quiet condition then either Germany or France which at that time were both infected with Heresie and imbroiled in Civil Wars so that the chief Pastours of those Provinces could not so well be spared from their Charge as these of Italy and for other Countries no wonder if they were thinner as being more remote To which I might adde that there are more Bishopricks in Italy then in any Nation of Christendome of no greater extent Now these concurring reasons might well increase the number of Italian Bishops without any such Design as Protestants and the Relatour here rashly surmizes Again what private Interest had the Pope to look to at the Council of Trent which was not common to him with all the Bishops in that Council nay indeed with all the Catholique Bishops of Christendom Was it not the Interest of all the Bishops in Christendome except those of the new stamp to keep Heresie out of their respective Diocesses and Provinces Was it not their Interest to preserve the Authority of the Canons and the free Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction What other Interest but this and the like had the Pope to prosecute in the Council But the Relatour urges this Disparity between the Councils of Trent and Nice viz. that at the same time the Council sate at Nice Pope Sylvester held a Council at Rome in which he with two hundred seventy five Bishops of the West confirm'd the Nicen Creed and Anathematiz'd all those who should dare to dissolve the Definition of that Holy and Great Council whereas no such thing was done by the Greek Church to confirm the Council of Trent This we confess is some Disparity but very little to the purpose for though it happen'd that this was done de facto in confirmation of the Nicen Definitions yet had they not been of less Authority without such an Accessory Assembly provided the Pope had ratify'd them in such manner as he did the Decisions of the Council of Trent Did ever any of the Ancients attribute the Authority of the Nicene Council to the approbation given it by these Western Bishops surely no. Neither was this Roman Synod held at the same time with the Concil of Nice as the Relatour to amuze his Reader pretends but after it as the Acts themselves testifie Nor was the like done in other General Councils admitted by Protestants who cannot therefore in reason make this objection against the Council of Trent Lastly the Doctrine of Faith declared by the Council of Trent was universally receiv'd by the whole Catholique Church which was a confirmation incomparably greater then that of two hundred seventy five Bishops and the same Faith hath been far more constantly held ever since none of the Catholique Provinces of Christendom represented in that Council ever deserting the Faith there declar'd whereas many Provinces either in whole or part deserted the Faith defin'd at Nice and embraced the Arrian Heresie 8. Here for want of solid reasons the Bishop falls again to his surmizes by which he would fain insinuate to his
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
was their consent asked whether a Council should bee conuened or not but the Apostles concluded this amongst themselues as beeing a particular and speciall branch of that Power they had receiued from Christ for the Gouernment of the Church Neither at this day is their consent or concurrence any more required de iure to the conuening of such assemblies then it was in the Apostles time but the Pastours of the Church doe act and determin all things pertaining to this affayre solely amongst themselues without requiring the Peoples consent Generall Councils then are a principall and necessary part of that Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which Christ instituted for the Gouernment of his Church and not an humaine Expedient only brought in or taken up by the Church her selfe meerly upon prudentiall considerations as the Bishop will needs conceiue and their Power beeing wholy from aboue as the Church Diffusiue properly speaking giues it not so neither can shee take it away or annull any thing in point of doctrine which the Pastours in such Councils assembled shall by full authority decree I sayd in point of doctrine because that is ex natura rei unchangeable The Gospell of Christ and true Christian Fayth which Generall Councils are by Christs Institution appointed to teach admitts not of yea and nay now the Affirmatiue then the Negatiue as the Bishop by his correcting and abrogating Power left to After-Councils would haue vs belccue but only yea It is alwayes the same if once declared and settled by those who haue the authority and assistance from God that is requisite thereto as Councils haue euen by the Relatours own confession here It must stand and bee professed without alteration or abrogation for euer His pretense therfore of the Churches representing her selfe againe and by a new Council taking order for what was decreed amiss signifies nothing in this case saue only that our aduersarie holds still to his first and false supposition that Generall Councils may erre which was neuer yet granted him nor can wee grant it without offering violence to the nature and propertie of true Christian Fayth which is to bee invariable and to admitt no change not without derogating both from the institution and honour of Christ. For a Generall Council beeing of diuine institution and euen in the Bishops own style and profession the Supreme Externall Liuing Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies in Fayth if any errour contrary to true Fayth could bee incident to the definition of such a Council what Certainty or Vnchangeableness could there bee in the Fayth it sefle or how can it bee thought not to reflect vpon Christs honour to haue instituted in his Church no other Power to correct and repeale the errours of such a Council but what is lyable to the same or the like errour 〈◊〉 The Bishop himselfe in this Paragraph attributes such power authority and high prerogatiues to Generall Councils that I see not how they can stand with the possibility of errour 〈◊〉 calling in question any point of doctrine defined by them First he tells vs a Council hath power to order settle and define differences arisen concerning Fayth Then that a Council lawfully called and proceeding orderly and concluding according to the Rule the 〈◊〉 the whole Church cannot but approue the Council That the decrees of it shall binde all particulars and it selfe Lastly that because the whole Church can meete no other way the Council shall remaine the Supreme Externall Liuing Temporary Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Does hee not now plainly destroy these prerogatiues and contradict himselfe when speaking of such a Council hee sayth presently after only the whole Church and shee alone hath power when scripture or demonstration is found and peaceably tender'd to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Council and in it to order what was amiss A while since hee granted that the definitions of a Generall Council were to bee held and obserued till such euident scripture and demonstration were brought against them as beeing propos'd and vnderstood the minde of man cannot chuse but assent to it But here hee supposeth the whole Church is made acquainted with euident scripture and demonstration against the definitions of a former Council and yet by his own doctrine but a few lines aboue all particulars are bound to stand to those definitions till such time as an other Council of equall authority called by the whole Church hath ordered and amended what was decreed amiss in the former Againe how can the whole Church when scripture and demonstration is found contrary to a former Council represent her selfe in a new one to order by it what was formerly defind amiss but shee must cleerly vnderstand that what was determined by the former Council was false and erroneous vpon this supposition 〈◊〉 Eyther the sayd former Councils false and erroneous definitions are still binding or they are not if they are binding it would bee sinne to beleeue the contrary or at least outwardly to oppose the sayd definitions Now let any body 〈◊〉 how its possible for the whole Church to call an other Council to reforme those errours of the first but it must outwardly shew some dislike of them and therby declare in effect the doctrine of the precedent Council to bee false and consequently oppose its decrees euen while they are supposed to binde If you answer they are binding to particulars not to the whole Church I reply it is impossible the whole Church should euer 〈◊〉 agree to represent her selfe in an other Council to reforme the 〈◊〉 of the precedent but that very many nay almost all particulars must 〈◊〉 and also 〈◊〉 those errours before the whole Church 〈◊〉 and declare them If therfore the definitions of the precedent Council though 〈◊〉 binde all particulars till an 〈◊〉 Council lawfully called reuerse them and define the control truth as the Bishop confesseth how can the 〈◊〉 Church which consists of particulars and acts nothing but by 〈◊〉 call in question the doctrine of any precedent Council but very many if not all particulars must committ sinne by some kinde of 〈◊〉 opposition or not conforming themselues where they were as yet bound to yeeld obedience And how I 〈◊〉 had the former Council power to settle and define differences of sayth and to binde all particulars if 〈◊〉 and euery particular person as the case now supposeth may lawfully thinke and profess that for ought kee knows both scripture and demonstration may bee brought against it and that in case they bee the errours of the precedent Council ought to bee reform by calling an other Againe I aske to what purpose should there bee an other Council called to reforme the errours of a former For eyther the whole Church hath euident scripture or demonstrations against the definitions of the former Council or it hath not If it hath not the Church her selfe committs sinne in the Bishops owne principles by imputing errour to the precedent Councill
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.
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
also does the same with St. Chrysostome yea once againe wee challenge our Aduersaries to nominate if they can any one ancient Father or Christian writer that euer noted this an errour or priuate doctrine in Origen that he taught Purgatory or that in any sort intimates him to haue been the Authour or inuentour of it and yet the world knowes Origens errours and priuate opinions were diligently noted by Antiquity But this 't is sure enough our Aduersaries can neuer doe and therfore lett noe man thinke it vnreasonable in vs that wee still confidently presume and assert that this doctrine hath no beginning assignable and consequently according to St. Austins rule aboue mention'd is to be thought an Apostolicall Tradition 14. Jt is therfore firmly to be beleeu'd by all Catholiques that there is a Purgatory yea wee are as much bound to beleeue it as wee are bound to beleeue for instance the Trinity of Incarnation it selfe if by this manner of speaking be mean't only that wee can noe more lawfully or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine beeing once know'n by the Churches definition to be reueald by God and pertaining to the Catholique Fayth then wee may deny or question the sayd Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation though wee confess there is not the same necessity or obligation for all men to know the one as the other or to haue explicite beleefe of one as of the other Nor can J doubt but the Bishop himselfe would haue confess'd in the sense aboue mentioned that wee are as much bound not to disbeleeue any thing euen of least moment contain'd in Scripture when wee know it to be there contained as to beleeue the sayd Articles and as this is farre from beeing esteem'd blasphemy by any good Christians so is the other if rightly vnderstood CHAP. 26. The infallible certainty of Christian Fayth confessed yet subuerted by the Bishop ARGVMENT 1. Why noe matter of doctrine defind by Generall Councils may be deliberately deny'd or doubted of 2. A. C. doth not teach that euery Catholique Priest in the Roman Church able to preach is infallible 3. Jnfallibility in teaching how rightly inferr'd by him from the Holy Ghosts Assistance 4. To what intent our Janiour left the Prerogatiue of infallibility in his Church 5. No certain meanes in our Aduersaries principles to be assur'd that a Generall Councill erring in one point does not erre in all 6. The Relatour by allowing priuate persons to examin the definitions of Generall Councils allowes them in effect to iudge and censure them 7. Posteriour Councils no less necessary for the infallible determination of controuerted points of Fayth then the fowre first 8. Infallible assurance requisite in superstructures as well as points Fundamentall 9. The insufficiency of the Relatours reason to the contrary 10. No help for him from St. Thomas and our Authours touching the extent of necessary points 11. His nugatory descanting vpon words 1. THus much for Purgatorie 'T is time now that wee return againe to A. C. who giues his Aduersarie a why no man may deliberately doubt of much less deny any thing defin'd by a Generall Councill viz. because euery such doubt is a breach from the one sauing Fayth in that it takes away infallible creditt from the Church so as the diuine reuelation beeing not sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence breed infallible Fayth in vs. Jn answer whereto the Bishop insists wholy vpon principles already confuted viz. that deliberately to doubt and deny what is defined by Generall Councils doth not take away infallible creditt from the whole Church the contrary whereof wee haue often shew'n in this Treatise Likewise he tells vs the creditt of the Catholique Church is safe so long as she is held infallible in things absolutely necessary to Saluation which absolutely necessary things neither himselfe nor any body else could euer yet resolue vs what they are or how to know them And beside seeing he teaches that all points absolutely necessary to Saluation are plainly sett down in the Creed and Scripture how is it possible wee should haue need of the infallible Authority of the Church now or hereafter to beleeue any such points of Fayth Againe if the whole Church may erre in points not absolutely necessary to Saluation noe reason can be giuen but it may also erre in deliuering and interpreting any particular texts of Scripture which containe matter or doctrine not absolutely necessary which supposed it necessarily followes that wee cannot beleeue with certaine infallible and diuine Fayth any thing deuer'd in Scripture it selfe saue only a very few points to witt the chiefe and Fundamentall Mysteries of our beleefe Lastly seeing the whole Church consists of all particular members which can neuer be found out and consulted with by any person and that consequently there can be no sufficient assurance had of what they all hold as absolutely necessary to Saluation how is it possible wee should be mou'd by their Authority as the Bishop here supposeth to beleeue all or any points of Fayth absolutely necessary to Saluation 2. The Relatours next worke is to carp at the gloss which A. C. giues to those words of St. Paul Rom. 10. 15. how shall they preach etc. that is sayth A. C. how shall they preach infallibly By which manner of speaking yet he does not meane whateuer the Bishop imputes to him to make euery Priest in the Church of Rome that hath learning enough to preach an infallible Preacher He was not ignorant that the natiue and immediate sense of those words compar'd and ioyn'd with the fore-going how shall men beleeue vnless they heare etc. is only to signifie that for the Propagation of the Gospell 't is necessary there should be Preachers and that noe man ought to take that office vpon him vnless he be sent that is ordain'd and called by Allmighty God He was not so simple as to thinke euery priuate Preacher infallible You will say then why does he comment vpon the words how shall they preach etc thus how shall they preach INFALLIBLY vnless they be sent from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit J answer the reason hereof was because the word preach which the Apostle vseth doth not signifie sermons only but absolutely the announcing or publication of diuine doctrine by all such as are lawfully appointed to publish it and in what manner soeuer it is necessary for beleeuers that it be publish't and announced to them Now there beeing confessedly a twofold annunciation or manner of publishing diuine doctrine to Christians the one priuate and meerly ministeriall which is perform'd by priuate and particular Pastours to their particular and respectiue flocks the other publique and authoritatiue viz. of the Pastours of the whole Church assembled together in Generall Councils and this latter in regard of the publique and vniuersall benefitt which comes by it the more important of the
haue pretended to be Pope neither hinder nor make voyde the legitimate and necessary succession of the Roman Church as Doctor Stapleton maintaines it For first euen when differences did happen there was for the most part a lawfull Pope presently chosen vpon the vacancy so that the succession of the Roman Bishops was not at all broken off or interrupted in this case And for the guilt of Schisme if any were it lay only on their part who willfully opposed the lawfull Pope after he was sufficiently declar'd Secondly when it so happened that eyther a lawfull Pope was not presently chosen or that it was not certainly know'n which of the pretending parties was the lawfull Pope yet neither in this case was the succession itselfe euacuated as any man in reason may see but only suspended for a while or the euidence thereof as to the person succeeding pro tempore obstructed For eyther by death or by cession and resignation of the pretendants themselues or by depriuation of those whose elections were notoriously illegitimate or by some other lawfull and Canonicall meanes first or last the right of election to the Apostolique dignity was always cleer'd of doubt and legally settled vpon one person whome therevpon the whole Church presently acknowledg'd for true Pope And as for the Interregnum as wee may call it or the time that such Contestations about the Popedome lasted though it were an vnhappy state of the Church to be so diuided within it selfe yet for the most part there was noe formall Schisme on eyther part For neither did the Anti-popes themselues properly speaking separate from the Catholique or Roman Church so as to deny its Authority but only contested for a time with the person of that was lawfull Pope and vpon a presumption at least pretended that themselues were Pope and not he And though there had been formall Schisme on their part yet seeing there was none on his part that was true Pope what man can be soe vnreasonable as to thinke that the fault of pretenders could preiudice the lawfull succession of him that was rightly chosen Now our Aduersaries wee hope know that the line of succession is continued not by the Anti-popes but by the true Popes To which wee may adde that in all such cases viz. of contestations about election to the Papacy when the matter was really dubious as it was not of any absolute necessity for the Church or the seuerall prouinces of Christendome to acknowledge eyther the one or the other pretendant for true Pope so it was lawfull for them to acknowledge him for such whome they did bonâ fide and prudently iudge to haue been lawfully chosen The superstitions he talks of in the end of this Paragraph are 〈◊〉 layd to our charge and though they were euen iustly charged vpon vs yet seeing by his own principles and profession they are not inconsistent with true Fayth necessary to saluation 't is euident they cannot be vrged by him as an Argument to intringe and nullify the perpetuall succession of Pastours in the Roman Church 12. To A. C. friendly and serious aduice that his Lordship would consider carefully whether it be not more Christian and less brain-sicke to thinke that St. Peters successour together with a Generall Councill should be an infallible iudge of controuersies in matters of Fayth then to make euery man that can but read Scripture an interpreter of it and a decider of Controuersies or to haue noe iudge at all in such matters the Bishop answers that he hath consider'd all this carefully and findes himselfe no way chargeable with the inconveniencies which A. C. specifies of making euery priuate man iudge of Controuersies and a Controuler of Generall Councils or else of admitting noe iudge at all to determin such Controuersies His reason is because he admitts Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church and a lawfull and free Generall Councill determining according to them to iudge of Controuersies and holds that noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these But here the Bishop himselfe is in the briers For tell mee I pray how does this doctrine noe priuate man whatsoeuer may be iudge of these consist with what he professedly auowes * elsewhere as wee haue often seen that priuate Christians may vpon iust grounds both deliberately doubt and constantly deny the definitions euen of Generall Councils and that if they erre grossly and dangerously as in his opinion they may and haue done 't is noe pride to refuse submission to them Is not this to make priuate men iudges of these things that is to say whether or noe Generall Councils doe determine according to Scripture and the Primitiue Church A thing which the world sees all Protestants doe take vpon them to iudge and the Bishop himselfe as freely as any notwithstanding his great but feigned profession here to the contrary and vtter disclayming from that desiunctiue imputation of eyther a priuate iudge or noe iudge Jn the very next line he openly professes he cannot swallow this proposition that the Pope with a Generall Councill should be iudge Yet the Primitiue Church did not only swallow this proposition but also very well relish it witness its willing and absolute submission to the sowre first Generall Councils consirm'd by the Pope as iudges of those grand and Fundamentall Controuersies that were then agitated and allowing noe priuate man to examin and consider their definitions whether they were consonant vnto Scripture or not He should haue done well to haue told vs what other iudge but this the Pope with a Generall Councill in Controuersies of Fayth the Church hath had what other iudge but this euer was or indeed can be acknowledg'd for such matters And thersore if this iudge be not admitted and that absolutely by vs 't is certain eyther no iudge at all will be found to end these Controuersies or in the finall deuolution of the business euery priuate man will be made iudge The Relatour had he pleas'd might haue found a sufficient answer in Bellarmin to the matter he brings out of AEneas Syluius otherwise called Pope Pius the second namely that he retracted in his maturer age and vpon better consideration what he had formerly as it were in his youth out of heate of contention and vpon presumption of Scholasticall learning written vpon the subiect of the Popes Authority in reference to Generall Councils Neither can the meere want of learning which the Bishop here obiects to some Popes be any sufficient preiudice against their authority nor hinder the operation and assistance of the holy Ghost from concurring with them and working by them in all cases necessary The Apostles themselue and many worthy Bishops in the Primitiue Church were persons of noe great learning and 't is the counsell and wisedome of God for the most part to chuse the weake things of this world to confound the strong and the foolish things of this world to confound the wise